Catholics for Ron Paul Coalition

[estesbob]

“Pro-life” encompasses much more than abortion and euthanasia. It also includes a candidate’s foreign policy as well as their understanding of just what makes a sound economy, as well as their undertanding of and respect for and willingness to defend the Constitution. Ron Paul is the only candidate that has a voting record (rhetoric is meaningless) worthy of Catholic support. And you are 100% wrong to think that by NOT supporting the lesser of two evils or the lesser of two candidates WHEN there is a third way, that that in some way that makes me a “tacit promoter” of abortion and homosexual marriage or “complicit” with evil. What offensive logic. There can be no compromise with evil.

It has already been shown to you that this is not correct. The church explicitly said that a Catholic could in good conscience vote for a politician who either opposed or supported the Iraqi and Afghani wars. . The church has neither endorsed nor opposed either parties nor Ron Paul’s domestic agenda. If you vote for Ron Paul in the general election as a third-party candidate you are not refusing to choose between the lesser of two evils- you are choosing to support evil ie:

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’

 

[Cider]

I don’t know what they are talking about he has been all over Fox News for awhile, heck Glen Beck had him on back in June ( you can google the clip) Just this week they had him on Fox and Friends more than once, America Live and Neil Cavuto just off the top of my head. No I didn’t watch all those, some I saw ad clips from, some I watched and some came up when I googled it to see who else had him on.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If you vote for Ron Paul in the general election as a third-party candidate you are not refusing to choose between the lesser of two evils- you are choosing to support evil ie:

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’

Hey bob,

I disagree. Catholics are called to form a faith based conscience and vote. The Church teaches us that no one is force, or coerce, another to go against their conscience. Ron Paul is pro-life, so we don’t need to discuss ‘proportionate reasons’. A vote for him is a vote for life, by all standards, and one who votes for him cannot be said to be ‘supporting evil’.

By the same argument, one could say that those that don’t support a candidate that can pull people across ‘party’ lines for the nomination is supporting evil. It’s the other issues that cause people to choose another candidate for the nomination, just as it’s other issues that cause people to vote how they do in the general election. Neither is going against Church teachings.

 

[gilliam]

The Paul campaign today announced that Ron Paul will not run 3rd party.

 

[Ridgerunner]

“Pro-life” encompasses much more than abortion and euthanasia. It also includes a candidate’s foreign policy as well as their understanding of just what makes a sound economy, as well as their undertanding of and respect for and willingness to defend the Constitution. Ron Paul is the only candidate that has a voting record (rhetoric is meaningless) worthy of Catholic support. And you are 100% wrong to think that by NOT supporting the lesser of two evils or the lesser of two candidates WHEN there is a third way, that that in some way that makes me a “tacit promoter” of abortion and homosexual marriage or “complicit” with evil. What offensive logic. There can be no compromise with evil.

But see what you’re saying.

You are big into foreign policy and the constitution and you have come to think that your positions concernig those things are so vital that they constitute moral imperatives. But they don’t if we are free in conscience to weigh those issues and exercise prudential (informed and thoughtful) judgment about the various approaches to them. And the Church says we are.

We are not free in conscience to promote abortion or those who promote it.

You are equating your policy judgments with moral absolutes and are prepared to tacitly support an absolute moral evil because you think the two are equivalent.

Might as well be a Democrat and vote for Obama, because that’s how they see it. They equate abortion with “war” (without distinction among wars) or welfare and support an absolute evil because they think they are supporting good with it. But we’re free to think what we want about a particular war or particular welfare programs as a moral matter, but we’re not free, morally, to weigh abortion against policies that are not inherently evil.

I’m sorry, but it’s not morality but vanity that puts one’s convictions about whether, e.g., the Commerce Clause is being abused or whether, e.g., the Fed is actually constitutional above or even equal to the killing of innocent children.

What was it? 52% of Catholics voted for Obama in 2008? How many, I wonder, “sat it out” so that would be 52%. A few percentage points against him and we wouldn’t be funding abortion through Obamacare right now, which we are.

 

[estesbob]

Hey bob,

I disagree. Catholics are called to form a faith based conscience and vote. The Church teaches us that no one is force, or coerce, another to go against their conscience. Ron Paul is pro-life, so we don’t need to discuss ‘proportionate reasons’. A vote for him is a vote for life, by all standards, and one who votes for him cannot be said to be ‘supporting evil’.

By the same argument, one could say that those that don’t support a candidate that can pull people across ‘party’ lines for the nomination is supporting evil. It’s the other issues that cause people to choose another candidate for the nomination, just as it’s other issues that cause people to vote how they do in the general election. Neither is going against Church teachings.

When I say that a allegedly pro-life person votes for nonviable third-party candidate is helping to promote evil I’m stating my personal opinion and not a teaching of the church. . The Church says we cannot vote for pro-abortion candidate unless his opponent is more pro-abortion than he is. It makes no stateme on the morality of voting for nonviable pto-life candidates when a viable pro-life option is available.

 

[estesbob]

The Paul campaign today announced that Ron Paul will not run 3rd party.

. I sincerely hope his followers take his decision to heart and not write in his name and vote for the most viable pro-life candidate on the ballot

 

[Ridgerunner]

The Paul campaign today announced that Ron Paul will not run 3rd party.

One may give him credit for that, and I do. One wishes his supporters would take the same honorable route and not support abortion by wasting their votes if he doesn’t get the nomination.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

When I say that a allegedly pro-life person votes for nonviable third-party candidate is helping to promote evil I’m stating my personal opinion and not a teaching of the church. . The Church says we cannot vote for pro-abortion candidate unless his opponent is more pro-abortion than he is. It makes no stateme on the morality of voting for nonviable pto-life candidates when a viable pro-life option is available.

I understand your personal opinion. It seems there are some who claim that one voting for a write in candidate is supporting abortion, or a pro-abortion candidate. That becomes vague according to each person’s knowledge, which is required to sin. If they vote principle and find neither main party candidate worthy, according to their well form faith based conscience, and write in a pro-life candidate, they have not supported abortion, or a pro-abortion candidate, in my honest opinion. It is also my opinion that accusations such as ‘you supported abortion, or a pro-abortion candidate’ are false, especially when a person explains their position and says ‘NO, I did not.’

The Church is not united on the specification of ‘more pro-abortion’ between political candidates. It would be nice if it were unified, these discussions might not be necessary. As we know, they are revisiting the faithful voter’s guide because of what ‘some’ consider vague language. I doubt we see a 100% consensus, but certainly believe it would be great.

If the issue was as closed as some say it is, the Church would say which candidate(s) were to be considered. The Church does not do this as they guide the faithful and leave it up to them, not forcing or coercing the faithful to go against their consciences.

Right now, I’m stuck on Ron Paul, and may write him in if he doesn’t receive the nomination. It is not my intention to, in anyway, support abortion.

 

[estesbob]

I understand your personal opinion. It seems there are some who claim that one voting for a write in candidate is supporting abortion, or a pro-abortion candidate. That becomes vague according to each person’s knowledge, which is required to sin. If they vote principle and find neither main party candidate worthy, according to their well form faith based conscience, and write in a pro-life candidate, they have not supported abortion, or a pro-abortion candidate, in my honest opinion. It is also my opinion that accusations such as ‘you supported abortion, or a pro-abortion candidate’ are false, especially when a person explains their position and says ‘NO, I did not.’

The Church is not united on the specification of ‘more pro-abortion’ between political candidates. It would be nice if it were unified, these discussions might not be necessary. As we know, they are revisiting the faithful voter’s guide because of what ‘some’ consider vague language. I doubt we see a 100% consensus, but certainly believe it would be great.

If the issue was as closed as some say it is, the Church would say which candidate(s) were to be considered. The Church does not do this as they guide the faithful and leave it up to them, not forcing or coercing the faithful to go against their consciences.

Right now, I’m stuck on Ron Paul, and may write him in if he doesn’t receive the nomination. It is not my intention to, in anyway, support abortion.

I think the church is very clear you are not allowed to vote for a pro-abortion candidate when viable pro-life alternative is available.:

*“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,” he said.

“You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone,” he said*

Cardinal Raymond Burke

 

[kubark]

But see what you’re saying.

You are big into foreign policy and the constitution and you have come to think that your positions concernig those things are so vital that they constitute moral imperatives. But they don’t if we are free in conscience to weigh those issues and exercise prudential (informed and thoughtful) judgment about the various approaches to them. And the Church says we are.

We are not free in conscience to promote abortion or those who promote it.

You are equating your policy judgments with moral absolutes and are prepared to tacitly support an absolute moral evil because you think the two are equivalent.

Might as well be a Democrat and vote for Obama, because that’s how they see it. They equate abortion with “war” (without distinction among wars) or welfare and support an absolute evil because they think they are supporting good with it. But we’re free to think what we want about a particular war or particular welfare programs as a moral matter, but we’re not free, morally, to weigh abortion against policies that are not inherently evil.

I’m sorry, but it’s not morality but vanity that puts one’s convictions about whether, e.g., the Commerce Clause is being abused or whether, e.g., the Fed is actually constitutional above or even equal to the killing of innocent children.

What was it? 52% of Catholics voted for Obama in 2008? How many, I wonder, “sat it out” so that would be 52%. A few percentage points against him and we wouldn’t be funding abortion through Obamacare right now, which we are.

A vote for Ron Paul does not in any way “promote abortion or those who promote it.” A vote for Obama would. And NO, the Church does not say we are able to be “free in conscience” and “exercise prudential (informed and thoughtful) judgment” about unjust war. And YES, unjust war is just as inherently evil as abortion. Innoncent life is innoncent life. Unjust war is an absolute moral evil on par with abortion. You may want to read the Cathechism on that one. Abortion will ultimately be defeated BECAUSE of the principles found in our Declaration not IN SPITE of them. The best approach is vote for candidates that understand those principles and have the voting record to prove it, NOT voting simply on Party or Issue or which candidate can give us the results we want, because that approach can someday be used against you when public sentiment blows the other way. And then all those times you compromised with evil will be meaningless.

 

[pnewton]

I note the rhetoric for those who oppose Ron Paul among Americans is disingenious and reflects poorly on a Catholic website. Saying that an informed Catholic vote (in this case for Ron Paul) is standing on the sidelines and pouting is dishonest characterization. Saying that it passes up the chance to stop the slaughter of 1.2 million is ludricrous.

I hope those that are undecided can see this sort of language for what it is. We are seeing the same tactics the media has used for years now being used by those who previously have always complained about media tactics. As Catholics, we are called to treat each other with greater charity and understanding. There is no cause for such disrespect for the informed choices that other Catholics are making.

 

[kubark]

It has already been shown to you that this is not correct. The church explicitly said that a Catholic could in good conscience vote for a politician who either opposed or supported the Iraqi and Afghani wars. . The church has neither endorsed nor opposed either parties nor Ron Paul’s domestic agenda. If you vote for Ron Paul in the general election as a third-party candidate you are not refusing to choose between the lesser of two evils- you are choosing to support evil ie:

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’

Where does the church explicitly say "that a Catholic could in good conscience vote for a politician who either opposed or supported the Iraqi and Afghani wars. Nowhere have you “shown” me this. Voting for Ron Paul = “supporting evil”??? Is that the Church’s official position or is that your own opinion?

 

[kubark]

When I say that a allegedly pro-life person votes for nonviable third-party candidate is helping to promote evil I’m stating my personal opinion and not a teaching of the church. . The Church says we cannot vote for pro-abortion candidate unless his opponent is more pro-abortion than he is. It makes no stateme on the morality of voting for nonviable pto-life candidates when a viable pro-life option is available.

“nonviable” according to who? A media “poll”? Actually, Ron Paul is the most viable pro-life candidate when it comes to beating Obama in a general election. He will remain viable as long as Catholics vote for him, whether on the Republican ticket or as a write-in. We live a free society. We are not restricted to Republican or Democrat as long as we have the option to write-in a candidate.

 

[pnewton]

“nonviable” according to who?

It is another media technique. If they keep saying it often enough and strong enough it takes on the appearance of fact, despite the fact I bet no one here has a crystal ball or practices any other occult method of reading the future.

 

[estesbob]

“nonviable” according to who? A media “poll”? Actually, Ron Paul is the most viable pro-life candidate when it comes to beating Obama in a general election. He will remain viable as long as Catholics vote for him, whether on the Republican ticket or as a write-in. We live a free society. We are not restricted to Republican or Democrat as long as we have the option to write-in a candidate.

If Ron Paul does not recieve the nomination he will indeed be a non-viable canidate if one writes his name in. I have said repeatedly that voting for Ron paul in the primaries is fine-the problem comes when he loses the nomination and his supporters either sit the election out or write his name in-both actions which would help re-elect Obama

 

[estesbob]

Where does the church explicitly say "that a Catholic could in good conscience vote for a politician who either opposed or supported the Iraqi and Afghani wars. Nowhere have you “shown” me this. Voting for Ron Paul = “supporting evil”??? Is that the Church’s official position or is that your own opinion?

*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.
​

*
*Then Cardinal Ratzinger, July 2004

 

[estesbob]

It is another media technique. If they keep saying it often enough and strong enough it takes on the appearance of fact, despite the fact I bet no one here has a crystal ball or practices any other occult method of reading the future.

'If Paul does not get the nomination would you agree he is a non-viable canidate?

 

[pnewton]

'If Paul does not get the nomination would you agree he is a non-viable canidate?

Yes. He will not be running.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.
​

*Then Cardinal Ratzinger, July 2004

Okay bob, I totally agree with the above statement. I am against unjust wars, or a rush to war especially in light of a Pope calling for ‘patience’. I am against the death penalty. I am at liberty to be at odds with the Pope, and other Catholics, on those issues. I am against abortion and euthanasia, which is in agreement with the Pope, and what should be all Catholics, on those issues.

Now, staying with only what the Pope said, or says, the Pope did give a statement, and I’m paraphrasing, that one could vote for a pro-abortion politician, as long as it was not in support of abortion itself.

He did specify because of proportionate reasons; however, I have not seen where the Pope, himself, defines acceptable, or unacceptable, proportionate reasons. I have seen statements provided by some Catholics of individual Bishops, but the Bishops were not united 100% during the last presidential election. It was easy for either side to find a Bishop’s statement to ‘fit their own personal view’.

I’ve said it before, but bring this up to try and put it to rest, even if it’s in my own mind as I’ve expressed my choices, in advance, for the presidential election. I am not going against anything the Pope has written by planning to vote for Ron Paul, in the primaries or general election, even if it’s a write in during the general election. I do this for all the reasons that I disagree, and agree on with the Pope, as stated above. I cannot see my preference of Ron Paul’s candidacy as a support of abortion, in anyway.

I realize your ‘personal’ opinion on the matter, but to change my view I need to see it from the Pope. He is the one voice that speaks for all Catholics, from layperson and up through the clergy. And that is my personal opinion, unless someone can provide me the information I am requesting.