LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Which is my point exactly. Following the thinking outlined by “you must never vote for a pro-choice candidate” leads you to just this reprehensible conclusion.
- Status
M
Milasol
Guest
The thing is that nobody is sending that politician off to do anything. The pro-lifer helps the girl. The pro-lifer didn’t vote for him.
Often we hear how we need to think of the poor raped girl when arguing against abortion. Well our position is that two evils don’t make a good.
You are saying that by helping the girl, we are aiding with the murder of others.
The politician already got elected by votes and not by giving insulin to his daughter.
You logic is flawed. The politician was already elected by votes and that is why voting is very important. The fact that he goes to his office a few hours later or earlier or even a day or so later because of an emergency is irrelevant. He has already been put into office
And as to Chesterton, you are right, he is the apostle of common sense. Many could benefit a lot from actually reading his works.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I see you are focused much more on whether a person is elected than on what he does when he is elected. Enabling is enabling. It does not matter if I enable the pro-choice vote by voting for him or by helping him get to work on the day of a critical abortion vote. They both are enabling actions, and either they are both allowed or they are both not allowed.
I
ishii
Guest
So you admit you posted a falsehood about the GOP. You post a falsehood : “the GOP is for the elimination of school lunches” then blame someone else’s post for you making the falsehood. Then accuse me of being defensive for calling you on it.
This is the problem - or one of the problems: we can’t seem to have a rational conversation without the hyperbole (“The GOP wants kids to starve”) and falsehoods. But most telling, Ringil, is that in a thread questioning the morality of voting Democrat, you create a false issue of the GOP wanting to starve children. I understand that it makes Democrat catholics very, very uncomfortable discussing the morality of voting Democrat in light of their support for abortion rights. I would be very uncomfortable too if I was in the same position. But even though I understand the untenable position you are in: I will still call you on it when you speak falsehoods. And I hope that everyone can see just how desperate Democrat catholics become when faced with explaining their support for the party of abortion.
Ishii
I
ishii
Guest
We need to remember the principle of subsidiarity. And the programs you mention above - whatever their merits - do not negate the fact that we have over the past few decades spent trillions to reduce poverty, only to see it increase. In other words, the tax and spend policies have been a failure. It might make certain people very smug and self satisfied - as they can say, “I voted for Senator X and he/she voted to increase funding for Y to help the poor.” But the reality is, many of the programs have been a failure in reducing poverty. But again - we are getting away from the issue which is whether or not Catholics should vote Democrat. Its a no-brainer: of course not. Not as long as the Democrat party is the party of abortion on demand. School lunch funding or not.
Sorry Ringil - the Democrat party is not compatible with Catholic moral teaching on the sanctity of life. And they don’t deserve the vote of any Catholics. I say this not because I think I can convince you - I have read your posts. But rather, to expose the moral bankruptcy of the Democrat party to those who might think otherwise but still have an open mind and still be able to respond to reason.
Ishii
M
Milasol
Guest
What?
It is truly hard for me to follow your logic.
I said that it was important to get a candidate that one was sure that would vote on our favor so if he goes and votes it would be against the murder of a baby.
That is why it is important to vote in the first place.
Your whole logic stems from what if we could stop the candidate from voting on a critical abortion law by not taking care of a little girl.
How about we don’t put candidates that we are not sure they will vote in favor of not killing a child in the first place…
I
ishii
Guest
The problem with your example is that everyone knows that it would be wrong to let a child die in order to prevent a congressman from going off to vote for a pro-abortion law. Its a false choice you’re presenting and it gives the spirit of GK Chesterton a bad name. Now here is a better example: Democrat catholic McLiberal is on her way to congress to vote on an abortion bill. We’ll call her “Patty Pelosi Murray” On the way to congress to vote her limousine gets a flat but fixing the flat is a two man job. Her chauffer flags you down and asks you to help fix the flat so she can continue on to congress and vote for the abortion bill. You get out and help fix her flat. But you also offer to check the oil, and while doing so, you remove the spark plugs and put them in your pocket. You drive off. McLiberal Democrat catholic doesn’t make it to the vote. Later in the day, you hear on the news that the abortion funding vote loses by one vote. Anyone here who think this response doesn’t stand up to scrutiny?
Ishii
E
Ender
Guest
The choice is more subtle than that. There is a hierarchy of cooperation with evil; sometimes it is allowed and sometimes it is not. Formal cooperation, where the cooperator either wills the evil or shares in the act, is never permitted. Material cooperation, where the cooperator performs an act which is itself not wrong but is used by the principle to commit a wrongful act, is sometimes allowed and sometimes not. Certain material cooperation in an immoral action is morally permissible when a sufficient reason exists. This would certainly cover the situation where your neighbor’s child needed insulin.
The problem with determining when material cooperation with evil is permitted is that individual situations are frequently complicated; it is not easy to make blanket statements that cover all the possibilities. Material cooperation is itself divided into two categories: proximate and remote, which are determined by whether the moral act is more or less intimately connected to the immoral one.
Voting for a pro-abortion candidate is proximate, material cooperation with abortion, and as numerous church sources have said, is allowed only when a sufficient reason exists. What we differ on is what constitutes a sufficient reason.
Ender
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Various Bishops have said what are not proportionate reasons:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12226520&highlight=proportionate#post12226520
There are some Catholics here who vote for a pro-choice candidate or candidates when there are pro-life candidates, so I would like to hear more about the reason or reasons they vote for those candidates regarding policy positions the candidate takes, and analyse whether the reason or reasons the Catholic makes to vote for that candidate because they support particular policies would be considered proportionate.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Not correct. The Pope Emeritus (emphasis mine):
*[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.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
What proportionate reasons do you think there is to vote for a pro-choice candidate?
Note ‘other reasons’ in Cardinal Ratzinger’s comment. But an answer to what ‘other reasons’ or what are ‘proportionate reasons’ are, is not given in that text by Cardinal Ratzinger. Various Bishops and Priests have written about reasons Cardinal Ratzinger may or may not be talking about and/or what they think regarding reasons.
E
Ender
Guest
Thank you for correcting me. I’ll certainly accept the pope’s explanation, but whether it is proximate or remote the condition for valid cooperation remains “the presence of proportionate reasons.” This is what the debate is about. What do you consider to be a proportionate reason to support a pro-abortion candidate?
Ender
M
markomalley
Guest
Then you have a question about what is proportionality?
And have voters who claim that it is proportionally good to support a pro-abortion candidate who is in favor of multiple government social programs slipping into the idea of “proportionalism”?
If this is the case, they have a problem. As JPII stated in Veritas Splendor,
*Such theories [proportionalism, consequentialism] however are not faithful to the Church’s teaching, when they believe they can justify, as morally good, deliberate choices of kinds of behaviour contrary to the commandments of the divine and natural law. *(From VS paragraph 76. If you are interested in learning more, you should concentrate on paragraphs 74-79)
(And, by the way, a massive quality of government social programs is problematic in light of Church teaching, also, but that’s a separate argument)
An example of “proportionate reasons” that would not fall into proportionalism would be a choice between two hypothetical candidates:
*]Candidate “A” was pro-abortion but believed in the integrity of life from birth through natural death (this candidate simply did not believe that life began until the first breath of the child – but once a person met “his/her” definition of life, then life should be respected)
*]Candidate “B” was anti-abortion but believed in euthanising the disabled and universal euthanasia at age 62 (his rationale was that the State needed workers and those who were too old or sick to work were a drain on society and, thus, should be liquidated)
The proportionate reason would be that the election of Candidate “B” might result in the indiscriminate loss of more human life than the election of Candidate “A”. So the proportion of human life lost would be greater with “B” than “A”.
You might be able to make the same argument if you had a “Candidate ‘B’” who stated that he would enact a foreign policy of the complete eradication of all Muslims (Animists, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, etc) from the face of the planet (that discussion wouldn’t so much apply in the US, but very well could apply in other parts of the world.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Well, from the responses I’ve gotten to this post, apparently everyone thinks saving the life of one little girl with insulin is a sufficient reason to risk not passing a restrictive law on abortion as an unintended double effect. So why wouldn’t saving a whole bunch of kids from childhood diseases with a vaccination program be sufficient reason to risk the same thing as an unintended double-effect? Because that is just what someone who votes for a pro-choice candidate for some other reason might do.
E
estesbob
Guest
We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide. Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.
Archbishop Charles Chaput
E
estesbob
Guest
Insulin does little good for those denied the right to life.
E
estesbob
Guest
Nobody said you could never vote for a pro-abortion candidate.
You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone,
"Cardinal Burke
Rather than come of with increasingly complex and bizarre scenarios (mental gymnastics as Archbishop Chaput would say)it would be helpful if you post a quote from a single member of the Magisterium that agrees with your opinions. Opinions that conflict with the teachings of the Church
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
So are you going to be the first one to say that the response given by the man in the story to his neighbor, John, was the morally correct thing to do?
S
shockerfan
Guest
I think one would have to ask a series of questions to themselves, and consider the body of teachings relative to your statement:
- Does one party overwhelmingly opposed childhood vaccinations?
- Does the person you want to vote for have a public stance on opposing childhood vaccinations?
- Is the reason the candidate opposes childhood vaccinations because they truly believe vaccinations are bad for children? Or do they believe that providing vaccinations for a child presents an undue burden on the mother, and its her body so we shouldn’t force her to reach in her wallet and pay for the vaccination?
- How do the numbers compare? What is the number of children who will die from withholding vaccinations compared to the 1.2 million abortions performed annually?
- What do the bishops say on the subject? How about this from the Bishops of Dallas and Ft. Worth on comparing other social issues with abortion:
prolifedallas.org/voting
- Are there bishops / Popes that support your position? (Beyond a single word or phrase that can be interpreted in multiple ways…but that have expounded upon their position)
D
Dawnia
Guest
Saving a little girl is a very different issue than legislation.
By the way, John being a politician should know better than to ask another person for prescription drugs (which is illegal and dangerous since there are numerous types of insulin) and should do like every other normal person in the US and call 911. Or be a responsible parent and not get to the point of running out in the first place.
- Status