Who Will You Vote For in 2012?

[SwordandShield]

The separation of Church and State is a myth created by the left in order to control Churches and people of faith. No such wall was ever intended and no such wall exists in the constitution. If anything, the wall could be said to be one way: the state cannot infringe on faith.

Oh, trust me, I know this very well.

You said that a growing number of our bishops are not real Catholics. That is slander. And WHO ARE YOU to judge the loyalty of the hierarchy to the Pope and the Church?

I believe that now, you are just attempting to get a rise out of me. I will respond to this last reply and afterwards, you can say what you will, because it seems you enjoyed twisting what I had said. I will stand by that there is a growing number of Bishops that push liberal agendas in lieu of Church Doctrine, that is, against Church Doctrine. Slander is the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation. I don’t see a false statement anywhere that I have said, I have even presented you with one such Bishop for you to see for yourself, it is your fault that you will not. Who am I? No one, and that is the point, I may be Laity, but I, too, am a member of the Body of the Church, and I will not sit by as a tumor grows in the body of the Church.

 

[TMC]

No…try using the entire quote–not just the portion you do not like. Beyond that, for both os us, that statement is NOT binding on the faithful and you know that is true, neither portion.

Yet, it seems no matter how many times I call you to use the entire quote, you won’t because you know that the second part of that quote negates your argument.

I really get frustrated when people stubbornly stay attached to an opinion the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

An ironic position to take, given that this exchange began with me objecting to a non-existent “specific statement” that would have been non-binding even if it existed (which it does not, and I notice no one is even pretending to defend its existence anymore). I do not agree that the second sentence of the paragraph negates the meaning of the first sentence, but I will endeavor to be more complete in my quotes in the future.

 

[TMC]

I assume that means you will not even attempt to reply to the multidue of quotes, douments, vatican statments, etc showing a Catholic can not support one who supports abortion? The problem with these discussions is on one side we present clea,r concise documents, quotes, etc-on the other side all we get is personal interpretion of what the documents , quotes “really” mean.

I understand that you have decided that a few select (and mostly out of context) quotes validate your position. I think that I have made it clear that I don’t agree and have shown the actually on-point guidance from the bishops supports my view. The fact that you simply disregard those documents and arguments does not mean that one side is relying on “personal interpreations” while the other is speaking with magisterial authority.

 

[jfmarm81]

Abortion will remain legal in this country until Catholic Democrats come to love the unborn more than they hate the GOP.

Love this! If you don’t mind, I’d like to post this as a facebook status…get the message out!

 

[estesbob]

Love this! If you don’t mind, I’d like to post this as a facebook status…get the message out!

Go right ahead-as i said i adapted it from a statment made by golda Meir

 

[irishpatrick]

An ironic position to take, given that this exchange began with me objecting to a non-existent “specific statement” that would have been non-binding even if it existed (which it does not, and I notice no one is even pretending to defend its existence anymore). I do not agree that the second sentence of the paragraph negates the meaning of the first sentence, but I will endeavor to be more complete in my quotes in the future.

See, you cannot properly understand simple posts (no insult intended): I never said the second part negates the first, in fact I said quite a bit more than that if you take the time to read my posts. The first parts clearly sets out the normal situation for Catholics, in that we do not fall into being single issue voters, yet the second parts makes it clear that there are times when it is legitimate to be a single issue voter.

 

[bellasbane]

Pardon me for interrupting, but…

Our Bishops are so AWESOME! - :extrahappy:

Just check out their website! faithfulcitizenship.org/

Loads of resources and terrific videos for faithful Catholics trying to figure out how to make political decisions. The images below are from two videos that are particularly relevant to this thread. (Clicking on the images will take you to the USCCB webpage these videos are are hosted - you may have to scroll down a bit to find them).

Favorite quote from the first video: “The Church’s teaching does not fit conveniently into the platform of either one of the parties. We may find ourselves feeling like we do not have a political home” (4:20 mark).

To me this is a call to all Catholics, whether Republican or Democratic, to work to transform their party so it is more closely aligned with Catholic teaching. Each of us must work to oppose abortion and other intrinsic evils in the way we believe will best promote the common good and preserve the dignity of all people. If this is our intent, then we are acting in good conscience and being good Catholics.

faithfulcitizenship.org/photos/video_conscience11.jpg

Are you a faithful citizen? Test yourself by taking the two part video quiz from the website: (it is actually quite fun )

faithfulcitizenship.org/photos/video_Angrisano1.jpg

 

[irishpatrick]

Pardon me for interrupting, but…

Our Bishops are so AWESOME! - :extrahappy:

Just check out their website! faithfulcitizenship.org/

Loads of resources and terrific videos for faithful Catholics trying to figure out how to make political decisions. The images below are from two videos that are particularly relevant to this thread. (Clicking on the images will take you to the USCCB webpage these videos are are hosted - you may have to scroll down a bit to find them).

Favorite quote from the first video: “The Church’s teaching does not fit conveniently into the platform of either one of the parties. We may find ourselves feeling like we do not have a political home” (4:20 mark).

To me this is a call to all Catholics, whether Republican or Democratic, to work to transform their party so it is more closely aligned with Catholic teaching. Each of us must work to oppose abortion and other intrinsic evils in the way we believe will best promote the common good and preserve the dignity of all people. If this is our intent, then we are acting in good conscience and being good Catholics.

faithfulcitizenship.org/photos/video_conscience11.jpg

Are you a faithful citizen? Test yourself by taking the two part video quiz from the website: (it is actually quite fun )

faithfulcitizenship.org/photos/video_Angrisano1.jpg

The problem I have here is that it makes it look as if voting for either party is fine since both parties are imperfect. That, in turn, leads to Catholics ignoring the life and marriage issues in order to vote for their favorite party (in the case of many Catholics that is the Democratic Party because that was what they were born into–most never even consider other ways of thinking). That is precisley why abortion is still legal. IMO.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Oh, trust me, I know this very well.

No, as to the first, prove it as to the second.

I will stand by that there is a growing number of Bishops that push liberal agendas in lieu of Church Doctrine, that is, against Church Doctrine.

Nonsense.

I don’t see a false statement anywhere that I have said,

You have asserted that you, absent any bona fides, tell the truth and don’t lie.

Sure.

I have even presented you with one such Bishop for you to see for yourself, it is your fault that you will not.

One bishop whom YOU say is a heretic. Could you prove that in a Church court? And one isn’t the multitude you imply is destroying the Church.

Who am I? No one, and that is the point, I may be Laity, but I, too, am a member of the Body of the Church, and I will not sit by as a tumor grows in the body of the Church.

You’ve written to Rome and arranged a meeting with some higher up in the Curia about this?

I don’t see other posters jumping in and giving high 5s to your assertion. Most telling.

 

[TMC]

See, you cannot properly understand simple posts (no insult intended): I never said the second part negates the first, in fact I said quite a bit more than that if you take the time to read my posts. The first parts clearly sets out the normal situation for Catholics, in that we do not fall into being single issue voters, yet the second parts makes it clear that there are times when it is legitimate to be a single issue voter.

For future reference, insults that are followed by the words “no insult intended” are still insults.

I agree that the document says that sometimes one issue can lead to a Catholic rejecting a candidate, but it does not say that Catholics are required to reject a candidate based solely on any single issue.

 

[irishpatrick]

For future reference, insults that are followed by the words “no insult intended” are still insults.

I agree that the document says that sometimes one issue can lead to a Catholic rejecting a candidate, but it does not say that Catholics are required to reject a candidate based solely on any single issue.

If I say I mean no insult, it is because I mean no insult. Period.

The document uses the word “may,” not “can.”

I never said a Catholic–according to that non-binding document and single paragraph–is required to reject a candidate based on one issue. Here, however, is where the issue of a properly formed conscience comes into play. If one takes the totality of Scripture, Tradition, statements by the Church, the Popes, and even recently many Bishops, and the Catechism–and then applies common rational sense…one cannot avoid concluding that a Catholic must not do anything that will advance the cause of legal abortion. There simply is no proportionate issue to abortion, unless one knows the world face nuclear war or something akin to that.

Yet, it takes work to have a properly formed conscience and most do not want to bother, most want to use one paragraph in a non-binding document that also includes many other statements, while ignoring the vast information both inside and outside of that document (including that one single paragraph).

This single paragraph from the Catechism should be more than enough for any thinking Catholic:

2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous."61 The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.​

 

[bellasbane]

The problem I have here is that it makes it look as if voting for either party is fine since both parties are imperfect. That, in turn, leads to Catholics ignoring the life and marriage issues in order to vote for their favorite party (in the case of many Catholics that is the Democratic Party because that was what they were born into–most never even consider other ways of thinking). That is precisley why abortion is still legal. IMO.

IMO you are totally entitled to IYO , but that’s not how I see it at all. The KEY is to vote in good conscience. I oppose abortion just as much as you do, but perhaps we have different views on how to end it. Maybe you’re right, maybe I am - if we both work toward the same goal using different methods, hopefully one of us will get there. Then it’s hurray for all!

What will hurt us is anger and hatred and failing to approach differences in opinion from a charitable perspective.

 

[irishpatrick]

IMO you are totally entitled to IYO , but that’s not how I see it at all. The KEY is to vote in good conscience. I oppose abortion just as much as you do, but perhaps we have different views on how to end it. Maybe you’re right, maybe I am - if we both work toward the same goal using different methods, hopefully one of us will get there. Then it’s hurray for all!

What will hurt us is anger and hatred and failing to approach differences in opinion from a charitable perspective.

I am all for being charitable…yet an evil law and evil practice are evil no matter how we sping it. In the end, there are ways to reduce abortions…but frankly that just is not enough. Abortion should be banned by law…anyone who does it after that is doing so against the law.

A moral people does not stand for killing its own, just as slavery also could not stand.

 

[Demforlife]

When will you all learn? The abortion issue is lost. We cannot stop it through Congress, or our state legislatures, or any other elected official. The Supreme Court time and time again ruled that abortion is a constitutional right. How about we stop supporting the Party that lies to us and pulls reverse socialism on us. You are all against socialism but you don’t realize that the Republican Party is the socialist party for the rich. You hate theft but you are ok with them stealing the poor’s money to give to the wealthy. You say it is ok to bomb children in Iraq as long as the Republicans claim to care for the unborn. You claim Catholics that have a brain and know that the Republicans are liers are false Catholics. Anyone who claims that the Democrats are the Party of Death need to have their brain examined. The Republican Party is the party of death. Of the seven justices in the majority during Roe v. Wade, 5 of them were Republicans. Ronald Reagan, as governor of California, legalized abortion before Roe v. Wade. Why did the Republicans do nothing to stop abortion when they controlled the Presidency, Senate, House, and Supreme Court from 2001-2007? Why didn’t they do anything? It’s because they need your votes. Every year they claim they will stop abortion but all they do is toss out some bones to get your support. The partial birth abortion ban, which stops around 1,000 abortions a year? Give me a break. The Republican Party is nothing more than a party of anti-christs.

 

[irishpatrick]

When will you all learn? The abortion issue is lost. We cannot stop it through Congress, or our state legislatures, or any other elected official. The Supreme Court time and time again ruled that abortion is a constitutional right. How about we stop supporting the Party that lies to us and pulls reverse socialism on us. You are all against socialism but you don’t realize that the Republican Party is the socialist party for the rich. You hate theft but you are ok with them stealing the poor’s money to give to the wealthy. You say it is ok to bomb children in Iraq as long as the Republicans claim to care for the unborn. You claim Catholics that have a brain and know that the Republicans are liers are false Catholics. Anyone who claims that the Democrats are the Party of Death need to have their brain examined. The Republican Party is the party of death. Of the seven justices in the majority during Roe v. Wade, 5 of them were Republicans. Ronald Reagan, as governor of California, legalized abortion before Roe v. Wade. Why did the Republicans do nothing to stop abortion when they controlled the Presidency, Senate, House, and Supreme Court from 2001-2007? Why didn’t they do anything? It’s because they need your votes. Every year they claim they will stop abortion but all they do is toss out some bones to get your support. The partial birth abortion ban, which stops around 1,000 abortions a year? Give me a break. The Republican Party is nothing more than a party of anti-christs.

First, those justices were not the same who are in place now. Second, if we can get a filibuster proof Senate, the House and WH, then we can pass a life amendment making abortion illegal forever (unless someday overturned, which is highly unlikely). This can and will happen if Catholics just start being Catholic!

The GOP did NOT have filibuster proof majorities during the Bush years…never–they had the slimest of margins. IMO, if Bush had a filibuster proof majority, abortion would already be illegal.

I have posted the accomplishments of the Bush years in a separate post…yet if you knew those 1,000-2,000 babies saved through the ban on partial birth abortion (and that is each year btw), could you look them in the face and say the effort to save them was wasted!?

 

[irishpatrick]

DemforLIfe,

PRO-LIFE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

1. Appointed Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. The appointments resulted in the upholding of the federal partial-birth abortion ban by a 5-4 decision.
2. Reinstituted the Mexico City Policy, begun by the Reagan Administration and reversed by the Clinton Administration (when Congress tried to reinstitute the policy, Clinton vetoed the bill), that bars foreign aid funding to groups that perform or advocate for abortions. In 2003, the Bush Administration expanded the Mexico City Policy to include not just funds dispensed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), but also the State Department.
3. Discouraged advancement of pro-abortion legislation by announcing early in his administration that he would veto legislation that threatened pro-life policy.
4. Signed the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, which made it a federal crime not to treat babies who survive abortion.
5. Signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 2003.
6. Signed Unborn Victims of Violence Act, recognizing the unborn child as a separate crime victim if injured or killed during an assault.
7. Cut off all federal funds to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) for its involvement in China’s one-child policy which includes forced abortion and sterilization. President Bush sent a fact-finding mission to China which found that the nation’s one-child policy was indeed coercive in nature and that the UNFPA was an integral part of implementing that policy, placing the UNFPA in clear violation of the Kemp-Kasten Amendment that prohibits any aid to any program that involves forced abortion or forced sterilization. Tens of millions of dollars that otherwise would have gone to the UNFPA were redirected to maternal and child health programs.
8. Thwarted efforts at the United Nations to promote abortion by instructing U.S. delegates to state at every appropriate opportunity that America does not regard anything in any document before the U.N. to establish any international right to abortion.
9. Issued Executive Order banning the use of new lines of embryonic stem cells in federally funded experiments. Later vetoed legislation passed by Congress to permit federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
10. Signed the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005, which will fund research using umbilical cord and adult stem cells. The measure provides funding to increase the inventory of cord blood units available to match and treat patients and to link cord blood banks so that doctors have a single source to search for cord blood and bone marrow matches. It also reauthorizes the National Bone Marrow Registry.
11. Launched public awareness of adoption campaign, working with the National Council for Adoption and pregnancy help centers across the country. The campaign sponsored conferences encouraging faith based communities to promote adoption and produced public service announcements featuring the First Lady urging the adoption of foster children.
12. Established the first federal government and national website listing and showing children available for adoption across the country (www.AdoptUSKids.org).
13. Increased the tax credit for adoption related expenses from $5,000 to $10,000; for special needs children, the credit was raised from $5,000 for qualified adoption related expenses to $10,000 for any adoption related expenses. This was done as part of the President’s tax relief bill.
14. Annually declared Sanctity of Human Life Day.
15. Issued a federal regulation allowing states to include unborn children in the federal/state S-CHIP program, which provides health insurance for children in poor families. This allowed states to include pre-natal care in the health insurance they offer to poor children under the program.
16. The Bush Administration did what it could to stop assisted suicide from taking further hold in Oregon. The state of Oregon passed an assisted suicide law that allows doctors to prescribe federally controlled drugs in lethal amounts to certain of their patients who say they want to die. Federal law holds that federally controlled drugs may only be prescribed for legitimate medical purposes. During the Clinton Administration, Attorney General Janet Reno decreed that assisted suicide was a legitimate medical purpose in those states that permit it.

During the Bush Administration, Attorney General John Ashcroft changed that ruling, saying that assisted suicide was not a legitimate medical purpose, thereby barring doctors from prescribing lethal drugs. A lawsuit was filed and ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing the drugs to be used for assisted suicide.

1. Signed legislation making it possible for a federal court to hear whether Terri Schiavo’s constitutional rights had been violated by being denied hydration and nutrition.
2. Dramatically increased funding for abstinence education through the Department of Health and Human Services, although Congress did not approve the full amount the Bush Administration requested.

From Priests for Life.

 

[TMC]

If I say I mean no insult, it is because I mean no insult. Period.

The document uses the word “may,” not “can.”

I never said a Catholic–according to that non-binding document and single paragraph–is required to reject a candidate based on one issue. Here, however, is where the issue of a properly formed conscience comes into play. If one takes the totality of Scripture, Tradition, statements by the Church, the Popes, and even recently many Bishops, and the Catechism–and then applies common rational sense…one cannot avoid concluding that a Catholic must not do anything that will advance the cause of legal abortion. There simply is no proportionate issue to abortion, unless one knows the world face nuclear war or something akin to that.

Yet, it takes work to have a properly formed conscience and most do not want to bother, most want to use one paragraph in a non-binding document that also includes many other statements, while ignoring the vast information both inside and outside of that document (including that one single paragraph).

This single paragraph from the Catechism should be more than enough for any thinking Catholic:

2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous."61 The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.​

​

Many Catholics with properly formed consciences have concluded that there are issues that can outweigh the fact that one candidate is more pro-choice than the other. The whole point of our disagreement, I think, is that some Catholics believe that the only thing Catholics should do is to vote for the person they perceive to be the most pro-life, where pro-life refers only to the abortion issue. I think that Catholics should do more than that, and that a Catholic with a properly formed conscience can decide that it is moral and proper to vote for a candidate despite the fact that he or she is worse on that one issue than the other candidate.

 

[SwordandShield]

I would like to invite certain individuals to investigate for themselves on what I have said:

youtube.com/watch?v=ekN0Dcj_aJ8

youtube.com/watch?v=zwXFb9pfXow&feature=related

youtube.com/watch?v=7jmsJMlD5OA&feature=related

youtube.com/watch?v=HgFvwCyazDQ

This is just the tip of the iceberg, I also invite those who want to defend the Church to review this series, starting with part 1 (other parts listed on the side):

youtube.com/watch?v=0d32P2KNye4

Just because I am alone voicing this, does not mean it is not true, Satan works to corrupt our minds in the shadows, not openly where he can be exposed and defeated in our Unity.

 

[estesbob]

IMO you are totally entitled to IYO , but that’s not how I see it at all. The KEY is to vote in good conscience. I oppose abortion just as much as you do, but perhaps we have different views on how to end it. Maybe you’re right, maybe I am - if we both work toward the same goal using different methods, hopefully one of us will get there. Then it’s hurray for all!

What will hurt us is anger and hatred and failing to approach differences in opinion from a charitable perspective.

The key is to folow the teaching of the Church. if your conscience tells you it is ok to vote for a pro-abortion canidate then your conscinece is wrong. You can not end abortion in this country by voting for those who support it.

 

[estesbob]

Many Catholics with properly formed consciences have concluded that there are issues that can outweigh the fact that one candidate is more pro-choice than the other…

And they are wrong, both in their view and in their contnetion that they have properly formed conscience. . In fact if they hold this view it is obvious that they have either not troubled to learn what the Church teaches or have decided that their political views are more important than their faith.