Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[stinkcat_14]

That’s not above yours or my pay grade. Yes she is in mortal sin for direct participation in an intrinsic evil. It’s okay, you can speak truth; don’t be afraid!

Here’s where the paid grade comes in, is she culpable? Because of the coercion by her parents, I would say they are culpable and not her, but this doesn’t change the fact that the three factors were in this situation.

Grave matter = no doubt
Full knowledge = she admits that she knows it is wrong
Free will = she could have fought, she had that choice even though it would have caused great pain and suffering on her part with her family she could have rejected it. You will not convince me that they dragged her to the doctor bound hand and foot and strapped her to the table and forced the abortion; that didn’t happen.

The culpability of her actions is what is in question, was she completely sane and cognizant of the actions? We could go on, but no matter what, she participated in grave sin. We can surely agree that her parents would face the greater amount of the guilt of these actions.

We cannot know whether or not she is in mortal sin because of two reasons. One is that we don’t know the extent of her knowlege. We don’t know if she is religious or had religious education, or belonged to a denomination that did not teach that abortion was a grave sin.

We also don’t know how much free consent she had. For example, should she be required to kill her parents in order to avoid having an abortion? How about beating them up with a baseball bat? We don’t know what kind of psychological warfare her parents imposed on her.

She might be culpable and she might not be, but determining the degree of culpability is not our job.

 

[ringil]

That’s not above yours or my pay grade. Yes she is in mortal sin for direct participation in an intrinsic evil. It’s okay, you can speak truth; don’t be afraid!

No, you cannot say that this person is in a state of mortal sin. You can say that her transgression is of grave matter and that is all.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Doesn’t exists in the request you make and as you already know it is not needed, you can use your head to figure it out on your own.

1 + 1 = 2 it’s quite simple.

Of course it doesn’t exist, so all we have is our own prudential judgement. So we cannot say a priori that voting for a pro life democrat is sinful.

 

[Lapey]

In other words, I was never wrong in the first place. I said nothing about actions, I was talking about mortal sin that involves more than actions. So tell me, where did I say anything about judging actions?

You seem to have a hard time with the nuances of a statement. I said nothing about nancy’s actions. I said, and all I said is that we cannot judge whether or not she is guilty or mortal sin? We can both agree that what I said was consistent with Church teaching, I have said absolutely nothing against Church teaching.

All I am after is accuracy. We agree that we cannot judge whether or not nancy is guilty of mortal sin. I have not claimed that her actions were not wrong.

You cannot confuse actions and mortal sin. There is nothing wrong with judging actions, but in my original post I said nothing about actions and focused my comments on the topic of mortal sin.

I give, you win. No matter what I post you will twist it into either me being a mean “waskly wepublican” or the fault of my incomplete or errant formation. There is no way, at least from what I have experienced with conversations with you in this and other threads, that we can have a meaningful conversation.

This is the response you will get from me to any post of yours in response to mine, I don’t have the time nor patience. Peace to you and your family.

 

[Lapey]

That’s not above yours or my pay grade. Yes she is in mortal sin for direct participation in an intrinsic evil. It’s okay, you can speak truth; don’t be afraid!

No, you cannot say that this person is in a state of mortal sin. You can say that her transgression is of grave matter and that is all.

I really did a poor job of making my point here and I appreciate you pointing it out.

The entire point being made is about the participation in the intrinsic evil. The way I wrote the post I do in fact cross that line of saying a person is in the state of mortal sin, that implies culpability, that was not my point.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I give, you win. No matter what I post you will twist it into either me being a mean “waskly wepublican”

I actually have said nothing about you being a republican and as is well apparent on these forums, republicans are way to liberal for me. I am interested in the truth and if the truth requires that I ask difficult questions, or state things that are politically unpalitable, then so be it.

or the fault of my incomplete or errant formation.

I don’t recall saying anything about your formation.

There is no way, at least from what I have experienced with conversations with you in this and other threads, that we can have a meaningful conversation.

This is the response you will get from me to any post of yours in response to mine, I don’t have the time nor patience. Peace to you and your family.

You are certainly free to do as you wish. However it would seem to me that you seem to think that you have some sort of “authority” and that you don’t like to have that questioned. Let’s be honest for a minute. There is a big difference between actions and mortal sin. I make a comment about mortal sin and you make it out to suggest that I am condoning an action. You seem to have a problem with the nuance of an argument. One can commit a gravely wrong action and still not be in mortal sin. To point that out does not mean that one condones of the gravely wrong action.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I really did a poor job of making my point here and I appreciate you pointing it out.

The entire point being made is about the participation in the intrinsic evil. The way I wrote the post I do in fact cross that line of saying a person is in the state of mortal sin, that implies culpability, that was not my point.

I am not actually sure what the point of your post was then, because I didn’t say anything different than what ringil said.

 

[Lapey]

I am not actually sure what the point of your post was then, because I didn’t say anything different than what ringil said.

I’m not exactly sure what any one is saying anymore. There is so much side talk and thread derailment going on I’m starting to seriously regret joining in.

Why do you challenge anything and everything that is said? I haven’t figured you out yet. As to authority? When did I say you have to listen to me, I simply stated my frustration because you question everything. If someone says blue you say black. But you NEVER actually commit to any stance. I have debated you many times in recent years, and for the life of me I don’t know who you claim to be; you contradict every side in every argument. You seem like one of those “virtuous” moderates because you can’t make up your mind and then state your mind. You just disagree.

I do apologize if I seem angry, I am not. Frustrated that I decided to jump back in, yes; angry, no.

 

[mary_bobo]

I think this thread has run its course. Anyone can vote for whomever they wish and the consequences are between the voter and God. Let’s get on with discussion in which everything and every excuse has not already been made.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I’m not exactly sure what any one is saying anymore. There is so much side talk and thread derailment going on I’m starting to seriously regret joining in.

Why do you challenge anything and everything that is said? I haven’t figured you out yet. As to authority? When did I say you have to listen to me, I simply stated my frustration because you question everything. If someone says blue you say black. But you NEVER actually commit to any stance. I have debated you many times in recent years, and for the life of me I don’t know who you claim to be; you contradict every side in every argument. You seem like one of those “virtuous” moderates because you can’t make up your mind and then state your mind. You just disagree.

I do apologize if I seem angry, I am not. Frustrated that I decided to jump back in, yes; angry, no.

Actually, to be fair I don’t challenge everything and anything that is said. For example, did I dispute whether nancy’s support of abortion rights is objectively evil? no. You will find no inconsistency in what I have said regarding the morality of abortion. I would argue that I am just as much against abortion as you are. I have taken stances on several issues, so you can’t really accuse me of not making up my mind. On the other hand, being on the right side of an issue does not justify sloppy thinking. There is a huge difference between saying that something is a grave wrong and saying that someone is in a state of mortal sin. Just because someone points out the difference does not mean that they cannot make up their mind, it just means that they are pointing out the truth.

 

[Lapey]

Actually, to be fair I don’t challenge everything and anything that is said. For example, did I dispute whether nancy’s support of abortion rights is objectively evil? no. You will find no inconsistency in what I have said regarding the morality of abortion. I would argue that I am just as much against abortion as you are. I have taken stances on several issues, so you can’t really accuse me of not making up my mind. On the other hand, being on the right side of an issue does not justify sloppy thinking. There is a huge difference between saying that something is a grave wrong and saying that someone is in a state of mortal sin. Just because someone points out the difference does not mean that they cannot make up their mind, it just means that they are pointing out the truth.

Now I am guilty of “sloppy thinking.” Now that is funny. Thanks, have a nice day…

 

[stinkcat_14]

Now I am guilty of “sloppy thinking.” Now that is funny. Thanks, have a nice day…

What would you call your statement that the young lady was in a state of mortal sin?

 

[_Abyssinia]

I did!

Have you seen a comment from anybody that has claimed to be a Democratic Catholic who has said they have reached out to advocate for change in the platform of the party in regard to the issues of intrinsic evils?

 

[ishii]

Can you cite the Church teaching that says that one cannot vote for a pro-life politician because of their party affiliation?

As lapey pointed out , it’s not needed. A reasonable person can arrive at the conclusion - based on the Democrat platform, history of Democrat support for abortion, and the fact that so called pro life democrats have been ineffective in curtailing Democrats support for abortion that one ought not to vote for ANY democrat right now. I think that’s reasonable for a pro life person to conclude.

Silly debate tactics cloud the issue and help deluded democrat Catholics rationalize their support for democrats. One would hope that a truly pro life person would want clarity over cheap debate points.

Ishii

 

[stinkcat_14]

As lapey pointed out , it’s not needed. A reasonable person can arrive at the conclusion - based on the Democrat platform, history of Democrat support for abortion, and the fact that so called pro life democrats have been ineffective in curtailing Democrats support for abortion that one ought not to vote for ANY democrat right now. I think that’s reasonable for a pro life person to conclude.

In other words, it is your opinion. And that is all it is.

Silly debate tactics cloud the issue and help deluded democrat Catholics rationalize their support for democrats. One would hope that a truly pro life person would want clarity over cheap debate points.

Ishii

To represent something as definitive Church teaching when it is clearly not does not provide clarity.

 

[Lapey]

In other words, it is your opinion. And that is all it is.

To represent something as definitive Church teaching when it is clearly not does not provide clarity.

It is a deduction made, and yes you may say it is an opinion, but it is fully based on Catholic Moral Teaching.

 

[Lapey]

What would you call your statement that the young lady was in a state of mortal sin?

In the scenario you painted? Truth.

Now, get back to the topic and if you care to venture into anymore goose chases to make yourself feel better or superior I’ll do my best to ignore it. Once again our discussion is adding nothing.

 

[stinkcat_14]

It is a deduction made, and yes you may say it is an opinion, but it is fully based on Catholic Moral Teaching.

And one could equally come to the conclusion that voting for the democrat is appropriate as well and be fully based on Catholic Moral Teaching.

 

[stinkcat_14]

In the scenario you painted? Truth.

You know little about a persons level of knowledge and their free consent and you think you are stating the truth? Sounds more like sloppy thinking to me.

To quote your own words:

I really did a poor job of making my point here and I appreciate you pointing it out.

The entire point being made is about the participation in the intrinsic evil. The way I wrote the post I do in fact cross that line of saying a person is in the state of mortal sin, that implies culpability, that was not my point.

 

[Jeanne_S]

The old saw"The road to hell is paved with good intentions",IMO ,applies to the Democratic Party as it exists today.Since I can’t know the true intentions of the party’s many ruinous policies,I will give those involved the benefit of the doubt.For instance,LBJ with his Great Society,has done more to harm the black family than to help it. That most likely easn’t his intent.Welfare,in it’s inception was designed to be a safety net meant for those in financial duress,look at it now,it has become a lifestyle passed on from generation to generation.
Big government,expanded entitlement programs,abortion on demand,sex,sex and more sex for all are now the cornerstones of the party.So,taking all that into consideration,I really don’t see how the Dems have anything good to offer anyone one ,much less a Catholic!