According to the letters that were read in Mass this weekend, yes, they are. Voting for a pro-choice candidate makes you complicit in the perpetuation of abortion. If you can spin your mind around to justify it, that’s fine. Jesus won’t be fooled when you stand in front of Him to explain yourself.You’re certainly entitled to that opinion but, as I pointed out, those so-called non-negotiables are actually non-binding according to the, now, Pope when other issues are in play. No one is obligated to write-off pro-choice candidates.
“Thou shall not kill”. That includes the unborn. That is what you are “cooperating” with. Is that Church enough for you?Can you show me a Church document that proclaims my informed decision a sin?
That is an interpretation not in line with the Pope and the USCCB, see above. The USCCB voting guide has been criticized by some for being not ‘clear enougn’, or allowing ‘loophole interpretation’, but the USCCB stuck with the same text for this year – for sound reasons of moral theology.According to the letters that were read in Mass this weekend, yes, they are. Voting for a pro-choice candidate makes you complicit in the perpetuation of abortion. If you can spin your mind around to justify it, that’s fine. Jesus won’t be fooled when you stand in front of Him to explain yourself.
Fiddle sticks. !! :bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes::bowdown:That is an interpretation not in line with the Pope and the USCCB, see above. The USCCB voting guide has been criticized by some for being not ‘clear enougn’, or allowing ‘loophole interpretation’, but the USCCB stuck with the same text for this year – for sound reasons of moral theology.
Seriously. Catholic Democrats are more beholden to their ideology than they are to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.Fiddle sticks. !! :bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes::bowdown:
If you want to criticize the USCCB in this manner, it does not speak very well of you as a Catholic.Fiddle sticks. !! :bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes::bowdown:
No, you are more beholden to political ideology than you are to the teachings of the Church, clearly outlined by the Pope (then Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Sacred Doctrine of Faith) and the USCCB, see post #772.Seriously. Catholic Democrats are more beholden to their ideology than they are to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Just to clarify, I do not think the concept of five non-negotiables is found anywhere in Church teaching. It may be founded on Church teaching, but is not Church teaching. As pointed out earlier, if it were, then Romney would be excluded, as some Catholics have done. Both voting based on proportional reasons and the less perfect candidate are allowed.Helloooo!! There’s more important issues! The church has said time and time again that abortion is far more important, and is one of the 5 non-negotiables. Not so much on economic issues.
Fr Stpehen Torraco saidAl Moritz is right on this one topic. I think the urgency of the moment has lead to a tendency to go further than the Church teaches on this. Like the good bishop in the OP said, we need to fight for the value of life in this election or risk complicity in grave sin, but we can not go further. We can not say voting for Obama equates to grave sin, for example.
I can not fathom how any Catholic can support this man, but that does not mean that such a reasoning can not exist. My opinion is limited by my own circumstances. As to whether a supporter is reasoning or justifying is a matter that God only can judge.
Except in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates (in which case, as explained in question 8 above, he or she strives to determine which of them would cause the let damage in this regard), a candidate that is pro-abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. This is because being pro-abortion cannot simply be placed alongside the candidate’s other positions on Medicare and unemployment, for example; and this is because abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally
In this election voting for Obama IS a grave sin. The most charitable thing you can say about such a person is that they may just be ignorant and therefore less culpable, but it’s really hard to believe anyone could still be so ignorant by this point. You’re right of course that it’s up to God to judge each individual case.We can not say voting for Obama equates to grave sin, for example.
Whil I may agree with Fr. Torraco to a certain extent, his opinion on this is not the same as the USCCB, or the Bishop’s letter, for that matter. The USCCB grants the possibility in theory of proportional reason. The bishop qualifies his list of people committing objective mortal sin in their vote with those “who callously enable the destruction of innocent human life in the womb.”
With all due respect to Fr. Torraco, but he is not as high an authority on moral theology in general and this issue in particular as the Pope and the USCCB. So to present him as a ‘competition’ to those other documents is tenuous at best and laughable at worst.
I stand correct. Yes, we can say that voting for Obama is a grave sin. What I should have said is that we can not say this without going beyong Church teaching into application, judgment or opinion.In this election voting for Obama IS a grave sin. The most charitable thing you can say about such a person is that they may just be ignorant and therefore less culpable, but it’s really hard to believe anyone could still be so ignorant by this point. You’re right of course that it’s up to God to judge each individual case.
I see we cross-posted.Whil I may agree with Fr. Torraco to a certain extent, his opinion on this is not the same as the USCCB, or the Bishop’s letter, for that matter.
Laughable? The advice from a Priest, I do not agree. With due respect, he is in a better position to judge on this issue than a layperson. There are a bunch of posts here of Bishops saying it would be a grave sin to vote for a pro abortion candidateWith all due respect to Fr. Torraco, but he is not as high an authority on moral theology in general and this issue in particular as the Pope and the USCCB. So to present him as a ‘competition’ to those other documents is tenuous at best and laughable at worst.
If you want to vote for the champion of abortion, (Obama), it does not speak very well for you as a Catholic.If you want to criticize the USCCB in this manner, it does not speak very well of you as a Catholic.
Here are the words of Bishops, priests and Catholics on proportionate reasons. They say social security, tax, immigration, health care, etc is not proportionate enough in combination or singularly to vote for a pro abortion candidate. What reasons are Catholics using to vote for Obama? I do not see how there could be any reason that would be classified under proportionate reasoning that would override Obama’s extreme support for abortion; homosexual marriage; embryonic stem cell research and infringing on religious freedom. If Romney and all the 3rd party candidates had the same position or worse than Obama on intrinsic evils noted above, then you may be able to use proportionate reasoning to vote for Obama but Romney does not share the positions of ObamaWhil I may agree with Fr. Torraco to a certain extent, his opinion on this is not the same as the USCCB, or the Bishop’s letter, for that matter. The USCCB grants the possibility in theory of proportional reason. The bishop qualifies his list of people committing objective mortal sin in their vote with those “who callously enable the destruction of innocent human life in the womb.”
You are spot on, exoflare. I thought I saw all the most disgusting commercials approved by the Obama administration. I thought it peeked with the commercial about comparing losing one’s virginity to voting for Obama. But this one was just released. It is praised by Planned Parenthood. And we know Obama’s love affair with Planned Parenthood.In this election voting for Obama IS a grave sin. The most charitable thing you can say about such a person is that they may just be ignorant and therefore less culpable, but it’s really hard to believe anyone could still be so ignorant by this point. You’re right of course that it’s up to God to judge each individual case.
I think the USCCB voting guide, in this passage, has articulated a truth that is exceedingly unpopular in these fora. No matter. It provides sufficient amplification of Ratzinger’s above-position. A lot of people who have stridently ignored it these past few years are probably going to be seeing the truth of it in the weeks and months ahead, and regretting many things they have said of late.By the way, the USCCB voting guide is precisely in line with this:
…]
- Decisions about political life are complex and require the exercise of a well-formed conscience aided by prudence. This exercise of conscience begins with outright opposition to laws and other policies that violate human life or weaken its protection. Those who knowingly, willingly, and directly support public policies or legislation that undermine fundamental moral principles cooperate with evil.
Link:
- Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position *). In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.
- There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons *). Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.
usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-part-one.cfm
*) Compare with Ratzinger’s (the current Pope’s) statement:
"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation with evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stance on abortion or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share the candidate’s stance in favor of abortion or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.