Catholic.com presidential poll

  • Thread starter Thread starter John_Savage
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
“Can” disqualify means the voter is allowed to use abortion policy to rule out voting for a candidate. The statement you are looking for is "the position on a single issue must disqualify that candidate. Look as hard as you want. You will not find that statement anywhere in official Catholic teaching. That citation is irrelevant to the point you are trying to make.
Click to expand...
If you can a single member of the Magesterium that agrees with you please post it.
 
estesbob said:
You left out the part where the guide says a candidates position on a single issue can disqualify them from receiving a Catholics vote
Click to expand...
I did not know that was the issue you were looking for. Yes, a position on a single issue may disqualify a candidate.
“Can” disqualify means the voter is allowed to use abortion policy to rule out voting for a candidate.
Click to expand...
The word used is “may”, but your point stands. So yes, it is my position that this is allowable, though it is not much of a position. No, I going to quote anyone one “my interpretation.” There is no Magisterial dictionary.
 
pnewton said:
I did not know that was the issue you were looking for. Yes, a position on a single issue may disqualify a candidate.
The word used is “may”, but your point stands. So yes, it is my position that this is allowable, though it is not much of a position. No, I going to quote anyone one “my interpretation.” There is no Magisterial dictionary.
Click to expand...
So first the argument was the Church says we are not single issue voters. now that has changed to arguing about what the meaning of “may” is. I have posted numerous direct quotes from Bishops and cardinals explicitly stating the disqualifying issue is abortion. if you can find one who disagrees with this please post it.
 
estesbob said:
So first the argument was the Church says we are not single issue voters. now that has changed to arguing about what the meaning of “may” is…
Click to expand...
I did not change. You referred to my position, without saying which position, because, as we see, this thread is now about me. I have no problem reconciling that as a Church we are not single issue voters, yet one may choose a single issue by which to exclude a candidate. I also have no problem understanding the word “may”. Many areas of the doctrine are pluralistic, meaning there is room for more than one orthodox opinions. How much more will a guideline accommodate more than one person. The one who votes third part rather than compromise, and the one who views any progress as better than nothing can disagree.
 
For those of you who have supported Trump up to now, has your mind changed any do to Trump’s recent inappropriate statements regarding the Orlando shootings?
 
Just watched trumps press conference. It was very good. He talked of tolerance and safety.
 
mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/13/us/politics/trump-clinton-sanders-shooting-reaction.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/

Hopefully it links I’m on my phone. :o

His words were congratulating himself for predicting the future and banning any future Muslim immigration. Not exactly the best words of condolence for the terror of what happened. Very childish in a “see I told you so” kind of way “now vote for me because I’m so smart.” Just :rolleyes: in my mind. Did he have to resort to using this horrible tragedy to promote his cause? I mean really!
 
pnewton said:
I did not change. You referred to my position, without saying which position, because, as we see, this thread is now about me. I have no problem reconciling that as a Church we are not single issue voters, yet one may choose a single issue by which to exclude a candidate. I also have no problem understanding the word “may”. Many areas of the doctrine are pluralistic, meaning there is room for more than one orthodox opinions. How much more will a guideline accommodate more than one person. The one who votes third part rather than compromise, and the one who views any progress as better than nothing can disagree.
Click to expand...
I assume this means you cannot find any Bishop Cardinal or Pope Who agrees with your rather novel interpretation of this document?
 
pnewton said:
Church officials do not give their endorsement to candidates, as they would endanger their tax exempt status. This is an impossible request. Besides, since we are speaking of the importance of interpretation, we should avoid vague rhetoric, like “rabidly”. I know of whom you speak (at least I think I do), but I think it clear you will find no public endorsement of her/him by any bishop, nor of her/his opponent.

Also, since my ability to understand this voter’s guide was questioned, you will also not find anywhere where I gave a whiff of supporting abortion, short of not being a one-issue voter, and my unwillingness to vote for the lesser of two evils, when I deem both possible choices too far from an acceptable moral compromise.
Click to expand...
CB set us off on the rabbit trail of the guide, which has really nothing to do with what was originally discussed.

Recall that the original focus was on this
“3. 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.”
Click to expand...
and estesbob being criticized for in effect asking to override what ones own local bishop is telling the person to do.

Then, he called their bluff, and asked them to provide some kind of proof that their local bishop actually would have given the okay on a virulently pro-abortion candidate, a letter for example.

Then the criticism was that they couldn’t provide the proof because it was not in a letter format, nor were they wearing a wire.

Fair enough then. Just a name would be sufficient, is all that I suggested.

Now you are giving the truth, that this is really not what bishops would do in the first place.🙂
…
Exactly!!!
It is like pulling teeth to get a straight answer around here.
 
pnewton said:
I did not know that was the issue you were looking for. Yes, a position on a single issue may disqualify a candidate.
The word used is “may”, but your point stands. So yes, it is my position that this is allowable, though it is not much of a position. No, I going to quote anyone one “my interpretation.” There is no Magisterial dictionary.
Click to expand...
As the primary election draws near in Rhode Island, I encourage faithful Catholics to vote pro-life and never to vote for any candidate, of any party, who supports abortion.
And don’t be fooled by those who say they “aren’t pro-abortion, but are just pro-choice.” It’s a smoke screen for what they really believe, but are afraid to admit. After all, what kind of choice are they promoting? They’re not talking about choosing a favorite ice cream flavor, are they? And it’s not about so-called “reproductive freedom or women’s health care” either. Clearly, politicians who support abortion are encouraging a choice that ends the life of an innocent human being and ultimately harms the mother, personally and spiritually!

As Pope Francis has reminded us: “It is not progressive to try to resolve problems by eliminating human life.” (EG #214)*

Bishop Thomas J. Tobin
 
Darryl1958 said:
CB set us off on the rabbit trail of the guide, which has really nothing to do with what was originally discussed.

Recall that the original focus was on this

and estesbob being criticized for in effect asking to override what ones own local bishop is telling the person to do.

Then, he called their bluff, and asked them to provide some kind of proof that their local bishop actually would have given the okay on a virulently pro-abortion candidate, a letter for example.

Then the criticism was that they couldn’t provide the proof because it was not in a letter format, nor were they wearing a wire.

Fair enough then. Just a name would be sufficient, is all that I suggested.

Now you are giving the truth, that this is really not what bishops would do in the first place.🙂
…
Exactly!!!
It is like pulling teeth to get a straight answer around here.
Click to expand...
I didn’t realize that pointing people to Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, a guide provided for and approved by the vast majority of bishops in attendance was going down a rabbit hole. After all, it is important for Catholics to distinguish between Church teaching and someone’s personal interpretation of Church teaching. There is a lot of the latter on this forum and it’s important to direct lurkers and newcomers to the source they will need to make a decision on how to vote.

Now, I’m still waiting for you to provide the names of bishops that support voting for a candidate that advocates torture, targeting noncombatants and making racist statements. Please pass that along for us.
 
Crossbones said:
I didn’t realize that pointing people to Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, a guide provided for and approved by the vast majority of bishops in attendance was going down a rabbit hole. After all, it is important for Catholics to distinguish between Church teaching and someone’s personal interpretation of Church teaching. There is a lot of the latter on this forum and it’s important to direct lurkers and newcomers to the source they will need to make a decision on how to vote.

Now, I’m still waiting for you to provide the names of bishops that support voting for a candidate that advocates torture, targeting noncombatants and making racist statements. Please pass that along for us.
Click to expand...
👍: good thinking
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top