- Status
C
corvidae
Guest
Were you intimidated? That was not my intent. I apologize if you were, I was simply suggesting possible reasons for the lack of the words proportionate reasons. Your bishop may disagree with me on proportionate, but I know plenty of bishops who would disagree with him. Just because a bishop says it does not mean it is the teaching of the church. Bishops are human too.
Again, I apologize if you think I was trying to intimidate you.
A lone Raven
E
estesbob
Guest
The truth is often intmidating. You can see how politics have poisioned Phantoms mind. Like to the abortionists he supports those who support life have become the enemy-in fact in one post he declared that those who vote pro-life are akin to Satan !
F
fix
Guest
Your post #110 said this:
And that is why I said voting for the democrat in the last election would be wrong as he was more pro death than the republican.
So, one may indeed have to vote for the lesser of two evils. The republican supported abortion for so-called life of the mother reasons and incest which is of course still a direct abortion.
I hope I was being clear in my first post as I did not disagree with your point.
E
estesbob
Guest
We have to keep in mind NOTHING trumps abortion and that accordingly the only time proportinality comes into to play is if both canidates are pro-abortion. Even then the Church explicity points out that the ONLY thing you look at in determining porportionality is their stand on abortion. Thus there is not, as many in this thread contend(you not being one of them), an option to vote for a pro-abortion canidate becuase you think his view on the war, the death penalty or any other number of issues is better,
In the case you mention if one canidate supports abortion in most cases and the other only in cases of rape and incest the Church is clear you vote for the latter regardless of how :right" one may think the first canidate is on other issues
P
phantom
Guest
No, you were not intimidating. Bishop McCormick was the head of the US Conference Of Catholic Bishops. He was speaking on a news program in that capicity. He stated the Bishops never declared that everyone who voted for a prochoice candidate was guilty of sin. He said it was a sin only if you voted for them specifically because they were prochoice. This is very much in line with Benedicts statement that it was only acceptable to vote for a prochoice candidate over a prolife candidate if there were “proportionate reasons” to do so. CA comes out with a pamphlet that declares Catholics are guilty of sin anytime they vote for a prochoice candidate over a prolife candidate. My contention is their pamphlets are false and intimidating. I say there are many possible “proportionate reasons” and they say the only “proportionate reason” that exists is if both candidates are prochoice. And on…and on…and on… They occasionally accuse me of haveing the blood of unborn babies on my hands…etc…etc… I accuse them of idolatry for seeking solutions from govt instead of God…etc…etc The difference of opinion is unresolvable. I will not be a single issue voter and I don’t think that all Catholics should be single issue voters. I pay taxes and I vote, those are moral obligations to my country. There are too many things going on in this world to only be looking at one issue. Catholics should be able to judge the candidates for themselves and make informed decisions, if they believe there are “proportionate reasons” to vote for a prochoice candidates over a prolife candidate they should be free to do that without haveing political activists coming into their Churches and intimidating them into voteing toward their bias. Jesus told us the greatest commandment is “thou shalt not commit idolatry”, I believe that is probably the most overlooked sin in the world today. Most of us are guilty of it in more ways than we even realize. I believe the Liberation Theology people were guilty of it, in that they sought solutions to economic injustice from govt instead of God and I don’t think we should always be seeking solutions to moral and social injustice through govt action either. This conservative political movement is very similar to liberation theology, just with a different set of goals.
J
Julianna
Guest
thanks phantom, but I’m ok…I don’t follow the guilt trip…
2
2heartsaz1
Guest
It gets more than a bit confusing out in the desert this time of season with a critical voting month in our midst and nebulous leadership in our diocese. However, not to despair! Our neighboring diocese’s shepherd is speaking publicly in plain, clear language:
www.bettnet.com/blog/index.php/weblog/comments/bishop_olmsteds_voter_guide/
When the Arizona Catholic Conference asked candidates 12 questions, such as: Favors the legalization of physician assisted suicide, Prohibits informed consent regarding the risks and side effects of abortion, abortion alternatives…and several in reference to illegally hired immigrants…the waters are muddied with regard to clear church teaching as none are existent and much emphasis is placed on providing water to those who are risking their lives across the harsh desert lands for healthcare and income.
The question becomes, what is a person to do when so many life issues are at stake, when so many candidates support anti-life legislation yet favor a few humanitarian and amnesty efforts toward those who illegaly enter the US? Couldn’t the bishops unite on this? Haven’t we crossed this bridge before? Our diocese had a “dialogue” inside a Catholic church, with bishop, ACC coordinator, and a representative from the “Interfaith Alliance” sitting outside the altar and us commoners sitting in the pews with a roving microphone for questions and discussion (1 minute per person who had the fortune of being acknowleged and 30 minutes of the 90 minutes going to the 3 panelists who highlighted the need for civil dialogue)…there was no clear, delineated teaching except on marriage, thank GOD! The “polarization” was also highlighted which presented the church as being divided between Pro-life and Immigration. What a dilemma.
www.bettnet.com/blog/index.php/weblog/comments/bishop_olmsteds_voter_guide/
When the Arizona Catholic Conference asked candidates 12 questions, such as: Favors the legalization of physician assisted suicide, Prohibits informed consent regarding the risks and side effects of abortion, abortion alternatives…and several in reference to illegally hired immigrants…the waters are muddied with regard to clear church teaching as none are existent and much emphasis is placed on providing water to those who are risking their lives across the harsh desert lands for healthcare and income.
The question becomes, what is a person to do when so many life issues are at stake, when so many candidates support anti-life legislation yet favor a few humanitarian and amnesty efforts toward those who illegaly enter the US? Couldn’t the bishops unite on this? Haven’t we crossed this bridge before? Our diocese had a “dialogue” inside a Catholic church, with bishop, ACC coordinator, and a representative from the “Interfaith Alliance” sitting outside the altar and us commoners sitting in the pews with a roving microphone for questions and discussion (1 minute per person who had the fortune of being acknowleged and 30 minutes of the 90 minutes going to the 3 panelists who highlighted the need for civil dialogue)…there was no clear, delineated teaching except on marriage, thank GOD! The “polarization” was also highlighted which presented the church as being divided between Pro-life and Immigration. What a dilemma.
T
trogiah
Guest
I believe I would second that opinion.this thread clearly makes one think, to keep who they vote for…to themselves…
Also I can’t help thinking that if all men followed the wise advice found in your signature… the number of abortions (legal or not) would drop enormously - Far more than they would drop regardless of the result of any election.
Peace
Jim
C
corvidae
Guest
I have a quote that might be helpful in this discussion.
It is from a sixth century pope. It is not an infallible teaching, but is a good idea none the less.
“Not to oppose error is to approve it;
and not to defend truth is to suppress it.
and, indeed, to neglect to confound evil men
– when we can do it –
is no less a sin than to encourage them.”
Pope Felix III
While this is not an infallible teaching, it should make us think, are we encouraging things by how we vote. Are we defending the truth by how we act. Are we confounding evil?
Just a thought
A lone Raven
It is from a sixth century pope. It is not an infallible teaching, but is a good idea none the less.
“Not to oppose error is to approve it;
and not to defend truth is to suppress it.
and, indeed, to neglect to confound evil men
– when we can do it –
is no less a sin than to encourage them.”
Pope Felix III
While this is not an infallible teaching, it should make us think, are we encouraging things by how we vote. Are we defending the truth by how we act. Are we confounding evil?
Just a thought
A lone Raven
B
bankerdavid
Guest
They also support illegal immigration, though they leave out the word illegal. Quoted from the “bulletin insert”:
*
Facts on Immigrant Workers in the U.S.
“Don’t mistreat any foreigners who live in your land. Instead treat them as
well as your treat citizens and love them as much as you love yourself.
Remember, you were once foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your
God” (Lev. 19:33,34).
• 11.5 percent of the U.S. population is foreign-born totaling 32.5
million immigrants, according to the 2002 population survey.
• Immigrants provide more to the nation’s economy and
government services than they take or use, adding about $10
billion each year to the U.S. economy and paying at least $133
million in taxes.
• A large proportion of immigrant families (85 percent) are mixed
status (at least one parent is a non-citizen and one child is a
citizen).
• Immigrant workers working full time are nearly twice as likely
to make less than $20,000/year than native workers (31.1
versus 17.4 percent).*
This is true about legal immigrants, not about illegals. And while I agree that we should always allow people their dignity, if they want to be an American, there’s a proper way to be an American.
- Status