Catholic Politicans

[estesbob]

I am very frustrated with Catholuics who tell me that voting for a canidate who supports abortion is no different than voting for a candidate who suppots the death penatly

Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles

by Joseph Ratzinger

1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgement regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?” The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” nos. 81, 83).
2. 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 authorise 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 propoganda 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).
3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
4. Apart from an individuals’s judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).
5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.
6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

 

[BryPGuy89]

Abortion and the death penalty are two totally different things. Death penalty is the removal of a evil from this plain of existance to another where judgement will be given. It is done to punish wrong here on earth and to turn other away from the same evil. Abortion is the murder of innocent unborn children, how anyone can justify abortion is beyond me.

 

[Ruthie]

Estes Bob, I don’t know if you were looking for help or just wanted to vent…

In case it’s the first:

If they’re Catholics, refer them to Paragraphs 2267, 2271 & 2272 of the Catechism. Whether or not to use the death penalty is a moral choice for each of us, for which the Church provides guidance. Abotion, however, is **always **evil - the Church gives us NO CHOICE on the matter.

CCC 2267 says, “… the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety…”

So it is clear that whether or not to use the death penalty is a moral **choice **for which the Church gives us guidance.

Abortion, in contrast, is treated in CCC 2271 and 2:

**"**Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.
…
abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76
…
Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life."

So there is no choice involved where abortion is concerned. It is always evil no matter what.

 

[estesbob]

Ruthie:

Estes Bob, I don’t know if you were looking for help or just wanted to vent…

.

I was venting. I am upset about the large number of Catholics who rationalize their votes for pro abortion candidates by stating such candidates opposes the death penalty. I heard this again and again during the last election-Since Bush supported the death penaty it was OK to vote for pro-abortion Kerry -they were giving moral equivalence between the execution of perhaps 100 people a year and the slaughter of 1.2 million children a year.

I oppose the death Penalty-my Church does not. I am very careful to keep that in mind when the deabating the issue.

 

[BryPGuy89]

estesbob:

I was venting. I am upset about the large number of Catholics who rationalize their votes for pro abortion candidates by stating such candidates opposes the death penalty. I heard this again and again during the last election-Since Bush supported the death penaty it was OK to vote for pro-abortion Kerry -they were giving moral equivalence between the execution of perhaps 100 people a year and the slaughter of 1.2 million children a year.

I oppose the death Penalty-my Church does not. I am very careful to keep that in mind when the deabating the issue.

As many would say it is choising one lesser evil above the other. It is not a good idea to base a vote one just a few positions a politicial has though, maybe Kerry supported abortion, but maybe not brash wars, Bush supports wars on false pretenses and not abortion, both result in terrible loss of innocent life. Decisions need to come from other aspects as well, to justify a vote on just two standings is rediculous.

 

[estesbob]

BryPGuy89:

As many would say it is choising one lesser evil above the other. It is not a good idea to base a vote one just a few positions a politicial has though, maybe Kerry supported abortion, but maybe not brash wars, Bush supports wars on false pretenses and not abortion, both result in terrible loss of innocent life. Decisions need to come from other aspects as well, to justify a vote on just two standings is rediculous.

There are very few things more evil than abortion. If a politican does not respect life he doesnt get my vote. PERIOD. No rationalizing about lesser of two evils, no trying to make moral equivalecny betwen a decision to to to war and the slaughter of 1.2 million children per year. Go back and reread what B16 said-there is no wiggle room for pro-abotion policans there no matter how much you may dislke Bush.

 

[BryPGuy89]

estesbob:

There are very few things more evil than abortion. If a politican does not respect life he doesnt get my vote. PERIOD. No rationalizing about lesser of two evils, no trying to make moral equivalecny betwen a decision to to to war and the slaughter of 1.2 million children per year. Go back and reread what B16 said-there is no wiggle room for pro-abotion policans there no matter how much you may dislke Bush.

Abortion is one of the most evil thing on Earth yes. Yeah, I know what you mean but you know one of the two is going to win so you should try to get the one you think would most possibly uphold what you beleive in, if not than your vote really doesn’t count. I’m not trying to equivilate war and abortion, they are not the same, but I was just trying to say that there are human life dilemas with each. I wouldn’t have voted for Kerry, because I suppory the Popes words, but nor would I Bush because he is not capable of running our country apropriately, I would have gone for a third party candidate, even though my vote would not have counted I would know at least I voted for what was right. It probably sounds like I’m indecisive, but in the begging I was talking more on the view of the topic, then later of my personal view.

 

[estesbob]

BryPGuy89:

Abortion is one of the most evil thing on Earth yes. Yeah, I know what you mean but you know one of the two is going to win so you should try to get the one you think would most possibly uphold what you beleive in, if not than your vote really doesn’t count. I’m not trying to equivilate war and abortion, they are not the same, but I was just trying to say that there are human life dilemas with each. I wouldn’t have voted for Kerry, because I suppory the Popes words, but nor would I Bush because he is not capable of running our country apropriately, I would have gone for a third party candidate, even though my vote would not have counted I would know at least I voted for what was right. It probably sounds like I’m indecisive, but in the begging I was talking more on the view of the topic, then later of my personal view.

We are probably on the same page. I am not a single issue voter-being pro-life is, however, the base qualification for getting my vote. For example I admire much of what Kay Bailey Huthison has done as Senator from Texas but she’s pro-choice so i wont vote for her… The lesser f two evils is still evil

 

[aspawloski4th]

If Catholics were to put all other issues asside(like they are supposed to) and vote in unison for all right to life candidates in all elections, legal abortion would be a thing of the past in just a few years. God would likely bless our country for it, so inablilty to run the country wouldnt matter. But since most American Catholics trust in ploiticians more than God to take care of them , it will stay open season on the Unborn. And we will keep getting punished with bad econemys, hurricanes, wildfires, etc. As for me my vote first and foremost goe to the one who I think puts us on the path to making abortion illegal. For that I know on the final judgement day I wont have much accounting to do for my voting record in front of God.

 

[estesbob]

aspawloski4th:

If Catholics were to put all other issues asside(like they are supposed to) and vote in unison for all right to life candidates in all elections, legal abortion would be a thing of the past in just a few years. God would likely bless our country for it, so inablilty to run the country wouldnt matter. But since most American Catholics trust in ploiticians more than God to take care of them , it will stay open season on the Unborn. And we will keep getting punished with bad econemys, hurricanes, wildfires, etc. As for me my vote first and foremost goe to the one who I think puts us on the path to making abortion illegal. For that I know on the final judgement day I wont have much accounting to do for my voting record in front of God.

There is no doubt that the Demcrat Party would become pro-life overnight if Catholics refused to vote for canidates that support abortion, And a lot of the fault lies with the Church-for too many years our Bihops have tolerated the Mario Cumos, Ted Kennedy an Patrik Leahys of the world distorting the Churhs teching on abotion. With a wink and a nod they condned their actions. Mario Cumo, for instance, goes on TV quite regulalry and proclaims the Church teaches support of abortion is a matter of conscience-and nary a Bishop objects I am hoping B16 speaks on this before the next election.

 

[bluezone7]

Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles

by Joseph Ratzinger

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

As I agree with the statement above … the lesser of two evils should be chosen. As for example if a candidate say’s they are anti-abortion but promotes laws or projects attitudes: for the execution of everyone on death row, cares nothing for the poor, is a war monger, and is sexist/racist … etc.

As Howard Dean vs. David Duke?

Common sense would have to be applied here even though the example is a bit extreme.

I would also caution people from jumping to conclusions about certain political candidates. Many candidates give a lot of lip service to the pro-life movement but make no effort to stop abortions and decrease the death penalty. As many candidates who are conservative are projected as being racist or sexist when they are not. On the other hand there are many liberals who are racist, sexist, etc. and quite happy (or at least content) with inequality.

So everything is not as what it seems.

 

[Riley259]

estesbob:

I was venting. I am upset about the large number of Catholics who rationalize their votes for pro abortion candidates by stating such candidates opposes the death penalty. I heard this again and again during the last election-Since Bush supported the death penaty it was OK to vote for pro-abortion Kerry -they were giving moral equivalence between the execution of perhaps 100 people a year and the slaughter of 1.2 million children a year.

I oppose the death Penalty-my Church does not. I am very careful to keep that in mind when the deabating the issue.

The Catholic politicians in my state like Kerry, Kennedy and Mayor Tom Menino are about as frustrating a lot that you can get - they make a mockery of their faith by blatently taking the positions that they take. Pray for them.