US Catholics back bishops on religious freedom, but still favor Obama, poll shows [CWN]

[PJD1987]

Death. Which is what will happen to lives who need healthcare and don’t have affordable adequate healthcare. Maybe they don’t have employer coverage. Maybe they can’t afford their premiums, co pays, or deductibles. Maybe they don’t qualify for Medicare or Medicaid. Maybe they can’t afford coverage or can’t even get it due to pre existing conditions. Jesus taught in Matt 25 to care for the sick. And the homeless, the hungry, those who need clothing, the poor. Jesus had a lot to say about the rich man. But one of them was not that the rich should be given the benefits of tax cuts while asking the poor to sacrifice. A human person already born without shelter, food or clothing will die too.

The help I can give a legally aborted embryo or fetus is prayer. If your chief focus is to overturn a 40 yr old law, that’s fine. That’s what you’re focusing on. As a society and the richest nation on earth, we can do so much more for those lives already born. And that’s where my main focus lies. Along with several other matters such as war and peace, economic fairness and justice for those not rich, the state putting born people to death, concern for immigrant families, etc. Fighting against a woman’s legal right or preventing two homosexuals in a loving, committed relationship from civil union or marriage are nowhere near as high on my radar screen. And yes I know your church gives to the poor, but there’s always room for more. Peace.

Well that is simply not what the Church teaches and thus, aware, obedient, practicing Catholics will not vote for President Obama. You can speak all you want about your talking points about “what Jesus said” and your obvious issues with Catholic social teaching, that’s fine, but none of it is applicable to practicing Catholics.

There is a real difference between a practicing Catholic and non-practicing Catholic, I don’t understand people being upset about that. Either you are obedient to the Holy Father and the Magisterium, or you are not. If one is not, then one cannot say they are truly Catholic. That would be like someone saying, yeah I’m swimming in the pool, but they’re not lounging on a chair poolside. It doesn’t make any sense.

And this self-righteous obsession with social justice issues is just ridiculous, the Church is very clear on its social justice teachings, but it’s inaccurate to state that it cares about some and not others. We care about all social justice, but what point is fighting for social justice if human being’s right to live is being denied by the scourge of abortion every moment we breath. The Church has been very clear on this topic, and it has stated there is no more important issue than the right to life, namely abortion. One can play all types of mental gymnastics to get around that, but that does not make it true. That’s where the practicing and non-practicing comes in and why it is so important.

As Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen said, “Sometimes we can cover up our want of individual justice by a great love of social justice.” I feel that many people fall into that trap, and that is how Catholics end up voting for someone like Mr. Obama.

God bless.

• Paul

Romney 2012

 

[St_Francis]

From what I know of Catholic teaching I see your point, Ringil. I’m reading thru this thread and I saw one Catholic speak of people who haven’t attended in 30 yrs since their Confirmation or not since C&E. Another gave a thumbs up to that post. But neither one of them has a clue if people polled haven’t attended in 30 yrs or since Easter. As you suggest maybe some attended in July or June of this yr. Maybe 2 wks ago, a month ago, 3 mos ago.

This is not directed to you, CMatt, but since the issue comes up so frequently and could be so easily solved…

Why can’t we just call non-practicing Catholics CINO or lapsed Catholics instead of continually getting embroiled in the debate about whether a non-practicing Catholic is still Catholic or not? They *are *Catholic by virtue of their baptism!

 

[Elizabeth502]

Another gave a thumbs up to that post. But neither one of them has a clue if people polled haven’t attended in 30 yrs or since Easter. As you suggest maybe some attended in July or June of this yr. Maybe 2 wks ago, a month ago, 3 mos ago.

I addressed this in my post 100. I agree with St.Francis. The issue is not the title Catholic. I already explained that, and I apologized for responding too quickly. It’s an identifier. The difference has always been what is and is not a categorically Catholic position on moral issues on which the Magisterium has spoken without ambiguity, as well as how realistically a person calling himself Catholic is committed to his own identity, if (in addition) there is such infrequent attendance at Mass, etc.

The point is that the dynamic is not one of mutual exchange; it’s not an equation. Because a baptized Catholic takes a particular political position does not make that political position therefore “a Catholic position,” but a Catholic’s position. Big differece. If the position is heterodox , it doesn’t “represent” Catholicism; it represents the views of a Catholic voter, not the Catholic Church.

There is more than one person on this forum that has continually made that a false equation, however, because of the loophole of baptism.

I propose a controversial solution to this, which I will open presently as an Apologetics thread. Don’t worry, it’s just a hypotethical. It’ll never happen.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Did it. Just opened my thread in Apologetics.

 

[seekerz]

I believe that the universal health care systems of other western nations will soon find themselves in financial trouble (which the UK is already publically having trouble with), as they have the same demographic problem we do: and aging population with too many retirees being supported by too few tax-payers.

I don’t know how they arrange things in other nations, but in the US, it’s a pay-as-we-go system.

In fewer than 15 years, it is projected that there will be 2 people paying in for each retiree. Two people to cover the Social Security and Medicare for each retired person.

Do you honestly think that this will not bankrupt us? (If we make it that far…)

In the community where I grew up, we live frugally, shared what we had when we had it and otherwise planned and trusted God for the future. I never saw anyone left to go without because we thought we might not have enough for tomorrow - ever. Not a bad set of principles to live by, personally or collectively.

 

[seekerz]

1. The numbers used to gauge the Cuban health care system is highly suspect.

These numbers are provided by the Cuban Government, which is is an authoritarian dictatorship.

Amnesty International in it 2012 Annual Report stated that:

“The [Cuban] authorities continued to severely restrict the freedom of expression, assembly, and association of political dissidents, journalists and human rights activists. They were subjected to arbitrary house arrest and other restrictions on their movements by the authorities and government supporters which prevented them from carrying out legitimate and peaceful activities. All media remained under the control of the Cuban government.”

amnesty.org/en/region/cuba/report-2012

I very much doubt that the Cuban government is going to release any numbers that reflect badly on the regime.

(It is illegal for Cuban doctors to speak to foreigners without permission from the government.)

Reports from dissident doctors state that the real numbers are very different from the propaganda.

The mortality rate of children in Cuba from 1 to 4 years is 34 percent HIGHER than the U.S. (11.8 versus 8.8 per 1000). The maternal mortality rate in Cuba is almost FOUR TIMES that of the U.S. rate (33 versus 8.4 per 1000)

Also, It can be argued that the infant mortality rate in Cuba is so low because of the widespread practice of aborting any child suspected of having a birth defect. Close to 70% of all Cuban pregnancies end in abortions.

pop.org/content/abortion-and-infanticide-in-cuba-1089

**2. There is a huge disparity of the quality of care. **

Medication and equipment is available, but only to those who can pay in American Dollars or Convertible Pesos.

The poor and middle classes of Cuba have no access to these types of currency and thus get none of the benefits.

The ‘pesos pharmacies’ and local state hospitals are drastically under-stocked and thus access for the poor to needed medication is minimal, despite the service being free.

If you are provided services you are expected to give a gratuity to the provider.

walrusmagazine.com/articles/2012.04-travel-on-tipping-in-cuba/4/

3. Medical Diplomacy and the quest for hard currency

Cuban has one of the largest per capita numbers of doctors and nurses of any country in the World.

But upon completion of their training, they must serve 3 to 5 years for the Cuban government. They have no choice in where they are assigned. Vast numbers are sent overseas to generate hard currency for the government. In the mean time, these medical professionals make less than $20 a month.

When they are overseas they are under continuous surveillance by Cuban officials in order to prevent them from defecting.

Cuba does possess one of the best medical schools in the world, The Latin American School of Medicine in Havana. It provides free medical education for students from around the World. However this institution is NOT available to Cubans only international students.

sld.cu/sitios/elam/

Cuba has a World class bio-tech industry. It is the largest exporters of pharmaceuticals in Latin America. Almost none of the drugs ever reach the domestic market. It is instead used to generate hard currency.

Finally, almost all the best hospitals and medical personnel are used for medical tourism. People flock from around the world for low cost cosmetic surgery and other procedures.

Medical tourism is one of the largest sources of income for the Cuban government.

Once again, poor and middle class Cuban have no access to these facilities.

…

Though it is touted as providing free access to everyone, the health care system is highly unreliable and does not cater to even the basic needs of the Cuban people.

It’s primary purpose is as a source of hard currency for the government.

Thus where the need is the greatest, among the poor and the middle class, the assets are the least available.

Statistics from any third world country is part conjecture, since record-keeping is not the greatest priority on which to spend money. Still, the comparisons in your post are likely among the best in the developing world (versus the developed world). The existence of two-tiered health care based on ability to pay isn’t unique to Cuba either, when compared to other developing countries. That is simply a reflection of the poor economy - not the cause of it as was being claimed by a previous poster.

Fairer comparisons can be made between the US and other developed countries (.e.g. Scandinavia) or least some middle in come countries (e.g Singapore). No solution is perfect and there isn’t one government that hasn’t struggled with providing health care access to all, but most have come to accept that this making available this common good requires common effort.

 

[seekerz]

In the community where I grew up, we lived frugally, shared what we had when we had it and otherwise planned and trusted God for the future. I never saw anyone left to go without because we thought we might not have enough for tomorrow - ever. Not a bad set of principles to live by, personally or collectively.

 

[Jeffrey]

Too bad you are voting for the most pro abortion pres we’ve ever had… I hope you can live with yourself… and I hope God forgives you for that.

Exactly. I’m in a swing state and was just polled this wk by phone. I said I was voting for Barack Obama. Next question was am I definitely voting for Barack Obama or probably going to or could I change my mind. Nope I’m definitely voting for Barack Obama. Then there were a series of other questions such as how much I approved of President Obama’s healthcare plan. Strongly, somewhat, or did I somewhat disapprove or strongly disapprove? I didn’t go with strongly but went with somewhat approve because I think it should have gone further. Public option or something and I may have been more inclined to go with strongly. Then near the end of the poll for statistical purposes I was asked my religion, race, gender and age range. I couldn’t answer the religion question by saying for instance I was a fundamentalist so I had to think back to where I was baptized and what religion I’m considered a member of by the church I was baptized in. I don’t think liberal Christian was an option. Nor was non practicing for any Catholic being polled. And after the religion question the poll asked how often one attends church. It has been since my Confirmation and even since Easter 2012.

 

[seekerz]

Too bad you are voting for the most pro abortion pres we’ve ever had… hope God forgives you for that.

God forgives sin. When did it become a sin to vote your conscience?

 

[Jeffrey]

A vote for obama is a sin. Pro death and pro homo.

God forgives sin. When did it become a sin to vote your conscience?

 

[seekerz]

A vote for obama is a sin. Pro death and pro homo.

Really? A Catholic is called to vote his or her conscience, not the conscience of some anonymous internet poster; unless of course that poster gets elected Pope or something…

 

[Jeffrey]

Its a sin for the reasons I mentioned in a previous post.

Really? A Catholic is called to vote his or her conscience, not the conscience of some anonymous internet poster; unless of course that poster gets elected Pope or something…

 

[PJD1987]

Really? A Catholic is called to vote his or her conscience, not the conscience of some anonymous internet poster; unless of course that poster gets elected Pope or something…

A correctly formed conscience is in line with Catholic teaching and would not vote for a pro abortion pro gay marriage candidate. Do not hide behind your conscience. Obama is the most anti-Catholic, anti-religion President in history. He literally wants to take your freedom of religion from you. Why, in Gods name, would any Catholic vote for this man.

Hiding behind conscience does not absolve sin. It is an inaccurate interpretation of what the Church teaches on conscience. Conscience does not mean “license” to do what one wants.

I sincerely pray you and all Catholics will conform your conscience to the Truth, which dictates a vote for Mr. Romney in the upcoming election.

God bless.

-Paul

 

[St_Francis]

In the community where I grew up, we live frugally, shared what we had when we had it and otherwise planned and trusted God for the future. I never saw anyone left to go without because we thought we might not have enough for tomorrow - ever. Not a bad set of principles to live by, personally or collectively.

As a nation, we do not *think *we may not have enough for tomorrow, we *know *we do not have enough for today. We are spending $1,300,000,000,000 a year more than we take in, and have been doing so for quite some time.

Slightly over 1/3rd of what we spent at the federal level last year was borrowed.

Now, in the community you lived in, there seems to have been some equilibrium between income (monetary and in kind) and expenditures. Quite possibly this was long enough ago that medical expenses were not so high, and people died without accruing huge medical bills. I am not sure what counts in your mind as doing without. Currently, a person can go through $300,000 in one month in the ICU, and that is not counting surgeries or other treatment. That is just for being *in *the ICU.

I am not talking about letting someone die in the street while we save some money for the future; I am just pointing out that the path we are currently going down is leading to bankruptcy.

Right now, each man, woman. and child in this country owes over $50,000 for debt due to deficit spending. Each man, woman, and child owes $12,000/year (at current level) *just for interest. *

And that is not the totality of our debt. That is just the official debt. “Unfunded liabilities” total over $104 Trillion: that is how much we have promised to pay in Social Security and Medicare, programs into which people have been paying for decades. That’s over $288,000 per man, woman, and child.

I would completely prefer a nation in which each man, woman, and child had a great shot at life, with all the resources they needed, and where everyone was kind and helped everyone else out, and nothing cost very much and employers didn’t ship people’s jobs overseas. That would be great!

Unfortunately, that is not the nation in which I live. The nation in which I live is on financial life support and overwhelming its resources. There are rules and new customs prohibiting the type of help your community was able to give, and everyone is moving around so the few communities which are like the one you lived in are dying out.

We cannot continue the on this path; we need to change a lot of what we are doing. Or, we could go on this way and see just what happens when the government runs out of money or we are using wheelbarrows to carry enough money to buy bread…

 

[eightandsand]

God forgives sin. When did it become a sin to vote your conscience?

It is most certainly a sin to vote for politicians that have positions and voting records that are in direct opposition of the teachings of the Catholic Church on issues of faith and morals. The teachings of the Cathoic Church on faith and morals are the teachings of the Divine Lawgiver who is the source of “conscience.”

Personally, I don’t see how a practicing Catholic can vote for either of these milk-toast men. One of them is nakedly opposed to the Church on a number of issues of faith and morals and the other one has a voting record and a history that belies his carefully crafted, politically-calculated rhetoric to the contrary.

 

[PJD1987]

It is most certainly a sin to vote for politicians that have positions and voting records that are in direct opposition of the teachings of the Catholic Church on issues of faith and morals. The teachings of the Cathoic Church on faith and morals are the teachings of the Divine Lawgiver who is the source of “conscience.”

Personally, I don’t see how a practicing Catholic can vote for either of these milk-toast men. One of them is nakedly opposed to the Church on a number of issues of faith and morals and the other one has a voting record and a history that belies his carefully crafted, politically-calculated rhetoric to the contrary.

Not voting for Mr. Romney is a vote for Mr. Obama. That is a fact. I pray that you will reconsider and vote for Mr. Romney. Our very freedom of religion depends upon it. I don’t understand how people are not seeing that!

God bless.

-Paul

 

[St_Francis]

…I sincerely pray you and all Catholics will conform your conscience to the Truth, which dictates a vote for Mr. Romney in the upcoming election.

God bless.

-Paul

I have to admit, I do not think that this is *required. *I do not think that a vote for Obama is in line with Church teaching, but I do not agree that voting for Romney therefore *is *required.

I used to think like you do, I used to argue with people like mad, but then I stopped and paused (as the result of something someone wrote):

Voting is an act. Like many acts, it can be moral or immoral, but the morality of the act is *not dependent on the outcome. *Sometimes we have to perform the act we see as morally correct rather than the act that will get us what we want, and sometimes we have to perform the act which is morally correct *regardless of the outcome. *

I, personally, could not vote for Obama on his abortion record. No way, no how.

But suppose someone like Giuliani (pro-abortion R) were running against him?

Clearly, I would be unable to vote for him, either. A vote for *either *Obama or Giuliani would clearly be immoral, or potentially immoral.

And it is *my act. *I have to accomplish or commit it. And sometimes we have to do an act thinking that the outcome will be bad, but all we can control is our own act, and all we will be responsible for is our own act. And we will be responsible for that act *before God. *

God will not hold us responsible for the outcome. He will not say, wow, a pro-choice person got in because of your vote. He will only consider the nature of our own act.

Now, I am not saying that Romney is Giuliani; and apparently one could vote for either if the other were running. But I wanted to show with great clarity that the act of voting is an act, so we shouldn’t try to “guilt” people into voting for someone *just because *they are not someone else. There may be people here who believe that Romney has not built up enough credibility on his pro-life stance. There may be others who believe that voting for Romeny would be immoral for other reasons.

But the thing is, we can’t really say that a vote for Romney is “dictated;” maybe a write-in vote or vote for a third party candidate is dictated, or maybe not voting at all.

 

[PJD1987]

I have to admit, I do not think that this is *required. *I do not think that a vote for Obama is in line with Church teaching, but I do not agree that voting for Romney therefore *is *required.

I used to think like you do, I used to argue with people like mad, but then I stopped and paused (as the result of something someone wrote):

Voting is an act. Like many acts, it can be moral or immoral, but the morality of the act is *not dependent on the outcome. *Sometimes we have to perform the act we see as morally correct rather than the act that will get us what we want, and sometimes we have to perform the act which is morally correct *regardless of the outcome. *

I, personally, could not vote for Obama on his abortion record. No way, no how.

But suppose someone like Giuliani (pro-abortion R) were running against him?

Clearly, I would be unable to vote for him, either. A vote for *either *Obama or Giuliani would clearly be immoral, or potentially immoral.

And it is *my act. *I have to accomplish or commit it. And sometimes we have to do an act thinking that the outcome will be bad, but all we can control is our own act, and all we will be responsible for is our own act. And we will be responsible for that act *before God. *

God will not hold us responsible for the outcome. He will not say, wow, a pro-choice person got in because of your vote. He will only consider the nature of our own act.

Now, I am not saying that Romney is Giuliani; and apparently one could vote for either if the other were running. But I wanted to show with great clarity that the act of voting is an act, so we shouldn’t try to “guilt” people into voting for someone *just because *they are not someone else. There may be people here who believe that Romney has not built up enough credibility on his pro-life stance. There may be others who believe that voting for Romeny would be immoral for other reasons.

But the thing is, we can’t really say that a vote for Romney is “dictated;” maybe a write-in vote or vote for a third party candidate is dictated, or maybe not voting at all.

I appreciate your sentiments, but I disagree very much. Every vote taken away from Mr. Romney increases the likelihood of Mr. Obama being elected. For the sake of our religion, this must not be aided and abetted by faithful Catholics. We cannot aid Mr. Obama by comission or omission, both aid him equally. I continue to pray for all those who are considering any course of action other than a vote for Mr. Romney. The facts are the facts and one can do all the mental gymnastics one wants to justify themselves, but it does not change the facts.

I am not trying to guilt anybody, I am speaking the Truth and imploring others to seek it, assured of my prayers. Again, I continue to pray that others will see the true clarity in the matter.

God bless.

-Paul

 

[CMatt25]

Well that is simply not what the Church teaches and thus, aware, obedient, practicing Catholics will not vote for President Obama. You can speak all you want about your talking points about “what Jesus said” and your obvious issues with Catholic social teaching, that’s fine, but none of it is applicable to practicing Catholics.

There is a real difference between a practicing Catholic and non-practicing Catholic, I don’t understand people being upset about that. Either you are obedient to the Holy Father and the Magisterium, or you are not. If one is not, then one cannot say they are truly Catholic. That would be like someone saying, yeah I’m swimming in the pool, but they’re not lounging on a chair poolside. It doesn’t make any sense.

And this self-righteous obsession with social justice issues is just ridiculous, the Church is very clear on its social justice teachings, but it’s inaccurate to state that it cares about some and not others. We care about all social justice, but what point is fighting for social justice if human being’s right to live is being denied by the scourge of abortion every moment we breath. The Church has been very clear on this topic, and it has stated there is no more important issue than the right to life, namely abortion. One can play all types of mental gymnastics to get around that, but that does not make it true. That’s where the practicing and non-practicing comes in and why it is so important.

As Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen said, “Sometimes we can cover up our want of individual justice by a great love of social justice.” I feel that many people fall into that trap, and that is how Catholics end up voting for someone like Mr. Obama.

God bless.

• Paul

Romney 2012

Well perhaps that is true but I don’t necessarily speak for what is applicable for practicing Catholics. I never claimed to. There are many faiths I do not speak for. I only speak for myself and what I believe and where I put my faith. You don’t even see the word Catholic in my profile. But I don’t think anyone is upset if the words practicing Catholic and non practicing Catholic are used. Though I can’t speak for everyone. Because I know of Catholics here, I’ve seen at least one on this thread, who from what I have gathered previously is planning to vote for President Obama. And this other poster most definitely would argue he/she is a practicing Catholic based on previous posts I’ve read of theirs. I’m going to assume by someone not truly Catholic if they’re not obedient to the Holy Father and the Magisterium, you meant they’re just not fully faithful in practice. And thank you so much and God bless you, Paul, as well. Peace.

 

[PJD1987]

Well perhaps that is true but I don’t necessarily speak for what is applicable for practicing Catholics. I never claimed to. There are many faiths I do not speak for. I only speak for myself and what I believe and where I put my faith. You don’t even see the word Catholic in my profile. But I don’t think anyone is upset if the words practicing Catholic and non practicing Catholic are used. Though I can’t speak for everyone. Because I know of Catholics here, I’ve seen at least one on this thread, who from what I have gathered previously is planning to vote for President Obama. And this other poster most definitely would argue he/she is a practicing Catholic based on previous posts I’ve read of theirs. I’m going to assume by someone not truly Catholic if they’re not obedient to the Holy Father and the Magisterium, you meant they’re just not fully faithful in practice. And thank you so much and God bless you, Paul, as well. Peace.

Its most likely an internal problem within Catholicism. Many want to consider themselves Catholic, but then, as you say, will defend their own spurning of Catholic teaching to vote for Mr. Obama, the most anti-Catholic/anti-religion President ever. It makes no sense, yet they continue to claim they are truly Catholic. Again, the swimming pool analogy applies, you can’t just be something just because you say you are, you know what I mean? That is what irks me. If someone wants to vote for Mr. Obama, fine, but that person cannot in the same breath claim to be a practicing Catholic. It just doesn’t work that way. But anyway, thank you for your response.

God bless.

-Paul