Political Party in Re: to Catholicism

[SpiritMeadow]

Dear Scians Daughter,

In reply to your original post:
I asked a priest about this only yesterday. I was assured that no candidate was perfect and that care for the poor and downtrodden was as important as issue for Catholics as abortion. I, too, am pro-life and disagree with my chosen candidate’s stand of allowing abortion in some instances. But this person strikes me as offering the strongest hope for the poor. The priest said I didn’t have to agree with everything the candidate stood for and that if I believe the candidate would do something for the poor, I should go ahead and vote for this person. (btw, even some of the Catholic Republican candidates were condoning abortion. )
Your fellows in your bible class are wrong to shun you. This is a free country. I was inspired by the priest’s reply to my concerns.

Get on your combat helmet dear. You are about to be assaulted and vilified. First your priest they will tell you is telling you lies, and it will just get worse…

Seriously…no one should have to defend their vote. We all struggle with many issues and we are aided and assisted by our Church in what are important issues to focus on. We are asked to do what is well neigh impossible since no candidate is likely to meet all our needs and expectations. We understand as best we can and make the best choice that we can. No one has the right to criticize another, since no one can prove they have anything other than an opinion that is different than yours. Get the best advice you can from the Church and where ever else you feel would help and make your best choice. Blessings.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

AH! The mythical Catholic priest that backs up what ever it is we want to do. He appears in nearly every thread when people try to justify doing something that goes against the teachings of the Church. The “my priest told me it was okay” is very much a akin to the childhood excuse of “everybody does it”

I wonder why you need to depend on your priest to tell you what the proper courses is when Church teaching on this is very clear. If you’re priest told you it was okay to support abortion you need to report him to the bishop. and please do not try to claim that voting for a pro abortion candidate is not supporting abortion.

I don’t think that at all. I think people are very honest in this. What i do find interesting here is the general disdain many hold for priests and especially religious women. I’ve seen the USCCB attacked as heretical here as well. I’m told most people here know more than most priests. I find that most interesting, not likely at all true, but the kind of thing one expects when certain Catholics just don’t like moderate priests period. The first thing attacked now is the priest for poor advice…this from laity no less…

 

[SpiritMeadow]

How can he be perfectly in tune with Catholic teaching when he allegedly told you something is direct contradiction to Catholic teaching? Could you post his e-mail address please? If he really is telling you this is okay I’m sure he will not have problem telling us misinformed Catholics where we can find the correct church teaching on this.

You know I thought that is what we were discussing here. We know what your OPINION is…but several are mostly not in agreement that that is what the Church actually teaches. But that is our opinion. Cite your evidence as your opinion, because that is all it is, unless you have some title we are unaware of that requires us to follow you infallibly.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I dont know of anyone who is ignoring the poor and downtrodden. And of course no canidate is perfect but one would think opposing dismemberment of children should be a base requirement to be considered for out vote. And of course if you vote for a pro-abortion canidte you are supporting abortion. How could it not be?

She’s gone…Do you guys have a clue how totally counterproductive your tactics are?

 

[BamaRider]

As posted to Vern

And I refuse to answer anymore ridiculous challenges from someone so headstrong.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Ah, the old, “Nobody’s actually done this, but I think they would do it, so that makes them guilty” ploy.

And of course you’re wrong. Many of us here realize that we must go beyond charity and welfare to eliminate poverty – we must **educate **the children of the poor. With a first-class education for all children, poverty will go down.

But guess who opposes any attempts to hold the educational system accountable and make it perform?

We could always do what the Republican governor in California has demanded: cut school funding by 10%. That’s a good, Republican solution on a policy problem.

 

[vern_humphrey]

We could always do what the Republican governor in California has demanded: cut school funding by 10%. That’s a good, Republican solution on a policy problem.

If you have a valid, peer-reviewed study that shows a positive correlation between dollars spent and quality of education, feel free to post it here.

By the way, Mike Huckabee, who is firmly opposed to raising taxes, took the lead when the State Supreme Court ordered the legislature to increase funding for schools.

 

[estesbob]

She’s gone…Do you guys have a clue how totally counterproductive your tactics are?

So we should’ve lied to her? . She came in here claiming she could disobey church teaching because her priest told her so. We get this all the time in these forums. People come here claiming their priest told was okay to live together or their priest told them that homosexual behavior was okay or their priest told them that contraception was okay. Of course these priests are not here to speak for themselves but we must believe them-after all we wouldn’t want to hurt their feelings

 

[frankadams]

Nobody says you should vote for a pro-life candidate just because they are pro-life. I never voted for Phil Gramm even though he was adamantly pro-life. By The same token I never voted for Kay Bailey Hutchinson even though she is a Republican because she was a little too wobbly on life issues for me. If faced with two pro-life candidates, all other things equal , I’ll always go for the Republican because of the way Congress works. A pro-life Democrat has little opportunity to bring about any change whatsoever. They’re also under great pressure to toe the party line Bob Casey being a good example of that.

Glad to know that we can take a candidate’s “opportunity to bring about any change whatsoever” into account when voting.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Glad to know that we can take a candidate’s “opportunity to bring about any change whatsoever” into account when voting.

Spoken like a true “single issue” voter.

 

[frankadams]

Spoken like a true “single issue” voter.

If only I were. Then, I wouldn’t have to waste my time learning about issues and candidates. I would only need to know their answer to one question, which seems to be the modus operandi of many of those here. Unfortunately, I am cursed by a desire learn about the multitude of issues which face our country and how Catholic teaching applies to them.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If only I were. Then, I wouldn’t have to waste my time learning about issues and candidates. I would only need to know their answer to one question, which seems to be the modus operandi of many of those here. Unfortunately, I am cursed by a desire learn about the multitude of issues which face our country and how Catholic teaching applies to them.

Then why do you reject studying how parties affect government?

As everyone knows, Congress works through committees. The committee chairmen, who are the senior members of the majority party, have extraordinary power.

When you vote for Joe Tentpeg for Congress, you’re also voting for the leaders of his party to be given extraordinary power. And you have a moral obligation to ask yourself, “How will they use this power?”

 

[estesbob]

If only I were. Then, I wouldn’t have to waste my time learning about issues and candidates. I would only need to know their answer to one question, which seems to be the modus operandi of many of those here. Unfortunately, I am cursed by a desire learn about the multitude of issues which face our country and how Catholic teaching applies to them.

Again nobody ever said that. However no issue or combination of issues trump abortion. So the first thing you find out about a candidate is if he supports state-sponsored dismemberment of our children. If the answer is no then you look at where he stands on the other issues and determine whether you can in good conscience vote for him. As I said before I am flabbergasted that anyone would need the church to tell them that they shouldn’t vote for somebody that supports dismembering our children and pitching them out with the garbage.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Again nobody ever said that. However no issue or combination of issues trump abortion. So the first thing you find out about a candidate is if he supports state-sponsored dismemberment of our children. If the answer is no then you look at where he stands on the other issues and determine whether you can in good conscience vote for him. As I said before I am flabbergasted that anyone would need the church to tell them that they shouldn’t vote for somebody that supports dismembering our children and pitching them out with the garbage.

Well, yeah. But Congressman Cut-em-up-and-throw-em-in-the-garbage also supports gpvernment-paid ballet lessons, with free tutus, so . . .

 

[BamaRider]

Got here a little late to this debate, so spent the last hour reviewing the previous posts.

As a casual observer I’ve noticed one common theme- Vern and Estesbob have consistently placed some posters in the untenable position of answering why they support a party, that advances and supports the pro choice movement with such passion, when Vern has posted the Church’s uncompromising stance on the subject.

And in 50 posts I’m yet to get a straight answer. Oh I get all kinds of just war, death penanlty positions, they feed the poor, not the that simple, repubs aren’t really pro life (really?) et al

I don’t need a weather report, just tell us why ya think its ok.

 

[gkroeger]

How can he be perfectly in tune with Catholic teaching when he allegedly told you something is direct contradiction to Catholic teaching? Could you post his e-mail address please? If he really is telling you this is okay I’m sure he will not have problem telling us misinformed Catholics where we can find the correct church teaching on this.

Unfortunately, I am fraid that many Catholic Priest get into the flow of society today and mis inform Catholic who are attempting to be good Catholics. I have even heard a priest say that it is OK for non-Catholics to receive communion.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Unfortunately, I am fraid that many Catholic Priest get into the flow of society today and mis inform Catholic who are attempting to be good Catholics. I have even heard a priest say that it is OK for non-Catholics to receive communion.

That’s our fault – there is an office in every diocese where such things can be reported. We don’t have to listen to heresy.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Got here a little late to this debate, so spent the last hour reviewing the previous posts.

As a casual observer I’ve noticed one common theme- Vern and Estesbob have consistently placed some posters in the untenable position of answering why they support a party, that advances and supports the pro choice movement with such passion, when Vern has posted the Church’s uncompromising stance on the subject.

They’ve done no such thing. They’ve basically said: Vote Republican ONLY or you are supporting baby murder.

And in 50 posts I’m yet to get a straight answer. Oh I get all kinds of just war, death penanlty positions, they feed the poor, not the that simple, repubs aren’t really pro life (really?) et al

I don’t need a weather report, just tell us why ya think its ok.

Oh stop with the right-wing talk radio talking points and lies, will ya? Were the Republicans anti-abortion before the 1980 platform? Nope. I just checked. What IS there is the core ideology of cut government as much as possible. Why was the pretty white snow of anti-abortion added to the dunghill of a platform, then? Was it based on a sincere examination of conscience or could have been added for purely political reasons…to gain the votes of Fallwell’s Moral Majority?

Now, you calumniate those who don’t agree with Republicanism saying that they truly support pro-choice-on-abortion. That’s a bald-faced lie and they will tell you that, as I have been saying all along. Get it?

 

[gkroeger]

The priest I consulted is perfectly in tune with Catholic teaching, thank you very much. I don’t have to be in total agreement with the candidate of my choice. Take the initiative to ask a priest.

The following is located at priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

And is the last paragraph in a 7 paragraph letter from Cardinal Ratzinger entitled “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion”

[Note: The following memorandum was sent by Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal McCarrick and was made public in the first week of July 2004.]

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

 

[frankadams]

Quote:Originally Posted by estesbob Nobody says you should vote for a pro-life candidate just because they are pro-life. I never voted for Phil Gramm even though he was adamantly pro-life. By The same token I never voted for Kay Bailey Hutchinson even though she is a Republican because she was a little too wobbly on life issues for me. If faced with two pro-life candidates, all other things equal , I’ll always go for the Republican because of the way Congress works. A pro-life Democrat has little opportunity to bring about any change whatsoever. They’re also under great pressure to toe the party line Bob Casey being a good example of that.

The following is located at priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

And is the last paragraph in a 7 paragraph letter from Cardinal Ratzinger entitled “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion”

[Note: The following memorandum was sent by Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal McCarrick and was made public in the first week of July 2004.]

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

You two have made the point clear with these two posts. Estesbob tells us that taking into account how much opportunity for a candidate to bring about change is something that he does. Gkroeger reminds us that Holy Father has stated that one may not vote for a pro-abortion candidate “precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia,” but that one who does not share that view may vote for the candidate in “the presence of proportionate reasons.” I agree with you both wholeheartedly.