Rick Santorum Thread

[seekerz]

Rick Santorum sure does have an excellent pro-life record and family values…

But his views on welfare are disturbing to me… I value the social safety net… I cannot in good conscious vote for any major candidate… Obama is pro choice and all the Republicans are anti-poor…

Ah, refreshing to see the truth so well encapsulated. Problem is, even abstaining from voting affects election outcomes, so directly or indirectly, you would still be making a choice.

 

[seekerz]

Tonight I saw a clip played on either MSNBC or CNN of Santorum defending his opposition to universal health care by saying people don’t make the right choices for their health. A mother stood up and said her son has cancer and neither she nor he made bad health choices for him, and asked why her son shouldn’t have adequate, affordable health care coverage despite his condition? Or why he should possibly be denied coverage?

Santorum responded with that’s how insurance works. Saying it’s based on risk.

So I’m sitting there listening and I’m thinking to myself, people get sick through no fault of their own all the time, due to genes or what have you. And I sat there, finding myself kinda stunned by his answer and having to ask myself where his heart is in regards to the sick. Sure risk might be how insurance works. But the way insurance works seems to me to have been part of the problem and why folks who are sick with pre existing conditions and in need of care, either haven’t been able to afford coverage or haven’t been able to get it at all.

thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01/06/399357/santorum-to-mother-of-cancer-survivor-sick-are-to-blame-for-their-pre-existing-conditions-insurers-should-charge-them-more/

I missed that clip, but it does sound pretty cold, him being a Catholic and all. I’m sure the “that’s the way the world works” response would be considered inappropriate if the topic had been gay marriage or abortion. How he can fail to see the connection between ability to access health care and the decision to bring a baby to term, is astounding to me but I suppose not for those who consider abortion as an issue that exists in a vacuum! What really do the labels pro-choice and pro-life mean - simply the sounds that come from our lips, or something more?

 

[kubark]

Estesbob has never spinned in any of his many posts here. He/she is one of the most intelligent, objective persons on CAF.

You aren’t permitted to say that unjust wars are mortally sinful because only God can determine mortal sin. There are 3 conditions for a sin to be mortal. The thought, word or deed must be wrong (could be said here). The sinner must know this (Only God knows this). The sinner must give full consent (could be said here).

Unjust wars are mortally sinful. Its not a matter open to your determination or interpretation.

 

[kubark]

So only Ron Paul politics can be applied on a Rick Santorum thread?

We are talking Just War Doctrine. That’s not “Ron Paul politics.” That’s the teaching of the Catholic Church. Nice try. Try again.

 

[kubark]

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

What’s your point? The criteria mentioned in that same section of the Catechism** must **still be met for a potential war to be considered “Just.” I didn’t inject my politics into Ratzinger’s 2004 memorandum. Estesbob, did. Call a spade a spade.

 

[kubark]

Estesbob has never spinned in any of his many posts here. He/she is one of the most intelligent, objective persons on CAF.

I never questioned estesbob’s “intelligence” but I have questioned his “objectivity” by using arguments based on facts. Estesbob’s intelligence and importance on CAF is irrelevant to the argument that I am making. Either show my facts to be incorrect or show my arguments to be fallacious. Don’t take everything so personally. We are big boys here.

 

[rlg94086]

What’s your point? The criteria mentioned in that same section of the Catechism** must **still be met for a potential war to be considered “Just.” I didn’t inject my politics into Ratzinger’s 2004 memorandum.

Sure. And, once those who have responsibility for the common good have determined Just War criteria has been met, then war is waged.

All of the prudential opinion of those who aren’t responsible for the common good, for example you and I, is just that, opinion. We can differ, according to the Holy Father. Your point that we can only differ outside of Just War criteria was not a quote of the Holy Father, just opinion. If you have something direct, feel free to provide it. Otherwise, you need to realize that your prudential judgement on the matter does not hold greater weight than other Catholics’ prudential judgement.

 

[kubark]

Sure. And, once those who have responsibility for the common good have determined Just War criteria has been met, then war is waged.

All of the prudential opinion of those who aren’t responsible for the common good, for example you and I, is just that, opinion. We can differ, according to the Holy Father. Your point that we can only differ outside of Just War criteria was not a quote of the Holy Father, just opinion. If you have something direct, feel free to provide it. Otherwise, you need to realize that your prudential judgement on the matter does not hold greater weight than other Catholics’ prudential judgement.

In the United States, we have a system of representative government wherein the people have responsibility for the common good. One of the essential elements of Just War Doctrine is that a Just War MUST be waged by the “proper authority.” That’s YOU and I via our elected representatives in Congress. So the Cathechism says that, “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.” That means that the proper authority (Congress) must evaluate whether or not a potential war will meet the conditions of Just War Doctrine. They may apply Just War Doctrine correctly or incorrectly, and such a decision will be visible for all of us to see whether or not it followed the criteria mandated by the Cathechism. It’s really not that hard.

Now as to your allegation that I misinterpreted the quote of the Holy Father, I will again provide the relevant quote and my interpretation of it. It is your task not just to say that I’m wrong but to DEMONSTRATE that my argument is flawed. Here it is again:

“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.”

Ratzinger says that there may be a “diversity of opinion about waging war.” There are only two types of wars, as far as Catholics are concerned: Just Wars and Unjust Wars. There can never be a “diversity of opinion” about the waging of Unjust Wars. There can also be no “diversity of opinion” regarding the criteria that must be met for the waging of Just Wars - those critieria are clearly spelled out in the Catechism. But ONCE a war meets those criteria, THEN there may be a diversity of opinion about whether that war** MUST **be waged.

 

[rlg94086]

In the United States, we have a system of representative government wherein the people have responsibility for the common good. One of the essential elements of Just War Doctrine is that a Just War MUST be waged by the “proper authority.” That’s YOU and I via our elected representatives in Congress. So the Cathechism says that, “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.” That means that the proper authority (Congress) must evaluate whether or not a potential war will meet the conditions of Just War Doctrine. They may apply Just War Doctrine correctly or incorrectly, and such a decision will be visible for all of us to see whether or not it followed the criteria mandated by the Cathechism. It’s really not that hard.

Now as to your allegation that I misinterpreted the quote of the Holy Father, I will again provide the relevant quote and my interpretation of it. It is your task not just to say that I’m wrong but to DEMONSTRATE that my argument is flawed. Here it is again:

“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.”

Ratzinger says that there may be a “diversity of opinion about waging war.” There are only two types of wars, as far as Catholics are concerned: Just Wars and Unjust Wars. There can never be a “diversity of opinion” about the waging of Unjust Wars. There can also be no “diversity of opinion” regarding the criteria that must be met for the waging of Just Wars - those critieria are clearly spelled out in the Catechism. But ONCE a war meets those criteria, THEN there may be a diversity of opinion about whether that war** MUST **be waged.

The flaw in your argument is very easy to see. You are making the false assumption that “waging war” doesn’t include the determination of going to war. Applying Just War theory is part of “waging war.”

 

[estesbob]

In the United States, we have a system of representative government wherein the people have responsibility for the common good. One of the essential elements of Just War Doctrine is that a Just War MUST be waged by the “proper authority.” That’s YOU and I via our elected representatives in Congress. So the Cathechism says that, “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.” That means that the proper authority (Congress) must evaluate whether or not a potential war will meet the conditions of Just War Doctrine. They may apply Just War Doctrine correctly or incorrectly, and such a decision will be visible for all of us to see whether or not it followed the criteria mandated by the Cathechism. It’s really not that hard.

Now as to your allegation that I misinterpreted the quote of the Holy Father, I will again provide the relevant quote and my interpretation of it. It is your task not just to say that I’m wrong but to DEMONSTRATE that my argument is flawed. Here it is again:

“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.”

Ratzinger says that there may be a “diversity of opinion about waging war.” There are only two types of wars, as far as Catholics are concerned: Just Wars and Unjust Wars. There can never be a “diversity of opinion” about the waging of Unjust Wars. There can also be no “diversity of opinion” regarding the criteria that must be met for the waging of Just Wars - those critieria are clearly spelled out in the Catechism. But ONCE a war meets those criteria, THEN there may be a diversity of opinion about whether that war** MUST **be waged.

So why didn’t he just say that? Again the Pope said what be said . Your attempts to tell us what he “really” meant dos not constitute “facts”

 

[rlg94086]

So why didn’t he just say that? Again the Pope said what be said . Your attempts to tell us what he “really” meant dos not constitute “facts”

Exactly.

Are you saying his larger fonts didn’t convince you?

 

[kubark]

The flaw in your argument is very easy to see. You are making the false assumption that “waging war” doesn’t include the determination of going to war. Applying Just War theory is part of “waging war.”

The Holy Father is talking about the waging of JUST WARS. Catholics are not allowed to “wage” unjust wars. The Holy Father is saying that 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. 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 Catholic may not “be at odds with the Holy Father” on the issues of abortion and euthanasia which ARE NEVER JUST.

 

[Lionheart2012]

I’m glad you brought up the Catechism. There is an oft overlooked sentence in the excerpt on Just War. I put in in bold for your edification:

What the pope obviously understands is that the prudential judgement of political leaders and communities are responsible for the evaluation. He and the bishops certainly provide guidance, but they don’t determine whether the conditions are morally legitimate.

We don’t need your politics injected into it.

That argument can be applied to many situations. It appears you use it for your own argument. That’s acceptable. Are willing to expand the interpretation?

 

[estesbob]

The Holy Father is talking about the waging of JUST WARS. Catholics are not allowed to “wage” unjust wars. The Holy Father is saying that 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. 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 Catholic may not “be at odds with the Holy Father” on the issues of abortion and euthanasia which ARE NEVER JUST.

There you go again. TellIng us what the Holy Father “really” meant.

 

[Lionheart2012]

The Holy Father is talking about the waging of JUST WARS. Catholics are not allowed to “wage” unjust wars. The Holy Father is saying that 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. 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 Catholic may not “be at odds with the Holy Father” on the issues of abortion and euthanasia which ARE NEVER JUST.

I remember John Paul II saying Iraq was NOT a just war. Where is the outrage?

 

[estesbob]

I remember John Paul II saying Iraq was NOT a just war. Where is the outrage?

He did? Where ?

 

[kubark]

So why didn’t he just say that? Again the Pope said what be said . Your attempts to tell us what he “really” meant dos not constitute “facts”

Maybe the Holy Father expects Catholics to have a basic understanding of basic tenets of their faith before he elaborates on those tenets further. I am not telling you what the Holy Father “really said.” His memorandum speaks for itself. I then gave you my step-by-step interpretation of his memorandum. You, estesbob, simply reposted the memorandum and then injected “Iraq” and the “ongoing wars” at the time, into the debate.

Again, just saying that I’m wrong does not make me wrong. You have to demonstrate it. You have not. Please demonstrate in a step-by-step manner exactly where I went wrong, in your estimation.

 

[Lionheart2012]

He did? Where ?

You missed that? I’ll look it up and get back to you, Katie. wink wink.

 

[Lionheart2012]

Maybe the Holy Father expects Catholics to have a basic understanding of basic tenets of their faith before he elaborates on those tenets further. I am not telling you what the Holy Father “really said.” His memorandum speaks for itself. I then gave you my step-by-step interpretation of his memorandum. You, estesbob, simply reposted the memorandum and then injected “Iraq” and the “ongoing wars” at the time, into the debate.

Again, just saying that I’m wrong does not make me wrong. You have to demonstrate it. You have not. But I am open to whatever you have to say.

I’m looking forward to a logical and true response.

 

[kubark]

There you go again. TellIng us what the Holy Father “really” meant.

So, you don’t dispute my argument above. If so, please make a counter argument based on the Holy Father’s memorandum and based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I’ll be waiting.