Catholic and Democrat in US

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think if the voting guide is deemed unclear by Catholics, other statements on the usccb site and by the popes help to clear up any confusion.

USCCB “Among important issues involving the dignity of human life with which the Church is concerned, abortion necessarily plays a central role. Abortion, the direct killing of an innocent human being, is always gravely immoral (The Gospel of Life, no. 57); its victims are the most vulnerable and defenseless members of the human family. It is imperative that those who are called to serve the least among us give urgent attention and priority to this issue of justice.”

USCCB “[T]he failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community. If we understand the human person as the “temple of the Holy Spirit” – the living house of God – then these latter issues fall logically into place as the crossbeams and walls of that house. All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house’s foundation. These directly and immediately violate the human person’s most fundamental right – the right to life. Neglect of these issues is the equivalent of building our house on sand. Such attacks cannot help but lull the social conscience in ways ultimately destructive of other human rights.”

When the U.S. bishops say, “the right to life is the ‘preeminent issue,’” that word is “carefully chosen,” said [Bishop Shawn McKnight.] “We want to avoid the perspective or the understanding that it’s the only issue — because it is not,” he added.

Pope St. John Paul II in his apostolic exhortation “Christifideles Laici in 1988: “The common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights—for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture—is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.”

This article is very helpful in laying out what the usccb means by abortion is a preeminent issue.


I think it’s very clear in light of the above statements that opposing abortion is the preeminent issue. We must start there when deciding who gets our vote. Then we look at other issues, especially during primary voting where we might have two pro-life choices, we discern where they are at on all the other issues that are important to Catholics. Yes, Pope Francis has spoken about acting like abortion is the only issue but I think many misunderstand that wasn’t justification for ignoring the pro-abortion stance when choosing to vote on other issues. The Bishop’s state this in the voting guide that the distinctions between the issues of abortion being preeminent and other social issues is not an excuse to misuse the distinction to ignore other important issues.
 
This thread seems at times to have lost its way.
Fundamentally it is not appropriate for a religious station to advance, in an unbalanced way, a political agenda.
 
Our defence of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection.

Pope Francis seems to disagree that abortion should be the starting and ending point when looking at a political candidate.

When the USCCB was forming their guide, there was much contention over the wording of some portions and the preeminence of abortion, if I remember correctly.
 
40.png
gracepoole:
Do you think, then, that a group of layman is more qualified to put out a voter’s guide?

FWIW, the bishops’ guide does not tell people for whom they should vote. But voting is a moral issue in most cases so it makes sense for the Church to offer some insight into weighing various moral topics when determining how to vote.
There s a difference between “a voter’s guide” and “some insight into weighing various moral topics when determining how to vote.”
And what is this difference with respect to the bishops’ guide?
 
Yes, Pope Francis made several statements that seemed to go against the guidance that abortion was the preeminent issue. This caused confusion when the USCCB was forming their guide. Pope Francis then made it clear and held up the view that abortion is the preeminent issue and the final vote was in favor of maintaining that standard.

" Vatican City — Protecting human life is the “preeminent” social and political issue, Pope Francis said, and he asked the head of the U.S. bishops’ Committee for Pro-Life Activities to convey his support to the pro-life community.

Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas, chairman of the bishops’ committee, told Catholic News Service Jan. 16 that the pope agreed with the U.S. bishops “identifying the protection of the unborn as a preeminent priority.”

If abortion is the preeminent issue, then what other way can we vote when faced with a choice between a pro-life candidate and a pro-abortion candidate? I believe we are to vote pro-life first. If we have two pro-abortion candidates we look to see if one has more nuanced positions towards the right to life and vote for them. If both are equally pro-abortion, we look at their stance on other issues important to Catholic and discern the best we can.

There seems to be this idea that to vote for a pro-life candidate means one doesn’t care about the other issues or that that vote will do tremendous harm to the poor that is much more grave than even than the killing of the most vulnerable and innocent among us, as if that is even possible. Who is more innocent and vulnerable than the unborn? More important than voting is what the individual Catholic does with time, talent and treasure to work on social issues. As there are many parts of the body of Christ, there are many Catholics to focus their energy in the areas of their choice.

Voting is important. It is our duty as Catholics. We have been told abortion is the preeminent issue and that we are not to forget about the other issues as if preeminent means only. But we must realize that preeminent means just that because without life…
All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house’s foundation. USCCB
 
You are pointing out a lot of work that was done before 120,000 Americans died because of the poor response to Coronavirus. I do have concerns that the bishops assumed competent governance would occur no matter who was elected. I don’t think we can assume that anymore and the bishops should address that.
You are stating your opinion about the handling of the Coronavirus. Others think it was handled fine or even that the response was overkill. While all government has always had and always will have various levels of competence, (which I’m sure our Bishops are aware of) even policy responses to the Corona virus don’t take precedence over the preeminent issue of the right to life. Right to life doesn’t mean response to the virus is not important, it just doesn’t trump the fundamental issue.
 
Yes, protecting human life. Are you saying that that says “abortion” is the preeminent social and political issue.

It does not say that by my reading, and nor does the USCCB guide say one can not vote for someone who is in favor of letting abortion remain legal.

Others certainly disagree, that is their right after examining their own conscience.
 
How many have to die of Coronavirus before we can consider it important enough? In your opinion, of course.
I’m not going to get pulled into a debate on the handling of the Coronavirus. None of the statistics about it make it the preeminent issue over voting pro-life. To say that, does not mean that the deaths from the virus aren’t important but we are talking about a virus. Viruses can kill people. We can take measures to prevent that using whatever knowledge we have at the time to make our best informed choices. Without a crystal ball, we make make missteps especially when it’s a novel virus that is new and unknown and the information changes daily and sometimes, hourly. That is not the same, not even close, to deliberately taking the most vulnerable and innocent of human life. That’s a fact. Not an opinion.
 
The virus isn’t killing or infecting people all by itself, as it is being enabled by reckless and irresponsible people, citizens and politicians alike. And most of the spread could have been prevented in the first place had not Trump, and yes, he is primarily to blame, because he intentionally chose to ignore intelligence reports for up to three months that warned him that the Coronavirus would become a pandemic that would ravage the U.S. had not preventive measures be taken. And now we’re in a much worse position because he is doing nothing about it but ignoring it and claiming that if testing is stopped, then then there will no longer be anymore cases. And he’s not the only one responsible for the how the virus is ravaging the country now, but he is the main one. This, the handling of the Coronavirus, may not be considered a preeminent issue over voting pro-life, and no one is trying to drag you into a debate, but when a President intentinally allows a pandemic to ravage the nation unchecked, then it’s tantamount to genocide. CDC estimates that 5-8% of the Ametican population may be infected, 10 times the official number. 122,000 plus are dead already, and how many more have to get sick and/or die for people (thank goodness the majority of Americans see that he doesn’t care), for even his diehard supporters to wake up? The “All Lives Matter” crowd are silent on the Coronavirus issue. On that issue alone he will never get my vote, and won’t get tens of millions of other votes, and that’s the primary reason why he is behind 14% Biden in several reputable polls.
 
I’m saying it

The USCCB is saying it
64. Our 1998 statement, Living the Gospel of Life , declares, " Abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human life and dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental good and the condition for all others" (no. 5). Abortion , the deliberate killing of a human being before birth, is never morally acceptable and must always be opposed.
USCCB “[T]he failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community.
At the meeting, the bishops also approved a letter saying that "the threat of abortion remains our preeminent priority because it directly attacks life itself, because it takes place within the sanctuary of the family, and because of the number of lives it destroys."

In their letter, the bishops clearly indicated that they see abortion as the most important issue, although, they added, “We cannot dismiss or ignore other serious threats to human life and dignity such as racism, the environmental crisis, poverty and the death penalty.”


and Pope Francis has said it.

"Protecting human life is the “preeminent” social and political issue, Pope Francis said, and he asked the head of the U.S. bishops’ Committee for Pro-Life Activities to convey his support to the pro-life community.

Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas, chairman of the bishops’ committee, told Catholic News Service Jan. 16 that the pope agreed with the U.S. bishops "identifying the protection of the unborn as a preeminent priority."

Not sure how anyone can come to any other conclusion but that abortion is the preeminent issue and while that doesn’t make other issues unimportant or make it the only issue, it is the foundational issue. We must oppose it at all turns first and foremost while continuing to also work to support all the social and life issues.

If it’s the preeminent issue, I see no way of elevating other issues above it when voting. That does not mean they are not important, they certainly are and we can’t neglect them. Voting pro-life doesn’t mean you are neglecting the other issues. Voting for the other issues with a pro-abortion candidate when there is a pro-life choice, is to prioritize them over what we are taught is the preeminent issue.

If one has issues with how the other social issues are approached by a pro-life candidate after carefully studying their position, they can certainly write them, start petitions, make phone calls and work on those issues in real time. There’s no need to neglect them just because one votes for a pro-life candidate as a priority.
 
Abortion was illegal in Nazi Germany too, yet 6 million Jews and others were the victims of genocide because they weren’t considered human by the regime and even many German citizens. And yes, Hitler and the Nazi Party were elected into positions throughout gvt. offices, even the Reichstag. I consider this an appropriate example because it is a prime example of a government, a political party that considered certain races human and others not, and life in the womb sacred (only if one was “Ayran”, that is), but once a child was born, it was automatically expendable if it was not of the “Master Race” and Jewish and other children were also killed by the millions in concentration camps.
 
Last edited:
When the U.S. bishops say, “the right to life is the ‘preeminent issue’” in Catholics’ political concerns, “that word is carefully chosen,” Bishop McKnight said. “Because we want to avoid the perspective or the understanding that it’s the only issue – because it is not.”

Catholic voters, he said, need to be aware of a more general tendency or temptation “to get rid of unwanted people,” whether they are the unborn or the aged, immigrants or the poor. “There is a certain consistency that is required of us as Catholics.”
 
So, if people die because of incompetence, then that’s not a big deal, but if people die because something you think should be illegal is legal, that is a big deal, even if, three and a half years into a pro-life administration, abortion is still legal. I think it is this sort of simplistic approach that is creating a breakdown in Catholic social teaching where an individual’s point of view on how to interpret Catholic teaching is hijacked for political purposes.
Stop the drama. I clearly stated that deaths from the virus are important and that we take can take measures to make the best informed decisions we can at the time. There is no need to twist what I said as meaning “It’s no big deal.”

No president has singular power to overturn abortion laws so you make a mute point by even raising it. It’s silly to say we are politicizing the social teachings by voting guided by our reading of the Catholic voters guide. That’s not politicizing the issue that’s doing our civic duty. Following the guidance that the abortion issue is preeminent is not neglecting all the other issues unless we are saying, “Whelp. My job is done. I voted for a pro-life candidate and that’s that.” We should work to further the social teachings of the church always in our daily life, in our communicating to our representatives, and in where we choose to donate our time, talent and treasure.

Politicizing the issues is making voting such an idol that you do nothing else to further the social teachings of the Church except to vote on pet issues and prioritizing them over abortion.

Muting the thread now. I have a family and I need to step away from the internet to focus my time on them.
 
Last edited:
Not only is it your opinion, but it is also a fact. Scores of scientists, particularly those specializing in infectious diseases, those in gvt. positions as well, have gone on the record that the Coronavirus Pandemic “handling”, actually there was no “handling”, not even mishandling, but negligence, even intentional outright negligence on the part of the Trump administration. And it all began when Trump was forewarned that the Coronavirus would become a pandemic in the U.S., but he intentionally ignored all intelligence reports for three months. Intelliegence officials have gone on the recording stating this fact. Just from the get-go, the start, of that recklessness and negligence, infectious disease experts estimated that 90% of the cases and deaths could have been prevented. And look where we are today, in an infinitely worse situation, and it’s just the beginning of something more insidious coming. And it’s no exaggeration. And infectious desease experts, real Drs., as late as yesterday, are seriously frightened that the Coronavirus Pandemic could become “apocalyptic”, yes, a few separate scientists all used that precise word, on CNN and MSNBC, for example, if drastic measures aren’t taken NOW to stop the spread of the virus. And new estimates is that number of those infected is 10x’s the numbers that are reported now. That would mean 5-8% of the U.S. population, which is a heck of a lot. You’re spot on with your opinion, as it is shared by not only most Americans ( except those regular Fox News viewers), but also the vast majority of most infectious disease experts and many other experts.
 
Last edited:
The virus isn’t killing or infecting people all by itself, as it is being enabled by reckless and irresponsible people, citizens and politicians alike. And most of the spread could have been prevented in the first place had not Trump, and yes, he is primarily to blame, because he intentionally chose to ignore intelligence reports for up to three months that warned him that the Coronavirus would become a pandemic that would ravage the U.S. had not preventive measures be taken. And now we’re in a much worse position because he is doing nothing about it but ignoring it and claiming that if testing is stopped, then then there will no longer be anymore cases. And he’s not the only one responsible for the how the virus is ravaging the country now, but he is the main one. This, the handling of the Coronavirus, may not be considered a preeminent issue over voting pro-life, and no one is trying to drag you into a debate, but when a President intentinally allows a pandemic to ravage the nation unchecked, then it’s tantamount to genocide. CDC estimates that 5-8% of the Ametican population may be infected, 10 times the official number. 122,000 plus are dead already, and how many more have to get sick and/or die for people (thank goodness the majority of Americans see that he doesn’t care), for even his diehard supporters to wake up? The “All Lives Matter” crowd are silent on the Coronavirus issue. On that issue alone he will never get my vote, and won’t get tens of millions of other votes, and that’s the primary reason why he is behind 14% Biden in several reputable polls.
My attitude towards the restrictions is a pro abort politician isn’t going to tell me what I can and can’t do with my body, so I ignore them when I feel like it.
 
Last edited:
My attitude towards the restrictions is a pro abort politician isn’t going to tell me what I can and can’t do with my body, so I ignore them when I feel like it
And if that results in more spread of the virus, oh, well, too bad for them. Jesus didn’t say we have to care for others.
Oh, wait . . .
 
Pretty much, though I have been fairly compliant I would be as close to an open pro abort I could get.
You said you “ignore them when I feel like it,” so there’s no “close” about it.
 
I think it depends on how you define “political.”
You are comparing apples and oranges. EWTN is a Catholic organization and looked at that news story through the eyes of the Church and Christ’s instructions which is totally different than PBS seeing it from a secular non religious view totally unconcerned with following God.

The response from EWTN and other Catholics had nothing to do with affiliating with Fox news and the GOP but rather obedience to Christ and his Church.
 
Last edited:
When the U.S. bishops say, “the right to life is the ‘preeminent issue’” in Catholics’ political concerns, “that word is carefully chosen,” Bishop McKnight said. “Because we want to avoid the perspective or the understanding that it’s the only issue – because it is not.”

Catholic voters, he said, need to be aware of a more general tendency or temptation “to get rid of unwanted people,” whether they are the unborn or the aged, immigrants or the poor. “There is a certain consistency that is required of us as Catholics.”
Could you clarify what point you are trying to make by re-quoting this?
 
Agreed - the people that I know who actively want to “get rid of people” are people promoting euthanasia, typically people on the left.
Many Republicans focus on illegal immigration, but they don’t want to “get rid of them”, they just think it’s problematic for people to skirt our immigration laws.
Not sure what the good bishop means by “getting rid of the poor” --. Sounds like parents who want to abort.
Literally Democrats are the ones who want policies that promote untimely death (abortion and euthanasia).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top