Republican Primary

[bbarrick8383]

Has the Catholic Church become more supportive of the Republican Party, or has the Democratic Party become too solidly supportive of immorality, namely, abortion and sexual sin? I think it is the Democratic Party that has changes. Growing up, the Democratic Party also had a conservative faction.

For what it is worth, I think the same problem exists in the Republican Party, just in difference, and less grave, areas. It is one reason I am a disinfranchised Republican. In the course of the year, do not both parties sit at odds with the bishops of the Catholic Church?

I couldn’t agree with you more.

 

[ringil]

Are you telling me to disobey my bishop, Cardinal Burke?
This is just mean-spirited.

We have been given guidance from the Bishops regarding forming our consciences. Burke’s words are as valid as the next Bishop.

What I wrote was just politics as usual and is my take on the political situation as it stands in that I want to see the President re-elected. People on the Right would be saying precisely the same thing if the tables were turned.

But regarding the larger question of mean spiritedness; this forum is full of what I would call “mean-spiritedness”. I have seen thinly veiled racism, crass and obnoxious posts related towards homosexuals, insults aimed at the poor as lazy. I have seen the President called everything short of explitives. I have seen offensive cartoons and defense of totally outlandish comments by politicians. I have seen references that the Civil Rights movement actually made things WORSE for black people. . . . . .

I don’t get that from you, you are really charitable and you work with the poor, which I think is great. I am a social worker and helping the disadvantaged is my career and my passion. I feel bad that I have offended you in my words as I do respect you- at least the “you” I can gather from posts.

My more “spicy” posts are directed at those who make their own “spicy” posts. Because if someone can give it they should be able to take it. I feel like the overwhelming chior of the Right around here should be able to handle a tiny bit of grief from the Left. Plus, being one of a few non-conservatives facing a vast majority of the Right telling you that you are morally flawed gets a little old you know.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

We have been given guidance from the Bishops regarding forming our consciences. Burke’s words are as valid as the next Bishop.

What I wrote was just politics as usual and is my take on the political situation as it stands in that I want to see the President re-elected. People on the Right would be saying precisely the same thing if the tables were turned.

But regarding the larger question of mean spiritedness; this forum is full of what I would call “mean-spiritedness”. I have seen thinly veiled racism, crass and obnoxious posts related towards homosexuals, insults aimed at the poor as lazy. I have seen the President called everything short of explitives. I have seen offensive cartoons and defense of totally outlandish comments by politicians. I have seen references that the Civil Rights movement actually made things WORSE for black people. . . . . .

I don’t get that from you, you are really charitable and you work with the poor, which I think is great. I am a social worker and helping the disadvantaged is my career and my passion. I feel bad that I have offended you in my words as I do respect you- at least the “you” I can gather from posts.

My more “spicy” posts are directed at those who make their own “spicy” posts. Because if someone can give it they should be able to take it. I feel like the overwhelming chior of the Right around here should be able to handle a tiny bit of grief from the Left. Plus, being one of a few non-conservatives facing a vast majority of the Right telling you that you are morally flawed gets a little old you know.

You can’t spell troll without lol.

 

[_Abyssinia]

We have been given guidance from the Bishops regarding forming our consciences. Burke’s words are as valid as the next Bishop.

What I wrote was just politics as usual and is my take on the political situation as it stands in that I want to see the President re-elected. People on the Right would be saying precisely the same thing if the tables were turned.

But regarding the larger question of mean spiritedness; this forum is full of what I would call “mean-spiritedness”. I have seen thinly veiled racism, crass and obnoxious posts related towards homosexuals, insults aimed at the poor as lazy. I have seen the President called everything short of explitives. I have seen offensive cartoons and defense of totally outlandish comments by politicians. I have seen references that the Civil Rights movement actually made things WORSE for black people. . . . . .

I don’t get that from you, you are really charitable and you work with the poor, which I think is great. I am a social worker and helping the disadvantaged is my career and my passion. I feel bad that I have offended you in my words as I do respect you- at least the “you” I can gather from posts.

My more “spicy” posts are directed at those who make their own “spicy” posts. Because if someone can give it they should be able to take it. I feel like the overwhelming chior of the Right around here should be able to handle a tiny bit of grief from the Left. Plus, being one of a few non-conservatives facing a vast majority of the Right telling you that you are morally flawed gets a little old you know.

If you see offensive posts that break the forum rules you report them. This isn’t about Left or Right, a Catholic is supposed to follow the teachings of the Church when it comes to voting, by wanting Obama reelected you are clearly disobeying, ignoring or rejecting Church Teaching. Obama - the president, who last week thousands of parishes a letter was read out denouncing his stance on religious liberty.

 

[ringil]

by wanting Obama reelected you are clearly disobeying, ignoring or rejecting Church Teaching.

You are incorrect. ACatholic can vote for a Pro-Choice candidate despite their stance on abortion.

 

[_Abyssinia]

You are incorrect. ACatholic can vote for a Pro-Choice candidate despite their stance on abortion.

You can if the opposing candidate is more pro choice or if they are like a ‘‘pro life terrorist’’ if there was such a person. 2012 election is in no such position of extremes. We have pro life candidates who are not terrorists or something similar.

Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.

The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be **formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.
**
The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry).

Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and votes for legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils which is morally permissible under these circumstances.

Of course, the Catholic voter could choose not to vote. But that would be a serious abdication of the Catholic voter’s civic and moral obligation to participate in the election. By not voting the Catholic voter could well be assisting in the election of candidate (A, Kerry) and while that would not carry the same guilt as formal participation in candidate (A, Kerry’s) support of abortion-on-demand it would still be sinful, even if only a sin of omission.

Those Catholic voters who love moral absolutes would have no choice but to vote for candidate (C, Peroutka), but those Catholics who recognize that in the real world it is sometimes necessary to choose the lesser of two evils in order to prevent greater harm – in this case harm to innocent unborn children would vote for candidate (B, Bush).

+Rene Henry Gracida
Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi

Candidate A is Obama in this election because he believes in abortion on demand, and stands in the way of legislation defeating that.

 

[mary_bobo]

You are incorrect. ACatholic can vote for a Pro-Choice candidate despite their stance on abortion.

And you feel comfortable doing that in view of the fact that another candidate if pro-life?

 

[estesbob]

You are incorrect. ACatholic can vote for a Pro-Choice candidate despite their stance on abortion.

Can you show us where the Church teaches this ?

 

[ringil]

usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-10-04/catholic-politics-election/50660710/1

here’s a news story regarding the new addition to the voting document issued but the bishops.

 

[_Abyssinia]

This is very serious and can not be vocalized enough - if you vote for for a candidate that supports abortion on demand, in Bishop Gracida’s words, you are guilty of formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.

That is Obama. Look at his record on abortion. He has passed and support legislation extending abortion rights:

lifenews.com/2010/11/07/obamaabortionrecord/

 

[ringil]

This is very serious and can not be vocalized enough - if you vote for for a candidate that supports abortion on demand, in Bishop Gracida’s words, you are guilty of formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.

That is Obama. Look at his record on abortion. He has passed and support legislation extending abortion rights:

lifenews.com/2010/11/07/obamaabortionrecord/

Bueven if the Bishop is stating this, that is not Catholic Doctrine. It is not a sin at all to vote for a Pro-Choice candidate despite their position on abortion.

Why am I still engaging in this? None of us is going to convince the other. I’m just losing minutes of my life.

You get the last word. All of you. I’m not giving up because I can’t prove my point. I simply can’t MAKE a point with you folks.

 

[_Abyssinia]

usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-10-04/catholic-politics-election/50660710/1

here’s a news story regarding the new addition to the voting document issued but the bishops.

Apparently dozens of individual Bishops have issued clarifications on the confusion of the document.

Archbishop Raymond Burke believes that Faithful Citizenship helped ensure the election of Obama.

Archbishop Raymond Burke, the prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, named a document on the election produced by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops that he said “led to confusion” among the faithful and led ultimately to massive support among Catholics for Barack Obama.

The US bishops’ document, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” stated that, under certain circumstances, a Catholic could in good conscience vote for a candidate who supports abortion because of "other grave reasons," as long as they do not intend to support that pro-abortion position.

Archbishop Burke, the former Archbishop of St. Louis Mo. and recently appointed head of the highest ecclesiastical court in the Catholic Church, told LifeSiteNews.com that although “there were a greater number of bishops who spoke up very clearly and firmly ... there was also a number who did not.”

But most damaging, he said, was the document “Faithful Citizenship” that “led to confusion” among the voting Catholic population.

“While it stated that the issue of life was the first and most important issue, it went on in some specific areas to say ‘but there are other issues’ that are of comparable importance without making necessary distinctions.”

Archbishop Burke, citing an article by a priest and ethics expert of St. Louis archdiocese, Msgr. Kevin McMahon, who analysed how the bishops’ document actually contributed to the election of Obama, called its proposal “a kind of false thinking, that says, ‘there’s the evil of taking an innocent and defenceless human life but there are other evils and they’re worthy of equal consideration.’

“But they’re not. The economic situation, or opposition to the war in Iraq, or whatever it may be, those things don’t rise to the same level as something that is always and everywhere evil, namely the killing of innocent and defenceless human life.”

Archbishop Burke also cited the work of the official news service of the US Catholic Bishops’ Conference, that many pro-life observers complained soft-pedalled the newly elected president’s opposition to traditional morality.

“The bishops need to look also at our Catholic News Service, CNS, they need to review their coverage of the whole thing and give some new direction, in my judgement,” he said.

lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/jan/09012805

When you have a leading Vatican prelate speak out on the problems of USSCB document, something is wrong.

Bishop Vasa who contributed to the ‘Faithful Citizenship’ document has rejected the spin that the document excuses people to vote for a pro abortion candidate:

“When we were working on the document ‘Faithful Citizenship’, and the issue of whether or not a person’s adamant pro-abortion position was a disqualifying condition, the general sense was ‘yes that is a disqualifying condition’.”

lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/1980/91/8091203

Bishops Kevin Vann and Kevin Farrell have said there are no “‘truly grave moral’ or ‘proportionate’ reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year.”

prolifedallas.org/pages/Joint_Statement

Bishop Joseph Martino has gone as far as to say:

‘‘No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese. The USCCB doesn’t speak for me.’’

The diocese released in statement which said Bishop Martino was “concerned because of the confusion and public misrepresentations about Catholic teaching on the life issues.”

“Certain groups and individuals have used their own erroneous interpretations of Church documents, particularly the U.S. Bishops’ statement on Faithful Citizenship, to justify their political positions and to contradict the Church’s actual teaching on the centrality of abortion, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research,” the statement said.

lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/oct/08102212

I believe there are two situations where a Catholic could vote for a pro abortion candidate:

1. When there is there is no pro life candidate, and you vote for a candidate who is the lesser of two evils, who is electable but may lessen the number of abortions than another would e.g. Candidate A, a candidate who is in favor of laws protecting abortions rights only in the case of rape and incest. Candidate B, who is in favor of unrestricted abortion rights. You could vote for candidate A.

You would vote for the lesser of two evils, to save some lives.

1. There may be a case that you could vote for a pro choice alternative if there is a pro life candidate who was say, a pro life Islamic terrorist. The pro lifer would have to advocate unspeakable crime.

Faithful Citizenship says, “Although it has at times been misused to present an incomplete or distorted view of the demands of faith in politics…’’

 

[Cider]

Archbishop Raymond Burke believes that Faithful Citizenship helped ensure the election of Obama.

I tend to agree with him, considering the multitudes that I saw attempting to use it as a free pass to vote for pro abortion candidates including Obama.

 

[LovePatience]

I tend to agree with him, considering the multitudes that I saw attempting to use it as a free pass to vote for pro abortion candidates including Obama.

If the Bishops as a whole believe that the major problem with their document is that people are using it as a free pass to vote for pro abortion candidates including Obama, then why did they revise the document in 2011 specifically including a criticism of people who attempt to reduce moral concerns to simply one or two matters? One would think that the Bishops would be more specific about supporting those who attempt to say that all differences in political issues are unimportant in comparison to abortion.

It would be good to actually read the document that ringil posted!

With the 2012 campaign gearing up before an angry and divided electorate, U.S. Catholic bishops on Tuesday reminded Catholic voters that they can’t cherry-pick from church teachings to justify their own political preferences, and cautioned both sides not to edit the bishops’ statements into “voter guides” to back one party or another.

The bishops’ document aims to apply “Catholic moral principles” to **a host of issues, and warns against “misguided appeals to ‘conscience’ to ignore fundamental moral claims.” At the same time, the bishops warn that it should not be used to “reduce Catholic moral concerns to one or two matters,” **or used to justify “partisan, ideological, or personal interests.”

That phrasing seems to take** direct aim at both liberal-minded Catholics who say supporting abortion rights is a matter of individual conscience, as well as conservative-leaning Catholics who say opposing abortion outweighs all other issues.**

The introductory note condenses the bishops’ priorities to six main issues, including opposition to abortion and “other threats to the lives and dignity of others who are vulnerable, sick or unwanted.” It continues with the need for conscience protections for health care workers and Catholic institutions, and the fight against gay marriage.

The bishops then cite the economic crisis and the fight against poverty, the need for immigration reform, and finally the “serious moral questions” raised by war, terrorism and violence, especially in the Middle East.

So it looks like there are six main issues.

The goal, said one church official familiar with the bishops’ thinking, was “to make everybody a little uncomfortable.”

“Democrats can’t ignore abortion and gay marriage,” said the official, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, “and Republicans can’t say that’s all that matters.”

However, no matter what the bishops say, they can be wrong. The American bishops largely supported slavery during the Civil War. This was against the direct words of Jesus in St. Bridget’s Revelations and a misinterpretation of the Pope’s teachings against the slave trade. So the individual conscience is the main guide.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I tend to agree with him, considering the multitudes that I saw attempting to use it as a free pass to vote for pro abortion candidates including Obama.

Some people cherry pick comments from the document to excuse them voting for a pro abortion candidate; some of the language in the document is out of keeping with encyclicals on pro life issues, comments from the Pope on political issues, comments from individual Bishops and Priests on political issues.

 

[CMatt25]

You didn’t do anything but prove my point.

I suppose if your point was I don’t place total faith in the Republican primary candidates or Obama then :tiphat: But that’s no surprise to me. They’re all human. Sometimes I don’t even place complete faith in myself.

 

[_Abyssinia]

If the Bishops as a whole believe that the major problem with their document is that people are using it as a free pass to vote for pro abortion candidates including Obama, then why did they revise the document in 2011 specifically including a criticism of people who attempt to reduce moral concerns to simply one or two matters? One would think that the Bishops would be more specific about supporting those who attempt to say that all differences in political issues are unimportant in comparison to abortion.

It would be good to actually read the document that ringil posted!

So it looks like there are six main issues.

However, no matter what the bishops say, they can be wrong. The American bishops largely supported slavery during the Civil War. This was against the direct words of Jesus in St. Bridget’s Revelations and a misinterpretation of the Pope’s teachings against the slave trade. So the individual conscience is the main guide.

But our conscience is formed by Church teaching. Catholics have called for it be revised. Some of the language is out of keeping with traditional Church teaching on politics. The document should be clear enough that it does not need clarification from various Bishops. There was a ‘mini’ revision last year, that did not go far enough.

 

[CMatt25]

being one of a few non-conservatives facing a vast majority of the Right telling you that you are morally flawed gets a little old you know.

It truly does.

 

[ringil]

If the Bishops as a whole believe that the major problem with their document is that people are using it as a free pass to vote for pro abortion candidates including Obama, then why did they revise the document in 2011 specifically including a criticism of people who attempt to reduce moral concerns to simply one or two matters? One would think that the Bishops would be more specific about supporting those who attempt to say that all differences in political issues are unimportant in comparison to abortion.

It would be good to actually read the document that ringil posted!
.

You pose a great question above. I can see why the Right is so dissatified with the document and critisize it to such an extent- because it does not express what they would have it say.

The document stands on it’s own and that is what matters to me- not after-the-fact insights or criticisms of individual Bishops. If the USCCB comes out with another clarification, or a whole 'nother document I’ll follow up with that. I trust that the USCCB has clearly express those ideas they want to- they’re pretty bright guys after all.

Also I did not link to the document, only to a news article regarding the stance the Bishops are taken regarding informing Catholics about potential voting choices… Unlike some around here; I only do a modricrum of checking around to inform my posts. We all have different levels of committment to engaging in internet-political discussions.

OK that’s five more minutes of my life flushed down the proverbial toilet. . . .

 

[ringil]

But our conscience is formed by Church teaching. Catholics have called for it be revised. Some of the language is out of keeping with traditional Church teaching on politics. The document should be clear enough that it does not need clarification from various Bishops. There was a ‘mini’ revision last year, that did not go far enough.

You mean not far enough in telling Cathollics they can’t vote for a pro-choice candidates? Well, maybe that wasn’t their goal in drafting the document.