I am not ‘criticizing’ the Pope. As I’ve tried to explain in my previous posts, I believe it means we are to use our faith formed consciences to make decisions when it is not specified in instructions from the Pope.
I didn’t say you were.
By doing that, you actually helped elect the one most distant from your beliefs. If candidate “A” is 100% pro-choice, candidate “B” supports abortion in only very limited circumstances, and candidate “C” [your write-in] is in line with church teaching but doesn’t have a ghost of a chance of winning, you helped elect “A” by denying “B” your vote and thus promoted the worse evil.
Have you read the USCCB’s statements?
Yes, I understand. And, yes you are right—NO ONE can judge another’s worthiness. Only God can do that. We may however judge ACTIONS of people but not the person himself. And practically speaking, ultimately we judge ourselves in the end and thus place ourselves with Him or without Him for all eternity. He only carries out the sentence so to speak.
I heard all of that during the last election. The write in was the only candidate that actually attended the right to life rally in Washington, DC. He seemed not to have a ghost of a chance because others chose to nominate someone else for what appeared to be other issues, that were questionable in my ‘conscience’.
I read all of the guides I could find. I also read many, many Church documents, including those that specifically stated that Catholics are not single issue voters. Some of those documents, on the Vatican website, stated there was a list of issues to be considered. So, I did the best I could.
I know some Catholics like that who rationalized their voting for advocates of abortion on demand just so they can get whatever social justice that comes with, say, federal funding for sandals for gay ex-nuns with a foot-fetish in Nob Noster, MO. They are the ones who put them in office because they crossed over, and crossover voters [sometimes called “swing” voters] are the ones who decide elections.
That’s why Right to Life organizations look at things like candidate voting records. Did you research any for your area?
And what, pray tell, is wrong with being a single-issue voter? This “accusation” is thrown around as though there were some law against it. Don’t you think the folks at Planned Parenthood are single issue voters? This is just a faux debating argument designed to disarm the anti-abortion side. A debate between a conservative Catholic and a liberal Jew went like this:
Right, but everyone leaves out the most important part: a properly formed faith-based conscience achieved by right-reason.
Actually, the issues were more like immigration, tax issues, gun rights, health care, and on and on.
It seems you’re taking this to include all elections for all offices for some reason? I thought I had made it clear that I was discussing the presidential election.
The Vatican documents stated Catholics were not single issue voters.
What is your point?
That everyone is a liberal, because no one would make a law requiring church attendance?You call my definition “bizarre” and “unclarified”. What, clearly and exactly, does the word mean to you?
If you can’t understand why single-issue voters are a bad thing in politics you don’t really understand politics. Voting for a politician because of a single issue or value keeps people from fully researching and understanding who they are voting for. Also, any study of politics or government will show that this type of voting behavior leads to the rise of extremist parties and radicalizes politics - which stops any type of political cooperation or collaboration, the key to a working government in a multi-party system.
On the contrary, if you don’t see how voting for a hopeless case is helping the one who is furthest away from your position on the issues, you don’t understand how our political system works. See here.
This looks like a non-sequitur.
Ditto.
It was not intended to be a rigorous analysis of the Holocaust.
Then why has there been so much endless ink dedicated to explaining why so many Jews are liberal, many of whom are Jews themselves?“There can hardly be a soul left in America unaware of the tragic and misguided Jewish embrace of liberalism. With such a clear conflict between Jewish values and the doctrines of liberalism why are so many Jews liberals?” beartotheright.blogspot.com/2006/04/passover-explains-jewish-liberalism.html
I though it was why people would stay in the Church when they disagree with the teachings of the Church. That’s the way I read the OP’s question.
“This forum” says nothing of the kind! there are members here, such as myself, who find it expedient to vigorously inform people when their practices and beliefs have ALREADY placed them outside the Church.
This is a just accusation in my case. This is indeed what I hear. And even more, I understand “liberal” to mean that a person sees no problem with being a cafeteria catholic, because, since the church could be wrong, there is no necessity to obey. I know this is not always the case (I have met some liberals on here that obey in spite of their disagreement) but it is a prejudice I have.
At the risk of starting an off-topic debate, I will say that this reminds me of what some Democrats said after they lost big in 1994. “We haven’t succeeded in communicating our message adequately,” was their excuse. The fact of the matter was they had communicated their message very well, and that’s why they lost. The same applies here. Liberals have communicated what “liberal” means so well it is now a tainted word, and rightfully so since only about 25-30% of the population agrees with what liberals want. So they had to change their name to “progressives” although they have only hinted what they want to “progress” toward. All this is to conceal their real goal, and that is to force their beliefs on the rest. Before you object, let me state that that is the message they have communicated. The perception they have given is that of people indiscriminately tearing down fences before they learned why they were put up. IOW, they do not justify why a change is needed, but rather demand others justify why it is not [remember, the burden of proof is on the advocate of change].
Depends on what you are talking about. Basically, beliefs can be divided into two broad groups: disciplines and doctrines. I can remember when reception of communion on the tongue was required and was preceded by fasting from midnight until after mass. This included abstaining from drinking so much as a sip of water.[We even had to be careful not to swallow any while brushing our teeth.] Now all that has been eliminated, and we have communion on the hand or tongue. Doctrines, such as the Real Presence are ever-constant.
Perhaps it’s because liberal Catholics have done a good job communicating that message.
So, how do you define the term?
You really need to get out more. But if you are not willing to learn about our separated brethren, please try to refrain from making these outlandish assertions. They are an embarrassment!
Liberalism creates poverty? Really?
I consider liberals, religious or political, to be “ThOpp-ers”: to get truth, Think Opposite from what they say.