Pope Francis drives a wedge between Catholic Church, GOP

[PeopleB4Things]

There is no contradiction.Faithful citizenship was referring to same situation Burke was.Where both candidates support abortion you may vote for the one who is least pro-abortion.

Archbishop Vlazny of Oregon offered these thoughts in the Portland Catholic Sentinel: “If they vote for pro-choice politicians precisely because they are pro-choice, I believe they, too, should refrain from the reception of Holy Communion because they are not in communion with the church on a serious matter. But** if they are voting for that particular politician because, in their judgment, other candidates fail significantly in some matters of great importance, for example, war and peace, human rights and economic justice, then there is no evident stance of opposition to church teaching** and reception of Holy Communion seems both appropriate and beneficial. Catholics who support pro-choice politicians still have serious responsibilities with regard to their stance on this matter. They must make it very clear to these politicians and governmental leaders that their support is in no way based on the pro-choice advocacy of these political leaders.”

Pope John Paul’s 1995 encyclical included abortion in a long list of scourges we should consider to be poison and that supremely dishonor the creator.

Today this proclamation is especially pressing because of the extraordinary increase and gravity of threats to the life of individuals and peoples, especially where life is weak and defenseless. In addition to the ancient scourges of poverty, hunger, endemic diseases, violence and war, new threats are emerging on an alarmingly vast scale.
“The Second Vatican Council, in a passage which retains all its relevance today, forcefully condemned a number of crimes and attacks against human life. Thirty years later, taking up the words of the Council and with the same forcefulness I repeat that condemnation in the name of the whole Church, certain that I am interpreting the genuine sentiment of every upright conscience: ‘Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these thingsand others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practice them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator’”

Looks like abortion is one of many things that need to considered. Our plates are full with obligations to protect life.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There is no contradiction.Faithful citizenship was referring to same situation Burke was.Where both candidates support abortion you may vote for the one who is least pro-abortion.

Then how do you reconcile this position with the quote from Faithful Citizenship in post #671, particularly the use of the qualifying phrase “if the voter’s intent is to support that position”? Cardinal Burke’s statement implies that “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil whether or not it is the voter’s intent to support that position.” This is quite a bit different from the Faithful Citizenship statement.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Archbishop Vlazny of Oregon offered these thoughts in the Portland Catholic Sentinel: “If they vote for pro-choice politicians precisely because they are pro-choice, I believe they, too, should refrain from the reception of Holy Communion because they are not in communion with the church on a serious matter. But** if they are voting for that particular politician because, in their judgment, other candidates fail significantly in some matters of great importance, for example, war and peace, human rights and economic justice, then there is no evident stance of opposition to church teaching** and reception of Holy Communion seems both appropriate and beneficial. Catholics who support pro-choice politicians still have serious responsibilities with regard to their stance on this matter. They must make it very clear to these politicians and governmental leaders that their support is in no way based on the pro-choice advocacy of these political leaders.”

Thank you very much for this important quote!!

I also found the source link:

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-05-06vlazny.htm

 

[PeopleB4Things]

Thank you very much for this important quote!!

I also found the source link:

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-05-06vlazny.htm

Thanks. I’m a child of Vatican II. Some consider that my downfall. LOL. Another good source is the DECLARATION ISSUED BY THE SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Nov 18, 1974. The declaration makes clear that life is equally sacred at all stages. To use abortion as the sole reason to choose candidates is not a Catholic thing. It’s a personal opinion which some bishops support and others do not. And that’s okay. The church can only offer a framework on which to base our ultimate expression of opinion, our vote.

Any discrimination based on the various stages of life is no more justified than any other discrimination. The right to life remains complete in an old person, even one greatly weakened; it is not lost by one who is incurably sick. The right to life is no less to be respected in the small infant just born than in the mature person. In reality, respect for human life is called for from the time that the process of generation begins. From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother, it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already."

 

[Al_Moritz]

Thanks. I’m a child of Vatican II. Some consider that my downfall. LOL.

Me too. And no, it’s not a downfall. The Council was clearly inspired by the Holy Spirit. Of course, some have seen license for misinterpretation, but these things happen all the time.

The idea that you cannot in principle vote for a pro-choice candidate, even if you do not vote for that candidate precisely because of his pro-choice stance, is a misinterpretation of Church teaching too. The above quote of Archbishop Vlazny confirms that and is in line with statements by Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict) and the USCCB.

 

[ProVobis]

There is no contradiction.Faithful citizenship was referring to same situation Burke was.Where both candidates support abortion you may vote for the one who is least pro-abortion.

We generally have more than two candidates, including a no-vote.

 

[PeopleB4Things]

That’s not true.All companies pay US taxes on their US profits.

“20 Big Profitable US Companies Paid No Taxes”. CNBC, Aug 14, 2014.

"There are 20 companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500, including drugmaker Merck (MRK), computer storage company Seagate (STX) and automaker General Motors (GM), which reported effective tax rates of 0% or lower in the second calendar quarter despite reporting a profit during the period, according to a USA TODAY analysis of data from S&P Capital IQ. To be included, the companies also needed to report positive earnings before taxes including unusual items.

This analysis shows that while U.S. companies and investors constantly grumble about corporate tax rates, there are many companies that pay nowhere near the highest rates. This is the rule, not an exception. A 2013 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that profitable U.S. firms filing a Schedule M-3 paid federal taxes of 13% of pretax worldwide income. That’s well below the top 35% statutory rate. But some profitable companies can pay even less than that during time to time. And the second quarter is a another good example."

Complete article at cnbc.com/id/101917093#.

 

[SWolf]

Today this proclamation is especially pressing because of the extraordinary increase and gravity of threats to the life of individuals and peoples, especially where life is weak and defenseless. In addition to the ancient scourges of poverty, hunger, endemic diseases, violence and war, new threats are emerging on an alarmingly vast scale.
"The Second Vatican Council, in a passage which retains all its relevance today, forcefully condemned a number of crimes and attacks against human life. Thirty years later, taking up the words of the Council and with the same forcefulness I repeat that condemnation in the name of the whole Church, certain that I am interpreting the genuine sentiment of every upright conscience: 'Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these thingsand others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practice them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator’"

Looks like abortion is one of many things that need to considered. Our plates are full with obligations to protect life.

Genocide - Both parties are about equally bloodthirsty with regards to war. GW was a hawk. Hillary is also a notorious hawk.
Prostitution - Mostly democrats
Abortion - Democrats
Right to die - Democrats
Euthanasia - Democrats
Arbitrary Imprisonment - Drug war, Gitmo. More republicans, but not by much
Disgraceful working conditions - Government stepped in, historically has accomplished very little. Conditions are rare today in the US.
Whatever violates the integrity of the human person - vague, could mean about anything
Subhuman living conditions - Ironically, section 8 housing is more likely to create subhuman living conditions than not.
Attempts to coerce the will itself - Forcing people to buy contraceptives, baking cakes for gay weddings, etc. This points more to Democrats.

Doesn’t look good for the party of Moloch, even by your criteria.

 

[Ender]

Also, your assertion that the DNC promotes intrinsic evil is untrue.

How is it possible to write such things, let alone believe them? This could not be more astonishing if you had written you believe in unicorns and alien abductions. These citations are from the 2008 Democratic Party Platform.The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.
Abortion is an intrinsic evil. The Democrats support abortion. Why is it so difficult to admit even the blindingly obvious?We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples.
Do you deny that same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically evil? Do you deny that Democrats support it? Can you not admit the truth even to yourself? Whatever you may believe to be true of Republicans doesn’t change what is unquestionably true of Democrats.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Have they been defended? If PP has not, then the republican effect has been marginal.

Republicans are castigated as being no different than Democrats…because their efforts to reverse Democrat policies have as yet been unsuccessful. "See, if the Republicans really wanted to they could reverse what the Democrats have done. Clearly there is no difference between the party that institutionalizes evil and the party that cannot reverse it."President Obama and Democrats will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers. (Dem Party Platform 2008)
Ender

 

[Phil502]

And what about some large corporations who pay 0% in corporate taxes (any corporation whose headquarters is outside the US pays no federal income tax - even if their “HQ” is simply a mailbox in another country)?

If it’s happening I’m against it, close the loopholes.

Except when they play games, such as when they do a double Irish with a Dutch sandwich. Do you really think all of Apple’s profits in Ireland are due the sales of iphones there?

Personally I would scrap the corporate income tax and replace it with a VAT.

Vat is an interesting idea and I wish it would be considered more.

 

[pnewton]

“You can never vote for someone who favors absolutely the right to choice of a woman to destroy a human life in her womb or the right to a procured abortion.”

Technically, this is a prudential judgment, at least in the same sense that “prudential judgment” is used throughout the thread. Abortion is a grave evil, having one, performing one, or materially cooperating with one. What the law should be, how strictly it should be enforced, what the punishment should be for one that has one, are matters of prudence. I agree it is the most important issue to consider, but we cannot forget that no morals are “negotiable,” including the morality of social justice. In the course of politics, I have no doubt that abortion could be restricted in one session of Congress, if conservatives would be willing to trade on taxes, minimum wage, immigration and all the other issues that Democrats hold dear. If the Democrats were offered everything else they wanted, I would bet enough would give in on abortion.

 

[pnewton]

We generally have more than two candidates, including a no-vote.

I find more and more I have to seek a third option. Our current two parties will never rein in abortion, in my opinion.

 

[lynnvinc]

I guess this might be another wedge issue – “Pope Francis Says No to Fracking” ecowatch.com/2015/01/12/pope-francis-says-no-fracking/?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=7eaaa7a4dc-Top_News_1_12_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-7eaaa7a4dc-85957569

But he sure does reel in those outside the Church

(Of course, it is not a wedge issue for all conservatives, like the Exxon CEO, who brought a lawsuit against the company that was planning to frack near his rural Texas estate. )

 

[epan]

No, because they believe the news headlines and think he’s about to change Church teaching.

One day they will get a rude awakening.

I think a more realistic assessment is that Francis has pastoral experience. His predecessor was a kind and caring man, without such experience. Benedict was a theologian and catechist.

So, now we have Pope Francis. Any pope who is compassionate and oriented toward social justice must be opposed to the behavior of the GOP. It makes perfect sense.

It’s not a matter of “liberals” (actually social moderates) expecting the Church to change its moral opinions. Nobody expects that to happen. And few people, even few Catholics, seem to care much about that. If you need confirmation of that observation, consider gay marriage, and Brazil, Belgium, France and Spain. If those countries who are overwhelmingly Catholic had an electorate which considered Church opinions on the topic to be legitimate, then how do you suppose they came to legalize gay partnerships and/or marriage?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I guess this might be another wedge issue – “Pope Francis Says No to Fracking” ecowatch.com/2015/01/12/pope-francis-says-no-fracking/?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=7eaaa7a4dc-Top_News_1_12_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-7eaaa7a4dc-85957569

Well, that’s what the title of the ecowatch article is, but I watched the entire video in that article and read all the translations of what the pope said. Nowhere did he say that he was against fracking. The article just made the claim and gave no citation for any independent verification.

 

[lynnvinc]

Archbishop Vlazny of Oregon offered these thoughts in the Portland Catholic Sentinel: “If they vote for pro-choice politicians precisely because they are pro-choice, I believe they, too, should refrain from the reception of Holy Communion because they are not in communion with the church on a serious matter. But** if they are voting for that particular politician because, in their judgment, other candidates fail significantly in some matters of great importance, for example, war and peace, human rights and economic justice, then there is no evident stance of opposition to church teaching** and reception of Holy Communion seems both appropriate and beneficial. Catholics who support pro-choice politicians still have serious responsibilities with regard to their stance on this matter. They must make it very clear to these politicians and governmental leaders that their support is in no way based on the pro-choice advocacy of these political leaders.” …

My thinking is you cannot consider the anti-environmentalists, including climate change denialists, among the GOP candidates and reps to be pro-life in any sense of the word. If they were, then abortion would have been the 1st thing on their plate. And then maybe they would have beefed up Obamacare and social services to help poor children expectant mothers more. Maybe they would have taxed the rich more to help the poor more.

But what was the first thing on their plate? Pass Keystone XL, contaminate, harm, and kill.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

 

[lynnvinc]

Well, that’s what the title of the ecowatch article is, but I watched the entire video in that article and read all the translations of what the pope said. Nowhere did he say that he was against fracking. The article just made the claim and gave no citation for any independent verification.

I also had the same problem at first, except for him holding up the anti-fracking t-shirt.

But then I realized that the person interviewing him had just made an anti-fracking film, so that was the context of the talk he had with Pope Francis. We can infer from that, including is holding up the t-shirt and the unheard part of the conversation (the pope only allowed some taping before and after the talk), that it is likely Pope Francis is anti-fracking.

Whatever the actual situation – and I think Pope Francis is very smart and well-informed, so he would know about harms from fracking, esp the water pollution he spoke of – it is good to see there are people all over the world, including many non-Catholics, very excited by Pope Francis and appreciative of him. Those he may displease or anger due to his pro-human, pro-life, pro-creation stance are in the small (but vocal) minority. I think the majority (if they are not Catholic-haters or Christian-haters) very much look up to him as a spiritual leader.

That may seem odd to Catholics who are environmentalists, since we all know he is not saying anything different from what JPII and BXVI have said over the past 25 years, but maybe it’s because he appears more genuine, walking the talk, walking the Gospel message. Also maybe it’s because the problems have not decreased but day by day, year by year they are becoming all that more serious of a threat to life on earth. The situation is getting pretty desperate. It’s like the Titanic is just about to hit the iceberg but the people are so preoccupied with wining, dining and dancing they can’t even hear the warnings…or refuse to hear them.

I would have never in my wildest dreams 25 years ago thought that today people would be debating climate change, skeptical of it, dithering on mitigating it, especially with the science continuing to come in year-after-year “it’s worse than we thought.”

Of course, that vocal minority that refuses to accept that it’s happening will not have been able to get past that point to even consider all the impacts and projected impacts the scientists are studying, so they won’t have any idea of what I’m speaking about.

 

[boar2roar]

My thinking is you cannot consider the anti-environmentalists, including climate change denialists, among the GOP candidates and reps to be pro-life in any sense of the word. If they were, then abortion would have been the 1st thing on their plate. And then maybe they would have beefed up Obamacare and social services to help poor children expectant mothers more. Maybe they would have taxed the rich more to help the poor more.

But what was the first thing on their plate? Pass Keystone XL, contaminate, harm, and kill.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

What do your views on climate change or even the environment have to do with being pro life? I’m not crazy about the green movement so what it doesn’t make me any less pro life.

Maybe you should consider that republicans don’t live in a vacuum where they get cheers for taking on these issue but rather live in a world with a hostile media and powerful interest groups that would campaign to demean them, and oust them if they did what you said. Rather we should be happy that in America at least we have a choice (many countries have all abortion parties like France, UK, Netherlands) because while the Republican’s tread softly and try to ban things like partial birth and consult with the physician the other party makes it clear that partial birth abortion is their creed and they will fight to kill the unborn.

 

[pnewton]

Whatever the actual situation – and I think Pope Francis is very smart and well-informed, so he would know about harms from fracking, esp the water pollution he spoke of – it is good to see there are people all over the world, including many non-Catholics, very excited by Pope Francis and appreciative of him. .

I would offer a word of caution here. The Holy Father will not address issues on special interest websites. It is too easy to get pictures of him and snippets taken from any context. There are plenty of reasons to think the Holy Father is his own man and will alienate many on the left and right, but this one is suspect until he comes with a definitive statement.

That said, the principle of being a faithful steward of the environment for future generations might well alienate conservatives and put Republicans at odds with Catholic moral teaching.