Political Party in Re: to Catholicism

[vern_humphrey]

Pot, meet kettle.

Double it back at ya, with knobs on it.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Funny how when we say exactly the same thing you can only see it one way.

At least I am willing to look inward and consider that I may be offending someone.

You and he seem to be above that. Good luck to you, but I think I’ll let someone else remove the splinter from my eye. Maybe someone who can see better than you two.

I certainly don’t tell anyone that they’re violating Church teaching by doing such and so. I simply state my position relative to these issues and try to argue them with those who disagree. On the other hand, it is true that there are some on both sides who use intimidation language when making their points, but it does tend to be used by one side more than the other.

My position is simply that I cannot vote Republican as the party stands now but that doesn’t mean that I will, therefore, be voting Democratic, either. That’s it. Everything else is explanation.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I certainly don’t tell anyone that they’re violating Church teaching by doing such and so. I simply state my position relative to these issues and try to argue them with those who disagree. On the other hand, it is true that there are some on both sides who use intimidation language when making their points, but it does tend to be used by one side more than the other.

My position is simply that I cannot vote Republican as the party stands now but that doesn’t mean that I will, therefore, be voting Democratic, either. That’s it. Everything else is explanation.

There’s always a ‘but’ isn’t there?

 

[iamrefreshed]

I certainly don’t tell anyone that they’re violating Church teaching by doing such and so. I simply state my position relative to these issues and try to argue them with those who disagree. On the other hand, it is true that there are some on both sides who use intimidation language when making their points, but it does tend to be used by one side more than the other.

My position is simply that I cannot vote Republican as the party stands now but that doesn’t mean that I will, therefore, be voting Democratic, either. That’s it. Everything else is explanation.

You may not tell anyone they are violating church teaching but the poster who accuses me of acting un-christian makes a habit of doing it. He has gone so far as to call others ‘liars’.

I wonder what the air is like up where he is breathing?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Double it back at ya, with knobs on it.

You win the snarkiness award of the day.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

There’s always a ‘but’ isn’t there?

Looks around back Oh, yeah. And it’s a pretty big one.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Looks around back Oh, yeah. And it’s a pretty big one.

Yeah, I’m working on that problem too

My 90lb daughter could eat a dozen donuts and not gain an ounce. I watch a Dunkin Donuts commercial and I have to let out another belt notch!

 

[BamaRider]

Sometimes, you just gotta vote for the guy you dislike the least, which is what I’m looking at having to do in 08.

This year, no ONE candidate satisfies all my major talking points- i.e. pro life, immigration, terrorism, taxes, big govt.

I do know this, if a guy is pro choice, won’t get my vote. But I don’t have that dilemnia, pro lifers are mostly conservative, some just more than others.

Not a single, Democratic candidate for prez is pro life, not one. If one of them wins this election, rest assured he will NOT nominate a judge who would even HINT at overturning Roe V Wade. All his lower court nominees will reflect that thinking, I’d expect nothing less, cause I’d want my guy to do the same, why I VOTED for him. If you can live with that by holding your nose in the voting booth, because he advances your agenda in reagards to the Patriot Act, taxes, healthcare etc, then ok. Only the individual can make that call. Just recognize it for what it is.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You win the snarkiness award of the day.

Don’t worry, you’ll have it back in a post or two.

 

[SoCalRC]

We’ve had so many different “takes” on what the Church teaches and what the Holy Father said that I am getting dizzy. There must be a truth in there somewhere in all the rhetoric.

Mary, if you are confused about what the Pope means, you can always check with the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. That is where theologians turn when they want to know if, for example, something the Pope said is “Ex Cathedra” (basically, from the chair, or infallible).

There are two basic issues being thrown about, what is non negotiable to a Catholic in voting and public service, and how to apply the concept of “limiting the harm”, or “proportionality” first raised by John Paul in EVANGELIUM VITAE, and mentioned several times by Pope Benedict.

Both are covered in a Doctrinal Note, addressed to Bishops, Catholic Politicians, and the laity:

Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Public Life

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

Such documents are not inherently infallible. However, this one was approved by our last Pope and drafted by our current pope when he was Prefect of the office. So, by Dogmatic Constitution, it is the official position of the Church.

Let’s start with what might seem easy, what we cannot, under any circumstances, vote for. The document includes a list. It is not identified as an exclussive list, there may be other moral principles that cannot be compromised, but theses are nine that the Church feels to be of critical importance. Note, the original has emphasis on the nine which is list here:

“When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia (not to be confused with the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate). Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death. In the same way, it is necessary to recall the duty to respect and protect the rights of the human embryo. Analogously, the family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such. The same is true for the freedom of parents regarding the education of their children; it is an inalienable right recognized also by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. In the same way, one must consider society’s protection of minors and freedom from modern forms of slavery (drug abuse and prostitution, for example). In addition, there is the right to religious freedom and the development of an economy that is at the service of the human person and of the common good, with respect for social justice, the principles of human solidarity and subsidiarity, according to which «the rights of all individuals, families, and organizations and their practical implementation must be acknowledged».[21] Finally, the question of peace must be mentioned. Certain pacifistic and ideological visions tend at times to secularize the value of peace, while, in other cases, there is the problem of summary ethical judgments which forget the complexity of the issues involved. Peace is always «the work of justice and the effect of charity».[22] It demands the absolute and radical rejection of violence and terrorism and requires a constant and vigilant commitment on the part of all political leaders.”

The footnotes are well worth reading, as is the Catechism of the Church. What the Church means by some of the phrases above and what political parties mean are often two different things.

I say seemingly easy, because the above list is hard. You will be very hard pressed to find a incumbant national politician who supports this list. And that’s the catch. If you go read the various Pope statements, writings from Bishops we have seen here, etc., you will find that the message is the same. Non-negotiable is just that. Some things are not compromisable to our faith.

cont.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Don’t let anyone confuse you. Just hop onto another thread to see their opinions on other catholic ‘non-negotibles’ like same sex marriage.

You will find that posters in this thread who would vote pro-choice just keep the republicans out of office are the same ones who belive same sex marriage is hunky-dory!

I’m not sure anyone has actually expressed a determination to vote pro-choice as you state. Your lumping of people into categories I think is unfair. There is no doctrine of non-negociability. There is certainly none as to civil unions. . That is a CAF concept. It is not found in the voting materials issued by the USCCB. You mistake correction of what are perceived to be incorrect claims to Church teaching, as “opinions on other catholic non-negociables.”

It is of course hard to deny that the same general group of folks can be found on a number of threads all seemingly agreeing with the same group. I perceive the same thing as well, of course from a slightly different perspective.

 

[SoCalRC]

Continuing on the thought of ‘non negotioable’, lots of folks are making smoke about Proportional effect and limiting the harm, but let’s look closely. The example John Paul gave is eseentially the same one given in the document I just referenced:

As John Paul II has taught in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae regarding the situation in which it is not possible to overturn or completely repeal a law allowing abortion which is already in force or coming up for a vote, «an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality».[20]

Notice it is an example of an elected official, who has no other possible choice. Even so, the document goes on to warn (next paragraph):

In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.

And guess what immediately follows? The first paragraph I quoted in my previous post. Even in the exact context of “limiting the harm” that the Church allows, some principles remain non-negotaible. To the best of my knowledge the Church has absolutely never condoned the application of limiting the harm with regards to “fundamental and inalienable ethical demands”.

Further, before even considering applying the concept, we must be in a situation of no other choice. When it comes to voting in the US, the laity have almost limitless choices. Not only are there a plethora of registered political parties, we are not parlimentary, that is, most of us can pretty much write in any elligible fellow citizen.

The only excuse we have for not voting for someone who very closely matches the non-negotiables is that people believe that they cannot ‘win’ unless they use the defacto two party system.

Sort of a “God helps those who help themselves” thing. But here is the catch. That phrase isn’t in the Bible, Ben Franklin said it. The Bible actually says the opposite, we are supposed to follow God and trust in his grace. We will be rewarded, just not nec. in this life.

If you stop and think about it, it is actually even addressed by the commandments. Placing more faith in something other than God is idolatry.

I’d be the first to admit that taking this step is hard, and you still make moral compromises. For example, I believe that divorce attacks mariage and the family (I’ve personally seen lots of families and children effected by divorce, none by gay unions), and both are principles non-negotiable. But with half of marriages ending in divorce, how much can I read into a politician having one (since one spouse can leave, regardless of the committment)? Is one divorce from a youthful marriage OK? 4 divorces with serial womanizing?

I know you’d like it nice and simple. Actually, in theory it is - start with the nine things you can’t compromise on and go from there… But in practice this harder than it seems. Look at how the Church (via its local authority) has had to distance itself from Catholic ‘voter guides’ because of illicit use of proportionality. Our faith is eternal, politics is a mechanism to achieve earthly power. But earthly pursuits can be deceptive and seem more obtainable.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Are you really so egotistical as to think every post I write refers to you?

My what a large hat you must wear!

Yep, you claim you didn’t insult him the first time, so you make sure you insult him personally now…LOL…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Non-negotiable is just that. Some things are not compromisable to our faith.

Then you ought to be able toanswer my question without tap-dancing.

Given two candidates, one of whom espouses a pro-life position (albeit imperfectly) and the other espouses a pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

 

[mary_bobo]

Don’t let anyone confuse you. Just hop onto another thread to see their opinions on other catholic ‘non-negotibles’ like same sex marriage.

You will find that posters in this thread who would vote pro-choice just keep the republicans out of office are the same ones who belive same sex marriage is hunky-dory!

Thanks for the nice words, but I am not at all confused. But it is hard for one who just truly does not know what the Church teaches and the directives of the CCB and His Holiness to know what to do.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You are the one ‘not getting it’. That post of your was well up in the thread and had no bearing on our discussion. You said it AND meant it before you decide to deride me.

You did EXACTLY what you accused me of doing.

The really, really sad yet funny part is that you are absolutely clueless that you did it!

no quite sadly you are not quite getting it, and lashing out at the person who has been more polite and civil than anyone here. That truly is the irony of it.

 

[He_Man]

That’s funny, I thought the elections are in November.

I see we are counting our chicks before they are hatched…careful, you might get egg on your face. A lot can happen between now and November.

And, the “deep and abiding disgust for Bush and his band of criminals” is only in the 1/4-1/3 of the country that are die-hard, partisan Democrats or far-right cranks. Others are a little more balanced in their descriptions, even if they are unhappy with the current president and his cabinet.

Not to mention, depending on the candidate, many national polls have the Republican beating Hillary or Obama.

Let’s not forget Kerry’s decent lead coming out of the Dem Nattional COnvention in August 04.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Fair enough…

I was expressing what my conscience dictates based on my studies of church teachings. As I stated “I” cannot see how a well informed conscience can vote for a pro abortion candidate, with the political issues before us today, however, each individual is responsible for forming and following their own conscience. In the final judgement we will be judged only on our own actions or omissions.

I can agree to that as well.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Pot, meet kettle.

Having not taken a head count, im not sure there is a majority, but I’m told here quite constantly that being in the majority on anything is no evidence of being right. Short memories create contradictions it seems.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Thanks for the nice words, but I am not at all confused. But it is hard for one who just truly does not know what the Church teaches and the directives of the CCB and His Holiness to know what to do.

No it’s not confusing. Some are just making it so in order to justify to themselves possibly voting a pro-choice canidate into office. There disgust of the present administration has blinded them.

To me pro-life trumps tapping a suspected terrorists phone line.

I’ll take the live baby everytime:thumbsup: