qfnol31 Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1351644266' post='2500695'] Actually, there's a legitimate argument to be made that Romney is the MOST moral Catholic vote. But not the only. Never the only. Lol, I don't think anyone on this forum would dare to try and say that Obama is a legitimate Catholic vote. [/quote] Okay, substitute in most and you might get why I'd say only, but yes, most is better.
Aloysius Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 Exactly, Basilisa, the idea that he is the ONLY moral Catholic vote implies that any Catholic who doesn't vote for Romney has sinned against Catholicism. To argue that is a sin against the unity of the Church by imposing obligations to be a Catholic in good standing that simply do not exist. To argue that he is the MOST moral Catholic vote is a legitimate argument that one can make (one should only make it if one is willing to THINK about the various options, I should add), but too many people go way beyond that and I am way more concerned with their sins against the unity of the mysical body of Christ, the means of salvation on earth, than I am about the outcome of any particular election.
dUSt Posted October 31, 2012 Author Posted October 31, 2012 [quote][color=#282828][font='Open Sans', sans-serif]they must choose between their conscience/reason/stupid political ideology and their Catholic Faith, a choice that they shouldn't have to make. [/quote][/font][/color] [color=#282828][font='Open Sans', sans-serif]If their stupid political ideology is in contradiction to their Catholic faith I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect them to have to choose between the two.[/font][/color]
qfnol31 Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351644506' post='2500700'] Exactly, Basilisa, the idea that he is the ONLY moral Catholic vote implies that any Catholic who doesn't vote for Romney has sinned against Catholicism. To argue that is a sin against the unity of the Church by imposing obligations to be a Catholic in good standing that simply do not exist. To argue that he is the MOST moral Catholic vote is a legitimate argument that one can make (one should only make it if one is willing to THINK about the various options, I should add), but too many people go way beyond that and I am way more concerned with their sins against the unity of the mysical body of Christ, the means of salvation on earth, than I am about the outcome of any particular election. [/quote] I didn't mean to imply that he is the only moral option, but that doesn't mean such an argument couldn't exist. The argument might take place in a different context, it would take certain principles for granted, and the conclusions would be derived from their principles, but we must be open to a possibility generally speaking, even if the idea makes us uncomfortable.
Basilisa Marie Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351644765' post='2500709'] [/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=Open Sans', sans-serif]If their stupid political ideology is in contradiction to their Catholic faith I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect them to have to choose between the two.[/font][/color] [/quote] ...so we can expect an apology from you any day now, then? Because it sounds to me like your "stupid political ideology" is blinding you to the fact that my Catholic faith allows me to vote for not-Romney.
Aloysius Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351644765' post='2500709'] [/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=Open Sans', sans-serif]If their stupid political ideology is in contradiction to their Catholic faith I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect them to have to choose between the two.[/font][/color] [/quote] you are the one accusing various people's political actions or ideas as being contradictory to their Catholic faith, and that is a SERIOUS accusation to make; an accusation that has serious implications for the salvation of their souls, and therefore you have a very serious obligation to substantiate such arguments, or else to sit down and shut the FLoOPY up (no offense, please don't ban me ) because you are the one attacking the unity of the Church based upon FLEETING political goals. I don't care what your political goals are, whether they're to get Mitt Romney elected or get this or that piece of legislation enacted, when you are utilizing the communion of the Church as a tool to accomplish that goal, you are absolutely sinning against the unity of the Church. For instance, check out a google search of the phatmass topic you made in open mic: https://www.google.be/search?q=pope+urges+catholics+to+vote+for+romney&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=szN&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&q=pope+benedict+urges+catholics+to+vote+for+romney&oq=pope+benedict+urges+catholics+to+vote+for+romney&gs_l=serp.3...7736.9101.0.9418.9.9.0.0.0.1.108.496.8j1.9.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.N6Ytn7y4Xuk&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=304e00fd89124a46&bpcl=36601534&biw=1366&bih=637 Please notice, the first result is your post, and all the subsequent posts illustrate the exact reason the Pope would never issue such an exhortation: because such an exhortation is concerned with the results of this election, and the Pope is concerned instead with the salvation of souls; rather than urging Catholics to vote one way or another, he urges them to return to the Church.
dUSt Posted October 31, 2012 Author Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1351645327' post='2500724'] ...so we can expect an apology from you any day now, then? Because it sounds to me like your "stupid political ideology" is blinding you to the fact that my Catholic faith allows me to vote for not-Romney. [/quote] I never said or implied a good faithful Catholic, in good conscience, couldn't vote for not-Romney. I've been consistent in saying that I would question their reasoning skills, not their faith, nor their conscience. What I also said was that [b]I (me)[/b] could not morally vote for anyone other than Romney, because according to [b]my[/b] reasoning, and [b]my[/b] logic, he is the only viable option to Obama. Apologies to all who misinterpreted my words.
dUSt Posted October 31, 2012 Author Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351645469' post='2500727'] you are the one accusing various people's political actions or ideas as being contradictory to their Catholic faith, and that is a SERIOUS accusation to make; [/quote] Are you implying that people cannot have political actions or ideas contradictory to their Catholic faith? That seems like an odd stance. [quote]an accusation that has serious implications for the salvation of their souls, and therefore you have a very serious obligation to substantiate such arguments,[/quote] Name the person who has political ideas contradictory to their faith and I will try to substantiate the argument against them. I did not name anyone. [quote] For instance, check out a google search of the phatmass topic you made in open mic: [url="https://www.google.be/search?q=pope+urges+catholics+to+vote+for+romney&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=szN&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&q=pope+benedict+urges+catholics+to+vote+for+romney&oq=pope+benedict+urges+catholics+to+vote+for+romney&gs_l=serp.3...7736.9101.0.9418.9.9.0.0.0.1.108.496.8j1.9.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.N6Ytn7y4Xuk&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=304e00fd89124a46&bpcl=36601534&biw=1366&bih=637"]https://www.google.b...iw=1366&bih=637[/url] [/quote] Wow, my SEO skills rawk.
Basilisa Marie Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351645917' post='2500737'] I never said or implied a good faithful Catholic, in good conscience, couldn't vote for not-Romney. [/quote] Yes you did! All over the place! UGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!! [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351645917' post='2500737'] I've been consistent in saying that I would question their reasoning skills, not their faith, nor their conscience. What I also said was that [b]I (me)[/b] could not morally vote for anyone other than Romney, because according to [b]my[/b] reasoning, and [b]my[/b] logic, he is the only viable option to Obama. Apologies to all who misinterpreted my words. [/quote] But thank you for FINALLY qualifying your statements. I guess I'll accept that apology. Edited October 31, 2012 by Basilisa Marie
Aloysius Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 Alright then, your personal qualifiers in post 27 make your reasoning a hell of a lot better, man. It's extremely important because a lot of people actually do indicate that the only possible moral choice for all Catholics is to vote for Romney, and insodoing they act like one's Catholicism is called into question if they do not vote for Romney and that is NOT OKAY at all. And certainly opinions on politically related issues can be issues for one's Catholic faith in the realm of morality, I do not mean to imply that this is not; there are absolutely moral issues that one must be opposed to, and voting in favor of those moral issues [i]as such[/i] and [i]for the sake of supporting those immoral positions[/i] is certainly sinful against the moral doctrine of the Church. but there is no moral obligation to vote for a "lesser of two evils", there is a reason Faithful Citizenship uses the word "may" not "must", there is a reason the Pope is not out there campaigning for Mitt Romney, there is a reason Cardinal Dolan gave a prayer at both the RNC and the DNC and invited both major candidates to the Al Smith Dinner; too much has been done to make political allegiance synonymous with Catholic faith, and that is evil and poisonous and I don't care what your political goals are you ought to repudiate that trend.
qfnol31 Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 What did you think of my response to your response to my response to your response?
dUSt Posted October 31, 2012 Author Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1351646762' post='2500768'] Yes you did! All over the place! UGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!! [/quote] I don't think I did. I think you may have jumped to conclusions or possibly read some of my statements out of context?
Aloysius Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) Q, (when I type that I think of Q from Star Trek), hmm... I don't actually think there is ever a legitimate argument to be made that all Catholics must morally vote for a particular candidate. even in the case where a candidate might further approximate someone worthy of that kind of stance, I would still be wary of such a stance because it would have the tendency of misusing the sacramental bond of the Church to be nothing more than the glue that holds a political voting block together. Even if a candidate were 100% perfect on all issues that were substantially important to Catholics, I would still grant the leeway for members of the Church to choose a different voting strategy (though I would personally jump on board with the 100% guy) Edited October 31, 2012 by Aloysius
dUSt Posted October 31, 2012 Author Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351646803' post='2500771'] Alright then, your personal qualifiers in post 27 make your reasoning a hell of a lot better, man. [/quote] Post #27, but only my second reply.
Aloysius Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 well, those were much needed qualifiers to a lot of your posts throughout this political war that I helped to instigate on phatmass (haha it works better here than on facebook!) I discussed as well your post 28 a little bit; the one part you ask what individual you had specifically addressed and endangered their Catholic faith; for that, I refer you to my point that it is all about the audience... plenty of people lurk and never post, my friend. Most debates will never result in convincing your debate opponent, but representing your side will has implications on the lurking readership of the threads; and the mindset that I came into this thread to particularly argue against tonight is a mindset which is absolutely poisonous and dangerous--the mindset that conflates the Catholic faith with a particular political bent. Honestly it wasn't you in particular that was the worst offender in that regard, but I felt you had contributed to it and this thread left the easiest opening for an assault on that type of dangerous sand faulty reasoning, so I took it
qfnol31 Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351648013' post='2500799'] Q, (when I type that I think of Q from Star Trek), hmm... I don't actually think there is ever a legitimate argument to be made that all Catholics must morally vote for a particular candidate. even in the case where a candidate might further approximate someone worthy of that kind of stance, I would still be wary of such a stance because it would have the tendency of misusing the sacramental bond of the Church to be nothing more than the glue that holds a political voting block together. Even if a candidate were 100% perfect on all issues that were substantially important to Catholics, I would still grant the leeway for members of the Church to choose a different voting strategy (though I would personally jump on board with the 100% guy) [/quote] Read my sig then go [url="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0209496/"]here[/url]. I don't mean this argument as a canonically binding statement, wherein a person must make the correct choice to belong to the Church. I mean to say that in the end we can be held accountable for our actions, but that determination comes from God alone. If indeed we make the wrong choice, sure that doesn't necessarily exclude us from ecclesial communion, but at the same time we ought to seek forgiveness if we determine we acted incorrectly. But since this isn't so much an ecclesial matter, it definitely will not come down to the bishops or the Pope to speak in such a manner (following in particular the argument I made earlier in response to dUSt). If such an argument about the moral legitimacy of a singular candidate were to be made, it would only come from someone appropriately and perfectly applying the standards set forth by the Church to an [u][b][i]exact[/i][/b][/u] understanding of the circumstances present, accounting for every detail. Such an argument is very unlikely possible, but at the same time I want to say it is because I believe the Church has given us the resources to know everything well enough that if we could see all circumstances with keen insight we would be able to make only one choice. Again, I think that this is a very unlikely argument, but I want to say it's possible to defend the nature of the Church's teachings. I'll put this a different way. [color=#0000cd]You and I probably both agree that it's easy to make an argument against a particular candidate as a possible choice from a Catholic point of view. I think that this could possibly be extended out to the other candidates as well, following similar criteria as the argument against a singular candidate.[/color] I want to be careful to distinguish this possibility of a single vote and the consequences of choosing poorly from the legitimacy of making such an argument. That an argument can be made that there is only one possible vote does not mean that such an argument [i]should[/i] be made. If a person were to make such an argument and miss a point, thereby misleading a whole group of people, then that person would be morally culpable for their (unintended) deception. Likewise, leaving out the possibility of prudential judgment is morally wrong when prudential judgment is the correct form of action. Again, I don't think that this necessarily would exclude a person from the Sacraments, but that doesn't mean we can't be held accountable for not acting well. Also, God is the ultimate judge and I would never want to step into that roll and no one else can either. Therefore while an argument can be made from this point of view, it would be difficult to defend without stepping into God's point of view. Hopefully this language isn't too unclear. I purposefully wrote this post without simple language, though normally I prefer simple language to precision...Oh well, this is a rambling post if ever I had one. Gah, this was meant to be a new post: Good grief that was longer than I wanted. TLDR: possible to make the argument, but it's not necessarily a good argument to make. Edited October 31, 2012 by qfnol31
Aloysius Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 [img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_maiw592lfV1rug97lo1_400.jpg[/img] it's alright, occasionally the length of posts gets away from us. It seems to me as if what you're saying amounts to a continuation of our previous discussion of the ends and the means, to which I had infamously replied with Polish people on horseback fighting German Tanks. It seems your argument is summed up in the idea that we are culpable for the results of an action or an inaction (omission) and therefore if there was a 100% good on Catholic-issues candidate and we failed to support him and therefore our lack of support resulted in that candidate losing, then our action would be bad? Am I reading you right (even if I am simplifying it down to a basic point)? I remain in opposition to your position on my selfsame positions of the art of hopeless hope. Certainly inaction when you have the capability of good action is something sinful, the sin of omission; but I would never equate any hopeless action, no matter how unlikely it is to succeed, with an act of omission. supporting one unlikely-to-win fully pro-life person over a likely-to-win fully pro-life person is not morally despicable unless you do so because you truly wish for no pro-life person to win. I don't think this is an evaluation solely on one's intentions, because the action in and of itself is still good. So could an argument ever be made that there is only one possible vote for a Catholic (including your qualifiers that it is not hinging your membership in good standing to the Church, but rather indicating that not doing so is a sin)? I still don't think so. Because no matter how exact your reasoning on how good any given candidate is and how much good they will do, you cannot rest your final case for that individual solely on Catholic morality; there will always be a legitimate case to be made for a hopeless cause and the argument that it is failing to help the more-likely-cause does not make your action a sin of omission, because by supporting the hopeless cause you're committing a righteous act. you can rest your final argument on reason and practical politics and exhortations to join you in your project to do good because it's more likely to succeed, but I don't see any way in which Catholic morality requires you to stand up with the more likely cause, it just requires you to stand with a righteous cause, perfect or imperfect, plausible or implausible, to try to enact good in the world.
Anomaly Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 [quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1351644266' post='2500695'] Lol, I don't think anyone on this forum would dare to try and say that Obama is a legitimate Catholic vote. [/quote]i don't think you've been reading enough posts here.
Aloysius Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 hmm... there's Kujo mostly, maybe one or two others but mostly people have said they don't think we should vote for either one of the two... I suppose on a couple occassions I indicated that I would not call someone's Catholicity into question if they voted for Obama any more than I would do so for someone who voted for Romney as it is up to everyone to make their own informed decisions about how they think they can best use their vote to limit evil (of course my main point is not that you should vote for Obama, I think voting for Obama is a BAD vote, but more that I find it repugnant that the communion of the Church has become the attempted glue to hold a voting block together)
Anomaly Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 Not so much the Communion of the Church, but cooperating and prioritizing goals.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now