G
gilliam
Guest
They all do the same thing. They drop out when they run out of money
- Status
L
LovePatience
Guest
There is clearly a difference on these issues. Obama did not support the Iraq war, and he has just pulled out of Iraq. Bush went in because of his father. Although he initially realized war was bad and campaigned on “no more nation building”, he stacked his cabinet with the “Vulcans” who did not share his views and dropped those views in the blink of an eye.
They are cut and dry issues.
Read more: foxnews.com/stor//0,2933,80875,00.html#ixzz1lTUPTefR
On September 13, 2002, US Catholic bishops signed a letter to President Bush stating that any “preemptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq” could not be justified at the time. They came to this position by evaluating whether an attack against Iraq would satisfy the criteria for a just war as defined by Catholic theology.
The language is a clear and unambiguous statement unlike the statements that being pro-life requires being wedded to a party that has appointed two justices - Souter and Kennedy - who have chosen not to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Why would contraception be an important issue?
Both parties are not in favor of decreasing poverty and hunger. What party said this?
The main contenders of the GOP have zero plans to reduce poverty but do have plans to cut social programs that are aimed at reducing poverty; the plan to let manna fall from the sky is not a plan. Malta is a country that has no absolute poverty, and many states in Europe have very low levels. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
What the pope has said is the opposite. He has called for more government (oh, did I say a naughty word
) to help the poor.
E
estesbob
Guest
3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.There is clearly a difference on these issues. Obama did not support the Iraq war, and he has just pulled out of Iraq. Bush went in because of his father. Although he initially realized war was bad and campaigned on “no more nation building”, he stacked his cabinet with the “Vulcans” who did not share his views and dropped those views in the blink of an eye.
They are cut and dry issues.
Read more: foxnews.com/stor//0,2933,80875,00.html#ixzz1lTUPTefR
On September 13, 2002, US Catholic bishops signed a letter to President Bush stating that any “preemptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq” could not be justified at the time. They came to this position by evaluating whether an attack against Iraq would satisfy the criteria for a just war as defined by Catholic theology.
The language is a clear and unambiguous statement unlike the statements that being pro-life requires being wedded to a party that has appointed two justices - Souter and Kennedy - who have chosen not to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Why would contraception be an important issue?
Both parties are not in favor of decreasing poverty and hunger. What party said this? The main contenders of the GOP have zero plans to reduce poverty but do have plans to cut social programs that are aimed at reducing poverty; the plan to let manna fall from the sky is not a plan. Malta is a country that has no absolute poverty, and many states in Europe have very low levels. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
What the pope has said is the opposite. He has called for more government (oh, did I say a naughty word
Pope Benedict XVI
*Obviously, we have other important issues facing us this fall: the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration justice. But we can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children.
*
Archbishop Charles Chaput
L
LovePatience
Guest
Can you explain to me how the Republican party, namely Mitt Romney, will reduce abortion?
I
ishii
Guest
Let me offer a different take - and I assume, rightfully or not, that you are sincerely interested in the truth about the history of that era and not just a partisan shill trying to score political points regardless of the truth. The old “Any supreme court justice nominated by a Republican should be a guarenteed vote to overturn Roe V Wade and anything short of that standard proves that the Republican party is not pro-life” argument is fallacious. I will explain this once more, and assume that you just didn’t read my previous posts.
The Souter nomination came on the heals of the Robert Bork nomination, and I don’t think we can overestimate the influence the Bork nomination debacle had on Bush’s decision to nominate Souter. Bork would have made an excellent contructionist justice. Unfortunately the Democrat controlled Senate did not want a justice who believed in the constitution. Bork scared the heck out of them. Kennedy, Biden (catholics, btw) used their power to derail Bork’s nomination and used Bork’s extensive paper trail to paint a (wrong) picture of a man who was racist and bigoted - who wanted to turn back the clock on all the progressive advances the country had made in the past eighteen years - such as giving women the right to kill their unborn children. Bush wasn’t going to make the same mistake as Reagan. He nominated someone without much of a paper trail which it turns out was a gamble. But Souter fooled both Bush and John Sununu - the Chief of Staff who was convinced that Souter was a good constructionist. Souter turned out to be a liberal just like the Democrat nominated justices. What the whole episode proved was just how important it is for a president to have control of the senate when nominating justices. It also proved that there are no guarentees with any nominee. They are people, not robots, and in the end will vote according to how they want. I don’t think we should judge Bush too harshly for the nomination of Souter considering the circumstances. Furthermore, Bush did nominate Clarence Thomas who has been part of the stalwart group that is consistently contructionist. In that he joins Scalia (thanks Reagan) and Robert and Alito (thanks George W Bush). While there are no guarentees, it is realistic to believe in a solid chance that the next president, if Republican, would give us another justice in the mold of Scalia, et al. Of course a GOP controlled Senate would help a great deal. I realize this does not fit the convenient and superficial narrative that you outline in your posts, but I do think its much closer to the reality of what happened.
LOL! your assertion that the government is “more efficient” . Government is the epitome of inefficiency. If you don’t believe me, go to the Dept. of Moter Vehicles or any other govt. agency and compare their effeciency with that of say, a privately owned members only warehouse. Or a private charity. Also, another question: what “problem” has been reduced due to government intervention?
I would say that the GOP has a different plan to reduce poverty. It involves more opportunity and a growing economy. Wouldn’t you say that for those in poverty, a job would be a better thing than a welfare handout? Some might say Democrat party wants to keep people poor and dependent on government handouts and assistance so that they will get their votes. Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always get the political support of Paul.
Ishii
C
CMatt25
Guest
I suppose they have. It’s interesting though that the turnout is down this year in the Republican primaries. I saw where FL was down about 15% if I’m not mistaken. I’d have thought in a yr where they have a chance of defeating an incumbant who is as disliked in their circles, there would be more enthusiasm. Maybe though it’s just that they don’t really like Romney all that much and aren’t all that happy with the field in general. I did just watch Newt’s press conference though from NV where he appeared defiant and ready to continue on into March against Mitt, saying he could be at about parody with Mitt after TX. I don’t necessarily seeing it happening though.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Yes Ringil I recall you were right on that one too. :tiphat: I figured it was going to be Romney with the exceptions of having some 2nd thoughts when at the time Newt was up in Iowa before the Romney attacks hit the airways. And then after Newt won SC, I thought briefly he had a shot in FL. But the GOP has a history of nominating next in line. Of course if that trend were to continue I suppose that might make Newt the Republican nominee in 2016.
C
CMatt25
Guest
I’d use the ignore feature too except then you never know what is being said about you behind your back. So at the moment I’m just ignoring the same repeated posts over and over by not responding.
R
rlg94086
Guest
I love how liberals think they have the moral high ground on war because of one war - Iraq. 
I have a harder time ignoring history…even recent history.
I have a harder time ignoring history…even recent history.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Bombing Libya with drones…ok. Killing people in Serbia…ok. Invading Viet Nam…ok. Dropping nuclear bombs on Japan…ok. Iraq? Evil!!! It is just plain hypocritical to claim the moral high ground as a Democrat.
Nope. They’re not. Read the Catechism.
Wow. Okay…again, read the Catechism. And, you might want to keep up on current events.
Ishii explained it very well. And, the Holy Father did not call for more social welfare programs. He called for more economic regulation. The Church teaches that this is the appropriate role for government. Read the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church…especially Chapter 7 on Economic Life.Both parties are not in favor of decreasing poverty and hunger. What party said this? The main contenders of the GOP have zero plans to reduce poverty but do have plans to cut social programs that are aimed at reducing poverty; the plan to let manna fall from the sky is not a plan. Malta is a country that has no absolute poverty, and many states in Europe have very low levels. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
What the pope has said is the opposite. He has called for more government (oh, did I say a naughty word
L
LovePatience
Guest
Yes, dropping nuclear bombs on Japan was ok to end the Holocaust. The fact that conservatives opposed intervention in the Holocaust in the first place and opposed immigration of the Jews into the United States due to anti-semitism despite their persecution in the Holocaust is the reason why they justly lose many votes.
Have read the Cathechsim and your thoughts on just war and the death penalty are not supported by it. Can you show how they are?
The Cathechism says contraception is wrong, but it is also a venial sin. If people are voting based on it, they are priotizing relatively unimportant issues.
The Virgin Mary at Fatima.
Sounds to me like she was targetting conservative Christians here as those are the people most likely to stand up proudly against impurity while ignoring other sins. That seems to be the refrain anyways: ignore everything but abortion as there is only one important issue while any other moral issue is up for dispute.
It IS an appropriate role for government, and this is not a role that the GOP is pursuing as it is Nixon, Reagan, and Bush who have been the champions of deregulation in their haste to cut government.
.thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/11/08/364404/gingrich-wall-street-deregulation-mistak/?mobile=nc Yet, even Gingrich admits that his prior support of reforms in favor of deregulation were a mistake.
But its not as if this matters to conservatives though, it doesn’t concern the abortion issue so it is “prudential decision” whatever else anyone supports even if it caused our recession.
And Reagan is divine.
I
ishii
Guest
L
LovePatience
Guest
You didn’t actually answer my questions. What about Kennedy? He isn’t Souter.
K
kubark
Guest
Here is what the Catechism says:
2370.
Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil.
The one caveat comes from the USCCB, which states in its “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services,” in directive # 36 that:
“…A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing,* there is no evidence that conception has occurred *already, she may be treated with *medications *that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.”
K
kubark
Guest
I have already been over this with you, estesbob. Why do you persist is misinterpreting this statement. As it has been explained to you on numerous occassions:
The Holy Father is talking about the waging of Just Wars.
Catholics** are not **allowed to “wage” unjust wars.
There can be no “diversity of opinion” among Catholics over the Just War criteria defined in the Catechism. While there can be no diversity of opinion on what constitutes a just war, there can be “diversity of opinion” among Catholics over whether a just war must be waged. Just because a war is determined to be Just, does not mean that it must be waged. The Holy Father is saying that Catholics may “be at odds” with the Holy Father on the decision to wage war (Just War, of course)" and “would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.” But Catholics may not “be at odds” with the Holy Father on the issues of abortion and euthanasia which are never Just.
Once the proper authority has determined that a war is just, then there may be a “diversity of opinion” among Catholics as to whether or not that war** must **be waged.
The Cathechism goes on to say that “the evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgement of those who have responsibility for the common good” (emphasis mine). The Cathechism is saying is that there are absolute criteria that must be met for a war to be declared “Just” and that “those who have responsibility for the common good” get to make an “evaluation of these condititons for moral legitimacy.” The one responsible for the common good **does not get to determine the criteria for Just War. They get to determine if those criteria are met before they declare a Just War. As I said earlier, in the United States, the Congress has the responsibility for waging war and therfore for determing that a war is Just before **they wage it.
K
kubark
Guest
Obviously, you are not at all familiar with the guidance of Pope John Paul II and the statements of then Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran and Archbishop Renato Raffaele Martino and Cardinal Pio Laghi (to name a few), that the 2003 Iraq War and “military interventionism” were a defeat for humanity which could not be justified morally or legally, and that the just war theory could not justify such a “preventive” and “preemptive” war.
Here are some statements that might be of help, estesbob:
“All I can do is invite you to read the Catechism, and the conclusion seems
obvious to me…” [Military intervention] “has no moral justification” (September 20,
interview on the Italian national news program. (See, comunioneliberazione.
org/articoli/eng/1/nowar.html.)
The United Nations is the [institution] that should make the final decision. It is
necessary that the community of nations makes the decision, not a particular power.
The fact that the United Nations is seeking the way to avoid war, seems to me to
demonstrate with enough evidence that the damage would be greater than the values
one hopes to save. The U.N. can be criticized from several points of view, but it is the
instrument created after the war for the coordination - including moral - of politics.
The concept of a ‘preventive war’ does not appear in the Catechism of the
Catholic Church. One cannot simply say that the catechism does not legitimize the war,
but it is true that the catechism has developed a doctrine that, on one hand, does not
exclude the fact that there are values and peoples that must be defended in some
circumstances;** on the other hand, it offers a very precise doctrine on the limits of these
possibilities.** (Statements to the press by the Cardinal Ratzinger after receiving the
2002 Trieste Liberal Award. His statements were published in the Italian newspaper
Avvenire)”
- then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect,
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
questions about the moral legitimacy of any preemptive, unilateral use of military force
to overthrow the government of Iraq…. Given the precedents and risks involved, we
find it difficult to justify extending the war on terrorism to Iraq,** absent clear and
adequate evidence **of Iraqi involvement in the attacks of September 11th or of an
imminent attack of a grave nature…. Our assessment of these questions leads us to
urge you to pursue actively alternatives to war. … We respectfully urge you to step back
from the brink of war and help lead the world to act together to fashion an effective
global response to Iraq’s threats that conforms with traditional moral limits on the use of
military force.”
-Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, President
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
September 13, 2002 Letter to President Bush on Iraq
“With all the talk about impending war today and all the concern for the fallout or
unintended consequences of an invasion of Iraq, few are recalling a line spoken by
Mother Teresa of Calcutta in 1994, “The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion.”
…. Few make the connection between the deliberate destruction of an unborn human
being and the deliberate destruction of those already born; but only the means are
different. …. Even the means, now that both medical procedures and war are so
transformed by technological advances, tend to look more and more similar. ….
Certainly, the way we talk about both abortion and war and the reasons given for
engaging in either practice tend to sound eerily alike: protecting freedom, using no more
violence than necessary, reluctantly concluding that we have no choice, needing to
maintain our way of life. …. If we had not grown so accustomed to abortion as integral
to our way of life for the past 30 years, would we be more hesitant now about attacking
Iraq? Does our failure to recognize an unborn baby as a human person prompt us to depersonalize
our enemies? It’s arguable, I suppose. It’s at least profitable to think about it
on January 22 as we mark again the anniversary of a decision by the Supreme Court
that cheapened human life and changed our way of life and do so this year in the midst
of preparations for war.”
Cardinal Francis George, Archbishop of Chicago (Address to the Diplomatic Corps, Monday, 13 January 2003)
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
I don’t think Priests and Bishops have to tell you in words who not to vote for, or vote for, for them put maybe their vocation at risk and the tax exempt status of the Church at risk - when they say pro life concerns should of central concern I understand from that Obama is ruled out. Obama is ruled out because he supports things which are opposed by Church teaching, such as embryonic stem cell research, refusal to defend traditional marriage, support of unrestricted abortion, trying to illegally push abortion in Kenya, tie gay rights to aid in Nigeria, force of a contraception and abortificant mandate on religious institutions. I don’t need Pope Benedict, or a Priest or Bishop to tell me not to support Obama - the teachings of the Church give guidelines on who to support.
L
LovePatience
Guest
You do realize that ALL sins are intrinsically evil don’t you? Even the smallest venial sin can send you to Hell which is why the saints abhorred even venial sins. Lack of charity for the poor is also intrinsically evil, and it is a greater sin than certain sexual sins. The Virgin Mary actually trumps the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, since that was created by humans and so is subject to human error and may one day be changed - the church has changed teaching on slavery, usury, interreligious marriage.
P
pnewton
Guest
The words in the article you posted contain too much commentary. They water down the Voter’s Guide even more. I have the same misgivings with lifesitenews.It would be good to actually read the document that ringil posted!.
Yes, it is possible to vote for a candidate that is pro-abortion, as long as the reason for is very serious. It specifically says that one can not do so for partisanship. In other words, one can not vote for the Democratic pro-abortionist because one is a Democrat.
P
pnewton
Guest
This is not quite accurate. Rather it is possible that it is not a sin. It is also possible that it is a sin, and even possible that it could be a mortal sin, depending on one’s intent and level of understanding. It is my belief that many Catholics will find their way to Hell over the issue of abortion. Many more will spend time in the metaphoric sea of Purgatory with millions of metaphoric millstones.
Remember that the instruction from the Church (on not even you can deny) is that we have the absolute moral responsibility to mold our own conscience, then vote accordingly. Failure to do the first will not exonerate us on the second, though it does mitigate it.
Second, we are told in the preamble that we are citizen’s of two countries, and America is the one we are only passing through. Our duty lies ultimately to the Kingdom of God. I admire the truly good Catholic Democrats here (and that is** not** an oxymoron, you guys). I thinks it important, as we have had this party for the whole history of our country, that we not give up on it. Likewise, I respect the Republicans that can do this, though I admit to being somewhat burned out with that struggle personally. In the end, it is more important we vote morally than that we vote partisan. We can not do that if we are not first ourselves moral. It is this that Catholics lack. When we become more saintly, we will become more unified.
- Status