Catholics for Ron Paul Coalition

[estesbob]

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’.

.

Perhaps this will help:

“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

Explaining Ratzinger’s "Proportionate Reasons"
Abortion Is the Black Hole of Moral Issues

Jobs? The economy? Taxes? Education? The environment? Immigration? Forget it. We do not have nine million people dying in a typical president’s term of office due to bad job programs, bad economic policies, bad taxes, bad education, bad environmental law, bad immigration rules—or even all of these combined. All of them together cannot provide a reason proportionate to the need to end abortion.

Make no mistake: Abortion is the preeminent moral issue of our time. It is the black hole that out-masses every other issue. Presenting any other issues as if they were proportionate to it is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Jimmy Akin

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0411fea4.asp

**"But [Catholics who support ‘pro-choice’ candidates] also need a compelling proportionate reason tojustify it. What is a ‘proportionate’ reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life - which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed."
*
*

Archbishop Charles Chaput

archden.org/images/Archbi…_webcolumn.pdf

An example of the “proportionate reasons” that would justify voting for a candidate who approved of some abortions would be the case when the only two candidates able to win an election were both in favor of abortion. It is morally permissible to vote for the one who supports fewer abortions than his opponent.

*The Pope and bishops have indicated that other human rights issues, like health, education, and poverty, are not proportionate to abortion and euthanasia. *

Priests for Lfe

priestsforlife.org/electi…ngerletter.htm

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Perhaps this will help:

“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

Explaining Ratzinger’s "Proportionate Reasons"
Abortion Is the Black Hole of Moral Issues

Jobs? The economy? Taxes? Education? The environment? Immigration? Forget it. We do not have nine million people dying in a typical president’s term of office due to bad job programs, bad economic policies, bad taxes, bad education, bad environmental law, bad immigration rules—or even all of these combined. All of them together cannot provide a reason proportionate to the need to end abortion.

Make no mistake: Abortion is the preeminent moral issue of our time. It is the black hole that out-masses every other issue. Presenting any other issues as if they were proportionate to it is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Jimmy Akin

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0411fea4.asp

"But [Catholics who support ‘pro-choice’ candidates] also need a compelling proportionate reason tojustify it. What is a ‘proportionate’ reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life - which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed."
*
*

Archbishop Charles Chaput

archden.org/images/Archbi…_webcolumn.pdf

An example of the “proportionate reasons” that would justify voting for a candidate who approved of some abortions would be the case when the only two candidates able to win an election were both in favor of abortion. It is morally permissible to vote for the one who supports fewer abortions than his opponent.

*The Pope and bishops have indicated that other human rights issues, like health, education, and poverty, are not proportionate to abortion and euthanasia. *

Priests for Lfe

priestsforlife.org/electi…ngerletter.htm

While I have the highest regard for all the people that made the statements in your quoted post above, it lacks direct statements from the Pope from any of them. As I mentioned, the clergy of the Church was divided during the last presidential election.

Also, there didn’t seem to be any support for your personal opinion referencing voting a write in candidate, or a third party candidate?

When we discuss issues that we are at liberty to disagree with the Church on, it leaves one to question why those cannot be proportionate reasons? Let me try and explain what I mean. If we’re at liberty to disagree there seems to be a lack of a declaration of an absolute right, which means I could be right over those I disagree with. If that is the case, wouldn’t I be absolutely right?

Looking at the scenario of two pro-abortion candidates makes me question why the deaths of other reasons cannot be ‘weighed’ as proportionate reasons? It’s more a hypothetical type question, since in recent years we have nothing to compare it too, thank God.

Last, as a staunch Ron Paul supporter, what if I find no candidate worth voting for in the general election? I’ve said I was looking at Rick Perry as a second choice, but am not sure I will totally get on board with him. I’ve already discounted Romney and Bachmann from getting my support, and to be honest there’s no one out there right now that I feel comfortable with. I’m not a ‘lesser of two evils’ kind of person. Remember what Christ said about a house divided, the lesser of two evils reminds me of that.

 

[gilliam]

Ron Paul: Federal Reserve Is “Counterfeiting” Money: "The Founders felt pretty strongly about counterfeiting. I … t.co/sW440hO

And they would know, ever heard of Not worth a Continental? Some history:

… typical of the paper money issued by the Continental Congress to pay for the costs of the American Revolution. Due to over-issue and lack of confidence in the government, the notes were soon nearly worthless-“not worth a continental.” Eventually, Congress redeemed them at 1/100th of their original value in bonds, which did not mature until 1811.
historywired.si.edu/object.cfm?ID=437

 

[1holycatholic]

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’.

The paraphrase of Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement approved and promulgated by Pope John Paul II is deliberately misleading and off topic. Further, the malicious charges against the episcopate are without merit.

Drop it and get back on topic.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The paraphrase of Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement approved and promulgated by Pope John Paul II is deliberately misleading and off topic. Further, the malicious charges against the episcopate are without merit.

Drop it and get back on topic.

Thank you for your concern, but your omission of part of my quote (see below) specifically addresses the topic of the thread, Catholics for Ron Paul Coalition, and was in direct response to concerns another poster brought up. I am Catholic and I am for Ron Paul. As a Catholic, I want to make sure I am in line with Church teachings, and depend on fellow Catholics for guidance since there are so many resources out there, and I cannot look them all up myself.

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.

If you read through you’ll see some have brought up that Ron may not run as a third party candidate, and I am seeking advice and resources on a situation that I may decide to write him in as a choice in the general election if I don’t find another candidate I can be comfortable in supporting.

I just got in from a 16 hour shift (got off early because I have two days of continuing education to complete over the next two days, which is required for the paramedic course that starts on Monday). I’ll check in as I can to see what people have come up with. Thanks for understanding and prayers for the upcoming course would be greatly appreciated.

 

[1holycatholic]

Thank you for your concern, but your omission of part of my quote (see below) specifically addresses the topic of the thread, Catholics for Ron Paul Coalition, and was in direct response to concerns another poster brought up. I am Catholic and I am for Ron Paul.

So what? Someone your post the Unabomber’s manifesto and write “I like Ron Paul.” at the end of the post. That doesn’t mean the Unabomber’s manifesto is relevant to the thread.

As a Catholic, I want to make sure I am in line with Church teachings, and depend on fellow Catholics for guidance since there are so many resources out there, and I cannot look them all up myself.

It is not that hard. Avoid dissenting Catholic publications like the National Catholic Reporter, America etc. and go right to vatican.va. You’ll find that things like “proportionate reasons” are well defined and that the only confusion over Church teaching is sown by the politics of dissent.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

While I have the highest regard for all the people that made the statements in your quoted post above, it lacks direct statements from the Pope from any of them. As I mentioned, the clergy of the Church was divided during the last presidential election.

Also, there didn’t seem to be any support for your personal opinion referencing voting a write in candidate, or a third party candidate?

When we discuss issues that we are at liberty to disagree with the Church on, it leaves one to question why those cannot be proportionate reasons? Let me try and explain what I mean. If we’re at liberty to disagree there seems to be a lack of a declaration of an absolute right, which means I could be right over those I disagree with. If that is the case, wouldn’t I be absolutely right?

Looking at the scenario of two pro-abortion candidates makes me question why the deaths of other reasons cannot be ‘weighed’ as proportionate reasons? It’s more a hypothetical type question, since in recent years we have nothing to compare it too, thank God.

Last, as a staunch Ron Paul supporter, what if I find no candidate worth voting for in the general election? I’ve said I was looking at Rick Perry as a second choice, but am not sure I will totally get on board with him. I’ve already discounted Romney and Bachmann from getting my support, and to be honest there’s no one out there right now that I feel comfortable with. I’m not a ‘lesser of two evils’ kind of person. Remember what Christ said about a house divided, the lesser of two evils reminds me of that.

The USCCB has the Definitive Principles in evaluating Candidates; never on One Issue like alleged pro-life. The USCCB FAITHFUL CITIZEN : Inherent Evils and secondary issues. I voted a leadtv offensive 3rd party candidate in 2008, because the Main Candidates had Too Many Inherent Evils. It’s the Best Voting Guide I’ve Ever seen, and 100% Catholic Morality.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

This thread is wandering off topic. Please return to the topic of the thread

Also please keep your posts charitable here.

 

[ishii]

Yes. He will not be running.

Now that he has apparently declared that he will not run as a 3rd party candidate, the question of his viability is moot. It remains to be seen how many die-hard Ron Paul supporters write-in Ron Paul on their ballots, in a fit of perfectionism. In any event, the number of those who actually write in Ron Paul would seem to be so miniscule and inconsequential as to not warrant any further discussion of Ron Paul’s candidacy.

Ishii

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Perhaps this will help:

“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

Explaining Ratzinger’s "Proportionate Reasons"
Abortion Is the Black Hole of Moral Issues

Jobs? The economy? Taxes? Education? The environment? Immigration? Forget it. We do not have nine million people dying in a typical president’s term of office due to bad job programs, bad economic policies, bad taxes, bad education, bad environmental law, bad immigration rules—or even all of these combined. All of them together cannot provide a reason proportionate to the need to end abortion.

Make no mistake: Abortion is the preeminent moral issue of our time. It is the black hole that out-masses every other issue. Presenting any other issues as if they were proportionate to it is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Jimmy Akin

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0411fea4.asp

"But [Catholics who support ‘pro-choice’ candidates] also need a compelling proportionate reason tojustify it. What is a ‘proportionate’ reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life - which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed."
*
*

Archbishop Charles Chaput

archden.org/images/Archbi…_webcolumn.pdf

An example of the “proportionate reasons” that would justify voting for a candidate who approved of some abortions would be the case when the only two candidates able to win an election were both in favor of abortion. It is morally permissible to vote for the one who supports fewer abortions than his opponent.

*The Pope and bishops have indicated that other human rights issues, like health, education, and poverty, are not proportionate to abortion and euthanasia. *

Priests for Lfe

priestsforlife.org/electi…ngerletter.htm

The ** [SIGN]USCCB Faithful Citizen Voter guide Specifically states NOT to Vote One Issue /SIGN**, but consider All Inherent Evils of Each Candidate. That is The Policy of the Pope and Catholic Church, here by the USCCBs

 

[AntalKalnoky]

While I have the highest regard for all the people that made the statements in your quoted post above, it lacks direct statements from the Pope from any of them. As I mentioned, the clergy of the Church was divided during the last presidential election.

Also, there didn’t seem to be any support for your personal opinion referencing voting a write in candidate, or a third party candidate?

When we discuss issues that we are at liberty to disagree with the Church on, it leaves one to question why those cannot be proportionate reasons? Let me try and explain what I mean. If we’re at liberty to disagree there seems to be a lack of a declaration of an absolute right, which means I could be right over those I disagree with. If that is the case, wouldn’t I be absolutely right?

Looking at the scenario of two pro-abortion candidates makes me question why the deaths of other reasons cannot be ‘weighed’ as proportionate reasons? It’s more a hypothetical type question, since in recent years we have nothing to compare it too, thank God.

Last, as a staunch Ron Paul supporter, what if I find no candidate worth voting for in the general election? I’ve said I was looking at Rick Perry as a second choice, but am not sure I will totally get on board with him. I’ve already discounted Romney and Bachmann from getting my support, and to be honest there’s no one out there right now that I feel comfortable with. I’m not a ‘lesser of two evils’ kind of person. Remember what Christ said about a house divided, the lesser of two evils reminds me of that.

The Position of The Catholic Church, and The Pope, are in the USCCB Conscientous Voter Guide. It covers All topics ideally. The Church does not support Any Party, nor any One Issue.

 

[ANNE_2]

There is no proportionate reason in the USA at this time in history for voting for a pro-abortion politician.
The murder of ONE MILLION innocent babies in this Country each year is genocide.

The USCCB is not the Magisterium of the Church. It exists to serve all US Bishops, which unfortunately it does not always do - but rather the political beliefs of some Committees and Staff. One example is helping to fund pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage groups (prior to 2010).

For the role of Bishops’ Conferences -
catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-bishops-conferences-should-serve-bishops-not-replace-them/

 

[AntalKalnoky]

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

Correct obviously, but The Church and Catholic Bishops are Totally Against Capital Punishment, as Every Nation in Europe and all but a Half Dozen backward morality Nations are… Recent Years, Texas had more Capital Punishments than China had. The USA had No Armed Aggressors, but a few Saudi’s. The USA has had no Armed Aggressors since 1812, then Dec 7 1941. Our Pre-planned in 1999 Military Conquest of Iraq had Zero true Justification; NONE. They were Zero threat to us or Neighbors: BBC Detailed reports from Every Iraqi Neighbor, before we attacked.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

There is no proportionate reason in the USA at this time in history for voting for a pro-abortion politician.
The murder of ONE MILLION innocent babies in this Country each year is genocide.

The USCCB is not the Magisterium of the Church. It exists to serve all US Bishops, which unfortunately it does not always do - but rather the political beliefs of some Committees and Staff. One example is helping to fund pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage groups (prior to 2010).

For the role of Bishops’ Conferences -
catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-bishops-conferences-should-serve-bishops-not-replace-them/

The USCCB is the Moral Authority of The Bishops of the USA; It is The Moral and legal “Magesterium” in the USA in Agreement with the Vatican and Magesterium, to which every Catholic Bishop/Clergyman must abide, and every American Should. The USCCB does not serve the political beliefs of some staff; sorry about the Misunderstanding. The Apostles also did not Decide Policy based on some disciples opinions, or most Rabbi’s: The Council of Jerusalem.

 

[Robert_Bay]

Final moderator notice

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So what? Someone your post the Unabomber’s manifesto and write “I like Ron Paul.” at the end of the post. That doesn’t mean the Unabomber’s manifesto is relevant to the thread.

It is not that hard. Avoid dissenting Catholic publications like the National Catholic Reporter, America etc. and go right to vatican.va. You’ll find that things like “proportionate reasons” are well defined and that the only confusion over Church teaching is sown by the politics of dissent.

I think it’s an unfair comparison to use the unabomber and, the candidate, Ron Paul. I was energized, as the article states his supporters are, by Ron’s pro-life stance during the last election. While the other candidates were too busy, Ron found the time to attend the right to life campaign that took place in the nation’s capital prior to the last presidential election. Then researching his own experiences in the healthcare profession and voting record on life issues, I was convinced this was truly a pro-life candidate. It’s was hard for me to understand how so many couldn’t see it and pushed other candidates as the best choice. It seemed other issues, or proportionate reasons, had influenced their decisions early on in the nomination process.

The other issues made the selection process seem hypocritical after the election, with the many accusations of wrongful selection rising among Catholics. That’s helped me to get an earlier start on the selection process this coming presidential election. It is confusing to see a support for a pro-life candidate be an issue discussed with the same disdain as some use against the pro-abortion candidates. It’s hard to understand why that is. I mean I’ve voiced an opinion supporting a candidate that is in line with the teachings, even though I question the many different interpretations of the same documents provided by the Church. I feel like my support for Ron Paul is being treated as if I were supporting a pro-abortion candidate. This only makes me want to dig deeper into the many interpretations.

Thanks, I have that page bookmarked and visit it fairly often; however, there are many documents and it would be easy to overlook specific writings that address the issues we discuss. That’s why I depend on the help of other Catholics who provide direct links to the subjects we discuss.

Political dissent seems to have no particular partisan boundaries. There seems to be bias in a lot of these discussions. That pushes me toward avoiding the elections altogether and leaving my trust in Him, but then I’m told that is against Church teachings. I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer and seek all the help I can to make a decision pleasing to Him. It seems no matter what I decide, I cannot please all the people.

 

[1holycatholic]

Correct obviously, but The Church and Catholic Bishops are Totally Against Capital Punishment, as Every Nation in Europe and all but a Half Dozen backward morality Nations are… Recent Years, Texas had more Capital Punishments than China had.

Cardinal Ratzinger was correct in articulating Church doctrine which is not “totally against” capital punishment.

 

[1holycatholic]

ANNE 2;8255189:

There is no proportionate reason in the USA at this time in history for voting for a pro-abortion politician.
The murder of ONE MILLION innocent babies in this Country each year is genocide.

The USCCB is not the Magisterium of the Church. It exists to serve all US Bishops, which unfortunately it does not always do - but rather the political beliefs of some Committees and Staff. One example is helping to fund pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage groups (prior to 2010).

For the role of Bishops’ Conferences -
catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-bishops-conferences-should-serve-bishops-not-replace-them/

The USCCB is the Moral Authority of The Bishops of the USA; It is The Moral and legal “Magesterium” in the USA in Agreement with the Vatican and Magesterium, to which every Catholic Bishop/Clergyman must abide, and every American Should. The USCCB does not serve the political beliefs of some staff; sorry about the Misunderstanding. The Apostles also did not Decide Policy based on some disciples opinions, or most Rabbi’s: The Council of Jerusalem.

That’s not accurate. A bishop’s conference does not constitute a mini-magisterium.
“No episcopal conference, as such, has a teaching mission: its documents have no weight of their own save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops.”

• Cardinal Ratzinger
  And bishop’s conferences aren’t necessarily in agreement with the Vatican. The WInnipeg Statement is an example of that.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I guess some confessors or other told the Kennedys that it was okay to promote abortion, too. Probably Pelosi found one of those as well. And Biden.

Considering that my confessor is a Navy Chaplain assigned to the Marines, theologically dogmatic, and politically conservative, I don’t think he shares this perspective. He has chastized the entire parish, during the Easter homily, about how many Obama bumper stickers he saw in the church parking lot, and reminded us of what the man stood for. And yes, this is the same confessor who, quite literally, told me that anyone who says that I am wasting my vote by voting on principle is a hack and should be ignored. His words, not mine.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

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

No. The people who vote for Barack Obama will help re-elect Barack Obama. No more, no less.