Because God does not change.I don’t see any reason why every person will come to the same conclusion on moral gray areas.
Your question fails on it’s premise. What ever feelings I might have, the word “despise” does not describe them.Answer me this, Is it Trump the man you all despise or is it his policies?
This is both uncharitable and wrong.because you want to…
some things can’t be different (bold mine)then it may be different for different individuals.
Ms. Clark uses prudential judgment, but this applies to your “it can be different for different people”, it really can’t where Catholic policy is involved, all Catholics have the same policy.“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia… there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
To say that something is a matter of prudential judgment does not mean that I decide for me, you decide for you, and it doesn’t matter if we disagree – it’s “prudential judgment.” All of our judgments must be examined in the light of truth and the Gospel. All of our judgments require a rigorous process of conscience formation in which we gather all relevant information, examine in detail the context, learn and consider the applicable Christian tradition and teachings before we can make a prudential judgment. Prudential judgment should not be understood in a modern voluntaristic way; it should be understood within this framework of the good, truth, and formation of conscience. (Meghan Clark)
what does this say about his base?Because that’s what his base WANTS to hear. He’s learned to be a politician.
100%? does anyone?Are you claiming that one party follows Catholic values absolutely 100% and the other not at all? If so, state so. If not, it’s a moral gray area.
- There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor . Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called “intrinsically evil” actions . They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned . A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia . In our nation, “abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice . A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.
1 of 2
- Sometimes morally flawed laws already exist. In this situation, the process of framing legislation to protect life is subject to prudential judgment and “the art of the possible.” At times this process may restore justice only partially or gradually. For example, St. John Paul II taught that when a government official who fully opposes abortion cannot succeed in completely overturning a pro-abortion law, he or she may work to improve protection for unborn human life, “limiting the harm done by such a law” and lessening its negative impact as much as possible (Evangelium Vitae, no. 73). Such incremental improvements in the law are acceptable as steps toward the full restoration of justice. However, Catholics must never abandon the moral requirement to seek full protection for all human life from the moment of conception until natural death
- Prudential judgment is also needed in applying moral principles to specific policy choices in areas such as armed conflict, housing, health care, immigration, and others. This does not mean that all choices are equally valid, or that our guidance and that of other Church leaders is just another political opinion or policy preference among many others. Rather, we urge Catholics to listen carefully to the Church’s teachers when we apply Catholic social teaching to specific proposals and situations. The judgments and recommendations that we make as bishops on such specific issues do not carry the same moral authority as statements of universal moral teachings. Nevertheless, the Church’s guidance on these matters is an essential resource for Catholics as they determine whether their own moral judgments are consistent with the Gospel and with Catholic teaching.
(Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship)
- As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet if a candidate’s position on a single issue promotes an intrinsically evil act, such as legal abortion, redefining marriage in a way that denies its essential meaning, or racist behavior, a voter may legitimately disqualify a candidate from receiving support
do you have an issue with prudential judgment being understood in the light of truth and the Gospel?I wonder what she would say about your prudential judgement on this matter.
Since abortion and euthanasia have been defined by the Church as the most serious sins prevalent in our society, what kind of reasons could possibly be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion? None of the reasons commonly suggested could even begin to be proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for such a candidate. Reasons such as the candidate’s position on war, or taxes, or the death penalty, or immigration, or a national health plan, or social security, or AIDS, or homosexuality, or marriage, or any similar burning societal issues of our time are simply lacking in proportionality. BISHOP RENE HENRY GRACIDA
does that invalidate this teaching? attack the person…Didn’t Bishop Gracida accuse Pope Francis of heretical positions?
I base my judgment on policyI might think that it is your judgement that is clouded.
bold mine
- St. John Paul II explained the importance of being true to fundamental Church teachings:
Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture-is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination. ( Christifideles Laici , no. 38)
No, i have applied nothing to politics at all.You are claiming everyone in a moral gray area should come to the same conclusion and are applying it to partisan politics.
I have not once referenced either party.Hence, you are making God a Republican or a Democrat.
And that is the type of insulting words applied to others here that erode the credibility of your argument.It’s very sad to see.
When one votes for a pro-abortion candidate, they have, in fact, made a statement that there is some other issue of higher importance.No one is claiming abortion is okay.
That’s why I wouldn’t run for any office in the U.S. Not as a Catholic anyway. There are just too many pro-choice people here.what does this say about his base?
I understand your reasoning here.Yeh, I took this advice and voted for Rauner, a Republican Illinois Governor, who signed a bill funding abortions. Right away we had a fourfold increase in the number of abortions.
yeah, noI would say yes, it does invalidate the teaching.
wrong,Ah, the nonnegotiables, a teaching made by lay people. I’d be very careful to not confuse actual Church teaching with lay people’s interpretation of those teachings.
Pope John Paul defining non-negotiable… but not using the words. (bold mine)As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable.
Pope St. John Paul II, Encyclical The Gospel of Life 74
Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. […] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it”
Bold mine.Answer me this, Is it Trump the man you all despise or is it his policies?
Again bold mine.Your question fails on it’s premise. What ever feelings I might have, the word “despise” does not describe them.