Do you think that a Catholic who supports a pro-choice candidate is a heretic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael038
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, people who vote for Pro-Abortion politicians are not heretics, not in mortal sin(however,it is possible) to say they are heretics is radical and against what the Bishops, including Cardinal Ratzinger said.

Please, don’t tell anyone they are heretics for voting, that is just uncharitable and incorrect.

“When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.” - Cardinal Ratzinger
 
Yes, I think very few people are pro-abortion, so that argument is invalid. I personally think “pro-life” is a misnomer when some of the proponents would happily let both mother and child die needlessly rather than let the mother live. I believe in life after birth not just before it
Click to expand...
You ‘think’ this, you ‘think’ that, you make accusations not just that people would ‘choose’ to 'let both mother and child die needlessly" but happily choose yet? This is rank speculation and fantasy here, and perjorative to others as well.

It does strike me that platitudes and assumptions that pro-life people are some kind of punitive whackos who either want to ‘force’ poor innocent victims to give birth and then just ‘walk away’ leaving again these poor victims to a lifetime of ‘misery’ and ‘poor quality of life’ etc., or ‘happily’ allow both mother and child to die in a self-righteous aura of “we cannot allow choice” are hugely sweeping and biased generalizations that unfairly condemn and stigmatize a great number of people.

Further, it attempts to neatly deflect the deaths of millions of children as being either illusions (they weren’t really children before birth, now were they?); or sad but hey, better that they don’t have to ‘suffer’ a poor quality life because of some nasty ‘Christians’ condemning them to such; or out and out falsehoods by Christians attempting, in some sort of conspiracy, to blatantly superimpose ‘our’ morality and ‘opinion’ regarding the question of the beginning of life onto other people, who, of course, are entitled to hold opposing ‘morality’ and ‘opinion’.
 
mary_bobo said:
Please give examples of medical conditions which would make this necessary. That’s a pretty sweeping statement.
Click to expand...
It’s not a sweeping statement at all! It’s a very specific statement. It’s been a while since I learnt any obstetric medicine but off the top of my head serious lfe-threatening medical problems caused by pregnancy include pre-eclampsia for example - the second highest cause of pregnancy-related mortality after thromboembolic disease. This develops after 20 weeks when the foetus can be delivered and have a chance (albeit slim in some cases) of surviving. The only treatment is delivery regardless of what chance the foetus has of surviving at that stage of development.
Plus there are all sorts of pre-exisiting conditions that would make pregnancy life-threatening.
 
You ‘think’ this, you ‘think’ that, you make accusations not just that people would ‘choose’ to 'let both mother and child die needlessly" but happily choose yet? This is rank speculation and fantasy here, and perjorative to others as well.
Click to expand...
It’s not speculation or fantasy at all. Look at the replies made to some of my posts and you will see I am accurately representing the position of some “pro-lifers”.
Yes I do think - is that such a monstrous thing to do?
Is it a mortal or venial sin?
By denying “pro-lifers” take this position, are you in denial or merely haven’t read the posts on this board?
 
Spence06 said:
No, people who vote for Pro-Abortion politicians are not heretics, not in mortal sin(however,it is possible) to say they are heretics is radical and against what the Bishops, including Cardinal Ratzinger said.

Please, don’t tell anyone they are heretics for voting, that is just uncharitable and incorrect.

“When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.” - Cardinal Ratzinger
Click to expand...
The key here is proportionate reasons. It seems to me many think what constitutes proportionate reasons are not what the Church teaches are proportionate.
 
fix said:
The key here is proportionate reasons. It seems to me many think what constitutes proportionate reasons are not what the Church teaches are proportionate.
Click to expand...
I agree but to say those who vote for pro-abortion candidate is a heretic, is not true. You can explain it how Cardinal Ratzinger did because earlier in the same letter in 2003, he said that if vote for the reason the person is pro-abortion, that is a formal cooperation in evil and may render the person unworthy to receive communion.
 
jack_hawkins said:
Yes, I think very few people are pro-abortion, so that argument is invalid. I personally think “pro-life” is a misnomer when some of the proponents would happily let both mother and child die needlessly rather than let the mother live. I believe in life after birth not just before it!👍
Click to expand...
By the same token, “pro-choice” is also a misnomer when almost all proponents follow the logic that the fetus must die in order for the mother to live.
 
Spence06 said:
I agree but to say those who vote for pro-abortion candidate is a heretic, is not true. You can explain it how Cardinal Ratzinger did because earlier in the same letter in 2003, he said that if vote for the reason the person is pro-abortion, that is a formal cooperation in evil and may render the person unworthy to receive communion.
Click to expand...
I guess my point is if proportionate reasons do not exist remote material cooperation would be illicit. I find on this issue folks find it easy to justify supporting a pro abortion candidate using faulty moral reasoning. Cardinal Ratzinger’s words are often misinterpreted.
 
fix said:
I guess my point is if proportionate reasons do not exist remote material cooperation would be illicit. I find on this issue folks find it easy to justify supporting a pro abortion candidate using faulty moral reasoning. Cardinal Ratzinger’s words are often misinterpreted.
Click to expand...
Correct. “Proportionate reasons” does not mean we can vote for a pro-abortionist because he favors more public housing. It means if our choice is between two pro-abortionists, we can vote for the lesser of two evils.

If there is a pro-life candidate running, we cannot vote for a pro-abortionist or “pro-choice” candidate.
 
I have yet never heard anyone give a direct answer to this question…

Abortion is the “only issue”. Please name me any other combination of issues which have murdered over 45,000,000 people since 1973 in America?
 
vern_humphrey said:
Correct. “Proportionate reasons” does not mean we can vote for a pro-abortionist because he favors more public housing. It means if our choice is between two pro-abortionists, we can vote for the lesser of two evils.

If there is a pro-life candidate running, we cannot vote for a pro-abortionist or “pro-choice” candidate.
Click to expand...
I think the last presidential election is a perfect example. Both candidates were pro abortion. Kerry was just just more pro abortion than Bush. Bush was the lesser of two evils.
 
This is not Church teaching (i think) but it is what I think I am responsible for when I vote:

Prudential discussions are trumped when they get in the way of proclaiming the Truth. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. To vote for someone for any prudential reason who supports the murder of the innocent in the womb as a legal right puts me in opposition of the Holy Spirit.

We cannot do evil.
We must not turn away from Jesus.
To vote in opposition to His teaching is to turn away from Him. Following The Truth should be more important to me than any prudential concern, even saving lives.

It really matters what someone says, even if you think it is all politics, as a Christian my word should be my bond and I believe I will be answerable to it before Jesus if I vote for someone who proclaims against the Truth.
 
vern_humphrey said:
Deflection, how?

Do you deny that about 12,000,000 innocent people perished in the Nazi Holocaust – roughly half Jews, and the other half gypsies, Polish Catholics, and the handicapped?

Do you deny that the abortion holocaust – in this country, alone – has killed about four times as many innocent people?

That being the case, how can anyone who knows what’s going on stand by and pretend a great evil is not happening?
Click to expand...
Geez! We’re not talking about the Jewish Holocaust here Vern. Stay focused! All I did was explain why Pro-Choice is a more accurate title than Pro-Abortion, which is a Pro-Life rhetoric term. I’m well aware of your feelings about abortion, and thats fine you feel the way you do.

As I explained before, the majority of Pro-Choice folks IMO are personally against abortion, but they also feel their personal feelings should not be thrust on others who don’t agree. Currently, the federal court system agrees with that position, and perhaps someday they will change their position or at least modify it, but until then, it’s the law of the land. Women have the “choice”, as abhorrent as that may be to you and me (in most circumstances).
 
Iowa_Mike said:
Are you kidding? Pro-Choice = Pro-Abortion, nothing more and nothing less, so why the sensitivity about the label? Why do you object to calling a spade a spade? The words Pro-Choice were coined by the pro-abortion crowd and feminists to hide the horrific nature of abortion behind a slick ‘tag line’ and is designed to put the uninformed to sleep. At a party instead of saying, “Hey I support pulling a baby out of the womb by the feet and crushing its head, that’s cool”. Instead they can raise their wine glasses and say, “Hey, I support a woman’s right to choose”. We need to stop with the political correct stuff and call abortion by what it is…abortion, child murder, infanticide…whatever. Maybe if some of those sensitive citizens saw an abortion first hand they may not be so passive. Always keep in mind the only participant in an abortion that does not have a choice is the baby. I call people who personally oppose but publicly support abortion…cowards!

Iowa Mike
Click to expand...
That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. The Pro-Abortion title is nothing but Pro-Life rhetoric. IMO, Abortion is horrific and should be outlawed, except possibly in some very narrowly defined circumstances (don’t ask, I’m not getting into that debate, yet again). However, Pro-Choice doesn’t equal Pro-Abortion IMO for the reasons I’ve given already.
 
mikew262 said:
Geez! We’re not talking about the Jewish Holocaust here Vern. Stay focused!
Click to expand...
Geez! We’re talking about something worse than the Jewish Holocaust here Mikey. Stay focused!
mikew262 said:
All I did was explain why Pro-Choice is a more accurate title than Pro-Abortion, which is a Pro-Life rhetoric term. I’m well aware of your feelings about abortion, and thats fine you feel the way you do.
Click to expand...
And I pointed out how many people in Germany knew and tacitly approved of the Holocaust. And those who know and tacitly approve of our Holocaust are as guilty as they are.
mikew262 said:
As I explained before, the majority of Pro-Choice folks IMO are personally against abortion, but they also feel their personal feelings should not be thrust on others who don’t agree.
Click to expand...
Just like the Germans who didn’t personally shove Jews into the gas chambers, but who tacitly approved of what the Nazis did.
mikew262 said:
Currently, the federal court system agrees with that position, and perhaps someday they will change their position or at least modify it, but until then, it’s the law of the land. Women have the “choice”, as abhorrent as that may be to you and me (in most circumstances).
Click to expand...
Just like the German authorities approved the Holocaust.
 
More people have been murdered through abortion in the U.S. over the last 30 years than those people who were murdered in the Holocaust–itself one of the most evil and horrific ‘mass murders’ of history. Even one person murdered is still one human being tragically deprived of life; millions on millions of people slaughtered before they draw breath are the millions multipled of that same tragedy–murder.

I think more people should be concerned. But maybe not everybody responds to John Donne’s adage–let alone the Ten Commandments–the way that most Christians–indeed, most human beings–responded prior to the ‘enlightened’ mid 20th century ‘doublespeak’ which led to such unbelievable notions to ‘civilized people’ as ‘abortion rights’.
 
Spence06 said:
No, people who vote for Pro-Abortion politicians are not heretics, not in mortal sin(however,it is possible) to say they are heretics is radical and against what the Bishops, including Cardinal Ratzinger said.

Please, don’t tell anyone they are heretics for voting, that is just uncharitable and incorrect.
Click to expand...
Oh, people on this forum love throwing that title around. :rolleyes:
 
mikew262 said:
Nope. I’ve told you the difference. A 5 yr old would see it.
Click to expand...
unfortunately some people just can’t see it:rolleyes:
someone can be for gay rights and not be gay
someone can be for the right to self-defense and be a pacifist
there are so many similar examples
its called “live and let live”
 
vern_humphrey said:
If there is a pro-life candidate running, we cannot vote for a pro-abortionist or “pro-choice” candidate.
Click to expand...
And this is what happens when Religion interferes too much with politics.

One person’s candidate may absolutely represent everything that person believes in except the life vs. choice issue. The pro-life candidate, except for the life vs choice issue, doesn’t have anything else in common with that one person. However, the person is obligated by the Church to vote for the pro-life candidate. Anybody else see a problem here?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top