B
bbarrick8383
Guest
I think they should invite them to Notre Dame, and we should all attend.
And while we are all there, impeach all of them.
- Status
And while we are all there, impeach all of them.
E
elts1956
Guest
Also from www.faithfulcitizenship.org
USCCB Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship
The U.S. Bishops’ Reflection on Catholic Teaching and Political Life (if one reads it correctly, not an easy thing to do) says:
- 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 EUTHANSIA. In our nation,“abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignitybecause they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and thecondition 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.
- The right to life implies and is linked to other human rights—to the basic goods that every human person needs to live and thrive. All the life issues are connected, for erosion of respect for the life of any individual or group in society necessarily diminishes respect for all life. The moral imperative to respond to the needs of our neighbors—basic needs such as food, shelter, health care, education,and meaningful work—is universally binding on our consciences and may be legitimately fulfilled by a variety of means. PRUDENTIAL JUDGEMENT (my insert) Catholics must seek the best ways to respond to these needs. As Blessed Pope John XXIII taught, “[Each of us] has the right to life, to bodily integrity, and to the means which are suitable for the proper development of life; these are primarily food, clothing, shelter, rest, medical care,and, finally, the necessary social services” (Pacem in Terris, no. 11).
Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights—for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture—IS FALSE AND ILLUSORY IF THE RIGHT TO LIFE, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not DEFENDED with MAXIMUM DETERMINATION. (Christifideles Laici, no. 38)
The Catholic Church cannot tell its members who to vote for, or against. Theirs is a teaching responsibility. They have the responsibility to teach us how to live, to follow the teachings of the Church. Above, from the document you quoted, these leaders of the Church have stated the terrible reality of the intrinsic evil of abortion. If those who voted for bo had read this document with a conscience in alignment with the teachings of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, bo would not now be in the oval office.
What amazes me is that those we call Cafeteria Catholics could not at least read only two or three sentences which would have told them they could not support a man upholding and extending the right to abortion. Abortion was his platform, although he wisely did not mention it. Therefore to many people this evil of abortion was only “one of many issues.” For thinking people, it was the MAJOR issue.
There are some things WE MUST NEVER DO, as individuals or as a society. 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 EUTHANSIA[/COLOR]
What is so hard about understanding the words “They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned.”
A TRUTH IS A TRUTH EVEN IF NO ONE BELIEVES IT
A LIE IS A LIE EVEN IF EVERYONE BELIEVES IT
D
diggerdomer
Guest
E
elts1956
Guest
I did read evrery bit of it. But, isn’t that what you did? Pick and choose? If you are talking about Pope Benedict’s answer to the question, “Can one vote ever vote for a pro abortion candidate?” His answer was yes, if there are proportionate reasons/ is a proportionate reason. Most who read this do not understand the SUBJECT was about abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research etc. Were any of the other issues on the SAME moral level as these issues? Do the Bishops call War, abuse of the environment, economy etc. INTRINSIC EVILS?
E
elts1956
Guest
As I said when I began my post, reading and understanding the document on voting by the USCCB is convoluted and entangled with unnecessary verbage. One must read other documents to understand what they mangled. Read Evangelum Vitae and Veritatus Splendor, the Catholic Catechism. Don’t just take my word for what I have written. Go to the Popes, the doctors of the Church. Perhaps if YOU read with an open mind you will glean the real truth.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
I’ve read all those. Thanks for checking though.
Glad you read all of Faithful Citizenship, you’ll realize then that Catholics are not single issue voters and that Catholics are not precluded from voting for a specific candidate or party.
E
elts1956
Guest
You’re right. It all depends on following the correct teachings of the Catholic Church, not just an individual’s conscience.
Perhaps you didn’t clearly understand what Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI said. Such intrinsic evils as abortion may not be supported. Voting for bo is supporting abortion. Abortion was not the only issue. It WAS and IS the MOST IMPORTANT issue during this election and now. bo thinks this also.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
I do not support abortion Frankly, I am quite offended…how dare you presume otherwise. How would you like it if I accused you (implicitly or not) of supporting abortion? Can you give me ONE reference where I said I support abortion??? Please, if you can’t keep your uninformed accusations to yourself, find another way to vent your emotions.
. I agree with the Popes. Do you? They did not say voting for Barack Obama is the same as supporting abortion.
Of course, if you have evidence to the contrary, please enlighten us.
E
elts1956
Guest
I do not support abortion Frankly, I am quite offended…how dare you presume otherwise. How would you like it if I accused you (implicitly or not) of supporting abortion? Can you give me ONE reference where I said I support abortion??? Please, if you can’t keep your uninformed accusations to yourself, find another way to vent your emotions.
. I agree with the Popes. Do you? They did not say voting for Barack Obama is the same as supporting abortion. “Of course they didn’t come out and say if one voted for bo one was supporting abortion.” They cannot tell you WHO to vote for, but as part of their teaching responsibility, the Popes and the rest of the Magisterium have the obligation of telling faithful Catholics WHAT not to vote for. The Bishops, Popes etc. do not get lost in names of sinners, but deal ONLY with their ACTIONS. Of course, if you have evidence to the contrary, please enlighten us.
I am glad to hear you don’t support abortion. But by making the statement "Catholics are not single issue voters, (usually a statement from a Cafeteria Catholic), this to me was an IMPLICATION you do not understand the teachings of the Church when it is said by Popes, Bishops, Archbishops, that faithful Catholics MAY NOT support abortion, “IMPLYING” a faithful Catholic SHOULD NOT vote for a candidate who is pro abortion.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
You can call me a cafeteria Catholic if you want to. I refuse to the do the same to you despite what I may think,
I do not support abortion. Period.
You can infer what the Church is implying all you want. I am only going on what the Church in fact teaches.
E
elts1956
Guest
Again, and I repeat for the LAST time, the following is what the BISHOPS SAID in the USCCB document forming conscience.
- 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 EUTHANSIA
You are wrong, the Church does not teach that we, as faithful Catholics have a choice, that we can ignore the Intrinsic evils presented at any time, election, or not and pick and choose what “we” feel is important. The issue of abortion is an issue in which there was NO CHOICE. Not if you truly believe what the Church has taught for over 2000 years. I DO NOT understand why those who did vote for bo do not grasp the commandment, “Thou shall not kill”. It is very simple when one really thinks about it.
I called you no names, just said you made a statement Cafeteria Catholics make when they claim Catholics should not be one issue voters. In most of your statements you have supported their misguided decisions, saying they had/have rights which they most certainly did not have, (if they wanted to remain in communion with the Catholic Church), that of supporting the abortion platform which was coincidentaly run by bo. It would not make ANY DIFFERENCE who was running on a pro death platform, if s/he was white, purple, or blue, if s/he was Dem. Repub. Independent, Constitutional, the final answer would be the same, we as Catholics, MAY NOT SUPPORT ABORTION!!
Those that did such will have to deal with their own conscience. I am certainly not condemning them. I have no idea what was in each individual heart and soul when they went into that election booth. But I do know the difference between an absolute truth, we must not kill and the intrinsic evil of abortion which is NEVER NEVER acceptable and MAY NOT BE SUPPORTED EVER, EVER.
C
catharina
Guest
There are several threads on CA that address FOCA.
This thread addresses the horror of BO receving an honorary law degree from UofND.
Returning to this topic, I’ll say that ND’s reasoning is fatally flawed.
ND is saying to its graduates:
“He’s a terrific role model.” Disgusting.
ND is honoring him with a LAW degree.
Incredibly offensive.
I’m guessing that ND will not be around much longer as a CATHOLIC university.
The depth of contradiction ND shows in its choices indicates much evil at work there.
This thread addresses the horror of BO receving an honorary law degree from UofND.
Returning to this topic, I’ll say that ND’s reasoning is fatally flawed.
ND is saying to its graduates:
“He’s a terrific role model.” Disgusting.
ND is honoring him with a LAW degree.
Incredibly offensive.
I’m guessing that ND will not be around much longer as a CATHOLIC university.
The depth of contradiction ND shows in its choices indicates much evil at work there.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
ND is not saying to anyone: ND supports the President’s views on abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Thank God.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Yes, of course. Absolutely.
C
catharina
Guest
Sure it is, by implication at the very least.
To give HONOR to the man is to honor his values, beliefs, words and actions.
ND’s actions are beyond acceptability by any normal standards.
Why honor HIM? Why invite him at all?
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Implication. Good point. Subjective.
C
catharina
Guest
Yes, subjective.
For those (especially the young) who have no time or inclincation to wade through the garbage ND is using as a smokescreen (academic freedom, blah blah blah), the solid implication is that ND applauds the life and work of BO.
Nauseating, horrifying, evil.
S
samcarter14
Guest
My husband is a Notre Dame alumnus. I myself went to St Mary’s College, across the road, I took classes at ND, and spent a lot of social time over there.
We are both disgusted, but not surprised. Even when we were there, 15 years or so ago, ND was already losing its Catholic identity. There were pockets of faithful students, and faculty, but for the most part it was a football school, lots of drinking and partying and very little Catholic culture.
ND’s decision to honor Obama with a law degree and position as commencement speaker has simply firmed our resolve that our kids will never attend Notre Dame. We wrote a letter to the President of ND telling him so.
We are both disgusted, but not surprised. Even when we were there, 15 years or so ago, ND was already losing its Catholic identity. There were pockets of faithful students, and faculty, but for the most part it was a football school, lots of drinking and partying and very little Catholic culture.
ND’s decision to honor Obama with a law degree and position as commencement speaker has simply firmed our resolve that our kids will never attend Notre Dame. We wrote a letter to the President of ND telling him so.
C
catharina
Guest
Excellent. I applaud your decision and your action.
M
magdelaine
Guest
- Status