Catholic.com presidential poll

[LeafByNiggle]

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’”

Note that so far none of this contradicts the position you have been opposing. It speaks more about supporting laws than supporting people.

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.

At this point, note that** formal cooperation** means cooperating in a way where you actually intend the evil practice. That is not applicable here, because someone who votes for a candidate for other reasons does not do so while intending the evil practice that may happen as an unintended consequence.

*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 problem here either, since we are not talking about formal cooperation.

…various quotes by Cardinal Burke, Bishop Galante, Bishop Gracida, and Archbishop Meyers.

These quotes are all either person opinions, or when Church teaching is cited, it is Church teaching that is inapplicable to the question at hand, in the same way that the first quote was. However I will note that if I were living in the diocese of any of these men, I would be obligated to follow their teachings, even if those teachings did seem like their personal opinion, because of the respect we owe our own bishop.

 

[pnewton]

The problem with mass quotes is that each one should be addressed individually. These quotes did not occur together in time or space so they all have different views. For example, Pope Benedict did not address voting for candidates, but supporting certain laws. It is a universal consideration that has been incorporated by bishops in the United States in their working voters’ guide, as we do not get to vote on laws.

Bishop Galante comments on the proportional reasoning section from the voters’ guide, but limits it to the one topic (cause and effect) of abortion. This is his prerogative, though it does contradict section 42 of the guide. One interesting aspect of his position is that it would actually have allowed someone to vote for a second term for Obama, based on the effect, that his first term saw a reduction of abortion, and results, not changing the law, is his criteria.

Bishop Gracida argues for the right to vote for a lesser of two evils, in regard to abortion, while factoring in electability. Note that he also upholds the right to vote for the one unlikely to be elected at the same time. Based on this statement, both choices are viable options.

Archbishop Myers also addresses his opinion on the voters’ guide, even specifically stating issues he believes do not provide proportional reasons under the guide.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Note that so far none of this contradicts the position you have been opposing. It speaks more about supporting laws than supporting people.

At this point, note that** formal cooperation** means cooperating in a way where you actually intend the evil practice. That is not applicable here, because someone who votes for a candidate for other reasons does not do so while intending the evil practice that may happen as an unintended consequence.

First “supporting laws than supporting people.” is non sequitur with abortion and Hillary as her cooperation with abortion is formal and her policy intentional and its purpose is also expanded by her own definition. So with Hillary and the Democrats the two are mutually exclusive.

Second, there is no unintended consequence since the result of the legislator with abortion Hillary, achieves her intended result which is verified by her own position, in this case abortion on demand. The fact one votes for the person not intending this result is ignorance. You may not vote specifically because of the candidates formal cooperation with evil considering other points, but that doesn’t change the candidates position nor mitigates the voters cooperation as its implicit cooperation with abortion.

The level of cooperation such as with Hillary is formal cooperation. In fact Hillary not only is formally cooperating but promotes legislation that encourages further unrestricted abortion as she does not support any federal limitations on abortion. So, in other words, not at any stage should a restriction be imposed. She believes the theory the fetus is a superfluous appendage and not a human being.

Further…“The only people I would appoint to the Supreme Court are people who believe Roe v. Wade is settled,” Hillary

And thats along “with” cooperation of the HHS mandate, religious liberty, freedom of conscience and socialized medication.

Last, there is “no” formal cooperation with Trump, in fact its speculation so you simply can’t formally cooperate with a non existing formality

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Second, there is no unintended consequence since the result of the legislator with abortion Hillary, achieves her intended result which is verified by her own position, in this case abortion on demand.

The consequence of abortion certainly is unintended by many who would vote for Hillary, as they are voting for her for other reasons that have nothing to do with abortion. (Although many people also will vote for Hilliary specifically because they want to keep abortion legal. Those are the people who cooperate formally with evil.)

The fact one votes for the person not intending this result is ignorance.

That is one possibility. Another possibility is that one votes for that person with full knowledge of the possible consequence, but nevertheless chooses that vote for other reasons. Then the abortion result is an unintended consequence.

You may not vote specifically because of the candidates formal cooperation with evil considering other points, but that doesn’t change the candidates position nor mitigates the voters cooperation as its implicit cooperation with abortion.

OK, you are getting closer to the truth, calling it “implicit” rather than “formal” cooperation. The more common term is “remote material cooperation”, which under some conditions is permitted.

The level of cooperation such as with Hillary is formal cooperation. In fact Hillary not only is formally cooperating but promotes legislation that encourages further

Agreed. Hilliary is indeed guilty of formal cooperation with the legalization of abortion, which is a sin.

Last, there is “no” formal cooperation with Trump, in fact its speculation so you simply can’t formally cooperate with a non existing formality

Agreed. Formally cooperating with evil is not an issue with Trump. But his qualification to be President is an issue.

 

[GaryTaylor]

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?

See thats what I’m saying so lets see how you think through this. Do you believe there should be absolutely no limits on abortion, period? Do you believe killing a seven-pound in the uterus for convenience is immoral?”

Rand Paul, confronted Debbie Wasserman, he asked her if it was okay to; "kill a seven-pound baby in the uterus.” Wasserman stated; “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story. ”

This position, judging by almost any poll, is considered extremist by a majority of Americans, including women.

thefederalist.com/2016/01/19/poll-80-percent-of-women-support-late-term-abortion-bans/

So whats your thinking on this as it would help to understand the position you hold.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Rand Paul, confronted Debbie Wasserman, he asked her if it was okay to; "kill a seven-pound baby in the uterus.” Wasserman stated; “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story. ”

This position, judging by almost any poll, is considered extremist by a majority of Americans, including women.

It would be an irrelevant position if, when confronted with this situation, every mother and every doctor chose life for the child - as they should.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The consequence of abortion certainly is unintended by many who would vote for Hillary, as they are voting for her for other reasons that have nothing to do with abortion.

Hillary is formal cooperation so who-ever votes for her is implicitly cooperating with her unless they are ignorant of her position or by bad logic like yours, your “intention” doesn’t change hers that your cooperating with. Further you can’t speak for anyones intention but your own. The fact theres OTHER reasons for voting doesn’t change Hillary or the fact they voted for her position they either knew or didn’t.

That is one possibility. Another possibility is that one votes for that person with full knowledge of the possible consequence, but nevertheless chooses that vote for other reasons. Then the abortion result is an unintended consequence.

No its not and the logic is nonsensical. There is no unintended intentional consequence as the cooperation of the intention is a known and intentional “votes for that person with full knowledge” other reasons do not change that fact nor is it ignorance in fact its formal cooperation.

 

[GaryTaylor]

It would be an irrelevant position if, when confronted with this situation, every mother and every doctor chose life for the child - as they should.

Whats your position specifically? Again your speaking for others. Or was I suppose to read into that and assume your position by what you think others should believe and do?

Rand Paul, confronted Debbie Wasserman, he asked her if it was okay to; "kill a seven-pound baby in the uterus.” Wasserman stated; “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story. ”

This position, judging by almost any poll, is considered extremist by a majority of Americans, including women.

This is part of the issue with the on-going conversation. You believe in Hillary and the Democrat position or you don’t, so then lets speak for ourselves and not the others unknown hypothetical intentions or what we think the Church is stating. We might as well just be direct and to the point. You want to kill the fetus at seven months or you think its immoral.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There is no unintended intentional consequence as the cooperation of the intention is a known and intentional “votes for that person with full knowledge” other reasons do not change that fact nor is it ignorance in fact its formal cooperation.

Sometimes a known consequence is still unintended. There is no contradiction there.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Whats your position specifically?

My observation about the role of the mothers and doctors in the problem is not so much a position as an observation. If mothers did not choose to kill their children, there would be no need for a law that says mothers cannot kill their children. Yet very little attention is given to the mothers in these discussions. It seems they ought to be the primary target of your anger - not Obama or Hillary or Wasserman. The mothers, or their friends or family that pressure them. Are they not the primary culprits here?

You believe in Hillary and the Democrat position or you don’t, so then lets speak for ourselves and not the others unknown hypothetical intentions or what we think the Church is stating.

Sorry, but I have no interest in sharing my personal view of Hillary. But I do have an interest in correcting misrepresentations of Church teaching. That’s all.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Sometimes a known consequence is still unintended. There is no contradiction there.

Not the case with sister Hillary though. Shes quite intentional in her desire, and doubled down this election. And against the will of the majority of america. Wasserman stated; “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story. ” on a 7mth fetus.

Nor is it with clearly understanding her record.

“The only people I would appoint to the Supreme Court are people who believe Roe v. Wade is settled,” Hillary

Is it settled with a fetus and Hillary further contending for unrestricted 7mth fetus. No its not and according to the supreme court.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Sorry, but I have no interest in sharing my personal view of Hillary. But I do have an interest in correcting misrepresentations of Church teaching. That’s all.

You see I find that rather odd as you are implicitly advocating for this position but not explicitly. And I think the moral of the story is thats just as much formal cooperation in either case. Though it appears a level of misunderstanding about this exists thus as some would say ignorance?

Yes we are interested in Church teaching.

Sometimes a known consequence is still unintended.

Thats not the case with Hillary or those who are understanding of her position. I would say for sure at this point its either ignorance not in itself a bad thing or formal cooperation.

What do you think?

 

[Darryl1958]

The default position for anyone who supports HRC or Dems is open access to abortion…
That is the position that anyone who supports Hillary can be presumed to be supporting.
People know well enough what they will be voting for, and it is of little consequence to them.

Pro-life is simply not an important issue for anyone who supports Democrats.Whether or not pro-choice is a strong motivation is an open question, but it is logically inconsistent to be strongly pro-life, and support Hillary or Democrats in general.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Not the case with sister Hillary though. Shes quite intentional in her desire, and doubled down this election.

In deciding if a voter is guilty of** formal** cooperation, it is the intention of the voter that matters - not the intention of the candidate.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The default position for anyone who supports HRC or Dems is open access to abortion…
That is the position that anyone who supports Hillary can be presumed to be supporting.

If you presume that, you would be wrong. Voting for Hillary is not the same thing as supporting every position she does.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The default position for anyone who supports HRC or Dems is open access to abortion…
That is the position that anyone who supports Hillary can be presumed to be supporting.
People know well enough what they will be voting for, and it is of little consequence to them.

Pro-life is simply not an important issue for anyone who supports Democrats.Whether or not pro-choice is a strong motivation is an open question, but it is logically inconsistent to be strongly pro-life, and support Hillary or Democrats in general.

I believe so, I mean no disrespect to Leaf but I think we need to really focus on those who actually believe they vote for Hillary and are somehow Pro-Life, etc, at least to fairly understand each one in specifics. Might be a point but again in fairness I don’t see how as I’m seeing pretty black and white here admittedly.

 

[GaryTaylor]

In deciding if a voter is guilty of** formal** cooperation, it is the intention of the voter that matters - not the intention of the candidate.

No actually its both, but its the actual factual reality that matters in the case of Hillary, the voter either understands it or is ignorant of it. In either case your cooperating is my position. You know one might imagine they are going undercover to the gates of hell to help free the innocent democrats, I don’t know what someone else is thinking to understand this mitigating factor I’m saying.

 

[mary_bobo]

The default position for anyone who supports HRC or Dems is open access to abortion…
That is the position that anyone who supports Hillary can be presumed to be supporting.
People know well enough what they will be voting for, and it is of little consequence to them.

Pro-life is simply not an important issue for anyone who supports Democrats.Whether or not pro-choice is a strong motivation is an open question, but it is logically inconsistent to be strongly pro-life, and support Hillary or Democrats in general.

Sadly, you have summed it up pretty well. I just don’t understand party over religion.

 

[sallybutler]

Sadly, you have summed it up pretty well. I just don’t understand party over religion.

Unfortunately, pro-life is not necessarily a concern for most Republicans outside of CAF either. If you look at the history of the Republican Party, most, if not all of the Presidential candidates, came to a moderated position on the subject late in life.

I realize this may sound cynical, but I think the only reason Trump is pro-life is because he can’t run as a Democrat (too birther and anti-everyone). If anyone thinks the Republican party will be able to control him, they have another think coming.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

I am thinking 3rd Party presently. I am very interested in the American Solidarity Party. I’ll be keeping an eye on who they come up with. Their platform hits a lot of marks for me. Progressive and pro-life!

solidarity-party.org/

Thank you! They look very interesting.