Election 2012 - Who to vote for?

[bellasbane]

Can you tell us what proportionate reason would allow a catholic to vote for Obama? It would be helpful if you could back it up with direct links to Church Documents and/or members of the magestrium. Like this, for example:

“**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 Edmund Burke

Read the article I link to in my signature. M. Cathleen Kaveny is a brilliant professor of law and theology at Notre Dame.

Of course I respect Cardinal Burke for being a Cardinal and all, but that doesn’t mean I turn off my own head and stop thinking for myself just because of what he says.

I would like to ask him to explain why it is that so many men of the magisterium believe that the government should take over the responsibility of guarding the most vulnerable of human life, when clearly God choose women to do that job?

It is true that some (a very few) women cannot be trusted and are so disordered that they will kill their babies - but that is rare. Most often women protect their children above all else. Most often women who chooses to have an abortion do so out of fear or ignorance. Those are social problems we can fix without violating the natural order.

I don’t think a few disordered women is enough reason to stripe all women of their God-given authority and hand it over to the government, just like I don’t believe a few disordered men is enough reason to stripe all men of the priesthood and throw the vocation open to just anyone.

I would like the bishops to stop spending so much money on lobbying and law suits and start spending more on educating the population and providing charity to the poor. Jesus didn’t use the power of government to coerce people not to sin. Maybe his representatives here on earth should follow his example and get out of politics.

That’s probably all heretical, but if so - I’d like to know why.

 

[Jeffrey]

How incredibly racist of you. My wife is an American Indian and she wholeheartdly disagrees with obama.

I expect nothing less from a lib tho.

Most people who believe Obama’s policies threaten their vision of America are white and men - the same demographic who wrote the Constitution. I don’t think that is a coincidence.

but what is “good for white men”.

 

[estesbob]

Read the article I link to in my signature. M. Cathleen Kaveny is a brilliant professor of law and theology at Notre Dame.

Of course I respect Cardinal Burke for being a Cardinal and all, but that doesn’t mean I turn off my own head and stop thinking for myself just because of what he says.

I would like to ask him to explain why it is that so many men of the magisterium believe that the government should take over the responsibility of guarding the most vulnerable of human life, when clearly God choose women to do that job?

It is true that some (a very few) women cannot be trusted and are so disordered that they will kill their babies - but that is rare. Most often women protect their children above all else. Most often women who chooses to have an abortion do so out of fear or ignorance. Those are social problems we can fix without violating the natural order.

I don’t think a few disordered women is enough reason to stripe all women of their God-given authority and hand it over to the government, just like I don’t believe a few disordered men is enough reason to stripe all men of the priesthood and throw the vocation open to just anyone.

I would like the bishops to stop spending so much money on lobbying and law suits and start spending more on educating the population and providing charity to the poor. Jesus didn’t use the power of government to coerce people not to sin. Maybe his representatives here on earth should follow his example and get out of politics.

That’s probably all heretical, but if so - I’d like to know why.

The discussion at hand is the 2012 election -not your views on the alleged misgonyvof the Catholic Churh. Again what are the proportionate reasons that would allow a Catholic to vote for Obama?
?

 

[RACJ]

George Soros is actively orchestrating the downfall of US currency. Its a game for him and it “turns him on” when he sees democratic countries spun into chaos by his mechinations. The man is an enemy of this country and he needs to be treated as such.

Right, Scott. There is only ONE person who can stop the Soros/Obama orchestrated economic collapse: Mitt Romney. Everyone must unite behind him to save our freedom, or what’s left of it. Rob

 

[stevegravy]

The discussion at hand is the 2012 election -not your views on the alleged misgonyvof the Catholic Churh. Again what are the proportionate reasons that would allow a Catholic to vote for Obama?
?

Really, you need an answer to that question. It is elementary; a catholic will vote for Obama is a catholic living on the government teat and wants more of other people’s money.

Vote for your right to dependency!

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Read the article I link to in my signature. M. Cathleen Kaveny is a brilliant professor of law and theology at Notre Dame.

Of course I respect Cardinal Burke for being a Cardinal and all, but that doesn’t mean I turn off my own head and stop thinking for myself just because of what he says.

I would like to ask him to explain why it is that so many men of the magisterium believe that the government should take over the responsibility of guarding the most vulnerable of human life, when clearly God choose women to do that job?

It is true that some (a very few) women cannot be trusted and are so disordered that they will kill their babies - but that is rare. Most often women protect their children above all else. Most often women who chooses to have an abortion do so out of fear or ignorance. Those are social problems we can fix without violating the natural order.

I don’t think a few disordered women is enough reason to stripe all women of their God-given authority and hand it over to the government, just like I don’t believe a few disordered men is enough reason to stripe all men of the priesthood and throw the vocation open to just anyone.

I would like the bishops to stop spending so much money on lobbying and law suits and start spending more on educating the population and providing charity to the poor. Jesus didn’t use the power of government to coerce people not to sin. Maybe his representatives here on earth should follow his example and get out of politics.

That’s probably all heretical, but if so - I’d like to know why.

There have been nearly 700,000 abortions in the US alone so far this year.

numberofabortions.com/?mid=5708452

That is a FAR cry from “a deranged few” women who will kill their child. That comes out to 1.4 million abortions a year, or, basically greater than the entire populations of Idaho, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, and Vermont.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

Image next year, the entire population of Idaho is gone. That is the reality of abortion. It is not a small, discrete problem. It is a catastrophe of epic proportions.

ANd the “Abortion Clock” is based on data from the Guttmacher Institute, not known as a bastion of conservative ideology.

 

[scipio337]

Can you tell us what proportionate reason would allow a catholic to vote for Obama? It would be helpful if you could back it up with direct links to Church Documents and/or members of the magestrium. Like this, for example:

“**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 Edmund Burke

I don’t think there is ANY “proportionate reason”.

Bella’s link, in my mind resorted to sophistry, with the final rationalization:

…For many pro-life Catholics, the issue of voting and abortion comes down to this: what does one do if one thinks that the candidate more likely to reduce the actual incidence of abortion is also the one more committed to keeping it legal? The language of intrinsic evil does not help us here. Only the virtue of practical wisdom, enlightened by charity, can take us further.

The ends justify the means, a “pro choice” candidate will actually reduce abortion (or at least claim to do so), the twists in logic, and rationalizations are complete!

I would counter with the more straightforward Jimmy Akin’s take, at then Cardinal Ratzinger’s Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles

A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor 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…

…It is important to note that the mere use of the word “proportionate” does not mean that one is endorsing a dissident moral theology known as “proportionalism,” which John Paul II condemned in Veritatis Splendor 75-76. This is what confused some people about the Cardinal’s note. They thought it sounded as if he were endorsing proportionalism, but he wasn’t. The word “proportional” may be involved, but that doesn’t result in proportionalism.

In essence, proportionalism makes the presence of a proportionate reason the sole criterion for whether an act is justifiable. In other words, you can do anything if you have a good enough reason. There are no actions that can never be done in principle.

It is clear that this is not what Ratzinger is suggesting. In fact, quite the opposite. He recognizes that some actions (such as abortion and euthanasia) are intrinsically evil and can never be justified. What he is doing is discussing how far away—how remote—your actions have to be from these for you to be able to act in good conscience…

When one takes into account the fact that about half of the recent presidents have had second terms, that would mean a pro-abort president would be responsible for extending the abortion holocaust to include approximately nine million Americans.

No other issue involves numbers that high. Nothing short of a full-scale nuclear or biological war between well-armed nation states would kill that many people, and we aren’t in imminent danger of having one of those.

Not even terrorists with WMDs could kill that many people. As vital as the issue of terrorism is, it does not get us up into the number of deaths caused by abortion. It would take three thousand 9/11-size events in a president’s average term of office (more than one a day) to rack up sufficient deaths to make terrorism proportionate to abortion. Al-Qa’eda simply does not have enough suicidal fanatics to make terrorism proportionate to abortion.

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…

You should read the whole thing, it is a great article.

jimmyakin.com/2004/09/what_ratzinger_.html

 

[bellasbane]

This is cable news. You cannot compare FoxNews, CNN, MNSBC, etc… with the major news networks NBC, ABC, CBS, and Fox (not FoxNews). People expect biased commentators on cable channels. it is Infotainment, or EntertaiNews. However, on the major networks, people expect UNBIASED reporting, as these are operating on the public airwaves.

I don’t think many people realize it is “infortainment”. Most people have cable and watch cable news shows - you should see the looks I get when I say our family does not get cable. It’s like I just sprouted a third arm or something.

How are the public networks biased? I watch the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams now and then and don’t notice much of a bias, but maybe that is because I’m such a brain-washed progressive!

What is certain is that all those negative campaign ads are going to run on the “public airwaves” - seems like someone should have to disclose who is paying for them.

 

[RACJ]

Hi Scipio,

Sorry I haven’t gotten back to you yet! I’m supposed to be doing the laundry

There is plenty of propaganda on both sides - but the megaphone is so much bigger on the right that it makes a huge difference.

Just look at the amount of money being donated by a few billionaires to the GOP superpacks - those are not campaign contributions - they’re investments.

And what are these organizations going to do with all that money? Run millions of dollars in negative ads. Just like they did against Santorum and Gingrich during the primaries - but worse.

I mean, does anyone really believe Karl Rove’s “Crossroads GPS” is really a social welfare organization whose primary purpose is not political? That’s the definition of a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization. How many legitimate “social welfare” organizations can afford to launch a $25 million dollar ad campaign against a candidate’s record?

MSNBC may be liberal, but the main stream media is not - Fox News with its high ratings and conservative agenda IS the main stream media. That’s what people hear, so that’s all they think about. Crazy conspiracy theories and “end of the world” scenarios dreamed up by Rupert Murdoch’s minions.

It is really too bad.

Communist currency manipulator George Soros funds more front organizations in America than Heinz has pickles. And they all propagandize for the global left. ACORN was one of hundreds.
FOX has Bob Beckel and Juan Williams, two Democrat shills, if you’ve noticed. Many of the others are hardly conservative. If the “megaphones” were so big on the right, Santorum would be the nominee, NOT Romney. It seems to me that some people are dissatisfied with the fact that the anti-Constitutional left ONLY has a lock on “entertainment” media, schools, courts and entitlement programs. Any murmur from the grandstands is treated with horror and shrieks. Note that popular talk radio hosts are largely conservative b/c it is the one free market arena where competition thrives. Liberalism preys on emotions of good people. It is hard to listen to pity parties for three hours per day! Rob

How are the public networks biased? I watch the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams now and then and don’t notice much of a bias, but maybe that is because I’m such a brain-washed progressive!

They are biased in OMISSION and commission. WHO among them, for example, is asking for Obama's medical or educational records? Where are his transcripts and theses? Closely guarded, that's where, b/c he is an unapologetic radical who rejects the American way of life. Where is the investigation of Obama's suing of Citibank in Chicago to FORCE them to give bad loans to unqualified minorities? Where is their relentless questioning about the catastrophic Fast and Furious debacle? 
 I'm only scratching the surface. You'll never hear much about any of the plethora of Obama scandals by watching Brian Williams or any of the other Obama apparatchiks.

BTW, do you know that the Obamacare law contains 2700 pages, and functionaries have already written 13,000 MORE pages? Or that we’re hiring 16,500 MORE IRS agents to enforce it? Does that sound like Obama is interested in preserving our freedom?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

How are the public networks biased? I watch the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams now and then and don’t notice much of a bias, but maybe that is because I’m such a brain-washed progressive!

Admitting the problem is the first step on the road to recovery.

 

[estesbob]

I don’t think there is ANY “proportionate reason”.

Bella’s link, in my mind resorted to sophistry, with the final rationalization:

rl]

And, of course, the words of a layperson, who happens to be catholic has no authority whatsoever. In the Bizzaro world of pro-abortion catholics those who oppose abortion actually support it and the best way to end abortion is to make it legal with absolutely no restrictions and make it free. Go figure.

 

[RACJ]

And, of course, the words of a layperson, who happens to be catholic has no authority whatsoever. In the Bizzaro world of pro-abortion catholics those who oppose abortion actually support it and the best way to end abortion is to make it legal with absolutely no restrictions and make it free. Go figure.

WARNING: Anyone who understands the above is in dire need of a 12-step program. :sad_yes:

 

[mary_bobo]

I think we tried that once - lots of people died.

Four more years of Obama is not worse than 8 years of Mitt Romney. I don’t agree with everything Obama does, but I don’t get the sense that some shady person is standing behind him pulling the strings like I do with Mitt Romney. Nothing is worse than that.

I would rather have a Chris Christie (who yells at people) or a Ron Paul (who scares the establishment - bonus!) or a Jeb Bush (who seems reasonable) in four years than someone who is bought & paid for by a guy who runs casinos in China.

Something is going to happen in this election. Either the presidency will be purchased by the people who fund the right-wing propoganda or we will get another chance in 2016. That’s the way I see it.

And who might that shady person behind Romney be? I would rather have a stable, polite, capable man who is not a Hollywood king than a Marxist (my opinion) showman who promises anything you want to hear, who has run our economy into the ground and is in the process of ruining our healthcare system and is not arrogant beyond belief. Oh, and let’s not forget the perveyor of class warfare.

 

[qui_est_ce]

And who might that shady person behind Romney be? I would rather have a stable, polite, capable man who is not a Hollywood king than a Marxist (my opinion) showman who promises anything you want to hear, who has run our economy into the ground and is in the process of ruining our healthcare system and is not arrogant beyond belief. Oh, and let’s not forget the perveyor of class warfare.

Like Obama has no shady person behind him. The unkown first time US Senator from IL becomes president before he even finishes his term as US Senator.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Like Obama has no shady person behind him.

And who might that shady person behind Romney be?

A couple of guys swooping down after midnight in unmarked black helicopters, maybe? This exchange sounds a bit more suited for World Net Daily than for CAF.

 

[bellasbane]

The discussion at hand is the 2012 election -not your views on the alleged misgonyvof the Catholic Churh. Again what are the proportionate reasons that would allow a Catholic to vote for Obama?
?

I get my inspiration from the doctrines of the Catholic Church - which are hardly misogynist. We honor the Blessed Mother above all other saints - she is Theotokos. (You know that.) Doctrines have implications that are not always fully explored until the time is right. I pray that the next female doctor of the church will not be a virgin, but a mother. It is about time we had one.

Obama is wrong about a lot of things, but so are most Americans. He is also right about many things I care about. If the GOP had someone REAL to go up against him - instead of Mitt Romney, then maybe I’d vote differently. Mitt Romney has no substance - you can’t count on him for anything. You can’t trust a turn-coat to lead the nation on social issues.

I bet that if Karl Rove spent $25 million dollars on an add campaign that celebrates life and the Koch brothers spent a billion dollars providing scholarships to young parents so they can have kids and go to school - then maybe we would make some real progress toward ending abortion. But they don’t care about what real people experience. They only care about “economic freedom” and abstract promises of “opportunity” - ideas that are entirely undermined by the meme on the left that says you are doomed if you happen to be teenage girl who gets pregnant.

So I don’t see either side doing much to end abortion - but I do see one side (the GOP) using abortion as a wedge issue to grab power.

 

[bellasbane]

Admitting the problem is the first step on the road to recovery.

You didn’t answer my question.

 

[estesbob]

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/575877_475147512498228_1296505930_n.jpg

 

[He_Man]

Read the article I link to in my signature. M. Cathleen Kaveny is a brilliant professor of law and theology at Notre Dame.

Of course I respect Cardinal Burke for being a Cardinal and all, but that doesn’t mean I turn off my own head and stop thinking for myself just because of what he says.

I would like to ask him to explain why it is that so many men of the magisterium believe that the government should take over the responsibility of guarding the most vulnerable of human life, when clearly God choose women to do that job?

It is true that some (a very few) women cannot be trusted and are so disordered that they will kill their babies - but that is rare. Most often women protect their children above all else. Most often women who chooses to have an abortion do so out of fear or ignorance. Those are social problems we can fix without violating the natural order.

I don’t think a few disordered women is enough reason to stripe all women of their God-given authority and hand it over to the government, just like I don’t believe a few disordered men is enough reason to stripe all men of the priesthood and throw the vocation open to just anyone.

I would like the bishops to stop spending so much money on lobbying and law suits and start spending more on educating the population and providing charity to the poor. Jesus didn’t use the power of government to coerce people not to sin. Maybe his representatives here on earth should follow his example and get out of politics.

That’s probably all heretical, but if so - I’d like to know why.

Since we are all called to care for the welfare of one another’s lives, by your logic, laws against muder serve no purpose. God entrusted each of us to safeguard one another’s lives - we know that to be fact.

Why is abortion exempt from your logic, but rape and murder somehow need the veay hand of the government?

 

[scipio337]

Since we are all called to care for the welfare of one another’s lives, by your logic, laws against muder serve no purpose. God entrusted each of us to safeguard one another’s lives - we know that to be fact.

Why is abortion exempt from your logic, but rape and murder somehow need the veay hand of the government?

And lets not forget: One who is for the legalization and restriction-free murder, but wants to address the “reasons for murder” does more to end murder than one who wants it outlawed, and proposes legislation to that effect.