Catholicvote Endorses Rick Santorum

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1331961966' post='2402259']

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Dude, if it were legal, I would absolutely [/font]
[left][color=#333333][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]marry this post![/font][/color][/left]

[/quote]

sometimes I hate that I can't give you props

but only sometimes

[truthlvr]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1331963177' post='2402266']
He's there now, I'm pretty sure. On Facebook tonight Calista had a picture with an acquaintance of mine from there.
[/quote]He is looking to crackdown "on the distribution of hardcore pornography on the Internet, in addition to material on cable/satellite TV, hotel/motel TV, retail shops and through the mail". No where in there does it indicate a total "ban". When would it be appropriate to not have porn freely available? Where would your line be drawn? Would you want the 16 year old boy who has watched hard-core porn for years date your daughter? How has that exposure formed his idea of what his relationship with her should be? What would he expect as "normal" from her? I think that their needs to be a line drawn somewhere soon before we're driving along and have porn scrolling on our billboards...

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1331948766' post='2402122']
My point is Mr Santorum's support of the death penalty doesn't disqualify him as a faithful Catholic. Feel free to check the hundreds of threads on this topic, or start a new one.
[/quote]

Please do check the other threads. The ones for the death penalty made a horrible defense of it.

[Winchester]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1331858318' post='2401547']
Marriage licenses serve two purposes. The first is the giving of a license to marry to people. If there were no such license then anyone could marry anyone. What would happen if a kid tries to marry another kid at a service officiated by a kid? In this case the government (per the principles outlined in Dr. Mirus' article and just based on normal Catholic moral theology and the purpose of the state, as explained very well by Thomas Aquinas) is following the precepts of the natural law and demonstrating how marriage has occurred. In some ways this level of marriage (natural marriage) is separate from Sacramental marriage, but in others they overlap entirely. My marriage being recognized by the state isn't necessary for the sacramental aspect of my marriage. However, the government ought to recognize those aspects of marriage based in natural law for the reasons I explained above. We must define who can legitimately marry two people if we are to define when that marriage has occurred.

The second type of license is the license to get married. When two men try to get married in most states they are rejected because they cannot get married (by definition). If a person is already married he is prohibited from getting married. Again this part of governmental oversight works on natural law and recognizes what has happened. It is key that we define when marriage is and determine who is able to get married if we want to recognize marriage at all. Your problem is that you don't see why the government needs to recognize marriage in the first place. The government must recognize marriage (and by extension the family) because of justice and because of the implications marriage has for society as a whole. I'll explain this more below.

Have you partaken in any adoptions? I have now had some involvement in no fewer than 15 separate adoptions. Governmental oversight is necessary. Such a need for governmental rules and regulations is proven by the cases when a woman demands her child back or when a child is stolen in the middle of the night and sold off to the highest bidder. If the government does not protect these kids, then it has failed to protect its populace. There must also be regulations in place determining who can legitimately adopt or people who have no business adopting (pedophiles, abusive parents, etc.) will be free to adopt these kids. Again, it is untenable to think that adoption doesn't need any governmental oversight. I don't agree with the entire extent of our laws, but I know that they are necessary.

Without laws controlling human behavior in general then all people will be free to do what they want. That doesn't work. Your argument here contains the same error that those Catholics supporting HHS and its recent mandate espouse: that the Church's tax exemption is the same as governmental control. The Church chooses to be tax free; she does not have this status imposed upon her. This law makes sense, but she is under no obligation to follow it save that she has chosen to do so. This is different than laws forbidding the Church to do something or not to do something.

The obligations applied to employer standards or education may not be necessary strictly speaking, but the Church herself recognizes these as legitimate roles of the government to enact. The laws aren't always the best, but they fall under a certain amount of prudence when interpreting and legislating the natural law. It is fair and legitimate for the government to enact such rules about education, workers' rights, etc. as long as they are within the natural law (and these most assuredly are). Again this is a non-argument.

Only insofar as I recognize our government's role as upholding the good of our society. You don't need this government's approval to be a father, sure, but that wasn't my point. My point is that legislation is necessary, and I used the case of adoption to give a concrete, undeniable example of when it is necessary. Family is prior to the state, but the state must uphold the dignity of the family. This requirement of the state is based in natural law and cannot be denied as a legitimate right and responsibility.

My point is that by rejecting any governmental regulation on marriage you are working to divorce society and the family because the point of government is to uphold and protect the good of society, but the government is made impotent when the family becomes merely a private or religious issue.

If you go back and read Dr. Mirus' article, he talks about the accidental nature of government. He is right. But he does not say that the government doesn't have a particular role in relation to society. I do not always agree with our current situation, but I recognize that my duty as a Catholic is to recognize those disagreements that arise for religious reasons and those that arise for political reasons. Sometimes I object to the state because it has overstepped its authority. This happened with the HHS mandate. Sometimes I reject the government's laws because they are not politically the best. In this second case I recognize the role of the government to make such decisions and I object because they were not good decisions. The Church has taught and always will teach the sovereignty of the state and its legitimate use of authority in these cases, even if its not prudential or the best decision.

The recognition of marriage by the state and the government's defense of marriage is not and can never be one of these instances where our political alliances can interfere with our Catholic faith. The state MUST recognize marriage and work to promote true, legitimate marriage. If it does not or if it works against the real meaning of marriage then the state must be corrected. Our political ties cannot blind us to the need for the government to uphold marriage.

Now one last comment: I suppose you're into states' rights or even more local government. Well, if the government has a role in pointing out legitimate marriage, then how do we reconcile Maryland's definition with Texas'? Their definitions are mutually exclusive and so someone has to make a determination because the recognition of marriage needs to be made properly in both locations.
[/quote]
Nothing you've said we need requires a state with a monopoly on violence.

Your view of licensing has been addressed.

[kujo]

[quote name='truthlvr' timestamp='1331985078' post='2402293']
He is looking to crackdown "on the distribution of hardcore pornography on the Internet, in addition to material on cable/satellite TV, hotel/motel TV, retail shops and through the mail". No where in there does it indicate a total "ban". When would it be appropriate to not have porn freely available? Where would your line be drawn? Would you want the 16 year old boy who has watched hard-core porn for years date your daughter? How has that exposure formed his idea of what his relationship with her should be? What would he expect as "normal" from her? I think that their needs to be a line drawn somewhere soon before we're driving along and have porn scrolling on our billboards...
[/quote]

You're missing the point entirely.

It is NOT the job of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES--the head of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of our FEDERAL GOVERNMENT--to make moral policy pertaining to the sale and distribution of pornographic and sexual material. We do not need the federal government to draw any more lines, nor do I need them to protect me and my daughters (and sons...girls look at porn too!) from horny teenagers.

Rick Santorum's view on pornography is extreme and indicative of how he views the world. If you don't want to use, view or partake in porn, then don't. But in a free market economy, where we already have sensible laws governing the production, sale and distribution of this stuff (including preventing "hardcore pornography"--however that is defined--from being on billboards) there's no need for any further federal intervention. Yet, here is the Republican party, justifying an unconstitutional approach by playing the morality card.

If you wouldn't want a Democrat to tell you what's moral, don't let a Republican!

Edited March 17, 2012 by kujo

[Winchester]

If you support such a society, the voluntaryists are your hope. You could morally purchase a large land area, set up a contract for purchase of land that required behavior in accord with Catholic principles, and go about setting up your community.

That is, if you follow us and reduce the intervention in our current system.

[qfnol31]

Just so that we're clear, government is not only able to, but required to legislate morality. In these cases the government is either directly governing based on natural law or it is interpreting a portion of natural law and applying the natural law from the more general to the more specific. That is, government takes a general principle of the natural law and applies it in a series of specific laws that are not directly commanded by the natural law (think of the speed limit, etc.)

Two questions then arise:
1) Is the law in question moral or does it fit within the natural law? This is a problem with HHS.
2) Does the law legislate something that should not be legislated (perhaps so for pornography) or is a necessary law absent? I would argue that laws governing marriage fit into a necessary law that is absent.

The point of government is to ensure the natural law is followed, that society can flourish, and to ensure the common good.

[quote]

V. The Authorities In Civil Society

2234 God's fourth commandment also enjoins us to honor all who for our good have received authority in society from God. It clarifies the duties of those who exercise authority as well as those who benefit from it.

Duties of civil authorities

2235 Those who exercise authority should do so as a service. "Whoever would be great among you must be your servant."41 The exercise of authority is measured morally in terms of its divine origin, its reasonable nature and its specific object. No one can command or establish what is contrary to the dignity of persons and the natural law.

2236 The exercise of authority is meant to give outward expression to a just hierarchy of values in order to facilitate the exercise of freedom and responsibility by all. Those in authority should practice distributive justice wisely, taking account of the needs and contribution of each, with a view to harmony and peace. They should take care that the regulations and measures they adopt are not a source of temptation by setting personal interest against that of the community.42

2237 Political authorities are obliged to respect the fundamental rights of the human person. They will dispense justice humanely by respecting the rights of everyone, especially of families and the disadvantaged.
The political rights attached to citizenship can and should be granted according to the requirements of the common good. They cannot be suspended by public authorities without legitimate and proportionate reasons. Political rights are meant to be exercised for the common good of the nation and the human community.

The duties of citizens

2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts:43 "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution.... Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God."44 Their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community.

2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. the love and service of one's country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.

2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country:

Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.45



[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners.... They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws.... So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.46

The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way."47

2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."48 "We must obey God rather than men":49

When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.50

2243 Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.

The political community and the Church

2244 Every institution is inspired, at least implicitly, by a vision of man and his destiny, from which it derives the point of reference for its judgment, its hierarchy of values, its line of conduct. Most societies have formed their institutions in the recognition of a certain preeminence of man over things. Only the divinely revealed religion has clearly recognized man's origin and destiny in God, the Creator and Redeemer. the Church invites political authorities to measure their judgments and decisions against this inspired truth about God and man:

Societies not recognizing this vision or rejecting it in the name of their independence from God are brought to seek their criteria and goal in themselves or to borrow them from some ideology. Since they do not admit that one can defend an objective criterion of good and evil, they arrogate to themselves an explicit or implicit totalitarian power over man and his destiny, as history shows.51

2245 The Church, because of her commission and competence, is not to be confused in any way with the political community. She is both the sign and the safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person. "The Church respects and encourages the political freedom and responsibility of the citizen."52

2246 It is a part of the Church's mission "to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it. the means, the only means, she may use are those which are in accord with the Gospel and the welfare of all men according to the diversity of times and circumstances."53[/quote]

Most of you on here seem to have forgotten this aspect of legitimate government, which as defined by the Church, includes our current government.

[Winchester]

You should pray for us to realize that our modern state is only interested in making us into virtuous citizens by recognizing marriage through a system of fees and licenses, and that the system of granting permission that has resulted in a Church unwilling to perform marriages until a permission slip comes from the government is good, and that its result has been an increasing respect for marriage, as evidenced by our reduced divorce rates.

None of this has anything to do with creating a means for increasing political power by the bestowal of economic favors through tax code and the initiation of aggression against employers and private businesses.

Edited March 17, 2012 by Winchester

[kujo]

It's always really easy to be permissive of a strong, active federal government whenever their actions reflect YOUR values. Not so much whenever "the other side" is in charge. That's when we hear cries of "tyranny" and "socialism."

Luckily the Framers of our Constitution foresaw this contradiction, and sought to have an executive branch with very specifically-enumerated powers, the boundaries beyond which they were unable to cross. Unfortunately, our system has become dichotomous and duplicitous, where sanity and sensibility have ceded ground to political expediency and rhetoric. Our new federal leviathan reigns with stupidity as a scepter, and hypocrisy, the crown on its head.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1332005553' post='2402367']
You should pray for us to realize that our modern state is only interested in making us into virtuous citizens by recognizing marriage through a system of fees and licenses, and that the system of granting permission that has resulted in a Church unwilling to perform marriages until a permission slip comes from the government is good, and that its result has been an increasing respect for marriage, as evidenced by our reduced divorce rates.

None of this has anything to do with creating a means for increasing political power by the bestowal of economic favors through tax code and the initiation of aggression against employers and private businesses.
[/quote]My problem with your current argument isn't your distrust of the government, it's your distrust of the USCCB's teaching on Catholic social doctrine.

I haven't stood up for our government yet, have I?

[Winchester]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1332007083' post='2402373']
My problem with your current argument isn't your distrust of the government, it's your distrust of the USCCB's teaching on Catholic social doctrine.

I haven't stood up for our government yet, have I?
[/quote]
Actually, you have. You have defended the licensing system, and presented it as a means of recognition.

I don't have to trust the USCCB's stance on social opinion. It's not doctrine, it's opinion, and it's not applicable to this government. Their recent call for more intervention from government in the economy shows their opinions are not carefully considered in light of reality, but instead rooted in a belief in central planners to solve problems through violence.

[kujo]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1332007083' post='2402373']
My problem with your current argument isn't your distrust of the government, it's your distrust of the USCCB's teaching on Catholic social doctrine.

I haven't stood up for our government yet, have I?
[/quote]

The USCCB isn't running for president. If they were, I'd vote against them, because they would clearly try to push their sense of morality onto myself and others who simply do not believe some/most/all of what they say.

I don't look at porn. It's never been something that entices me. Even when I was young, when my friends would huddle around a stolen copy of Playboy, I was the guy who'd shrug his shoulders and say "I'm going to play video games." That being said, if another person over the age of 18, knowing full well the consequences of their actions, decides that they want to buy a Playboy, that's really none of my business.

Now, I can already see you typing feverishly to say that our society DOESN'T teach the consequences of excessive viewing of pornographic materials, and that the USCCB and guys like Santorum are trying to do that. Let me save you the trouble by saying that I think it's great for a private citizen, or a collection of private citizens, to organize and disseminate information about a particular issue that they are passionate about. It's the bedrock of our democracy, and I'd die before I'd say that they shouldn't be allowed to do it. But the office of the President of the United States is NOT the arena that ought to be used to address this sort of issue. Because, at the end of the day, making laws is coercive, while advocacy is not. People need to be able to make this choice on their own, and some pinhead in Washington trying score points with the Christian Right isn't going to tell me that they're going to take away my right to do something they find distasteful.

Edited March 17, 2012 by kujo

[qfnol31]

Kujo, reread what I posted above about how there probably isn't a good reason to ban pornography.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1332007664' post='2402376']
Actually, you have. You have defended the licensing system, and presented it as a means of recognition.[/quote]
I argued that a practice is legitimate and fits into a broader context that you have rejected. This is different than defending the government itself.

Hate the sin, love the sinner makes a similar distinction to what I made above.
[quote]I don't have to trust the USCCB's stance on social opinion. It's not doctrine, it's opinion, and it's not applicable to this government. Their recent call for more intervention from government in the economy shows their opinions are not carefully considered in light of reality, but instead rooted in a belief in central planners to solve problems through violence.
[/quote]Parts are doctrine (either based on doctrine or repetition of doctrine) and when I've pushed you on the doctrinal parts you've rejected them.

[Winchester]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1332008074' post='2402382']
I argued that a practice is legitimate and fits into a broader context that you have rejected. This is different than defending the government itself.[/quote]
Fair enough.

I reject that government may issue marriage licenses, but that it may legitimately choose to reject someone calling his relationship a marriage. I also reject that government may favor one group over another through tax schemes. I speak here of our government, and not some voluntary society (by whatever means it is accomplished).
[quote]
Hate the sin, love the sinner makes a similar distinction to what I made above.
Parts are doctrine (either based on doctrine or repetition of doctrine) and when I've pushed you on the doctrinal parts you've rejected them.
[/quote]
I've rejected the means you say accomplish the ends.