Why won’t USCCB state it’s a sin to vote for ProChoice candidate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jofa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TheLittleLady said:
You are the person who made the claims, it seems you are walking back and pushing the claim at the same time.
Click to expand...
where do I say it is in the platform? read what I wrote. do you deny these are democratic goals? I have shown where these ideas are being pushed.
TheLittleLady said:
One local candidate in Idaho does not make policy for the National Candidates, I did not see that as a platform in the IDC platform either. The National Candidates must stand on the DNC Party Platform.
Click to expand...
not only Utah…

what about California?
SB 360, Threat to Seal of Confession, Passes California Senate
Click to expand...
Andy Rivas, executive director of the California Catholic Conference, issued the following statement following the passage of SB 360 Mandatory reporting (Hill, D-San Mateo):

“We are disappointed that the California State Senate today passed SB 360, a bill that will help no one yet has the potential to hurt everyone. While the California Catholic Conference shares the desire to combat the scourge of sexual abuse of minors and is committed to strengthening mandatory reporting requirements, interjecting the government into the confessional is not going to accomplish that objective and could undermine the guarantee of confidentiality all of us depend upon. The Senate Appropriations Committee inserted amendments that recognize the need to protect confession. Unfortunately, those changes left out protections for employees and members of the church. We will continue to work to protect confession for all as the bill moves to the State Assembly.” (California Catholic Conference)
Click to expand...
as California goes so will the Democrats if they win at the national level.

you can deny these are issues but it doesn’t stop them being pushed by the democrats.

SSM didn’t just appear on a national platform.
 
JulianN said:
Not exactly. The “ministers” were owners of a for-profit wedding chapel, not a church. Because it was for-profit, it was considered a public accommodation and the city’s non-discrimination ordinances applied.
Click to expand...
there is more involved than a location (bold mine):
And in the case of the Hitching Post, one could almost make the argument that since Uncle Sam had determined that all facilities for ceremonies – you will recall the situation with Liberty Ridge Farm – must be open to everyone, then the chapel in Idaho might have to let such couples marry in their chapel. But to tell the pastors that they must perform the service?

Surely this is a situation where the courts can draw a distinction between the business and the person performing the service, because the service in question is somewhat unique. The Knapps are not bakers or photographers or caterers. The “business” they engage in involves more than pots and pans, rolls of film or fancy plates. Their “job” is, as I said, somewhat unique because in the course of practicing it, they are simultaneously engaging in the free exercise of their religion. And the phrase the free exercise thereof should be ringing a bell. (hot air)
Click to expand...
if they can force these ministers, it won’t be long before they can force catholic priests.
 
upant said:
if they can force these ministers, it won’t be long before they can force catholic priests.
Click to expand...
Actually, they never threatened to force them to do that. The “ministers,” who owned a for-profit wedding venue that advertised its willingness to perform marriages for other faiths or civil ceremonies, closed on their own because they were ‘afraid someone would tell them they had to perform same-sex weddings.’ But the city made it clear they were not going to do that.

It did give the business owners an excuse to sue for loss of business while they were closed —and had no weddings scheduled anyway.
 
Last edited:
JulianN said:
Actually, they never threatened to force them to do that.
Click to expand...
from the restraining order (bold mine), it sounds like they did.
because same-sex marriage is now legal in Idaho following a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Defendant has privately told the Knapps and publicly stated that the Knapps must perform religious, same-sex marriage ceremonies or violate the Ordinance, which bans places of public accommodation from discriminating based on sexual orientation.

The Knapps cannot perform same-sex marriage ceremonies and publicly bless same-sex marriages without violating their personal religious belief that marriage is a sacred union established by God between man and woman, their church’s doctrine, their ordination vows, and their consciences. When a prospective customer called and asked if The Hitching Post would perform a same-sex wedding ceremony on October 17, 2014, they accordingly declined that request. For this single act, the Ordinance subjects the Knapps to up to 6 months in jail and $1,000 in fines.
Click to expand...
 
There is no evidence the city actually said that to the Knapps. The Knapps filed suit based on their “fears” they’d be told to officiate at same sex weddings. It’s important to keep in mind that the wedding chapel is a for-profit business, not a church.
 
I’ve read the policy statements from every Democrat canidate. Good news is none of them is “for destruction of families”, pro violating confessional seal nor pro forcing the church to perform same sex marriages.
 
TheLittleLady said:
I’ve read the policy statements from every Democrat canidate. Good news is none of them is “for destruction of families”, pro violating confessional seal nor pro forcing the church to perform same sex marriages.
Click to expand...
This is quite funny, actually.
 
The American Solidarity Party has a lot of good points. But I just can’t get behind the pelican logo. I’m sure there’s a lot of good solid reasons why a pelican is a good choice, but to be honest it’s nerdy. It takes too much explanation. Plus, it looks like it should be a shoulder patch from a Louisiana sport fishing club.
 
Oftentimes in elections both candidates are pro-abortion, or the ones who claim to be anti-abortion aren’t really. Additionally there are a large number of sincere yet misguided Catholics who are pro-abortion, and pushing them away from the church will endanger their souls as well as deny them the chance to see the error of their ways.

This is a church for sinners, founded by a man who died to forgive sinners.
 
on_the_hill said:
The American Solidarity Party has a lot of good points. But I just can’t get behind the pelican logo. I’m sure there’s a lot of good solid reasons why a pelican is a good choice, but to be honest it’s nerdy. It takes too much explanation. Plus, it looks like it should be a shoulder patch from a Louisiana sport fishing club.
Click to expand...
Oh no the Pelican is a traditional Christian symbol well known in Europe. There’s a US Priest on another Catholic site who uses the Pelican for his logo all the time.

“In medieval Europe, the pelican was thought to be particularly attentive to her young, to the point of providing her own blood by wounding her own breast when no other food was available. As a result, the pelican became a symbol of the Passion of Jesus and of the Eucharist since about the 12th century.” Wiki

And look at all these churches that have the pelican as a centerpiece in their stained glass windows.
 
Last edited:
JulianN said:
There is no evidence the city actually said that to the Knapps. The Knapps filed suit based on their “fears” they’d be told to officiate at same sex weddings. It’s important to keep in mind that the wedding chapel is a for-profit business, not a church.
Click to expand...
the court filing says it was publicly stated and that the minister did refuse a couple. that was why they were seeking the order.
TheLittleLady said:
I’ve read the policy statements from every Democrat canidate. Good news is none of them is “for destruction of families”, pro violating confessional seal nor pro forcing the church to perform same sex marriages.
Click to expand...
their statements play to the “Gruber” Americans

the bad news is that their policies continue to cause the destruction of the family, how does the welfare family penalty, SSM, transgenderism, etc build the family in a Catholic sense?

California and Utah are pushing to break the seal of the confession

Did you forget the LGBT accommodations Beto and Castro were pushing for the churches?
Democratic presidential candidate Julian Castro, a former Obama administration official and former mayor of San Antonio, also said he opposes tax-exemptions for churches and faith-based groups that don’t accept same-sex marriage and adhere to LGBT accommodations.
Click to expand...
Former Texas representative and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke said Thursday that churches, charities and other religious institutions that oppose same-sex marriage should lose their tax exempt status.
Click to expand...
again you can deny the issues but the democrats are and some are very clear
 
1ke said:
Neither the USCCB nor the Church as a whole say it’s a sin to vote for a “pro choice” candidate because it isn’t .

Read what the USCCB says again. Read what the Church teaches about faithful citizenship and voting.
Click to expand...
I do not have a dog in this particular fight (not a U.S. citizen) but I do have an interest in the moral guidance given or not given by the Church. The original post touches on the moral aspect and it also begs the question “Should the Church say it is a sin to vote for a candidate who advocates slavery or should it remain quiet?” If it should declare that it was sinful, why one and not the other?
 
jofa said:
It’s analogous to the RNC before Trump came along: wishy-washy, vague, trying to please everyone and therefore pleasing no one
Click to expand...
Well, as I mentioned on a similar thread, as an immigrant the first election cycle I ever witnessed in the US was for governor of California, where I witnessed 1 pro-life Republican candidate (Lundgren) get verbally torn-apart by 3 Democratic candidates whose ONLY platform was that they “protected a woman’s right to choose”. That was it…nothing other than that; just calling out Lundren’s pro-life stance and asserting their pro-abortion stance in every attack ad. What’s worse; 2 of the Democratic candidates were nominally Catholic (and one of the two won). Needless to say, it soured me so horribly that once I got my citizenship I registered Republican…only to discover that in the following Gubernatorial election (after the incompetent CINO was recalled), the (in)famous “(name removed by moderator)” was running…as a pro-abortion Republican.

So, my choice was essentially to vote for a pro-abortion Democrat or a pro-abortion Republican. And while I’ve heard ALL the arguments (i.e. “just vote for the party…at least the Republican party doesn’t have pro-abortion in its charter like the Democrats!”) to date I have not/nor can I bring myself to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. So…what good would a USCCB directive have in such cases? It comes down to morality and choice. What do you think would be accomplished if they said point blank “you cannot vote for any pro-abortion candidate”? I’ll tell you: they would highlight how disconnected people who call themselves Catholic are from the authority of the church, since it would have absolutely zero impact at all. And they don’t want to expose this.
 
upant said:
the court filing says it was publicly stated and that the minister did refuse a couple. that was why they were seeking the order.
Click to expand...
It was publicly stated that, as a for-profit business, the venue was subject to the ordinance. The city made it clear they were not going to enforce it.

This isn’t a church being persecuted—it’s a for-profit business that made it clear it would perform any kind of religious or non-religious ceremony you wanted.
 
The Church doesn’t state that it is a sin, but Catholics are encouraged and urged to vote pro-life. Now, it is a sin to be pro-choice, and a person who is openly pro-choice may be refused Communion. (Like Joe Biden was last year!) However, voting for a pro-choice candidate may not be considered a sin in “the books”, but it is taught and talked about that our duty as Catholics is the vote pro-life.
 
19h
@jofa – USCCB voting guides are so vague they are neither Catholic nor guide!
I am scandalized by the USCCB’s decisions half the time.
Click to expand...
I too am scandalized by the USCCB, and I appreciate your post. I must say, reading through the many posts on this thread that excuse or justify the present-day “Democrat party” grieve me more than the USCCB. Has anyone here seen the EWTN special on Saul Alinsky - “A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing”? The inroads of liberal → progressive → socialist → communist infiltration in America, in the Catholic Church, in the Democrat Party are deeply, gravely, scandalously troubling.

So many are not educated in this very real work of sabotage, which continues today, and continues to progress toward the final goal of the spirit behind it all. It is very, very evil. As St. Teresa of Calcutta rightly said (I paraphrase), when the child in the mother’s womb is not safe, no one is safe. When there is no right to life, there are no rights at all. When a nation defends the killing of the most innocent and vulnerable, there is no justice - no righteousness - only a land embracing a culture of death. No matter how “free” the slaves think that they are.
 
Last edited:
The donkey and elephant are also odd animals as mascot.

If forming the Lady Party, our mascot would be a badger
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top