Catholics Can Be Pro-Choice?

[vern_humphrey]

Funny you should use Hitler as your example. Using your math, a Catholic could morally vote for Hitler if he were running against a pro-abortion candidate so long as the number of people he planned to exterminate would be less than the number of people that would be exterminated by abortion.

No, that would be using your math.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The bishops do not offer guidance on which statistics to use when “deeming.” Your “careful deliberation” may involve looking at those particular statistics and nothing else. Other Catholics might include additional information and reach a different conclusion than you. If they do, then, according to this document, they can morally support the pro-abortion candidate.

Given two candidates, one of whom espouses the pro-life position, albeit imperfectly, and the other espouses the pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

 

[frankadams]

Given two candidates, one of whom espouses the pro-life position, albeit imperfectly, and the other espouses the pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

I am presuming you mean a situation like our American one in which “imperfectly” means supports abortion in cases of rape and incest?

Yes, I disagree.

“36. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.”
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship - USCCB, 2007
usccb.org/faithfulcitizen…CStatement.pdf

If a Catholic’s “careful deliberation” leads him to “deem” that the pro-choice candidate is "less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods," then yes, I disagree.

Do you agree with your own statement?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/misc/progress.gif​

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/misc/progress.gif[/RIGHT]

 

[vern_humphrey]

I am presuming you mean a situation like our American one in which “imperfectly” means supports abortion in cases of rape and incest?

Yes, I disagree.

So once again, if one candidate wants to put an end to 98.5% of abortions, and the other wants to fund abortion mills with taxpayer money, there is no moral difference between those two?

Is that your position?

Do you agree with your own statement?

When there is a pro-life candidate, albeit one who is less than perfect, a Catholic cannot morally vote for a pro-choice candidate.

 

[SoCalRC]

So once again, if one candidate wants to put an end to 98.5% of abortions, and the other wants to fund abortion mills with taxpayer money, there is no moral difference between those two?

Is there a difference between torturing and murdering 5 children and 10?

How can you expect the public to ever accept our teaching on abortion if you, yourself, will not stand up for it?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Is there a difference between torturing and murdering 5 children and 10?

How can you expect the public to ever accept our teaching on abortion if you, yourself, will not stand up for it?

I stand up for my position – I say, if I can save one child, I have a duty to do so, even though I cannot save all children.

 

[frankadams]

So once again, if one candidate wants to put an end to 98.5% of abortions, and the other wants to fund abortion mills with taxpayer money, there is no moral difference between those two?

Is that your position?.

No.

When there is a pro-life candidate, albeit one who is less than perfect, a Catholic cannot morally vote for a pro-choice candidate.

Your statement seems to be at odds with the following document.

“36. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.”
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship - USCCB, 2007
usccb.org/faithfulcitizen…CStatement.pdf

In this case, “all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil.” that is, both support some forms of legalized abortion.

As such, if a Catholic’s “careful deliberation” leads him to “deem” that the pro-choice candidate is “less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods*”* then “he may decide to vote for” that candidate.

Sorry, Vern, but unless the text is amended to read “deemed by Vern Humphrey,” your statement goes against this document.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No.

Then all other arguments you have advanced in this post are specious.

 

[mapleoak]

The bishops do not offer guidance on which statistics to use when “deeming.” Your “careful deliberation” may involve looking at those particular statistics and nothing else. Other Catholics might include additional information and reach a different conclusion than you. If they do, then, according to this document, they can morally support the pro-abortion candidate.

The correct answer is ‘no’.
It is erroneous to liken a vote for a pro-abortion candidate to that of the King Burger restaurant discerning whether to hire a pro-abortion supporter for their burger flipping duties. By its very nature, to support a pro-abortion candidate for the presidency is to support abortion, irregardless of any other merits the candidate may have. If there are only two candidates both of whom are pro-abortion, one does not then have the green light to vote pro-abortion, discerning between the two on other matters.
Note there are candidates who claim to be pro-life, but support killing people. The only difference is they support killing fewer of them.

 

[frankadams]

Then all other arguments you have advanced in this post are specious.

Well, it appears you have bested me, Vern. If you state categorically that all other arguments I have advanced are specious, they must be specious. This is especially true in light of all the compelling evidence you no doubt are going to produce to support that conclusion.

A recommendation: perhaps you can vary your debating strategy in the next post and type, “Then all the other arguments you have advanced in this post are dumb.” That will constitute an equally powerful and articulate response to that will force me to surrender to your rhetorical might and end my part of this discussion.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, it appears you have bested me, Vern. If you state categorically that all other arguments I have advanced are specious, they must be specious. This is especially true in light of all the compelling evidence you no doubt are going to produce to support that conclusion.

A recommendation: perhaps you can vary your debating strategy in the next post and type, “Then all the other arguments you have advanced in this post are dumb.” That will constitute an equally powerful and articulate response to that will force me to surrender to your rhetorical might and end my part of this discussion.

My, aren’t we getting personal.

Here’s the crux of my argument:

Originally Posted by vern humphrey
So once again, if one candidate wants to put an end to 98.5% of abortions, and the other wants to fund abortion mills with taxpayer money, there is no moral difference between those two?

Is that your position?.

And here’s your response.

No.

Now, is there some reason that your response (“no”) is suddenly inadquate? Do you wish to change it to “yes?”

Do you wish to say there is a moral difference between candidate wants to put an end to 98.5% of abortions, and one who wants to fund abortion mills with taxpayer money?

 

[frankadams]

My, aren’t we getting personal.

Here’s the crux of my argument:

And here’s your response.

Now, is there some reason that your response (“no”) is suddenly inadquate? Do you wish to change it to “yes?”

Do you wish to say there is a moral difference between candidate wants to put an end to 98.5% of abortions, and one who wants to fund abortion mills with taxpayer money?

This is a new low, even for you. Your question was “Is this your position?” My response was “No.” You have chosen to misrepresent that “no” as a “yes.” I understand confusion about some issues, but dearest Father in Heaven, you can’t even get “yes” and “no” right! Are those two concepts really so difficult for you to handle, or is it simply malice, trying to score points for your argument by telling an outright lie?

 

[vern_humphrey]

This is a new low, even for you. Your question was “Is this your position?” My response was “No.” You have chosen to misrepresent that “no” as a “yes.” I understand confusion about some issues, but dearest Father in Heaven, you can’t even get “yes” and “no” right! Are those two concepts really so difficult for you to handle, or is it simply malice, trying to score points for your argument by telling an outright lie?

Ah, the spite and bile.

Let’s try it again:

Originally Posted by vern humphrey
So once again, if one candidate wants to put an end to 98.5% of abortions, and the other wants to fund abortion mills with taxpayer money, there is no moral difference between those two?

Is that your position?.

Now, let us agree that a “no” means there is no moral difference and a a"yes" means there is a moral difference.

What say you?

 

[BamaRider]

This is a new low, even for you. Your question was “Is this your position?” My response was “No.” You have chosen to misrepresent that “no” as a “yes.” I understand confusion about some issues, but dearest Father in Heaven, you can’t even get “yes” and “no” right! Are those two concepts really so difficult for you to handle, or is it simply malice, trying to score points for your argument by telling an outright lie?

??? Explain to me how he did that?

When you answered no to thr question I took ya at your word, he did to, all he was just pointing out if that’s what ya believe all your previous 30 posts didn’t count for much. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[Sham7]

Once again, yes a Catholic can be “pro choice” as defined by the US political media/machine.

The reason is mulitfaceted and only a complete discernment of all the issues allows one to make a fair, moral, and Catholic choice.

There are many American Catholics who vote “pro choice”, but it is not the same thing that alot of the staff members here and sympathizers who think only in a narrow, one issue way would like to believe and indeed do at this time.

Most American Catholics who do vote “pro choice” are committed to a pro life stance both personally and politically in selecting representatiives who consider the big picture with regard to “pro life”. Again, I believe that the Democratic party represents my Catholic belief more consistently and with less hypocrisy than the other parties.

I am a cradle Catholic and my views come from my early training, my well formed conscience, and my continued education about all the issues and not just a focus on the abortion issue. Jesus is my way!

Please do not respond on the abortion issue in that you are beating a dead horse. Maybe, talk about the Iraq war and the intrinisic evil for so many Catholics backing this mistake.
Talk about the evil of not using the bully pulpit and other means of defeating Big Tobacco. Talk about Corporate greed and scandal. Talk about gasoline(oil) gauging. Talk
about the current administration and party supporting Big Oil and Big war. Talk about the lack of fiscal responsibility and the Big governement that the current administration has brought upon the people with the help of American Catholics who only focus on the abortion issue.

So, keep on doing what one may with regard to making abortion illegal, but in the meantime do not neglect all the other “Pro Life” issues. The sum of the parts is greater than the whole!

Amen,
sham7

PS Let’s start the Catholic party! Talk about that ok? tks

 

[SoCalRC]

I stand up for my position – I say, if I can save one child, I have a duty to do so, even though I cannot save all children.

That sounds laudable, but our political voting on abortion is several steps removed from any tangible results. In other words, when you compromise on abortion for political purposes, there is no obvious and identifiable cause->effect, IE, not even “one child” clearly saved. I know you believe otherwise, but secular society will look at things like actual abortion rates, etc. Viewed that way, there is no evidence (at least yet) to suggest that a compromise-and-focus-on-Roe approach is effective.

This is quite different from, say, your work volunteering for a maternal crisis hotline or center, where cause and effect is clear and direct.

The one thing that voting does do is make a statement about one’s beliefs and serves as an example to others. In that light, ‘important right to life issues, like abortion, can be compromised’, might not be the best message for combating and correcting a “culture of death”.

In other words, without tangible evidence that a compromise strategy is having any positive effect, perhaps the perception of being hypocritical with regards to the right to life, even in fetal form, that it can create does more harm than good.

 

[BamaRider]

For those of y’all that think a Catholic can vote Pro Choice the Holy Father said this in 2007-

Last May, when a reporter pressed Benedict on whether he agreed that Catholic politicians who had recently legalized abortion in Mexico City should be considered excommunicated, his response was, “Yes.”

Benedict’s spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, later said the pope was not setting a new policy and did not intend to formally excommunicate anyone. **But Lombardi added that politicians who vote in favor of abortion should refrain from receiving Holy Communion. **

Now, if he had his way he’d excommunicate Catholic politicians that support, and prop up pro choice laws. But his advisers apparently reeled him in to refraining them from Holy Communion. Now if a politician votes for abortion is in trouble, what do you reckon happens to the Catholics who help put him in office?

If anything we know him to be consistent, so take it from there and how He would feel about a Catholic enabling such a candidate.

Now He didn’t put in caveats about overall voting records concerning DP, just war, or all this other stuff some of y’all wanna lump in with abortion to make ya feel better about voting for a pro choice candidate, when asked the question if they should be excommunicated he only said, “yes.”

Who knows, perhaps this is the year He follows his instincts and calls these politicians out.

Having seen how the Vatican feels, are you willing to give up the Eucharist to vote pro choice candidates?

 

[fix]

That sounds laudable, but our political voting on abortion is several steps removed from any tangible results. In other words, when you compromise on abortion for political purposes, there is no obvious and identifiable cause->effect, IE, not even “one child” clearly saved. I know you believe otherwise, but secular society will look at things like actual abortion rates, etc. Viewed that way, there is no evidence (at least yet) to suggest that a compromise-and-focus-on-Roe approach is effective.

This is quite different from, say, your work volunteering for a maternal crisis hotline or center, where cause and effect is clear and direct.

The one thing that voting does do is make a statement about one’s beliefs and serves as an example to others. In that light, ‘important right to life issues, like abortion, can be compromised’, might not be the best message for combating and correcting a “culture of death”.

In other words, without tangible evidence that a compromise strategy is having any positive effect, perhaps the perception of being hypocritical with regards to the right to life, even in fetal form, that it can create does more harm than good.

Limiting evil is a moral good, not a compromise.

 

[frankadams]

??? Explain to me how he did that?

When you answered no to thr question I took ya at your word, he did to, all he was just pointing out if that’s what ya believe all your previous 30 posts didn’t count for much. You can’t have it both ways.

So once again, if one candidate wants to put an end to 98.5% of abortions, and the other wants to fund abortion mills with taxpayer money, there is no moral difference between those two?

Is that your position?

BR, I politely ask you to re-read the above post of Mr. Humphrey. I was asked “Is that your position?’” My response was “No.” If I said “yes” anywhere in CAF, kindly show me that.

I will make you the same promise I made to Mr. Humphrey when he insisted I was the first to use a particular term when the written record clearly showed otheriwse; if you find anywhere on this forum that I have indeed answered “Yes” (or for that matter, “Yeah,” “Uh-huh,” or “Mmmm-Hmmm”), I vow to never post here again and to dedicate the remainder of my years to studying your wisdom.

 

[Ender]

Most American Catholics who do vote “pro choice” are committed to a pro life stance both personally and politically in selecting representatiives who consider the big picture with regard to “pro life”. Again, I believe that the Democratic party represents my Catholic belief more consistently and with less hypocrisy than the other parties.

This is the perspective the USCCB has fostered: the “big picture”, the “seamless garment”. Basically it means muddling together a menagerie of concerns and tacking them to the coattails of the true life issues so that no distinction whatever is made between questions of life and death and problems affecting the quality of life. We cannot reasonably expect individual Catholics to relinquish this position until our bishops do.

PS Let’s start the Catholic party! Talk about that ok? tks

The Church takes no position on oil companies. The Church takes no position on tobacco. The Church takes no position on the war. (Do not confuse JPII’s personal objection with a judgment of the Church that the war is immoral. She has certainly not informed Catholic soldiers of any such judgment.) There will never be a Catholic party because for all but a few issues the Church takes no position whatever but leaves the determination of the proper solution up to the judgment of the individual.

Ender