Well, let's see here. Bishop Paprocki states that Democrats support the right to abortion. Republicans apparently don't. However....the Supreme Court back in 1973 pretty much ruled that it is legal for women to have abortions. Guess what? These justices voted in favor of it:1) Harry Blackmun--REPUBLICAN2) Warren Burger--REPUBLICAN3) William Douglas--DEMOCRAT4) Potter Stewart--REPUBLICAN5) Thurgood Marshall--DEMOCRAT6) Lewis Powell--REPUBLICANSo we have 4 REPUBLICANS that got the filthy floodgates opened for abortion and now the Republicans want to shut the gates that they opened up??? And criticize the Democrats for wanting to keep open them floodgates that Republicans OPENED IN THE FIST PLACE???? That makes me LOL!!!As for gay marriage. Let's take a look at California's same sex marriage ban around the 2008 era. That ban was lifted around that era when these California Supreme Court Justices ruled it should be:1) Ronald George--REPUBLICAN2) Joyce Kennard--REPUBLICAN3) Carlos Moreno--DEMOCRAT4) Kathryn Mickle Werdegar--REPUBLICANThe dissenting ones I'm sure were Republicans, BUT, the rest of them were IN FAVOR of lifting the ban, this getting it lifted! I could go on and on here. But what I think is the funniest part of this video by Bishop Paprocki is the ending; in a roundabout way, he is telling us to vote for ROMNEY, the Republican, this next election. If you don't, you will GO TO HELL. That makes me LOL!!!!!! But just for the record, I dislike BOTH political parties!
Excellent point, Citizen. The Supreme Court until Obama's appointees was majority Republican appointee since 1973. The whole vote Republican to pack the court is a joke. Republicans are having a hayday with Catholics voting for them soley because of the abortion issue. "All we have to do to get you to vote for us is to *promise* that we are pro-life and other than that, even if we show no results, we can whatever else we want and you will STILL vote for us year after year? JACKPOT!"
Republicans are having a heyday with Catholics voting Republican? How many of the last 6 elections did the Republican carry the Catholic Vote?
How many of them were there? Do you have any statistics Fr. Hollowell? Oh and by the way...I seemed to have forgotten to mention William Brennan(REPUBLICAN) was one of the justices that helped open the floodgates back in 1973. So that ups the total to 5 Republicans, 2 Democrats voting to allow unborn babies to die by means of abortion. 1 Democrat and 1 Republican dissented and said it wasn't OK......
2008 Obama wins the Catholic vote 54 - 452004 George W Bush wins 52 - 472000 Al Gore wins 50 - 471996 Bill Clinton wins 53 - 371992 Bill Clinton wins 44 - 351988 Michael Dukakis wins 52 - 48That is one win for the Republicans in the last six elections. Hardly the "field day" you portray.I, for one, have never been too big on the "you should vote a certain way to influence the supreme court", although by all objective standards Prez Obama has certainly picked two of the most hard line liberal judges in history, but I think there are much more important and pressing matters that should governs one's vote.While I don't agree with that we should vote based on Supreme Court justice appointments, I do like the line "The Democratic Platform endorses intrinsic evils while the Republican Platform does not." I'd love to get your thoughts on the THESIS of the Bishop's statement.
FrJohn Hollowell My main point in posting this was that, as I and many others have argued, the person appointing Supreme Court justices MATTERS. Every time I say that one of my issues I bring into the presidential election booth is a consideration that the guy (or gal) I'm voting for will pick Supreme Court justics
Where are you getting this information? Obama wins 54 to 45. Who are the people in the 54 category and the 45 category? With all the millions of people that voted in 2008, how do you shrink that number down along with the others? I don't understand that result. And, please don't confuse me with the anonymous poster. We are two very different people that don't know each other. As for the Bishop's thesis? I don't give a rats about it. Bottom line is; the buck stops with the Republicans on that one. They started it. Also....I'm not a Democrat fan either. Nor am I a fan of some human being telling me that Jesus will set me on fire forever in hell for filling in an oval on a piece of paper next to Obama's name. I don't like either of these two that are running for president.
You are kidding about not understanding what 54-45 means right? It is a percentage, as in 54 percent voted for Obama.As to your second point, if you don't give a rats about intrinsic evil then you aren't really Catholic. I think your reason for not caring what the Bishop says is emblematic of the childish mindset most of us take in our country and our Church today - "I don't care what the Bishops say because I don't like it." Reading your words on a page sounds like a child throwing a temper tantrum. If you don't listen to the Bishops, to the Catechism, to the Church saying what intrinsic evils are, then you should do the intellectually honest thing and just leave the Church.
Basically what I asked was how do we know for certain that 54% of Catholics voted for Obama? I don't recall anything on my voting ticket that asked me if I was a Catholic. Where do those figures come from? I was just curious, that's all. As for the Bishop, I didn't really care what HE had to say. I still don't believe in abortion or gays getting married. However, due to Republicans, this country has seen many many many abortions. I haven't made up my mind yet as to who I will vote for in November, but I reject what the Bishop says in the fact that if I don't vote for Romney that I will be lit on fire and cast into hell for all eternity. I will vote for the man to whom I think will effectively lead this country. One more thing I would like to point out; when it comes to you telling me I am not a real Catholic and that I should leave the church is wrong. You and I both know what happens to people that leave the church. They GO TO HELL. Telling people to leave the church is in and of itself an intrinsic evil for the very reason I just mentioned. You don't know who I am, you have never met me, therefore, you can not make pass any kind of judgment about me. Just like I never said anything negative about you.
we know 54% of Catholics voted for Obama because they have highly scientific polling that is conducted by both political parties, and all people from both sides have basically been in agreement about the Catholic numbers.Of course, the numbers change drastically when you look instead at "Catholics who attend mass regularly" instead of people who simply call themselves Catholic - when you look at "Mass going Catholics" the numbers for Obama (and Clinton/Gore/Kerry) drop significantly - sadly proving once again that there are a lot of people out there masquerading as Catholics but who don't really practice their faith.
While Citizen's approach generated more heat than was necessary for a discussion, I do see a rather important point in it. Namely, that the Republican party tends to court pro-lifers for election, and then proceeds to throw them under the bus afterwards. Consider this from Evangelium Vitae (my emphasis):A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. 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. The problem is, Romney AND Ryan's position against abortion is neither absolute, or well-known. Rather, they are classic Three Exceptions Republicans (rape, incest, life-of-mother) Now Ryan might be only two exceptions, but he is at least one exception. Meaning, that they believe that these abortions are morally acceptable, when in fact they are evil. If there is anywhere in either Romney or Ryan's statements to the effect of: "All procured abortions are evil and while I might vote for someone else's legislation that limits abortion, I will never propose legislation that gives legal cover to any abortion", I will shut up and apologize, but I wouldn't bet on it.Now to be up front, I'm in a crisis of democratic faith and am coming to the conclusion that universal suffrage is the lex orandi to Leftism's lex credendi (which means that whether you pull the donkey lever or the elephant lever, one is participating in the same worship in a false religion, but I digress) but I think one has to admit that much of the rhetoric from Catholics boils down to "Vote GOP or the babies get it!" Romney is simply less pro-abortion than Obama, and the idea that that means you owe him your vote is silly.
Gee wiz Father. As a Priest, I would expect you to tend to the souls of your flock. Citizen is expressing a valid point. Maybe his attitude isn't very Catholic. Maybe he should care more about what the Bishop says and more about instrinsic evils. Maybe you should take some time to come up with a response in which you try to convince the person why instrinsic evils are so bad. One that is more charitible. Instead it sounds like you don't care whether he is saved or not. Instead you tell him to leave the Church. What an attitude.
If a person doesn't "give a rip" about what a bishop says on a very important subject, than what is better, to let him/her persist in ignorance, or to let them know they are straying down a very dangerous road?
Of course you let them know there ignorance, but that's not what I saw from you. You just told them they are not Catholic and that they should leave the Church. It just seems you could more easily change a persons heart by showing a little more patience in understanding their perspective so as to better convince them of their wrong. It seems that a priests job is to bring souls to Christ, not just see where everyone is at and divide the good from the bad. I'm just sayin man...the approach was negative
I think history would prefer that fewer people cuddled and hugged the Nazis and treated them with kid gloves...I have no qualms about sounding the alarm here as loudly and as forcefully as possible...the hour is late and we are on the verge of battle, if someone hears my words and is upset, then so be it.
What if you believed that Obama being reelected meant that there would be fewer abortions in the next 4 years than if Romney was elected. Would it still be an intrinsic evil to vote for Obama?
Yes, because the future is uncertain. What IS for certain is what candidates freely and formally support. One does not vote for a someone who loudly threatens to kill your entire family simply because you don't think he has the stones or the competence to pull it off.
I believe Bishop Poprocki's quote was: "“A vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.”As Romney supports abortion in the cases of incest, rape, and life of the mother, doesn't that mean that you go to hell if you vote for Romney?
A) He didn't say you go to Hell, he spoke of mortal sinB) As to whether or not it is a mortal sin to vote for Romney, you'll have to discern that yourself, but what the good Bishop IS saying is that anyone who holds to the Democratic platform can not be voted for by a Catholic. If a Catholic votes for a candidate who upholds the Democratic platform, then their conscience is seriously defective. That is what the Bishop was saying. Make your own judgment about Romney.
Fr. Hollowell, I guess I should clear some things up. What I meant was, I didn't care what the bishop really had to say about where you will land if you vote for Obama...I'm going to carefully weigh in on the two candidates the next two months to see who would be the better individual. The whole point of the bishop's video was to scare the heck out of people to get them to vote the way he wants us to. If you read my post, I said I didn't believe in abortion or gay marriage. If it is indeed true that you will be set on fire and cast into hell if you vote for Obama, then would it be OK for me to hang outside my parish before Sunday Mass with a big sign that says "VOTE FOR ROMNEY OR YOU WILL GO TO HELL"??? That is exactly what Bishop Paprocki is saying here in a roundabout way. Then you wished me a demise down to hell in a roundabout way by instructing me just to leave the church. We all know what happens when a Catholic leaves the church. They GO TO HELL. Lovely.
The quote I posted spoke of a "candidate" not a "party". Romney is for the intrinsic evil of abortion. Hence according to Poprocki's logic, no Catholic in good conscience can vote for him. Got it.
Correct, if you feel that you can't vote for Romney because of his stance on an intrinsic evil then that would preclude you from voting for either. No need to wait in line on voting day.
Before deciding to not vote, you may want to continue to form your conscience with some reading up on whether or not a Catholic can vote for the "lesser of two evils"Here's a nice explanation by Tim Staples, who applies a principal laid down by John Paul IIhttp://www.catholic.com/video/voting-for-the-lesser-of-two-evils#.UGuhB1GKWSo