1. Welcome to Mother of God Forums - A place dedicated to the Mother of God. Please feel free to join us in prayer and sharing. Please Register to start posting.
    Dismiss Notice

The Two Popes

Discussion in 'Pope Francis' started by Carmel333, May 3, 2013.

  1. Richard67

    Richard67 Powers


    You are not against abortion. You admitted on the Trump thread that you voted for pro-abortion candidate Gary Johnson.
     
    Byron, Pray4peace and Dean like this.
  2. Most certainly I am against abortion. Gary Johnson didn't have a chance of winning, and it was a way to vote against Hillary without voting for Trump.
     
  3. By that same logic, you are in favor of divorce and remarriage because you voted FOR Trump.
     
  4. First off, David, hello and well met! It is true that people can change, and if anyone can change Trump, it will be Melania - she seems a good sort. Living with him must be very difficult - it takes a special sort of grace to stay married to an adulterer, especially in today's divorce-prone world.
     
  5. From your lips to God's ear, as the saying goes.... but first, the person in need of healing has to recognise the fact that they are ill.
     
  6. Richard67

    Richard67 Powers

    Give me a break. It’s clear you are here to push an anti-Trump agenda. That only helps one side. Come back here with the anti-Trump talking points during the next election, then we can debate them all over again. You are a day late and a dollar short.
     
    Byron, sunburst and CathyG like this.
  7. Richard67

    Richard67 Powers

    So you refused to vote for Trump on principle but then tossed that very same principle out the window and voted for Johnson. Come on, you are not foolin anyone here. If you were capable of not voting for Trump on the principle that he was pro-choice (in your mind) then you would have applied that same principle to the actual pro-choice candidtate Gary Johnson. Your vote for Johnson actually was a vote for Hillary because it was one less vote for Trump.
     
    Pray4peace and Byron like this.
  8. josephite

    josephite Powers

    Hi Cynthia,

    Imagine someone who says "welcome this little child" and then in His very next breath tells those around Him... "not to stop a person who is not with us but to continue to allow them to drive out devils because they are for us!

    There is a lot of wisdom here and very apt to this discussion!


    St Luke 9:46-50

    46 An argument started between them about which of them was the greatest.

    47 Jesus knew what thoughts were going through their minds, and he took a little child whom he set by his side

    48 and then he said to them, 'Anyone who welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and anyone who welcomes me, welcomes the one who sent me. The least among you all is the one who is the greatest.'

    49 John spoke up. 'Master,' he said, 'we saw someone driving out devils in your name, and because he is not with us we tried to stop him.'

    50 But Jesus said to him, 'You must not stop him: anyone who is not against you is for you.'



    Because aren't we all saying the same thing..........We [that is, you, me, Richard and all the forum members] see the sin of abortion for what it is, 'not welcoming the little child' as well as being a hideous abomination against God!

    Yet, in the very same passage at the very same time, Our Lord goes on to tell us......'not to stop those driving out these demons of abortions [Mr Trump comes to mind] because those not against us are for us!

    I think sometimes people can't see the forest because they are blinded by the trees!
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2018
    Don_D, Mary's child, CathyG and 3 others like this.
  9. Bernadette

    Bernadette Principalities

    Josephite, you took the words right out of my mouth! I was just pondering a few minutes before that "those who are not against us are with us" when I was reading comments about Trump. I pray every day that God will bless President Trump and his family. I also pray that he will succeed in everything that is God's will.

    God bless!
     
    Don_D, Byron, sunburst and 8 others like this.
  10. Praetorian

    Praetorian Powers

    Hi Cynthia, I am just catching up on this thread. I believe you when you say you are against abortion. You (and many others) may be unaware, but Catholics are forbidden to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil (which abortion is). So even if there are only 2 candidates running, if they both support abortion, we are not allowed to vote for either of them. The "lesser of 2 evils" is not actually Catholic Teaching, it is just something that has grown up in popular culture. I just wanted to point that out for anyone who might be unaware.

    Also welcome to the forum :)
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2018
  11. BrianK

    BrianK Resident Kook, Crank, Curmudgeon - & Mod Staff Member

    Honestly, I didn't vote for Trump either. I voted for a pro-life third party candidate.

    That said, Trump has done more for the pro-life cause in his first year than any president since RvW.

    Trump claims he used to be pro abortion, but then someone he knew chose to keep their child when he could have been aborted, and he has grown very fond of that child.

    Frankly, I strongly suspect that child is his son Bannon, and his wife courageously resisted his pressure to abort, and now he's really glad he was born and his pro-life "conversion" is not just political expediency, but real.

    The way things stand now, if he runs again, I'll vote for him with a clear conscience, given all the poor choices being advanced by both parties.
     
  12. Dean

    Dean Archangels

    This is hogwash. This is the new liberal speak because they are losing. Pro-life is about protecting the unborn. It’s not about other social issues. All those other groups have protections and rights. The babies being muttered do not. All those others have something that 60million babies killed do not. Life.
     
  13. AED

    AED Powers

    Bravo Dean. Bravo!!
     
  14. sunburst

    sunburst Archangels

    Cynthia, how can you even compare taking the innocent life of an unborn infant to social injustice? In all your vile rantings against President Trump, I think it is highly unlikely you will win anyone here over to your position,...
    So why bother?
    A tree doesn't bend!
    People don't see abortion for what it truly is because they turn a blind eye,...
    But what is the true choice that is God given,.. our free will
    No one has any rights when it comes to going against the Ten Commandments, no matter how one wants to spin it, or should I say sin it?
     
    HeavenlyHosts and Mary's child like this.
  15. S
    Sunburst, I'm not comparing abortion to "social injustice" - I'm comparing the murder of the unborn to Satan's attack on ALL life. Condemning abortion is very good, but not good enough - by itself, it's a half-measure. When God says "Thou shalt not kill", He means not to murder ANYBODY, born or unborn, and He doesn't care whether you wield the murder weapon yourself or slay His children in a less direct manner, by supporting ideologies that oppress the poor, the sick and the elderly, by support of the death penalty, or by degrading the family and society by promoting homosexual activity, divorce, and promiscuity.....
    ....and, our Holy Father Pope Francis, like Pope John Paul II before him, teaches the very same thing.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 24, 2018
  16. Thank you for your welcome!:)
    However, I believe that you are wrong regarding the "lesser of two evils" argument. I'm linking to an article where Colin Donovan, vice president for theology at EWTN, explains it better than I can:
    http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/is-there-a-lesser-of-two-evils1



    Is There a Lesser of Two Evils?

    COLIN DONOVAN


    A persistent question arises every election cycle among Catholics: Is it ever justified to vote for the lesser of two evils, that is, for a candidate who does not hold the Church’s teaching on abortion, but whose position is less extreme than another candidate’s?

    Catholics who desire to remain faithful to Church teaching, and thus to God, naturally do not want to vote for anyone who favors abortion in any circumstance or who holds other positions not in agreement with the Church on what Pope Benedict XVI has called the non-negotiable issues — human life, marriage and family, religious liberty.

    The controversial, but authentic, answer is: Yes, you may so vote.

    Understandably, this needs explanation.

    Confusion first arises from the common name used for the moral principle at play: the lesser of two evils. This often-used name suggests something true: that in voting for the candidate with the less extreme position there is clearly the appearance of voting for the evil that he or she would allow.

    This correctly captures what is the first, most immediate and correct conclusion of the conscience of the Catholic voter: I may not vote to support an intrinsic evil in any measure.

    Complex Moral Act
    The lesser-of-two-evils name does not, however, accurately reflect what the voter does in making such a voting choice. We can see this by looking at Catholic teaching about the elements of every morally good act (Catechism 1750-1761): the object (what is done), the intention (why it is done) and the circumstances (the when, where, how it is done).

    The first of these is the object of the will: To what is the will directed in the choice being made? This object must always be good or the act is immoral at its root. What would be the object in voting for an imperfect candidate? It would be to limit the evil that a more extreme candidate would do.

    St. Thomas Aquinas enunciated this principle in the Summa Theologiae, where he noted that the object of the will’s choice is the possible good, not the impossible good (ST I-II q13, a5). Applying this principle, Blessed Pope John Paul II taught in Evangelium Vitae (73) that it is legitimate for a legislator to vote for a more restrictive law regarding abortion over a less restrictive law. He wrote: "This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects, in order to prevent worse legislation from being adopted."

    This was not a new teaching by John Paul or applicable solely to legislators, but the application of long-standing principles of moral theology.

    Concerning democratic voting, the Jesuit moralist Father Henry Davis wrote in the 1930s, "It is sinful to vote for the enemies of religion or liberty, except to exclude a worse candidate, or unless compelled by fear of great personal harm, relatively greater than the public harm at stake."

    This brings us to the second and third elements, the intention and the circumstances.

    If the object of the act is to limit the evil that would occur if the worse candidate, or legislation, succeeded, then the intention must be predominately directed to that object. It should not be primarily to lesser purposes, such as keeping a party in power, aiding this group or that or to some personal advantage derived from policy choices. When so much attention is focused on the economy, as important as it is, authentic concern for the common good begins with defending the non-negotiable values upon which a morally, politically and economically healthy society depends.



    Circumstances Matter

    Finally, the circumstances can also determine whether we can choose the lesser evil.

    Father Davis affirmed this in noting that such a vote is justified, made morally possible, by the need to exclude a worse candidate — one whom he places among the "enemies of religion and liberty." Other theologians of the period speak of "enemies of morality."

    Together, these categories are reminiscent of Pope Benedict XVI’s non-negotiables (human life, marriage and family, religious liberty).

    This is likewise consistent with Blessed John Paul’s analysis of the legislator’s predicament. Circumstances can create a compelling reason to vote for the imperfect candidate, the so-called lesser of two evils.

    In doing so, the Pope tells us, our "absolute personal opposition" to the evil the candidate does embrace must be known. In this way, our true motive is seen and the scandal of appearing to vote for evil is undermined.

    It is therefore quite clear from the moral theology tradition and specific magisterial teaching that a Catholic may vote for a candidate who does not wholly embrace Catholic teaching on the non-negotiable issues.

    This can be done:

    in order to limit the evil that would result if a worse candidate on these issues were elected;

    provided that this is predominately the intention of voting (other good but lesser motives may also be present); and

    that the other candidate is indeed worse, and any scandal caused by the appearance of voting for evil is corrected, such as by explaining Catholic teaching and one’s full adherence to it.



    Colin Donovan, STL, is vice president for theology at EWTN.
     
  17. Praetorian

    Praetorian Powers

    You're welcome for the welcome :)

    While Mr. Donovan is indeed an intelligent man, I have to strenuously disagree with him on this issue. As with many issues there are different arguments that can be made theologically for different stances. In my humble opinion Mr. Donovan is gravely mistaken here in the view he supports. Abortion is a holocaust of our children on a mass scale. It is not just another political issue like homelessness or medical care, as important as those issues are, they do not even approach the death-machine that is abortion today.

    It has traditionally been taught a Catholic may never support these candidates, even though today you can find some different arguments to be made like the one you cited. Again though there is nothing that can outweigh the horror of the abortion industry. It would be like living in 1940's Germany and being able to vote for candidates who supported the Holocaust. There would be no other issue that could possibly be put on the ballot at that time that would justify voting for a candidate who supported it.

    Here is another article from EWTN:

    SIN TO VOTE FOR PRO-ABORTION POLITICIANS?
    Fr. Matthew Habiger, HLI


    Can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a politician who has a clear record of supporting abortion? Or is it a sin to vote for a politician who regularly uses his public office to fund or otherwise encourage the killing of unborn children?

    I take the position that it is clearly a sin to vote for such a politician. Let us examine the issue. I shall appeal to arguments based on authority and to arguments based upon the consequences of such a vote.

    Every Catholic should know that abortion is a gravely serious evil, and as such is never to be supported. In the Vatican's "Declaration on Procured Abortion"(Cardinal Seper, Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1974) there is a discussion of "Morality and Law" (#19-23). "Man may never obey a law which is in itself, immoral and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle, the liceity of abortion. Nor can he take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law or vote for it. Moreover, he may not collaborate in its application. It is, for instance, inadmissible that doctors or nurses should find themselves obligated to cooperate closely in abortions and have to choose between the law of God and their professional situation." (22)

    Pope John Paul II in "Evangelium Vitae" states "I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. ... No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself and proclaimed by the Church" (EV 62C).

    "The 1917 Code of Canon Law punished abortion with excommunication. The revised canonical legislation continues this tradition when it decrees that a person who actually procures an abortion incurs automatic (Latae sententiae) excommunication" (Canon 1398) " The excommunication affects all those who commit this crime with knowledge of the penalty attached and thus includes those accomplices without whose help the crime would not have been committed" (Canon 1329).

    "By this sanction the Church makes clear that abortion is a most serious and dangerous crime, thereby encouraging those who commit it to seek without delay the path of conversion. In the Church the purpose of the penalty of excommunication is to make an individual fully aware of the gravity of a certain sin and then to foster genuine conversion and repentance"(EV 62B).

    The argument can be made that voting is a very remote form of cooperation in abortion. But is it all that remote? The legislator who votes for abortion is clearly a formal accomplice, giving formal cooperation with abortion. S/he shares both in the intention of the act, and in supplying material support for the act. If I vote for such a candidate, knowing full well that he will help make available public monies for abortion, or continue it decriminalization, then I am aiding him/her.

    It is a hard fact that when funding dries up for budgets of abortuaries, the abortion provider lays off staff, making fewer abortions possible. Unlike the pro-life movement, the abortion industry is not staffed with volunteers, who stand to gain no commercial advantage. If budgets are cut, the staff is reduced. If the abortuary is unprofitable, it closes its doors.

    It is not sufficient to think that, since candidate X takes the 'right position' on other issues such as the economy, foreign relations, defense, etc. but only goes wrong on abortion, one can in good conscience, vote for him/her. Abortion deals with the first and most basic human right, without which there is nothing left to talk about.

    Is this too stringent a way of thinking? Is it not nuanced enough, or does it do injustice to the complexities of a pluralistic society? Consider this question in light of another issue. Would voters be understanding and nuanced in their toleration of a known racist? Or would that be sufficient reason for everyone to consider him/her unfit for public office? Why should we understand intolerance in the case of racism, but not in the case of murdering unborn babies? Abortion is not just another "issue" - it is a matter of life and death, the great civil rights issue of our time.

    In his homily delivered at the National Shrine on 21 January, Bernard Cardinal Law said: "We who are here are challenged by the words of the Holy Father who calls us to be aware that we are facing an enormous and dramatic clash between good and evil, death and life, the culture of death and the culture of life. We find ourselves not only face with, but necessarily in the midst of this conflict; we are all involved and we all share in it, with the inescapable responsibility of choosing to be unconditionally pro-life."

    "That is what Catholics are called to: to be unconditionally pro-life. There is no ambiguity in the words of Peter's successor. To be Catholic is to be unconditionally pro-life. To support abortion, to advocate the right to choose an abortion can in no way be considered a catholic option. ..."

    "All too many of us, however, have hidden the Gospel of Life under the bushel basket of political expediency. How scandalous it is to see the evidence of Catholic votes supporting those who deny the Gospel of Life! It is easy to criticize Catholic elected representatives who have rejected life. Do we not need to be even more concerned with the far greater number of Catholic voters who fail to challenge those politicians?"

    "Our task within the household of faith is clear and daunting, my brothers and sisters. It must be made abundantly clear in pulpits, in classrooms, in the lecture halls of our colleges and universities, in the Catholic press, in the way we vote, that to be catholic is to be unconditionally pro-life."

    It is a scandal that Catholic politicians vote for bills which fund or otherwise advance abortion. They should be named, publicly shamed and admonished so that they can cease their evil and return to God.

    To vote for such a candidate is to willfully participate in that candidate's choices and deeds. It is a sin, and must be repented.

    Fr Matthew Habiger,
    Human Life International
    4 Family Life
    Front Royal VA 22630
    (540) 635-7884
    www.hli.org

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/SINTOVOT.htm
     
    CathyG, DivineMercy, sterph and 2 others like this.
  18. BrianK

    BrianK Resident Kook, Crank, Curmudgeon - & Mod Staff Member

    https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008/02/catholics-and-politics-papal-reminders.html
    1141DB6A-B16E-4820-9FCA-86A9A247B988.jpeg

    Catholics and Politics: Papal Reminders
    THE THREE NON-NEGOTIABLES


    Other matters may be relevant, but a present-day Catholic citizen should never place issues of lesser importance at the same level of "the three non-negotiables":
    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.

    Among these the following emerge clearly today:

    [FIRST NON-NEGOTIABLE]

    - protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;

    [SECOND NON-NEGOTIABLE]

    - recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family - as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage - and its defense from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;

    [THIRD NON-NEGOTIABLE]

    - the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.

    These principles are not truths of faith, even though they receive further light and confirmation from faith; they are inscribed in human nature itself and therefore they are common to all humanity.

    The Church’s action in promoting them is therefore not confessional in character, but is addressed to all people, prescinding from any religious affiliation they may have. On the contrary, such action is all the more necessary the more these principles are denied or misunderstood, because this constitutes an offence against the truth of the human person, a grave wound inflicted onto justice itself.
     
    DivineMercy and Praetorian like this.
  19. ComeSoon!

    ComeSoon! Mercy & Discernment

    That goes for ALL wrenching life questions, through end of natural life. Let us never forget that or discount that. End of life pain and grief is also "unspeakably" awful. So many are sympathetic to euthanasia when diseases come with no cure or viable treatment and suffering (physical and mental/cognitive) cannot be abated. It is so easy to pray for an end to it, for mercy. My priest helped me with this by encouraging me to pray for His Glory in my Mom's terminal disease. That prayer is my solace.

    It is all senseless killing without regard for life and God (giver of all life), not to be compared one to another. While I have always struggled with the rape factor, Thou Shalt NOT Kill is just that.
     
    Cynthia Raenette Gee likes this.

Share This Page