Political Party in Re: to Catholicism

[SoCalRC]

A “distortion?” Why don’t you call him up and explain his mistake to him?

You know who wrote that, don’t you?

Uh, I just indicated that Olmstead’s explanation is wholly compatible with the Church’s. The distortion is in assuming that abortion is not just non-negotiable, but superceding.

Olmstead does not say that and the Church does not say that (my quotes are from Cardinal Ratzinger, then Prefect, now Pope, and the document is focused on the laity and the exact subject at hand). You, and some others here do.

 

[SoCalRC]

What do you understand all this to mean? That we can support pro-abortion politicians if they’re “okay” on other issues?

No. At no point have I stated that we can forsake our non negotiable moral obligation to fetal life. The point that the Church makes, and which Olmstead does not dispute, and which you refuse to understand, is that we have more than one non negotiable obligation.

Catholic obligation cannot be collapsed and trivialized.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No. At no point have I stated that we can forsake our non negotiable moral obligation to fetal life. The point that the Church makes, and which Olmstead does not dispute, and which you refuse to understand, is that we have more than one non negotiable obligation.

Doing your mindreading act again? Where’s your turban and crystal ball?

Catholic obligation cannot be collapsed and trivialized.

And who’s doing that?

 

[estesbob]

I don’t know why you continually raise this strawman. A soldier once he signs on the dotted line as a volunteer may not refuse his orders unless they are patently immoral to the level that would invoke the Nuremberg rule. Such rule has also been adopted by the Vatican. You of course will have to produce the claim that we should stay, and why at this point. That does not necessarily have anythnig to do with whether we should ever have gone there in the first place. I’ve presented a rather long list that makes it clear where both JPII and Benedict stood on the war and what coservatives within the Catholic faith believe the Church stands as well. You have produced nothing.

It not a strawman -.it goes to show that you have no understanding of Just War Doctrine If a war is declared unjust by the Church catholics can not fight in lest they be guilty of a mortal sin. There is a huge difference between vatcian officals saying they beleive the war is unjust and the Church declaring the war unjust. You have repeatedly confused the two. The Cathecism acknowledges that the church, in most cases , does not have the specific knowledge the leaders of country has and the decision to go to war must be left up to the prudent judgelent of a country’s leaders. In this case the war was overwhemingly approved by both houses of congress.

Again, you produce nothing to prove that. This is not about abortion. You are talking about the war. My query to you would be as a “faithful” Catholic why would you take a position allowed but clearly very much disfavored by the Church?

As has been out to you repeatedly the Church has left ones opinion on the war up to the prudent judgement of the faithful. I am no more required to oppose this war as you are to disagree with the vatican that we should not have an immediate withdrawl of troops.

I’m pleasantly surprised.

Why? Is it becuase i dont fit into your stereotype of conservatives?

There are some threads here on this. You would be surprised then, because there are some who support the DP on ONLY retribution grounds. As to those who take a radical position on what constitutes prohibited behavior…mmmm don’t really know, havent seen anyone voice that as an argument.

Again the Church does not forbid the death penatly. They have allowed for its use for over 2,000 years. In fact as late as 1960 the death penalty was on the books in the Vatcian. As far as what people say in otehr threads if you have issues with them take it up with them.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The Church does not declare wars to be just or unjust. From the Catechism:

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

• there must be serious prospects of success;

• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good

(My emphasis)

 

[LCMS_No_More]

The Church does not declare wars to be just or unjust. From the Catechism:

(My emphasis)

If you use that as the key, then anyone who is a political leader with the authority to go to war can just determine that it is so and you’d go along with it. All they have to do is make something up.

In our democratic republic, the people are the power, so the people have a say in determining what constitutes the common good. That puts some of the responsibility onto the PEOPLE in making this determination as well.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If you use that as the key, then anyone who is a political leader with the authority to go to war can just determine that it is so and you’d go along with it. All they have to do is make something up.

Have you actually read the Catechism?

Nowhere does it say making the wrong prudential judgement is correct. And certainly it never says “making something up” is morally acceptable. Those who are responsible for making the decisions bear the responsibility.

But the Church does not and cannot make their decisons for them.

In our democratic republic, the people are the power, so the people have a say in determining what constitutes the common good. That puts some of the responsibility onto the PEOPLE in making this determination as well.

And people who have no experience, no special knowledge, and no ability to weigh the information they do not have must bear the responsibility for their own wrong judgement.

2310 Public authorities, in this case, **have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense. **

Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.

(My emphasis)

Note the use of the words “impose” and “obligation.”

 

[edwest2]

While it is important to understand what is meant by the terms Left, Right, Conservative, Liberal, etc., I think it is more important to understand the Catholic faith and what it teaches.

It is easy to be cynical when becoming President is so dependent on who has the most money or best organization. It is also easy to be cynical when you realize that candidates are looking for votes and making promises, some of which they may be promoting only because they think it’s what voters want to hear.

In the final analysis, which candidate, regardless of party affiliation, is closest to your beliefs?

God bless,
Ed

 

[goofyjim]

If I were a one issue voter I know where I would be but since there is more than one issue I think both parties are lousy. We need a new one and soon.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If I were a one issue voter I know where I would be but since there is more than one issue I think both parties are lousy. We need a new one and soon.

The last time we “got a new one” the result was a Civil War that devastated much of the country and killed about 600,000 men.

Let us, rather, purify our parties. Let my Democratic friends work to shove out or re-educate the pro-choice politicians in their party, and I will work as hard as I can to ensure a pro-choice candidate doesn’t win the Republican nomination.

Let us make “pro-choice” the third rail in American politics – those politicians who touch it are doomed.

 

[goofyjim]

The last time we “got a new one” the result was a Civil War that devastated much of the country and killed about 600,000 men.

Let us, rather, purify our parties. Let my Democratic friends work to shove out or re-educate the pro-choice politicians in their party, and I will work as hard as I can to ensure a pro-choice candidate doesn’t win the Republican nomination.

Let us make “pro-choice” the third rail in American politics – those politicians who touch it are doomed.

Let’s also have a little compassion from those Republicans. They have it right on prolife but that’s about it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Let’s also have a little compassion from those Republicans. They have it right on prolife but that’s about it.

How are they not compassionate? Give us some examples.

 

[frankadams]

No, you didn’t – you raised it as a smokescreen. It’s the old “Johnny does it, too” argument that didn’t work on your mother.

Then why raise the issue?

To create a smokescreen, of course!

The first commandment, among other things, to not ascribe Godlike powers to anything or anyone other than God. In this case, you claim to read my mind and tell you why I am doing something. God alone can read my mind. The best I can do is to tell you and all those reading that I am not raise the issue as a smokescreen. I raised the issue because the line “If you vote for a pro-abortion candidate, you are voting to support abortion.” By that logic, if one votes for a pro-torture candidate, they are voting to support torture. I do not believe that torture is as morally heinous as abortion. Nor have I ever asserted anything even hinting at such a conclusion. However, I believe the comparison of the logic (not the issue) is apt and I challenge you to tell me how it is not. Again, using the logic (and identical language) of many of the posters here, if you vote for a pro-torture candidate, you are voting to support torture.

 

[frankadams]

President Bush did not run on a policy of allowing torture and President Bush’s party does not call for torture in his platform. There is actually no comparison.

Is that your test - whether or not it acutally appears in the platform of the candidate. Bush has said repeatedly (and produced Justice Department memos to back him up) that he would use torture if he found it to be in the interest of “national security.” He supports torture! For you to assert that there is “no comparison” lacks any basis in logic. Let’s try it this way:Q: Does President Bush support torture if it is in the interest of "national security?"A: Yes (by his own admission).Q. Have you and many other asserted that “Anyone who votes for a pro-abortion candidate is voting to support abortion.”?A. Yes (easily verifiable)Q: By that same logic, can one not say just as confidently that “Anyone who votes for a pro-torture candidate is voting to support torture.”?A: Yes.Sorry, but saying “his party does not call for it in his platform” does not change reality one iota. I respectfully challenge you to point what is fallacious in my logic.

 

[goofyjim]

How are they not compassionate? Give us some examples.

Come on Vern. Do you really think the Republicans are a glorious party? If the Democrats were to turn back to prolife I would vote for them over the Republicans in a heartbeat.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Come on Vern. Do you really think the Republicans are a glorious party?

Come on. Jim, do you really believe you can know what think without putting on your turban and gazing into your crystal ball?

Your problem is you keep imagining you know what other people think, and attacking them because of what you imagine.

If the Democrats were to turn back to prolife I would vote for them over the Republicans in a heartbeat.

And if the Nazis hadn’t put the Jews in the concentration camps . . . .

 

[goofyjim]

Come on. Jim, do you really believe you can know what think without putting on your turban and gazing into your crystal ball?

Your problem is you keep imagining you know what other people think, and attacking them because of what you imagine.

And if the Nazis hadn’t put the Jews in the concentration camps . . . .

Goodbye Vern. I can’t hold a responsible conversation with someone who is so rigid. All things being equal if both parties were prolife my vote by Catholic conscience would have to go to the Democrats. I don’t know what the freakin’ Nazi statement has to do with that.

 

[Amolibri]

Goodbye Vern. I can’t hold a responsible conversation with someone who is so rigid. All things being equal if both parties were prolife my vote by Catholic conscience would have to go to the Democrats. I don’t know what the freakin’ Nazi statement has to do with that.

:banghead:
That’s about the size of it, Jim. :ehh: ‘rigid’ is putting it kindly.

 

[estesbob]

Is that your test - whether or not it acutally appears in the platform of the candidate. Bush has said repeatedly (and produced Justice Department memos to back him up) that he would use torture if he found it to be in the interest of “national security.” He supports torture! For you to assert that there is “no comparison” lacks any basis in logic. Let’s try it this way:Q: Does President Bush support torture if it is in the interest of "national security?"A: Yes (by his own admission).Q. Have you and many other asserted that “Anyone who votes for a pro-abortion candidate is voting to support abortion.”?A. Yes (easily verifiable)Q: By that same logic, can one not say just as confidently that “Anyone who votes for a pro-torture candidate is voting to support torture.”?A: Yes.Sorry, but saying “his party does not call for it in his platform” does not change reality one iota. I respectfully challenge you to point what is fallacious in my logic.

There aren’t any pro-torture candidates. I’ll have to admit that is one of the more novel rationalizations for supporting those aid and abette and abetthe slaughter of our children.

 

[estesbob]

:banghead:
That’s about the size of it, Jim. :ehh: ‘rigid’ is putting it kindly.

GoofyJim said the Republican Party wasn’t compassionate. Vern asking for examples and and Jim quit in a snit. And you are calling Vern rigid?