Cruz Thread

[Crossbones]

And fortunately, as I have posted, the Magestrium has told us what those issues are. How much clearer can it get than “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,” "

It seems that all the bishops do not agree with Cardinal Burke or Bishop Kicalas would have answered the questions put to him differently.

 

[Crossbones]

With the help of Republican elected officials and the hard work of those involved in the pro-life ministry abortions have decreased by almost a half million per year since 1975. All this was done in spite of the unified opposition of the Democrat party. So if the democrat party is supposedly for the little man why have they not eliminated poverty? Why are they not held to the same standards on poverty that Republicans are on abortion?

I wonder if the small efforts in legislation made by Republican elected officials are making a difference. After all, New York is seeing a big dropoff and I doubt there is a legislative hurdle that has been introduced.

 

[DeniseNY]

With the help of Republican elected officials and the hard work of those involved in the pro-life ministry abortions have decreased by almost a half million per year since 1975. All this was done in spite of the unified opposition of the Democrat party. So if the democrat party is supposedly for the little man why have they not eliminated poverty? Why are they not held to the same standards on poverty that Republicans are on abortion?

 

[estesbob]

It seems that all the bishops do not agree with Cardinal Burke or Bishop Kicalas would have answered the questions put to him differently.

Then you should have no problem quoting any member of the Magestrium who agrees with you and what these mystery issues are that would allow a Catholic to vote for a pro abortion candidate. As usual in this debate one side cites direct quotes from the Magestrium and Church documents-all we get in reply is personal interpretation of voters guides and an interview a Bishop gave.

 

[estesbob]

I wonder if the small efforts in legislation made by Republican elected officials are making a difference. After all, New York is seeing a big dropoff and I doubt there is a legislative hurdle that has been introduced.

New York is seing a big drop off because of the activities of those involved in the Pro-life ministry. Thank God the Democrats were unable to shut down the CPCs as they tried so hard to do.

 

[Crossbones]

Then you should have no problem quoting any member of the Magestrium who agrees with you and what these mystery issues are that would allow a Catholic to vote for a pro abortion candidate. As usual in this debate one side cites direct quotes from the Magestrium and Church documents-all we get in reply is personal interpretation of voters guides and an interview a Bishop gave.

I thought the bishop was part of the Magestrium.

 

[Crossbones]

New York is seing a big drop off because of the activities of those involved in the Pro-life ministry. Thank God the Democrats were unable to shut down the CPCs as they tried so hard to do.

Perhaps.

I am surprised because I thought the pro-life legislation that has been introduced in some states may have something to do with it, but New York would be the counterpoint to that example. Perhaps the minor legislation isn’t all that big of a factor. We should keep an eye out for comparison’s sake.

 

[estesbob]

I thought the bishop was part of the Magestrium.

He said nothing that contradicted anything any other member said. In fact he affirmed that we can not vote for a pro-abortion candidate unless their opponent is more pro-abortion than they are. and he is correct-it is a difficult decision for people like myself to vote for a candidate who supports abortion in cases of rape and incest but I do so because their opponent is far worse. Some can not even bring themselves to make this decision and sit the election out. So yes, the Bishop is correct, the decision is very tough for those of who adhere to the teachings of the Church.

 

[Crossbones]

He said nothing that contradicted anything any other member said. In fact he affirmed that we can not vote for a pro-abortion candidate unless their opponent is more pro-abortion than they are. and he is correct-it is a difficult decision for people like myself to vote for a candidate who supports abortion in cases of rape and incest but I do so because their opponent is far worse. Some can not even bring themselves to make this decision and sit the election out. So yes, the Bishop is correct, the decision is very tough for those of who adhere to the teachings of the Church.

How did he affirm that you cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate unless their opponent is more pro-abortion than they are? I did not get that from reading what he said at all.

 

[estesbob]

How did he affirm that you cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate unless their opponent is more pro-abortion than they are? I did not get that from reading what he said at all.

If you can post anything other than your opinion please do so. I have

 

[Lily_Bernans]

How did he affirm that you cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate unless their opponent is more pro-abortion than they are? I did not get that from reading what he said at all.

I didn’t get that from my reading of it, either.

 

[estesbob]

I didn’t get that from my reading of it, either.

I posted a half dozen direct quotes-in return we got ones peronsla opinion of what one bishop said. This is what is mewant by rationalization. it would be helpful if spmeone would tell us what these mystery issues are that allows a catholic to vote for a pro-abortion canidate,

Meanwhile consider this:

*For 35 years I’ve watched thousands of good Catholic laypeople, clergy and religious struggle to recover some form of legal protection for the unborn child. The abortion lobby has fought every compromise and every legal restriction on abortion, every step of the way. Apparently they believe in their convictions more than some of us Catholics believe in ours. And I think that’s an indictment of an entire generation of American Catholic leadership.The abortion conflict has never simply been about repealing Roe v. Wade. And the many pro-lifers I know live a much deeper kind of discipleship than ‘‘single issue’’ politics. But they do understand that the cornerstone of Catholic social teaching is protecting human life from conception to natural death. They do understand that every other human right depends on the right to life. They did not and do not and will not give up - and they won’t be lied to. *

Archbishop Charles Chaput

 

[Crossbones]

I posted a half dozen direct quotes-in return we got ones peronsla opinion of what one bishop said. This is what is mewant by rationalization. it would be helpful if spmeone would tell us what these mystery issues are that allows a catholic to vote for a pro-abortion canidate,

Meanwhile consider this:

For 35 years I’ve watched thousands of good Catholic laypeople, clergy and religious struggle to recover some form of legal protection for the unborn child. The abortion lobby has fought every compromise and every legal restriction on abortion, every step of the way. Apparently they believe in their convictions more than some of us Catholics believe in ours. And I think that’s an indictment of an entire generation of American Catholic leadership.The abortion conflict has never simply been about repealing Roe v. Wade. And the many pro-lifers I know live a much deeper kind of discipleship than ‘‘single issue’’ politics. But they do understand that the cornerstone of Catholic social teaching is protecting human life from conception to natural death. They do understand that every other human right depends on the right to life. They did not and do not and will not give up - and they won’t be lied to.

Archbishop Charles Chaput

What does this have to do with whether or not Bishop Kicalas said what you claim he said?

 

[TMC]

Of course they have:

he Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. …] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. …] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).

Pope Benedict XVI

“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,”

“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”

Cardinal Burke

In considering “the sum total of social conditions,” there is, however, a certain order of priority, which must be followed. Conditions upon which other conditions depend must receive our first consideration. The first consideration must be given to the protection of human life itself, without which it makes no sense to consider other social conditions. “The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2273).

Cardinal Burke

]Note that “proportionate reasons’] does not mean simply weighing a wide range of issues against abortion and euthanasia and concluding that they cumulatively outweigh the evil of taking an innocent life. Rather, for there to be proportionate reasons, the voter would have to be convinced that the candidate who supports abortion rights would actually do more than the opposing candidate to limit the harm of abortion or to reduce the number of abortions

Bishop Joseph A. Galante

There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life. That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not.

"Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.

"The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.

“The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry). Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and introduces legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils, which is morally permissible under these circumstances.”

Bishop Rene Gracida

What are “proportionate reasons”? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong . . . .

What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a “proportionate reason” to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation’s labs?

Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate

Archbishop John J. Myers

What is a proportionate reason to justify favoring the taking of an innocent, defenseless human life? That’s the question that has to be answered in your conscience. What is the proportionate reason? . . . It is difficult to imagine what that proportionate reason would be

Cardinal Burke

If the question is whether Cardinal Burke has ever said that, then I agree that he has. If the question is whether the Church has ever taught that a Catholic must always vote for the least pro-abortion candidate, that answer is that the Church has never taught that.

 

[TMC]

The post was written by carpenter:

But nobody seems to know how such negotiating would work. For example, what if we were offered $100 billion to become “neutral” with respect to the security of Israel. How would we negotiate on that?

Or what if it was a question of becoming a socialist country?

I don’t agree with the base concept. There is no list of four or five non-negotiable issues, with all of the rest of Catholic teaching left to be “negotiable”.

 

[TMC]

Then you should have no problem quoting any member of the Magestrium who agrees with you and what these mystery issues are that would allow a Catholic to vote for a pro abortion candidate. As usual in this debate one side cites direct quotes from the Magestrium and Church documents-all we get in reply is personal interpretation of voters guides and an interview a Bishop gave.

The Pope has been quoted as denying the very concept that certain issues are non-negotiable, and you simply dismiss that. Similarly, the USCCB says that Catholics should not be single issue voters, and you dismiss that. Not sure what authority you would find acceptable.

 

[estesbob]

The Pope has been quoted as denying the very concept that certain issues are non-negotiable, and you simply dismiss that. Similarly, the USCCB says that Catholics should not be single issue voters, and you dismiss that. Not sure what authority you would find acceptable.

Actually he said that there are more than four or five. The authority I find acceptable is the magisterium of the Catholic Church. I have posted numerous documents" backing up my position and all I’ve gotten return his opinions of what people think a bishop really meant . Of course the bishop didn’t say what they say but that’s okay because being Catholic and Democrat always always a matter of constant rationalization as to why it’s okay to vote in support of evil

 

[Crossbones]

Actually he said that there are more than four or five. The authority I find acceptable is the magisterium of the Catholic Church. I have posted numerous documents" backing up my position and all I’ve gotten return his opinions of what people think a bishop really meant . Of course the bishop didn’t say what they say but that’s okay because being Catholic and Democrat always always a matter of constant rationalization as to why it’s okay to vote in support of evil

Actually, I provided a quote from the Magisterium and you said what he really meant.

 

[TMC]

Actually he said that there are more than four or five. The authority I find acceptable is the magisterium of the Catholic Church. I have posted numerous documents" backing up my position and all I’ve gotten return his opinions of what people think a bishop really meant . Of course the bishop didn’t say what they say but that’s okay because being Catholic and Democrat always always a matter of constant rationalization as to why it’s okay to vote in support of evil

Sigh, I guess the Pope and the bishops are no longer members of the magisterium. That’s okay, I know that many Catholic Republicans are in constant rationalization as to why one single issue makes it okay for them to continue to support the GOP.

 

[Peter_J]

Actually he said that there are more than four or five. The authority I find acceptable is the magisterium of the Catholic Church. I have posted numerous documents" backing up my position and all I’ve gotten return his opinions of what people think a bishop really meant . Of course the bishop didn’t say what they say but that’s okay because being Catholic and Democrat always always a matter of constant rationalization as to why it’s okay to vote in support of evil

I wish I understood it as well. But to be honest, after I heard that Bill Donohue (president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, for anyone not already familiar) came out in support of Donald Trump, I pretty much gave up on trying to understand such things.