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

[estesbob]

Completely false.

The Catholic Church never said such.

Obviously you’re not familiar with the Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion and voting for candidates who support it if you are a Catholic it is your responsibility to make yourself familiar with them. Any Catholic who took the time to research the church’s teaching could not have voted for Obama. Any Catholic who did not take the time to research it could very well be guilty of the sin of omission and needs to talk to their confessor to see how their vote affected their ability to receive the Eucharist.

 

[estesbob]

No it doesn’t. I don’t know of any candidate that completely supports Catholic teaching in all areas. Do you?

Of course not. Which is why the Pope issued a statement clarifying the not all moral issues carry the same weight. He stated very clearly that none of these other issues rose to the level of abortion.

 

[inkaneer]

I am pro-life and always have been. But it seems to me that some people have a truncated idea of what being pro-life really means. To most of them Pro-life means they are against abortion. To some of them Pro-life means they oppose abortion and euthanasia. Neither of these fully agrees with the Church’s teaching. The Church teaches that we are to respect the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. Pro life means more than the prenatal time period and it means more than the terminally ill or aged. Itmeans we are to be pro-life through out the entire span of one’s existence. So I find these so called "pro-life’ politicians to be hypocrits when they say they will act to do away with the Health care plan that will provide medical insurance coverage to millions of families who can not afford medical insurance. That is not “pro-life”. I find pro-life politicians to be hypocrits when they vote to allow jobs to be sent overseas and not only jeopardize the livelihood of millions of Americans forcing them to apply for welfare but takes away their medical coverage in the process. That is not “pro-life”. I find these pro-life politicians to be hypocrits when they eliminate taxes on the rich and increase them on the poor. Rhat is not “pro-life”. And I really find them to be hypocrits because while they espouse that they are anti abortion they actually contribute to the number of abortions performed in this country. The number one reason given by woman for having an abortion is that they cannot afford to have a baby or another baby. They have no health coverage, thanks to the pro-life politicians, they have no income, thanks to the pro-life politicians and most of all, thanks to the pro-life politicians they have no hope for the future. That last one, life without hope, is also not “pro-life”. So when you vote for a pro-life politician you are perpetuating the abortion nightmare. So should our target be abortion or should it be the conditions which cause people to have abortions. Should we treat the symptom or the underlaying cause?

 

[estesbob]

I am pro-life and always have been. But it seems to me that some people have a truncated idea of what being pro-life really means. To most of them Pro-life means they are against abortion. To some of them Pro-life means they oppose abortion and euthanasia. Neither of these fully agrees with the Church’s teaching. The Church teaches that we are to respect the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. Pro life means more than the prenatal time period and it means more than the terminally ill or aged. Itmeans we are to be pro-life through out the entire span of one’s existence. So I find these so called "pro-life’ politicians to be hypocrits when they say they will act to do away with the Health care plan that will provide medical insurance coverage to millions of families who can not afford medical insurance. I find pro-life politicians to be hypocrits when they vote to allow jobs to be sent overseas and not only jeopardize the livelihood of millions of Americans forcing them to apply for welfare but takes away their medical coverage in the process. I find these pro-life politicians to be hypocrits when they eliminate taxes on the rich and increase them on the poor. And I really find them to be hypocrits because while they espouse that they are anti Abortion they actually contribute to the number of abortions performed in this country. The number one reason given by woman for having an abortion is that they cannot afford to have a baby or another baby. They have no health coverage, thanks to the pro-life politicians, they have no income, thanks to the pro-life politicians and most of all, thanks to the pro-life politicians they have no hope for the future. So when you vote for a pro-life politician you are perpetuating the abortion nightmare. So should our target be abortion or should it be the conditions which cause people to have abortions. Should we treat the symptom or the underlaying cause?

You are advancing the bogus seamless garment argument which has been soundly rejected by the church. No issue or combination of issues rises to the level of abortion. All rights flow from the right to life. There is no way a Catholic can rationalize voting for a pro-abortion candidate.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
I am pro-life and always have been. But it seems to me that some people have a truncated idea of what being pro-life really means. To most of them Pro-life means they are against abortion. To some of them Pro-life means they oppose abortion and euthanasia. Neither of these fully agrees with the Church’s teaching. The Church teaches that we are to respect the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. Pro life means more than the prenatal time period and it means more than the terminally ill or aged. Itmeans we are to be pro-life through out the entire span of one’s existence. So I find these so called "pro-life’ politicians to be hypocrits when they say they will act to do away with the Health care plan that will provide medical insurance coverage to millions of families who can not afford medical insurance. I find pro-life politicians to be hypocrits when they vote to allow jobs to be sent overseas and not only jeopardize the livelihood of millions of Americans forcing them to apply for welfare but takes away their medical coverage in the process. I find these pro-life politicians to be hypocrits when they eliminate taxes on the rich and increase them on the poor. And I really find them to be hypocrits because while they espouse that they are anti Abortion they actually contribute to the number of abortions performed in this country. The number one reason given by woman for having an abortion is that they cannot afford to have a baby or another baby. They have no health coverage, thanks to the pro-life politicians, they have no income, thanks to the pro-life politicians and most of all, thanks to the pro-life politicians they have no hope for the future. So when you vote for a pro-life politician you are perpetuating the abortion nightmare. So should our target be abortion or should it be the conditions which cause people to have abortions. Should we treat the symptom or the underlaying cause?

---

You are advancing the bogus seamless garment argument which has been soundly rejected by the church. No issue or combination of issues rises to the level of abortion. All rights flow from the right to life. There is no way a Catholic can rationalize voting for a pro-abortion candidate.

You obviously missed the gist of my post. Here it is in a nutshell. The so called 'pro-life" politicians only give lip service to the pro-life cause. In actuality they promote abortion by providing the economic incentive for it. Maybe you should read what Jesus had to say about this. You will find it in Matthew 21:28-31

"28 “What do you think? A man had two sons; and he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ 29 And he answered, ‘I will not’; but afterward he repented and went. 30 And he went to the second and said the same; and he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.”
[Mt 21:28-31 RSV]

The so called “pro-life” politicians are like the second son. They verbally say they are “pro-life” but their actions say different. It has been over thirty years since we had the first President who claimed to be pro-life. Carter, Reagan, Bush [1st] bush [2nd] and in that time not one “pro-life” politician has introduce a bill outlawing abortion or a bill to extend the constitutional Right to Life to the unborn. That is morally reprehensible.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Nicely done with the twisted logic - voting for a pro-life politician actually increases abortions??? Wow. Sorry, you are wrong, and your arguments are merely Democrat talking points.

The Democrat-pushed health care bill includes taxpayer-funded abortion. This is against Catholic teaching.

 

[Rachel_1]

Thank goodness I will cancel out your votes. Carly is pro-life and Meg is pro-choice for the first trimester only and is for parental notification and against partial birth abortion.

Brown and Boxer are both anti life, pro abortion up to and including partial birth abortion, big government, no tax we don’t like, Democrats.

This is not your grandfather’s Democrat party. No little guys allowed.

Miriam, I’m so sorry that Brown was elected.
Not only is he anti life and all you said… but he’s also corrupt… I know from personal experience dealing with him.
He was gov in 1981 when my dad was murdered in a triple homicide and the case was shelved for 27 years until I investigated the case myself and managed to get it reopened. Sept 09 was the first arrest in the case. Oh, but what’s this… Jerry Brown was AG when this happened and the hitman’s cousin was DA so it had to go to the AG’s office… so guess what happened on the 29th anniversary of the murders as a slap in the face to me, he let the self confessed murderer go, without even a prelim. Yes, you read that right, the hitman self confessed that he shot my dad and the other, in detail, even took pics about how he held the gun and where he shot them in the head, and Brown and his office just felt like letting dude go. So now, there’s a mafia hitman running free who’s very mad at me ( for putting him in jail and keeping him in jail for 9 months), and all the other witnesses.
I’m glad I don’t live in California anymore, and I’m very sorry for all of you that do. I will pray for you and my home state. This is a very sad day for California.

 

[Rocinante]

…The so called 'pro-life" politicians only give lip service to the pro-life cause. In actuality they promote abortion by providing the economic incentive for it. Maybe you should read what Jesus had to say about this. You will find it in Matthew 21:28-31

"28 “What do you think? A man had two sons; and he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ 29 And he answered, ‘I will not’; but afterward he repented and went. 30 And he went to the second and said the same; and he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.”
[Mt 21:28-31 RSV]

The so called “pro-life” politicians are like the second son. They verbally say they are “pro-life” but their actions say different.

very well said. the democratic politicians may not have yet repented as the “first son” did for lack of a stand on abortion and capital punishment (that’s on them) but they are the more pro-life in their policies (unless we are talking about considering corporations persons under the law with free speech rights), and picking the best policies is on us.

all the focus on roe v wade is moot since its repeal won’t significantly reduce abortions anyway. we need to change hearts, get people to treat other people with dignity. provide hope and good alternatives rather than dirty looks and condemnation for teen moms. come up with ways to provide healthcare daycare, and jobs for the poor who are ten times more likely to have abortions than people above the poverty line. (who is going to help them? the republicans???)

 

[estesbob]

very well said. the democratic politicians may not have yet repented as the “first son” did for lack of a stand on abortion and capital punishment (that’s on them) but they are the more pro-life in their policies (unless we are talking about considering corporations persons under the law with free speech rights), and picking the best policies is on us.

\And here’s the irony. None of the Catholic arguments advanced in favor of Senator Obama are new. They’ve been around, in one form or another, for more than 25 years. All of them seek to ‘‘get beyond’’ abortion, or economically reduce the number of abortions, or create a better society where abortion won’t be necessary. All of them involve a misuse of the seamless garment imagery in Catholic social teaching. And all of them, in practice, seek to contextualize, demote and then counterbalance the evil of abortion with other important but less foundational social issues.This is a great sadness. As Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George said recently, too many Americans have ‘‘no recognition of the fact that children continue to be killed [by abortion], and we live therefore, in a country drenched in blood. This can’t be something you start playing off pragmatically against other issues.’’

So I think that people who claim that the abortion struggle is ‘‘lost’’ as a matter of law, or that supporting an outspoken defender of legal abortion is somehow ‘‘prolife,’’ are not just wrong; they’re betraying the witness of every person who continues the work of defending the unborn child. And I hope they know how to explain that, because someday they’ll be required to.

Archbishop Chaput

 

[TheRealJuliane]

very well said. the democratic politicians may not have yet repented as the “first son” did for lack of a stand on abortion and capital punishment (that’s on them) but they are the more pro-life in their policies (unless we are talking about considering corporations persons under the law with free speech rights), and picking the best policies is on us.

all the focus on roe v wade is moot since its repeal won’t significantly reduce abortions anyway. we need to change hearts, get people to treat other people with dignity. provide hope and good alternatives rather than dirty looks and condemnation for teen moms. come up with ways to provide healthcare daycare, and jobs for the poor who are ten times more likely to have abortions than people above the poverty line. (who is going to help them? the republicans???)

No, there are better ways to stop abortion. One of the possibilities that gives me hope is legislation that forces abortion clinics to SHOW THE WOMAN HER ULTRASOUND before she signs the consent to abort. Also, Catholic charities help teen moms through the Gabriel Project - we don’t give them dirty looks or condemnation.

Do you know WHY “the poor” have more abortions? Black women make up about 17% of the population yet they have 37% of all abortions (and climbing all the time). This is because Planned Parenthood was formed with the expressed policy of weeding out society’s undesirables. Yes, the founder was a racist eugenicist and PP has never distanced itself from her mission. In fact they give out the Margaret Sanger award every year. The last recipient was Hillary Clinton (no surprise there). In case you are interested, you can watch Maafa 21 on YouTube for the history of legalized abortion through Klan Barrenhood.

youtube.com/watch?v=3B2YG7vtwXA

 

[Rocinante]

Nicely done with the twisted logic - voting for a pro-life politician actually increases abortions??? Wow. Sorry, you are wrong, and your arguments are merely Democrat talking points.

The Democrat-pushed health care bill includes taxpayer-funded abortion. This is against Catholic teaching.

not according to the research conducted by catholics united which (along with the Us Conference of Catholic Bishops) endorses a more comprehensive approach to the problem. see:

catholics-united.org/files/reducing-abortion-in-america.pdf

“Public policies that reduce the economic status of low-income families and pregnant women are therefore more likely to effectively reduce abortions in the United States than overturning Roe v Wade.”

if you vote for someone specifically because they are pro-choice that is obviously a sin, but if you have good reason to think that the nominally pro-choice candidate will do more to reduce abortion than the nominally pro-life candidate (and there is much reason to expect that democrats will do so), then it is obviously the right choice to vote democratic. i did!

rocinante

 

[estesbob]

not according to the research conducted by catholics united which (along with the Us Conference of Catholic Bishops) endorses a more comprehensive approach to the problem. see:

catholics-united.org/files/reducing-abortion-in-america.pdf

“Public policies that reduce the economic status of low-income families and pregnant women are therefore more likely to effectively reduce abortions in the United States than overturning Roe v Wade.”

if you vote for someone specifically because they are pro-choice that is obviously a sin, but if you have good reason to think that the nominally pro-choice candidate will do more to reduce abortion than the nominally pro-life candidate (and there is much reason to expect that democrats will do so), then it is obviously the right choice to vote democratic. i did!

rocinante

Catholics United is a a disident “Catholic” organization that has no official standing with the Catholic Church. There is no similarity whatsoever between their opinions and voting guide set out by the US Council of Catholic Bishops.

As usual in these these discussions those of us who affirm the teachings of the Church post direct quotes from the catechism, bishops, the Vatican, etc. while those who dissent from church teaching offers only their opinion of what the teachings should be , try to twist the church teachings to support their political views and quote the views of far left dissident Catholic groups as if they carry more weight than the views of the Pope himself

 

[Rocinante]

Catholics United is a a disident “Catholic” organization that has no official standing with the Catholic Church. There is no similarity whatsoever between their opinions and voting guide set out by the US Council of Catholic Bishops.

As usual in these these discussions those of us who affirm the teachings of the Church post direct quotes from the catechism, bishops, the Vatican, etc. while those who dissent from church teaching offers only their opinion of what the teachings should be , try to twist the church teachings to support their political views and quote the views of far left dissident Catholic groups as if they carry more weight than the views of the Pope himself

i am quite certain that there are no official catholic documents the tell catholics exactly which candidates they must vote for. please correct me if i am wrong.

 

[estesbob]

i am quite certain that there are no official catholic documents the tell catholics exactly which candidates they must vote for. please correct me if i am wrong.

Catholic documents do not mention candidates by name because Catholic teaching applies to the whole world. Church teaching is clear that you cannot vote for pro-abortion candidate. If you can quote a document that says differently please do so. I and others have posted numerous times in this thread alone direct quotes from the church supporting what I’ve said above.

 

[Rocinante]

Catholic documents do not mention candidates by name because Catholic teaching applies to the whole world. Church teaching is clear that you cannot vote for pro-abortion candidate. If you can quote a document that says differently please do so. I and others have posted numerous times in this thread alone direct quotes from the church supporting what I’ve said above.

i have never heard of a candidate claiming to be pro-abortion. have you? so that issue is off the table.

it is up to the voter to decide which candidate is more favorable to a culture that respects human dignity.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

i am quite certain that there are no official catholic documents the tell catholics exactly which candidates they must vote for. please correct me if i am wrong.

The Catholic Church tells you not to vote for a candidate that supports abortion, period. The party platform of the Democrat party includes unlimited access to abortion, including having it be funded by taxpayers, even those who have religious beliefs which are contrary to this.

If the Church gave you a name of someone to vote against, they would be in violation of the “separation of Church and State” regulations and might lose tax-exempt status.

 

[Rocinante]

If the Church gave you a name of someone to vote against, they would be in violation of the “separation of Church and State” regulations and might lose tax-exempt status.

i am sorry but this simply can NOT be the reason that specific candidates are not named. you are implying that the church is putting its financial interests above the lives of the unborn.

 

[estesbob]

i have never heard of a candidate claiming to be pro-abortion. have you? so that issue is off the table.

You are aware that Pope Paul VI specifically forbade the Church from using the term pro-choice? That is because it is a euphemism used to cover up the abject evil that those people who call themselves such support. Trying to hang a innocent sounding label on oneself does not a excuse somebody from the consequences of supporting evil nor does it excuse those empower them

t is up to the voter to decide which candidate is more favorable to a culture that respects human dignity.

That may be your opinion him him t is in no way shape or form what the teachings of the church are. Aain if you have an official church document that affirms your opinion please post it…

 

[estesbob]

i am sorry but this simply can NOT be the reason that specific candidates are not named. you are implying that the church is putting its financial interests above the lives of the unborn.

The church is required to follow campaign finance laws as is everybody else. In addition there is no reason for them to mention specific candidates-church teaching is very clear and there is no way they can go throughout every country in the world and specifically instruct Catholics as a whether they can vote for them or not Church teaching lays out the circumstances under which a person can or cannot vote for a political candidate.

Not that it matters. If if for instance, the church specifically said a Catholic could not vote for Barrack Obama, disident Catholics would be claiming the Church was referring to a different Obama than the one running for president

 

[inkaneer]

Catholic documents do not mention candidates by name because Catholic teaching applies to the whole world. Church teaching is clear that you cannot vote for pro-abortion candidate. If you can quote a document that says differently please do so. I and others have posted numerous times in this thread alone direct quotes from the church supporting what I’ve said above.

No. Sorry but that is incorrect. The Catholic Church does not tell people who to vote for or does not endorse candidates because if it did then the Catholic Church would lose its tax exempt status and would have to register as a PAC [Political Action Committee] rather than a religion. In addition if the Catholic Church told people how to vote or said that voting one way on any particular issue was a sin it could be held liable for infringing on the civil rights of citizens and could be sued for violating one’s civil rights. It could also be liable under Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961-1968. as a Racketeer Influenced Crime Organization [RICO Act]. This act was orginally enacted in 1970 to fight organized crime but has been expanded by Congress since and now is not solely directed at criminal activity as initially enacted but is today applicable to civil law cases also. With the Catholic Bishops still reeling from their sex scandal expose I doubt if any of them has the guts to stand up and subject himself and his diocese to such legal action. After all these are the same bishops who could not agree on refusing the Eucharist to an actively pro-abortion politician And I don’t mean a pro-choice politician I mean a pro- abortion politician.