Gabrielle Giffords Endorses Clinton

[mary_bobo]

How did this thread become a discussion concerning abortion? If anything, it should be about probably the main reason why Gabrielle Giffords has endorsed Hillary Clinton, which is the latter’s strong position on the regulation of guns.

Carry on…

And, she’s a democrat.

 

[estesbob]

The other candidates all have bigger faults that would affect, and kill, albeit in a roundabout way, more people.

"You can never vote for someone who favors absolutely the right to choice of a woman to destroy a 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

 

[Memaw]

Indeed.
I will say it again.
No Catholic in good conscience can EVER vote for a pro-choice person.
There’s no gray area.
Textbooks on Moral Theology that mitigate the right to life are poor textbooks for a Catholic College. .
Any theology prof that argues for the culture of death because other issues cloud their judgment need to go back to a school which is faithful to the magisterium.

AMEN, I just have a high school education and even I know that !! Thanks, God Bless, Memaw

 

[LeafByNiggle]

"You can never vote for someone who favors absolutely the right to choice of a woman to destroy a 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

Cardinal Burke’s opinion is worthy of respect and consideration, but it is not binding Catholic Doctrine.

 

[Jeanne_S]

"You can never vote for someone who favors absolutely the right to choice of a woman to destroy a 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

Exactly.The sqewed logic of,since one cannot be certain that a particular candidate will actually do something to curb abortion,better to go with a candidate,that while the publicly avow their alliegience to a woman’s right to kill her baby,their supposed concern re other human rights issues trumps their love of abortion!Insanity for sure,no wonder we as a country are circling the drain!

 

[Memaw]

Well, as a practicing Catholic, I’ll go with the clarity of the former, and avoid the pitfalls of the latter.

Amen, God Bless, Memaw

 

[estesbob]

Exactly.The sqewed logic of,since one cannot be certain that a particular candidate will actually do something to curb abortion,better to go with a candidate,that while the publicly avow their alliegience to a woman’s right to kill her baby,their supposed concern re other human rights issues trumps their love of abortion!Insanity for sure,no wonder we as a country are circling the drain!

About time to post the list again!

 

[Mark121359]

“A nation always gets the kind of politicians it deserves. If a time ever comes when the religious Jews, Protestants and Catholics ever have to suffer under a totalitarian state, which would deny to them the right to worship God according to the light of their conscience, it will be because for years they thought it made no difference what kind of people represented them in Congress, and because they abandoned the spiritual in the realm of the temporal.” ~Archbishop Fulton Sheen~

The Little Sisters of the Poor and EWTN are witnessing firsthand what Bishop Sheen said here not so long ago!

Peace, Mark

 

[Path_Finder]

So true, that quote by Archbishop Sheen. Thank you for this.

 

[estesbob]

Cardinal Burke’s opinion is worthy of respect and consideration, but it is not binding Catholic Doctrine.

Cardinal Burke also says that Jesus Christ is physically present in the Eucharist. .Do we dismiss that as personal opinion also?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Cardinal Burke also says that Jesus Christ is physically present in the Eucharist. .Do we dismiss that as personal opinion also?

No, because every other bishop of the Church says that too.

And I did not say his words should be dismissed.

 

[Brendan]

How did this thread become a discussion concerning abortion? .

Because both Democratic canidates are fully insupport of this.

To Catholic theology that rules them out, as the Right to Life is the primary right, upon which all others hinge

There can be no right to heath care, nor right to just wages, nor food, nor housing as long as there is a ‘right’ to abortion.

Anyone who claims to be concerned about such rights is operating under an illusion as long as abortion remains legal.

Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination

Pope St John Paul II, Christifideles Laici Laci #38

As long as a candidate does not defend the right to life with maximum determination, all other claims of rights they bring forward are, as +JP-II states, 'false and illusory"

 

[Brendan]

Suppose there was a canidate that had all the right positions that you value, except they state that one of their first acts as President would be to nuke Australia.

Below, I have rewritten your statement from page 2. See how that would match up to Catholic theology

I am not voting for Doe in the hope that he nukes Australia. I hope parents educate their children about the evils of nuking Australia. I am voting for Doe because I believe he would be the best and most honest president of the United States and do the country a lot of good. My intention is to see Doe as president of the US, *not to nuke Australia *(after all the Constitutional right of the President as Commander and Chief will continue). I do not feel I can, in good conscience, vote for someone I believe is just saying what he feels the public wants to hear or someone who doesn’t even show up to work. The presidency is not a job where “not showing up for work” is an option.

The above is what is taught in every good textbook on moral theology. It is not proportionalism, etc. Ir is one of those “gray areas” in moral theology that another poster said did not exist. They do.

.

Would you claim that the above is an example of what good Catholic theology texts teach?. Would it be a valid ‘gray area’ that exists?

Would the expressed desire to nuke Australia be sufficient to exclude a candidate from a good Catholics vote, or if we like their economic plan, would that be sufficient to all a Catholic to vote for them?

 

[estesbob]

No, because every other bishop of the Church says that too.

And I did not say his words should be dismissed.

Can you show us any other Bishop that says it is permissible to vote for a pro-abortion canidate? It appears that Bishops words matter only when they don’t conflict with ones political views.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Can you show us any other Bishop that says it is permissible to vote for a pro-abortion canidate?

The absence of an explicit statement declaring something permissible is not proof that the thing is not permissible.

For example, no bishop, as far as I know, has ever declared that it is permissible to paint a watercolor picture of the moons of Jupiter.

 

[Path_Finder]

The absence of an explicit statement declaring something permissible is not proof that the thing is not permissible.

For example, no bishop, as far as I know, has ever declared that it is permissible to paint a watercolor picture of the moons of Jupiter.

The Vatican has codified that we can not enable abortion without falling into a grave state of sin.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

One’s vote is mentioned per above as well.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Suppose there was a canidate that had all the right positions that you value, except they state that one of their first acts as President would be to nuke Australia.

Below, I have rewritten your statement from page 2. See how that would match up to Catholic theology

Would you claim that the above is an example of what good Catholic theology texts teach?. Would it be a valid ‘gray area’ that exists?

Would the expressed desire to nuke Australia be sufficient to exclude a candidate from a good Catholics vote, or if we like their economic plan, would that be sufficient to all a Catholic to vote for them?

Please don’t rewrite my posts, Brendan. Thank you.

Questions about this should be taken up with Smith and Kaczor, pre-eminent Catholic bioethicists and textbook writers, whose public address I gave. (The address is on their books; it’s not secret, and I will not provide their home addresses or their email addresses.)

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Can you show us any other Bishop that says it is permissible to vote for a pro-abortion canidate? It appears that Bishops words matter only when they don’t conflict with ones political views.

Remember I told you I was related to Father Frank Pavone? And I am actively involved in Priests for Life? Frank sent me this from Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI:

‘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.”

religionnews.com/2016/02/08/yes-catholics-may-vote-bernie-sanders-commentary/

I don’t see how one can disagree with the man who was pope.

There are many gray areas in Catholic bioethics.

 

[Brendan]

Please don’t rewrite my posts, Brendan. Thank you.

Why, it seems to be a valid means to see if your position is logical. You claimed to have evaluated the components of evaluating the morality of an act

There are three components of any act: the act itself, intention, and consequences

.

So if the INTENT of voting for candidate Doe is to make them President, and you did so because you felt that they were qualified by their practice of the Virtue of Honesty, It you not be in the hopes (intent) of having Australia nuked, it would be an unattended consequence.

So by inserting another moral consequence into your statement, we can evaluate the truth of your deductions.

Questions about this should be taken up with Smith and Kaczor, pre-eminent Catholic bioethicists and textbook writers, whose public address I gave. (The address is on their books; it’s not secret, and I will not provide their home addresses or their email addresses.)

Why? I was speaking in regards to claims you yourself made in that regards, that abortion support was a ‘gray area’, so why not nuking Australia? Is there ‘proportionality’ involved in one, but not the other?

After all, a Catholic who voted for such a candidate, and doing so because he liked their tax plan, would that be acceptable?

Or is the issue of nuking Australia enough, in your understanding of Catholic theology, to deny them Catholic support?

 

[estesbob]

Remember I told you I was related to Father Frank Pavone? And I am actively involved in Priests for Life? Frank sent me this from Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI:

‘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.”

religionnews.com/2016/02/08/yes-catholics-may-vote-bernie-sanders-commentary/

I don’t see how one can disagree with the man who was pope.

There are many gray areas in Catholic bioethics.

And the only proportionate reason enunciated by the Church is when a candidates opponent is more pro-abortion that they are, They have specifically excluded a candidates view on the economy, war, the death penalty, immigration, taxation ,etc as being a proportionate reason for voting for a pro-abortion candidate. if you can find a single member of the Magestrium or any church document that lists any of the positions Bernie Sanders hold as being proportionate enough to allow a Catholic to vote for him in spite of his support for unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand please do so.

*]Note that “proportionate reasons’] does not mean simply weighing a wide range of issues against abortion and euthanasia and concluding that they cumulatively outweigh the evil of taking an innocent life. Rather, for there to be proportionate reasons, the voter would have to be convinced that the candidate who supports abortion rights would actually do more than the opposing candidate to limit the harm of abortion or to reduce the number of abortions
*
Bishop Joseph A. Galante

*There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life. That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not.

"Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.

"The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.

“The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry). Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and introduces legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils, which is morally permissible under these circumstances.”
*

Bishop Rene Gracida

*What are “proportionate reasons”? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong . . . .

What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a “proportionate reason” to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation’s labs?

Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate
*

Archbishop John J. Myers

What is a proportionate reason to justify favoring the taking of an innocent, defenseless human life? That’s the question that has to be answered in your conscience. What is the proportionate reason? . . . It is difficult to imagine what that proportionate reason would be

Cardinal Burke