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

[CMatt25]

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!

Francis, I know this was not directed to me but I just had to say I agree. That’s what I think. And I have no idea why those who consider themselves more faithful Catholics can’t do this. Personally of your options I think CINO sounds the most negative. But the other 2 not so bad. You actually echo though a Catholic bishop I once asked. He said there are either practicing or non practicing. But both Catholic.

 

[Bill_Martin]

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 agree about Romney. Voting for him makes me sick, but he is more likely to do the right thing in terms of policy and, more importantly, Supreme Court appointments, because his party will be pushing him that way.

 

[CMatt25]

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… 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.

I just agreed with Francis too on something. Your apology has been accepted by me. And I’m not at all worried about whatever hypothetical you opened on the other thread.

 

[CMatt25]

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.

I can and I don’t believe it’s something God needs to forgive me for.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I just agreed with Francis too on something. Your apology has been accepted by me. And I’m not at all worried about whatever hypothetical you opened on the other thread.

I didn’t think you personally were “worried” about what I proposed in my Apologetics thread (relative to Catholic identities). You weren’t online at the time; I was addressing those who were focused on Catholic identities, and I was suggesting a possible solution which would be less incendiary imho and might be more likely to keep all baptized Catholics within Holy Mother Church as practicing Catholics. (vs. “non-practicing”)

 

[CMatt25]

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

Paul, I think then the Church could have just left out these parts of CCC and could have just gotten right to the point and just said one must force their conscience to be in line with teaching.

1776 “Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey… His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.”

1782 “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters”

1790 “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself”

 

[CMatt25]

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

Paul, I think I know what you mean. I’ll let those who call themselves practicing Catholics and who are voting for President Obama discuss it with you and explain how they can if they choose. They’ve explained it on other threads previously though so I don’t know if they will be tired of doing so or not.

 

[PJD1987]

Paul, I think then the Church could have just left out these parts of CCC and could have just gotten right to the point and just said one must force their conscience to be in line with teaching.

1776 “Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey… His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.”

1782 “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters”

1790 “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself”

All this is true, but none of it denies anything I said. A correctly formed conscience is in line with the Catholic Church. If a Catholic searches his/her conscience and finds it is at odds with the Church it is incumbent upon that person to conform it to the Church’s teaching. The Church is not wrong in these matters, it is guided and protected by the Holy Spirit. Thus, man must have some defeciency of conscience that is in error when it strays from Church teaching. As I said before, conscience is not a license to do what one pleases, but many use it as such, and it is an erroneous notion of conscience, not at all what the Church teaches.

God bless.

-Paul

 

[Ridgerunner]

I see you agree that it’s not health care impoverishing those countries you discuss. It’s a much more complex picture than you describe, particularly since we had our own economic downturn WITHOUT the help of universal health care. Admittedly you were jumping all over the world with your examples but the picture is clear: universal health care doesn’t impoverish countries.

As for Cuba, drugs and equipment may be limited because of trade restrictions, but that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the concept of providing free health care to the whole population. Sure they might not have gleaming, state of the art medical facilities where you pay $100/min just for the ambiance, but so what? Health care quality is measured by health indices, as in people cured/improved/dying/living - NOT by how great a hospital room looks. Cuban-trained doctors are improving health and saving lives all over the world, and they’re not turned off by a little dust and grime, unlike some of their more pampered contemporaries.

Nothing described on that site is unique to Cuba among other Third World countries - even the pharmacies, though not separate by nationality in other countries, are just as often stratified by the depth of people’s pockets. Come to think of it, every developing country I know has government pharmacies which are less amply stocked than expensive private ones…

That article is too supercilious for words: “every bacteria under the sun” - I have lived and worked in multiple poor countries and it strikes me that hospital infections are, if anything, MORE common in the US where antibiotics are overused like everything else in medicine…

It’s time for Americans to get with reality: the rest of the developed world has managed to afford decent care for its citizens without subjecting them to medical facilities that offend their tender sensibilities. What, save the sense of entitlement of some to supposed ‘best’, prevents the same happening here?

I never said socialized healthcare alone impoverishes a country. It only helps impoverish a country.

Cuban healthcare for ordinary Cubans is atrocious. You are making excuses for their pharmacies when they often don’t even carry aspirin? nationalcenter.org/NPA557_Cuban_Health_Care.html

I would like to see your evidence that infections in U.S. hospitals are more common than they are in the third world. And overuse??? Are you not aware that in many third world countries you can buy all kinds of powerful drugs over the counter (some of suspicious origin)? Do you not know that’s why drug-resistant TB is beginning to be a serious problem here? It’s because Latin Americans, particularly Mexicans, self-treat there and bring superinfections here. They do it there and they do it here. Ask any physician who deals with them.

Many developed countries have “two-tier” medical systems. In some, it’s formally so (like in France) and in some, it’s a reality, but is not formally so. (like Canada). Obamacare is, at very best, a two tier system, and a worse one than we had before.

Obama himself said Obamacare will leave something like 20 million uninsured. It’s beginning to look like a lot more than that will be uninsured. Certainly if the 10% of employers who are planning on dropping health insurance do so, it will be more. (And I’m sure it will be more than 10% who drop it) I realize some are dedicated to the ideal of identical health care for all. Obama promised that, but won’t deliver it. He promised that everybody would have the coverage Congress has, but conspicuously failed to do that. There is always a price to be paid for everything. We had a healthcare system with which some 70 to 80% were satisfied. We are now going to have one that’s much more expensive; that almost certainly covers fewer people and that few seem to favor.

But I’m sure anyone who believes Cuban health care is good for any but the elites, is refractory to any effectiveness the nostrum of reality can provide.

 

[CMatt25]

All this is true, but none of it denies anything I said. A correctly formed conscience is in line with the Catholic Church. If a Catholic searches his/her conscience and finds it is at odds with the Church it is incumbent upon that person to conform it to the Church’s teaching. The Church is not wrong in these matters, it is guided and protected by the Holy Spirit. Thus, man must have some defeciency of conscience that is in error when it strays from Church teaching. As I said before, conscience is not a license to do what one pleases, but many use it as such, and it is an erroneous notion of conscience, not at all what the Church teaches.

God bless.

-Paul

That’s what I was saying. CCC could have just gotten to the bottom line. One must force their conscience to conform. Period.

Since that’s the case I think all that other could have just been left out about one’s conscience being a secret core and sanctuary where one is alone with God Whose voice within. That man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. And must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience in religious matters or else he condemns himself.

 

[PJD1987]

That’s what I was saying. CCC could have just gotten to the bottom line. One must force their conscience to conform. Period.

Since that’s the case I think all that other could have just been left out about one’s conscience being a secret core and sanctuary where one is alone with God Whose voice within. That man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. And must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience in religious matters or else he condemns himself.

I disagree on that claim, the conscience is central to the whole concept. But I must say, if we continue down this path of conversation I’m afraid we will get very off topic to the point of the thread. Lol It is a fascinating conversation though, that I’m open to discuss if you want to PM me or start a new thread. Let me know.

God bless.

-Paul

 

[St_Francis]

That’s what I was saying. CCC could have just gotten to the bottom line. One must force their conscience to conform. Period.

Since that’s the case I think all that other could have just been left out about one’s conscience being a secret core and sanctuary where one is alone with God Whose voice within. That man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. And must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience in religious matters or else he condemns himself.

I disagree on that claim, the conscience is central to the whole concept. But I must say, if we continue down this path of conversation I’m afraid we will get very off topic to the point of the thread. Lol It is a fascinating conversation though, that I’m open to discuss if you want to PM me or start a new thread. Let me know.

God bless.

-Paul

I would be interested in the thread

 

[PJD1987]

I would be interested in the thread

I would be too, someone please PM me or otherwise notify me if it gets created.

God bless.

-Paul

 

[Elizabeth502]

I would be too, someone please PM me or otherwise notify me if it gets created.

I just opened one in Apologetics.

 

[seekerz]

I never said socialized healthcare alone impoverishes a country. It only helps impoverish a country.

Cuban healthcare for ordinary Cubans is atrocious. You are making excuses for their pharmacies when they often don’t even carry aspirin? nationalcenter.org/NPA557_Cuban_Health_Care.html

I would like to see your evidence that infections in U.S. hospitals are more common than they are in the third world. And overuse??? Are you not aware that in many third world countries you can buy all kinds of powerful drugs over the counter (some of suspicious origin)? Do you not know that’s why drug-resistant TB is beginning to be a serious problem here? It’s because Latin Americans, particularly Mexicans, self-treat there and bring superinfections here. They do it there and they do it here. Ask any physician who deals with them.

Many developed countries have “two-tier” medical systems. In some, it’s formally so (like in France) and in some, it’s a reality, but is not formally so. (like Canada). Obamacare is, at very best, a two tier system, and a worse one than we had before.

Obama himself said Obamacare will leave something like 20 million uninsured. It’s beginning to look like a lot more than that will be uninsured. Certainly if the 10% of employers who are planning on dropping health insurance do so, it will be more. (And I’m sure it will be more than 10% who drop it) I realize some are dedicated to the ideal of identical health care for all. Obama promised that, but won’t deliver it. He promised that everybody would have the coverage Congress has, but conspicuously failed to do that. There is always a price to be paid for everything. We had a healthcare system with which some 70 to 80% were satisfied. We are now going to have one that’s much more expensive; that almost certainly covers fewer people and that few seem to favor.

But I’m sure anyone who believes Cuban health care is good for any but the elites, is refractory to any effectiveness the nostrum of reality can provide.

I don’t know where to begin…

-with your previous assertion that universal health care impoverishes countries when

• in REALITY, for many developing countries, even the pitiful level of universal health care their governments can manage is all that stands between them and much higher infant/maternal mortality, vitamin-deprived anemic kids who can’t learn and the uncontrolled spread of vaccine-preventable diseases. Nothing an Aspirin could fix in case you’re wondering…the best health care the Third World ever had was not curative but preventive.

• with your assertion that Cuban health care is “atrocious” on the basis of an article that seems to have no parameters for health care quality other than the personal ‘yuck’ factor, when,

*in REALITY, many developing countries struggle to get near to Cuba’s standards of health care. Like I said before, the level of economic development definitely limits what these countries can afford to provide their citizens in terms of health care but the poorer/sicker a country the more health care access contributes to its economic development - not the other way around - by increasing the productivity of its populace. That’s the main reason international financial institutions like the World Bank INVEST in the health systems of the countries they lend to.

-your admission that the US also has a two-tier health system is very interesting, though I would question the assertion that this will be exacerbated by Obamacare

• in REALITY, based on my personal experience any patient who gets through the door of a US medical facility gets pretty much the same treatment (I’ll admit there are some anomalies between population subgroups) as anyone else with same health condition. The real problems lies in getting through the door - not in what happens once you’re inside.

As for the rest, we could go back and forth. To my knowledge, drug-resistant TB gets that way because too many people fail to complete treatment. Regarding hospital infections, I provide no evidence for an assertion that I already stated was based on my personal experiences and observations. From the anecdotal nature of the article you linked to, personal experience seemed good enough to base my own argument on.

Perhaps our comparisons would make more sense if countries of similar levels of development were compared to each other, because the availability of drugs, services or equipment in a middle-income or high-income country is decidedly different from that in a low-income one. Nevertheless, I stand with the World Bank and the IMF in seeing health care access as central to relieving poverty rather than being detrimental to that end.

 

[seekerz]

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

Truth…Romney…upcoming election. These are the words that jump out at me. I will likewise, pray for you…

 

[seekerz]

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…

My tween was watching that ‘digging the debt hole’ ad when he commented: “that money is spent to run things and fix things so that the country can work.” Out of the mouths of babes…?

Seriously, I get your concerns but in my mind the answer is to cut waste and to increase productivity, not to stop spending. That latter tack didn’t work in my personal financial endeavors and I’m pretty sure it doesn’t work on a wider scale either.

I fully agree with you regarding health costs in particular: they are enormous - and NO, they need not be so. The answer is not to accept that they must keep going through the roof and bankrupt us or to accept that those who can’t afford to pay must go without, the answer is to find a way to control costs.

 

[PJD1987]

Truth…Romney…upcoming election. These are the words that jump out at me. I will likewise, pray for you…

Well I will be voting for the candidate that does not want to end Christianity, so I am perfectly all set. But thanks for the prayers.

I don’t understand how you justify this position of voting for the man who wants to end your religion…I don’t get it…please explain, I’d love to hear it.

God bless.

-Paul

 

[seekerz]

Well I will be voting for the candidate that does not want to end Christianity, so I am perfectly all set. But thanks for the prayers.

I don’t understand how you justify this position of voting for the man who wants to end your religion…I don’t get it…please explain, I’d love to hear it.

God bless.

-Paul

Some candidate wants to end my religion? Really? Who is he? What is his religion?

 

[PJD1987]

Some candidate wants to end my religion? Really?

Have you not been paying attention for the last 4 years, most importantly this past year when the HHS Mandate has gone into effect?

Again, this is the most anti-Catholic, anti-religion President in the living memory. How can you be blind to that? There is a full out assault on religion and the Catholic Church in this country, the person in charge of setting that agenda that completely disrespects and disregards our deeply held belief and faith…Barack Obama.

God bless.

-Paul