Rick Santorum Takes Mo, Mn, And Co!

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1328855031' post='2384742']
I'll answer that.

Being pro-life does not mean simply being anti-abortion. It means upholding the inherent dignity of all human life, regardless of age or ability, from conception to natural death. Voting for a candidate who states openly that he supports practices that are an affront to human dignity is in direct opposition to the entire point of being pro-life. Voting for the lesser of two evils is voting for evil.

If there is no candidate which represents the values of Christ, then I believe that you are bound to withhold your vote. Why would you willingly support someone who says he supports something that the Church teaches is morally wrong? Fact is, when it comes to politics, people are more than willing to set aside their oh-so-righteous ideologies in favour of party advancement. To me that is base hypocrisy. Either morals are important, or they aren't. Elections don't make right and wrong negotiable.
[/quote]I just want to add that the USCCB does admit of the extreme circumstance of withholding our votes, but seems to want us to vote for the "better" candidate rather than not voting.

[quote name='USCCB Voter's Guide]34. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

36. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, [b]may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.[/b]

37. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity,and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.[/quote]Sorry, I think some of the F's disappeared in this copy/paste...

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1328852565' post='2384727']
I can provide many examples of this bond between a man and a woman (or a man and many women, but that's really multiple marriages rather than one). What examples of different forms of marriages do you know?
[/quote]

forgot to respond to this one. lets see, marriage between children, between adult and child, arranged marriages, marriages with multiple wives/husbands(less commonly), relatively open marriages, bridal kidnapping, marrying animals to exorcise ghosts,etc.

not that these are all great, but they do make it hard to say that marriage has always been a certain way.

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1328865110' post='2384775']
forgot to respond to this one. lets see, marriage between children, between adult and child, arranged marriages, marriages with multiple wives/husbands(less commonly), relatively open marriages, bridal kidnapping, marrying animals to exorcise ghosts,etc.

not that these are all great, but they do make it hard to say that marriage has always been a certain way.
[/quote]

these are abominations, not marriages. God made marriage. Man does his own thing sometimes...its called 'sin'.

[dUSt]

To all those that choose to withhold your vote, or vote for a candidate that has zero chance of winning, so you can make some type of moral statement, I just wanted to thank you.

It is amesome Catholics like you that allowed Obama to get the majority of the Catholic vote, because the really bad Catholics certainly did not have a moral dilemma voting for him.

Our chance to have a majority pro-life majority in the supreme court was lost when Obama appointed a pro-abortion judge, so again... thanks for your moral integrity.

[MIKolbe]

Sorry, how selfish of me. Let me embrace intrinsic evil, so all the politicing works out for you.

[FutureCarmeliteClaire]

Ron Paul 2012!

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1328891722' post='2384886']
Sorry, how selfish of me. Let me embrace intrinsic evil, so all the politicing works out for you.
[/quote]

Spelling rule:
[b][font=Arial][size=2][color=#000080]Picnic, panic, traffic [/color][color=#000000]all add [/color][color=#000080]K[/color][color=#000000] before the suffix to keep the Hard K sound in front of the vowel which begins the suffix; [/color][color=#000080]picnicked, panicked, trafficker, trafficking.[/color][/size][/font][/b]


[b][font=Arial][size=2][color=#000080]PS What the heck happened to my smiley with a chalkboard?? [/color][/size][/font][/b]

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1328876057' post='2384799']
these are abominations, not marriages. God made marriage. Man does his own thing sometimes...its called 'sin'.
[/quote]

and now we start getting into circular reasoning. and of course, the no true scotsman comes out to play.

"marriage is traditionally like this, because it has always been this one way"

"um, no it hasnt always been like that"

"those times didnt count, they were abominations"

[Lil Red]

http://coalitionforclarity.blogspot.com/


[b] WHAT IS THE COALITION FOR CLARITY?[/b]

"...I reiterate that the prohibition against torture “cannot be contravened under any circumstances...”" [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2007/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070906_pastorale-carceraria_en.html"]Pope Benedict XVI[/url]

[i]In the political climate in which we find ourselves at the beginning of the twenty-first century, Catholics are grappling with confusing messages as to the morality of torture. Lost in political and often partisan debates is the clear voice of the Church, who has called torture evil, and who teaches with conviction the truth that a captured enemy combatant, political prisoner, or other opponent does not lose his human dignity or his right to humane treatment.[/i]

[i]The contributors and members of the Coalition for Clarity believe with the Church that torture is intrinsically evil, a violation of our Christian duty to treat all men as our neighbors and of their right to be treated humanely and with dignity regardless of their status. We hope by discussing this issue and providing links to resources supporting Church teaching that this blog will help to bring clarity to the issue of torture and to our duty as members of God's family to oppose its use in all circumstances.[/i]

[i]Because we seek the clarity of Church teaching on all issues, we also hope to discuss and reflect on any issue pertaining to human life and dignity, but especially those issues where the possibility that the Church's teaching is not being presented clearly exists.[/i]

[Lil Red]

at the same time - i feel very confused about this election - more so in the past - because of what I have learned here and elsewhere about the Catholic faith.

I hate grey.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1328896074' post='2384944']
I hate grey.
[/quote]
Sorry, I tried to add a lil red.

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' timestamp='1328893349' post='2384910']
Spelling rule:
[b][font=Arial][size=2][color=#000080]Picnic, panic, traffic [/color][color=#000000]all add [/color][color=#000080]K[/color][color=#000000] before the suffix to keep the Hard K sound in front of the vowel which begins the suffix; [/color][color=#000080]picnicked, panicked, trafficker, trafficking.[/color][/size][/font][/b]


[b][font=Arial][size=2][color=#000080]PS What the heck happened to my smiley with a chalkboard?? [/color][/size][/font][/b]
[/quote]
thank you!!

you know I tried it that way and it didn't look right...but it didn't like right the way i had it. i am a bad speeler.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1328887348' post='2384842']
To all those that choose to withhold your vote, or vote for a candidate that has zero chance of winning, so you can make some type of moral statement, I just wanted to thank you.

It is amesome Catholics like you that allowed Obama to get the majority of the Catholic vote, because the really bad Catholics certainly did not have a moral dilemma voting for him.

Our chance to have a majority pro-life majority in the supreme court was lost when Obama appointed a pro-abortion judge, so again... thanks for your moral integrity.
[/quote]

I am not responsible for the evils of others. I refuse to vote for people I find abhorrent, in a system that I believe is inherently morally destitute, to make someone else feel better about themselves.

I will not condone torture and claim "national security" to make it sound better.

I will not condone the perpetual war machine simply because DEMOCRACY HERP DERP. Americans are not the best people simply by virtue of having been spawned on a particular plot of land. Others are not inferior because they don't subscribe to our cultural mores.

"Catholics like me" didn't [b][i]allow[/i][/b] Obama to do a beaver dam thing. Catholics like me believe in something and choose not to compromise. Catholics like me try to live with integrity. Catholics like me believe that the cafeteria line doesn't just have liberals picking and choosing from it. Catholics like me think it takes a whole lot more than a Virgin Mary t-shirt to make someone Catholic.

Think you know my soul? Think you understand my motivations? Well congratulations on that. I'm glad you seem to have such deep perception. I, on the other hand, don't choose to subscribe blame for the state of the world on someone who would not vote for abominable politics when guided by a well-formed and active conscience. You want to blame someone? Try blaming the people that voted. All those "bad Catholics" that didn't feel a qualm about voting for a candidate who stands for everything that their faith opposes.

The rarified air you're breathing must be pretty nice, but I refuse to betray my own conscience, no matter how many consdescending sneers it gets me.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1328900026' post='2384988']Others are not inferior because they don't subscribe to our cultural mores.
[/quote]
No offense intended to you at all, MT, but [i]man[/i] that smacks of relativism.

To dust's original post -
I have said before and I will say again: no candidate has any chance of winning if no one votes for him. I will vote for the candidate who most aligns with my beliefs, regardless of the letters behind his name. "Catholics" who vote for Obama can answer for themselves. That's not on my head.

Edited February 10, 2012 by USAirwaysIHS

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1328900380' post='2384994']
No offense intended to you at all, MT, but [i]man[/i] that smacks of relativism.

To dust's original post -
I have said before and I will say again: no candidate has any chance of winning if no one votes for him. I will vote for the candidate who most aligns with my beliefs, regardless of the letters behind his name. "Catholics" who vote for Obama can answer for themselves. That's not on my head.
[/quote]

No offense taken. It was not a relativist statement. Simply a commentary on the popular thought that if you don't subscribe to a particular world view (i.e. American republican) then somehow you're lesser as a person. Many make the argument that America's involvement in multiple conflicts in various places is defensible because we're spreading democracy. I'd argue that not everyone wants our system of government, and not everyone thinks that the definition of a wonderful society is a McDonald's on every corner. That's all I meant. Not relativistic and not a slam on morality. That's why I said "cultural" mores, and not morality.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1328900918' post='2385000']
No offense taken. It was not a relativist statement. Simply a commentary on the popular thought that if you don't subscribe to a particular world view (i.e. American republican) then somehow you're lesser as a person. Many make the argument that America's involvement in multiple conflicts in various places is defensible because we're spreading democracy. I'd argue that not everyone wants our system of government, and not everyone thinks that the definition of a wonderful society is a McDonald's on every corner. That's all I meant. Not relativistic and not a slam on morality. That's why I said "cultural" mores, and not morality.
[/quote]
I have to believe that there are systems of government which are inherently better than others. For instance, a government in which no one is stoned to death would be objectively better than one which stones women to death because they are accused of adultery. I would therefore be inclined to say that our system is, while far from perfect (maybe even far from good), overwhelmingly preferable to Iran's.
Now, the question of whether we should take it upon ourselves to spread our system to the far corners of the globe is a different topic entirely...

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1328901163' post='2385006']
I have to believe that there are systems of government which are inherently better than others. For instance, a government in which no one is stoned to death would be objectively better than one which stones women to death because they are accused of adultery. I would therefore be inclined to say that our system is, while far from perfect (maybe even far from good), overwhelmingly preferable to Iran's.
Now, the question of whether we should take it upon ourselves to spread our system to the far corners of the globe is a different topic entirely...
[/quote]

I agree, that was generally what I meant. It's not about whose is better. It's about whether or not people are bound to subscribe to something. I think people are free to have the choice to have the government they want, and if they find their government lacking, they have the choice to change it. It's not America's job to choose for them.

[Jesus_lol]

edited : coudnt verify article, suspect it was satirical.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Jesus_lol

[Myles Domini]

Hi guys

As many of you know I'm not American and I don't tend to post unless I have something to say but Santorum is making the news everywhere not just in the States. I saw [url="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577215263708006278.html?mod=googlenews_wsj"]this Wall Street Journal article earlier citing a Rasmussen poll that showed Santorum was the most electable Republican[/url]. Up until a week or so ago Santorum was barely mentioned as being part of the contest. For those of you are Americans are the conversations you're having reflecting the results of this Rasmussen poll? Is Santorum a serious contender now?

Thanks

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1328904468' post='2385073']
in the topic of Rick Santorum....
[url="http://tyrannyoftradition.com/2012/02/10/rick-santorum-declares-war-on-heavy-metal/"]http://tyrannyoftrad...on-heavy-metal/[/url]
[/size][/color][/font][/color]

[color=#666666][font=Palatino, Georgia, Baskerville, serif][color=#000000][size=3]well this told me about all i ever need to know about Rick Santorum. Also, that apparently 87% of the people polled are brain dead.[/size][/color][/font][/color]
[/quote]
I fully discounted every opinion (and fact) that the author presented when I found out that he hotlinked Santorum's name to homophobia. I have sincere and well-founded doubts that Mr. Santorum has an irrational fear of homosexuals.