Catholics Can Be Pro-Choice?

[BamaRider]

To clear the confusion-

Quote:
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?.

No.

This means, no, it is not your postion, that there is a moral difference in these 2 candidates?

Or

No, there is no difference in these candidates?

Later on Frank posted this -

“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 -

Which as far as I can tell means if you don’t think the pro choice guy is serious about what he says, you can vote for him?? Only the American Bishops could come up with statement like this, but that doesn’t surprise me given the way some of them run their Dioceses. Talk about a confusing.

That statement is a guideline, nothing more, nothing less. Now if your “guides” tell you this candidate isn’t really serious about appointing liberal judges to the courts of the land, that will entrench more abortion on us, but you take him serious when he says, he’s gonna give ya free healthcare, then by all means vote for him, if you think the greater good is served.

Even by the Bishop’s conference admission, an awful lot of stars have to line up, to get a pass on voting pro choice.

Because I take each candidate at his word, I don’t really have a choice which way to vote, I’ve said many times in this thread, I vote pro life, after that, let the chips fall where they may.

It seemed from you posts your posts (Frank), you were giving comfort to pro choice voting Catholics, maybe I was wrong, if so you have the bandwith to set the record straight.

Keep in mind this is what the Holy Father said.

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 y’all read this and tell me you think its ok to vote for a pro choice candidate. From the Daily News-
link here for full story-

nydailynews.com/news/2008/04/28/2008-04-28_cardinal_egan_criticizes_rudy_giuliani_f.html

angry Edward Cardinal Egan pounded New York’s pro-choice former Mayor Rudy Giuliani from his Internet pulpit on Monday for taking the Eucharist at Pope Benedict’s historic Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral.

“The Catholic Church clearly teaches that abortion is a grave offense against the will of God,” Egan said in a statement on the archdiocesan Web site.

“Throughout my years as archbishop of New York, I have repeated this teaching in sermons, articles, addresses and interviews without hesitation or compromise of any kind.”

Egan said he had “an understanding” with the failed Republican presidential hopeful “that he was not to receive the Eucharist because of his well-known support of abortion.”

My guess is Cardinal Egan got a earful from Rome about this fiasco, and if the magistrate is anything like the fire dept it runs downhill, and he in turn got his people on the phone, and scolded them for allowing the archdiocese to be put in such a position in the first place.

Safe bet you can put pro choice voting Catholics in that net. Now those of y’all that think its ok to vote pro choice people, then OK, do what ya feel ya gotta do, but those that try to sway other Catholics into that line of thinking, don’t think you’re gonna go unchallenged, because we got some pretty heavy hitters on our side.

 

[vern_humphrey]

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.

You’ve got “compromise” on the brain, haven’t you?

Compromise is not my position – it’s your imagination.

 

[SoCalRC]

You’ve got “compromise” on the brain, haven’t you?

Compromise is not my position – it’s your imagination.

You proudly compromise on abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, protection of the family, religious freedom, modern forms of slavery, and society’s protection of minors - all items that Rome labelled as ‘non negotiable’ in voting.

Rationalizing it is one thing. Alternating between rationalizing it and denying it is another.

 

[SoCalRC]

Limiting evil is a moral good, not a compromise.

So where, exactly, is the evidence that you are limiting evil? The expansion of evil is easy to measure, even the trends in abortion rates is in the wrong direction.

If there are no tangible results, how can we know if you are, in fact, doing commesurate good, not just rationalizing accepting what is evil?

 

[fix]

So where, exactly, is the evidence that you are limiting evil?

You mean results? Is that how Catholics make moral choices, by the results only?

The expansion of evil is easy to measure, even the trends in abortion rates is in the wrong direction.

Well, then we may formally cooperate with evil as long as abortion trends the right way?

If there are no tangible results, how can we know if you are, in fact, doing commesurate good, not just rationalizing accepting what is evil?

So, you think having more pro abort supporters in the government will help save lives?

 

[vern_humphrey]

You proudly compromise on abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, protection of the family, religious freedom, modern forms of slavery, and society’s protection of minors - all items that Rome labelled as ‘non negotiable’ in voting.

That’s a falsehood.

Rationalizing it is one thing. Alternating between rationalizing it and denying it is another.

Making an incorrect statement is one thing. Persisting in repeating it after being corrected is another.

 

[BamaRider]

If there are no tangible results, how can we know if you are, in fact, doing commesurate good, not just rationalizing accepting what is evil?

Does this mean voting a professed pro life guy, really might not be doing any good, but a rational way to accept something evil? And that something evil would be what?

 

[wildleafblower]

Code of Canon Law
BOOK VI. SANCTIONS IN THE CHURCH LIBER VI. DE SANCTIONIBUS IN ECCLESIA
PART II. PENALTIES FOR INDIVIDUAL DELICTS
TITLE VI. DELICTS AGAINST HUMAN LIFE AND FREEDOM (Cann. 1397 - 1398)

Can. 1397 A person who commits a homicide or who kidnaps, detains, mutilates, or gravely wounds a person by force or fraud is to be punished with the privations and prohibitions mentioned in can. 1336 according to the gravity of the delict. Homicide against the persons mentioned in can. 1370, however, is to be punished by the penalties established there.

Can. 1398 A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P57.HTM
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P57.HTM

I’m most definately a PRO-Lifer! Please don’t kill the unborn children of our future. Abortion is anti-HOPE and without hope we are doomed.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Does this mean voting a professed pro life guy, really might not be doing any good, but a rational way to accept something evil? And that something evil would be what?

I have finally figured it out. In all this convoluted argument, where the opposition has presented no clear answer, I have finally discerned their position. It’s Post-Modernism:

“We can’t really know what will happen, so we should all vote for the cute guy with the big hair.”:whacky:

 

[frankadams]

Here is the original exchange…

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.

Vern chose to interpret that “no” as something exactly opposite. Bama came riding to his defense. Here is the latest response…

To clear the confusion-

This means, no, it is not your postion, that there is a moral difference in these 2 candidates?

Or

No, there is no difference in these candidates?
side.

Let’s dissect this, shall we?

To clear the confusion-

This means, no, it is not your postion, that there is a moral difference in these 2 candidates?

This would mean that I see no difference between the two candidates.

Or

No, there is no difference in these candidates?
side.

This would mean that I see no difference between the two candidates.

It appears my choices are:
-seeing no difference between the two candidates or
-seeing no difference between the two candidates

This is how you and Vern operate. This is beyond straw men! Why not just ask me “Frank, do you not believe in the Trinity or do you reject belief in the Trinity?” Fellas, guess what? IT ISN’T A VALID QUESTION!

Not that that stops you. Instead, you take the attempt at an actual answer, say that it is the opposite, and take that false information and parade it over the thread as a sufficient reason to reject anything else I have written.

And not that it will stop you from doing it again. Intellectual discourse is that last thing from your minds. Actually reading what others have to say is the last thing from your minds. Instead, your tact is to distort, twist, lie, and base your entire argument on attempted answers to the “Trinity”-type questions you yourselves create.

By the way, Bama, to “clear things up,”

Do you not believe in the Trinity?

or

Do you reject belief in the Trinity?

And we’re playing by your and Vern’s rules. This means…

1. Yes or no only
2. No other answers accepted
3. Attempts to qualify your answer will be dismissed as “dodging” the question
4. Not answering the question means that you admit everything I have written is correct and everything you have written is wrong and that I can type a bunch of smiley faces as proof of my rhetorical victory.

I patiently await your answer.

Good luck.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Here’s the crux of my argument:

Quote:
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankadams
No.

Now, once again, I will give you a chance to clarify your position:

Is there a moral difference between a candidate who wants to put an end to 98.5% of abortions, and another who wants to fund abortion mills with taxpayer money?

Can you give us a simple yes or no answer?

 

[Sham7]

Dear Ender,

I imagine you are wearing brown boots as I send this too you based on reading your last post. No matter how sincere you seem full of it.

Never say never? Let’s have some optimism and hope for the best, ok? Idealism started the progress toward defeating communisim and bringing down the Berlin wall. Our prayers were the most effective means. Go Catholic party!

Nope, the issues are not muddled, but just considered one at a time and prayed about and discerned over to come up with the best decision for ones vote. Go cradle Catholics and the wonderful converts too !

Joy to all and to all a good night,
sham7

 

[IrishJoe]

I’m not reading 28 pages of a thread.

Yes catholics can be pro choice - we all have free will. However if you support abortion you get EXCOMMUNICATED so then you aren’t catholics anymore.

 

[BamaRider]

LOL Frank nice try. All I’ll ask is anybody reading the posts take the time to reald ALL of them, and see if you can find out what Frank’s postion is.

Here’s mine. A Catholic voting pro choice is incorrect. I vote the best I can for the unborn. If a guy is 98% pro life, and the other is 100% pro choice, I vote the 98% life guy everytime.

I don’t justify the what else he may vote as a reason to support abortion. The Holy Father has made it clear how He feels about pro choice lawmaking Catholics, (refer a few posts back) I’m gonna take that to mean he doesn’t want me voting for one eithe.

I still don’t know if Frank thinks a 98% pro life guy is better then 100% announced pro choice candidate. Refused to give a simple answer. Well he told Vern but then said he what was no is yes or something like that, and Vern was distorting his postion.

Plenty of bandwith available for him to clear things up. I just fear one of those looooooong SoCal posts coming up, instead of just a couple of sentences.

 

[frankadams]

LOL Frank nice try. .

Nice try? Here is the question you asked me…

To clear the confusion-This means, no, it is not your postion, that there is a moral difference in these 2 candidates?

Or

No, there is no difference in these candidates?
.

I thought this was horribly unfair, because the two “choices” you give me are the SAME ANSWER. I objected to being asked that kind of “wife-beater” question in what is supposed to be an intellectual exchange of ideas. Sadly, this is typical of the way you and Vern operate here.I will ask again: Is that question fair?

 

[Walt_Oliver]

Since this thread has degenerated into a discussion of one another rather than the original topic, it is now closed.