Pope’s climate views press Catholic candidates

[zz912]

Ah, the hide behind the platform defense. Never mind what goes on in practice and never mind that most Catholic Republicans are more than willing to redefine torture and unjust wars to serve their needs.

Citation or evidence needed. That’s a pretty big slur and insult to throw out there.

 

[pnewton]

No, a person can’t vote with a good conscience and vote for a person belonging to and supporting the virulently pro-abortion party.

At best, a person who does has a malformed conscience.

As you just said, citation or evidence?

I know the USCCB’s voter’s guide does not state this. FYI - My Conscience is not malformed, neither is that of the other person I was thinking of. I form my conscience from Catholic teaching, and as I said the document that addresses this vary issue does not agree with you. Here it is, in case someone has a conscience need to be more in line with the Catholic Church.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-document.cfm

 

[stinkcat_14]

Yes, I reject the entire idea of imputed rent. It is an evil, malevolent and pernicious idea dreamed up by socialists wishing to control and steal more wealth from individuals. It is the false idea that a homeowner who is living in their own home they purchased years ago, is receiving a benefit of “income” because the value of their house or the rents they could charge have risen above what they are paying for their mortgage (if they have one still).

It attacks the very foundational belief in private property and individual rights. It demands ongoing, increasing taxation on a home you purchased years ago simply because others are willing to pay more now today than in prior years. It punishes those who live more frugally, who are stable and create stable communities. It encourages constant movement, constant building, and constant unneeded & unnecessary upgrading.

If you want to charge more in property taxes, then actually state that and work towards it. But don’t try this socialist attempt to steal more tax money from those who have lived in their homes for a long time.

What is more socialist than the government picking winners and losers? If I rent and put my money into bonds, I earn interest on the bonds and then I have to pay tax on that interest and then I can pay my rent. However, if I take that money in bonds and buy the house outright, then I can get the same benefit as holding the bonds, except the imputed rent is tax free. This is not an academic example, just yesterday I saw a house for sale that would cost more than my current house. If I were to buy that house, I could sell the REITs I own, I would get more imputed rent (tax free) and less REIT dividends (taxable). The tax savings would be quite significant, so why does the government want to encourage me to take my money out of the productive sector of the economy and put it into the unproductive sector?

The simple way around this would be to scrap the income tax and move to a consumption tax.

 

[Darryl1958]

What kind of politician is that poster. I mean, if Obama is not a socialist, and Reagan is not a socialist, both big government politicians, why are you so afraid of socialists if we have not elected any? The exception might be Bernie, but he is pretty harmless in my opinion, amusing, but harmless.

I have no idea what kind of politician any anonymous poster is.
But it does explain my post, rather than your demand for proof that is outside of what I had been contending in the first place.
It is not necessary to call anyone a socialist to note the socialist drift, and the big government, over-regulating proclivities that have been the main thrust of my arguments from the beginning.

 

[estesbob]

My husband figured the appropriate question for this thread would be, “What education does Santorum have?” Obviously not a very good one! He should resign and let better qualified people take his place as a policy-maker. He seems out to ruin the world, or something…I’m sure unwittingly.

He has a law degree from Penn State. What do you want him to resign from? If Santorum ran against Hillary who should a faithful Catholic vote for?

 

[stinkcat_14]

I have no idea what kind of politician any anonymous poster is.
But it does explain my post, rather than your demand for proof that is outside of what I had been contending in the first place.
It is not necessary to call anyone a socialist to note the socialist drift, and the big government, over-regulating proclivities that have been the main thrust of my arguments from the beginning.

So what you are saying is that our two main parties, republicans and democrats are socialist in nature and as long as we keep electing republicans and democrats we will keep crawling towards socialism. On that we can agree.

 

[zz912]

As you just said, citation or evidence?

I know the USCCB’s voter’s guide does not state this. FYI - My Conscience is not malformed, neither is that of the other person I was thinking of. I form my conscience from Catholic teaching, and as I said the document that addresses this vary issue does not agree with you. Here it is, in case someone has a conscience need to be more in line with the Catholic Church.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-document.cfm

From the guide:

1. Aided by the virtue of prudence in the exercise of well-formed consciences, Catholics are called to make practical judgments regarding good and evil choices in the political arena.
2. There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called “intrinsically evil” actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. In our nation, “abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.

ALWAYS must be opposed…

 

[zz912]

What is more socialist than the government picking winners and losers? If I rent and put my money into bonds, I earn interest on the bonds and then I have to pay tax on that interest and then I can pay my rent. However, if I take that money in bonds and buy the house outright, then I can get the same benefit as holding the bonds, except the imputed rent is tax free. This is not an academic example, just yesterday I saw a house for sale that would cost more than my current house. If I were to buy that house, I could sell the REITs I own, I would get more imputed rent (tax free) and less REIT dividends (taxable). The tax savings would be quite significant, so why does the government want to encourage me to take my money out of the productive sector of the economy and put it into the unproductive sector?

The simple way around this would be to scrap the income tax and move to a consumption tax.

Govt shouldn’t be picking winners and losers. But I’m not going to support the income tax either, as it is pernicious and contrary to the principles and ideals of being American.

I also won’t pretend that someone owning their home has some fake “imputed income” because they aren’t renting it out and leasing some other place.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Govt shouldn’t be picking winners and losers. But I’m not going to support the income tax either, as it is pernicious and contrary to the principles and ideals of being American.

Do you support the mortgage interest deduction? After all, if there is no imputed rent, there is no reason to have a mortgage interest deduction. The idea that you should have lower taxes because you borrow money is also contrary and pernicious to the principles and ideals of being an American.

I also won’t pretend that someone owning their home has some fake “imputed income” because they aren’t renting it out and leasing some other place.

If I buy that bigger property, which would allow me to grow my own hay, would my horses then be eating fake hay?

 

[pnewton]

From the guide:

1. Aided by the virtue of prudence in the exercise of well-formed consciences, Catholics are called to make practical judgments regarding good and evil choices in the political arena.
2. There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called “intrinsically evil” actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. In our nation, “abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.

ALWAYS must be opposed…

That applies to abortion and euthanasia, not Democrats, or remote material participation in evil, which is another topic. In fact, if you read the document from where you left off, you will notice candidates are referenced, not parties. Abortion can be fought on more than one front than just the general election. Democrats simply do not have to concede that the Democratic Party must be pro-abortion and monolithic.

I would not despair of voting for Santorum, if he won the primary, but I do hope to avoid making that decision. This is why I want both parties to allow the possibility of candidates opposed to abortion.

 

[phil19034]

Okay - but just for the record, what you are saying now is a bit different from earlier. Before you seemed to imply that the constitution was against the Church somehow. Now you’re saying its the incorrect interpretation of the constitution, not the constitution itself. I believe Rick Santorum would agree with you wholeheartedly.

Ishii

what I type and what I mean are not always the samething

Again, I’m not personally against Santorum. I’m a Republican just like he is. However, I don’t feel he needed to go on record, publicly making this remark. I also believe that Climate Change is at least partly caused by the carbons we are dumping into the air.

 

[phil19034]

The thing about conscience though, is that the only one that matters is one’s own. There are, as a matter of fact, Catholics who have voted for a Democrat today with a good, clear conscience. I know a handful of situations personally.

Its fine to vote for a Democrat if the Republican is pro-choice and pro gay marriage. But if you have a pro-life vs a pro-choice, a Catholic must vote pro-life.

Pro-life issues trump all other issues.

I used to vote for some Democrats because they were better with transit funding for Amtrak and commuter rail services.

But now, I know, I must vote pro-life and against SSM. Soon cloning will be a major issue, and I’m sure the Democrats will be on the wrong side of that issue too.

 

[zz912]

That applies to abortion and euthanasia, not Democrats, or remote material participation in evil, which is another topic. In fact, if you read the document from where you left off, you will notice candidates are referenced, not parties. Abortion can be fought on more than one front than just the general election. Democrats simply do not have to concede that the Democratic Party must be pro-abortion and monolithic.

I would not despair of voting for Santorum, if he won the primary, but I do hope to avoid making that decision. This is why I want both parties to allow the possibility of candidates opposed to abortion.

The Democratic Party is in full-force support and promotion of abortion, along with other grave and intrinsic evils. And Democratic candidates support the Party. So even though candidate Smith may oppose abortion, he votes as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who is vehemently pro-abortion.

I also seem to remember the “pro-life” Democrats caving in when it mattered most and voting in favor of Obamacare.

 

[pnewton]

Its fine to vote for a Democrat if the Republican is pro-choice and pro gay marriage. But if you have a pro-life vs a pro-choice, a Catholic must vote pro-life.

I guy my priest knew growing up in Brockton is now a senator in Massachusetts, Tom Kennedy. You should check his positions. It is pretty much Pope Francis down the line, including his 0% NARAL rating. Yes, the person matters, if not exclusively, almost exclusively.

I resent the heck that my character is impugned because I care more of the person than the party, as per Catholic teaching. My conscience is clean and quite clear in my voting. No one has any more right judging so deeply into my soul than, well, this Santorum guy has of criticizing the agenda of the Holy Father.

 

[phil19034]

That applies to abortion and euthanasia, not Democrats, or remote material participation in evil, which is another topic. In fact, if you read the document from where you left off, you will notice candidates are referenced, not parties. Abortion can be fought on more than one front than just the general election. Democrats simply do not have to concede that the Democratic Party must be pro-abortion and monolithic.

I would not despair of voting for Santorum, if he won the primary, but I do hope to avoid making that decision. This is why I want both parties to allow the possibility of candidates opposed to abortion.

The highlighted would be wonderful. But the truth is that currently, pro-life democrats running for office must become pro-choice once they reach a certain level. The Democratic leadership is all pro-choice and pro same-sex marriage.

This will not change unless pro-life Democrats decide they hate abortion more than they hate Republicans. The only way for pro-life Democrats to send that message is to vote pro-life in the democratic primaries and then vote prolife in the general elections (even if they have to vote for Republicans).

 

[phil19034]

I guy my priest knew growing up in Brockton is now a senator in Massachusetts, Tom Kennedy. You should check his positions. It is pretty much Pope Francis down the line, including his 0% NARAL rating. Yes, the person matters, if not exclusively, almost exclusively.

But here is the question… will he cross the aisle and vote with Republicans when it comes to limits on Abortion, laws against religious persecution, laws against stem-cell research, etc? Or will he give into peer pressure and vote with his party, even though he personally objects?

Will he vote against pro-choice leadership?

Yes, in theory, there may be some Democrats at the national level who are ok to vote for, but it’s very rare for them to get past being elected to the state house of representatives with a prolife stance because national Democratic leadership will campaign against them.

 

[pnewton]

. But the truth is that currently…

Ah. truth is current, but for how long? Historically, parties have changed positions, some new parties arising and some disappearing. Even in my life, it used to be that Democrats were the conservative ones and the Republicans were a mixed bag. Right now, the trend is toward monolithic partisanship and an entrenched two party system. Might this change? The only thing that hasn’t changed is that change happens.

 

[ishii]

The thing about conscience though, is that the only one that matters is one’s own. There are, as a matter of fact, Catholics who have voted for a Democrat today with a good, clear conscience. I know a handful of situations personally.

But is their conscience properly informed? I would argue no.

 

[stinkcat_14]

But is their conscience properly informed? I would argue no.

You would have no basis to make such a judgement because you have no clue what their choice set is.

 

[ishii]

I would not despair of voting for Santorum, if he won the primary, but I do hope to avoid making that decision. This is why I want both parties to allow the possibility of candidates opposed to abortion.

I want a lot of things, but that doesn’t make it a reality. It is time that Catholics truly interested in the sanctity of life recognize that the Democratic party - due to its being joined at the hip with the abortion lobby / NARAL / Emily’s List, etc . (even the so-called “moderate Democrats”) is not worthy of consideration for support. It may some time in the future, but wishing for it will not make it come true.

I get a sense from reading this thread that it bothers some people a great deal to face the prospect of not being able to vote for the Democrat or (horrors!) actually have to vote for a Republican. As Estesbob said, (I think) - abortion will remain legal until Catholics learn to love the unborn more than they hate the Republican party.

Note: I am not accusing pnewton of this thinking at all - he has admitted that he would reluctantly support a Santorum if it came down to that. Rather, I am directing this toward those who consider the Republican party “anti-life” due to its supposed support for “torture” or unjust wars, or its opposition to much of the environmentalist movement.

Ishii