S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Not at all because criminals are charged with a crime.
- Status
T
Trident_H
Guest
lol not if you’re high enough on the food chain.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
- 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. Yet if a candidate’s position on a single issue promotes an intrinsically evil act, such as legal abortion, redefining marriage in a way that denies its essential meaning, or racist behavior, a voter may legitimately disqualify a candidate from receiving support.
- Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. 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. In such cases, a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.
- There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act may reasonably decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.
“May” disqualify a candidate does not mean it “must”. What this says is only that a Catholic can not vote for a candidate promoting “intrinsic evil” if the intent of the voter is to support that particular position of the candidate. But may decide to vote for the candidate for other reasons.
The guide could have been much shorter if Catholics were to be single issue voters.
But now since we have been over this a zillion times on CAF, I have little doubt someone may come along and quote Burke or another member of the hierarchy with their opinion. So here is the view of another bishop.
“In some ways, the point of “Faithful Citizenship” was precisely to avoid simplistic reductions, wasn’t it?”
Bishop Kicanas: Exactly.
“If I’m hearing you correctly, you’re saying that for a Catholic who wants to approach his or her vote in three weeks with the mind of the church, it’s not a slam-dunk which way that vote should go. Is that right?”
Bishop Kicanas: “Yes, and I think that’s what “Faithful Citizenship” is saying. As a disciple, as a citizen, **you have to weigh issues, you have to consider the character of candidates, what you think they will be able to do in terms of affecting the society and the culture in which we live. **Clearly, the document is saying that to vote for someone who is proposing actions that are intrinsically evil, because of their position on those intrinsically evil acts, is certainly problematic for someone who is a believer in Christ. You don’t believe in Christ and then vote for a person **simply, or primarily, **because they hold a position that’s contrary to the church. You have to take those positions into consideration, and then make a choice. These are never easy choices.”
“Do you think there’s a consensus in the conference on whether a pro-choice vote, in itself, amounts to formal cooperation?”
Bishop Kicanas: No, I’m sure there isn’t.
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/kicanas-synod.htm
L
lax16
Guest
Are all criminals always charged with a crime?
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Not the guy that stole my wallet!
L
lax16
Guest
Well, if he wasn’t charged even though it was proven he stole it, he can run for president! Maybe Hillary is looking for a vp.
T
Trident_H
Guest
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
it is not the Catholic view that one may use one’s subjective judgment to determine what his premier “values” are, from a moral standpoint. That’s a protestant view.
We cannot support a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil except for proportionate reason; that is, to oppose a candidate who promotes an equally or more grave evil. There are no “proportionate reasons” to support abortion on demand in the upcoming election, or the one and only candidate who supports and promotes that evil, Hillary Clinton.
C
Crossbones
Guest
This is an opinion and you are welcome to it, but other Catholics with well-formed consciences may disagree. If what you say is true, then no Catholic can support Clinton (abortion) or Trump (torture and targeting noncombatants).
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Oh, I don’t think that’s the choice.
Clinton supports abortion on demand, and we know it because she says so and has always supported it.
Trump did not endorse “torture”. What he actually said was that he favored waterboarding and “worse”. Now, if you consider waterboarding “torture” (and those who do resolutely refuse to define “torture”) then you would have a point in your own mind. But the Catholic Church has never done so.
Trump never said he would target noncombatants. Some have simply chosen to interpret him that way for political purposes. The context of the statement clearly indicates he was against rules of engagement so strict that they preclude military action if collateral damage could result. The Church has never taught that the potential for collateral damage precludes military action.
We have left the Catholic track here again and shifted to the protestant track in which one’s own subjective judgments are deemed morally correct just because they’re believed.
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
Abortion murders a disproportionate number of persons compared to torture and the targeting of noncombatants. That isn’t opinion, it’s fact.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
Prudential judgment comes into play in all moral decisions.
People who are faced with no clear path ought to ask themselves not which is the lesser evil, but what is the path that will lead to a lessening of evil.
Here, the axiom of not making the perfect the enemy of the good applies.
If Catholic teaching is to have any impact of all, what evil could possibly be greater than the destruction of upward to a million lives a year through abortion?
For those on the left, the answer is things like the polar bear, or the use of excessive force against sworn enemies of America, and those associated with them.
Fair enough. That is according to the value system and the prudential judgment of those on the left.
For those who consider no matter to be graver than the genocidal scale destruction of American human life, there is no comparison between such matters. Just in terms of scale alone, it leaves one credulous as to how anyone can take the question of the inherent value of the life of the unborn seriously without placing the policies surrounding the destruction of these human lives as an issue that is like no other.
The incongruence between supporting HRC and at the same time believing in the sanctity of human life in the womb is just too great to be taken seriously beyond anything more than lip service being paid.
People who are faced with no clear path ought to ask themselves not which is the lesser evil, but what is the path that will lead to a lessening of evil.
Here, the axiom of not making the perfect the enemy of the good applies.
If Catholic teaching is to have any impact of all, what evil could possibly be greater than the destruction of upward to a million lives a year through abortion?
For those on the left, the answer is things like the polar bear, or the use of excessive force against sworn enemies of America, and those associated with them.
Fair enough. That is according to the value system and the prudential judgment of those on the left.
For those who consider no matter to be graver than the genocidal scale destruction of American human life, there is no comparison between such matters. Just in terms of scale alone, it leaves one credulous as to how anyone can take the question of the inherent value of the life of the unborn seriously without placing the policies surrounding the destruction of these human lives as an issue that is like no other.
The incongruence between supporting HRC and at the same time believing in the sanctity of human life in the womb is just too great to be taken seriously beyond anything more than lip service being paid.
C
Crossbones
Guest
Sure he does. He said waterboarding is torture and he wants to do that and ‘worse’. So, you disagree with Trump on what constitutes torture.
I believe you are basing this as an interpretation of his comments on Fox and Friends. It does ignore all the followup where he said that this is for ‘retribution’ and ‘to make them suffer.’ He made it very clear that this wasn’t a case of collateral damage. I would suggest watching Trump talk about it on the O’Reilly Factor as I think there can be no room left for doubt on his interpretation.
I believe that the USCCB (a careful reading of Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship would dissuade you that the Church wants single issue voters) or Bishop Kicanas’ comments (who pointed out the complex issues Catholic face when making a vote) would mean that we are not on a Protestant track because you would never say that these organizations or individuals are anything but Catholic.
C
Crossbones
Guest
- I think you are vastly overestimating the drop in abortions if Roe v Wade is overturned. There was no significant drop in live births (certainly not a million) when Roe v. Wade was ruled upon. I take it that abortions were occurring, except illegally. I do believe that a partial correction to this would be to prosecute women seeking abortions, but that is a very unpopular opinion.
- I think you are vastly underestimating the effects of unjust wars and murdering noncombatants. Poverty and starvation are often direct results of wars and the indirect results may be breeding the next round of terrorists that create even more chaos and destruction.
U
utah_rose
Guest
And Trump as a businessman could never have achieved success if he would have been calling people names,etc., and people wouldn’t have been making deals with him either. He does have friends, and they do say he acts very differently in private, so yes I will vote for him. Hillary I know will do some bad things, and Sanders is more unpredictable than Trump.
C
Crossbones
Guest
Maybe he acts different in private with men, but this article paints a bad picture on his interactions with women:
nytimes.com/2016/05/15/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html?_r=0
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Mr. Trump doesn’t seem to be as bad as Bill Clinton, JFK, or Ronald Reagan.
C
Crossbones
Guest
Whoa. What did Ronald Reagan do to women that was anything like this?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
The article states that Mr. Trump appointed many women to high level positions which was generally not done at that time. For Mr. Reagan please see:
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2943309/Rampant-Ronald-Reagan-Former-president-ladies-man-Hollywood-days-new-book-lays-save-affairs-stars-Doris-Day-Lana-Turner-Monroe.html
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
You seem to misunderstand that because this country legally allows the murder of unborn children, the first step that needs to take place is for this travesty of justice (Roe v Wade decision) to be corrected. No real progress on this issue can take place until this happens. Hearts and minds need to be converted as well as our political decisions regarding.
This is certainly a consideration in one’s decision on whom to support politically. I do not deny this is a real concern. With that said, I can not in good conscience support someone who actively supports the murder of the most vulnerable in our society - the unborn. Both Clinton and Sanders support this devastating murder on millions of Americans.
- Status