Are there any Faithful Catholics voting for Pro Choice Candidates here?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CHESTERTONRULES
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Roma locuta est. Causa finita est. I was wrong on this issue.

I may not agree, but I’ll still obey. I guess I won’t be voting as much as I thought I would be.
Rascalking said:
Badda-bing. There you go.

Argument over people. Anyone want to watch the World Series with me?
Click to expand...
Rangers vs. Giants? Sounds like a snooze-fest. Or maybe I’m just bitter over the Yankees losing…
 
MarianD said:
Roma locuta est. Causa finita est. I was wrong on this issue.

I may not agree, but I’ll still obey. I guess I won’t be voting as much as I thought I would be.

Rangers vs. Giants? Sounds like a snooze-fest. Or maybe I’m just bitter over the Yankees losing…
Click to expand...
DUDE? Your a Yankee fan? Run to confession my friend, that’s an UNFORGIVEABLE sin. 😉

(I’m from New England, I have to say that)
 
TheRealJuliane said:
Don’t tell me what my motivations are, you don’t know me. I am opposed to abortions period. Either funded by the government or not.
Click to expand...
No, I am not telling you what your motivations are, I am merely inferring them.

No, abortion is irrelevant. You would still oppose the bill just as fervently even if it did not fund abortion. In fact, abortion is only a small factor in people’s opposition to the health care bill, the main reason people oppose it because they oppose public funding.

http://people-press.org/reports/images/565-1.gif

A sample size of 440 and the large differences between the “government money might pay for abortions” and “too much government involvement in health care” means that the results of the Pew Survey are statistically significant.
 
MarianD said:
Roma locuta est. Causa finita est. I was wrong on this issue.

I may not agree, but I’ll still obey. I guess I won’t be voting as much as I thought I would be.

Rangers vs. Giants? Sounds like a snooze-fest. Or maybe I’m just bitter over the Yankees losing…
Click to expand...
In my mind that is one of the things Catholicism is all about- obedience. There are some teachings of the Church I simply do not agree with-the ban on barrier methods of contraception being one of them. But I accept it and adhere to it. In my mind if they’re wrong about contraception how do I know they’re not wrong about the resurrection or the divinity of Christ? I have come to believe that where I disagree with church teaching it is not because they are wrong, it is because I just don’t understand.
 
^ That’s an interesting way to look at it estesbob. And obedience is important for Catholics. Most of the stories I read about various Saints involve obedience even when things made no sense.
Rascalking said:
DUDE? Your a Yankee fan? Run to confession my friend, that’s an UNFORGIVEABLE sin. 😉

(I’m from New England, I have to say that)
Click to expand...
The worse part is that I was born in Boston and still live in MA.
 
MarianD said:
. . . And when you are an unemployed person with a family and have a pro-choice candidate who has the policies that will give you a job vs. a pro-life candidate who will do nothing to help you in your situation, you’d vote for the pro-choice candidate. . .
Click to expand...
No I wouldn’t, and I expect that I’m in good company.

Pax,
OA
 
estesbob said:
-the ban on barrier methods of contraception being one of them. But I accept it and adhere to it. In my mind if they’re wrong about contraception how do I know they’re not wrong about the resurrection or the divinity of Christ? .
Click to expand...
There are many people who believe Christ was divine while not accepting the church teaching on contraception…

Isn’t that a bit of a jump? From not accepting their view on contraception to saying their wrong about the divinity of Christ? I don’t think the slippery slope can let you slide down that far!
 
MarianD said:
^ That’s an interesting way to look at it estesbob. And obedience is important for Catholics. Most of the stories I read about various Saints involve obedience even when things made no sense.
Click to expand...
It reminds me of this:
The civil examination system has the dual purpose of infusing new blood into the establishment as well as co-opting the talent and leadership of the able and restless underprivileged. This examination system should now be expanded and institutionalized to serve the political purpose of the imperial dragon throne. It should be based on a curriculum of moral studies drawn from an approved syllabus of Confucian classics The Confucian instinct of blind loyalty to legitimate dominion, together with its penchant for meticulous obedience to upright authority were the main theme of Confucian meritocracy.
Click to expand...
The Old Book on Tang, compiled in 945, some 252 years after the event, would contain in the biographical segment 56 entries on persons who had distinguished themselves, in one manner or another, solely through heroic acts of loyalty, usually ending with death or severe physical mutilation to their bodies, and sometime those of members of their families. The message to posterity would be so compelling that many who would desire a place in history would since find passionate protests in the form of self-inflicted harm easier alternatives to immortality than the cultivation of other more useful but more demanding forms of political talent. Among the entries in chapter on Loyalty in the Selected Biographies (Lie zhuan) section of the Old Book on Tang (Jiu Tang Shu), compiled in 945, would be one Su Anheng who reportedly submitted a petition in the First year of the Reign of the Great Satisfaction (Dazu), 701, to advice Wu Zhao, the female Emperor (Huangdi) of the new Zhou dynasty, considered by Confucian historiographer as an usurper of the Tang throne, to offer the Dragon Throne to her son and heir to restore the Tang imperial house at the earliest possible date. There was evidence that the petition was planted by Wu Zhao herself. Nevertheless, Confucian historiographers celebrated Su Anheng for his Confucian righteousness and loyalty to true legitimacy.
Click to expand...
mailman.lbo-talk.org/1998/1998-November/010980.html
 
Rascalking said:
There are many people who believe Christ was divine while not accepting the church teaching on contraception…

Isn’t that a bit of a jump? From not accepting their view on contraception to saying their wrong about the divinity of Christ? I don’t think the slippery slope can let you slide down that far!
Click to expand...
The Church is the receptacle of truth as passed down by Jesus through his apostles to the present day. I cannot pick and choose which of these truths I’m willing accept. One can find any number of Christian denominations that reject some or most of the teachings of the church but for me to go to one of them would be putting imyself outside the fullness of truth, something I’m not willing to do
 
MarianD said:
“Abortion is non-negotiable because it has to do with human life”. Do issues such as war, unemployment, and healthcare also not deal with human life and the ability for another human to provide for his/her family? Most issues are about human life in various stages. Abortion deals with human life at the beginning, euthanasia at the end. But there are a plethora of issues that deal with what happens in the middle that we also must look at.

Sending young men and women off to fight a useless war is a waste of their lives and the lives of the innocents in the nation that is being invaded. This is a human life issue as well. This is why I’d tend to support an anti-war pro-choice candidate over a pro-war pro-life candidate.
Click to expand...
Abortion and legitimate war are entirely two different things. There are legitimate wars, there isn’t any such thing as a deliberate legitimate abortion.

Link to Archbishop Chaput’s article

Link to Article and Video
MarianD said:
Voting one way and having certain political views are different. I’d vote for Tim Cahill for my Governor because I like 99% of his policies, even though the 1% I don’t like is due to the fact that he’s pro-choice. Am I suddenly non-Catholic because of this, even though I aim everyday to get closer to God through the Sacraments?

Even then, I wouldn’t go out and say Sen. John Kerry or VP Joe Biden are not Catholics because of their stances on abortion. They see the issue from different perspectives than we do, but both see it as morally wrong. The human mind and the political sphere is far too complicated to declare one a non-Catholic simply because of their views on abortion.
Click to expand...
Not non Catholic, but certainly not living according to Catholic teaching.

Link to Article

Link to Article
MarianD said:
My views are far from liberal, and I’d have to respectfully disagree that abortion surprasses every other issue. Human life is important from conception to death, and even beyond that. So why ignore the already-born who are suffering?

Let’s say that in 2016, the unemployment rate will be sky high. Healthcare costs will also be sky high. Taxes will be the same, as will the poverty rate.

The Presidential election is between Candidate X, who is pro-choice, and Candidate Y, who is pro-life.

Candidate X’s policies will lower the unemployment rate, lower healthcare costs, lower taxes, and lower the poverty rate. This will help so many people get by in this already difficult life. But, Candidate X is pro-choice.

Meanwhile, Candidate Y’s policies will only make these problems worse. However, Candidate Y is pro-life.

I could not in good conscience ignore the 315 million Americans (as there probably will be in 2016) who are suffering and struggling just so Candidate Y can ruin the nation but support pro-life policies that will not pass through Congress for him to sign anyway.
Click to expand...
Human suffering is difficult to deal with, no doubt. However, as we are taught by the Church God allows suffering to create a greater good, anyone who has lived as long as I have can easily see the truth and wisdom in this, Christ Himself suffered greatly for us. To compare human suffering with the deliberate taking of a life is not to understand Christ’s command to us. To eliminate human suffering by killing other humans is simply not acceptable under any circumstances. It is this kind of thinking that has led us to the brink (an even a reality in some cases) of euphanasia and assisted suicide. We have even fallen so low that we allow abortion for the convenience of others. “I am too busy in my life right now to have a baby, so I am justified in killing it”
 
estesbob said:
In my mind that is one of the things Catholicism is all about- obedience. There are some teachings of the Church I simply do not agree with-the ban on barrier methods of contraception being one of them. But I accept it and adhere to it. In my mind if they’re wrong about contraception how do I know they’re not wrong about the resurrection or the divinity of Christ? I have come to believe that where I disagree with church teaching it is not because they are wrong, it is because I just don’t understand.
Click to expand...
estesbob, I was surprised to read this. I am not sure of your age, however, I too did not understand the Church’s teaching on contraception (in my fertile years)however, I obeyed Church teaching on this issue and was about the only one of my friends and acquaintances who did (in the 60’s even before Pope Paul VI Humanae Vitae). Now, however, it all makes perfect sense to me. As Pope Paul VI so prophetically stated back in 1967 the separation of the marriage act and reproduction has lowered human sexually to such a low point that pornography, homosexual acts, adultery, and even abortion are considered normal.
 
estesbob said:
I suspect I’m not alone in not having a clue as what point you’re trying to make? Unless you belong to the Joy Behar school of thought on Saints and that is that most of them were mental cases
Click to expand...
No, the obedience of some saints remind me of Confucian culture where loyalty to upright moral authority (or those who are perceived to be moral) are highly valued, often at the expense of other traits and skills with more utility. There was no intention of any negative comparison of the saints though.
 
gakroeger said:
estesbob, I was surprised to read this. I am not sure of your age, however, I too did not understand the Church’s teaching on contraception (in my fertile years)however, I obeyed Church teaching on this issue and was about the only one of my friends and acquaintances who did (in the 60’s even before Pope Paul VI Humanae Vitae). Now, however, it all makes perfect sense to me. As Pope Paul VI so prophetically stated back in 1967 the separation of the marriage act and reproduction has lowered human sexually to such a low point that pornography, homosexual acts, adultery, and even abortion are considered normal.
Click to expand...
👍 This is where everything went so wrong. Take God out of sex and out of the home, and wait for the end of society. We’re nearly there.

And I am not saying that I’ve led a perfect life. I think those of us who experienced the “sexual revolution” have the deepest and most fervent regrets, and can see how deeply we were betrayed.
 
It is not hard for me to understand why someone would vote for a “pro- choice” candidate. To my way of thinking, the very least you’d want to do for a pregnant woman is to make sure that both she and her unborn baby have medical insurance. Also, if you’re pro- life, I would think you would want elderly people to have something like Social Security so they don’t end up on the street.

So if the “pro-life” candidate is financed by big business and is going to vote against medical insurance for the poor and middle class, I think he is guilty of not putting his money where his mouth is.

If the “pro-life” candidate wants to give Social Security to Wall Street so they can lose all of the money, I can’t imagine what makes him think he is really pro-life.

On the other hand, if the “pro-choice” person consisently favors safety nets for the poor, it is possible that abortions will decline if he or she gets elected.
 
lutherlic said:
Faithful, well catechized, Catholics with properly formed consciences can vote for a pro-abortion candidate only when there are no pro-life candidates.
Click to expand...
This is not what the U.S. Bishops teach.
 
One cannot claim to be a faithful Catholic and vote for a pro-choice candidate. That’s an oxymoron. A pro-choice candidate is a pro-abortion candidate.

Look at the choice that they want to make available, the choice to kill or not kill an unborn child? Since when does man have the righ to give another man the right to choose murder?
Since when is it permissible for Catholicst make this choice available?

Evaneglium Vitae has made it very clear that democracy is a means, not an end. It is a means to fulfill the law of God. The highest law of God is the right to life. There is no other law that trumps this one. Therefore, there is no other good that is higher than the righ to life.

We have a moral duty to choose the highest good, not the lesser of two evils. To choose the lesser of two evils, is still a choice for evil.

We have to be very careful and we have to be willing to make some sacrifices for the sake of the sacredness of life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top