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

[estesbob]

Explaining Ratzinger’s "Proportionate Reasons"
Abortion Is the Black Hole of Moral Issues

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.

Jimmy Akin

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0411fea4.asp

**“But [Catholics who support ‘pro-choice’ candidates] also need a compelling proportionate reason to*justify it. What is a ‘proportionate’ reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life - which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.”
*

Archbishop Charles Chaput

archden.org/images/ArchbishopCorner/NewspaperColumns/ab_chaput_webcolumn.pdf

An example of the “proportionate reasons” that would justify voting for a candidate who approved of some abortions would be the case when the only two candidates able to win an election were both in favor of abortion. It is morally permissible to vote for the one who supports fewer abortions than his opponent.

*The Pope and bishops have indicated that other human rights issues, like health, education, and poverty, are not proportionate to abortion and euthanasia. *

Priests for Lfe

priestsforlife.org/elections/ratzingerletter.htm

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Explaining Ratzinger’s "Proportionate Reasons"
Abortion Is the Black Hole of Moral Issues…
…
Archbishop Charles Chaput
…
Priests for Lfe
priestsforlife.org/elections/ratzingerletter.htm

I have read all your references and it is clear you do not know the difference between a strongly held opinion and binding Catholic dogma. These references are all opinion. You have selected them from among the most ardent campaigners in the realm of pro-life social policy. I’m not saying there is anything wrong with their opinion, just as I’m not saying there is anything wrong with your opinion. I just isn’t binding Catholic dogma. And the parts of these comments that could be considered dogma still leave a lot to the interpretation of the laity. And you still have not answered my specific questions in post #75. I’m waiting to hear you tell me whether or not it is a mortal sin to buy the sports car instead of stop the abortion that I mentioned.

 

[estesbob]

I have read all your references and it is clear you do not know the difference between a strongly held opinion and binding Catholic dogma. These references are all opinion. You have selected them from among the most ardent campaigners in the realm of pro-life social policy. I’m not saying there is anything wrong with their opinion, just as I’m not saying there is anything wrong with your opinion. I just isn’t binding Catholic dogma. And the parts of these comments that could be considered dogma still leave a lot to the interpretation of the laity. And you still have not answered my specific questions in post #75. I’m waiting to hear you tell me whether or not it is a mortal sin to buy the sports car instead of stop the abortion that I mentioned.

LOL-I knew as soon as I posted the voluminous quotes from members of the magisterium affirming the church’s teaching on not voting for pro-abortion candidates you would counter that it was just their “personal” opinion and wasn’t binding. Being a pro choice Catholic is having to constantly rationalize why is okay reject church teaching in favor of your political agenda.

. I personally not want to stand in front of my maker and say “well Lord although I may have supported the slaughter of 1.2 million children a year but by goshmy preferred candidate did promise me free healthcare and lower taxes”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LOL-I knew as soon as I posted the voluminous quotes from members of the magisterium affirming the church’s teaching on not voting for pro-abortion candidates you would counter that it was just their “personal” opinion and wasn’t binding. Being a pro choice Catholic is having to constantly rationalize why is okay reject church teaching in favor of your political agenda.

. I personally not want to stand in front of my maker and say “well Lord although I may have supported the slaughter of 1.2 million children a year but by goshmy preferred candidate did promise me free healthcare and lower taxes”

But I will say that my vote did not support that slaughter. And you still have not answered the question I keep asking you to answer.

 

[estesbob]

But I will say that my vote did not support that slaughter. And you still have not answered the question I keep asking you to answer.

You wont listen to the Pope, you wont listen to Cardinals, you wont listen to bishops., you ignore church documents ,so why would anybody waste their time answering your questions?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You wont listen to the Pope, you wont listen to Cardinals, you wont listen to bishops., you ignore church documents ,so why would anybody waste their time answering your questions?

I can only conclude that you are not very serious about this abortion issue, and would probably rather buy a sports car than stop an abortion. That was what my question was about.

 

[estesbob]

I can only conclude that you are not very serious about this abortion issue, and would probably rather buy a sports car than stop an abortion. That was what my question was about.

We post direct quotes from church documents, you post your opinion , huffily declare you of have won the debate , then declare we are not serious about stopping abortion. . . Like I said you summarily dismissed direct comments from the Pope on down so it is obvious to all that is nothing we can say that will convince you of anything.

But let’s be perfectly clear. When you vote for a pro-abortion candidate you are complicit in the death of 1.2 million children per year. . All the sports car analogies, dismissals of the Pope and bishops as being partisan political hacks, etc will not change that.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

We post direct quotes from church documents, you post your opinion , huffily declare you of have won the debate , then declare we are not serious about stopping abortion. . . Like I said you summarily dismissed direct comments from the Pope on down so it is obvious to all that is nothing we can say that will convince you of anything.

But let’s be perfectly clear. When you vote for a pro-abortion candidate you are complicit in the death of 1.2 million children per year. . All the sports car analogies, dismissals of the Pope and bishops as being partisan political hacks, etc will not change that.

Let me recommend to you that you review the postings of a fellow here in CAF who goes by “Ender”. I often disagree with him, and from his postings it is likely that you and he are in complete agreement on this issue. However, unlike you, he engages in debate and answers questions sincerely. Unlike you, he refrains from name-calling and snarky remarks. Unlike you, he is more interested in convincing people of what he believes in rather than scoring points. You could learn a lot from him.

 

[jrgiancola]

Like I said, you are free to believe as you wish. Fortunately, you cannot rewrite history.

And if you ignore history, you are doomed to repeat its errors.

You don’t have to believe what I believe. But I’m not trying to have my church’s moral code codified into law by Congress or by a constitutional amendment.

I love my church. I believe it teaches the truth that God has revealed to mankind. I’m proud to be an Orthodox Christian. I believe God wants me right where I am.

The original question was whether it is moral to vote for a pro-choice candidate for elected office. Various views, including my own, have been expressed.

The poster of this thread will have to rely upon God to give him or her the answer.

But my church does not tell us how to vote. One of the ways it remains untainted is to stay as uninvolved as possible with the secular government. It is not afraid to speak out against injustice, and no church should be afraid to do that.

But attempting to coerce members to vote one way or another is not what Jesus did or wanted His church to do. Jesus never uttered a word against the Roman Empire. He came to redeem us and reveal His Father to us, not to set up the Kingdom of God on earth.

He WILL establish that kingdom one day. But it will not be made of or created from earthly things. How could it be? There is no one on earth who is righteous of his or her own volition.

Not one of us is without sin.

 

[Holly3278]

It does not sound like you had full knowledge so I doubt that you committed a mortal sin. However, you really need to think about your rationalization. In modern elections in the United States, we have a Democrat running and a Republican running. More often than not, the Republican is far more pro-life than the Democrat. The Democrat is often outright pro-abortion. Even if the Republican supports the gravely evil option of abortion in some cases, he/she is usually more pro-life than the Democrat in any case. Therefore, we should vote for the lesser of two evils. In this case, it would be the Republican since in my case, the Republican is more pro-life than the Democrat who is probably outright pro-abortion.

Take the example of the presidential elections of 2008. John McCain, a Republican, and Barack Obama, a Democrat, were running. Barack Obama was outright pro-abortion. John McCain, on the other hand, was pro-life. If a Catholic were to vote for Barack Obama, that would probably be a sin since Barack Obama is very pro-abortion. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not a moral theologian and can’t make a determination on this. However, it is my opinion that it would be a sin to vote for someone like Barack Obama who is outright pro-abortion.

As for myself, I am a single issue voter. I refuse to vote for anyone who is pro-abortion. If the conservative candidate, who is usually pro-life, supports abortion in a few cases, but not all while the liberal candidate, who is usually pro-abortion, supports abortion in most or all cases, I’ll vote for the conservative candidate since the conservative candidate is more pro-life than the liberal candidate. I refuse to support someone who is pro-abortion with my vote as I believe God will hold me responsible for my vote.

 

[Newbie2]

The poster of this thread will have to rely upon God to give him or her the answer.

But my church does not tell us how to vote. One of the ways it remains untainted is to stay as uninvolved as possible with the secular government. It is not afraid to speak out against injustice, and no church should be afraid to do that.

Agreed.

I hope it’s clear that the Catholic Church does not tell Catholics how to vote either. Members of the Magisterium would make lousy politicians…they wouldn’t lie, lol. But the Church does have an understanding of the political process, that it’s not always cut and dried as some in this thread would lead you to believe.

We are free to use our conscience, but that conscience must be guided by the principles of Catholic Moral teaching. That is different, granted, perhaps a very subtle difference, than saying the Church tells us how to vote; thus, “strategic” voting is allowed. Otherwise, the American Bishops would have told us long ago that we Catholics cannot support any candidate in a Party which has an essential plank which is pro-abortion.

Let me recommend to you that you review the postings of a fellow here in CAF who goes by “Ender”. I often disagree with him, and from his postings it is likely that you and he are in complete agreement on this issue. However, unlike you, he engages in debate and answers questions sincerely. .

While I cannot speak for him, I think Bob is uncomfortable addressing the questions that you and I posed to him directly regarding “stragegic voting”. It is frustrating, but I think the lack of and answer/answers is an answer.

 

[jrgiancola]

Many RCC priests DO suggest to their parishoners to vote anti-abortion candidates into office. What I mean by “coercion,” is when the bishop denied the Kennedy congressman communion because of his pro-choice stance. That IS coercion, and inappropriate political activity on the part of any church which does it. When the church denies the most important and healing and loving sacrament to an elected official because of the way he votes on any issue, that IS COERCION. And the bishop went as far as to announce it to the press and therefore the whole nation. When the church gets involved in secular politics, it inevitably becomes corrupted by the secularism. Jesus knew that when he made His comment about rendering unto caesar, etc. Jesus made a distinction between His Kingdom and the kingdoms of men. He never became involved in secular state issues; one of the reasons the Jews rejected Him was that they were expecting a messiah who would free them from the Romans; instead, Jesus told them to love their enemies.

 

[Newbie2]

Many RCC priests DO suggest to their parishoners to vote anti-abortion candidates into office. What I mean by “coercion,” is when the bishop denied the Kennedy congressman communion because of his pro-choice stance. That IS coercion, and inappropriate political activity on the part of any church which does it. When the church denies the most important and healing and loving sacrament to an elected official because of the way he votes on any issue, that IS COERCION. And the bishop went as far as to announce it to the press and therefore the whole nation. When the church gets involved in secular politics, it inevitably becomes corrupted by the secularism. Jesus knew that when he made His comment about rendering unto caesar, etc. Jesus made a distinction between His Kingdom and the kingdoms of men. He never became involved in secular state issues; one of the reasons the Jews rejected Him was that they were expecting a messiah who would free them from the Romans; instead, Jesus told them to love their enemies.

Perhaps “many”, but I’ve never heard one even preach on the evils of abortion, let alone the political/voting aspect. It’s quite OK for a Priest, Deacon or Bishop to suggest that Catholics vote consistant with Catholic theology. I’m surprised that you would think that problematic. What they cannot do is suggest a specific candidate or party; if you’ve heard this done, it is not allowed.

I don’t understand why you think it’s problematic when the Church has certain guidelines and “rules”, if you will, for her members.

I think you’re missing a critical point; the society in which Christ preached was one where they had not vote; Jews were not Roman citizens, and besides, even Roman citizens did not have a vote, it was not a democracy.

It seems that your “Christian” solution is to avoid politics completely and let our collective Christian voices go silent…thereby allowing evil to go unchallenged.

As far as Catholic Public Officials go, they have greater power and responsibility to influence public policy on matters such as abortion. Catholic public officials are expected to act like Catholics as are non-political Catholic folks.

Communion is denied (or is supposed to be) to those in mortal sin, regardless of that mortal sin. Promoting or supporting the slaughter of innocent life is a mortal sin, see? If we as Christians divorce ourselves from the public sector, we’ve pretty much abandoned our evangelization of morality.

You know, you could push that coercion point way past a reasonable point: One could say the Church coerces people to get baptized in order to be saved. Not so different, methinks, from expecting Catholic public officials to vote in line with Catholic Moral Principles, or at least not in opposition to them.

One cannot be practice Chirstianity properly if one compartmentalizes their faith life and the rest of their life; it must all be integrated.

 

[jrgiancola]

Good arguments, but not convincing for me. I believe in a complete separation of church and state. Every church, I feel, does have the right to speak out publicly on moral issues. But I’m against any church using undue influence or interfering with the state. I truly believe that when any church gets involved in politics, it is headed for corruption. I don’t agree that the bishop had a right to deny communion to the congressman; but, for the sake of argument, suppose he did. Then it should have been kept between that bishop and the congressman; it should not have been broadcast to the public. I feel that crossed the line because it was an attempt to intimidate other catholic legislators. I believe the RCC has used intimidation and violence for centuries to get what it wants. I find that reprehensible and not from God. Intimidation and violence are NOT God’s way of doing things.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I don’t agree that the bishop had a right to deny communion to the congressman…

But the act of receiving communion is fundamentally a religious act. If the Church cannot set rules on receiving communion, what can they set rules on? The act only becomes a political act when the media and others make it into a political act.

… but, for the sake of argument, suppose he did. Then it should have been kept between that bishop and the congressman; it should not have been broadcast to the public.

But who broadcast it to the public? I don’t think the bishop went out of his way to tell everyone. But when a politician is famous, the media is going to follow them around and they will broadcast the fact, regardless of what the bishop does or does not do. I don’t think it was ever within the bishop’s power to keep it “between the two of them”. The broadcasting of the event is just an unavoidable consequence of the open society in which we live. Don’t blame the Catholic Church for that. The bishop would most likely treat anyone else the same whose view were so widely known. In fact the restrictions seem to be applied with a great deal of restraint.

I feel that crossed the line because it was an attempt to intimidate other catholic legislators.

Any law can be looked on as intimidating if you already believe it is unjust. The police intimidate you into driving within the speed limit by imposing fines. Denying communion to one who is ostensibly disqualifying himself by rejecting long-standing laws is not intimidation. It is not an interference in matters of state.

 

[GraceSofia]

I love my church. I believe it teaches the truth that God has revealed to mankind. I’m proud to be an Orthodox Christian. I believe God wants me right where I am.

But my church does not tell us how to vote. ** One of the ways it remains untainted is to stay as uninvolved as possible with the secular government.**

Like Archbishop Makarios becoming the president of Cyprus?

Your new love affair with the Orthodox Church seems to be based on your fantasies, just as I get the feeling a lot of your hatred for the Catholic Church is also based on fantasies.

 

[Newbie2]

But the act of receiving communion is fundamentally a religious act. If the Church cannot set rules on receiving communion, what can they set rules on? The act only becomes a political act when the media and others make it into a political act.

But who broadcast it to the public? I don’t think the bishop went out of his way to tell everyone. But when a politician is famous, the media is going to follow them around and they will broadcast the fact, regardless of what the bishop does or does not do. I don’t think it was ever within the bishop’s power to keep it “between the two of them”. The broadcasting of the event is just an unavoidable consequence of the open society in which we live. Don’t blame the Catholic Church for that. The bishop would most likely treat anyone else the same whose view were so widely known. In fact the restrictions seem to be applied with a great deal of restraint.

Any law can be looked on as intimidating if you already believe it is unjust. The police intimidate you into driving within the speed limit by imposing fines. Denying communion to one who is ostensibly disqualifying himself by rejecting long-standing laws is not intimidation. It is not an interference in matters of state.

That pretty much echos my response.

I’m sure that line gets crossed every now and then by members of the clergy, and such is not consistant with what the Catholic Church is trying to accomplish.

I don’t see any examples of the Church speaking out (as jr says is OK) and “using undue influence or interfering with the state”. The pols have a choice whether they want to act like Catholics or not; the Church is, like she does with Joe Parishioner Catholic, holding them to the “rules” of the faith.

Communion is supposed to be denied to anyone in unrepented mortal sin. Directly enabling the slaughter of the unborn is a mortal sin. The Church is supposed to look the other way just because the person in mortal sin gets to vote on the laws of the land?

jr, do you object to the Church holding every member to the same “rules” of the faith?

 

[John21652]

Good arguments, but not convincing for me.

jrgiancola, you have spent an innordinate amount of eevryone’s time demonstarting that you are not here to be convinced. In fact, I’d say with great confidence that you are here for the purpose of demonstrating your dissent from Catholicism and attempting to justify to yourself above everyone else, your own non-catholic beliefs. In short, you are closed minded.

I believe in a complete separation of church and state. Every church, I feel, does have the right to speak out publicly on moral issues. But I’m against any church using undue influence or interfering with the state.

You believe every Church has the right to speak publicly on moral issues. Yet you say you are against any Church using undue influence. What do you mean by “undue influence”? If a Church has the right to speak out publicly on moral issues, then there can be no limit to just how much and how often and to what degree of effort that Church expends on 'speaking out". Unless, of course, you have an authoritarian streak and you would impose limits on the influence being exerted by a Church when that ‘speaking out’ seems to be becoming effective and you don’t agree with it. no Church can do more than participate in the democratic process and it has as much right, legally and morally, to participate in any way shape or form as does any group, party, or association of citizens. A Church participating in a political process is subject to the sames laws, rules and regulations as any other group. For it to be otherwise would be tantamount to political discrimination. Really, your thesis is vacuous.

I truly believe that when any church gets involved in politics, it is headed for corruption.

Your ‘true belief’ is rather meaningless. If you wish to have your ‘true beleif’ accepted by others, you need to justify that beleif. Otherwise it is a bald assertion. Considering how most laws have a moral dimension, others can and do argue legitemately that greater Church involvement is what is sadly lacking in law making. Of course, I truly beleive the Catholic Church is the only Church with the moral authority to prosecute the making of good law and there needs to be more involvement of the Catholic Church to stave off moral bankruptcy in civil society.

I don’t agree that the bishop had a right to deny communion to the congressman; but, for the sake of argument, suppose he did.

Whether you agree or not is totally irrelevent. Church law says the Bishop does have the right. other organisations have the right to ban and bar dissenting members, yet you don’t think the Catholic Church should have that right. Your double standards reek of a totalitarian mentality.

Then it should have been kept between that bishop and the congressman; it should not have been broadcast to the public

.in other words, you don’t like the idea of catholicism having a public face and you wish for the Church to keep itself and its members all clean and tidy behind closed doors. Considering how the Church is a public organisation and the senator is a public figure, the Church had every right to make its action publicly known if it so chooses and it is fitting and proper that other catholics should be confident that their Church is seen to be strong in its application of the faith.

I feel that crossed the line because it was an attempt to intimidate other catholic legislators.

Well, that’s how all rules and regulations are enforced! Anyone who breaks the law of the land is held to account in public, as an example to the rest of us. So then, logically if you possess the capability, expalin why the Catholic Church shouldn’t also show its members, and others, that it is willing to enforce its rules and regulations.

I believe the RCC has used intimidation and violence for centuries to get what it wants.

Again, unless you want your statements to be considered as anything other than bald and vacuous statements, shape up with some supporting information. To make these so obviously anti-Catholic statements without supporting evidence is as valid as telling us the world is flat. Of course, with a bit of luck you might find one or two empty heads who will take notice.

I find that reprehensible and not from God. Intimidation and violence are NOT God’s way of doing things.

You make a vacuous statement and then expect us to beleive your conclusion is valid?! Besides, you seem to forget that Jesus had to use a measure of intimidation and violence to clean out the Temple. Just that fact alone makes your conclusion silly. If you anything about the Bible at all, you’d also refrain from writing such piffle.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Every church, I feel, does have the right to speak out publicly on moral issues. But I’m against any church using undue influence or interfering with the state.

Quantify undue. (And who decides what level is “undue”? You, as one individual? One Church? All Churches or religions? Only secular society?)

 

[John21652]

Quantify undue. (And who decides what level is “undue”? You, as one individual? One Church? All Churches or religions? Only secular society?)

Elizabeth502, the very notion that a Church can even exercise “undue influence” in political discourse is a fallacious one. By definition, Churches operate on a moral plane and they operate to influence moral behaviour. Should a so called Church operate in any manner that is immoral, then, by definition, they are operating outside the moral sphere and in contradiction to their very existence. Considering how the notion of ;undue influence’ usually pertains to contractual arrangements in civil law, and is used to prevent duress, or unconscionable conduct, from influencing contractual outcomes, I fail to see how any Church could exert undue influence in matters pertaining to the moral dimension of law-making. A Church can do all within the bounds of good morality to influence moral outcomes and the influence could never be construed as being ‘undue’. Considering the parlous state of morality in western society, I’d suggest that the Churches are not exercising anywhere near enough influence on law making. We, as a society, have been sold a crock with the call for seperation of Church and State. The lack of Christian morality evident in much of what passes as law making is renting the foundations of our Christian societies. We need to demand of our Church leaders that they become more vociferous in ensuring that the moral dimensions of human living are enshrined in our legal system, just as they have been for thousands of years.

I’d also suggest that for a poster like jrgiancola, the ‘influence’ becomes ‘undue’ when it is exerted by the Catholic Church, with which he seems to have a beef.