Father McBrien Upset

[Brad]

bones_IV:

To support the candidate that is most in line with your beliefs is modernism, we must remain firm to the gospel of Christ.

catholic.com/library/voters_guide.asp

**Catholics have a moral obligation to promote the common good through the exercise of their voting privileges (cf. CCC 2240). It is not just civil authorities who have responsibility for a country. “Service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community” (CCC 2239). This means citizens should participate in the political process at the ballot box.

But voting cannot be arbitrary. “A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law that contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals” (CPL 4). A citizen’s vote most often means voting for a candidate who will be the one directly voting on laws or programs. But being one step removed from law-making doesn’t let citizens off the hook, since morality requires that we avoid doing evil to the greatest extent possible, even indirectly.

Some things always are wrong, and no one may deliberately vote in favor of them. Legislators, who have a direct vote, may not support these evils in legislation or programs. Citizens support these evils indirectly if they vote in favor of candidates who propose to advance them. Thus, to the greatest extent possible, Catholics must avoid voting for any candidate who intends to support programs or laws that are intrinsically evil. When all of the candidates endorse morally harmful policies, citizens must vote in a way that will limit the harm likely to be done.**

 

[bones_IV]

Brad:

This is not modernism. Given 2 legitimate choices for victory, you must pick the one that is most in line with the truth.

Modernism is accepting un-truths as being true.

Brad, sin is still sin, to argue that we can accept a little abortion by voting for someone who favors a little abortion is still accepting the untruth as true. You can’t condone a little bit of murder, Brad it doesn’t work that way.

 

[bones_IV]

Brad:

So what is your solution?

The only thing we can do. We must be true to Christ, true to His teaching, true to His power over life and death. Christ does not need politics to win the struggle to end abortion; but he needs us to be faithful to adherents to his truth.

 

[bones_IV]

Brad:

You have to go back further - eliminate the “sex is for pleasure only” mentality.

Making abortion illegal will go a very long way towards attacking that mentality.

I agree with that.

 

[CatQuilt]

bones_IV:

Santorum may be a good man, but he’s not 100% pro-life especially regarding the primary that pitted Arlen Specter against another republican.

This is off-topic but as you are well-aware, both President Bush and Senator Santorum campaigned for Spector, an incumbent Republican. There was no guarantee that Pat Toomey (whose campaign I contributed to) would have won in the general election.

Senator Spector is very ill with cancer and will not seek another term, I believe.

 

[CatQuilt]

bones_IV:

What is your definition of supporting a candidate? It’s not our job to tell people how to vote.

Did you ever read the Serious Catholic’s Voter Guide on this site?

 

[bones_IV]

CatQuilt:

Did you ever read the Serious Catholic’s Voter Guide on this site?

From reading Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter it remains clear that a Catholic in good conscience should not vote for any candidate of any party who is pro-choice, unless it is to re-elect a less pro-choice candidate. It would follow that if both are equally pro-choice than one should not vote, because one would be advancing evil in doing so.

I got that from EWTN.

 

[Brad]

bones_IV:

Brad, sin is still sin, to argue that we can accept a little abortion by voting for someone who favors a little abortion is still accepting the untruth as true. You can’t condone a little bit of murder, Brad it doesn’t work that way.

“When all of the candidates endorse morally harmful policies, citizens must vote in a way that will limit the harm likely to be done.”

If more murder will be allowed by the alternate viable candidate then you have to select the one that accepts less.

 

[Brad]

bones_IV:

The only thing we can do. We must be true to Christ, true to His teaching, true to His power over life and death. Christ does not need politics to win the struggle to end abortion; but he needs us to be faithful to adherents to his truth.

This is rejection of freedom. If freedom is rejected then you will have less and less of it to the point where converting souls or teaching about the faith becomes illegal and punishable by death. Then where will we be as a society?

 

[Brad]

bones_IV:

From reading Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter it remains clear that a Catholic in good conscience should not vote for any candidate of any party who is pro-choice, unless it is to re-elect a less pro-choice candidate. It would follow that if both are equally pro-choice than one should not vote, because one would be advancing evil in doing so.

I got that from EWTN.

Doesn’t all your talk about “settling for less than the best” contradict exactly what Ratzinger (at the time) was saying?

 

[bones_IV]

Brad:

Doesn’t all your talk about “settling for less than the best” contradict exactly what Ratzinger (at the time) was saying?

Brad, I don’t know how else to put this. Winning the battle against abortion is not about politics, its about winning over souls. As for your quote you selectively qouted what you wanted, and deliberately left out the rest. Here’s what I said “If we settle for less than our best than less than our best is just what we are going to get.” But mysteriously for some unknown reason you left some parts unmentioned. I think you read to much into the letter by Ratzinger. Regarding my qoute right here.

How is this qoute a rejection of freedom?

“The only thing we can do. We must be true to Christ, true to His teaching, true to His power over life and death. Christ does not need politics to win the struggle to end abortion; but he needs us to be faithful to adherents to his truth.”

 

[bones_IV]

Brad, I think you should read this by Dr. Geraghty.

Link

Abortion is nonnegotiable. The killing of innocent babies can never be negotiated

 

[mvinca]

bones_IV:

Brad, I don’t know how else to put this. Winning the battle against abortion is not about politics, its about winning over souls.

I agree with this statement too. But just because the abortion battle will not be won in politics, but in changing the heart of the nation, does that mean we stop participating in the political process all together? I would think we would do both. But I would agree that winning over souls is more important.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

This guy is published in my diocesan newspaper. It’s beyond me why that might be.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Brad]

Catholic4aReasn:

This guy is published in my diocesan newspaper. It’s beyond me why that might be.

In Christ,
Nancy

I suggest a cordial letter to the Bishop questioning why.

 

[Brad]

bones_IV:

Brad, I don’t know how else to put this. Winning the battle against abortion is not about politics, its about winning over souls. As for your quote you selectively qouted what you wanted, and deliberately left out the rest. Here’s what I said “If we settle for less than our best than less than our best is just what we are going to get.” But mysteriously for some unknown reason you left some parts unmentioned. I think you read to much into the letter by Ratzinger. Regarding my qoute right here.

How is this qoute a rejection of freedom?

“The only thing we can do. We must be true to Christ, true to His teaching, true to His power over life and death. Christ does not need politics to win the struggle to end abortion; but he needs us to be faithful to adherents to his truth.”

I cannot follow you. I am not sure whay you are trying to say regarding politics.

Winning over souls is a separate item. There is no doubt that that is priority number one. I’m with you 100%.

The question is what do we do politically during the time when all the souls are not converted - which of course will be until Jesus returns.

I suggest (along with Catholic Answers) that we vote for the best candidate(of those capable of winning), the one that is most in line with Catholic teaching. This is not negotiating abortion. This is limiting abortion. This is progress towards ending abortion.

You suggest we vote for…?

 

[Brad]

bones_IV:

Brad, I think you should read this by Dr. Geraghty.

Link

Abortion is nonnegotiable. The killing of innocent babies can never be negotiated

You keep quoting things that I agree with and then tell me I’m wrong to agree with them.

From the link:

"It seems evident, therefore, that Catholics with an informed conscience should not vote for any candidate of any party who is pro-choice, unless it is to elect a less pro-choice candidate. Catholics may certainly vote for pro-life candidates, even those who are unelectable, but in this latter case should consider the full effects of such a decision on society. "

I agree with this 100%. Do you?

 

[bones_IV]

Brad:

I cannot follow you. I am not sure whay you are trying to say regarding politics.

Winning over souls is a separate item. There is no doubt that that is priority number one. I’m with you 100%.

The question is what do we do politically during the time when all the souls are not converted - which of course will be until Jesus returns.

I suggest (along with Catholic Answers) that we vote for the best candidate(of those capable of winning), the one that is most in line with Catholic teaching. This is not negotiating abortion. This is limiting abortion. This is progress towards ending abortion.

You suggest we vote for…?

I disagree, saving souls applies even in politics. The truth on abortion applies to everyone whether they are catholic or not. You don’t compromise and say “oh this guy most supports my beliefs, I’ll support him.” That’s not how it works, Brad. Tell that to Judie Brown and she’d tell the same things I told you. Politics to me is all talk (which is exactly what Bush and the Republican party does) and nothing ever gets accompished too much corruption.

 

[bones_IV]

Brad:

I cannot follow you. I am not sure whay you are trying to say regarding politics.

Winning over souls is a separate item. There is no doubt that that is priority number one. I’m with you 100%.

The question is what do we do politically during the time when all the souls are not converted - which of course will be until Jesus returns.

I suggest (along with Catholic Answers) that we vote for the best candidate(of those capable of winning), the one that is most in line with Catholic teaching. This is not negotiating abortion. This is limiting abortion. This is progress towards ending abortion.

You suggest we vote for…?

When I say not supporting a candidate that is most in line with your beliefs, that is negotiating abortion! And furthermore just because I vote for the lesser of the two evils does not mean that I endorse that candidate or the particular party. Voting for the lesser of the two evils is not supporting that candidate. Abortion is non-negotiable!

 

[mvinca]

bones_IV:

When I say not supporting a candidate that is most in line with your beliefs, that is negotiating abortion! And furthermore just because I vote for the lesser of the two evils does not mean that I endorse that candidate or the particular party. Voting for the lesser of the two evils is not supporting that candidate. Abortion is non-negotiable!

So really this is a terminology thing. You are saying there is a difference between “supporting a candidate” and “voting for a candidate.” So instead of making a broad general statement like, “I support Rick Santorum,” I could make a statement such as “I support Rick Santorum’s effort to end abortion in all circumstances.” It is specific to the issue, and doesn’t say anything about my support for his ideas on the Death Penalty or taxes.

Would you have any issue with someone making the latter statement?