E
estesbob
Guest
Again we see a multitude of bishops,Popes and ,Cardinal who categorically reject you position and not one who supports it ,
- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
As I said before, it is not necessary to find a bishop to agree with my interpretation. The absence of explicit agreement does not imply condemnation of the view at all.
E
estesbob
Guest
So your personal interpretation suffices even though it is directly rejected by an overwhelming number of Bishops, Cardinals and Popes and supported by not one? There really is no need for the Church if people claim you can ignore them when it suits them?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The absence of explicit agreement of this interpretation does not imply that the bishops as a whole condemn view, which seems to me to follow directly from Faithful Citizenship.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
By “overwhelming numbers” do you mean a majority? If so, how did you go about gathering that statistic? If by “overwhelming numbers” you mean “at least 5 speaking on their own”, then compared to the number of bishops who agreed with Faithful Citizenship, I would not call that overwhelming.
E
estesbob
Guest
Then why cant you find a single member of the Magestrium that agree with your interpretation? Not one. Be better to just admit you disagree with Church teaching than continue with this tortured logic with seems to be a variation of the logical fallacy “silence means consent”.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Silence means nothing, one way or the other.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
I find it funny that out of 208 votes on this poll only 39 are voting for Hillary! With all the loudmouth Clinton supporters here you would think they were in the majority!!! Just because you have a big mouth doesn’t mean you are going to win!
C
Crossbones
Guest
That’s a bit uncharitable. You can discuss the issues without calling people names.I find it funny that out of 208 votes on this poll only 39 are voting for Hillary! With all the loudmouth Clinton supporters here you would think they were in the majority!!! Just because you have a big mouth doesn’t mean you are going to win!
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
I agree, though it is odd given the assertion that caf is some “right” wing supersite.
S
sallybutler
Guest
The FCFC was meant as a guide for those in the pews. It is meant to help each one of us to approach voting with the knowledge that the people we have to choose amongst are not angels or demons, that the issues are many and varied, and that we each must examine them in context.
Until, and unless the Bishops come out with a document that says Thou must vote straight Republican ticket, or Thou shalt not vote Democrat, each person is required to study all the issues and vote the way they think best meets all Church teachings. Presumably, prayer is involved.
While we each have our views, they are just that, views. Not one Bishop that I know of has said you will be excommunicated if you vote for Trump or Clinton or any other candidate. If the Bishops are not saying this, perhaps it is because there are valid reasons for voting for each of them and valid reasons for voting against each of them.
Rather than going over the same points over and over, perhaps we should all write to our individual Bishops and ask for clarification, especially on paragraph 34. And, once we get answers, rather than using the response as a tool if the Bishop agrees with us, or ignore it if he doesn’t, we should continue to pray for what to do and pray for the country.
Until, and unless the Bishops come out with a document that says Thou must vote straight Republican ticket, or Thou shalt not vote Democrat, each person is required to study all the issues and vote the way they think best meets all Church teachings. Presumably, prayer is involved.
While we each have our views, they are just that, views. Not one Bishop that I know of has said you will be excommunicated if you vote for Trump or Clinton or any other candidate. If the Bishops are not saying this, perhaps it is because there are valid reasons for voting for each of them and valid reasons for voting against each of them.
Rather than going over the same points over and over, perhaps we should all write to our individual Bishops and ask for clarification, especially on paragraph 34. And, once we get answers, rather than using the response as a tool if the Bishop agrees with us, or ignore it if he doesn’t, we should continue to pray for what to do and pray for the country.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Well it’s true. Why are the majority of the posts here by Clinton supporters? It seems odd.
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
While I just started posting on this thread a few pages ago, it definitely seems as if that is not the case.
S
sallybutler
Guest
Most of us (Trump, Clinton, or Sanders supporters) type with our fingers, not our mouths. Perhaps you meant that the Clinton supporters (or maybe non-Trump supporters) are more prolific writers.
BTW, some of us can’t support Trump which does not mean we like Clinton, just as many of us can’t support Clinton, which doesn’t mean we like Trump. I think many of us have are being left with a bad taste, no matter who we plan to vote for.
C
chero23
Guest
But since you don’t like Trump, you will be put in the Clinton mix and be called a supporter of abortion on demand. Just wait.
R
Robert_Bay
Guest
MODERATOR NOTICE
Please charitably discuss the issues, not each other
Please charitably discuss the issues, not each other
E
estesbob
Guest
Strawman-Party is irrelevant. Here is what the Bishops have said. If you can find any member of the Magestrium that disagrees with them please post it
*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
C
Cider
Guest
No option for unsure? It would literally take a miracle to get me to vote for either one of them. But I’m not sure if I’ll write ( who I have no idea) or not vote for once or what. I thought the last couple POTUS elections were bad but this year is an all time low in my book.
C
Cider
Guest
I completely agree.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Interviewer: 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… I think what gets confusing for people is that the bishops aren’t of one mind on these questions.
Some argue that you can be genuinely opposed to abortion, yet as a matter of prudential judgment believe that it would be counter-productive to try to make abortion illegal. Do you think it’s possible to reconcile that with the teaching of the church?
Bishop Kicanas: It depends on how the person is thinking through that as a legislator. It’s complicated.
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/kicanas-synod.htm
- Status