Catholic.com presidential poll

  • Thread starter Thread starter John_Savage
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GaryTaylor said:
Your post is ingenious as post 692 indicates.

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.
Click to expand...
I made no excuses nor offered any support of the HHS mandate. I merely pointed out that you were flat out wrong when you claimed that all the US bishops denounced the ACA.
 
And their own reaction to (HHS) issued mandate under the Affordable Care Act (also known as “Obamacare”) is 100% dissent which should be also for all Catholics imho. In fact with these multi issues and the preponderance of evidence at this point its hard to imagine what issue precedes all this evil in priority. I mean seriously. And thats without harping on socialism and liberalism as docuemented by the Church since Leo XIII forward.

There is no equal logical moral comparison that I can see.
 
GaryTaylor said:
And their own reaction to (HHS) issued mandate under the Affordable Care Act (also known as “Obamacare”) is 100% dissent which should be also for all Catholics imho. In fact with these multi issues and the preponderance of evidence at this point its hard to imagine what issue precedes all this evil in priority.
Click to expand...
It may exceed your imagination. That does not mean it does not exist.
 
estesbob said:
Of course nobody said that the Church endorse political candidates . What they said is you can’t vote for pro-abortion candidate.
Click to expand...
You left out part of that sentence.
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**.
Click to expand...
This is an important distinction for it allows voting for someone like Donald Trump who still favors a policy promoting abortion in some cases, even late term abortions in cases of rape and incest. Yet those that vote for him will do so with the intent to limit abortion, not support his position on this type of exception.
 
pnewton said:
You left out part of that sentence.
Click to expand...
Again, as has been pointed out numerous times, this only applies when the candidates stance on abortion is the same. If you can find a single member of the Magestrium that supports your interpretation of this document please post it. And please. something clear and direct like this. Please note he adresses the sentence you quoted in the second paragraph
“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 Edmund Burke
 
mary_bobo said:
If that works for you, who am I to judge. After reading the post to which I responded, I would not feel comfortable interpreting it the way you do.
Click to expand...
I just wish that when people disagree with the Church teaching they would just say so rather than try to twist the teachings to support their politics.
 
estesbob said:
Again, as has been pointed out numerous times, this only applies when the candidates stance on abortion is the same. If you can find a single member of the Magestrium that supports your interpretation of this document please post it.
Click to expand...
And as also been pointed out numerous times, on matters of prudential judgment, one does not need to find a bishop that holds my exact view to validate my particular view.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
And as also been pointed out numerous times, on matters of prudential judgment, one does not need to find a bishop that holds my exact view to validate my particular view.
Click to expand...
. “Prudential Judgement” does not give us Cart Blanche to reject Church teaching . In fact Prdential judjemenmt NEVER comes into play on matter concenring intrinsic evil. And it not a matter of finding a particular Bishop that supports your view-it a matter of finding ANY member of the Mageststrium that supports your postion
 
estesbob said:
Cardinal Edmund Burke
Click to expand...
Sigh all you want. The last conclave did not elevate Cardinal Burke to the papacy. A Catholic can choose to follow what the group of bishops wrote and promulgated for the faithful in the United States, their own bishop, or bishop shop. I personally do not see the contradiction, if we take Cardinal Burke’s statement to be his own application of the FCFC. But to the extent that his statement is presented as a *contradiction *to what other bishops have said, yes, that I do utterly and categorical reject as binding on Catholics, or even very good teaching.
 
pnewton said:
Sigh all you want. The last conclave did not elevate Cardinal Burke to the papacy. A Catholic can choose to follow what the group of bishops wrote and promulgated for the faithful in the United States, their own bishop, or bishop shop. I personally do not see the contradiction, if we take Cardinal Burke’s statement to be his own application of the FCFC. But to the extent that his statement is presented as a *contradiction *to what other bishops have said, yes, that I do utterly and categorical reject as binding on Catholics, or even very good teaching.
Click to expand...
You are right ,their is no contradiction. Faithful Citizenship in no way shape or form states Catholics can vote for a pro-abortion Catholic when a pro-life alternative is available
 
estesbob said:
An argument rejected by the Church and all likelihood one of the reasons the Pope ordered him to give up his seat in Congress
Click to expand...
A poster at CAF who is a Roman Catholic theology professor says she favors Bernie Sanders or Hillary, both of whom are pro-choice. I am not sure what her argument was. But she claimed that she was personally against abortion, but thought it was OK to vote for Bernie or Hillary.
 
JimG said:
“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?
Click to expand...
It sure seems to me the document could have been a lot less than 42 pgs if the bishops intent was to simply say what some say here. As it would have taken far less than a page to say that Catholics can not vote for a pro choice candidate for any reason whatsoever unless both are pro choice. 1 sentence would have sufficed. So the fact that it is 42 pgs long tells me there could be more to it.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
“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.
Click to expand...
Do those here who say “can” disqualify = “must” disqualify, also say in reference to CCC that “could not be saved” = “can not be saved”?

For something not meant to be a puzzle, it sure stirs debate here with no consensus among Catholics whatsover from what I observe.
 
Tomdstone said:
A poster at CAF who is a Roman Catholic theology professor says she favors Bernie Sanders or Hillary, both of whom are pro-choice. I am not sure what her argument was. But she claimed that she was personally against abortion, but thought it was OK to vote for Bernie or Hillary.
Click to expand...
Let’s see. A personal opinion of an anonymous person. Doesn’t really seem to override what all the bishops and popes have said.
 
estesbob said:
. “Prudential Judgement” does not give us Cart Blanche to reject Church teaching.
Click to expand...
Which I am not.
In fact Prdential judjemenmt NEVER comes into play on matter concenring intrinsic evil.
Click to expand...
Prudential judgement never comes into play on deciding if something is an intrinsic evil. But prudential judgement does come in when deciding what to do about an intrinsic evil. For example, should I play golf today, or join that protest march around the abortion clinic? That is a prudential judgement on a matter that concerns an intrinsic evil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top