Have I committed a mortal sin? On pro-abortion politicians

[jrgiancola]

David, you’re so right in everything you have written. I see you are a new member here. Good luck trying to change the minds of anyone who posts here regularly. I’ve tried for two years to no avail. I finally left the RCC for the Orthodox faith which believes as you (and I) have written. This website was not the cause of my defection; but it added the final straws and convinced me of what I have known for years: I do not agree with the RCC on too many issues to be a loyal member.

I’m glad you quoted JPII. Even though I’m an Orthodox Christian now, I love JPII. His encyclical “Rich in Mercy” is, to me, the voice of Christ Himself speaking to us. Until I read that encyclical, I did not completely understand God, even though I have sought Him since I was a child. Too many pieces to the puzzle were still missing. After I read it, and Sr. Faustina’s diary, everything finally crystallized. At least the RCC has recognized him as a saint, because that is what he is. Unfortunately, although he was very much loved in the church, very few Catholics learned anything from him. We were blessed to have known him.

 

[jrgiancola]

By the way, I’ve copied your posts into my Word documents. I hope you don’t mind. It’s so rare to hear someone speak the truth that I want to be able to read it once in a while.

 

[jrgiancola]

Since I got the right to vote at age 18 (it used to be 21), I have never voted for a single republican candidate. If their philosophy remains unchanged, I never will.

There was only one great republican president and I would have voted for him: Abraham Lincoln. He was a man of sorrows and great burdens; yet he understood and preached compassion and mercy. If he were alive today, he would be a Democrat.

I do regret, though, that Barry Goldwater did not beat Lyndon Johnson in 1964. If Goldwater had won, there would have been no American involvement in Viet Nam. The 64 vote for Johnson was a sympathy vote because the country was still in mourning over President Kennedy.

I can understand that. I remember him and his assassination. People in my generation still love him and grieve for him. In my whole life, I never saw so many Americans mourn so much for any one person. It left an indelible mark on me. The same occurred when Bobby was killed.

Anyway, I feel I’ve said all I have to say in this thread. In truth, I’ve enjoyed the discussion. Orogeny, as I’ve told you, I like the way you debate. If you ever come to Florida, I’d be honored to have you as my guest.

Time to move to another thread and see what further heresies I can be accused of. Catholics are fun to debate. When you disagree with a born again Christian, they just walk away and never speak to you again; there’s no fun in that. When you argue with a staunch Catholic, the “Inquisition mentality” comes out; it’s like arguing with Torquemada. Now that’s fun.

Peace, real peace, and God’s love to all you you.

 

[Faithdancer]

In my church, the Orthodox Christian Church, abortion is not immoral when used to save the life of the mother. It IS a grave sin in all other circumstances. If the government bans all abortion, it denies me and other Orthodox Christians the choice our faith provides us. We have a First Amendment right to freely practice our religion, as does every other religion. I support candidates who try to accomplish what Jesus commanded us to do: Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the elderly, poor and widows, etc. Only the Democrats consistently enact legislation that achieves these commands of Jesus. The primary focus of the Orthodox Christian Church is to : Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself. All of its activities are geared to fulfill these two commandments.

Very strong points jrgiancola. I think too, that it’s important to remember that both the Democratic and Republican party have members who favor allowing abortions under some, or even any circumstances. While these people may be a majority in the Democratic party and a minority in the Republican party, if abortion is the only litmus test for belonging to one of the two major political parties in America, than how either party have any Catholic members?

I think it’s also important to remember that “pro-choice” is not exactly the same thing as “pro-abortion.” Someone could be vehemently opposed to abortion for themselves, but decide that others have the right to make their own choice.

 

[GraceSofia]

My priest is married. When his wife was pregnant last time, there was a minor problem. He told the doctor unequivocally that “I am Greek Orthodox. If it comes to saving one or the other, you will save my wife.” Yes, he has experience with the situation. Thank God, he did not have to face the choice I made.

In my church, the Orthodox Christian Church, abortion is not immoral when used to save the life of the mother

In this situation, God decreed that someone or both was going to die. And the decision was left to me, my daughter and my other children to decide what to do about it, etc.

Just for the sake of clarity for people reading these various posts which appear to cast the Catholic Church in a certain light, let me say that the Catholic Church does not require that a mother sacrifice herself for her preborn child-- at least not in the way you are trying to present.

Catholic teaching says that the woman may receive any medical treatment needed to deal with cancer or other illness or ectopic pregnancy. She is free to have any necessary operation that would remove the cancer from her body even if that terminates the pregnancy, as for example a hysterectomy (removal of the womb) would.

 

[estesbob]

I think it’s also important to remember that “pro-choice” is not exactly the same thing as “pro-abortion.” Someone could be vehemently opposed to abortion for themselves, but decide that others have the right to make their own choice.

Of course it is. I am always somewhat puzzled by the propensity of those who support abortion to hide behnid euphanisms. Methinks perhaps they know in their heart of hearts they know that they are supporting unspeakable evil-whether under the guise of “choice” or not.

 

[Newbie2]

But the Church does not teach that social/fiscal policy is a proportionate issue.

If one Candidate was in favor of abortion, and the other was opposed to abortion, but in favor of kill born children between the ages of 2 and 3 years old, I think that would clearly be a proportionate issue. ** However, fiscal policy, welfare programs, the death penalty, etc, none of those are proportionate to abortion. **Abortion is more heinous then even the murder of a born person, because it denies the unborn the opportunity for baptism.

What about war? (I mean big-time war) Pro-abortion candidate vs. Pro-world war candidate is not, as we seem to agree, as clear-cut as it might seem. An unlikely scenario, granted, but illustrative as was your 2 and 3 year old example of the point. We also need to cosider the pro-“pain pill to off Grandma” position. Kill off all the old and infirmed people, as they are no longer productive and a drain to society.

Voting for one candidate over another is not necessarily a one-issue matter, as long as the motivation for voting for a “pro-abortion” candidate is not so they can further the abortion agenda.

If one is voting for a pro-abortion candidate so that there will be more abortions…yeah, mortal sin, no doubt.

 

[estesbob]

What about war? (I mean big-time war) Pro-abortion candidate vs. Pro-world war candidate is not, as we seem to agree, as clear-cut as it might seem. An unlikely scenario, granted, but illustrative as was your 2 and 3 year old example of the point. We also need to cosider the pro-“pain pill to off Grandma” position. Kill off all the old and infirmed people, as they are no longer productive and a drain to society.

Voting for one candidate over another is not necessarily a one-issue matter, as long as the motivation for voting for a “pro-abortion” candidate is not so they can further the abortion agenda.

If one is voting for a pro-abortion candidate so that there will be more abortions…yeah, mortal sin, no doubt.

A candidates support for war is not a proportionate reason that would allow a Catholic to vote for pro-abortion candidate. . Here’s what Pope Benedict XVI had to say about that:

*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 euthanasia.
*

A Catholic simply cannot vote for pro-abortion candidate unless his opponent is more pro-abortion than they are. Political differences on national defense, the best way to care for the poor and needy, the environment, etc or any combination of these do not rise to the level of abortion
*

 

[LeafByNiggle]

A candidates support for war is not a proportionate reason that would allow a Catholic to vote for pro-abortion candidate. . Here’s what Pope Benedict XVI had to say about that:

*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 euthanasia.
*

A Catholic simply cannot vote for pro-abortion candidate unless his opponent is more pro-abortion than they are. Political differences on national defense, the best way to care for the poor and needy, the environment, etc or any combination of these do not rise to the level of abortion
*

That statement by Pope Benedict does not say that issues of war are not proportionate reasons for voting for one candidate or another. You concluded that on your own. The statement only says that faithful Catholics may not disagree about the evil of abortion. However faithful Catholics are entitled to have a diversity of opinion about what to do about that evil. Voting is one of those things that we do in response to evil. Pope Benedict’s statement does not say you must vote only for the person with the most pro-life platform.

 

[estesbob]

That statement by Pope Benedict does not say that issues of war are not proportionate reasons for voting for one candidate or another. You concluded that on your own.

That is exactly what he said. He flat out siad it did not rise to level of abortion

The statement only says that faithful Catholics may not disagree about the evil of abortion. However faithful Catholics are entitled to have a diversity of opinion about what to do about that evil. Voting is one of those things that we do in response to evil. Pope Benedict’s statement does not say you must vote only for the person with the most pro-life platform.

If we were to take you novel interpretation over what the Pope clearly said there would have been no need for him to say it in the first place.

 

[Newbie2]

A candidates support for war is not a proportionate reason that would allow a Catholic to vote for pro-abortion candidate. . Here’s what Pope Benedict XVI had to say about that:

*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 euthanasia.
*

A Catholic simply cannot vote for pro-abortion candidate unless his opponent is more pro-abortion than they are. Political differences on national defense, the best way to care for the poor and needy, the environment, etc or any combination of these do not rise to the level of abortion
*

That statement by Pope Benedict does not say that issues of war are not proportionate reasons for voting for one candidate or another. You concluded that on your own. The statement only says that faithful Catholics may not disagree about the evil of abortion. However faithful Catholics are entitled to have a diversity of opinion about what to do about that evil. Voting is one of those things that we do in response to evil. Pope Benedict’s statement does not say you must vote only for the person with the most pro-life platform.

Yep. Bob, your evidence does not support your conclusion.

Besides, I’m talking about global war where nukes would kill milliions, maybe any billions in an instant.

This discussion has been rehashed many times in the CAF. There is no evidence to support a (mandatory) abortion-takes-all approach to voting.

 

[estesbob]

Yep. Bob, your evidence does not support your conclusion.

Besides, I’m talking about global war where nukes would kill milliions, maybe any billions in an instant.

This discussion has been rehashed many times in the CAF. There is no evidence to support a (mandatory) abortion-takes-all approach to voting.

There is voluminous evidence that a Catholic cannot support pro-abortion candidate unless his opponent is more pro-abortion than they are. The only people who dispute this are Catholics trying to rationalize their support of this abject evil, via their vote. . If you have some links to where a member of the magisterium specifically stated that a candidates stance on taxation, national defense, immigration, the environment or any other issue mitigates his support of unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand please do so.

 

[davidmlamb]

Just for the sake of clarity for people reading these various posts which appear to cast the Catholic Church in a certain light, let me say that the Catholic Church does not require that a mother sacrifice herself for her preborn child-- at least not in the way you are trying to present.

Catholic teaching says that the woman may receive any medical treatment needed to deal with cancer or other illness or ectopic pregnancy. She is free to have any necessary operation that would remove the cancer from her body even if that terminates the pregnancy, as for example a hysterectomy (removal of the womb) would.

The same is true for a tubal pregnancy, the falopian tube may be removed with the fetus in it and the results are the fetus dies. The Catholic Church however teaches that the direct killing of the fetus is not permitted under any circumstances. A hysterectomy with a fetus involved and a tubal pregnancy are indirect killing of the fetus and therefore permissable. However, if a woman is dying from pregnancy complications and the only way to save her is to terminate the pregnancy, then there is nothing she or her family can morally do to save her life. This is where I take issue with Catholic doctrine. If the life and well being of my wife or daughter were in emminant danger from a pregnanct then I would terminate the pregnancy. My conscience could not allow me to watch my wife or daughter suffer to death.

David

 

[jrgiancola]

You’re right, Dave. See my prior posts. That very thing happened to me. My daughter would have died as a result of the pregnancy. I would not and did not allow that to happen. In the Orthodox Church, I did nothing immoral.

 

[Newbie2]

There is voluminous evidence that a Catholic cannot support pro-abortion candidate unless his opponent is more pro-abortion than they are. The only people who dispute this are Catholics trying to rationalize their support of this abject evil, via their vote. . If you have some links to where a member of the magisterium specifically stated that a candidates stance on taxation, national defense, immigration, the environment or any other issue mitigates his support of unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand please do so.

Nope, Bob, you’re wrong.

Voluminous evidence? I think not. If that were the case, the Magisterium would forbid voting for any Democrat party member, as one of the planks of the party is supporting abortion.

Pulleeze, we both know there would be no such quote. But I betcha you cannot find links to where it’s specifically stated by a member of the magisterium that we are to be one-issue voters.

Seriously, Bob, do you believe if a candidate bent on nuclear war (and was not Pro-abortion) were to make it through the primaries and that his or her opponent were pro-choice that we as Catholics are mandated to vote against the pro-choice candidate?

Really? That’s your interpretation?

And here’s a follow-up.

The Democrats have abortion support as one of their party planks. However, there are pro-life candidates who are Democrats. Now, say if one votes for the pro-life Democrat, , over a wishy-washy “pro-life” (in name only) or blatently pro-abortion Republican, and his or her election results in the Democrats gaining back the majority in the House, for example. They then have more power to enact ie or strengthen abortion funding, laws, etc.

In such a scenario, if you voted for the Pro-life Democrat, you helped further abortions more so than voting for a Pro-Choice Republican.

You see, Bob, it is often more complicated than it seems on the surface. We agree that if someone voted for a pro-abortion candidate to further abortion, such is not acceptable. And, granted, most times it’s pretty clear that voting for the pro-abortion candidate is a bad idea. But, there are certain scenarios, such I just posited, where one has to think past the candidate and look at the party when considering for whom to vote.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Regarding my statement:

That statement by Pope Benedict does not say that issues of war are not proportionate reasons for voting for one candidate or another. You concluded that on your own

estesbob wrote:

That is exactly what he said. He flat out said it did not rise to level of abortion

Even granting that issues of war do not “rise to the level” of abortion (whatever that means), this still does not specifically address voting. Voting is just one way in which we can respond to evil. Do you believe that faithful Catholics are bound to do everything possible to oppose evil? I can prove that even you do not believe that.

Suppose your sister, who lives in the same town as you but is not very well off, confides in you that she has decided to get an abortion for economic reasons. She says that if she just had an extra $20,000 then she would not get the abortion but would raise the child. Now suppose you are fairly well off and could give her the $20,000 and thus prevent one abortion. You probably would do it, especially considering that she is your sister. One might even argue that not doing so would be a mortal sin, because you refused to do something that was well within your means but chose not to.

Now suppose that instead of it being your sister, the pregnant women was a stranger living in Australia. You happen to find out from a friend of a friend that this women has similarly stated she plans on getting an abortion unless she has an additional $20,000. While it might be meritorious to travel to Australia and speak with this woman and possibly give her $20,000 it is not a mortal sin if you decide not to do it.

So here is at least one example of an action that you could do to save a unborn child, but you are not bound by the laws of the Catholic Church to do so. It is up your prudential judgment to decide if this particular action is required of you. This despite the fact that you could have done something, but instead you saved the $20,000 and later spent it on a sports car for yourself. Certainly the sports car does not “rise to the level” of abortion. But under your novel interpretation of Pope Benedict’s statement, everything that does not “rise to the level” of abortion is to be ignored in favor of anything at all that does oppose abortion. For clarity, let’s look at the quote in question that you originally quoted:

**Pope Benedict XVI: **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 euthanasia.

The word “voting” does not appear in this quote, nor does any other word that addresses voting. As I said before, this quote only addresses the permissibility of war, capitol punishment, abortion, and euthanasia. It says nothing at all about what our response (like voting) must be to these issues.
estestbob:

There is voluminous evidence that a Catholic cannot support pro-abortion candidate unless his opponent is more pro-abortion than they are.

Well, one would think that if there is such “voluminous evidence”, then you would have cited at least one such quote from the Catechism or a Church council, or some other official binding document. Don’t quote individual priests or even bishops. They can and do often give their own opinion that is not binding doctrine. Quote a binding teaching document of the Church. Let me help you out. Here is a a more relevant quote from Pope Benedict before he became Pope:

Cardinal Ratzinger: 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.

That is as close as he gets to saying that you must vote against abortion. He then mentions proportionate reasons. OK, then if the Church has already ruled on exactly what are and what are not proportionate reasons, then where is that list? Why did not Cardinal Ratzinger immediately clarify his remark by listing the proportionate reasons? Or if there are none, why would he bother to have mentioned the possibility?

So as I see it you have several tasks ahead of you if you want to convince anyone that the Church requires you to vote for the most anti-abortion candidate in each and every case without exception. First you need to show that among all the responses we could make to evil, some of which are clearly optional, that voting stands in a special category as one of those non-optional responses. Second, you need to show that Church law forbids the consideration of some issues as proportionate reasons when voting.

If you have some links to where a member of the magisterium specifically stated that a candidates stance on taxation, national defense, immigration, the environment or any other issue mitigates his support of unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand please do so.

The absence of explicit mention of these proportionate reasons does not mean they are not allowed. I think the burden is on you to show magisterial reference that explicitly disallows any of these issues as proportionate reasons.

 

[Newbie2]

Dittos on the burden.

Thanks for pointing that out, Leaf:

" 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.**"

I think we can all agree that if someone votes for a candidate for the bolded reason above. And that quote supports what Leaf and I are saying. He does not say:

" 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 that has a permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia."

Our Pope recognizes the complexity of politics.

 

[The_Republican]

Hello,

About two months ago, I read a document written by then-Cardinal Ratzinger about the worthiness of Catholics who vote for pro-abortion candidates to receive Holy Communion. Here it is.

The gist of the document is that Catholics cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate when a pro-life candidate is available under pain of grave sin absent “equivalent reasons.”

I’m not old enough to vote, but I’m a Democrat from a family of Democrats, and so I dismissed this by rationalizing to myself “Well, most Republicans do support abortion in some circumstances, so they’re ‘pro-abortion’” and put it on the back burner, so to speak. But recently, I’ve been worried about it.

While I’ve been against abortion personally since my reversion, I’m now wondering whether my dismissal of this document was a mortal sin.

Thanks.

Why do you think most republicans are pro-abortion?

 

[estesbob]

Dittos on the burden.

Thanks for pointing that out, Leaf:

" 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.**"

I think we can all agree that if someone votes for a candidate for the bolded reason above. And that quote supports what Leaf and I are saying. He does not say:

" 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 that has a permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia."

Our Pope recognizes the complexity of politics.

\

When one takes a small portion of the Church document out of context they can twist it anyway they want to. Tthis section was specifically referring to the situation where both candidates in a race were pro-abortion. . You could in that case vote for the candidate who was less pro-abortion than the other BUT as this snippet ,taken in proper context, points out ,you could not vote for the less pro-abortion candidate because of his stance favoring abortion… . As the links we have posted have shown the Church has made it very clear that no issues rise the level of abortion when considering your vote. . It is complex only for those claiming to be pro-life but trying to rationalize their votes for pro-abortion candidates

Perhaps Archbishop Chaput can shed more light on this for you:

Obviously, we have other important issues facing us this fall: the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration justice. But we can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children. The right to life is foundational. Every other right depends on it. Efforts to reduce abortions, or to create alternatives to abortion, or to foster an environment where more women will choose to keep their unborn child, can have great merit–but not if they serve to cover over or distract from the brutality and fundamental injustice of abortion itself. We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide. Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.

The pro-abortion spin put on the quote that you and Leaf referred to is a perfect example of the moral and verbal gymnastics the good Archbishop was referring to.

 

[estesbob]

Why do you think most republicans are pro-abortion?

One of the standard rationalizations given by those who claim to be pro-life but continually vote for pro-abortion candidates is that Republicans really don’t care about abortion. Given the recent fights over abortion funding in the health care bill and funding Planned Parenthood.( just two examples) one wonders why anybody still advances this argument with a straight face. . In fact if Republicans really don’t oppose abortion one would have to wonder why pro-abortion organizations spend so much time attacking them.?