This was wrong then...

Ah, Vatican II. Well played. That council addressed pastoral changes, stylistic changes if you will, but it did not change the core faith or doctrine of the Church. They are two very different things.

 

I betcha the core faith or doctrine of the church says nothing about stem cell research or abortion rights, either.

 

Oh, I think you'll find references about the sanctity of all human life date back pretty far in Catholic teaching and the catechism.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

 

Didn't the Catholic church back off on its opposition to condoms recently?

 

Very good. Then as a good Catholic and one who follows the lead of the Pope, you should vote against any politician who favors abortion rights, stem-cell research and war in the Middle East.

Do I have that right?

 

So, now, anyone who has voted for a politician who has ever supported the following should leave the church:

Birth control.

Stem-cell research.

Any war.

I have that correct?

 

I do take those issues into consideration when I vote, certainly - but I also know that the Catholic doctrine is one of absolutes and it's quite unlikely that you're going to get a candidate who comes wrapped in such a nice little package. Therefore, I have to prioritize which issues are more important to me and look to other issues as well.

You also can't go into voting with a closed mind. Someone proposing an outright ban on abortion, say, may not have as effective a solution because that ban might drive it underground. Maybe someone who advocates better sexual education, which could lead to fewer unwanted pregnancy helps more.

Maybe someone who is thinking of bolstering the military for defensive means is a better option than someone who wants to dismantle the military, because ultimately more defence might lead to less carnage, and so on.

You vote with your conscience and faith in mind, but there's not always going to be as absolute a solution as there is doctrine.

 

Not to me, no - although I suppose you could spoil a ballot. To me, you pick the candidate who best serves the viewpoints you hold and that's an issue between your own conscience and your God.

What I'm saying is that people who call themselves Catholics, but campaign the Church itself to change its stance on those issues publically, they'd probably be better served to join another church.

 

That sounds reasonable, Red.

 

The first par I wholeheartedly agree with.

The second part, well, I couldn't disagree more. Though it might be glacially slow, churches need to change, and the Catholic church certainly needs to change on a number of fronts.

 

Depending how many questions that Catholic asked, he might have been considered a heretic too — so yes, maybe it would have been better to get out of the Church completely.

Seriously though, and I'm not trying to weasel out, it was a different time. They didn't have the hundreds of denominations of protestantism that vary in beliefs. Now, it is accepted in society that there are different christian churches with different teachings. Then, not so much.

It just floors me in this age, as someone who came to Catholicism later in life that people would stay somewhere that shares few of their beliefs and fight to change it, when there's likely something else out there that they agree with.

 

I suppose we can agree to disagree.