Political Party in Re: to Catholicism

[goofyjim]

Outside of the war, the GOP does not do enough for the disabled. Our own illustrious senator here in PA learned that last election. He would not compromise in funding for the disabled and mental health parity laws so he lost to a Democrat. So be it. Fortunately the Democrat was also prolife like his father so it was easy to vote for him.

 

[Engineer1]

Kindly explain what constitutes a “rant.” Sure, my explanation may lack the intellectual sophistication of your response of “You’re wrong–thanks for playing,” but that hardly makes it a “rant.” If you refuse to look at reality, so be it? Did you believe those Democrats who said they were only interested in “precedent” during the Roberts hearings because that’s what they said? I surely hope not. Would you have believed Hitler when he said the only Jews dying were those who starved because the Allies bombed the railroad lines bringing food to the camps? Would him making this statement have justified a vote for Hitler because he wasn’t a pro-genocide leader? Again, I hope not. If you are willing to ignore the plain reality that most thinking people can see, then reason isn’t going to appeal to you. We have photos of torture. We have eyewitness testimony of torture. We have a Vice President downplaying torture. We have a President who says that Geneva Convention prohibitions on torture do not apply to those people because he has labeled them “enemy combatants.” But none of that matters to you. Why? Because the President said he was opposed to torture. In your world, actions mean nothing. Only words mean anything. Or perhaps you are being willfully ignorant because to look at facts would render your assertions toothless.

I hasten to add that the criminals at Abu Ghraib who abused the detainees under their control were prosecuted and jailed by the Army, specifically because they violated the President’s orders to treat detainees humanely. The investigation began months *before *the pictures hit the press…

 

[mary_bobo]

Outside of the war, the GOP does not do enough for the disabled. Our own illustrious senator here in PA learned that last election. He would not compromise in funding for the disabled and mental health parity laws so he lost to a Democrat. So be it. Fortunately the Democrat was also prolife like his father so it was easy to vote for him.

And has he voted that way since he is in Congress?

 

[mary_bobo]

I knew this thread would turn into Bush-bashing…honestly, the Bush-derangment-syndrome is wearying me.

I am an active duty Air Force officer who was THERE in 2003 when we began our offensive against Saddam, and while I don’t pretend to agree with every decision made in the post-Saddam environment, I can tell you without hesitation that the invasion was just, and justly conducted. The fiction that we were at peace with Saddam in 2002 is ridiculous. From 1998 when Clinton started the quasi-war with Saddam (Operation Desert Fox), our aircrew on UN-sanctioned No-Fly-Zone missions were fired at on virtually every patrol. Furthermore, I held a terrorist suicide belt in my own two hands days after we crossed the line and went north.

The failure of the Bush Administration to correctly frame the discussion doesn’t change the facts.

As for “torture”

1. Terrorists are illegal combatants and not entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions. It is a point of law, and it is well established. The Geneva Conventions apply only to States that have signed them and compy with the legal requirements (like wearing uniforms, carrying arms openly, and avoiding targeting noncombatants and protected structures like hospitals and churches).
2. This means that terrorists do not enjoy the benefits of being prisoners of war…hence they are called “detainees”.
3. Despite the fact that terrorists do not enjoy legal protection under international law (e.g. the Geneva Conventions and the Laws of Armed Conflict). President Bush extended them the same rights by Executive Order. See here. The EO at the link illuminates, underlines, and reinforces an earlier Nov 01 order that requires, among other things, “humane treatment” of detainees. See also here, where the President extended protection under the Geneva Conventions to the Taliban.
4. Our enemies certainly do not treat prisoners with any Christian chivalry…and do not recognize that chivalry as anything other than weakness. They brutally murder their prisoners, and see our humane treatment of our prisoners as nothing short of weakness. In the words of bin Laden, “you love life, we love death.”
5. We’re discussing political parties anyway, not individuals, and so we should be comparing the party platforms…not the successes or failures of individual candidates. To that end, here are links to both:

GOP: gop.com/images/2004platform.pdf

Dem: democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

1. The party matters because despite the agendas of the individual politicians, in the end they all depend on the party for support and funding…therefore it is an rare politician indeed that doesn’t toe the party line.
2. The Democratic Party supports abortion, euthanasia, homosexual “marriage”, artificial contraception, infringement of personal property rights, the government-controlled re-distribution of wealth, and what I would call runious tax policies. This year they supported wholesale abandonment of enforcement of illegal immigration laws that are unfair to legal immigrants who work hard to make this country great.
3. The Republican Party supports life from conception (those words are in their platform), marriage between one man and one woman, and the preservation of individual liberty. The Republican Party under George Bush attempted to free churches from red-tape that would allow them to seek and use Federal dollars to help the poor. Republican presidents and congressmen have been crucial in the Civil Rights movement, begining in the 1860s to now. Bush’s cabinet is ethnically diverse…including the first TWO black SecStates. While I do not support the death penalty, Catholics may legitimately hold diversity of opinion on that issue; the Church doesn’t infringe on the right of the State to defend itself from violent criminals.

I’m not trying to say that the Republican Party is “The Catholic Party” or that they’re spotless…I am merely pointing out that the GOP platform is significantly more congruent with Catholic social and moral teaching than any other party on the American political scene.

Finally…before people start heaving stones at the President about “torture” or the poor, please…please…know what you’re talking about first.

Thank you for expressing your points so well.

 

[mary_bobo]

We do seem to be mixing threads, don’t we. It is like CAF intoxication. Anyway, I am leaving my mind open as to what party to support. I don’t find either one as some godsend to save the country.

Indeed.

 

[SoCalRC]

Has the catechism been changed? If the church changes their teachings on the death penalty doesn’t that mean all their teachings of the last 2000 years are suspect? How can something be totally acceptable even in the Vatican in 1960 but morally wrong in 2008?

Better understanding. The Church did not consider early abortions an especially serious sin for much of history (the tradition of delayed ensoulement held by St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope Innocent III, Pope Gregory XVI, etc.). Our current teachings stem from 1889, 1902, and 1913.

As late as 1869 the Church had officially declined to take a stance on abortions to save the life of the mother.

This does not mean that the Church was ever pro-choice, just that the gravity of early abortion was not fully comprehended. Likewise, the Church has always taken Christ’s message on mercy seriously, but only in the fullness of time did it reflect the combination of modern societies available alternatives to protect itself. As noted by the Church, “an eye for an eye” is one of the few portions of the Hebrew Bible that is directly challenged by Jesus in the Gospels.

This is why we have an Apostolic Church, a Vicar of Christ, and a Gift of Authority, so we can properly understand the application of our faith in a changing world.

People do challenge the apostolic nature (ex. Protestants), but be careful. According to EVANGELIUM VITAE, our current teachings on abortion have no basis in Holy Scripture. And, as seen, Holy Tradition has the teaching being expressed in different ways and to different degrees. It is the Gift of Authority that gives the current understanding of the teaching weight, and the same encyclical shows how the moral principles apply to the death penalty.

 

[irish57]

I was wandering if anyone knew what edwards view on abortion is?

 

[OriginalJS]

In the western world religion and politics don’t mix and haven’t for centuries. Christ told us to be “in the world but not of the world.” There has never been a perfect American politician and there likely never will be. All we can do in voting is to try to make the best selection possible under all the circumstances. If you refuse to vote for any politician who doesn’t promise to obey all Catholic doctrine, or if he or she is an incumbent, hasn’t obeyed all Catholic doctrine, you aren’t going to vote.

Politicians have to get votes to win elections. They don’t commit political suicide intentionally. If any democratic presidential candidate made it part of his or her platform to criminalize abortion, in the present social climate his or her career would end right then and there.

The fight against legalized abortion has gone on for years and will continue indefinitely. It is going to take a long time. Chances of immediate success in thinly populated areas (e.g. South Dakota) are better than it heavily populated areas like California and New York. That is simply the present social scene and politicians have to deal with it.

 

[OriginalJS]

Our current teachings stem from 1889, 1902, and 1913.
. . .
As late as 1869 the Church had officially declined to take a stance on abortions to save the life of the mother.

These observations are right on point. And there were practical considerations. Until the great 19th century advances in medicine, childbirth was more dangerous to women than abortion. By the end of the 19th century, the dangers of childbirth had been reduced (although even until the middle of the 20th century they were high by today’s standards) and there was more danger from abortion.

 

[SoCalRC]

No one is “weighing matters this narrowly.” We are applying Catholic morality, using Pope Benedict’s “principles that are not negotiable” to make the first cut. Those candidates who pass the test of the non-negotiables are subject to further scrutiny, on lesser (but still important) criteria.

Your point is lost in all the disassembling in this thread.

Which other intrinsically evil acts are proportionate to the abortion problem in this election cycle?

Right, so when the Church teaches certain acts are intrinsically evil and we cannot support such things that does not mean we are left to sit out the election. It may mean we must limit the evil. That requires discernment, study, and no obfuscation.

The most interesting thing about this little sub thread is that it is based, seemingly, on willful ignorance of Church Doctrine.

Look at Vern’s first comment about “Pope Benedict’s…” He just cited this in another thread, but it appears to be a reference to a speech in which the Pope gave several examples of non negotiable moral principles.

However, multiple times in the thread I have posted a link to a DOCTRINAL NOTE on the VATICAN SITE, specifically addressing this question. It is signed by then Cardinal Ratzinger in his capacity of PREFECT of the CONGREGATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

The document clearly gives nine examples of non-negotiable moral principles in voting for Catholics. They are emphasised in the original text in case someone is too lazy to read the paragraph in its entirety. If someone bothers to read the document in its entirety, they will find that there are additional overriding principles stated in absolute terms as well.

If someone really cares about their faith, and is legitimately interested in voting as a Catholic, wouldn’t it see reasonable for them to read a DOCTRINAL NOTE from the Church on that precise subject? Would it reasonable for them to continue to speak with moral authority and mistate Church doctrine after they had been pointed to the Church’s official position 20-30 times?

After all, hours each day seem to be spent keeping abreast of partisan politics. Thirty minutes educating oneself on the Church’s official position seems the least one could do. Five or ten hours reading all the footnoted material and meditating on the referenced Holy Scripture would seem more reasonable to me.

Speaking frankly, I would say that the greatest problem for Catholic voters voting their faith this time is that they care more for the politics than they do for the faith. Look at how little understanding there is of it here. We have people asserting that they are committed to what they declare to be our most important teaching, but then they are surprised that the reasoning and document used to delcare it infallible ties the teaching directly to our teaching on the death penalty. Likewise, abortion rests wholely on the Magesterium’s authority on interpretting Sacred Tradition, the Church tells us there is no direct guidance in Scripture - yet that same authority is trivialized on other subjects of grave moral consequence.

I hate to despair, and I strive not to judge, but how can we pretend to even be discussing Catholicism when there is not even interest in what the Church actually has to say? Or even acceptance that its Primacy and Gift of Authority is what makes us the one true Catholic and Apostolic Church?

 

[fix]

However, multiple times in the thread I have posted a link to a DOCTRINAL NOTE on the VATICAN SITE, specifically addressing this question. It is signed by then Cardinal Ratzinger in his capacity of PREFECT of the CONGREGATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH.

That is not in question.

The document clearly gives nine examples of non-negotiable moral principles in voting for Catholics.

Again, no one denies that.

If someone really cares about their faith, and is legitimately interested in voting as a Catholic, wouldn’t it see reasonable for them to read a DOCTRINAL NOTE from the Church on that precise subject? Would it reasonable for them to continue to speak with moral authority and mistate Church doctrine after they had been pointed to the Church’s official position 20-30 times?

It is not reasonable to post the link and then draw erroneous conclusions and impute them to others.

I hate to despair, and I strive not to judge, but how can we pretend to even be discussing Catholicism when there is not even interest in what the Church actually has to say? Or even acceptance that its Primacy and Gift of Authority is what makes us the one true Catholic and Apostolic Church?

Honestly, are you really that confused or are you disassembling here?

“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 favor 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.”

From Akin:

We might ask: What kind of reasons could there be to vote for a pro-abortion or pro-euthanasia politician?

Here is a clear case: Suppose that in a given election either Candidate A or Candidate B is morally certain to win, but it is not clear which will win. Candidate A’s only policy is that he supports abortion, while Candidate B has two policies: He supports both abortion and euthanasia. In this case, more harm will be done to society by the election of Candidate B, and so based on principles touched on by John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae 73, one may cast one’s vote in such a way as to limit the harm done to society.

In such a situation, casting one’s vote for Candidate A does not amount to an endorsement of his policies. It represents an attempt to reign in the greater harm that otherwise will result.

 

[iamrefreshed]

From Akin:

This makes things very clear. If I vote for the canidate who is anti-abortion but pro-euthanasia I am saving more lives than the canidate who is pro-abortion but anti-euthanasia.

That’s the goal of the catholic voter. Sanctify life.

Clearly that means anti-abortion should be the FIRST criteria used as it will save more lives than any other issue.

 

[fix]

This makes things very clear. If I vote for the canidate who is anti-abortion but pro-euthanasia I am saving more lives than the canidate who is pro-abortion but anti-euthanasia.

That’s the goal of the catholic voter. Sanctify life.

Clearly that means anti-abortion should be the FIRST criteria used as it will save more lives than any other issue.

My point is in these currect elections I cannot see an argument that claims there are issues that trump abortion. Not because other intrinscially evil acts are less sinful, but because no one is advocating greater harm in areas other than abortion that are of the same magnitude.

This does not make abortion a single issue it means no one is calling for euthansia for everyone over age 65 or nuclear war or some such thing.

 

[mary_bobo]

The most interesting thing about this little sub thread is that it is based, seemingly, on willful ignorance of Church Doctrine.

Look at Vern’s first comment about “Pope Benedict’s…” He just cited this in another thread, but it appears to be a reference to a speech in which the Pope gave several examples of non negotiable moral principles.

However, multiple times in the thread I have posted a link to a DOCTRINAL NOTE on the VATICAN SITE, specifically addressing this question. It is signed by then Cardinal Ratzinger in his capacity of PREFECT of the CONGREGATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

The document clearly gives nine examples of non-negotiable moral principles in voting for Catholics. They are emphasised in the original text in case someone is too lazy to read the paragraph in its entirety. If someone bothers to read the document in its entirety, they will find that there are additional overriding principles stated in absolute terms as well.

If someone really cares about their faith, and is legitimately interested in voting as a Catholic, wouldn’t it see reasonable for them to read a DOCTRINAL NOTE from the Church on that precise subject? Would it reasonable for them to continue to speak with moral authority and mistate Church doctrine after they had been pointed to the Church’s official position 20-30 times?

After all, hours each day seem to be spent keeping abreast of partisan politics. Thirty minutes educating oneself on the Church’s official position seems the least one could do. Five or ten hours reading all the footnoted material and meditating on the referenced Holy Scripture would seem more reasonable to me.

Speaking frankly, I would say that the greatest problem for Catholic voters voting their faith this time is that they care more for the politics than they do for the faith. Look at how little understanding there is of it here. We have people asserting that they are committed to what they declare to be our most important teaching, but then they are surprised that the reasoning and document used to delcare it infallible ties the teaching directly to our teaching on the death penalty. Likewise, abortion rests wholely on the Magesterium’s authority on interpretting Sacred Tradition, the Church tells us there is no direct guidance in Scripture - yet that same authority is trivialized on other subjects of grave moral consequence.

I hate to despair, and I strive not to judge,

Then please refrain.

but how can we pretend to even be discussing Catholicism when there is not even interest in what the Church actually has to say? Or even acceptance that its Primacy and Gift of Authority is what makes us the one true Catholic and Apostolic Church?

 

[Amolibri]

This does not make abortion a single issue it means no one is calling for euthansia for everyone over age 65 or nuclear war or some such thing.

 

[fix]

Which issues, in this election cycle, are equal to the magnitude of the abortion problem in this country?

 

[ribozyme]

Which issues, in this election cycle, are equal to the magnitude of the abortion problem in this country?

health care
the economy
the war in Iraq

 

[fix]

health care
the economy

How many folks are murdered by health care or the economy?

the war in Iraq

More innocents intentionally killed then by abortion?

 

[SoCalRC]

That is not in question.

Again, no one denies that.

False, Vern has asserted that Pope Benedict has decreed that there are “only three”. A statement which is untrue.

It is not reasonable to post the link and then draw erroneous conclusions and impute them to others.

Honestly, are you really that confused or are you disassembling here?

From Akin:

I’m sorry, but you are citing an article from the laity as ‘proof’ of a different interpretation of “proportionate reasons” and “limiting the harm” than the one presented in a DOCTRINAL NOTE from the Church.

If one wants to know if the Pope is speaking Ex Cathedra, you ask the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, not Jimmy Akin.

This basically reaffirms my point about ignorance of Catholic Doctrine and Dogma. You applauded Vern’s application of Primacy, even while he was mistating the Pope’s words and meaning.

You believe that your point is proven by comments external to the Magesterium. Don’t bother citing Primacy of the church if you don’t accept it. Snatching bits and pieces that match your Republican ideology is a disservice to the Church.

Case in point, in the Catholic faith prudential teachings are not automatically optional. The faithful can judge the Church’s confidence in the divinity of a teaching by its presentation. For example, rather or not a Pope chooses to comment on something during a religious celebration. It is also why we have all the different types of Church and Papal statemetns.

Based on the Dogmatic Constitution and Code of Canon Law, our teaching on the death penalty is more serious than our teachings on voting, since it appears both in a Papal Encyclical and the Catechism. Our teachings on the morality of secular voting and abortion are in the form of a lesser Papal pronouncement and a Doctrinal Note.

If you reject the Church’s teaching on death penalty, as you do, it is disengenuous to claim apostolic authority of a lesser nature when it supports your personal views. You are just making arguments of convenience. This would seem to match your taking an article from the laity to dispute not just a Doctrinal Note, but Pope Benedict’s own clarifying statements on the matter.

 

[SoCalRC]

How many folks are murdered by health care or the economy?

According to the Princes of the Church, poverty is a significant factor in obtaining a true culture of life.

More innocents intentionally killed then by abortion?

You seem to be wholly misunderstanding the foundation of our belief about abortion. If I start raping, torturing, and murdering other’s family members to start pressuring people into voting for a particular Catholic belief, it is irrelevant how important the belief is, I am doing evil, not Christ’s work.

Likewise, you cannot justify particpation in an attrocity because it promotes another social teaching. This should be self evident, it is the argument that you and Vern just used to disparage people who vote Democratic because of multiple Church teachings - at the expense of abortion. The only difference is that it is being applied to other issues that the Church has described as non-negotiable.

If you are only willing to apply a principle when it matches what you already believe, then it is, again, just an argument of convenience.