Gabrielle Giffords Endorses Clinton

[estesbob]

Of course, I am referring to several essential lines from a document that was approved by the vast majority of American bishops that speak directly to the issue at hand. If the teaching was as clear as you claim it to be, then I would think the bishops would have stated so in their guide. They didn’t. As a result, I am led to believe that what the prohibition on voting for pro-choice candidates is not Church teaching.

Yet you cannot find a single bishop that agrees with this interpretation of the document. Not one

 

[estesbob]

What pro-life credentials? It’s absolutely contradictory to praise PP, a major provider of killing babies, and then turn around and qualify that praise with “except for abortion”? So, he’s ok with PP killing babies as long as they’re not doing so with taxpayer funds? I fail to see how he’s pro-life by any conceivable concept of the term.

I agree with you. I have very very deep problems with Donald Trump. I’m not suggesting anybody vote for him , I am suggesting in spite deep it is flaws are he is more pro-life than anything the Democrat Party is offering in this election. However just being pro-life does not mean I will vote for someone and I will have to do some serious soul-searching if he ends up being the nominee

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Yet you cannot find a single bishop that agrees with this interpretation of the document. Not one

How about every single bishop in the USCCB who signed off on it? They should be classified as “agreeing with it”, no?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Yet you cannot find a single bishop that agrees with this interpretation of the document. Not one

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI does agree. I posted the link to his words somewhere on this thread.

 

[estesbob]

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI does agree. I posted the link to his words somewhere on this thread.

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasi

Pope Benedict IXVI*

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasi

Pope Benedict IXVI*

I agree with that. That’s not the statement I was talking about. The one I was referring to was the one in which he said it was okay to vote for a presidential candidate who supports abortion.

I’m against abortion myself, and I certainly know Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is against it as is the entire Catholic Church.

 

[Crossbones]

Yet you cannot find a single bishop that agrees with this interpretation of the document. Not one

It’s not an interpretation. It’s the actual words used in the document. And the vast majority of bishops voted to approve this document. So, I assume that the actual words mean what they say and that voting to approve this document constitutes bishops agreeing with what the words say and mean.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasi

Pope Benedict IXVI*

These are nice words, but they do not address the question of remote material cooperation. Here Pope Benedict is addressing the question of the morality of abortion itself, saying there is no room for argument about abortion actually being evil.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasi

Pope Benedict IXVI*

This is the statement I’m talking about:

**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 (with evil), which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.
**
Pope Benedict XVI

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13706003#post13706003

 

[Lily_Bernans]

These are nice words, but they do not address the question of remote material cooperation. Here Pope Benedict is addressing the question of the morality of abortion itself, saying there is no room for argument about abortion actually being evil.

Right above this post is another of mine from “Priests for Life” that contains a quote from Pope Benedict XVI saying that voting for a candidate who supports abortion is permissible and constitutes only remote material cooperation with evil.

 

[estesbob]

I agree with that. That’s not the statement I was talking about. The one I was referring to was the one in which he said it was okay to vote for a presidential candidate who supports abortion.

I’m against abortion myself, and I certainly know Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is against it as is the entire Catholic Church.

He has said, as has the other Bishops , that you can vote for a pro-abortion candidate if their opponent is more pro-abortion than they are. They have specifically said that war, the death penalty, immigration , care of the poor and needy, taxes, economic policies etc are NOT proportionate reasons to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. So, for example, in the race between Obama and Romney what would the proportionate reason have been that would have allowed aCatholic to vote for Obama?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

He has said, as has the other Bishops , that you can vote for a pro-abortion candidate if their opponent is more pro-abortion than they are. They have specifically said that war, the death penalty, immigration , care of the poor and needy, taxes, economic policies etc are NOT proportionate reasons to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. So, for example, in the race between Obama and Romney what would the proportionate reason have been that would have allowed aCatholic to vote for Obama?

I don’t know that much about Romney. I had been living in Europe for years when the last election took place. I might have preferred Romney; I don’t know.

Pope Benedict didn’t specify proportionate reasons, though.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

He has said, as has the other Bishops , that you can vote for a pro-abortion candidate if their opponent is more pro-abortion than they are. They have specifically said that war, the death penalty, immigration , care of the poor and needy, taxes, economic policies etc are NOT proportionate reasons to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. So, for example, in the race between Obama and Romney what would the proportionate reason have been that would have allowed a Catholic to vote for Obama?

So then it is ok to commit remote material cooperation (with evil) when we vote for people who promote policies that will most likely result in war, the death penalty, merciless handling of immigration, lack of care of the poor and needy, and economic policies giving preferential option for the wealthy?

 

[estesbob]

So then it is ok to commit remote material cooperation (with evil) when we vote for people who promote policies that will most likely result in war, the death penalty, merciless handling of immigration, lack of care of the poor and needy, and economic policies giving preferential option for the wealthy?

If you feel a canidate would do this you don’t have to vote for them-that does not, however, allow you to vote for his pro-abortion canidate. Fotunately we have never been faced with that choice.

 

[estesbob]

I don’t know that much about Romney. I had been living in Europe for years when the last election took place. I might have preferred Romney; I don’t know.

Pope Benedict didn’t specify proportionate reasons, though.

Actually he did-he said specifically said war and the death penalty aren’t. Other members of the Magestrium have made it clear the ONLY proportionate reason would be if the candidates opponent was more pro-abortion than they are. if you can find a single member of the Magestrium who stated a specific issue that would have allowed a catholic to vote for Obama please post it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Actually he did-he said specifically said war and the death penalty aren’t. Other members of the Magestrium have made it clear the ONLY proportionate reason would be if the candidates opponent was more pro-abortion than they are.

I don’t think you have established that yet. Especially the “ONLY” part. Again, the comparison with war, etc., assumes the decision is strictly between abortion and war, etc. What is possible is that you can vote for a nominally pro-life candidate and get both the bad war policies and the bad abortion policies. So you would have sacrificed your opportunity to avoid the lesser evils and gotten nothing pro-life in return for your sacrifice. It is that possibility that makes the simple “abortion vs. war” comparison invalid.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Actually he did-he said specifically said war and the death penalty aren’t. Other members of the Magestrium have made it clear the ONLY proportionate reason would be if the candidates opponent was more pro-abortion than they are. if you can find a single member of the Magestrium who stated a specific issue that would have allowed a catholic to vote for Obama please post it.

When? Where did anyone say it was okay to elect an evil, lying war monger who is against human rights and believes the poor create their own poverty and thus should not be helped, but is opposed to abortion? Link?

No one in the Church holds that view. Certainly not Pope Francis.

Obama is an outgoing president. He doesn’t even have a year left in his presidency. This discussion is about the current candidates.

 

[estesbob]

When? Where did anyone say it was okay to elect an evil, lying war monger who is against human rights and believes the poor create their own poverty and thus should not be helped, but is opposed to abortion? Link?

No one in the Church holds that view. Certainly not Pope Francis.

Obama is an outgoing president. He doesn’t even have a year left in his presidency. This discussion is about the current candidates.

They don’t say it is ok to elect such a person You just cant use their stance to rationalize voting for a pro-abortion canidate. A person who supports unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand is every bit ,if not more, evil that a evil lie mongerer who is against human rights and believes the poor create their own povery. We have never been faced with the latter-the democrats nominate the former every time.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

They don’t say it is ok to elect such a person You just cant use their stance to rationalize voting for a pro-abortion canidate. A person who supports unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand is every bit ,if not more, evil that a evil lie mongerer who is against human rights and believes the poor create their own povery. We have never been faced with the latter-the democrats nominate the former every time.

Nor can one elect a pro-life candidate solely on the fact that he or she is pro-life. Pope Benedict XVI made that clear.

You may think the Democrats nominate evil people every time, and that is your choice, but in reality, they do not. No political candidate is perfect, neither Republican nor Democrat.

The Republicans are certainly faced with electing an evil person this time. Even high profile Republicans admit that and are working to stop it.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

If you feel a canidate would do this you don’t have to vote for them-that does not, however, allow you to vote for his pro-abortion canidate. Fotunately we have never been faced with that choice.

I think we have.

If Kasich is out, I’ll write him in.