E
estesbob
Guest
What right is more important than the right to life? How can one enjoy supporting someone who believes a woman has the right to pay someone to kill her child?
- Status
C
CaptFun
Guest
Q Sentence 1: A) Nothing, which is why it’s listed first among our rights. If someone takes your life … they also have taken your liberty and your (potential) pursuit of happiness.
Q Sentence 2: A) Even without “enjoying” it your starkly put facts in the light of this thread’s question lead one to the answer … one CAN’T … as an obedient Catholic.
OTOH, one CAN via the free will we have - that allows us even to commit mortal sins :bigyikes: – which, unrepented of, can reap one horrible eternal consequences)
.As this thread addresses Catholics - as a Catholic I’ll pose this concundrum to my fellow religionists:
I have created you and given you a life. When you were small and helpless your parents, doctors, a whole society welcomed you as a positive - gave you a name, citizenship, rights, and many things you would have been unable to provide yourself with.
When you were older, independent, and had the power to govern over some others … you
gave your power to those who destroyed other little children I was creating.
Explain yourself.
**The Defendant: ** (fill in these blanks. I can’t. Even beginning to try is rather perverse IMO).
Abortion is THE issue that makes me lean toward NO here. It is enshrined in the party platform time after time with virtually no dissent from theoretically “pro-life Democrats”.
The posed question does not mean I must vote for a Republican (particularly if that candidate also tolerates or promotes abortion). And I have voted for a “pro-life Democrat” in the past. < Though in that case he “evolved” into a position matching his party’s platform making me regret my attempt at nurturing a pro-life spark into a flame so that I’d have TWO good candidates to choose from whenever I voted.
uch:Some (otherwise IMO) Catholics will vote for Democrats because they like the promises made, and their campaigns that paint them as “better for the poor … or women … or minorities … or education … or _______________ < fill in the blank " while implying that their opponents are " against clean air and water … justice … health care … peace.”
Yet the fruits borne when many of them HAVE power often looks like failed, violent, poor cities; economic chaos, a loss of personal rights to the power of an intrusive state, and hostility towards people of faith (demonstrated by the decisions of judges appointed when that party is in power).
I stop short of saying NO … to this thread’s question. Although at present … I can’t see how I can for the most part.
M
ManOnFire
Guest
But this is such hypocrisy: a majority of Catholics voted for Obama - the most pro-abortion President in history, so your theory is flawed to think that Catholics wouldn’t follow her: they already are, in one aspect. Ayn Rand is becoming more appealing to more people because the country IS ALREADY RUN by pro-choice politicians who take more taxes from innocent taxpayers to support the victims of liberal behaviors. Want liberal lifestyles? Great. Pay for it yourself. Where’s the justice in extracting money from taxpayers who have no free will to oppose the taxes, in order to pay for the expensive behaviors of those who have free will? That’s the opposite of justice because the innocent people are taxed while there’s freedom for the guilty people. If we’re going to have abortion and taxpayer funded birth control anyway, the least we could have is more economic justice for lifestyle choices.
P
Path_Finder
Guest
Just stating facts, Ayn Rand was a pro-choicer. Anyway, the Roman Catholic Church and those who follow their teachings as Catholics are not going to promote abortion in any way.
You might read the post’s above discussing Any Rand.
M
ManOnFire
Guest
It’s hypocritical to see people criticizing Paul Ryan for admiring some aspects of Ayn Rand while claiming she’s too pro-choice. It’s a deflection. We already have pro-choice politicians.
I laugh when I hear “liberals” say “Pay their fair share.” All one needs to do is query each social security number to see how much has been paid into/ taken out of the government’s coffers to determine who has paid too much so far, as well as who hasn’t yet “paid their fair share,” Makers of tax revenues versus Takers of tax revenues style. The media spins the opposite of the truth to the unthinking among us. I say “liberal” in quotes because one must be blind to not see how economics is socialized but personal responsibility is still individualized. That’s not fair and just. Either have liberal economic policy coupled with a social contract where people are expected to behave conservatively and responsibly, OR give people the true freedom to behave any way they want, but pay for your own lifestyle choices. Raising taxes to pay for others’ free will is the opposite of justice. This is why the middle isn’t working any more and society is becoming more polarized. Punishing the more responsible citizens with the negative feedback of higher and higher taxes while rewarding the less responsible with the positive feedback of more benefits will eventually create “equality” by demotivating those who are more responsible. Instead, desirable behaviors should be positively rewarded and less desirable behaviors negatively rewarded, but we’re currently doing the opposite. That’s great if you’re in the elite ruling class, but the rest of us are screwed.
I
ishii
Guest
At a time when moral clarity is needed, some seem content to muddy the waters; to cloud the issue in a haze of sophistry and silly debate tactics. It may be fun for some, but ultimately it does not add to the moral clarity and helps prevent a consensus that voting for pro-abortion candidates is wrong, and a party that is of, by and for abortion rights is not worthy of a Catholic’s vote. And, a so-called “pro-life” Democrat is also unworthy - why would they belong to the abortion party. And local Dems: same. They are the farm system for the pro-abortion Democrat party.
Ishii
I
ishii
Guest
The problem with all this talk of Ayn Rand, Hayek, etc. is that you’re just using it to rationalize voting for a president who is in favor of legalized infanticide (partial birth abortion).
What do you think you’d say to an aborted baby that asked you why you voted for those who want to keep abortion legal? Would you say, “Ayn Rand, blah blah blah… Bush…blah blah blah… Iraq…blah blah blah… the environment…EPA… blah blah blah…”
Good luck with that, fnr.
I
ishii
Guest
Change the subject, confuse the issue, etc. rationalize support for abortion. It used to be the abortion lobby itself that would do this. Now its pro-choice Democrat catholics engaging in this shameful behavior. The fact is, they are very, very uncomfortable dealing with the reality of the issue.
Ishii
I
ishii
Guest
The Defendant: " Bush…blah blah blah…Ayn Rand… blah blah blah… not a single issue voter… blah blah blah…Pope Francis new balance… blah blah blah…my body, my choice… blah blah blah…I will not answer! … I will not serve!!.."
Ishii
C
CaptFun
Guest
Best entry so far. The sad part is … the best of these arguments are … blah.
C
CaptFun
Guest
Just not so far! * - :coolinoff:
Thanks for stopping there! I have to get to sleep tonight.
**** wasn’t thinking of JFK***
I
ishii
Guest
Yes, they can - meaning they are able to. But the question posed is really* should *Catholic vote Democrat. * Ought *Catholics vote Democrat. The answer is no, that is, if you are a Catholic who believes in the sanctity of life. But I’d be interested in how you reconcile voting Democrat in light of their pro-abortion policies.
Ishii
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Or in more recent times (I’m referring to at points in time during even the past 6 yrs) can be a Democrat and at the same time 2nd and 3rd in line to leader of the free world or a Secretary of State.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
This may be your opinion, but it is not Church teaching.
F
fnr
Guest
You are not accurately stating what “the Church” has taught, but statements by Archbishop Chaput and Cardinal Burke. Not every statement of a bishop of the Church constitutes the regular Magesterial teaching of the Church, though it is the obligation of every Catholic to attend to (notably, to “conform to”) what they say. You are selectively citing two bishops and saying their political positions constitute what every Catholic must follow. Neither of them is my bishop, and do not have the authority to define “proportionate reason” in all cases for every Catholic in America, in the same way that Bishop Paprocki’s “Ars celebrandi et adorandi” does not require church buildings outside the Diocese of Springfield, IL to move the tabernacle to the center of the church, as it does within that diocese.
When I look at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’s Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility, or as I previously cited, the Ratzinger Memo (the main which you insist I ignored in favor of what you consider an insignificant footnote) do not say what you are saying.
If you want to be selective in citing the USCCB’s document, you can jump to number 90 (and skip the previous 89 points) and cite the following:
90. Catholic teaching challenges voters and candidates, citizens and elected officials, to consider the moral and ethical dimensions of public policy issues. In light of ethical principles, we bishops offer the following policy goals that we hope will guide Catholics as they form their consciences and reflect on the moral dimensions of their public choices. Not all issues are equal; these ten goals address matters of different moral weight and urgency. Some involve matters of intrinsic evil that can never be supported. Others involve affirmative obligations to seek the common good. These and similar goals can help voters and candidates act on ethical principles rather than particular interests and partisan allegiances. We hope Catholics will ask candidates how they intend to help our nation pursue these important goals:
- Address the preeminent requirement to protect the weakest in our midst—innocent unborn children—by restricting and bringing to an end the destruction of unborn children through abortion.
- Keep our nation from turning to violence to address fundamental problems—a million abortions each year to deal with unwanted pregnancies, euthanasia and assisted suicide to deal with the burdens of illness and disability, the destruction of human embryos in the name of research, the use of the death penalty to combat crime, and imprudent resort to war to address international disputes.
- Define the central institution of marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and provide better support for family life morally, socially, and economically, so that our nation helps parents raise their children with respect for life, sound moral values, and an ethic of stewardship and responsibility.
- Achieve comprehensive immigration reform that secures our borders, treats immigrant workers fairly, offers an earned path to citizenship, respects the rule of law, and addresses the factors that compel people to leave their own countries.
- Help families and children overcome poverty: ensuring access to and choice in education, as well as decent work at fair, living wages and adequate assistance for the vulnerable in our nation, while also helping to overcome widespread hunger and poverty around the world, especially in the areas of development assistance, debt relief, and international trade.
- Provide health care for the growing number of people without it, while respecting human life, human dignity, and religious freedom in our health care system.
- Continue to oppose policies that reflect prejudice, hostility toward immigrants, religious bigotry, and other forms of discrimination.
- Encourage families, community groups, economic structures, and government to work together to overcome poverty, pursue the common good, and care for creation, with full respect for religious groups and their right to address social needs in accord with their basic moral convictions.
- Establish and comply with moral limits on the use of military force—examining for what purposes it may be used, under what authority, and at what human cost—and work for a “responsible transition” to end the war in Iraq.
- Join with others around the world to pursue peace, protect human rights and religious liberty, and advance economic justice and care for creation.
F
fnr
Guest
Citing the Ratzinger memo, here is the text that defines the issue:
“Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.”
“Formal cooperation” has a technical definition in Catholic moral theology. Citing the National Catholic Bioethics Center:
“Formal Cooperation is assistance provided to the immoral act of a principal agent in which the cooperator intends the evil. The assistance need not be essential to the
performance of the act in order for the cooperator to intend the evil of the principal agent’s act. Formal cooperation in evil actions, either explicitly or implicitly, is never morally licit.”
However, the “footnote,” actually denoted “N.B.” for “Nota bene” – meaning “note well” and represents a formal detailed instruction on the legal point at hand – is as follows:
*[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of **formal cooperation *in 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 favour 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.]
According to the National Catholic Bioethics Center,
*B. Material Cooperation is assistance provided to the immoral act of a principal agent
in which the cooperator does not intend the evil. The elements needed to define material
cooperation are, first, the free and knowing assistance to the evil act of another, and,
second, the absence of intending the principal agent’s evil acts. If these two factors obtain
in any given case, then the moral agent is engaging in material cooperation. However, not
all cooperation defined by these factors is morally permissible. Some types of material
cooperation are immoral. Material cooperation can be either immediate or mediate
- Immediate Material Cooperation.
Immediate material cooperation occurs when the cooperator does not share the intentions
of the principal agent but participates in circumstances that are essential to the commission of an act, such that the act could not occur without this participation. Immediate material cooperation in intrinsically evil actions is morally illicit. - Mediate Material Cooperation.
Mediate material cooperation occurs when the cooperator participates in circumstances
that are not essential to the commission of an action, such that the action could occur even without this cooperation. Mediate material cooperation in an immoral act might be justifiable under three basic conditions:
a. If some great good were to be gained (or prevented from being lost) or if some great evil were to be avoided. Mediate material cooperation is morally licit according to a proper proportionality between the goods to be protected or the evils avoided, on one hand, and the evil of the principal agent’s act, on the other. The graver the evil to which the cooperator
contributes, the graver the good sought or the evil avoided must be. Indeed, licit mediate material cooperation has traditionally been understood in terms of the four basic
conditions of the principle of the double effect as applied to a cooperator. The act of material cooperation has two effects, the bad effect of assisting an evil act, and the good effect of preserving good or avoiding evil. Thus an act of mediate material
cooperation is licit because:
1. The cooperator’s act is itself morally good or indifferent.*
[*]The cooperator does not intend the evil of the principal agent’s act.
[*]The good effect is not achieved by means of the bad effect (the principal agent is the primary cause of the evil act).
[*]The good effect is proportionate to the bad effect.
b. The reason for cooperation must be proportionate to the causal proximity of the cooperator’s action and the principal agent’s action (the distinction between proximate and remote). Mediate material cooperation can be either proximate or remote. This is not a difference of physical or geographic location, but rather a causal difference. The distinction between proximate and remote refers respectively to mediate material cooperation that has a direct causal influence on the act of the principal agent (proximate) and that which has an indirect causal influence (remote).
c. The danger of scandal (i.e., leading others into doing evil, leading others into error, or spreading confusion) must be avoided.
It appears that you, Archbishop Chaput, and Cardinal Burke do not believe that there are any “proportionate reasons” that would allow an American Catholic to vote for a candidate that expresses support for Roe v. Wade. I disagree, and would welcome a canon lawyer’s interpretation here.
R
ringil
Guest
Thanks for taking the time for that excellent post fnr.
I
ishii
Guest
Church teaching tells us that unborn human life is sacred. I have concluded based on that teaching that the Democrat party is unworthy of any votes of Catholics. Do you base your decisions/opinions on something other than Church teaching? E.g Stinkcat teaching: you don’t like Republicans’ spending habits?
Ishii
- Status