President Obama to receive honorary degree from Notre Dame

[Traditional_Ang]

Perhaps we should be more focused on doing the will of God than voting for a guy because you think he’s cool. If one can accomplish this then we wouldn’t be having this discussion and the Pres. would be focusing on running the country instead of polluting the minds of kids at N.D.

Relativism can be a hard habit to kick, or so I’ve heard.

Sean:

It’s really sad when we begin to defend it because it allows us not to challenge our political positions or to change our lives and make them conform to the way God wants us to live.

In Christ, Michael

 

[magdelaine]

The UNFPA is allowed into China, and performs a lot of their health and human services work. However, they do NOT participate in enforcing the one-child policy.

This is not what the Powell commission found, and Powell is NO fan of Bush. Are you saying that they invented their testimony and conclusions?

And if you are correct, then why the concern on the part of the letter writer? All he is asking for is for Obama to investigate before funding. What is wrong with that?

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Luis, I guess you haven’t heard of “Egg Adoption” where Eggs that have been fertilized by these clinics are being “adopted” and implanted in women’s uteri. See this from a supporter of Embryonic Stem Cell Research:

How do you adopt a Frozen Egg

I’ve heard of that, but the article says flat out that only about 2% of couples allow their eggs to be used like that. A significantly larger number permit them to be used for research. In any case, it’s not common at all, and won’t be able to deal with anywhere near the number of leftover embryos from IVF.

Luis, I had a neighbor who died from Parkinson’s Disease 2 years ago who benefited from Adult Stem Cell Research - The resulting treatment lengthened his life by 4 or 5 years, and dramatically improved his life for 3 of those years. Simon’s was just one of the 1,000+ treatments that have resulted from ADULT and PLACENTAL Stem Cell Research, and researchers have now manged to make these Stem cells as Plenipotential as Embryonic Stem Cells…

Meanwhile, after spending $ Billions in Government (European and State) and local funds, NO cures or treatments have been fund or discovered in over a decade of Embryonic Stem Cell Research by researchers around the world.

I’m not sure where you’re getting this information from, but the ability to create pluripotent stem cells from adult stem cells was the direct result of embryonic stem cell research. Of course, this research was performed in Japan, since it wasn’t being funded in the US. It makes sense if you think about it even a little. In order to make non-pluripotent stem cells into pluripotent ones, you need to have pluripotent stem cells to study, ie embryonic stem cells.

I probably dislike the reasoning in the Casey Decision as much as anyone here, but you’ll see that it’s decided on “Stare Decisis”. The Nomination of Justice O’Conner was the result of what was done to Judge Bork during his Confirmation Hearings - It seems that you’ve forgotten what happened to Judge Bork during who was profoundly mistreated by the Democratic Senate during his Confirmation Hearings because he was Pro-life and a faithful Catholic.

We can be sure that Justice Bork would not have voted to AFFIRM Roe v. Wade in the Casey Decision. Bork’s scholarship (and he was and is a scholar) probably would have persuaded Justice Kennedy, and that would have given us a 6-3 decision Affirming the Penn. Law and Overturning Roe v. Wade in part.

And, It seems that you’ve forgotten the infamous Clarence Thomas Confirmation Hearings where Justice Thomas was accused of just about everything the Democrats could think of - If you didn’t know better, you’d have thought it was an extended meeting of the Sanhedrin with all of the hateful testimony they elicited. Of course, Justice Thomas is a faithful Catholic and Pro-Life.

One has to wonder what would have happened if President George H.W. Bush, who wasn’t really dedicated to the Pro-Life cause, hadn’t gone through that massively unpleasantly experience…

Continued on Next Post…
Your Brother in Christ, Michael

So if Bork was on the Supreme Court when Planned Parenthood v. Casey came up, you think Bork could have convinced Kennedy to side with the minority. That’s quite a stretch. Anyway, the court ruled that it shouldn’t change its decisions just because the members of the court have changed, and that actually changing the law is the job of the legislative branch.

The bit about Abortion Rates increasing during the Reagan and Bush Administrations is false - Tables available here:

Abortion in the United States - Statistics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Statistics
CDC Abortion Surveillance – United States
cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm

Abortions clearly increased under Reagan, peaked under Bush, and decreased under Clinton. They seem to have leveled off under W, with what appears to be a small net decrease.

You’re trying to justify knowingly voting for a Pro-Abortion Candidate when there was a Pro-life Candidate available. I think in your heart you know what the right thing to do was, or you wouldn’t be defending the indefensible. You’re better off going to the Confessional Booth and getting Absolution for this sin from our Lord, Who is Love and Mercy Himself and Who longs to forgive our every sin.

I’m sorry, but this off-topic conversation has gone on long enough. It’s time we closed it down and returned to the original topic of what we’re going to do about ND and the Honoring of the most Pro-Abortion President in our country’s history by a Catholic University that bears the name of “Our Lady”.

I’ve signed 2 petitions and written 2 letters. I’ll post the 2 letters in later posts.

Your Brother and Servant in Christ, Michael

I’m not going to defend every decision related to war that has been made by every president since the end of World War II. But the fact remains that despite being pro-life, George W. Bush has done an exceedingly poor job as President.

There is no reason for me to believe I’ve sinned by supporting Obama, and I’m certain you can understand my decision to trust my priest and bishop in matters of faith more than I trust you.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Luis:

This has been discussed ad nauseum in various threads in Catholic Answers Forum. The Pope and the bishops made it clear in various statements that, if given a choice between a Candidate who is Pro-life and one who is Pro-abortion, we have to vote for the one who is Pro-Life…

Hardly. My priest is no liberal. He used to be a Marine chaplain and was deployed in Bosnia. He’s one of the most intelligent priests I’ve known, and was reassigned to our parish in order to fix a lot of financial problems that had come up due to mismanagement by the previous priest. Anyway, he seemed to favor Obama, and said that we are to keep in mind the Church’s teachings when we vote. But he did say that we must vote after giving a lot of thought and prayer to our decisions, and that all issues must be considered, not just one. The bishop of my diocese has said pretty much the same.

The USCCB, which is the highest Catholic authority in the US has said that there are two fallacies we must try and avoid. The first fallacy is that abortion is not an important issue. Clearly it is, and we must treat it as such. The second fallacy is that other issues are not important and only abortion must be considered. They’re pretty clear that Catholics aren’t obligated to vote any particular way.

… They further stated that the only time we could do otherwise is for PROPORTIONATE REASONS (i.e. other intrinsic evils). Although Pope John Paul II spoke out against the American invasion of Iraq, he also made it clear that he was doing so as a matter of OPINION and NOT as a matter of FAITH AND MORALS…

I read a nice long paper on intrinsic evils, and it’s not as clear as everyone here seems to think it is. At first I had confused the term with something else, and I admitted my mistake and apologized. Despite what anyone may believe, I’m not trying to convince anyone here that I’m right; that would be an exercise in futility. My goal is to better understand my own faith.

That being said, intrinsic evils aren’t necessarily worse than other evils; they are simply wrong in every circumstance whereas other evils may not be evil in other contexts. For instance, war is not always evil, but supporting invading Iran would certainly be more evil than supporting gay marriage.

… Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have further made it clear that, while their opposition to the invasion of Iraq was a Matter of OPINION, the Church’s opposition to ABORTION was and is a matter of FAITH AND MORALS. Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have made it clear that ABORTION is an INTRINSIC EVIL for which their is no justification, while the Iraq War was and is a matter of PRUDENTIAL JUDGMENT.

John Paul II even made it clear that he didn’t have all of the facts and that he could be wrong. NO POPE HAS EVER SAID THAT OF ABORTION!!

Luis, you must not know the original Mexico City Policy, or what President Barack Obama did. Here is the Link to President Obama’s Executive Order…

You’re right, I learned something from reading this. For instance, NGOs are not allowed to use USAID funds to perform abortions as a method of birth control, and haven’t been since 1961. However, the Mexico City policy denies all funding to any organization that performs or advises on abortions even though they aren’t using US funds to perform abortions anyway. So essentially, these NGOs are being funded by the US now, but US money still can’t actually be used to perform abortions.

The Executive Act said,
The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151b(f)(1)), prohibits nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that receive Federal funds from using those funds “to pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family planning, or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions.”… President George W. Bush reinstated the policy in 2001, implementing it through conditions in USAID grant awards, and subsequently extended the policy to “voluntary population planning” assistance provided by the Department of State.
There’s nothing in the act about a poor 9-year-old girl being brought in by her mother because she had been raped. Although, I suspect that you referring to a case I rad about recently in Espressoline:

Drifting Mines - In Africa the Condom, In Brazil Abortion
chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1337637?eng=y

In this article, it’s pretty clear that the family didn’t want the Abortions (twins), and that the only people who really cared for the girl and her mother were the members of the Catholic Church.

Continued in Next Post,
Your Brother and Servant in Christ, Michael

I didn’t read that article, I just pulled that example out of thin air. It’s actually irrelevant though, since the Mexico City policy doesn’t affect abortion in the cases of rape, incest, or where it’s necessary to save the life of the mother.

Luis,
Continued from Previous Post…

Women who been raped have generally tend to say that the experience of the Abortion was like a Second Rape, while having the child turned out to be Redemptive…

rachelsvineyard.org/aboutus/ourstory.htm
boundless.org/regulars/kaufman/a0000848.html
pregnantpause.org/aborted/curerape.htm
afterabortion.org/rape.html

Not always. In many cases, yes. I’ve heard the reverse too, that some women feel as though they are regaining a sense of control by having the abortion. Not that I agree with that, I’m just saying that not all women feel the same.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

This is not what the Powell commission found, and Powell is NO fan of Bush. Are you saying that they invented their testimony and conclusions?

And if you are correct, then why the concern on the part of the letter writer? All he is asking for is for Obama to investigate before funding. What is wrong with that?

I’ll quote from my old friend Nick Kristof here, in an article he wrote last year:

*President Bush said today that he would withhold all U.S. funds for the U.N. Population Fund for the seventh straight year (Colin Powell sneaked it by the White House in the administration’s first year). That is American policy-making at its most inane.

The reason given for withholding the U.S. funds is that the Population Fund (universally called UNFPA, after its old acronym) supports forced abortions in China. Even if that were true, it would be ridiculous to withhold funds for UNFPA activities against maternal mortality in Africa because of its work in China. But in any case, UNFPA has been a major force against compulsion of any kind in China, as the U.S. blue-ribbon committee that investigated the charges found. In the areas in China where UNFPA set up a model program, there is no compulsion and the abortion rate is lower than in the U.S.

Most important, UNFPA convinced China in 1992 to switch to a more effective but more expensive IUD, averting half a million abortions each year, 5 million abortions a decade. Does any anti-abortion group have that good a record?

One of the major challenges around the world is the need for family planning, as well as assistance in fighting AIDS and maternal mortality. That’s UNFPA’s cause, and it’s appalling that the U.S. is for the seventh straight year boycotting this worthy effort.*

 

[Nino]

nonsense as usual…one can tell quite easily about an individual public servent by his or her record…I only vote for a candidate who is pro-innocent life,for capital punishment,anti no win wars,must be against open borders,against giving up our nation hood to the UN,against bailouts for the internanational bankers,must be against nafta and gatt, etc etc…you see boys and girls a consistent attack against all left wing fascist nazi programs…I only vote for such a candidate…to smirk that many here on this site are feeble minded and easily fall for a trick like…golly I am for lower taxes and peace and love and flowers etc…etc…come on the vast majority on this site can see thru such propaganda…my rep is Cong.King and he is horrible…supposidly pro-live he voted against the impeachment of Clinton,has never voted against no win wars,or did anything about our porous open borders,is frankly just a tool of the left wing establishment…so no I have never voted for Peter King and never will…se right there your arguments are proven false…

 

[elts1956]

There is only a struggle because there is confusion and the confusion is the result of not understanding that our faith begins with the Cross. Scandal is a word used to describe a feeling of being personally attacked. There is no attack against our faith at ND. Look at your verse in #6. Who are the little ones? When we limit our description of Obama to him being a baby killer then are we causing innocent people in our faith to sin by our restricted understanding of him? Do we then create a hostile relationship with those who we want to convert? Paul became all things to all people in order to convert them.

John Paul II said “…in the profound and magnificent mystery of the ‘Communion of Saints’…every soul that rises above itself raises up the world. To this ‘law of ascent’ there unfortunately corresponds the ‘law of descent’. Consequently on can speak of a ‘communion of sin’, whereby a soul that lowers itself through sin drags down with itself the Church and, in some way, the whole world. In other words there is no sin, not even the most intimate and secret one, that exclusively concerns the person committing it. With greater or lesser violence, with greater or lesser harm, every sin has repercussions on the entire ecclesial body and on the whole human family.”–Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 2 December '84
The human response at ND is to cry scandal and this does nothing to help the unborn. It only causes the innocent to be angry and then it is labeled righteous anger. I do not think so.

" Paul became all things to all people in order to convert them." If St. Paul became “all things to all people” how was he able to teach any truth? Please explain.

 

[elts1956]

I love my faith and I am pro-life pre-birth and pro-life after birth. Without my faith I am nothing. Obama coming to ND and receiving a meaningless degree is not the threat in my opinion.
Why can’t this be seen as an opportunity for conversion and thank God for this opportunity?
The best chance to stop abortion is for the conversion of this president. The reality is he will speak at commencement and will receive a meaningless honor. That is what God has allowed. Instead of being scandalized and outraged why not offer suggestions that will exhibit how beautiful our faith is and give the world something that it would never expect to see in this situation.
The world will expect protests because that is the way of the world. Can anyone come up with something other than being outraged.

Dear Ronald, go to www.ndresponse.com and see what the students who are protesting Obama’s appearance at the 2009 Commencement are doing.

First, they are asking that everyone send empty red envelopes to the Knights of Columbus office which will “they hope” will be given to Obama by Jenkins on May 17.

Second, they are asking everyone to join in the Million Rosaries for Obama’s Conversion Campaign.They will then give this Spiritual Bouquet to Obama on May 17. Go to the site and sign up. I have.

 

[Ronald_E]

" Paul became all things to all people in order to convert them." If St. Paul became “all things to all people” how was he able to teach any truth? Please explain.

Paul seemed to understand the psychology of the people he wanted to convert and he would approach them through understanding their belief system. For example, with the Greek gods he understood that the Greeks were searching for a god who encompassed the qualities that had been revealed to Paul in Christ. I haven’t gone to the bible to read this recently so it is just from memory. So he would find what he had in common with them and he would speak their language, in a sense, in order to create a sense of connection with them in order that they may be more open to hearing the Gospel.
That is one example.

 

[diggerdomer]

" Paul became all things to all people in order to convert them." If St. Paul became “all things to all people” how was he able to teach any truth? Please explain.

Paul says this; he explains it in 1 Cor 9.

 

[Ronald_E]

Paul says this; he explains it in 1 Cor 9.

Thanks Digger, I was too lazy to look for it.

 

[magdelaine]

Interesting post on “Notre Shame”: blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_thompson/blog/2009/04/15/obamas_notre_shame_pr_disaster_could_cost_him_millions_of_catholic_votes

Archbishop of NY Dolan added his thoughts today, God bless him.

 

[Nino]

This whole sickening episode reminds me of when the "Rev.Pat Robertson " endorsed Rudy Guiliani for president last year…this shocked his many supporters…how could this man endorse a man with such a dismal ammoral record?? I recall emailing my disgust to Pats organization and warned the staff to resign for the organization has been taken over by satan…the answer I received was that ‘the rev.Robertson was speaking for himself and not his organization etc etc’ sure.sure ,sure…and so it goes…the more bizarre the action,so must be the answer…such dissent leads to intellectual self-deception,which leads to behavorial self-deception…oops,gotta go…another ship of tea just pulled into the harbor…lets go rebs…

 

[elts1956]

Luis:

This has been discussed ad nauseum in various threads in Catholic Answers Forum. The Pope and the bishops made it clear in various statements that, if given a choice between a Candidate who is Pro-life and one who is Pro-abortion, we have to vote for the one who is Pro-Life…

… They further stated that the only time we could do otherwise is for PROPORTIONATE REASONS (i.e. other intrinsic evils). Although Pope John Paul II spoke out against the American invasion of Iraq, he also made it clear that he was doing so as a matter of OPINION and NOT as a matter of FAITH AND MORALS…

… Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have further made it clear that, while their opposition to the invasion of Iraq was a Matter of OPINION, the Church’s opposition to ABORTION was and is a matter of FAITH AND MORALS. Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have made it clear that ABORTION is an INTRINSIC EVIL for which their is no justification, while the Iraq War was and is a matter of PRUDENTIAL JUDGMENT.

John Paul II even made it clear that he didn’t have all of the facts and that he could be wrong. NO POPE HAS EVER SAID THAT OF ABORTION!!

Luis, you must not know the original Mexico City Policy, or what President Barack Obama did. Here is the Link to President Obama’s Executive Order…

The Executive Act said,
The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151b(f)(1)), prohibits nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that receive Federal funds from using those funds “to pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family planning, or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions.”… President George W. Bush reinstated the policy in 2001, implementing it through conditions in USAID grant awards, and subsequently extended the policy to “voluntary population planning” assistance provided by the Department of State.
There’s nothing in the act about a poor 9-year-old girl being brought in by her mother because she had been raped. Although, I suspect that you referring to a case I rad about recently in Espressoline:

Drifting Mines - In Africa the Condom, In Brazil Abortion
chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1337637?eng=y

In this article, it’s pretty clear that the family didn’t want the Abortions (twins), and that the only people who really cared for the girl and her mother were the members of the Catholic Church.

Continued in Next Post,
Your Brother and Servant in Christ, Michael

Unfortunately we had two candidates for Presidency that were both pro abortion. ie. Did not hold with the Church’s absolute teaching on abortion. Obama, the completely pro choice candidate, and John McCain who supported abortion in “restricted instances”. In such a case, the Church said we must vote for the candidate who was less/least likely to promote the spread of abortion. So we had the choice of McCain, or a third party candidate to vote for. If one voted for a third party to perfectly appease their conscience, then it was more likely bo would win. In casting a basically negative vote, they essentially voted for bo.

I am posting this as some Catholic voters, in defending their choice of bo, said neither candidate was pro life. They also excused their vote for bo, saying one must be completely pro life to call one self such. They insisted one must be against the War in Iraq and the death penalty in order to honestly call one self pro life. Sadly these citizens did not understand the issues of Intrinsic evil which one may NEVER support and those of Prudential Judgement. ie. the War in Iraq and the death penalty.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Unfortunately we had two candidates for Presidency that were both pro abortion. ie. Did not hold with the Church’s absolute teaching on abortion. Obama, the completely pro choice candidate, and John McCain who supported abortion in “restricted instances”. In such a case, the Church said we must vote for the candidate who was less/least likely to promote the spread of abortion. So we had the choice of McCain, or a third party candidate to vote for. If one voted for a third party to perfectly appease their conscience, then it was more likely bo would win. In casting a basically negative vote, they essentially voted for bo.

I am posting this as some Catholic voters, in defending their choice of bo, said neither candidate was pro life. They also excused their vote for bo, saying one must be completely pro life to call one self such. They insisted one must be against the War in Iraq and the death penalty in order to honestly call one self pro life. Sadly these citizens did not understand the issues of Intrinsic evil which one may NEVER support and those of Prudential Judgement. ie. the War in Iraq and the death penalty.

I wish someone would actually show me where exactly it says faithful Catholics can never ever ever support the more pro-choice of two candidates, even if that candidate is more pro-life in other respects, ie, funding UNFPA, which actually prevented millions of coerced abortions in China. Being pro-life means more than just being against abortion you know. And by “proportional reasons”, I’m pretty sure that includes the fact that neither candidate actually has the power to end abortions in the US, or even add legal limits to them for that matter. Even the supreme court doesn’t have that power. Only congress does.

 

[elts1956]

I wish someone would actually show me where exactly it says faithful Catholics can never ever ever support the more pro-choice of two candidates, even if that candidate is more pro-life in other respects, ie, funding UNFPA, which actually prevented millions of coerced abortions in China. Being pro-life means more than just being against abortion you know. Luis, Luis, how many times must one define Intrinsic Evil for you compared to those issues in which we as Catholics can make Prudential Judgements? =“Red”]And by “proportional reasons”, I’m pretty sure that includes the fact that neither candidate actually has the power to end abortions in the US, or even add legal limits to them for that matter. Even the supreme court doesn’t have that power. Only congress does.

C’mon Luis, think about it. If the Church says an evil, such as abortion, is NON NEGOTIABLE what does that mean? Can we, as Catholics, rationalize what a proportionate reason is? Oh yeah, “I think I’ll choose to vote for a candidate even though s/he is the most pro abortion (supporter of an IntrinsicEvil) candidate we have ever had because I am worried about the economy, war, environment” etc. etc. etc. This is called RELATIVISM in which ALL issues are equal and one can make no judgement as to which is more evil than another. It means that one does not believe in absolutes.

And by “proportional reasons”, I’m pretty sure (WRONG) that includes the fact that neither candidate actually has the power to end abortions in the US, or even add legal limits to them for that matter.

ANY reason one thinks is proportionate must EQUATE MORALLY to ANOTHER Intrinsic Evil so judged by the Catholic Church. ‘WHATS’ , such as abortion, euthanasia, cloning, embryonic stem cell research and homosexual marriage, CANNOT BE COMPARED with WHO “CANDIDATES” can end abortion. In the instance of evaluating WHO can end abortion, one must COMPARE CANDIDATES, NOT proportionate reasons. You are tryng to compare potatoes and oranges and make them the same fruit . Not LOGICAL nor POSSIBLE.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

C’mon Luis, think about it. If the Church says an evil, such as abortion, is NON NEGOTIABLE what does that mean? Can we, as Catholics, rationalize what a proportionate reason is? Oh yeah, “I think I’ll choose to vote for a candidate even though s/he is the most pro abortion (supporter of an IntrinsicEvil) candidate we have ever had because I am worried about the economy, war, environment” etc. etc. etc. This is called RELATIVISM in which ALL issues are equal and one can make no judgement as to which is more evil than another. It means that one does not believe in absolutes.

And by “proportional reasons”, I’m pretty sure (WRONG) that includes the fact that neither candidate actually has the power to end abortions in the US, or even add legal limits to them for that matter.

ANY reason one thinks is proportionate must EQUATE MORALLY to ANOTHER Intrinsic Evil so judged by the Catholic Church. ‘WHATS’ , such as abortion, euthanasia, cloning, embryonic stem cell research and homosexual marriage, CANNOT BE COMPARED with WHO “CANDIDATES” can end abortion. In the instance of evaluating WHO can end abortion, one must COMPARE CANDIDATES, NOT proportionate reasons. You are tryng to compare potatoes and oranges and make them the same fruit . Not LOGICAL nor POSSIBLE.

Your logic is completely… well… illogical. My priest, my bishop, and the USCCB are significantly clearer on the issue, and all have stated that Catholics are allowed to vote their conscience in an election. It’s not some giant mortal sin to vote for Barack Obama, and treating it like it is is just dishonest.

 

[mapleoak]

Your logic is completely… well… illogical. My priest, my bishop, and the USCCB are significantly clearer on the issue, and all have stated that Catholics are allowed to vote their conscience in an election. It’s not some giant mortal sin to vote for Barack Obama, and treating it like it is is just dishonest.

Note that you are responsible for the proper formation of your conscience. If your conscience directs you to kill an innocent human being, it is malformed. If it directs you to vote for a pro-abortion politician, it is malformed. Following a malformed conscience is not an excuse to sin. Especially now that you are aware of the Church’s teaching on non-negotiable issues. Invincible ignorance is not at issue.

 

[twb1621]

Your logic is completely… well… illogical. My priest, my bishop, and the USCCB are significantly clearer on the issue, and all have stated that Catholics are allowed to vote their conscience in an election. It’s not some giant mortal sin to vote for Barack Obama, and treating it like it is is just dishonest.

We should vote our conscience, and if a Christian and faithful to God, our conscience would tell us supporting a person who will promote the taking of lives of the most innocent and defenseless of humans is wrong, and if wrong, not to support such a person by placing them in the authoritative position to promote such horridness. Because of the number of Christians who supported this person with their votes, he is in office today. Had Christians remained faithful to God and united, there wouldn’t have been a politician promoting or supporting abortion in the first place, we opened the door and invited it in as the majority.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Note that you are responsible for the proper formation of your conscience. If your conscience directs you to kill an innocent human being, it is malformed. If it directs you to vote for a pro-abortion politician, it is malformed. Following a malformed conscience is not an excuse to sin. Especially now that you are aware of the Church’s teaching on non-negotiable issues. Invincible ignorance is not at issue.

No… my priest, my bishop, and the USCCB have all said Catholics are not obligated to vote strictly based on abortion or any other issue, and doing the logical gymnastics to make it appear that way is dishonest. I’m pretty sure my priest planned to vote for Obama when I talked to him about it.

Besides, if you were right, then pretty much any action which supported the United States would be a mortal sin, like paying taxes or joining the military, since we would be supporting a country whose central government has said abortions are a right. If supporting intrinsic evils is really so non-negotiable, then how can you support the US?