5 Non-Negotiable Issues

[awke]

Whenever elections come around, I always see somebody citing the Catholic Answers list of 5 non-negotiable voting issues, which are:

1 - Abortion
2 - Euthanasia
3 - Embryonic Stem Cell Research
4 - Human Cloning
5 - Gay Marriage

Why are these the only “non-negotiable” issues? Aren’t there a whole slew of “non-negotiable” issues such as

-Taking care of the poor
-Helping the helpless
-Engaging only in just wars
-Caring for the environment
-Providing ample opportunities for everyone
-Helping the refugee

The list can go on and on. Aren’t all of these essential Christian issues that are non-negotiable? Why is there only a focus on a subset of issues that happen to align with one party?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Whenever elections come around, I always see somebody citing the Catholic Answers list of 5 non-negotiable voting issues, which are:

1 - Abortion
2 - Euthanasia
3 - Embryonic Stem Cell Research
4 - Human Cloning
5 - Gay Marriage

Why are these the only “non-negotiable” issues? Aren’t there a whole slew of “non-negotiable” issues such as

-Taking care of the poor
-Helping the helpless
-Engaging only in just wars
-Caring for the environment
-Providing ample opportunities for everyone
-Helping the refugee

The list can go on and on. Aren’t all of these essential Christian issues that are non-negotiable? Why is there only a focus on a subset of issues that happen to align with the Republican party?

You will not find these five issues being given any special voting status in the catechism. They are non-negotiable only in the sense that they represent intrinsic evils that cannot be condoned in any scenario. Contrast these with our duty to the poor, where there is room for debate over the degree to which help is due. This does not mean the entire principle of charity is negotiable - only specific proposals that address charity.

However it would be a mistake to conclude that every one of these five issues is more serious than any issue not on the list, or that voting decisions must have an automatic veto by these issues over any other issues.

 

[peter26]

I would think because the first list contains issues that are cut and dry. Everyone would agree to “Providing ample opportunities for everyone” for instance, but would differ on how this should be done. Maybe I support cutting business taxes to create more jobs, maybe you support more government programs to get people into work. We both support creating more opportunities. Same with helping the poor, or caring for the environment. Maybe I support nuclear power because I think that’s good for the environment and you support solar panels for the same reason. Same goal, different means.

 

[GEddie]

The first five items are binary: Either you support abortion (etc) or you don’t. There is no nuance, although in practice you may have to settle for candidates whose position is not wholly moral.

Your six items are nuanced ones. Help the poor, but to what extent? Save the earth, but from what, and at what sacrifice? Candidates (and citizens) can disagree on the relative importance and correct approach to these issues.

There is a categorical difference between morally nuanced issues and those which, to the Church, are nuance-free.

ICXC NIKA

 

[jediliz]

Whenever elections come around, I always see somebody citing the Catholic Answers list of 5 non-negotiable voting issues, which are:

1 - Abortion
2 - Euthanasia
3 - Embryonic Stem Cell Research
4 - Human Cloning
5 - Gay Marriage

Why are these the only “non-negotiable” issues? Aren’t there a whole slew of “non-negotiable” issues such as

-Taking care of the poor
-Helping the helpless
-Engaging only in just wars
-Caring for the environment
-Providing ample opportunities for everyone
-Helping the refugee

The list can go on and on. Aren’t all of these essential Christian issues that are non-negotiable? Why is there only a focus on a subset of issues that happen to align with the Republican party?

Are the unborn not HELPLESS? Who will be THEIR voice if we are not?

We should take care of the poor, not let the GOVERNMENT do it FOR US

we should care for the environment, but with common sense and that means not letting artificial hormones from contraceptives get into OUR DRINKING WATER. it also means not voting for people who send our tax $$$ to population control groups who want to steriluze the poor and vulnerable, which goes back to helping the helpless.

We can help the refugee, but we also have homeless vets here, who fought for OUR countey that need shelter. How can we help refugees if we aren’t helping our OWN citizens

 

[GEddie]

There also is some wiggle room on the six issues that is not in the first five.

It IS morally permissible to exclude refugees from a country if there is reason to believe that foreign terrorists are using them as cover to enter and do its citizens harm. Conversely, direct abortion is **never **permitted, full stop.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Convert1]

The U.S. is 22 trillion in debt; and carries a realistic unemployment rate of 10-12%. Until we fix these issues, our social problems will only get worse.

Numerous threads on CAF have been posted regarding the first set of topics you listed.

Personally, I find there is no candidate in either party that I would support. Another election with no one to vote for. Sad.

 

[GEddie]

The U.S. is 22 trillion in debt; and carries a realistic unemployment rate of 10-12%. Until we fix these issues, our social problems will only get worse…

Only if you blame all social evils on poverty (and ignore that we are not a poor country, and that many who are by our reckoning poor, would look pretty good in some other nations).

One need not be poor to be a culprit in social evils. And there are poor who eschew them.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Convert1]

Only if you blame all social evils on poverty (and ignore that we are not a poor country, and that many who are by our reckoning poor, would look pretty good in some other nations).

One need not be poor to be a culprit in social evils. And there are poor who eschew them.

ICXC NIKA.

Wasteful government spending yielding our current debt, is not based on poverty. Nor did I even elude to that concept. It is a result of mismanagement, greed, and disgusting power-driven politicians, that could care less about the poor, or clean energy, or the helpless, or anyone else but themselves. Unfortunately, the poor and oppressed are drastically effected by their political actions and continue to suffer accordingly. As long as we allow it, it will continue.

 

[gracepoole]

Why is there only a focus on a subset of issues that happen to align with one party?

Any and all Catholics should recognize that neither of the major parties in the US is aligned with Catholic teachings.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

The first five items are binary: Either you support abortion (etc) or you don’t. There is no nuance, although in practice you may have to settle for candidates whose position is not wholly moral.

Your six items are nuanced ones. Help the poor, but to what extent? Save the earth, but from what, and at what sacrifice? Candidates (and citizens) can disagree on the relative importance and correct approach to these issues.

There is a categorical difference between morally nuanced issues and those which, to the Church, are nuance-free.

ICXC NIKA

Exactly. The first five are acts. The other six are principles, subject to interpretation, reasonableness of implementation, and other social and civic concerns - to say nothing of prudent judgment. There are “caring for the environment” folks who advocate eliminating the Earth’s population by a few billion; should that be non-negotiable?

 

[randomuser]

we should care for the environment, but with common sense and that means not letting artificial hormones from contraceptives get into OUR DRINKING WATER.

Wait, what? Isn’t this urban myth/“junk science” like the ‘vaccines cause autism’ thing and fluoride in toothpaste and bottled water? I had understood this was thoroughly discredited. You can be pro-life in accordance with the non-negotiables WITHOUT relying on ‘junk science.’

 

[SuperLuigi]

Any and all Catholics should recognize that neither of the major parties in the US is aligned with Catholic teachings.

The list seems pretty consistent with Catholic teaching because the five non-negotiable are the fundamental values of society, aside perhaps from love and dedication to God.

So I emphatically reject the idea that an American conservative came up with the list to ensure loyalty to a particular political party, and if anyone has watched American news in the last 6 years, they’d know that loyalty to said political party was shaky because this is about principle, not loyalty to any one political party or candidate.

Unfortunately, I think the reasons stated in the prior post are used as excuses to support leaders and celebrities for the sake of looking good in front of someone else. There is a big problem with that in American culture, and I’m just talking about collegiate Millennials.

There’s too many Catholics who are just looking for excuses to go against their consciences and better judgement for worldly gain without spiritual direction. :tsktsk:

 

[Convert1]

Any and all Catholics should recognize that neither of the major parties in the US is aligned with Catholic teachings.

Totally agree. Thank you.

 

[gracepoole]

Where’s the evidence a “republican” came up with that list?

Do some research into Deal Hudson and the origins of this list.

There’s too many Catholics who are just looking for excuses to go against their consciences and better judgement for worldly gain without spiritual direction. :tsktsk:

There are too many Catholics who’ve married Republicanism with Catholicism and can’t see that both major parties betray Catholic principles.

 

[SuperLuigi]

You will not find these five issues being given any special voting status in the catechism. They are non-negotiable only in the sense that they represent intrinsic evils that cannot be condoned in any scenario. Contrast these with our duty to the poor, where there is room for debate over the degree to which help is due. This does not mean the entire principle of charity is negotiable - only specific proposals that address charity.

However it would be a mistake to conclude that every one of these five issues is more serious than any issue not on the list, or that voting decisions must have an automatic veto by these issues over any other issues.

The Pope recently made it very clear that those who equate abortion with environmental damage are absolutely mistaken. Still, too many people have gotten so used to making excuses and circling the wagons, they aren’t stopping to really think.

What needs to happen is people who live in democracies need to stop making these lame, cheap and transparent excuses when they go vote or campaign, even if it means they won’t look and neat in front of their friends or in the lounge during break time. That’s a huge driver behind a lot of this nonsense.

They also need to use their brain to sniff out scandal, like John the Baptist did. For instance, when a political party has support for so-called gay “marriage” in their party platform and promises never to make it legal, that’s a red flag. So is “you can retire at 55 and the taxpayers will pay your bills until you die at 100”.

Otherwise, cue the chorus of “but, but they promised”.

Broken promises by leaders has been going on for what—10,000 years?

If we just eliminated the excuse-making and personal selfishness, people would be better off and I would get less responses/messages saying how “surprised” they are.

If Catholics really stood on their principles, none of this would be a factor.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=gracepoole;13549706]Do some research into Deal Hudson and the origins of this list.

So…that means what? That’s it’s okay to vote for politicians who are pro-abortion, anti-marriage and who will make nuns buy condoms for promiscuous college students and tell Christians they can’t publicly practice their religion?

It’s not just this voter guide reflecting these principles either.

catholic.com/speakers/talks/five-non-negotiables

The way this conversation is going, it sounds to me like if a conservative party in a country is not perfectly aligned with Catholic teaching, it’s perfectly fine to vote for the most anti-Catholic one…

There are too many Catholics who’ve married Republicanism with Catholicism and can’t see that both major parties betray Catholic principles.

I’m sure there are some people in general electorate who support the party for the sole purpose of paying less taxes and who are against the five non-negotiables. Believe me, they aren’t doing themselves any huge favors either. Being pro-gay marriage or pro-choice doesn’t change much when it comes to identifying with political parties. It’s the principles, not the party that matters.

I think some Americans have a hard time understanding that, unfortunately, because too many of their leaders blow with the wind. That’s something that the Catholic Church has not and will not do.

Otherwise, this idea that there is all of these Catholics “married” to this party out of some odd sense of loyalty is pretty bogus, especially given the dissatisfaction with the base discussed more in depth on the News Forums.

 

[GEddie]

Any and all Catholics should recognize that neither of the major parties in the US is aligned with Catholic teachings.

No, the non negotiables were defined by the Church, which is not American, nor are these issues confined to US politics.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

Wasteful government spending yielding our current debt, is not based on poverty. Nor did I even elude to that concept. It is a result of mismanagement, greed, and disgusting power-driven politicians, that could care less about the poor, or clean energy, or the helpless, or anyone else but themselves. Unfortunately, the poor and oppressed are drastically effected by their political actions and continue to suffer accordingly. As long as we allow it, it will continue.

Sadly, we have no choice any more. We had our heads down while those in command turned the country into their private gravy train and crawled out of the station.

Everybody knows, or should, that we are not a democracy. But we are no longer a democratically-representational republic, either. We are an oligarchic plutocracy. And there’s no way at hand of getting it back.

ICXC NIKA

 

[_Abyssinia]

Multiple people on this thread are discussing both of the U.S. main political parties, well Bishop Paprocki looked at the 2012 platforms of the Democratic and Republican party and while in the Democratic Party platform he wrote of the areas in the platform that, “explicitly endorse intrinsic evils”, in the Republican platform he said, “I have read the Republican Party Platform and there is nothing in it that supports or promotes an intrinsic evil or a serious sin.” He goes on to comment about the death penalty in the platform but points out there is recourse to this in the Catechism if certain things are met: catholicnewsagency.com/column/think-and-pray-about-your-vote-in-upcoming-election-2311/