S
Sy_Noe
Guest
and for this
- Status
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Actually its more like arguing a factual reality against imagination, your argument amounts to you don’t believe Trump and reject a persons vowed chistianity. And I see you think the world of your opinion. Thats very true, but thats all it is.
Its uncharitable first off when a person aligns himself as christian as Trump has with pro-life, and basically you would call him a liar? Further thats opposed to the fact we don’t have to speculate with Hillary. She’s anti-christian by policy. In fact Cruz asked when did the democrats declare war on the Church?
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
You cite Faithful Citizenship here. Bishop Kevin Farrell and Bishop Kevin Vann say in this excerpt:
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/farrell-vann.htm
Excerpt from Bishop Vasa:
nzcatholic.org.nz/2008/10/31/american-bishops-address-abortion-election-in-columns-statements/
E
estesbob
Guest
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
E
estesbob
Guest
Can you find a single member of the Magestrium that agrees with this?
A
adowcday
Guest
Hold on. Wait a minute. I did not call Trump a liar when he said that he is a Presbyterian. For that matter, I would never call Hillary a liar when she says that she is a Methodist:
As a girl, she was part of the guild that cleaned the altar at First United Methodist Church in Park Ridge, Ill. As a teen, she visited inner-city Chicago churches with the youth pastor, Don Jones, her spiritual mentor until his death in 2009. During her husband’s presidency, the first family worshipped at Washington’s Foundry United Methodist Church, and this fall she spoke at the church’s 200th anniversary. Time magazine described her membership in a bipartisan women’s prayer group organized by evangelicals.
When I say something, it is just my opinion. When a Trump-backer says something, it’s factual reality. When Trump says he is a Presbyterian, that’s a fact that I must accept, even if he is attempting to win conservative evangelical votes. Fine. However, when Hillary says she is a Methodist, that is a fraud and a lie, because, well, abortion. OK, thanks. Now I know the rules.
S
Songcatcher
Guest
Bishop Robert McElroy:
"A second step in the moral conversion to the common good for voting requires discernment about how Catholics should prioritize the major elements of the common good in the United States today. If immigration, abortion, poverty, religious liberty, the family, war and peace, the environment, the rights of workers, trafficking in drugs and assisted suicide all constitute central elements of the common good, which issues are pre-eminent?
Many widely circulated independent Catholic voter guides propose that the concept of intrinsic evil provides an automatic process for prioritizing the elements of the political common good in the United States.
The church teaches that certain acts are incapable of being ordered to God since in their very structure they contradict the good of the person made in God’s likeness. Such actions are termed “intrinsically evil” and are morally illicit no matter what the intention or circumstances surrounding them. Those who focus primarily on intrinsic evil make two distinct but related claims: 1) that the action of voting for candidates who seek to advance an intrinsic evil in society automatically involves the voter morally in that intrinsic evil in an illicit way; and 2) Catholic teaching demands that political opposition to intrinsically evil acts, like abortion, euthanasia and embryonic experimentation, must be given automatic priority over all other issues for the purposes of voting.
The recent statement of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” shows why this argument is simplistic and thus misleading. The bishops’ statement clearly asserts the absoluteness of the prohibitions against concrete intrinsically evil acts, emphasizing that no circumstances or intentions can justify performing or illicitly cooperating with such acts.**At the same time, “Faithful Citizenship” recognizes that voting for a candidate whose policies may advance a particular intrinsic evil is not in itself an intrinsically evil act. Voting for candidates is a complex moral action in which the voter must confront an entire array of competing candidates’ positions in a single act of voting. It is crucial that in voting for a candidate who supports the advancement of an intrinsic evil, Catholic voters not have the intention of supporting that specific evil, since such an intention would involve them directly in the evil itself. But voters will often find themselves in situations where one candidate supports an intrinsically evil position, yet the alternative realistic candidates all support even graver evils in the totality of their positions.
This is particularly true in the United States today. The list of intrinsic evils specified by Catholic teaching includes not only abortion, physician-assisted suicide and embryonic experimentation but also actions that exploit workers, create or perpetuate inhuman living conditions or advance racism. ** It is extremely difficult, and often completely impossible, to find candidates whose policies will not advance several of these evils in American life."
americamagazine.org/issue/greatness-nation
"A second step in the moral conversion to the common good for voting requires discernment about how Catholics should prioritize the major elements of the common good in the United States today. If immigration, abortion, poverty, religious liberty, the family, war and peace, the environment, the rights of workers, trafficking in drugs and assisted suicide all constitute central elements of the common good, which issues are pre-eminent?
Many widely circulated independent Catholic voter guides propose that the concept of intrinsic evil provides an automatic process for prioritizing the elements of the political common good in the United States.
The church teaches that certain acts are incapable of being ordered to God since in their very structure they contradict the good of the person made in God’s likeness. Such actions are termed “intrinsically evil” and are morally illicit no matter what the intention or circumstances surrounding them. Those who focus primarily on intrinsic evil make two distinct but related claims: 1) that the action of voting for candidates who seek to advance an intrinsic evil in society automatically involves the voter morally in that intrinsic evil in an illicit way; and 2) Catholic teaching demands that political opposition to intrinsically evil acts, like abortion, euthanasia and embryonic experimentation, must be given automatic priority over all other issues for the purposes of voting.
The recent statement of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” shows why this argument is simplistic and thus misleading. The bishops’ statement clearly asserts the absoluteness of the prohibitions against concrete intrinsically evil acts, emphasizing that no circumstances or intentions can justify performing or illicitly cooperating with such acts.**At the same time, “Faithful Citizenship” recognizes that voting for a candidate whose policies may advance a particular intrinsic evil is not in itself an intrinsically evil act. Voting for candidates is a complex moral action in which the voter must confront an entire array of competing candidates’ positions in a single act of voting. It is crucial that in voting for a candidate who supports the advancement of an intrinsic evil, Catholic voters not have the intention of supporting that specific evil, since such an intention would involve them directly in the evil itself. But voters will often find themselves in situations where one candidate supports an intrinsically evil position, yet the alternative realistic candidates all support even graver evils in the totality of their positions.
This is particularly true in the United States today. The list of intrinsic evils specified by Catholic teaching includes not only abortion, physician-assisted suicide and embryonic experimentation but also actions that exploit workers, create or perpetuate inhuman living conditions or advance racism. ** It is extremely difficult, and often completely impossible, to find candidates whose policies will not advance several of these evils in American life."
americamagazine.org/issue/greatness-nation
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Its not a question if she is a Methodist but her policies which are anti christian.
And after doubling down on PP and federally funded abortion till birth and the Litter Sisters of the poor she has an impossibility to reconcile.
A
adowcday
Guest
I rely on “Faithful Citizenship.” You will say that the USCCB is not “the magisterium.” You will cite Cardinal Burke. I will say that he is not my local bishop, and that my bishop posted “Faithful Citizenship” on the diocesan website to guide the voters of his diocese and has otherwise not instructed me how I should vote. You’ll question my interpretation of “Faithful Citizenship.” I’ll provide what I believe is a solid interpretation in line with what I understand of Catholic teaching. You’ll question my interpretation and cite your favorite bishop/cardinal, say, Cardinal Burke in support of your interpretation…
I’m not interested in chasing my tail on this one. We’ve already gone back and forth on this issue, haven’t we?
The Church does not teach me that once I’ve determined who is the most anti-abortion candidate, I can ignore the plight of the poor, immigration, global warming, torture, etc., and many other issues, some of which have been classified by the Church as “intrinsic evils.” I applaud your pro-life advocacy. I agree with the Church’s teaching on the subject. However, in this election, I’ve voting for Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump should not be our next President and he does not deserve the Catholic vote just because he’s said that he’s now pro-life.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Yes, these are questions about Mr. Trump. I can’t go along with his advocacy of torture. The other issues seem to be prudential, however. For example, I don’t see it as wrong to support legal immigration, and I see Mr. Trump as someone who would work for more jobs for the poor by his policy of decreasing imports from China and Mexico. He called for supporting American industries which stay in the US and sanctioning those which leave.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Thank you Songcatcher for this. Saved me and maybe Crossbones from having to go back to Bishop Kicanas.
G
Good_Tidings
Guest
Well said. Thank you for saying it.
G
Good_Tidings
Guest
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Now just for a minute allow me to look at other intrinsic evils beyond just a single one and since Pope Francis has said to even the faithful, that it is not necessary to talk about or to insist only on abortion or marriage or contraception all the time.
americamagazine.org/pope-interview
So lets take racism for instance.
Catholic Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan says Donald Trump’s comments are a textbook definition of racist comments. And earlier this evening I heard the other half of the previous GOP ticket, Mitt Romney, say Donald Trump could inspire “trickle down racism”.
If one sees Donald Trump’s comments as a textbook definition of racist comments, maybe that would disqualify him for some. It does not disqualify him for Paul Ryan. But then he is concerned about the Republican House and his agenda. For another voter though maybe it does.
Or take the intrinsic evil with regard to the treatment of workers. Mr Trump has said wages are too high. But Mr Trump has no clue on the hardships imposed on workers trying to raise a family on the current minimum wage.
americamagazine.org/pope-interview
So lets take racism for instance.
Catholic Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan says Donald Trump’s comments are a textbook definition of racist comments. And earlier this evening I heard the other half of the previous GOP ticket, Mitt Romney, say Donald Trump could inspire “trickle down racism”.
If one sees Donald Trump’s comments as a textbook definition of racist comments, maybe that would disqualify him for some. It does not disqualify him for Paul Ryan. But then he is concerned about the Republican House and his agenda. For another voter though maybe it does.
Or take the intrinsic evil with regard to the treatment of workers. Mr Trump has said wages are too high. But Mr Trump has no clue on the hardships imposed on workers trying to raise a family on the current minimum wage.
E
estesbob
Guest
You dont rely on Faithful citizenship-you rely on you personal interpretation of faithful citizenship-and interpretation you can not find a single member of the Magesterium supports.
E
estesbob
Guest
Guess its time to post “the list” again:
RATIONALIZATIONS FOR VOTING FOR PRO-ABORTION POLITICIANS
RATIONALIZATIONS FOR VOTING FOR PRO-ABORTION POLITICIANS
- National Republicans aren’t “really” pro-life, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
- Specific candidate isn’t “really” pro-life, or I don’t believe his supposed change of belief, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
- My deacon/priest/bishop/cardinal told me or wrote me a letter telling me it was okay to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
- I’m not a one-issue voter, so I can ignore the Church’s teaching and vote for the virulently pro-abortion politician.
- Republicans (at any level) have not passed enough pro-life laws (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
- Republicans (at any level) have not had enough success on pro-life issues (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
- Roe vs. Wade is still the law of the land even though most Supreme Court justices were appointed by the Republicans, therefore Republicans aren’t serious about abortion, so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
- I found a Church document that mentioned proportionate reasons in voting, so I personally judged support for a higher minimum wage (or other social justice cause) was on equal footing with abortion, and I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
- I personally believe that Democratic policies will reduce abortions, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
- We can’t do anything about abortion until we change the hearts and minds of the people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
- You can’t legislate morality, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
- People will still have abortions even if you make them illegal, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
- We can’t end abortion until we address the root causes, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
- I can’t impose my beliefs on other people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
- There isn’t any difference between the parties, so it is okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
- The Pro-Life movement is in the tank for the Republican party (even though all pro-life legislation has had the overwhelming support of Republicans and overwhelming opposition from Democrats), so it’s okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party
- All people sin, so we’re all really “Cafeteria Catholics”, so it’s okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
- Dominionists attend GOP rallies so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician
- The Pope believe in Global warming, the Pro-life candidate does not so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I think Trump’s anti-life stance is an even bigger issue, even tho from what I understand he is quite disqualified to be president on many other issues as well.
That goes for all the Republicans, who are basically environment-hating, life-hating people, who would scrap all env regulations and make people drink and breathe poison and destroy the climate for agriculture.
How anyone can vote for any of them is totally beyond me. I just don’t understand how people can sacrifice their children and progeny. For what??
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
“All the Republicans”???
Which poll shows that “all Republicans” want to, for example, turn Lake Erie into a sewer again? Which poll shows that “all Republicans” want service stations to be able to have leaky tanks if they want? Which poll shows that “all Republicans” want poison drinking water and breathe “poison air”?
I’ll wait.
On the other hand, who supports the president who promised to “make utility bills skyrocket”? Who is it that wants food to be more expensive by depriving agriculture of fuel?
It’s all very well to wax righteous over others’ use of fuel when one got a subsidy of $200,000 for her vehicle and another $200,000 subsidy for her solar panels. Where is the concern for the people who are going to have an even harder time making ends meet? Where is the concern for people who might get sick or die because they can’t heat their houses or keep food properly refrigerated.
It’s not “all Republicans” who have benefitted from the public trough in that manner or who advocate malnutrition or exposure to heat or cold.
D
DeniseNY
Guest
Quite something, isn’t it?“All the Republicans”???
Which poll shows that “all Republicans” want to, for example, turn Lake Erie into a sewer again? Which poll shows that “all Republicans” want service stations to be able to have leaky tanks if they want? Which poll shows that “all Republicans” want poison drinking water and breathe “poison air”?
I’ll wait.
On the other hand, who supports the president who promised to “make utility bills skyrocket”? Who is it that wants food to be more expensive by depriving agriculture of fuel?
It’s all very well to wax righteous over others’ use of fuel when one got a subsidy of $200,000 for her vehicle and another $200,000 subsidy for her solar panels. Where is the concern for the people who are going to have an even harder time making ends meet? Where is the concern for people who might get sick or die because they can’t heat their houses or keep food properly refrigerated.
It’s not “all Republicans” who have benefitted from the public trough in that manner or who advocate malnutrition or exposure to heat or cold.
E
estesbob
Guest
The way some Catholics rationalize supporting evil is what Arrchbishop Chuput calls mental gymnastics worthy of an Olympic gold medal
- Status