"Catholics" and the right to choose?

[elts1956]

You are correct in that the USCCB document is very vague, although it does not appear to contain anything contrary to Church teaching, it easy for someone reading it to come to the wrong conclusions due to its vague wording.

The document I was referring to was a doctrinal note put out by the Vatican:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

Here is an excerpt from that document:

The difference between this and the voters’ guide is that the Vatican’s note is much more broad and encompassing and not succint as is the voters’ guide. Again, as with the USCCB, this does not mean the voter’s guide is wrong, rather it is incomplete, though it may have been sufficient for this past election. It is lacking enough though that it cannot be considered as encompassing enough for all election scenarios which may present themselves. I agree very definitely, but for me it was very clear, at least for this election. Who knows what will be on the front burner in the next election.From the same document:

Here it references the concept of “limiting the harm” introduced by Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae. Again, I think the concept is much more restrictive that the concept of “voting for the lesser evil” given in the voter’s guide. Your thoughts?

Dag nab it!. I had an answer almost completed and lost it, so here I go again.

The words, “limiting the harm” and “voting for the lesser evil” resonate the same with me. I really think, (and this is different from what I wrote first) most people voted party, voted according to their own perception of what they thought was said by the Church, or the guidance given, or they were just a wee bit stubborn and weren’t going to let ANYONE, not even the Catholic Church tell THEM how to vote which gives a little indication of arrogance. And so, whether one focused on “limiting the harm”, or “voting for the lesser evil”, I think, in the end, the results would have been the same. They didn’t have their priorities straight.

The Church in the past 60 years, in many dioceses and parishes, has gotten so loosey goosey about issues I would consider to be written in concrete, that in comparison to then, there is now mass confusion about hierarchies of good and evil. Many people today, cannot discern the difference among issues of lesser, or greater, or limiting the evil. They have no idea of absolutes on which to base good or evil.

Therefore they had no idea of how to interpret such doctrines as Evangelium Vitae, the USCCB document on voting, or even the CAF guide, which to me was about as clear as a guide could get. Yes, it left out the much broader spectrum written in encyclicals and statements given by the Popes, or even the USCCB document which indeed did not say anything in contradiction to Church teaching. But if folks could not follow and understand the CAF document, articles written by Father Pavone, Corapi, statements to their parishoners by such Bishops as Finn, Chaput, Rigali, Martino and others, which were very, very clear about the intrinsic evil of abortion, then they were either downright stupid, downright stubborn, or downright arrogant. I think they were beyond letting anyone place restrictions on how they voted, or thought.

Was that clear, or muddled words?

 

[Alisa]

Well said, Elts.

 

[limerick]

I’ve got my vote which I am proud to say will always be pro-life; I’ve got my prayers; I’ve got letters written to Senators; I’ve got the March for Life, the day of silent solidarity, peaceful protests, and many more pro-life events to participate in; I’ve got opportunities to debate with pro-choicers and sometimes change their views.

I’ve got a lot, so don’t worry. I’m not stopping at some overstated, dramatic saying. I absolutely mean it.

**Why not run for office?

Limerick**

 

[Fiyero3305]

Because it’s not my calling in life and I will better serve God and my country in my chosen field.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

Inform, point out the truth, then pray. When all else seems to fail, pray, ask for Mary’s help and never stop. We know how it all ends – we win. No doubt – that is Truth. There is nothing the so-called “pro-choice” advocates can do to stop the victory. What those who accept The Lie from The Liar try to do is to deceive as many people as they can to reject Truth.

 

[elts1956]

Well said, Elts.

Thanks Alisa.

 

[mapleoak]

Dag nab it!. I had an answer almost completed and lost it, so here I go again.

The words, “limiting the harm” and “voting for the lesser evil” resonate the same with me. I really think, (and this is different from what I wrote first) most people voted party, voted according to their own perception of what they thought was said by the Church, or the guidance given, or they were just a wee bit stubborn and weren’t going to let ANYONE, not even the Catholic Church tell THEM how to vote which gives a little indication of arrogance. And so, whether one focused on “limiting the harm”, or “voting for the lesser evil”, I think, in the end, the results would have been the same. They didn’t have their priorities straight.

The Church in the past 60 years, in many dioceses and parishes, has gotten so loosey goosey about issues I would consider to be written in concrete, that in comparison to then, there is now mass confusion about hierarchies of good and evil. Many people today, cannot discern the difference among issues of lesser, or greater, or limiting the evil. They have no idea of absolutes on which to base good or evil.

Therefore they had no idea of how to interpret such doctrines as Evangelium Vitae, the USCCB document on voting, or even the CAF guide, which to me was about as clear as a guide could get. Yes, it left out the much broader spectrum written in encyclicals and statements given by the Popes, or even the USCCB document which indeed did not say anything in contradiction to Church teaching. But if folks could not follow and understand the CAF document, articles written by Father Pavone, Corapi, statements to their parishoners by such Bishops as Finn, Chaput, Rigali, Martino and others, which were very, very clear about the intrinsic evil of abortion, then they were either downright stupid, downright stubborn, or downright arrogant. I think they were beyond letting anyone place restrictions on how they voted, or thought.

Was that clear, or muddled words?

Elts, thank you for your reply. I think you are 100% right on the money. I do believe there was both a lot of arrogance as well as the factor of poor catecheses over the years. On the one hand we people are sheep and tend to follow on command (as advertisers know well: “Buy Now”, “Order yours today”, “Don’t wait”) except when it comes to the Church telling us what to do. That is where our arrogant nature shows itself.
Then the problem which such documents as put out by the USCCB that tend to confuse people, especially if reading them with anything less than a complete understanding of Catholic faith and doctrine, is that people tend to twist the meaning in them as rationale for supporting things at odds with the Church. I think it is very tragic that with the mountain of encyclicals, statements, and articles as you indicated that are very clear on intrinsic evil, people tend to latch on to the USCCB document, inferring meaning from it which isn’t there, as a means of justification for their support of pro-abortion representatives and/or policies. Then they twist the concept of “limiting the harm” to such a distorted degree that they reason it becomes permissible to vote for a pro-abortion representative as long as he agrees with them on the: war, economy, poverty, healthcare, favorite programs, etc…
It boils down to ignoring (or even acceptance of) the representatives’ pro-abortion position in order to safeguard ones own self interests.
One last point, I do believe wholeheartedly that the commonly repeated phrase “It is okay to support a pro-abortion representative as long as abortion is not the reason you are voting for him” is a total twist and completely erroneous application of the concept of limiting the harm as spelled out in Evangelium Vitae. It is nothing more than deceiving oneself by saying you’re doing one thing while actually doing another.

 

[elts1956]

Elts, thank you for your reply. I think you are 100% right on the money. I do believe there was both a lot of arrogance as well as the factor of poor catecheses over the years. On the one hand we people are sheep and tend to follow on command (as advertisers know well: “Buy Now”, “Order yours today”, “Don’t wait”) except when it comes to the Church telling us what to do. That is where our arrogant nature shows itself.
Then the problem which such documents as put out by the USCCB that tend to confuse people, especially if reading them with anything less than a complete understanding of Catholic faith and doctrine, is that people tend to twist the meaning in them as rationale for supporting things at odds with the Church. I think it is very tragic that with the mountain of encyclicals, statements, and articles as you indicated that are very clear on intrinsic evil, people tend to latch on to the USCCB document, inferring meaning from it which isn’t there, as a means of justification for their support of pro-abortion representatives and/or policies. Then they twist the concept of “limiting the harm” to such a distorted degree that they reason it becomes permissible to vote for a pro-abortion representative as long as he agrees with them on the: war, economy, poverty, healthcare, favorite programs, etc…
It boils down to ignoring (or even acceptance of) the representatives’ pro-abortion position in order to safeguard ones own self interests.

One last point, I do believe wholeheartedly that the commonly repeated phrase “It is okay to support a pro-abortion representative as long as abortion is not the reason you are voting for him” is a total twist and completely erroneous application of the concept of limiting the harm as spelled out in Evangelium Vitae. It is nothing more than deceiving oneself by saying you’re doing one thing while actually doing another.

To quote another man with whom we are familiar, “Thou hast said it”.

Here is what Ender, a poster on the thread Abortion and Voting, replied to one of my posts. I agree with him that no other paragraph in the USCCB document was more confusing than this one. I had read this many times and each time I was very uneasy, but couldn’t solidify my thoughts.

“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.”

Now what in the h…l were they thinking?

 

[mulligan59]

I gotta be honest, I really don’t know any catholics…even the luke warm catholics that most here despise, who defend the practice of abortion. I reads posts on CAF about how catholics today try to justify abortion, but I just don’t see it. Perhaps it is just b/c I live in the bible belt, but I see no significant contingent of catholics who feel abortion is ok.

I do see many catholics who don’t see it as a priority in assessing political candidates’ fitness to serve.

–Rico

And that is the problem Rico. There is a hierarchy in moral matters. To me, anyone who doesn;t understand that there is a serious problem in dicing up babies isn’t fit for any position of serious responsibility REGARDLESS of what he claims to hold on other (lessor by nature) issues. And any “Catholic” who doesn’t understand this, or who chooses some economic benefit (usually at the expense of someone else) over this basic moral tenant is not worthy of the name (Catholic) and will be held to account.

 

[libbybeth]

None of these issues justify supporting (or ignoring) abortion in the case of our elected representatives. We don’t put a bandage on the scratch on our knee while ignoring our arm which has been cut off.
To be Catholic is to respect all human life from conception till natural death.

Hi

don’t misunderstand me. If a person is pro-life because he believes in God as creator, then I believe this respect for creation and human life must flow through into other areas of our life, showing that we value people simply because they are human and created by god; therefore, we respect and assist the elderly, we do not maliciously make war or torture people, etc. There is no excuse for abortion, which is a sin. We must do our best for the sinner, who may be in need of a helping hand back to right relationship with God.

With respect to voting, if all your candidates are pro-choice, which simply means pro-abortion, then you should endeavour to do your best to inform them of what abortion really is, what it does, and how it affects the baby and others involved.

What I actually said, therefore, is that we should not judge others - that abortion is wrong - that our belief in God as creator of all life should be reflected in other areas of our life - and that if we are caught between devil and the deep blue sea, because all political candidates are pro abortionl, then we should in all charity keep trying to educate them, change their minds for them and hopefully, bring them to God. I have kept up a longstanding correspondence with my own MP, who is pro abortion, so that in answering my letters she has to reflect deeply upon her own beliefs and support of abortion. Pray for her.

 

[mulligan59]

No-one should try to score points by walking out of Mass to empasise their point of view, regardless of whether or not they agree with the celebrant or his Homily.

We perhaps should have charity ; pray for women who have abortions; for their babies; and for those people who reject God to his face by walking out of Mass.

God bless
Libbybe

Catholics (at least for 1933 years prior to V II) are in fact obligated to walk out of the Mass of a notorious heretic. To remain in your seat after a scandalous or heretical homily is to participate in a sacriledge. It falls under the same proscription as does praying with non-Catholics. (I know these teaching were abandoned by VII, but the V II position is nothing less than a complete denial of Christ, His wrd, and the irreformable 2,000 year tradition of the Church, and unless people understand this, it all just vain noise.)

You cannot legally pray for the babies women abort as their disposition is determined for all eternity. They die without Baptism.

You could not be more wrong on either point.

 

[mapleoak]

“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.”

Now what in the h…l were they thinking?

Yes, I agree, that is just about the most ambiguous thing they could say.

 

[mapleoak]

You cannot legally pray for the babies women abort as their disposition is determined for all eternity. They die without Baptism.

This is entirely false. We indeed are to pray for the unborn as the Catholic Church entrusts their fate to the Mercy of God.

 

[savienu]

This is entirely false. We indeed are to pray for the unborn as the Catholic Church entrusts their fate to the Mercy of God.

Thank you. I was going to say that myself. Their fate is not “sealed.” The Church has not officially stated that ANYONE is in Hell, let alone unborn babies who are slaughtered in the womb. We MUST indeed, trust them to God’s infinite Mercy.

 

[JanetF]

Everyone should read Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice arguments by Randy Alcorn.

 

[mary1173]

No-one should try to score points by walking out of Mass to empasise their point of view, regardless of whether or not they agree with the celebrant or his Homily.
We come to Mass to express our love for, and adoration of our Creator, and his Son, our Redeemer.

You should not play political football with God!!

On the question of being pro-choice, all people - and that includes Catholics - are pro-choice in all their acts.

Like our forbears, Adam and Eve, we choose whether or not to love, trust, adore and obey God. If we believe that God created all, and that Jesus became incarnate in the womb of his mother, we would not wish to be ungrateful for the gifts of God by aborting what he has created.

We perhaps should have charity ; pray for women who have abortions; for their babies; and for those people who reject God to his face by walking out of Mass.

Pro - choice ultimately means not just abortion or women’s rights. It means choosing God for all eternity. Unfortunately, today, as in the time before the coming of Christ, many people have chose to ignore God. His Son Our Lord was pro choice - he came to redeem us and to give us the means to exercise our choice to go back to him.

God bless
Libbybe

Wha? come again? Pro choice…mmm hmmm…yeah. Our God is most definitely Pro-Life. Read a Bible sometime please.

 

[Alisa]

Ultimately, it is our choice whether or not to live according to how God has told us to live, no matter what the law says or doesn’t say.

I still maintain that just because something is legal doesn’t mean we need to do it. Lots of things are legal in our country and others which individuals are free to choose or not.

It is certainly legal not to attend Mass, yet it is our obligation and privilege to do so.

If you don’t believe in abortion – don’t have one.
If you don’t believe in gay marriage – then have a heterosexual one yourself.

Judgment is in God’s hands, not ours. Too much effort is spent by many people looking around at what other people are doing. More effort needs to be exerted to avoid sins of OMISSION rather than commission – in other words, go the extra mile to do good in one’s own life, day by day.

Just my opinion; I hope people will respect it.

Alisa

 

[savienu]

Ultimately, it is our choice whether or not to live according to how God has told us to live, no matter what the law says or doesn’t say.

I still maintain that just because something is legal doesn’t mean we need to do it. Lots of things are legal in our country and others which individuals are free to choose or not.

It is certainly legal not to attend Mass, yet it is our obligation and privilege to do so.

If you don’t believe in abortion – don’t have one.
If you don’t believe in gay marriage – then have a heterosexual one yourself.

Judgment is in God’s hands, not ours. Too much effort is spent by many people looking around at what other people are doing. More effort needs to be exerted to avoid sins of OMISSION rather than commission – in other words, go the extra mile to do good in one’s own life, day by day.

Just my opinion; I hope people will respect it.

Alisa

What other forms of murder should we legalize? After all, if it’s all about choice, why have any laws at all? If a police officer gives me a ticket for going 40 miles above the speed limit, isn’t he limiting my free choice to speed? If I assault someone and am arrested, aren’t my rights being taken away? Why is abortion an exception? Abortion takes the life of another human being. It should be illegal. If it shouldn’t be, then there is no rational basis for making other types of murder illegal except by discriminating and saying a person not currently living in the uterus of a woman is more important and more privileged and has a right to life, when one in the womb, who is just as alive and is only different based on age, location, and stage of development does not.

 

[Alisa]

I believe that abortion should be illegal, but whether legal or not, I would not have one.

As it happens, it is legal in this country and others now. If we feel strongly about this issue, we should campaign to change the law – but not if it prevents our doing the other good things we should be doing within our families or communities. If the abortion issue turns up on a ballot sometime, I will certainly vote for making it not legal in this country. In the meantime, I will obey God in all ways I humanly can.

Alisa

 

[savienu]

I believe that abortion should be illegal, but whether legal or not, I would not have one.

As it happens, it is legal in this country and others now. If we feel strongly about this issue, we should campaign to change the law – but not if it prevents our doing the other good things we should be doing within our families or communities. If the abortion issue turns up on a ballot sometime, I will certainly vote for making it not legal in this country. In the meantime, I will obey God in all ways I humanly can.

Alisa

I’m glad to hear you would vote to make it illegal. Would that not include voting for political candidates who will not further the abortion agenda, though? This was such a critical election. We now have a Supreme Court justice retiring, and I’m sure a few more are on the way. With a pro-life President and pro-life Congress, we may have actually had a chance to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Now, who knows when that will happen? And on top of that, our tax dollars are paying for international abortions, and Obama wants abortions to be taxpayer funded in D.C. What next, is all I can ask. This next part is not directed at you directly, but I just wonder how bad things have to get before Catholics in this country wake up and start voting like Catholics.