Catholic.com presidential poll

[estesbob]

“Can”, not “Must”. Yes, a Catholic is allowed to use a single issue to disqualify a candidate, but if they had meant to say a single must disqualify a candidate they would have used a different word.

What you have shown numerous times is bishops or cardinals offering their opinion that abortion is such an issue, but that opinion has never made it into official Church teaching. It would seem quite surprising that the US bishops would have gotten so close to saying what you want them to say, but didn’t say it. The document Faithful Citizenship was not meant to be a puzzle that required outside research to understand.

If you can find a single member of the Magestrium that supports your personal interpreation please post it.Funny how those who try and rationalize voting in support of evil dismiss the teachings of the Magestrium as “opinions”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If you can find a single member of the Magestrium that supports your personal interpreation please post it.Funny how those who try and rationalize voting in support of evil dismiss the teachings of the Magestrium as “opinions”

On matters of prudential judgment, my opinion is a valid as any bishop’s opinion. I don’t need to find a bishop who has exactly the same judgment as I do to validate my judgment. Just look at how many people here take that position regarding the Pope’s comments about the environment in his encyclical.

Besides, you will recall I did find such an opinion from a bishop, but you dismissed it as just his opinion, and my “faulty” interpretation of what he said.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

My point stands the democratic position is rejected … If you feel more comfortable explaining whats denounced your more than welcome.

I insist on being specific about what is denounced, because conflating all issues as “democrat positions” is fuzzy thinking, and it leads to faulty conclusions. You said all the bishops denounced the ACA. That was flat out wrong.

 

[chero23]

I was thinking Catholic boys Rubio and Ryan, though Donald still has a slight liberal democratic persistence about him we are willing to work will him.

Rubio surprised me. Especially at how hostile they got there for a minute. Ryan, you kinda saw that he would endorse him at the end.

 

[Crossbones]

“Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” is a 42 page document in pdf format. How many Catholic voters will read it in preparation for voting?

How much guidance would this document give if, for example, infanticide were one of the primary issues? Or killing off old and disabled people involuntarily? Those issues are certainly past the drawing board stage. As is the issue of abortion. Killing off 1.2 million unborn children annually does not seem to raise many qualms among most voters. Will it be the same once we start killing off the old and the disabled at the same rate? Or will it not matter as long as they receive their social security payments until their final day? Will we be advised not to be single issue voters when it comes to killing the elderly?

I guess if reading 42 pages is too much, there’s not much I can do to help you. Thank you for your personal interpretation of Church teaching though.

 

[JimG]

I guess if reading 42 pages is too much, there’s not much I can do to help you. Thank you for your personal interpretation of Church teaching though.

After wading through the 42 pages, most voters will still be left with their personal interpretation. 1.2 million children vs social security checks. Paying for the elderly or killing them off. Tough decisions. Or maybe not so tough. But it seems that the 42 pages allows a Catholic to vote for abortion or killing off the elderly and still feel good about it, since we’re not single issue voters.

 

[Crossbones]

After wading through the 42 pages, most voters will still be left with their personal interpretation. 1.2 million children vs social security checks. Paying for the elderly or killing them off. Tough decisions. Or maybe not so tough. But it seems that the 42 pages allows a Catholic to vote for abortion or killing off the elderly and still feel good about it, since we’re not single issue voters.

I must have missed the part in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship on Social Security checks. Where was that exactly?

 

[JimG]

77 Social Security should provide adequate, continuing, and reliable income in an equitable manner for low and average wage workers and their families when these workers retire or become disabled, and for the survivors when a wage earner dies.

So, the USCCB favors Social Security. But there is also this:

1. There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called “intrinsically evil”actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned.

A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. In our nation, “abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.

 

[Crossbones]

77 Social Security should provide adequate, continuing, and reliable income in an equitable manner for low and average wage workers and their families when these workers retire or become disabled, and for the survivors when a wage earner dies.

So, the USCCB favors Social Security. But there is also this:

1. There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called “intrinsically evil”actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned.

A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. In our nation, “abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.

I don’t think this isn’t clear that abortion is more important. Do you?

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

With all this talk about whether or not abortion should be considered extremely important of an issue to consider this election cycle (within the next 4-8 years, Roe v. Wade will either be solidified for the next generation or weakened and possibly overturned), here’s a story I found quite moving, I hope you do as well:

Planned Parenthood Celebration Jolted by Abortion Survivor
TED HARVEY
She sings the anthem to applause, then her secret is revealed to stunned silence.

catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/abortion/planned-parenthood-celebration-jolted-by-abortion-survivor.html

 

[LeafByNiggle]

77 Social Security should provide adequate, continuing, and reliable income in an equitable manner for low and average wage workers and their families when these workers retire or become disabled, and for the survivors when a wage earner dies.

So, the USCCB favors Social Security. But there is also this:

1. There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called “intrinsically evil”actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned.

A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. In our nation, “abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.

This speaks of abortion itself - not the act of voting for someone for other reasons. We can and should remain committed to working toward a world where abortion (and other intrinsic evils) are eliminated, without basing every single one of our votes on that issue.

 

[mary_bobo]

This speaks of abortion itself - not the act of voting for someone for other reasons. We can and should remain committed to working toward a world where abortion (and other intrinsic evils) are eliminated, without basing every single one of our votes on that issue.

How do you explain where it says “can never be supported or condoned?” What does one do but support when they vote for a committed abortion supporter?

 

[pnewton]

There is no loophole in Church teaching that says you can vote for a pro-abortion candidate to either punish a Party for not being , in their opinion, not pro-life enough or as “incentive” to a Party to change their support of unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand.

There is no loophole because the Catholic Church does not endorse candidates. As you know, I am quite well aware of what FCFC says.

I totally disagree that there has been no movement away from life issues in the Republican Party. In the past, Trump would never have been able to take the nomination with his position on abortion.

 

[pnewton]

smooth deflection,…

It was an opinion, not a deflection. You should take note of the difference so as not to treat another’s opinion with disdain.

 

[Tomdstone]

How do you explain where it says “can never be supported or condoned?” What does one do but support when they vote for a committed abortion supporter?

The argument of some Catholics such as Father Drinan was that they are personally opposed to abortion and that they are pro-life, but that they do not want to set up laws which restrict it. They would say that they do not support abortion and they do not condone it.

 

[pnewton]

I often see actions based on prudential judgment misunderstood. Just because an action is not always objective evil does not mean it cannot be evil, of that it cannot be more evil than an objective evil. War still is subject to moral judgment. War started for the sake of economic gain, for genocide, using weapons of indiscriminate destruction, etc., can still be a grave evil. Even areas of judgment still have moral guidelines.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Your post is ingenious as post 692 indicates.

I insist on being specific about what is denounced,

Democratic party and the HHS mandate. Really despicable stuff by the sickening democrats. You should really read up on this horror show as a “multi issue” supposed formed conscience Catholic. I’m stunned you have no clue about this.

100% of Catholic Bishops Oppose Obama’s Contraceptive Mandate

 

[GaryTaylor]

The argument of some Catholics such as Father Drinan was that they are personally opposed to abortion and that they are pro-life, but that they do not want to set up laws which restrict it. They would say that they do not support abortion and they do not condone it.

Do you have his argument articulated by him? I posted one very similar in thinking on this thread by a member of the Catholic laity who graduated Harvard school of divinity. I didn’t find it very convincing. I found it to be commendable as the intentions were sound but the logic was lacking. You would have to vote for evil intentionally in order to fight it within an institution or in this case the Democratic party.

First of the logic seems highly questionable, let alone dangerous, as one is working from a known position with intrinsic evil, not out of ignorance. Further this party as indicated above has multiple issues festering within with evil, christian persecution via religious freedom and in particular freedom of conscience suppressed. Its difficult to see this position, but perhaps someone could shed some light on it.

 

[estesbob]

The argument of some Catholics such as Father Drinan was that they are personally opposed to abortion and that they are pro-life, but that they do not want to set up laws which restrict it. They would say that they do not support abortion and they do not condone it.

An argument rejected by the Church and all likelihood one of the reasons the Pope ordered him to give up his seat in Congress

 

[estesbob]

There is no loophole because the Catholic Church does not endorse candidates. As you know, I am quite well aware of what FCFC says.

I totally disagree that there has been no movement away from life issues in the Republican Party. In the past, Trump would never have been able to take the nomination with his position on abortion.

Of course nobody said that the Church endorse political candidates . What they said is you can’t vote for pro-abortion candidate.