I see, it’s a political conspiracy, not a matter of complying with the teaching of the Church on morals.
Again, it is not trumping abortion. No one is having an abortion in the voting booth.
People are not so blind as to think there is not a pandering by some politicians, and even their supporters, for other issues.I see, it’s a political conspiracy, not a matter of complying with the teaching of the Church on morals.
The Church teaching on morality is what it is. Many freely and knowingly dissent from it and condemn themselves.
The fact that no one is having an abortion in the voting booth only eliminates the potential for proximal material cooperation with evil.
That’s not the criteria. The proportional reason is “limiting the harm” (i.e. limiting abortion as much as possible) and therefore the appropriate candidate would be the one best able to reduce or eliminate abortion, which is not necessarily the most avid anti-abortionist.
Oh please! The Church is not pandering.
Another distortion, and false presentation, clearly noted and justifies my decision not to respond to such tactics. Those many I referred to were politicians and their supporters in some cases. The parts you omitted in quoting my post can be seen below.Oh please! The Church is not pandering.
The distortion not only proves my points, it solidifies me in my view.
There is no distortion. There are those who resent that Church teaching on morality precisely because it excludes particular candidates when voting. The MSM goes apoplectic when a bishop proclaims Church teaching on morality and voting for precisely this reason.
While you can argue your interpretation of Church documents, you cannot argue what I write. I am here to provide the explanation of what I said. So I can say, you clearly distorted what I said, and I provided the entire quote showing what you omitted.
They do. You have repeatedly denied what the pope has written and impugned how he has discharged his office.
You are claiming that Church teaching on morals constitutes a political agenda.
Thanks be to God.
That is my understanding, though I think the first is a rarity for Catholics, as no good Catholic would vote in order to promote abortion. As no candidate from any party has been effective in stopping abortion, I think the last two are the most common problems. I, for one, have never voted for a person who supports this evil, but I know in my economic choices, I am not innocent.
Yes, it is. Any time you add to what another poster said, like inserting the name of the Pope where the poster did not use it, it is spin. When the poster mentions that some use morality to pander and you respond claiming that the statement means that the Church is using morality to pander, then that is spin. As a rule, if you have to change the words of someone else and plug in names and nouns where none were used, then it changes what someone said and should not be done.
So pro-abortion Catholic politicians are “no good” Catholics for enacting pro-abortion labels, but the Catholics who voted for them knowing they would do so are good Catholics?
Perhaps. But at this level of judgement, we can only examine ourselves, especially if we are talking about active Catholics.
When a poster is referring to statements made by the pope, noting that it was written by the pope is not spin.
Oh? The moral standards under discussion are those articulated by the Church. Politicians aren’t authorities on morality, the Church is. Voting in accord with Catholic moral teaching excludes some candidates from consideration. That’s not pandering.
I see, so mentioning that the document defining doctrine that is being rejected was written by the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and carries that authority shouldn’t be expressed. Gotcha
Then Cardinal Ratzinger’s document is not a matter for dispute and distortion such as Prodigal Son1 has done by stating that a Catholic who disapproves of abortion can vote for anyone they like.
Thank you pnewton. I often reread my posts. I realize it’s not easy conveying thoughts through a written forum, and will go to great lengths to try and express corrections of what I wrote, when I see confusing responses. When I see my explanations rejected and the same statements repeated, I suspect the reason is not with what I wrote.
He has, through His Catholic Church.
If that were always the case then what would you say about a choice between these two candidates:
It’s not my reasoning, it’s Church teaching.
I don’t think this is a fair description of the position 1holycatholic has taken. Given that we are told (and 1HC has acknowledged this) that one may support a pro-abortion politician for proportionate reasons, clearly individual judgment is involved and is acceptable. There is no exact formula which we must blindly follow nor has it been suggested that one exists. The reason the less-than-precisely-defined term “proportionate reasons” exists is precisely because no specific direction can be given that would cover all possibilities. The individual must use his own judgment. That said, however, it does not imply that because the individual gets to choose his choice is valid simply because it is his to make.
There are several concepts intertwined within the overall discussion but it does seem that the overriding question is about the real life circumstances we face and not about the (rare) marginal calls.
There is no absolute rule - but there are concrete examples. If, for example, we cannot decide how the guidelines should have been applied in the last presidential election then I think it is safe to say that the guidelines were absolutely meaningless or (as I think 1HC alleges) they were disobeyed or ignored on a massive scale.
Yes.
