Pope Francis drives a wedge between Catholic Church, GOP

[Ender]

I have to say what I do find vaguely amusing is that now that the Pope says things that may cause a stir with more conservative folks it’s becoming quite a popular thing to disagree with the Pope on here.

The difference here is that Democrats dissent from church doctrines on issues involving intrinsic evil while Republicans disagree with prudential opinions expressed by the clergy. The latter is acceptable, the former is not.Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

 

[JimmyG88]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg

Yup, and everything in the USSR was owned ‘by the people’.

Look it up! Stalinism is a foul corruption of Socialism. A bit like ‘democracy’ in Zimbawe

 

[stinkcat_14]

I believe that the Republican Party has candidates who support abortion for rape and birth defects. Mitt Romney? I know Nixon did and that’s when you had Roe v Wade

Romney clearly was not a pro-life candidate. The only reason why someone could vote for him was because the main competitor was worse. However, nobody was morally obligated to vote for him, because his views clearly violated Church teaching.

 

[zz912]

I cannot defend the democrats, but so nothing I say can justify voting for a democrat. However, when a party puts something in their platform that the party has no intention whatsover of even attempting, that is blatant dishonesty. Are you saying the Church is fine with blatant dishonesty?

Of course not (but you knew that already). But because particular politicians are dishonest about their support for a party platform doesn’t change the fact that a Catholic can support a particular party platform.

And let’s not accuse politicians of blatant dishonesty right from the get-go (although they are guilty of that often). The party may not attempt a particular party plank because they don’t believe they have the political clout at the moment, that doesn’t mean they are being dishonest. They may support something, but believe the time to fight for it is later and not at the moment.

 

[SWolf]

Look it up! Stalinism is a foul corruption of Socialism. A bit like ‘democracy’ in Zimbawe

I’ve heard the argument before.

The USSR and Maoist China are both the closest things we have had to Modern Socialism.

Both butchered 30 million people.

 

[JimmyG88]

The difference here is that Democrats dissent from church doctrines on issues involving intrinsic evil while Republicans disagree with prudential opinions expressed by the clergy. The latter is acceptable, the former is not.Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

Very clearly put. But there is more dissent on here now and this would have been smothered during the last two pontificates. You have to agree that Catholics who have a certain world view are more attracted to this website than others.

 

[JimmyG88]

I’ve heard the argument before.

The USSR and Maoist China are both the closest things we have had to Modern Socialism.

Both butchered 30 million people.

No they aren’t lol

 

[ucfengr]

Here in the UK and in Ireland anything that is Nationalised is not ‘owned’ by the government it’s owned by the population as a whole. You know that Socialism isn’t such a dirty concept in Europe?

Ownership implies the right to sell your property to another party. How exactly would a member of the population sell his share of the “nationalized” industry to someone else? If you can’t sell something, you can’t be said in any meaningful way to own it.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Of course not (but you knew that already). But because particular politicians are dishonest about their support for a party platform doesn’t change the fact that a Catholic can support a particular party platform.

And let’s not accuse politicians of blatant dishonesty right from the get-go (although they are guilty of that often). The party may not attempt a particular party plank because they don’t believe they have the political clout at the moment, that doesn’t mean they are being dishonest. They may support something, but believe the time to fight for it is later and not at the moment.

In other words, a party’s platform is meaningless.

 

[zz912]

But I think under this Pope the zeitgeist has changed. Believe it or not lots of people outside the U.S. think your gun laws are quite disturbing

And they can hold that view and still remain faithful Catholics. Same as those who oppose more gun restrictions. Faithful Catholics can disagree on this issue.

 

[Ender]

Romney clearly was not a pro-life candidate. The only reason why someone could vote for him was because the main competitor was worse. However, nobody was morally obligated to vote for him, because his views clearly violated Church teaching.

This is the argument that “Because your candidate is not perfect I am justified in supporting the one that is far worse.” As fig leaves go this one is pretty small.

Ender

 

[JimmyG88]

Romney clearly was not a pro-life candidate. The only reason why someone could vote for him was because the main competitor was worse. However, nobody was morally obligated to vote for him, because his views clearly violated Church teaching.

That’s Moral Relativism.

 

[stinkcat_14]

This is the argument that “Because your candidate is not perfect I am justified in supporting the one that is far worse.” As fig leaves go this one is pretty small.

Ender

No, I never said one could vote for Obama. But, one clearly had no moral obligation to vote for Romney.

 

[zz912]

I have never had difficulty with that. I have to say what I do find vaguely amusing is that now that the Pope says things that may cause a stir with more conservative folks it’s becoming quite a popular thing to disagree with the Pope on here. Just saying

There’s a vast difference between disagreeing with the Pope on Church teaching, and disagreeing with the Pope on his political opinions.

One is contrary to Catholicism, and the other is not.

 

[zz912]

Lol. OK! Don’t get upset. I’m discussing the inherent nature rather than the literal nature

Their inherent nature is different. A private commune, and a socialist govt system are fundamentally different, as one has freedom to belong to one, and no freedom to belong to the other.

 

[JimmyG88]

Ownership implies the right to sell your property to another party. How exactly would a member of the population sell his share of the “nationalized” industry to someone else? If you can’t sell something, you can’t be said in any meaningful way to own it.

Because the assists are held in common for the good and service of everyone. Your doubts could be likened to living in an apartment and selling your share of the lobby to a drug dealer.

 

[zz912]

I believe that the Republican Party has candidates who support abortion for rape and birth defects. Mitt Romney? I know Nixon did and that’s when you had Roe v Wade

That’s excuse #2 that Liberal catholics use to justify their vote for the pro-abortion party.

EXCUSES FOR VOTING FOR PRO-ABORTION POLITICIANS

1. National Republicans aren’t “really” pro-life, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
2. Specific candidate isn’t “really” pro-life, or I don’t believe his supposed change of belief, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
3. My deacon/priest/bishop/cardinal told me or wrote me a letter telling me it was okay to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
4. I’m not a one-issue voter, so I can ignore the Church’s teaching and vote for the virulently pro-abortion politician.
5. Republicans (at any level) have not passed enough pro-life laws (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
6. Republicans (at any level) have not had enough success on pro-life issues (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
7. Roe vs. Wade is still the law of the land even though most Supreme Court justices were appointed by the Republicans, therefore Republicans aren’t serious about abortion, so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
8. I found a Church document that mentioned proportionate reasons in voting, so I personally judged support for a higher minimum wage (or other social justice cause) was on equal footing with abortion, and I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
9. I personally believe that Democratic policies will reduce abortions, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
10. We can’t do anything about abortion until we change the hearts and minds of the people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
11. You can’t legislate morality, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
12. People will still have abortions even if you make them illegal, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
13. We can’t end abortion until we address the root causes, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
14. I can’t impose my beliefs on other people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
15. There isn’t any difference between the parties, so it is okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
16. The Pro-Life movement is in the tank for the Republican party (even though all pro-life legislation has had the overwhelming support of Republicans and overwhelming opposition from Democrats), so it’s okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
17. All people sin, so we’re all really “Cafeteria Catholics”, so it’s okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.

 

[zz912]

It certainly is sufficient reason not to vote for republicans.

How so?

 

[JimmyG88]

Their inherent nature is different. A private commune, and a socialist govt system are fundamentally different, as one has freedom to belong to one, and no freedom to belong to the other.

Well large numbers of super rich people always threaten to leave the UK if socialists are voted in and they can but they never go (sadly)

 

[ProVobis]

Here in the UK and in Ireland anything that is Nationalised is not ‘owned’ by the government it’s owned by the population as a whole. You know that Socialism isn’t such a dirty concept in Europe?

Okay. One of the problems I have in distinguishing between socialism and capitalism is exactly what to do with the public which invests in companies and such, such as the stock and commodities markets. Even parks and streets. This is strictly not so private but it’s strictly not government-controlled either, at least on a national level.