Papal nuncio: Catholic division undermines religious freedom

[Prodigal_Son1]

Even though he lamented the support, the Papal nuncio referred to those supporters as ‘Catholic faithful’.

 

[seekerz]

Precisely. This the first step of discernment. The fake pro-life stance of Romney in particular, and the obvious inaction of the Republican Party and its appointed Supreme Court justices in general on the issue over the last forty years (at least on the federal level), makes the alleged pro-life platform of the Republicans meaningless. In terms of the abortion issue, both parties are rather equal, in practical terms, rhetoric aside.

Thank you. 'Nuff said.

 

[seekerz]

Even though he lamented the support, the Papal nuncio referred to those supporters as ‘Catholic faithful’.

Great observation; he addressed with respect, people whose actions he disagreed with.

 

[Lucky7]

OR, it rather proves I’m not

Sorry, but it is not apparent by your qote that one issue is given much more weight by the Church when voting. There is no section that says there is one issue that is given much more weight than any other, such that it overshadows and renders all the others meaningless and insignificant. If that were true, the Pope would not have said there were proportionate reasons. And with all due respect, all you care about is YOUR definition of proportionate. But then, of course you do. That’s why we all have our own vote.

(1) Your repeated use of “with all due respect” comes off insincere.
(2) No, I do not care about MY definition of proportionate. I care about Church teaching…and Church teaching is very clear about the seriousness of abortion versus the issues you have brought to the table as “proportionate”.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If one truly does not believe a politician, does that have any play in possibly being ‘proportionate’?

 

[Lucky7]

If one truly does not believe a politician, does that have any play in possibly being ‘proportionate’?

What do you mean? I know you and I have agreed on our political system/politicians (and I know you didnt vote for Obama), so I am curious.

 

[Lucky7]

Great observation; he addressed with respect, people whose actions he disagreed with.

Are you referring to this?

Fidelity to God and the Church has “hastened martyrdom and persecution for many believers of the past, and of today,” he said. “In all of these instances, we see that the faithful persist in their fidelity to Jesus Christ and his Holy Church! For throughout her history, the Church has gained strength when persecuted,” the archbishop said.

If so, I don’t think he is referring to those who disagree with Church teaching.

 

[Mickey]

I still can’t wrap my head around choosing to vote for Obama knowing the Dem stance on abortion (and other grave sins per the Church).

It may take longer for the Obama-Catholics to realize what they voted for…but when that realization comes to fruition…it ain’t gonna be pretty.

 

[JimG]

Why close or cede? Why can’t we run our charitable institutions by our rules, depending only on our funding and relying more on teams of generous volunteers than on employees? Does a single law (which BTW, I believe can and will be negated) cripple our ability to do God’s work or does it instead require us to change modus operandus? I may be totally wrong here, but I think power is in the eye of the beholder and I don’t see the government having any real power over the Church. So the suppose the law does indeed prevent us from continuing to do things in a particular way…is it impossible to find an alternative, perhaps more resilient way of functioning?

Catholic institutions can rely on their own funding and their own volunteers,but that will not exempt them from the requirements of the HHS mandate. They would still have to cease being Catholic or go out of business, or pay the fines for retaining their Catholicity, which in effect would drive them out of business. Funding source has noting to do with it. Even private employers will be faced with having to violate their conscience, pay a fine, or go out of business.

 

[Mickey]

I like how you treated the issue of the abortion politics that Mother Teresa actually faced during her lifetime…pretty deft.

Mother Teresa was sraunchly anti-abortion and outspoken about it. If you want to question her motives after her death…that will be on your coscience.

Perhaps we can get past the Obama = abortion equation

Nope. He is the worst of the pro-death politicians. And you voted for him.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What do you mean? I know you and I have agreed on our political system/politicians (and I know you didnt vote for Obama), so I am curious.

Let’s say that people look at the republican party as inactive on the issue, or view a candidate as ‘pandering’ to a bloc of voters without any intent of trying to end abortion, would that possibly be a proportionate reason to vote for either candidate?

I can see the NB being confusing to say proportionate and then see everyone deny there is proportionate reasons. I’m trying to decipher what is proportionate in the eyes of those who state there are no proportionate reasons. It would have been just as easy to have left that term out if there were no proportionate reasons. Wouldn’t it?

 

[Mickey]

And I voted in the best interests of citizens, especially the sick, disabled, old and very young.

There are always options for them. A vote for Obama was an abandonment of our most helpless, voiceless and choiceless citizens.

I voted for the candidate whose plan for our citizens would do the least harm.

Yeah right. Pay close attention the next four years. There will be much weeping.

I could not vote any other way.

Yes, you could have.

Well, according to the Church, there are only Catholics.

You and I know very well that there are Catholics and there are Catholics. The nominals voted with you. The traditionals voted against you.

 

[seekerz]

Mother Teresa was sraunchly anti-abortion and outspoken about it. If you want to question her motives after her death…that will be on your coscience.
Nope. He is the worst of the pro-death politicians. And you voted for him.

I’m afraid I don’t follow your line of reasoning: you want to theorize on how Mother Theresa would have regarded Obama, when you seem to ignore the fact that she dealt with abortion-supporting politicians in her own country in real life.

I have no doubt that she opposed abortion like any good Catholic, I’m also sure, from what I know of her life, that she didn’t go around calling the people names if their beliefs on abortion did not align with hers. Her life was an example of how to live in love.

 

[Lucky7]

Let’s say that people look at the republican party as inactive on the issue, or view a candidate as ‘pandering’ to a bloc of voters without any intent of trying to end abortion, would that possibly be a proportionate reason to vote for either candidate?

I can see the NB being confusing to say proportionate and then see everyone deny there is proportionate reasons. I’m trying to decipher what is proportionate in the eyes of those who state there are no proportionate reasons. It would have been just as easy to have left that term out if there were no proportionate reasons. Wouldn’t it?

(1) I can totally understand looking at the Republican Party and thinking “you know, I don’t trust you either”, but I still don’t understand how one can think that and then vote for the Dem party. This is where I would much rather see that person vote TP (as you did).

(2) The thing is I think the use of “proportionate reasons” was meant as a general rule (in other words to be used in the current *and future *elections). I also think that one could argue that if the issue involved another grave sin as defined by the Church, then that would at least be understandable…that would be as close to proportionate as an issue can be. The issues I’m seeing mentioned in this thread are not even classified as grave sins.

For example, although I still don’t think the death penalty would reach the level of abortion (because abortion involves the death of innocents) I could better understand taking issue with the Republican party over that if coupled with other grave sins that the GOP supports. The death penalty is still taking the life of another and I think the Church’s stance is against it 100% (because there are other ways to protect society nowadays). But again, I don’t think even one poster who voted Dem even mentioned the death penalty. Having said that, I still don’t get picking the Dem Party over the Repub Party. In that case, why not TP?

Does that make sense?

 

[Mickey]

I have no doubt that she opposed abortion like any good Catholic, I’m also sure, from what I know of her life, that she didn’t go around calling the people names if their beliefs on abortion did not align with hers. Her life was an example of how to live in love.

Now your talking…and she was not afraid to tell it like it was…despite people (such as the Obama-Catholics) who try to justify a vote for the pro-abortion platform. Let us see her words one more time. If you have quotes from her that you feel are tolerant to the pro-abortion forces…feel free to post them.

”I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is Abortion…”
Mother Teresa
"What is taking place in America, is a war against the child.”
Mother Teresa

 

[seekerz]

Now your talking…and she was not afraid to tell it like it was…despite people (such as the Obama-Catholics) who try to justify a vote for the pro-abortion platform. Let us see her words one more time. If you have quotes from her that you feel are tolerant to the pro-abortion forces…feel free to post them.

”I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is Abortion…”
Mother Teresa
"What is taking place in America, is a war against the child.”
Mother Teresa

I fail to see how your post addresses mine, but by all means keep quoting. You are the one telling us what she would have done or felt, and refusing to address the actual comparable situations she faced in real life. Abortion was legalized in India before it ever was in America, so did Mother Theresa condemn people who voted for Indira Gandhi? If you don’t know, kindly indicate that.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

(1) I can totally understand looking at the Republican Party and thinking “you know, I don’t trust you either”, but I still don’t understand how one can think that and then vote for the Dem party. This is where I would much rather see that person vote TP (as you did).

(2) The thing is I think the use of “proportionate reasons” was meant as a general rule (in other words to be used in the current *and future *elections). I also think that one could argue that if the issue involved another grave sin as defined by the Church, then that would at least be understandable…that would be as close to proportionate as an issue can be. The issues I’m seeing mentioned in this thread are not even classified as grave sins.

For example, although I still don’t think the death penalty would reach the level of abortion (because abortion involves the death of innocents) I could better understand taking issue with the Republican party over that if coupled with other grave sins that the GOP supports. The death penalty is still taking the life of another and I think the Church’s stance is against it 100% (because there are other ways to protect society nowadays). But again, I don’t think even one poster who voted Dem even mentioned the death penalty. Having said that, I still don’t get picking the Dem Party over the Repub Party. In that case, why not TP?

Does that make sense?

Yes, I understand your point. I also see the point of those who did not trust the republicans to something. If neither is going to do anything to stop abortion, are Catholics to look at the other issues at that point?

 

[Lucky7]

Yes, I understand your point. I also see the point of those who did not trust the republicans to something. If neither is going to do anything to stop abortion, are Catholics to look at the other issues at that point?

I guess one would have to really think about whether they are equal in that regard. I would argue that one could even make things worse…like forcing Catholic institutions to provide coverage for abortions.

And yes, there are other issues…many other issues that the Church considers “grave”. And yet again, most of those “grave” issues fall on the Dems.

 

[JimG]

Yes, I understand your point. I also see the point of those who did not trust the republicans to something. If neither is going to do anything to stop abortion, are Catholics to look at the other issues at that point?

Actually the GOP pro-life record has been much better than the Democratic record.

But even if one thinks that Republicans only give lip service to life issues, one knows for sure that the Democratic party is perfectly serious in its support of abortion and has pursued it relentlessly. It’s not a tough comparison.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Actually the GOP pro-life record has been much better than the Democratic record.

But even if one thinks that Republicans only give lip service to life issues, one knows for sure that the Democratic party is perfectly serious in its support of abortion and has pursued it relentlessly. It’s not a tough comparison.

But we don’t vote for parties. Parties put up individual nominees. Romney once said he was more pro choice than Ted Kennedy. If one truly believed Romney to be ‘lying’, or pandering to a bloc of voters, then it seems reasonable that one would understand people looking to issues that could be expected to change.