A lot of us, including me, find it pretty mundane and uninteresting, and find ways that we think are better to spend our time.Politics is so interesting to day
Not a great way to start out a post if you want US Catholics to actually want to engage with you on this. If you think something is “wrong with me” then that’s pretty much the end of the discussion before it’s begun.Hi! Whats wrong with You, American Catholics?
Why would it leave one more confused? It seems pretty straightforward to me. And I see no need to justify a decision that is made following the requirements of the document.it is nearly useless as it leaves them more confused than ever, and able to justify whatever decision one may make.
Absolutely, haven’t you seen folks say that no true Catholic could ever vote for any democrat. That is exactly what the guide says. Or not, but doesn’t stop “true” Catholics from coming to that conclusion.53 pages in the pdf file. It’s a pretty verbose document. Do Catholics read it and some decide to vote pro-life and others decide to vote pro-choice? Do they reach opposite conclusions about the same race? Could have done that without plowing through 53 pages.
Verbose does not automatically mean confusing. Sometimes it takes more words for precise communication. And complete sentences help too.53 pages in the pdf file. It’s a pretty verbose document.
Catholics shouldn’t vote pro-choice per se (as in voting for someone because of their pro-choice stance), although they may vote for someone who has a pro-choice stance if the voter is doing so based on other (also not prohibited by the Church) stances that, in the prudential judgement of the voter, are at least equal in gravity.Do Catholics read it and some decide to vote pro-life and others decide to vote pro-choice?
Yep, just like “regular folks”. Funny how that works, eh?Do they reach opposite conclusions about the same race?
I think you are right, and wrong. I find it a great description of what we are to do. However, it is not for the lazy. It is nothing like the voters guides that are out there to basically tell us how to vote. It starts, as it should, in the beginning - the formation of conscience.But it is for this very reason that documents such as “Forming Conscionces for Faithful Citizenship” are nearly useless.
Back when I first saw this term and used to think Voris has something to offer, I would often remark that we are to evaluate what we read based on the fruits of the Spirit, one of which is gentleness.The thing is, we have gotten to the point in the “Church of Nice’
Just down from that, we read these words of PaulBut the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
Bishop Finn resigned because he failed to follow proper procedures to remove one priest of the diocese, although he did immediately remove the priest from having any dealings with children.Is that the same Bishop Finn, who was accused of concealing the sex abuse committed in his diocese and NCR called for his resignation ?
I agree it is more of a teaching document than a voters guide. But I also think that teaching documents can offer clear answers, especially when intended for the general public.I think you are right, and wrong. I find it a great description of what we are to do. However, it is not for the lazy. It is nothing like the voters guides that are out there to basically tell us how to vote. It starts, as it should, in the beginning - the formation of conscience.
Maybe I should quit calling it a guide, as I have often done. It is more of a general teaching document. But that is how the Church communicates. It does not sink into either simplistic solutions, nor the type of satire and name-calling seen in this article.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/bishop-national-catholic-reporter-undermines-church-teachingSource on that ?
I can’t find the exact text of the condemnation, but Time does have an article it published in 1968 about it, and the part of the article that is visible before the paywall begins states:““Bishop Charles Helmsing in October of 1968 issued a condemnation of the National Catholic Reporter and asked the publishers to remove the name ‘Catholic’ from their title – to no avail. From my perspective, NCR’s positions against authentic Church teaching and leadership have not changed trajectory in the intervening decades.””
“Last week Bishop Charles H. Helmsing of Kansas City-St. Joseph, issued a formal condemnation of the NCR. In a solemn four-page public statement, Helmsing denounced the paper for “its disregard and denial of the most sacred values of our Catholic faith.””