Political Hell

[adt6247]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1466627' date='Feb 21 2008, 11:13 AM']Oh so you're one of those "if it ain't infallible, I'm not following it" Catholics? Ok good for you.[/quote]
No, I only fail to follow such things if the contradict what the church has always taught, or where it is speaking on a prudential matter, where I happen to disagree. This is clearly one of those cases.

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1466627' date='Feb 21 2008, 11:13 AM']Gosh if only voting was mentioned in the code of canon law. Dang you got me there. Oh wait

Hmmm well that makes it pretty clear that we are required to follow what the Magisterium teaches. But surely the Catechism doesn't fall under that[/quote]
The catechism does fall under that, but the catechism lacks the authority to make such a proclamation. Much like the fact that the Pope cannot make an ex cathedra statement that all Catholics must like Budweiser -- it's outside the realm where the Church can regulate. If the CCC stated, explicitly, in one of its canons that all Catholics must vote, then all Catholics must vote wherever they are permitted by law.

In other words, that we must pay taxes and other such things that are legally required by the state, obviously we cannot contradict -- it has always been taught that temporal authority is above us, and we must submit. To require all Catholics to vote is a prudential matter -- especially seeing as not all Catholics may vote. Again, it can be made a matter of law, but not of dogma.

What if a nation, for example, allowed people to vote on everything, and in order to do this, one must spend several hours of day voting? Would such a person that refrains from voting be sinning?

[Jaime]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1466656' date='Feb 21 2008, 11:01 AM']No, I only fail to follow such things if the contradict what the church has always taught, or where it is speaking on a prudential matter, where I happen to disagree. This is clearly one of those cases.[/quote]


See and that sums things up right there. We don't need to get into any theoretical debates about countries that make you vote for hours a day. This statement sums up your belief system.

"I only fail to follow such things where I happen to disagree"

That does simplify things doesn't it? Rationalization is a great gift.


The fact that you may think something is prudential or not is irrelevant. You do not contribute to the teaching of the Magisterium. And I gots some news for you. The bishops have a better idea of what is prudential than you.

Faith is pretty weak when you do only the stuff you agree with. (note: the next step in his argument will be "What if the Magisterium or the Pope said I had to like (fill in the blank with something pointless)"? )

The Catechism is a definitive teaching of the Magisterium. I've demonstrated that. And as instructed by canon law we are called to follow the definitive teachings of the Magisterium.

[adt6247]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1466666' date='Feb 21 2008, 12:18 PM']That does simplify things doesn't it? Rationalization is a great gift.[/quote]
We are not automatons. It is not a sin to have different OPINIONS than the current episcopate.

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1466666' date='Feb 21 2008, 12:18 PM']The fact that you may think something is prudential or not is irrelevant. You do not contribute to the teaching of the Magisterium. And I gots some news for you.[/quote]
Never claimed to. You continue to erect a straw man. Whether to vote or not is a prudential judgement. Which candidate one votes to is a prudential judgement. It's not nearly as simple as you posit. It is not a matter of doctrine, nor dogma, nor (currently) law.

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1466666' date='Feb 21 2008, 12:18 PM']The bishops have a better idea of what is prudential than you.[/quote]
I could give you plenty of examples to the contrary. The bishops don't even agree with each other. Most don't obey direct orders from their superior.

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1466666' date='Feb 21 2008, 12:18 PM']The Catechism is a definitive teaching of the Magisterium. I've demonstrated that. And as instructed by canon law we are called to follow the definitive teachings of the Magisterium.[/quote]
But prudential matters are outside of the realm of Dogma. Benedict has been amazingly clear on this, simultaneously condemning the war in Iraq, but also stating that that's not binding moral teaching to all Catholics.

If I'm required to vote, am I also required to vote for a candidate that actually can win the election? What if I wrote in a vote for HIH Otto von Habsburg? Or Cardinal Kasper? Neither can hold the office of president. Also, what elections am I required to vote in? Every election? Just local ones? Just irrelevant national elections in which I have zero chance of influencing the outcome?

[Jaime]

Having a differing opinion or struggling with the opinion of the magisterium is human. Not doing something simply because you disagree with it is lazy.

Pope Benedict made it clear when he was the head of the CDF that cafeteria Catholicism is a bad thing. No matter how you want to position yourself, that is what you are supporting. And you've stated it clearly.

[XIX]

We are allowed to disagree with the Catholic Church on fallible matters.

[Jaime]

[quote name='XIX' post='1466882' date='Feb 21 2008, 06:24 PM']We are allowed to disagree with the Catholic Church on fallible matters. [/quote]

Yes we are

but honestly, disagreeing on voting seems kinda stupid to me. I mean (at least for me) I look at the Church in all matters and think "you know.. those guys are probably smarter than me" For example, not once did JPII (God rest his soul) ever call me up and say "hot stuff, whaddya think about women priests?" Oh sure sometimes he'd ask me who I thought was going to go to the Series and once he needed me to help explain an M Knight Shamylan ending but never did he ask my opinion on Church stuff. Mostly he was just checking in to see how things were goin. Why? Well he probably figured he had smarter people around to help him out with the theological stuff. And you know what? He was right.

So then there's the Catechism. And some folks will argue that its not an infallible document, (I would be inclined to argue against that) to which I say "So what?" It just seems logical to try to figure out why the Church says what it says instead of simply dismissing it as "well its not infallible"

I'm not saying you're doing that XIX. This isn't directed at you. But AKD2324455plz and others do seem to do that.

I mean to look at it logically, I'm right a lot in the things that I say. But I'm never infallible.

[Paddington]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1466609' date='Feb 21 2008, 12:41 PM']I am proud and awed at my ability to mushy mud pie![/quote]

I thought I was the only one.

[Justin86]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1466424' date='Feb 21 2008, 10:19 AM']i only insult those who refuse to learn and won't argue their position and still act mockingly.[/quote]
Wouldn't that mean you would have to insult yourself?

[Deb]

A very orthodox, reserved Priest has said that not voting is not a sin. So there.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1466617' date='Feb 21 2008, 09:42 AM']The CCC isn't infallible. It's been amended even. Nor is the Baltimore Catechism. The only catechism I know of that's infallible is the one promulgated by the council of Trent.[/quote]

OK, I'll bite. What makes the Trent catechism infallible but the CCC not?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1467942' date='Feb 23 2008, 11:37 PM']OK, I'll bite. What makes the Trent catechism infallible but the CCC not?[/quote]
start another thread please.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Dismas' post='1465904' date='Feb 19 2008, 10:54 PM']It's a primary. McCain has a lock on the Republican nomination. Voting in the Republican primary for president does nothing.

The Democratic primary is still open. As far as I can tell, Obama is actually more insanely liberal and into baby-killing than Hillary.

As a Dem will win the next General Election, I must make sure it's the weaker Dem. Obama is far more charismatic and competent than Hillary. It would be easier to block idiotic, liberal legislation in an inept Clinton presidency than an Obama presidency. Also, Obama might manage a second term somehow, possibly by shifting blame on his failures onto conservatives.

Wow...Hillary actually the lesser of two evils...that's scary.[/quote]

McCain is pro-life.

Hillabillery and Baracuda are anti-life.

According to the Church our first responsibility is to vote pro-life to end abortion and euthenasia... To vote for any of the dems is a sin because of their anti-baby stance. If McCain was anti-life then we would have to look at priority number two....

Our second priority is to vote for the family... Marriage between one man and one woman.

Our third priority is to vote for social justice... programs which help the poor but do not create dependency... i.e. teach them to fish so they can feed themselves.

Fourth: Global Solidarity.


McCain has not been very right minded in the past, but he has said that he made mistakes... if he does keep his word, then he'll make a decent president... not my first choice, but he's many times better than any dem.

Osama Bin Bama wants us to pay a tax to the United Nations for a "poor tax"... United Nations sees abortion as "support" for third world countries and those devistated by war.


I hope you don't plan on taking communion and defiling the Lord's Body until you are really sorry for voting for the death of innocent babies.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1466617' date='Feb 21 2008, 10:42 AM']The CCC isn't infallible. It's been amended even. Nor is the Baltimore Catechism. The only catechism I know of that's infallible is the one promulgated by the council of Trent.

Specific methods of participation in government are prudential by nature -- they cannot be infallible one way or the other. Also, not all governments grant their respective citizens the rights in which the CCC asks Catholics to exercise.

I've read the CCC cover to cover. It tends to be excellent (if at times overtly wordy) with the spiritual stuff, and a bit less so on social stuff.

And by nature, the Catechism is a teaching tool -- it's not the be-all, end-all in Catholic thought, and thus cannot introduce new doctrine or promulgate law.

Now, if it was so mentioned in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Catholics would be bound under penalty of sin to follow the law.[/quote]


Church teachings of morality are infallible. There are many parts of the CCC which are infallible teachings.

We are bound to follow the law as long as it is not contrary to Church teachings.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1467994' date='Feb 24 2008, 12:22 AM']Church teachings of morality are infallible. There are many parts of the CCC which are infallible teachings.

We are bound to follow the law as long as it is not contrary to Church teachings.[/quote]
Hurray the Monk has returned!!!!

[Apotheoun]

The Catechism itself does not give definitive character (i.e., infallibility) to any doctrine; rather, the [i]de fide[/i] status of any particular teaching found within the Catechism pre-existed its publication in 1992.