Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

  • Thread starter Thread starter adawgj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SuperLuigi said:
If a person cannot fool a person like me with lame, selfish excuses, how do they expect to get past God?

If you’re voting just to be :cool::cool: or for $$$$ does anyone really think God won’t know?
Click to expand...
My conscience, thoroughly informed by the Magisterium, is clean before God regarding this matter.

During confession I confess my real sins.
 
"Bringing a respect for human dignity to practical politics can be a daunting task. There is such a wide spectrum of issues involving the protection of human life and the promotion of human dignity. Good people frequently disagree on which problems to address, which policies to adopt and how best to apply them. But for citizens and elected officials alike, the basic principle is simple: We must begin with a commitment never to intentionally kill, or collude in the killing, of any innocent human life, no matter how broken, unformed, disabled or desperate that life may seem. In other words, the choice of certain ways of acting is always and radically incompatible with the love of God and the dignity of the human person created in His image. Direct abortion is never a morally tolerable option. It is always a grave act of violence against a woman and her unborn child. This is so even when a woman does not see the truth because of the pressures she may be subjected to, often by the child’s father, her parents or friends. Similarly, euthanasia and assisted suicide are never acceptable acts of mercy. They always gravely exploit the suffering and desperate, extinguishing life in the name of the “quality of life” itself. This same teaching against direct killing of the innocent condemns all direct attacks on innocent civilians in time of war.

USCCB
 
estesbob said:
Too bad you didnt post what he said BEFORE that which gives the footnote context:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

And we have posted numerous quotes from Members of the Magisterium stating what "proportionate reasons "are-that is their opponent is equally pro-abortion. Now if you have a member of the magisterium who uses another definition or contradicts the numerous quotes that have already been posted please do so
Click to expand...
👍👍👍
 
Al_Moritz said:
My conscience, thoroughly informed by the Magisterium, is clean before God regarding this matter.
Click to expand...
Can you show us where the magisterium "informed your conscience " it was OK to vote for a pro-abortion candidate?
 
Al_Moritz said:
So I should take Jim Akin’s interpretation of Ratzinger over Ratzinger himself? Interesting.
Click to expand...
Akin is a senior CAF apologist and better qualified to assess such matters than someone on CAF trying to feel it out with selfish biases.

At this point, it may be more prudent to consult a confessor.
 
Al_Moritz said:
My conscience, thoroughly informed by the Magisterium, is clean before God regarding this matter.

During confession I confess my real sins.
Click to expand...
:ouch: :stretcher:

Sorry, but that comment screams overconfidence. :imsorry:

Do folks have any idea what it takes to have an enlightened conscience?
 
Al_Moritz said:
So I should take Jim Akin’s interpretation of Ratzinger over Ratzinger himself? Interesting.
Click to expand...
Again if you can find a member of the Magestrium who agree with you interpretation of this footnote please post it.
 
Al_Moritz said:
Interesting that you would invoke the Pope Emeritus. The Pope Emeritus actually agrees with me (or rather, I agree with him):

holyhillcross.com/WORTHINESS%20TO%20RECEIVE%20COMMUNION.htm

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in of 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 stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/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.
Click to expand...
Emphases mine.

But we have gone through this many, many times already. Some insist in interpreting the ‘proportionate reasons’ to be abortion-related, yet the Pope Emeritus *) specifically states “but votes for that candidate for other reasons”. The term ‘other’ is unequivocal.
*) then in his function of Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, a high-level function as guardian of the Catholic Faith

It is in the same sentence and it it absolutely related to the abortion issue. The same sentences states it.

I truly don’t see how one can interpret it another way. He didn’t say " When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of taxes… He specifically stated abortion and euthanasia so proportionate reasons most definitely relate to abortion and euthanasia.
 
Al_Moritz said:
I have addressed this already, knowing that the counter-argument would come:

As Ringil said:
Click to expand...
Thank you for expressing your opinion. Now if you could provide us with a quote form a Member of the magestrium that supports your opinion that would be helpful. I am not asking you to do anything I have not already done myself
 
Dawnia said:
Like I asked before, what do you realistically think an individual US politician can do that would have any affect on global warming? Scientists aren’t even in agreement about how much, if any, is man made. It’d be like someone standing in a crowd of smokers and claiming they are making the air cleaner by not smoking. Does it really matter if everyone else is?
Click to expand...
Quite a bit - if you believe that global warming is real and it is man-made which as far as I can tell most scientists do believe. There’s a recent article in the New York Times about the governor of Washington State taking measures to curb carbon emissions in an effort to save his state’s oysters or salmon, I couldn’t read the article because I don’t have a subscription. Probably misguided (but who am I to say?) but it’s clear that local politicians who regard global warming as a threat are taking steps to get greener and rely less on fossil fuels, plant more trees, etc.
Roe v Wade is not set in stone. It has already been chipped away at. Individual politicians can certainly have an affect on the number of abortions through legislation, funding, education, etc. If 100% of politicians agreed that abortion should be banned, it could be through a Constitutional Amendment. Not so with global warming.
Click to expand...
It’s hard to reverse a Supreme Court decision. The only way I know if is by virtue of another Supreme Court decision. The idea of a constitutional amendment banning abortion is unrealistic. Also consider that legal abortion is as much of a rallying cry for the people on the other side of this issue as it is for us. Without changing a lot of hearts and minds, we will not be successful.
 
Milasol said:
It is in the same sentence and it it absolutely related to the abortion issue. The same sentences states it.

I truly don’t see how one can interpret it another way. He didn’t say " When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of taxes… He specifically stated abortion and euthanasia so proportionate reasons most definitely relate to abortion and euthanasia.
Click to expand...
What part of other don’t you understand?
 
Al_Moritz said:
All I can say is: Wow.
Click to expand...
Wow what?

I say that a lot on here.

My knowledge has limits, and there’s no way I’m going to sit here and assess someone else’s conscience.

All I can say is that if you’re just confessing your sins and not having a conversation about voting this way, that conversation needs to take place.
 
Al_Moritz said:
What part of other don’t you understand?
Click to expand...
What part of other in proportion to abortion and euthanasia as Pope Benedict XVI stated don’t you understand?

Proportionate to what?

Taxes?

Foreign Policy?

Or

Abortion and euthanasia?
 
Quite a bit - if you believe that global warming is real and it is man-made which as far as I can tell most scientists do believe.
Click to expand...
Most of the people referred to in this comment are not scientists.
There’s a recent article in the New York Times about the governor of Washington State taking measures to curb carbon emissions in an effort to save his state’s oysters or salmon, I couldn’t read the article because I don’t have a subscription. Probably misguided (but who am I to say?) but it’s clear that local politicians who regard global warming as a threat are taking steps to get greener and rely less on fossil fuels, plant more trees, etc.
Click to expand...
Even if that line of logic were true, it wouldn’t make much of a difference since China has been the #1 polluter for years.

As it is in reality, planting trees has other environmental benefits, but man simply has not the ability to change the climate in such a way for good or for ill.
 
Al_Moritz said:
👍

But I guess some black-and-white thinkers cannot stomach the deliberate and necessary nuance of the USCCB document.
Click to expand...
While I am not a “black and white” thinker, what I cannot stomach on here are lame, selfish excuses.
 
I’m really wondering how there’s even a debate on this. We’re talking about a political party that has enshrined abortion on demand and same-sex “marriage” into its core position statement. Unfortunately, there is only one realistic alternative to that party right now. Would someone be so kind to point out the parts of their position statement that directly oppose Catholic doctrine?
 
Monkey1976 said:
I’m really wondering how there’s even a debate on this. We’re talking about a political party that has enshrined abortion on demand and same-sex “marriage” into its core position statement. Unfortunately, there is only one realistic alternative to that party right now. Would someone be so kind to point out the parts of their position statement that directly oppose Catholic doctrine?
Click to expand...
I am always amazed that a Catholic would even need the Church to tell them they cant vote for a pro-abortion canidate
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top