"Catholics" and the right to choose?

[BillP]

Fix,

Just to clarify. The second half of my post was directed at Ockham, not you. If that wasn’t clear, I apologize.

Second, you have yet to provide any evidence whatever that Church teaching on “proportionate reason” means anything other than the plain English.

Cardinal Ratzinger’s piece was clearly directed at individual Catholics who have to determine for themselves what is proportionate, and their individual consciences which will help them decide.

There are a plethora of opinions about what constitutes proportionate, absent definitive Church teaching, we are all free to decide for ourselves.

My sole issue throughout this thread has been protesting against people who try to select one of the plethora of opinions and pretend that their selected opinion is “what the Church teaches” and anyone who doesn’t agree with their opinion is bound for hell.

 

[savienu]

Fix,

Just to clarify. The second half of my post was directed at Ockham, not you. If that wasn’t clear, I apologize.

Second, you have yet to provide any evidence whatever that Church teaching on “proportionate reason” means anything other than the plain English.

Cardinal Ratzinger’s piece was clearly directed at individual Catholics who have to determine for themselves what is proportionate, and their individual consciences which will help them decide.

There are a plethora of opinions about what constitutes proportionate, absent definitive Church teaching, we are all free to decide for ourselves.

My sole issue throughout this thread has been protesting against people who try to select one of the plethora of opinions and pretend that their selected opinion is “what the Church teaches” and anyone who doesn’t agree with their opinion is bound for hell.

Yet Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict, told Nancy Pelosi she can not be Catholic and support pro-abortion policies! And, beg pardon, but the first thing Obama did in office was send money OUT to the country to fund foreign abortions. And when he was in Congress, he supported letting BORN children die without medical attention if they were born as a result of an induced abortion. So, yes, he HAS murdered children. Being the Leader of the Free World, he has power over the abortion issue (not ABSOLUTE power, no, but he DOES have power.) The only thing the man is interested in is promoting more and more abortions. Your Henry Ford analogy doesn’t hold water, since he wasn’t in a position of political power and wasn’t advocating KILLING the jews. The Church teaching is clear: You can NOT vote for a pro-abortion candidate when there is a more pro-life option. Pray tell, what exactly is the proportionate issue that makes voting for Barack Obama okay, given his radical pro-abortion record? What trumps 50 million innocent murders since 1973?

 

[BillP]

The Church teaching is clear: You can NOT vote for a pro-abortion candidate when there is a more pro-life option.

That simply isn’t true.

You might wish that it were true.

You might think it should be true.

But it isn’t.

 

[savienu]

That simply isn’t true.

You might wish that it were true.

You might think it should be true.

But it isn’t.

It IS true, and you have yet to show how it isn’t. Again, what is the proportionate reason that trumps abortion? What trumps the murder of 50 million innocent children since 1973? What possible good can outway the absolute evil that Barack Obama has consistently supported? You can’t just ignore the rest of my post and say the Church teaching isn’t clear, or true, when it is. The burden of proof is on the one who votes for a man who supports evil, not one who upholds the Church’s teachings on the absolute sanctity of all life.

 

[Ockham]

Bill, you are using moral relativism to justify your support of an abortionist. This issue often gets caught up in politics and ulterior motives. It can become emotional and people dig into their positions in defence. If you can separate the issue from the confusion it becomes quite clear - abortion is state sanctioned murder. A modern day holocaust. In history class I was taught that the German people were complicit in Hitler’s crimes if they knew what he was doing to the Jews. How will history remember you?

 

[kage_ar]

Do you know that actually happened or are you speculating?

I have seen it.

 

[kage_ar]

How do you know why such a person walked out? Did you talk to them afterwards and they told you the reasons or are you just making assumptions.

They said “I am not going to listen to this” and walked out.

 

[BillP]

It IS true, and you have yet to show how it isn’t.

Yes, I did. But here it is once again, just because I’m such a nice guy.

   "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 favor 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."

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger,

Or this from Susan Gibbs, speaking on behalf of Theodore Cardinal McCarrick

“a Catholic can never vote for a candidate precisely because the candidate supports abortion. However, there could be circumstances where a voter, bearing in mind the primacy of the life issue, supports the candidate for other serious reasons,”

“Each Catholic is called to consider these issues from a faith perspective and to weigh the candidates’ positions very carefully before voting. The Church speaks on issues, not individuals. The Church never tells someone who to vote for.”

or this from the Conference of Catholic Bishops

A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes
a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s
intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal
cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s
opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other
important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

1. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable
   position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.
   Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to
   advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental
   moral evil.

Finally there is this to all the people who think that abortion is the be-all and end-all in

The Christian faith is an integral unity,
and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to
the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political
commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social
doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the
common good. (Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the
Participation of Catholics in Political Life, no. 4)
Making

Now, I believe that these quote provide evidence that my position is the correct assessment of the teaching of the Catholic Church on this matter.

You of course, may disagree. But at this point it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence to rebut my position.

Or you can be like the poster above who found it “too tedious” to actually cite evidence, although I must admit that refusing to produce any actual evidence beyond repeated, unsupported assertions will probably hurt your argument.

 

[savienu]

Yes, I did. But here it is once again, just because I’m such a nice guy.

Or this from Susan Gibbs, speaking on behalf of Theodore Cardinal McCarrick

or this from the Conference of Catholic Bishops

Finally there is this to all the people who think that abortion is the be-all and end-all in

Now, I believe that these quote provide evidence that my position is the correct assessment of the teaching of the Catholic Church on this matter.

You of course, may disagree. But at this point it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence to rebut my position.

Or you can be like the poster above who found it “too tedious” to actually cite evidence, although I must admit that refusing to produce any actual evidence beyond repeated, unsupported assertions will probably hurt your argument.

And, again, WHAT pray tell, is the proportionate reason you are proposing that made voting for Barack Obama a valid option? You are COMPLETELY distorting the Church’s teachings to suit your own needs. It’s moral relativism at its finest.

From your own post:

1. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable
   position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.
   Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to
   advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental
   moral evil.

WHAT is the gravely moral reason to vote for Barack Obama, exactly? This has been explained over and over again. As Catholics, we must vote for the candidate who will do the LEAST amount of damage to human life. 50 million abortions have occurred since 1973. John McCain ran under a much more pro-life platform than Barack Obama. Did I miss something, and there was another group of people he was advocating killing that made it okay to vote for Obama? Tell me, WHAT trumps abortion?

In fact, WHAT Catholic position does Obama support at all? A vote against Barack Obama was the ONLY way to support ALL of Catholic teachings, in fact. The man is removing conscience protection clauses as we speak. He had a health “summit” where he did not invite pro-life doctors. He is pushing funding of embryonic stem cells. His stimulus package had 3.8 million dollars for artificial contraception. How did he support ANY Catholic teachings?

 

[BillP]

Bill, you are using moral relativism to justify your support of an abortionist.

That is taurean end product, not to mention a strawman.

This issue is not whether or not you believe that my reasons for voting for Obama outweighed his support for the evil of abortion. The issue is whether or not it is possible for such reasons to exist.

You seem to be taking the position that it is never possible to vote for a pro-choice politician no matter what position he takes on other issues. That position is clearly at odds with the teaching of the Church.

I am the one following the teaching of the Catholic Church. Until you admit that I am within my rights to do so, there can be no further discussion. I am not going to have my freedom of thought or freedom of conscience abrogated by misinterpretation or misrepresentation of Church teaching.

If you’d like to debate whether or not Obama’s other positions are indeed proportionate to (or adequate compensation for) his unfortunate position on abortion, that’s fine. I am up for that. But first you have to concede that the possibility exists that there are such “proportionate reasons”.

If it is impossible for such proportionate reasons to exist, then the statement of the bishops and Cardinal Ratzinger is meaningless.

 

[BillP]

You are COMPLETELY distorting the Church’s teachings to suit your own needs. It’s moral relativism at its finest…

So you have chosen argument by repeated assertion innocent of any actual evidence or facts?

And adding personal attacks as well.

Oh well. Thank you for playing.

Do post if you come across anything from an actual Church authority which you think actually supports your position.

 

[Ockham]

Obama murders children. You voted for him with full knowledge of his intentions. There is blood on your hands. May God have mercy on your soul.

 

[savienu]

So you have chosen argument by repeated assertion innocent of any actual evidence or facts?

And adding personal attacks as well.

Oh well. Thank you for playing.

Do post if you come across anything from an actual Church authority which you think actually supports your position.

And, you continue to ignore my question. No one has denied the things you have posted. They are truth, and they are Church teaching. But you are applying them incorrectly to selfishly serve your own needs. What we have challenged is your OPINION that there existed a “gravely moral reason” to support Obama in this election, or any election. So, as you say, thanks for playing, but you REFUSE to answer the question. What will your answer be to Jesus when he asks you that question at the judgment, or are you arrogant enough to think he won’t ask? Or are we going to get into a discussion about whether or not Jesus supports Obama?

 

[Ockham]

Savie, Congratulations! We’re five weeks behind you.

Isn’t it tragic that some people extinguish life at this stage?

Obama lifted the restrictions on stem cell research today. Thousands, maybe millions more will be killed to satisfy his quest for power.

 

[LindaSK]

To BillP:

I applaud your citations. I will refer to one: There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.
My question: What truly grave moral reason in your mind was so significant in this presidential election that it carried more weight than abortion, given Obama’s consistent pro-abortion track record and campaign promises? Just curious.

 

[fix]

Again, there is only one magisterium. The problem with quoting texts that are not normative is that we each can come up with opposing interpretations and only accent one part of the text.

The Ratzinger memo simply stated traditional moral theology. Where is the evidence that we each get to decide what proportionate reasons are?

 

[savienu]

Savie, Congratulations! We’re five weeks behind you.

Isn’t it tragic that some people extinguish life at this stage?

Obama lifted the restrictions on stem cell research today. Thousands, maybe millions more will be killed to satisfy his quest for power.

Thanks, and congratulations to you as well! It is extremely tragic that people think it is a-okay to extinguish life at this stage, or any stage of development. And it angers me, too, that the government rejects the personhood of my child at this stage.

I weep about it, sometimes daily, when I think about it.

 

[LindaSK]

BillP: You very eloquently have defended the right of an individual to vote for a pro-abortion candidate under certain conditions. A number of us, I think, wonder if you can define and defend what ‘truly grave moral reason’ in THIS election you felt took priority over the issue of abortion. The arguments that any good Catholic had the right in accordance with Church teaching to vote for Obama only makes sense if that individual can also defend such a ‘truly grave moral reason.’ I, personally, don’t see such a reason. So, maybe you can enlighten us on what you think we don’t understand. If you can’t - thanks for playing.

I will keep you in my prayers.

 

[pennsylvan]

the illegality would be in performing abortions, not having them.

Why? If your rationale for imposing criminal penalties is that abortion is criminal homicide, why would you exempt the womean who seeks and consents to the murder?

 

[savienu]

Why? If your rationale for imposing criminal penalties is that abortion is criminal homicide, why would you exempt the womean who seeks and consents to the murder?

It would depend on her knowledge. Most women are lied to about what an abortion really is and entails, so her culpability would be reduced. The doctor who rips the baby to pieces, however, has no excuse.