President Obama to receive honorary degree from Notre Dame

[twb1621]

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?

Not at all. Even the Bible states we are to follow those laws that are placed upon us provided they do not violate morality and life.

As far as this country goes look at the Declaration of Independence:

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
“…When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-(I might point out “life” is first)-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…”

Now what of the principles of this document remain in this country today? This does not describe America today.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Not at all. Even the Bible states we are to follow those laws that are placed upon us provided they do not violate morality and life.

Yeah, but that was kind of my point. Paying taxes might directly or indirectly support abortion, and if there truly is no compromise then we can’t have that.

Now what of the principles of this document remain in this country today? This does not describe America today.

In the very early days of this country, abortion was legal if done before quickening, ie when the child first stirs in the womb. Of course, abortion was a lot more rare and a lot more dangerous back then, but things haven’t changed as much as you think they have.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

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…

I have to hand it to you, at least your faith isn’t just a cover for your political philosophy, which is more than I can say for Pat Robertson.

 

[twb1621]

Yeah, but that was kind of my point. Paying taxes might directly or indirectly support abortion, and if there truly is no compromise then we can’t have that.

In the very early days of this country, abortion was legal if done before quickening, ie when the child first stirs in the womb. Of course, abortion was a lot more rare and a lot more dangerous back then, but things haven’t changed as much as you think they have.

I am not aware of any written law historically speaking legalizing Abortion but at the same time if abortion was overlooked more frequently I can’t dispute that. Regardless, my point is the morality or lack of it along with the legalization and tax based international support we now offer thanks to Obama has predominently been made possible by the Christians who make up the majority of voters. That is sad if not sickening.
This country today does not live up to the commitment or recognition of God our Creator as attested to in the Declaration of Independence and as a majority we live by the morality of the 60’s and 70’s, sex drugs, (or peace, love as you may prefer) and rock and roll mentality.

Finally, I would say to those Christians who did support him knowing his ethical (or lack of) positions, watch closely at the man we voted in. You may be dazzled by his politics while our souls suffer the consequences. Sounds kind of familiar…

 

[Luis_Santiago]

I am not aware of any written law historically speaking legalizing Abortion but at the same time if abortion was overlooked more frequently I can’t dispute that. Regardless, my point is the morality or lack of it along with the legalization and tax based international support we now offer thanks to Obama has predominently been made possible by the Christians who make up the majority of voters. That is sad if not sickening.
This country today does not live up to the commitment or recognition of God our Creator as attested to in the Declaration of Independence and as a majority we live by the morality of the 60’s and 70’s, sex drugs, (or peace, love as you may prefer) and rock and roll mentality.

Finally, I would say to those Christians who did support him knowing his ethical (or lack of) positions, watch closely at the man we voted in. You may be dazzled by his politics while our souls suffer the consequences. Sounds kind of familiar…

In the early days of the US, civil law was based on English common law, as it had been during colonial times. Laws prohibiting abortion appeared during the early to mid 19th century. But you bring up an interesting point.

Whenever the government tries to enforce a law that a large portion of the country disagrees with, criminals usually end up profiting greatly by enabling people to break the law. This happened during prohibition, it’s happening right now with regard to drugs and illegal immigration, and it would probably happen again if abortion were made illegal. The government isn’t necessarily promoting abortions, just saying that they’re not willing to commit the resources to fight this battle. I’m not arguing from a moral or theological perspective here, only a legal one, so as to try and explain the government’s actions.

The other point this brings up is that sadly, legal abortion seems to have little if any quantifiable effect on society. Essentially, there aren’t any major societal problems that can be shown to be caused by legalized abortion. I’m not sure what the solution here is.

 

[KestrelRose]

You keep comparing Obama to people like Hitler, but how about we use someone who is actually a decent human being. Say, Gandhi. According to you guys, Gandhi wouldn’t be allowed to speak at Notre Dame. After all, he was a Hindu, and his moral principles differ significantly from those of the Catholic Church in certain instances.

I don’t think that Gandi’s moral principles differed that much from Catholic principles. He was not in favor of killing unborn children, especially fully formed babies weighing 3 to 4 pounds.

 

[KestrelRose]

In the early days of the US, civil law was based on English common law, as it had been during colonial times. Laws prohibiting abortion appeared during the early to mid 19th century. But you bring up an interesting point.

Whenever the government tries to enforce a law that a large portion of the country disagrees with, criminals usually end up profiting greatly by enabling people to break the law. This happened during prohibition, it’s happening right now with regard to drugs and illegal immigration, and it would probably happen again if abortion were made illegal. The government isn’t necessarily promoting abortions, just saying that they’re not willing to commit the resources to fight this battle. I’m not arguing from a moral or theological perspective here, only a legal one, so as to try and explain the government’s actions.

The other point this brings up is that sadly, legal abortion seems to have little if any quantifiable effect on society. Essentially, there aren’t any major societal problems that can be shown to be caused by legalized abortion. I’m not sure what the solution here is.

Well, you know that many children are killed each day by their parents. Toddlers especially are difficult. Perhaps we should allow parents to kill their toddlers in safe and secure hospitals. The children would not suffer so much in that case. It certainly would be preferable to use a lethal injection rather than shaking or beating the child.

This is certainly better that the scalding that unborn children go through when a saline solution is used to kill them or being cut up alive if they have not been killed.

Killing a human being is somewhat more serious than drug addiction.

 

[fix]

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.

Perhaps you can cite evidence of your understanding of proportional reasons?

For one thing, to support legalized abortion is contrary to Catholic teaching. See the CCC as one reference. Secondly, the law is a teacher. Any public official, especially the President, does a grave disservice when he supports such immoral things.

 

[Nino]

yes how cute,your saddened…well we are outraged…I know I know we Catholic Christians have no right to be outraged by anything…we are the haters…well let me tell you ,we are not falling for that line anymore…its like some Jewish organization inviting a former Nazi concentration camp guard to speak on tolerance at their meeting…come on…give us a break for having a tiny bit of a brain left…this is outrageous…Notra Dame as has other so called Catholic universities have been taken over by evil individuals…what else can you call them.its like inviting McCain to a .Made in America first meeting…McCain has always voted to continue our invasion of slave labor products from communist china…or maybe the so called entertainer Madonna…to speak on family values and how to spot attacks against ones religion …have a nice spring

 

[elts1956]

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.

You have a very different understanding of logic than my instructor at a Catholic college many, many years ago. Logic doesn’t twist itself to suit individuals, nor does morality. Neither do they change for one’s convenience and salving of conscience.

As far as having been given permission by the Church to use one’s conscience in voting, you seem to forget, the conscience must be in accord with Church doctrine. Abortion, euthanasia etc. have been deemed non negotiable issues by Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and the magisterium of the Church since the inception of the Church. I would rather follow the Vatican with its clarity regarding morality than most of the confused, politically correct Bishops and Cardinals of USCCB.

Sorry you are so confused.

 

[mapleoak]

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.

Nowhere does the USCCB say Catholics are “not obligated to vote strictly based on abortion”. What they do say is very vague but certainly does not contradict what the Holy See has stated numerous times that we cannot be supportive of a candidate who holds a issue(s) which it defines as non-negotiable and that which no Catholic may support under pain of mortal sin. In Obama’s case he not only supports abortion (to an abominable degree), but multiple other non-negotiable issues as well. His support of abortion alone is enough to disqualify him.

Mention of following ones conscience is meaningless when one is aware of Church teaching, but chooses to disobey. Formation of our conscience is entirely under our control, whether for right or wrong.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

You have a very different understanding of logic than my instructor at a Catholic college many, many years ago. Logic doesn’t twist itself to suit individuals, nor does morality. Neither do they change for one’s convenience and salving of conscience.

Have you ever read the book “Atlas Shrugged”? It’s a crazy, awful book that contradicts nearly everything we stand for as Catholics. And yet, the philosophy it espouses is grounded in logic. Logic alone can only go so far, it must also be well-grounded in reality. It’s not that logic is faulty, it’s that our understanding of the world isn’t always logical. The Church itself teaches the dangers of rationalization, that is, using logic to justify things that are clearly wrong.

As far as having been given permission by the Church to use one’s conscience in voting, you seem to forget, the conscience must be in accord with Church doctrine. Abortion, euthanasia etc. have been deemed non negotiable issues by Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and the magisterium of the Church since the inception of the Church. I would rather follow the Vatican with its clarity regarding morality than most of the confused, politically correct Bishops and Cardinals of USCCB.

Wow. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has implied that one of your beliefs is mistaken. You respond by calling them confused and politically correct, and insisting that your own interpretation of the Vatican’s teachings is more correct than theirs. There’s nothing more I can say to you. You’re clearly beyond reason.

Sorry you are so confused.

The only thing I’m confused about is why the American Catholic Church should go from helping the poor, healing the sick, and turning the other cheek, to being just another easily-exploited arm of the Republican party.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Nowhere does the USCCB say Catholics are “not obligated to vote strictly based on abortion”. What they do say is very vague but certainly does not contradict what the Holy See has stated numerous times that we cannot be supportive of a candidate who holds a issue(s) which it defines as non-negotiable and that which no Catholic may support under pain of mortal sin. In Obama’s case he not only supports abortion (to an abominable degree), but multiple other non-negotiable issues as well. His support of abortion alone is enough to disqualify him.

Mention of following ones conscience is meaningless when one is aware of Church teaching, but chooses to disobey. Formation of our conscience is entirely under our control, whether for right or wrong.

They do say we may not support specific issues that are non-negotiable, but they don’t actually say we may not vote for a candidate that supports said issues. There’s a pretty big difference there.

 

[elts1956]

Have you ever read the book “Atlas Shrugged”? It’s a crazy, awful book that contradicts nearly everything we stand for as Catholics. And yet, the philosophy it espouses is grounded in logic. Logic alone can only go so far, it must also be well-grounded in reality. It’s not that logic is faulty, it’s that our understanding of the world isn’t always logical. The Church itself teaches the dangers of rationalization, that is, using logic to justify things that are clearly wrong.

Wow. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has implied that one of your beliefs is mistaken. You respond by calling them confused and politically correct, and insisting that your own interpretation of the Vatican’s teachings is more correct than theirs. There’s nothing more I can say to you. You’re clearly beyond reason.

The only thing I’m confused about is why the American Catholic Church should go from helping the poor, healing the sick, and turning the other cheek, to being just another easily-exploited arm of the Republican party.

Dear Luis, I did NOT say the “USCCB” is confused and trying to be politically correct. Read my post, I said MOST. There are SOME clear headed thinking clergy out there, about 100 out of over 300 Bishops, Cardinals etc. who said to vote in favor of a blatently pro abort candidate would be a grave error.

You are right though in saying there is no Eleventh Commandment stating a Catholic may never, never vote for a pro abort candidate. As it is, comparatively few are paying attention to the Fifth, so why add another one? As some of the more clear thinking members of the USCCB clarified, if both candidates are pro abort, one must choose the lesser/least of the two evils, that is, the candidate who would be the least likely to promote Intrinsic evil.

Sometimes one must use their correctly formed “Catholic” conscience to make a choice when there is no DIRECT statement by the clergy saying what is moral/immoral. Pope Benedict XVI expects those who follow the dictates of the Church to use their brains, discretion and moral judgement in making moral decisions.

P.S. Yes I have read Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead etc. by Ayn Rand, many, many years ago. Loved Atlas Shrugged. ie. Sometimes it’s okay to be a doormat, but don’t ever be wall to wall carpeting.

 

[elts1956]

They do say we may not support specific issues that are non-negotiable, but they don’t actually say we may not vote for a candidate that supports said issues. There’s a pretty big difference there.

We are what we do. That includes politicians.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Ok, so the USCCB is conflicted among themselves. You support the minority opinion, I support the majority opinion. If they can’t resolve it, then it’s safe to say we can’t either.

P.S. Yes I have read Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead etc. by Ayn Rand, many, many years ago. Loved Atlas Shrugged. ie. Sometimes it’s okay to be a doormat, but don’t ever be wall to wall carpeting.

Odd, that it’s probably the most anti-Christian book I’ve ever read, advocating extreme selfishness and flat-out rejecting any concept of God.

We are what we do. That includes politicians.

If we support a non-Catholic politician, that doesn’t mean we support all their beliefs.

 

[diggerdomer]

Nowhere does the USCCB say Catholics are “not obligated to vote strictly based on abortion”. What they do say is very vague but certainly does not contradict what the Holy See has stated numerous times that we cannot be supportive of a candidate who holds a issue(s) which it defines as non-negotiable and that which no Catholic may support under pain of mortal sin…

Nope. Wrong. Close, but not quite. The Bishops say we cannot support abortion, or other intrinsic evils. They do NOT say Catholics cannot in good conscience vote for candidates who might not agree with Catholic values; as long as Catholics are not voting for such candidates with the explicit intention of supporting their erroneous values on intrinsic evils or other non-Catholic positions.

Read for yourself: usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Nope. Wrong. Close, but not quite. The Bishops say we cannot support abortion, or other intrinsic evils. They do NOT say Catholics cannot in good conscience vote for candidates who might not agree with Catholic values; as long as Catholics are not voting for such candidates with the explicit intention of supporting their erroneous values on intrinsic evils or other non-Catholic positions.

Read for yourself: usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

I’ve posted that exact same link probably five times in this thread. Don’t be surprised when the selective memory starts in again.

 

[diggerdomer]

I’ve posted that exact same link probably five times in this thread. Don’t be surprised when the selective memory starts in again.

I know, I’ve posted it too to no avail. It’s not selective memory, it’s selective reading. Thanks anyway.

 

[mapleoak]

Nope. Wrong. Close, but not quite. The Bishops say we cannot support abortion, or other intrinsic evils. They do NOT say Catholics cannot in good conscience vote for candidates who might not agree with Catholic values; as long as Catholics are not voting for such candidates with the explicit intention of supporting their erroneous values on intrinsic evils or other non-Catholic positions.

You illustrate a good example of how dangerous being vague can be. When the USCCB was vague in the document you quoted (he he, I quoted that same document many, many, many, more times than you ) they didn’t state anything untrue per say. They did however leave out crucial information, resulting in unfortunately, many people coming to wrong conclusions due to interpretation out of context with the wholeness of Church teaching. I have earlier pointed out such documents as Evangelium Vitae as well as others put out by the Vatican for example, which should help to clarify your understanding of the philosophy of “limiting the harm” and the application of proportionate reasons. Voting for someone who supports killing any and all unborn for any reason while at the same time saying: but I don’t support his stance on abortion though, does not reconcile with the licit application of “limiting the harm”.

p.s. earlier in this thread I also indicated posting that document many times. Interesting that you would post it here in such manner as somehow a proof of your claim.