First you say one thing, then you say another.
You seem confused.
My message is consistant, if you are having trouble understanding it, or the Church documents in support of it, I have offered to help you.
But let me see if I understand you – if no candidate is perfect (as will always be the case), then we can forget about abortion? We can reject the imperfect pro-life candidate and vote for the pro-abortion candidate (who is, of course, even less perfect) on other grounds – like his stance on penguin preservation?
Repeating a defective correlary does not make it true. The point is we can
never forget about abortion. If it comes down to political life vs. God’s law, we are supposed to choose God’s law.
Compromising on intrinsic evil makes us complicent with intrinsic evil. If you want to insist that you have a right to vote pro choice on abortion, I cannot stop you. Changing the semantics (‘no, ‘pro choice’ means supporting Roe, I only support killing some babies…’) does not change the vote. You either support attacks on human life our you do not. Some attacks are absolutes in the Catholic faith.
Why you put political activity ahead of an absolute in the faith I cannot say. However, if I were to do so I would agree with Pope Benedict’s assessment during his recent visit, that I would be engaging in a form of idolatry.
I find it interesting we forget we have a living magisterium. We do not need some posters to interpret Church teaching and spin it around to mean whatever they choose.
The Bishop’s conference asked the proper authority how to apply these teachings. Here is part of the reply:
Note the wise Cardinal does not say we may ever compromise on anything. He uses constant Church moral teaching. It all reconciles nicely.
Where is the problem?
The Bishop’s asked about the application of CIC 915 with regards to politicians. They got an answer from a Cardinal.
If you want to ask about the laity and voting, we, as you say, do not have to guess:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html
This is a Doctrinal Note, prepared by the same Cardinal and approved by our last Pope. Our Current Pope refers to this document in his declaration on Holy Communion. You are quoting a letter from a Cardinal on a different subject to a different audience. I am quoting a Doctrinal Note, on the specific subject, from the Church to the lay faithful.
I’ve posted #4 and gone through it a section at a time. I’ve also shown other Papal documents which refer to the same document and use the same terms (non negotiable). If you want to cite the Magesterium, here it is. Show me how your alternative interpretation can be made to fit. Selecting lesser sources, such as a Cardinal’s private letter on a different subject, is intellectually dishonest. If your point of view is licit, it must be reconcillable with Rome. There is only one Vicar of Christ.
*
