G
Good_Tidings
Guest
times infinity
- Status
Mary_Gail_36
New member
I misspelled “conscience”. Sorry about that.
P
pnewton
Guest
I am going with the guide. That list has too many holes, which have been addressed at length, the many, many, many times it gets reposted, as if often repeating something lends it more authority.
E
estesbob
Guest
Actually you’re going to go by your personal interpretation of the guide and ignore the massive amount of documentation showing that that interpretation is incorrect
E
estesbob
Guest
This is one of the standard rationalizations used to justify the support of evil. We hear the same arguments every election. Neither Bush, McCain, Romney or Trump were pro-life enough for those Catholics who who were determined to vote for the Democrat nominee regardless of their support of unrestricted taxpayer-funded abortion on demand.
E
estesbob
Guest
The truth is they cannot find a single bishop who supports their twisted interpretation of a few paragraphs from one document issued by a Bishops conference . They seem to believe that this document supersedes 2000 years of church teaching on abortion. And the sad part is the document doesn’t even say what the claim it says .
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
True, and while that may make for an on-going conversation clearly, Catholics as a result have a minimum impact on US politics and christianity. Tragically its 'why" we hear such insane talk about abortion in legalistic terms of policy. The Church has taught for thousands of years and its always prudent to consult her and consider her advice carefully and as a result of the divisiveness this is neglected. It works to our own disadvantage when evangelicals are defining for example what abortion and law should be. Its no surprise secular peoples are alarmed at some of the lacking insight of comments resulting from non mainline christians and further its a glimpse and emphasis of inner christian issues. Christianity itself has not decreased but left the church for a more personal spirituality type of faith. It neglects prudence and wisdom and is the exact conversation Erasmus had with Luther. Sticking to the Churchs influence and teaching non dogmatically if need be is an absolute and the proof is the Church’s influence on the family and caring for the poor and in a word, civilization today. The impact this has with this division makes, well, you can draw your own conclusions from here. It leaves us ripe for attacks within our own country let alone the silence worldwide.
Its no secret there’s a blatant attempt to marginalize and suppress Christianity imho Its a terrible thing to watch but it was a never a plan that succeeded either historically. People imagine otherwise today and we disagree on that point.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
2000 years of teaching on abortion is not at issue. Teaching on voting is.
P
pnewton
Guest
No, I am going by the guide. There is zero documentation that my interpretation is incorrect. Your assumptions, like most assuming is wrong.
P
pnewton
Guest
Just to be clear, Catholic standards are set by the* Catholic Church* and are not based on one post being repeatedly posted a zillion times by one person.
E
estesbob
Guest
Nor is it set by one’s personal interpretation of the single bishops conference document. If you can find a single member of the magisterium who says it is acceptable to vote for a pro-abortion candidate when a more pro-life alternative is available please do so.
By the way the reason the list is been posted a zillion times is we have seen the same tired excuses for voting in support of evil 10 zillion times
E
estesbob
Guest
No documentation!!!:
The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. …] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. …] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).
Pope Benedict XVI
“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,”
“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
In considering “the sum total of social conditions,” there is, however, a certain order of priority, which must be followed. Conditions upon which other conditions depend must receive our first consideration. The first consideration must be given to the protection of human life itself, without which it makes no sense to consider other social conditions. “The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2273).
Cardinal Burke
]Note that “proportionate reasons’] does not mean simply weighing a wide range of issues against abortion and euthanasia and concluding that they cumulatively outweigh the evil of taking an innocent life. Rather, for there to be proportionate reasons, the voter would have to be convinced that the candidate who supports abortion rights would actually do more than the opposing candidate to limit the harm of abortion or to reduce the number of abortions
Bishop Joseph A. Galante
There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life. That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not.
"Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.
"The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.
“The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry). Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and introduces legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils, which is morally permissible under these circumstances.”
Bishop Rene Gracida
What are “proportionate reasons”? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong . . . .
What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a “proportionate reason” to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation’s labs?
Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate
Archbishop John J. Myers
What is a proportionate reason to justify favoring the taking of an innocent, defenseless human life? That’s the question that has to be answered in your conscience. What is the proportionate reason? . . . It is difficult to imagine what that proportionate reason would be
Cardinal Burke
D
Darryl1958
Guest
All well and good.
But that has nothing to do with producing the name of one bishop who supports a Catholic voting for a rabidly pro-abortion candidate.
P
pnewton
Guest
The guide uses English, my primary language. The sentences are clear enough. The nuancing of the language to twist it 180 degrees around from the plain meaning would understandably need interpretation. If one truly looks objectively at what we have been given, it is quite clear who is interpreting this as something different than it says, and who isn’t. As my bishop is one of the ones who wrote this, I do not need another Church official who is not over my diocese to say this means anything different that it really says.
Now, if I were to accept the idea that I do need another Church official to give an interpretation, then it would also logically follow that I would need a third to interpret the interpretation of the interpretation, and a fourth to interpret that.
No, I do not accept I need and English to English interpreter between what my bishop has said and what I hear.
P
pnewton
Guest
Church officials do not give their endorsement to candidates, as they would endanger their tax exempt status. This is an impossible request. Besides, since we are speaking of the importance of interpretation, we should avoid vague rhetoric, like “rabidly”. I know of whom you speak (at least I think I do), but I think it clear you will find no public endorsement of her/him by any bishop, nor of her/his opponent.
Also, since my ability to understand this voter’s guide was questioned, you will also not find anywhere where I gave a whiff of supporting abortion, short of not being a one-issue voter, and my unwillingness to vote for the lesser of two evils, when I deem both possible choices too far from an acceptable moral compromise.
E
estesbob
Guest
So to sum it up"
No-it would follow that we follow the teachings of the Magesterium. Since they are in total agreement on this there would be non need to get any interpretation of what they say. It appears you are positing a variation of the "primacy of conscience " fallacy
Again if you can find any member of the Magesterium that agree with your position please do so
C
Crossbones
Guest
By that logic, I ask you which bishop supports voting for a pro-torture candidate. Can you produce one name that supports voting for a pro-torture candidate? Or can you provide one name of a bishop that supports voting for a candidate that says he will target noncombatants? Perhaps, then you can provide the name of a bishop that supports voting for candidate that makes racist statements?
Please let me know.
P
pnewton
Guest
Which position?
BTW, I am not running for president, so I am having a hard time understanding why I am the center of discussion. But here are some quotes that guide my understanding of this problematic election. These are some of my positions.
Protection of innocent life is primary:
The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.
Other issues matter though:
As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support.
Rightly understood, this ethic does not treat all issues as morally equivalent nor does it reduce Catholic teaching to one or two issues.
Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing, and health care.
Oh, and intent matters:
A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, deliberately subjecting workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions, redefining marriage in ways that violate its essential meaning, or racist behavior, if the voter’s intent is to support that position.
E
estesbob
Guest
You left out the part where the guide says a candidates position on a single issue can disqualify them from receiving a Catholics vote and I have posted voluminous quotes and documents showing that issue is abortion. When you have a situation where BOTH candidates equally support an intrinsic evil you MAY vote for one of them as long as your vote is not predicated on their support of this issue. Thats what the guide is refering to above-it is not the carte blanche approval to vote in support of evil as long as you didn’t intend to support evil. Again that is not my opinion-I posted several quotes from Bishops and cardinals that stated that directly
Again if you can find a member of the Magesterium that supports your view please post it
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
“Can” disqualify means the voter is allowed to use abortion policy to rule out voting for a candidate. The statement you are looking for is "the position on a single issue must disqualify that candidate. Look as hard as you want. You will not find that statement anywhere in official Catholic teaching. That citation is irrelevant to the point you are trying to make.
- Status