Sanders Thread

[Crossbones]

This is an excerpt from Archbishop John J. Myers

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-09-17myers.htm

I think the quotes from Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger were very clear. I don’t see how any Catholic can interpret them as anything but a call to avoid the Iraq War and certainly time has proven their wisdom.

 

[Crossbones]

Where does he say it is licit for a Catholic to vote for pro-abortion candidate when acpro-life alternative is available? In fact where does anyone with teaching authority in the Catholic Church say this?

Well, to answer those questions, I would suggest that you read Faithful Citizenship and consider the words of Bishop Kicanas

Again, I believe that Catholics can interpret the words of Bishop Kicanas and understand his meaning. Let’s review what he says again:

INTERVIEWER: If I’m hearing you correctly, you’re saying that for a Catholic who wants to approach his or her vote in three weeks with the mind of the church, it’s not a slam-dunk which way that vote should go. Is that right?

BISHOP KICANAS: Yes, and I think that’s what “Faithful Citizenship” is saying. As a disciple, as a citizen, you have to weigh issues, you have to consider the character of candidates, what you think they will be able to do in terms of affecting the society and the culture in which we live. Clearly, the document is saying that to vote for someone who is proposing actions that are intrinsically evil, because of their position on those intrinsically evil acts, is certainly problematic for someone who is a believer in Christ. You don’t believe in Christ and then vote for a person simply, or primarily, because they hold a position that’s contrary to the church. You have to take those positions into consideration, and then make a choice. These are never easy choices.

 

[estesbob]

Well, to answer those questions, I would suggest that you read Faithful Citizenship and consider the words of Bishop Kicanas

Again, I believe that Catholics can interpret the words of Bishop Kicanas and understand his meaning. Let’s review what he says again:

INTERVIEWER: If I’m hearing you correctly, you’re saying that for a Catholic who wants to approach his or her vote in three weeks with the mind of the church, it’s not a slam-dunk which way that vote should go. Is that right?

BISHOP KICANAS: Yes, and I think that’s what “Faithful Citizenship” is saying. As a disciple, as a citizen, you have to weigh issues, you have to consider the character of candidates, what you think they will be able to do in terms of affecting the society and the culture in which we live. Clearly, the document is saying that to vote for someone who is proposing actions that are intrinsically evil, because of their position on those intrinsically evil acts, is certainly problematic for someone who is a believer in Christ. You don’t believe in Christ and then vote for a person simply, or primarily, because they hold a position that’s contrary to the church. You have to take those positions into consideration, and then make a choice. These are never easy choices.

So your answer is “he didn’t but if you read faithful citizenship the way I want you to read it you will come to the conclusion that that’s what he meant even though he didn’t say it and even though one can’t find a single member of the magisterium who supports my interpretation .” ?
We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide. Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice”** Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event.** All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.

Archbishop Chaput*

 

[Crossbones]

So your answer is “he didn’t but if you read faithful citizenship the way I want you to read it you will come to the conclusion that that’s what he meant even though he didn’t say it and even though one can’t find a single member of the magisterium who supports my interpretation .” ?
We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide. Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice”** Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event.*** All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.

Archbishop Chaput

I don’t think it’s nice of you to use Archbishop Chaput’s words to accuse Bishop Kicanas of verbal gymnastics. We can all read the words of Bishop Kicanas and understand what he’s saying.

INTERVIEWER: If I’m hearing you correctly, you’re saying that for a Catholic who wants to approach his or her vote in three weeks with the mind of the church, it’s not a slam-dunk which way that vote should go. Is that right?

BISHOP KICANAS: Yes, and I think that’s what “Faithful Citizenship” is saying. As a disciple, as a citizen, you have to weigh issues, you have to consider the character of candidates, what you think they will be able to do in terms of affecting the society and the culture in which we live. Clearly, the document is saying that to vote for someone who is proposing actions that are intrinsically evil, because of their position on those intrinsically evil acts, is certainly problematic for someone who is a believer in Christ. You don’t believe in Christ and then vote for a person simply, or primarily, because they hold a position that’s contrary to the church. You have to take those positions into consideration, and then make a choice. These are never easy choices.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

The Iraq War was just a diversionary tactic for Bush. He probably knew there were no WMD to be found. He certainly had no proof of any because none were found.

It was an unjust war, and therefore, against the Catholic faith.

 

[CatholicKnight3]

The Iraq War was just a diversionary tactic for Bush. He probably knew there were no WMD to be found. He certainly had no proof of any because none were found.

It was an unjust war, and therefore, against the Catholic faith.

Ok, the liberation of citizens from a tyrant is unjust? You stand and accuse that Trump wants to waterboard terrorists but wish saddam was still in power murdering and torturing. I am confused.

Also, it was well established long before Bush took office that saddam had wmds. His two son in laws revealed it and they were both executed. We know many, Including the UN said he had them before Bush took office. We know clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs long before Bush took office. We know saddam violated at least 17 resolutions according to the UN. We know what happens when a tyrant is appeased.

Is the world only to react AFTER the tyrant becomes as big as Hitler? Why do you think the League of Nations dissolved?

The world is better off without saddam in it. We will never know how many more murders he would have committed.

 

[mary_bobo]

The Iraq War was just a diversionary tactic for Bush. He probably knew there were no WMD to be found. He certainly had no proof of any because none were found.

It was an unjust war, and therefore, against the Catholic faith.

Bush and other heads of state believed there were WMD. They had been used by Saddam on his own people. And no one has yet explained what was in the convoy of trucks leaving Iraq for Syria. I think you are being too judgment without facts. You are the one with no proof.

 

[_Abyssinia]

The Iraq War was just a diversionary tactic for Bush. He probably knew there were no WMD to be found. He certainly had no proof of any because none were found.

It was an unjust war, and therefore, against the Catholic faith.

Have you read what I posted from Archbishop John J. Myers above?

Based on what I have read, when it came to the Iraq war it wouldn’t of happened without congressional approval and the many votes of Democrats in the House and Senate and the war not have continued for as long as it did without congressional funding which continued to happen when the Democrats had a majority in Congress.

The capitulation of the Democratic Party’s congressional leadership to the Bush administration’s request for nearly $100 billion of unconditional supplementary government spending, primarily to support the war in Iraq, has led to outrage throughout the country. In the Senate, 37 of 49 Democrats voted on May 24 to support the measure. In the House, while only 86 of the 231 Democratic House members voted for the supplemental funding, 216 of them voted in favor of an earlier procedural vote designed to move the funding bill forward even though it would make the funding bill’s passage inevitable (while giving most of them a chance to claim they voted against it).

fpif.org/articles/the_democrats_support_for_bushs_war

I also have read that, and I can’t find the exact source, that Dennis Kucinich had a bill to end the war in Afghanistan, 85 Democrats voted yes, 99 congressional Democrats voted no. Democrats in the House Senate near-unanimously voted in support of the military force in Afghanistan.

Now she says her vote was a mistake, but the Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, voted on a bill to go to war in Iraq.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Ok, the liberation of citizens from a tyrant is unjust? You stand and accuse that Trump wants to waterboard terrorists but wish saddam was still in power murdering and torturing. I am confused.

Also, it was well established long before Bush took office that saddam had wmds. His two son in laws revealed it and they were both executed. We know many, Including the UN said he had them before Bush took office. We know clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs long before Bush took office. We know saddam violated at least 17 resolutions according to the UN. We know what happens when a tyrant is appeased.

Is the world only to react AFTER the tyrant becomes as big as Hitler? Why do you think the League of Nations dissolved?

The world is better off without saddam in it. We will never know how many more murders he would have committed.

I agree the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. But Bush used WMD as an excuse.

But why would Bush believe there were WMD when there weren’t? And why would he need an excuse to begin with since Saddam was so evil, and I agree, he was evil?

 

[estesbob]

I don’t think it’s nice of you to use Archbishop Chaput’s words to accuse Bishop Kicanas of verbal gymnastics. We can all read the words of Bishop Kicanas and understand what he’s saying.

INTERVIEWER: If I’m hearing you correctly, you’re saying that for a Catholic who wants to approach his or her vote in three weeks with the mind of the church, it’s not a slam-dunk which way that vote should go. Is that right?

BISHOP KICANAS: Yes, and I think that’s what “Faithful Citizenship” is saying. As a disciple, as a citizen, you have to weigh issues, you have to consider the character of candidates, what you think they will be able to do in terms of affecting the society and the culture in which we live. Clearly, the document is saying that to vote for someone who is proposing actions that are intrinsically evil, because of their position on those intrinsically evil acts, is certainly problematic for someone who is a believer in Christ. You don’t believe in Christ and then vote for a person simply, or primarily, because they hold a position that’s contrary to the church. You have to take those positions into consideration, and then make a choice. These are never easy choices.

Where does he say it is licit to vote for a pro-abortion candidate when there is a pro-life alternative. Please a direct quote, like I have provided , not your opinion on what a Bishop “means”

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Where does he say it is licit to vote for a pro-abortion candidate when there is a pro-life alternative. Please a direct quote, like I have provided , not your opinion on what a Bishop “means”

Do you think a voting guide would be necessary if Catholics were to consider one issue only?

 

[CatholicKnight3]

Do you think a voting guide would be necessary if Catholics were to consider one issue only?

It is not one issue only. You should find out what the Church throughout history has said about socialism.

Which is why I, along with many other catholics are so concerned about this Pope who is clearly about liberation theology.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

It is not one issue only. You should find out what the Church throughout history has said about socialism.

Which is why I, along with many other catholics are so concerned about this Pope who is clearly about liberation theology.

Sanders doesn’t advocate the kind of socialism that the Church decries. And yes, Pope Francis does seem to be concerned with liberation theology.

 

[Crossbones]

Where does he say it is licit to vote for a pro-abortion candidate when there is a pro-life alternative. Please a direct quote, like I have provided , not your opinion on what a Bishop “means”

I would encourage you and others to read the interview and Faithful Citizenship guide carefully and come to your own conclusions. I find it clear.

Let me repost a key passage.

INTERVIEWER: If I’m hearing you correctly, you’re saying that for a Catholic who wants to approach his or her vote in three weeks with the mind of the church, it’s not a slam-dunk which way that vote should go. Is that right?

BISHOP KICANAS: Yes, and I think that’s what “Faithful Citizenship” is saying. As a disciple, as a citizen, you have to weigh issues, you have to consider the character of candidates, what you think they will be able to do in terms of affecting the society and the culture in which we live. Clearly, the document is saying that to vote for someone who is proposing actions that are intrinsically evil, because of their position on those intrinsically evil acts, is certainly problematic for someone who is a believer in Christ. You don’t believe in Christ and then vote for a person simply, or primarily, because they hold a position that’s contrary to the church. You have to take those positions into consideration, and then make a choice. These are never easy choices.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I would encourage you and others to read the interview and Faithful Citizenship guide carefully and come to your own conclusions. I find it clear.

Let me repost a key passage.

INTERVIEWER: If I’m hearing you correctly, you’re saying that for a Catholic who wants to approach his or her vote in three weeks with the mind of the church, it’s not a slam-dunk which way that vote should go. Is that right?

BISHOP KICANAS: Yes, and I think that’s what “Faithful Citizenship” is saying. As a disciple, as a citizen, you have to weigh issues, you have to consider the character of candidates, what you think they will be able to do in terms of affecting the society and the culture in which we live. Clearly, the document is saying that to vote for someone who is proposing actions that are intrinsically evil, because of their position on those intrinsically evil acts, is certainly problematic for someone who is a believer in Christ. You don’t believe in Christ and then vote for a person simply, or primarily, because they hold a position that’s contrary to the church. You have to take those positions into consideration, and then make a choice. These are never easy choices.

 

[estesbob]

Do you think a voting guide would be necessary if Catholics were to consider one issue only?

Yes because other issue come into play when candidates stance on abortion is the same

 

[estesbob]

I would encourage you and others to read the interview and Faithful Citizenship guide carefully and come to your own conclusions. I find it clear.

Let me repost a key passage.

INTERVIEWER: If I’m hearing you correctly, you’re saying that for a Catholic who wants to approach his or her vote in three weeks with the mind of the church, it’s not a slam-dunk which way that vote should go. Is that right?

BISHOP KICANAS: Yes, and I think that’s what “Faithful Citizenship” is saying. As a disciple, as a citizen, you have to weigh issues, you have to consider the character of candidates, what you think they will be able to do in terms of affecting the society and the culture in which we live. Clearly, the document is saying that to vote for someone who is proposing actions that are intrinsically evil, because of their position on those intrinsically evil acts, is certainly problematic for someone who is a believer in Christ. You don’t believe in Christ and then vote for a person simply, or primarily, because they hold a position that’s contrary to the church. You have to take those positions into consideration, and then make a choice. These are never easy choices.

Where does he say it is licit to vote for a pro-abortion candidate when there is a pro-life alternative. Please a direct quote, like I have provided , not your opinion on what a Bishop “means”

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Based on what I have read, when it came to the Iraq war it wouldn’t of happened without congressional approval and the many votes of Democrats in the House and Senate and the war not have continued for as long as it did without congressional funding which continued to happen when the Democrats had a majority in Congress.
(snip)
Now she says her vote was a mistake, but the Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, voted on a bill to go to war in Iraq.

You are right that Democratic support was crucial; however, Democrats who voted for the war can make the argument that they were mislead, as were much of the American people, by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell et al who distorted or went along with the distortion of the evidence to present an open and shut case for war. It was Bush/Cheney who had control of the evidence, and knew that the case for WMD was flimsy at best. The moral responsibility for the war is primarily theirs.

 

[CatholicKnight3]

You are right that Democratic support was crucial; however, Democrats who voted for the war can make the argument that they were mislead, as were much of the American people, by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell et al who distorted or went along with the distortion of the evidence to present an open and shut case for war. It was Bush/Cheney who had control of the evidence, and knew that the case for WMD was flimsy at best. The moral responsibility for the war is primarily theirs.

So, you are just going to ignore the fact that the UN claimed he violated 17 resolutions, that CLINTON signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs long before Bush took office?

You going ignore how this country’s policy changed post 911 on how to deal with countries that sponsored terrorism and posed a threat to the west considering what we saw 19 men do without a gun?

Yeah, there are a lot of things you are ignoring. Along with his two son in laws who confirmed he had them. They were both executed.

Lot of stuff you are ignoring. Is that deliberate?

 

[Expatreprocedit]

So, you are just going to ignore the fact that the UN claimed he violated 17 resolutions, that CLINTON signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs long before Bush took office?

You going ignore how this country’s policy changed post 911 on how to deal with countries that sponsored terrorism and posed a threat to the west considering what we saw 19 men do without a gun?

Yeah, there are a lot of things you are ignoring. Along with his two son in laws who confirmed he had them. They were both executed.

Lot of stuff you are ignoring. Is that deliberate?

I’m ignoring nothing. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, did not pose an immediate threat to the US and Bush, Cheney et al knew that, yet chose to misrepresent the facts to the American people. The case for war was based on the threat of the use of WMDs against the US, not on UN resolutions violated by Saddam Hussein.

All the rhetoric you use about “countries that sponsored terrorism and posed a threat to the west” can’t obscure the fact that, unlike al Qaeda and countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq had absolutely no motivation to sponsor terrorism against the US. Hussein was a terrible dictator and abused his own people and his neighbors, but he had no particular grudge against the US like bin Laden did, he was not a jihadist ideologue like bin Laden, he was a secularist dictator. It’s too bad the pro-war Right doesn’t seem to understand or care about facts like that. Whatever his other faults, even Trump is smart enough to realize that the Iraq war has been totally discredited.