Latest topics
» Magsiterial Heresy ?
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:36 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magisterium should apologise to the SSPX for the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:34 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Francis MICM made a mistake on Vatican Council II
Sat Sep 26, 2015 5:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Legion of Christ universities in Rome adapt to leftist laws
Fri May 22, 2015 7:53 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» CM, SSPX, MICM deny the Faith to please superiors
Thu May 21, 2015 4:44 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX and Church Militant are using the same liberal theology and are unaware of it
Wed May 20, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Michael Voris uses liberal theology and yet critcizes Michael Coren
Tue May 19, 2015 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fr.John Zuhlsdorf condones Mass for suicide
Tue May 19, 2015 9:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II is traditional or liberal depending on how you interpret the Letter of the Holy Office
Mon May 18, 2015 5:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Church Militant unable to answer questions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Sun May 17, 2015 5:55 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Andre Marie MICM and Christine Niles approve liberal theology on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Christine Niles misses the elephant in the living room
Fri May 15, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Cardinal Pell recommends the Roman Forum and telling a lie
Wed May 13, 2015 9:43 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» GOOGLE CLOSES DOWN BLOG EUCHARIST AND MISSION
Tue May 12, 2015 9:23 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this
Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:25 am by George Brenner

» Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error
Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:27 pm by tornpage

» Fr.Robert Barron in Catholicism uses an irrational proposition to reach an irrational conclusion
Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:49 am by Lionel Andrades

» Cardinal Raymond Burke interprets Church documents with an irrational premise and conclusion and offers the Traditional Latin Mass
Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:25 am by Lionel Andrades

» Beautiful Gregorian Chant
Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:10 pm by tornpage

» Fr.Robert Barron in Catholicism uses an irrational proposition to reach an irrational conclusion
Fri Mar 06, 2015 6:47 am by Lionel Andrades


Something for Romney supporters to consider...

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Something for Romney supporters to consider...

Post  Jehanne on Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:55 am

I have been reading some Catholics news about abortion politics, and some (including, some bishops) are saying that by voting for Obama one is cooperating with evil, specifically, supporting a politician who supports something which is intrinsically evil, abortion. In other words, "vote for Obama, burn in Hell."

However, Mitt Romney and the Republican party, support the Keystone pipeline:

http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/event/article/id/62690/

To a scientific (and, hence, moral) certitude, completing the Keystone pipeline and other projects like it will result in the destruction of life on Earth:

http://199.91.153.218/bevwwhjha59g/trm9gnmznde/AGU2008.Bjerknes_Lecture.pdf

If so, the death of every human being would be an intrinsically evil act.

Many will deny global warming but the evidence for it is clear:

http://co2now.org/

In conclusion, a vote for Romney means a vote for the death of humanity.

P.S. Of course, I believe in the Parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ, just as I believe that infants who are aborted have souls which continue to exist in the afterlife (not Heaven, of course), so please do not take the above post as having an "atheistic, materialistic" tone. My point is that killing innocent human beings, directly or indirectly (especially, when one has alternatives to doing so), is an intrinsically evil act.

Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Something for Romney supporters to consider...

Post  MRyan on Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:54 pm

Jehanne,

I can think of a couple of reasons not to vote for Romney, but this isn’t one of them.

For evidence that melts the myth that says we’re all going to die from man-made CO2 global warming, see, for example:

http://www.co2science.org/index.php

See also (there are many more):

http://www.globalwarming.org/
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/
http://heartland.org/
http://www.sepp.org/
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
http://www.nocapandtrade.com/
http://notrickszone.com/climate-scandals/
http://notrickszone.com/2012/09/14/vahrenholt-buries-another-climate-scientist-in-debate-ipcc-scientists-have-colossally-exaggerated-warming/

Here are the top "Fallacies about Global Warming" (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/fallacies.html):

1 - Scientists have accurate historical temperature data
2 - Temperature trends are meaningful and can be extrapolated
3 - The accuracy of climate models can be determined from their output
4 - The consensus among scientists is decisive (or even important)
5 - The dominance of scientific papers on a certain subject establishes a truth
6 - Peer-reviewed papers are true and accurate
7 - The IPCC is a reliable authority and its reports are both correct and widely endorsed by all scientists
8 - It has been proven that human emissions of carbon dioxide have caused global warming

In other words, your scientist cannot beat my scientist, and the IPCC does not a "dogma" make.

Back to Romney, Crises magazine featured an article titled:

"May a Catholic Support a Political Candidate Who is Not Completely Pro-Life?"

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/may-a-catholic-support-a-political-candidate-who-is-not-completely-pro-life

Here is an excerpt:

In his 2004 pastoral letter when he was Archbishop of St. Louis, Raymond L. Cardinal Burke—who is now the Prefect of Apostolic Signatura (the Church’s equivalent of the Supreme Court)—directly addressed the question of the moral obligations of the Catholic voter. He said that a Catholic who “is clear in his or her opposition to the moral evil of procured abortion could vote for a candidate who supports the limitation of the legality of procured abortion, even though the candidate does not oppose all use of procured abortion, if the other candidate(s) do not support the limitation of the evil of procured abortion.” (#41) This is exactly the situation in the Romney-Obama contest. In fact, Cardinal Burke also affirmed explicitly what I have suggested: the standard of Evangelium Vitae for the legislator is applicable to the voter.

Some might ask, given the fact that neither candidate in an election like the current presidential one is against all abortion, whether Catholics should just refuse to vote. They might consider the fact that few U.S. political candidates say they are against all abortion (they will at least claim the life of the mother exception). That means that such Catholic voters would probably have to sit out every election, or at least all the ones for federal offices. I can hardly think of a better way to minimize the influence of faithful Catholic citizens in American politics.

Cardinal Burke framed the decision to not vote in a circumstance where there is a less than ideal pro-life candidate in moral terms: “the Catholic who chooses not to vote at all, when there is a viable candidate who will advance the common good, although not perfectly, fails to fulfill his or her moral duty.” (#43) The CDF document that Catholics may not delegate their political responsibilities to others, which is effectively what happens when one chooses not to vote.
And I would simply respond by saying Romney does not respect human life, and that the common good he will advance is not that of the U.S., but of Israel. As such, I have no moral responsibility to vote for a "lesser evil" whose reckless foreign policy is mostly likely to cause the deaths of thousands, if not millions.

After reviewing my options (in Florida), I'm leaning towards this guy, VIRGIL GOODE JR, (The Constitution Party) http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/home.html.

Some key issues:

Abortion: In the United States House of Representatives, I had a consistent pro-life voting record and in 2008 the National Right to Life Political Action Committee commended me "for your 100 percent pro-life voting record throughout your twelve years of service in the U.S. House of Representatives". As President I would continue to oppose abortion and would submit a budget to Congress with zero funding for planned parenthood and any other similar entities.

National Defense: We need a strong national defense. However, reckless federal spending which has given us a deficit in excess of one trillion dollars necessitates cutting defense spending. We must now come home from Afghanistan and reduce our expenditures around the globe.

International Relations: I oppose the placement of our Armed Forces under United Nations command. We need to curtail expenditures to the UN, the World Bank, the IMF, and to foreign nations. Our sovereignty, in my opinion, should always be paramount. I also vigorously oppose Agenda 21 and other globalism schemes so harmful to the citizens of the United States.

Marriage: I believe that marriage should be a union between a man and a woman. I am opposed to gay marriages and so-called gay civil unions. I support the federal Marriage Protection Amendment.

Health Care: I support ending Obamacare.

Trade: Agreements like NAFTA and the trade provisions in fast track authorization lead to the erosion of this country's vital manufacturing base. I do not favor international trade agreements such as these that result in a loss of American sovereignty and jobs.
I can live with that; he may do less harm than the others.




MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Something for Romney supporters to consider...

Post  Jehanne on Sun Nov 04, 2012 9:39 am

This is one of those areas where the One and Triune God, even though "He is the general provider of all things, He is not bound to disturb the general order, to provide for the particular order." Will God intervene to save His creation from its own destruction, the result of capitalistic greed and avarice, the product of the evil Enlightenment? Democracy is failure, even in America. Someday we will all "drown" in our own "exhausts".

Such is a scientific fact and such is not in dispute. Not at all, notwithstanding all the charlatan links posted just above. No serious and/or reputable scientist disputes global climate change (i.e., "global warming") or that human beings are causing it. Question is, "How bad will things get?"

Granted, most scientists are atheist or at least atheistic, as is the case with Dr. Francis Collins. He calls himself a "believer" but in almost the same breath he likes to say that God intervenes in nature only on "very, very rare occasions" (his words). Of course, all of us who have embraced the True Religion know better, "accidentals" notwithstanding.

Still, if I jump off a tall building, I am almost certainly destined to impact the ground at very high speed and will likely fragment myself in the process, not to mention a virtual certain, but not necessarily painless, death. Yet, God still loves me, and yet, He did not "disturb the general order, to provide for the particular order." I acted out of my own free will and suffered the natural consequences as a result. Yet still, elevators in our day do on very rare occasions malfunction, sometimes leaving disastrous and often grotesque results.

That the human race is slowly destroying the biosphere, hydrosphere and cryosphere which sustains our earthly existence is not in doubt, at least scientifically:

http://rockblogs.psu.edu/climate/2011/05/praise-and-ethical-criticism-of-the-united-states-academy-of-sciences-reports-on-climate-change.html

In fact, as the above demonstrates, scientists have known about this problem for a long time and we all know what happened to Jimmy Carter when he tried to do something about it.

Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Something for Romney supporters to consider...

Post  MRyan on Sun Nov 04, 2012 2:48 pm

Jehanne wrote:Such is a scientific fact and such is not in dispute. Not at all, notwithstanding all the charlatan links posted just above. No serious and/or reputable scientist disputes global climate change (i.e., "global warming") or that human beings are causing it. Question is, "How bad will things get?"
What insufferable arrogance.



MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Something for Romney supporters to consider...

Post  Jehanne on Sun Nov 04, 2012 2:58 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:Such is a scientific fact and such is not in dispute. Not at all, notwithstanding all the charlatan links posted just above. No serious and/or reputable scientist disputes global climate change (i.e., "global warming") or that human beings are causing it. Question is, "How bad will things get?"
What insufferable arrogance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Something for Romney supporters to consider...

Post  tornpage on Sun Nov 04, 2012 6:44 pm

Mike,

After reviewing my options (in Florida), I'm leaning towards this guy, VIRGIL GOODE JR, (The Constitution Party) http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/home.html.

Thanks for that; I'd never heard of him. Unfortunately, he's not on the ballot in PA, so I'll right him in. My son, who spent the weekend with us, filled out his absentee ballot and wrote him in.

The voters in my household thank you.

Mark

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Something for Romney supporters to consider...

Post  MRyan on Sun Nov 04, 2012 8:46 pm

tornpage wrote:Mike,

After reviewing my options (in Florida), I'm leaning towards this guy, VIRGIL GOODE JR, (The Constitution Party) http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/home.html.

Thanks for that; I'd never heard of him. Unfortunately, he's not on the ballot in PA, so I'll right him in. My son, who spent the weekend with us, filled out his absentee ballot and wrote him in.

The voters in my household thank you.

Mark
Mark,

That's great that you could write him in. I don't think we have that option in Florida. I was thoroughly frustrated with my "choices" until I decided to give the long list of 10 candidates a closer look, and did not have any favorable expectations due to the usual cast of liberals (Roseanne Barr), Communists, Eco Nazis, The Socialist Party, the Objectivist Party, a Libertarian who favors a woman's right to "choose", a male model, the founder of the "American" party (who is to the right of John McCain), etc.

So I was pleasantly surprised when I discovered Goode. He served in the Virgina Senate for many years, as well as in the House of Representatives. His history is as an Independent, a Democrat, back to Independent, an then a Republican.

He also voted to authorize the War in Iraq and supported the USA PATRIOT Act (good grief). However he voted against both the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and the General Motors and Chrysler bailouts. In other words, he's a career politician.

Of course, Goode's chances are zero, but I don't care; I can vote my conscience for a candidate who will advance "the common good" (as far as can be expected).

Glad I could help!




MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Something for Romney supporters to consider...

Post  columba on Sun Nov 04, 2012 10:37 pm

Jehanne,

It's sad to see that you've fallen for the global warming tax scam fiction. Before even reading the links you and Mike provided, it's possible to figure this out by merely considerng the sources from which the fairytale emanates. Having said that, I have indeed read much over the past few years both pro and con the debate and if that weren't enough to decide the matter, the very fact that those TV personalities who' refused to tow the PC line on the subject have been consigned to oblivion, never to be heard of nor seen again. At the same time, the likes of Mr naturalist himself, atheist David Attenborough, has managed to keep his job (despite his age) by consistantly mentioning the words "man-made Global warming" about half a dozen times in each of his Darwinianized programs.

What's been happenin to you man? Shake yourself out of it. The atheists are on the march with their bought-and-paid-for scientific lackies at heel and their gormless, sycophantic media rats, propagandizing the whole world, deceiving even the elect if that were possible.

columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Something for Romney supporters to consider...

Post  George Brenner on Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:14 pm


As taken from:

Moral Duties Concerning Voting - EWTN Global Catholic ...
... if among a slate of candidates there are those for whom we may ... Two such authors ... perspective of Catholic teaching, is it not possible ...
www.ewtn.com/vote/voting_faq.htm

More information for prayerful consideration




Who We Must Vote For

As noted by Fathers Jone and Davis, a Catholic can have an obligation to vote so as to prevent an unworthy candidate, an enemy of religion, liberty and morals, from coming into office.

205. Voting is a civic duty which would seem to bind at least under venial sin whenever a good candidate has an unworthy opponent. It might even be a mortal sin if one's refusal to vote would result in the election of an unworthy candidate. [Jone, Moral Theology (Dublin: Mercier Press, 1929, 1955)]
Davis states it differently, but with the same implications, one may even vote for an enemy of religion or liberty in order to exclude an even greater enemy of religion, liberty and morals. Indeed, one can be obliged to in certain circumstances.

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. [Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology, vol. 2, p. 90 ]
Thus, both authors are suggesting the strong obligation (even until the pain of mortal sin) to vote so as to exclude the electing of the candidate who would injure religion, liberty and morals the most. For such a purpose one may vote even for someone who is an enemy of religion and liberty, as long as he is less of any enemy than the candidate one is voting to preclude being elected.

The Holy Father enunciated this principle of the lesser evil with respect to legislation, which while not obtaining the goals which Catholic principles would demand, nonetheless, excludes even worse legislation, or corrects, in part, legislation already in force that is even more opposed to Catholic principles.

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. ... 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. [Gospel of Life 73]
This same principle has immediate bearing on choosing among candidates, some or even all of whom may be anti-life and anti-family. Voters should try to minimize the damage done to society by the outcome of an election, even if that outcome is not wholly satisfactory by Catholic principles.



Formal versus Material Cooperation in Evil

Voters are rightly concerned about the degree to which their vote represents cooperation in the evil which a candidate embraces. Obviously, voting for a candidate whose principles exactly coincide with Catholic teaching would eliminate that worry. However, that is a rare, if not non-existent, situation. Even those who embrace Catholic principles may not always apply them correctly. The fact is that most candidates will imperfectly embrace Catholic principles and voting for ANY candidate contains many unknowns about what that candidate believes and will do.

The moral distinction between formal and material cooperation allows Catholics to choose imperfect candidates as the means of limiting evil or preventing the election of a worse candidate. The justification of doing that is described above. Formal cooperation is that degree of cooperation in which my will embraces the evil object of another 's will. Thus, to vote for a candidate because he favors abortion is formal cooperation in his evil political acts. However, to vote for someone in order to limit a greater evil, that is, to restrict in so far as possible the evil that another candidate might do if elected, is to have a good purpose in voting. The voter's will has as its object this limitation of evil and not the evil which the imperfect politician might do in his less than perfect adherence to Catholic moral principles. Such cooperation is called material, and is permitted for a serious reason, such as preventing the election of a worse candidate. [cf. Gospel of Life 74]
The Conscience Vote

Many Catholics are troubled by the idea of a lesser of two evils or material cooperation with evil. They conclude that they can only vote for a person whose position on the gravest issues, such as abortion, coincides exactly with Catholic teaching. To do otherwise is to betray their conscience and God.

Sometimes this view is based on ignorance of Catholic teaching, a sincere doubt that it is morally permissible to vote for someone who would allow abortion in some circumstances, even if otherwise generally pro-life. It is also perhaps the confusing expression "lesser of two evils," which suggests the choice of evil. As I have explained above, the motive is really the choice of a good, the limitation of evil by a worse candidate.

Sometimes this view is motivated by scrupulosity - bad judgment on moral matters as to what is sin or not sin. The resulting fear of moral complicity in the defective pro-life position of a politician makes voting for him morally impossible. This situation is different than ignorance, however, in that the person simply can't get past the fear of sinning, even when they know the truth.

However, I think it is most frequently motivated by a sincere desire to elect someone whose views they believe coincide best with Church teaching. This is certainly praiseworthy. Yet, human judgments in order to be prudent must take into account all the circumstances. Voting, like politics, involves a practical judgment about how to achieve the desired ends - in this case the end of abortion as soon as possible, the end of partial-birth abortion immediately if possible, and other pro-life political objectives. A conscience vote of this type could be justified if the voter reasonably felt that it could achieve the ends of voting. The question must be asked and answered, however, whether it will bring about the opposite of the goal of voting (the common good) through the election of the worst candidate. That, too, is part of the prudential judgment. In the end every voter must weigh all the factors and vote according to their well-informed conscience, their knowledge of the candidates and the foreseeable consequences of the election of each.







JMJ,

George

George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Something for Romney supporters to consider...

Post  MRyan on Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:26 pm

http://youtu.be/EDxOSjgl5Z4

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

The Big Global Warming Scam

Post  RememberGethsemane on Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:40 am

Woo there seems to be 2 major issues going on at once in this thread. First is the election.. Liar vs Con Artist, so who gives a toss who wins as the outcome will be the same... may the best liar win! Then there is Jehanne's belief that the mainstream atheist scientific community tells us the absolute truth about global warming and how the universe began. It all started in the 80s with 'the hole in the ozone layer and CFCs damage' BS, that lie couldn't be sustained so they switched it to 'global warming' championed by that good old altruistic lover of the environment Al Gore. He lost a court case in the UK few years ago after he brought out his video for schools concerning polar bears getting stranded on melting blocks of ice etc. which was all laughable nonsense. The judge ruled the film was political propaganda and not scientifically sustainable but that school's may screen it only if the teacher explains the alternative evidence beforehand. That legal challenge was brought by a British peer one Lord Christopher Monckton '3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley', a practising catholic surprisingly, who worked on Margaret Thatcher's Number 10 Policy Unit while she was Prime Minister of Britain. MRyan offered fully reliable sources to Jehanne which he/she dismissed out of hand and scoffed at. But I urge her/him, or anyone else interested to watch the following clip of Monckton educating a Greenpeace party activist. And oh btw Jehanne used the Jewish owned actively anti-christian wikipedia as a source for clearing up the argument .. waoow! :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvufOvneJMk

RememberGethsemane

Posts : 86
Reputation : 92
Join date : 2012-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Something for Romney supporters to consider...

Post  columba on Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:52 pm

Very revealing video RG.

columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Something for Romney supporters to consider...

Post  Jehanne on Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:15 pm

RememberGethsemane wrote:Then there is Jehanne's belief that the mainstream atheist scientific community tells us the absolute truth.... how the universe began.

I nowhere claimed this.

Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Something for Romney supporters to consider...

Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:47 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum