I'm very liberal, considering Catholicism.

  • Thread starter Thread starter D0UBTFIRE
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We have a moral obligation to oppose abortion. There is no moral component whatever in any of Obama’s social plans (whatever they may be). They may in fact be the best solutions (although I doubt it) but there is no moral fault in disagreeing with them. There is, however, moral fault in failing to oppose abortion and the laws that enable it.

I don’t really understand…if you believe that universal health care has no “moral component,” I think you are wrong. If you believe that the next decade will not be a dramatic testing ground for the kind of environment and international infrastructure we hand on to the next several generations, I think you are wrong.

Also, if you think that Obama is immoral just because he is tragically misguided on the abortion question, I think you are wrong there, too.

I wonder whether a lot of the enmity towards Obama and his supporters comes from the notion than anyone who supports abortion in any form is deeply wicked. I simply cannot accept this argument. There are people who worry about innocent girls going to back alley abortionists; people who think about some problematic legal ramifications of keeping abortion illegal; and people who cannot believe that a cluster of cells is life. There are also those who ask themselves how it can be that a just God such as we believe in would allow an aborted fetus never to have a chance at life…and who take this as reason for doubting that fetuses have souls, or who say, well, if they do have souls, God couldn’t just condemn them to a lesser eternity than we have a chance at, so maybe they all go to Heaven anyway…?

I mean, obviously I think there are answers to all these objections, and we can’t give even well-meaning people too much benefit of the doubt when they are lawmakers responsible for abortion laws. But I do think we need to be careful to avoid branding all pro-choice people as cruel, heartless infanticides who hate the Church, hate men, and hate children. Most pragmatically this kind of attitude is destructive because it can blind us to all the good a politician, or a person or a mother or whatever, can do, and to opportunities we have to work with them on the common good on areas where we agree. I think Obama is a man of fine moral character despite what you and I strongly believe to be misguided thinking on this one critical point.

You can disagree with my judgment of his character if you like, but I hope you do not think that there is some intrinsic moral fault in my believing what I do…?

Peace,
+AMDG+
 
**Not one single member of the Magestrium said there were proportionate reasons to vote for Obama. An overwhelming number made it clear there was not. What you and others have done is take a footnote out of a statement made by cardinal Ratzingter and one out of context line from faithful citizenship and claimed it allowed one to vote for Obama. **

I’ll be honest: this is the hardest thing for me, the fact that so many bishops came out against Obama. I will say three things:

A) Bishops are only human, and I am livid that someone as unpleasant and insidious and disingenuous as Karl Rove infiltrated their ranks in 2000 and turned the Catholic vote red. Why did the bishops never come out en masse before 2000 to threaten Democratic voters with hellfire? I think that this politicization of the Church is a passing fad and one that makes me worry, even, whether I should be waging a “culture war” with my fellow Catholics on a forum like this. “Bear with one another in love; take every care to preserve the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace!” (Ephesians)

B) It is true that many of them were vocally in favor of McCain. But there were just as many who said nothing, and even those who were forceful about a McCain vote declined to call an Obama vote a sin. Why? I believe this is because we are justified in searching our souls and arriving at a Democratic vote in prayer as long as we are very, very sure that our reasons for voting this way are just.

C) But why were so many bishops silent? I have to say, for me, there were so many reasons to vote for Obama: but every major news outlet clearly had it in for McCain and ridiculed all Republicans as morons. The world did not need another influential body proclaiming how great Obama would be on the war, the economy, the environment, etc.

What the world did need, and does, and always will, is the Church’s voice on abortion, because the Church is the only moral authority brave and wise enough to stand up to this most horrendous of sins which everyone else, even other religious leaders, runs away from. I have tried to argue that a Democratic vote, if cast for good reasons, must be offset by individual acts (volunteering, advocating, etc.) taken to fight the abortion system. But what could the Church possibly do to compensate if it lowered its voice and stopped advocating for the easily-forgotten unborn for the sake of an American election? Anything less than what the bishops did – even if it would have been more honest (in my view) to admit that there are good reasons to vote for Obama – may have hurt the pro-life cause. The bishops are our teachers, but in this case they are public figures too.

I know this seems to be contradicting my point A! I will admit that I am still thinking through all of this and am trying to decide how I feel…I am grateful to you for bringing this up and would welcome other thoughts. In a word, even though I believe one could in good conscience vote opposite the way many bishops exhorted us to, I am so proud of them – and so grateful to be Catholic – because of what they did and said. They gave what were, to me, the only compelling reasons to vote for McCain…and their reasons were compelling indeed.

There is no evdience that the democrat partys policies have done anything for the poor- in fact the ooposite is true. . But then it is obvious you have different standards for democrats& republicans. repubicans must end abortion to be taken seriously-democarts must only act like they want to help the poor and thats good enough for you.

I don’t think there will ever be scientific “evidence.” Rest assured, I feel I have as much reason to believe the Democrats’ policies are better for the poor as you have to believe the Republicans’ policies are better for the poor. I think we can respect each others’ differences and continue to talk about them…though perhaps on another thread?

I don’t have different standards for these two parties, by the way. You only know me from the context of a single thread in which I believe that one can make an argument for a vote for Obama. There are a lot of issues on which I think the Republicans are right on and the Democrats are totally misguided…we just haven’t gotten the chance to discuss those yet.

Brief anecdote: a year or so ago I took an internet survey where you answer a bunch of questions about your political beliefs and they rank your list of ideal candidates on the basis of your responses. My number one choice was Mike Huckabee, followed closely by Dennis Kucinich! (And the rest alternated Dem-Rep-Dem-Rep-Dem-Rep…haha.) Which only goes to show that I am extremely moderate and in-the-middle and have no partisan affiliation whatsoever.

…And for the record, I would never in my life vote for Kucinich, whereas in my opinion, Mike Huckabee was as close to perfection this year as either party came!

Peace,
+AMDG+
 
tuviskazinai said:
A) Bishops are only human, and I am livid that someone as unpleasant and insidious and disingenuous as Karl Rove infiltrated their ranks in 2000 and turned the Catholic vote red. Why did the bishops never come out en masse before 2000 to threaten Democratic voters with hellfire? I think that this politicization of the Church is a passing fad and one that makes me worry, even, whether I should be waging a “culture war” with my fellow Catholics on a forum like this. “Bear with one another in love; take every care to preserve the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace!” (Ephesians)
Click to expand...
Could it be because there hasn’t been such a pro-abortion presidential candidate before? I think FOCA opened their eyes.

I also think that it’s a result of the changing make-up of the Bishops, and that they are starting to get more vocal in support of life.
 
Sheeniac said:
Could it be because there hasn’t been such a pro-abortion presidential candidate before? I think FOCA opened their eyes.

I also think that it’s a result of the changing make-up of the Bishops, and that they are starting to get more vocal in support of life.
Click to expand...
The real question is why anyone would need a Bishop. more or less the church, to tell them you shouldnt vote for someone who supports unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand.
 
estesbob said:
The real question is why anyone would need a Bishop. more or less the church, to tell them you shouldnt vote for someone who supports unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand.
Click to expand...
Ok, guys, I give up…you win…
hahaha.
Peace,
+AMDG+
 
D0UBTFIRE said:
…part of me is terrified of conservative clergy.
Click to expand...
I wish I could find some of those terrifyingly conservative clergy!

Seriously, “conservative” and “liberal” are terms that get used a lot, but in the church context they confuse matters more than they clarify them. Catholic theology is - and ought to be - “conservative”, in that it preserves what has been handed on from Jesus and the apostles down through the ages. But the implications of Catholic belief for secular politics and society are all over the map. On some matters - like abortion and homosexuality - the faith impels us to stands that secular society may understand as reactionarily conservative. But on others - like immigration and economic justice - it points in ways that may make conservatives uncomfortable.

In any event, secular politics are subordinate to belief, which is as it should be!
 
tuviskazinai said:
Still, that’s the best argument I have {McC probably couldn’t do anything useful anyway}
Click to expand...
Nothing of significance can be done about abortion until Roe is overturned; everything else is nibbling around the edges. As you say, reversing Roe won’t end abortion but it will begin the debate about it. There was a lengthy and detailed discussion about partial birth abortion because it was believed that it could be banned by legislation. Since abortion per se cannot be limited by legislation there has been no comparable discussion about it; right now it’s an all or nothing battle. The discussion on the particulars of abortion has never been held. That can change only with the reversal of Roe - which can happen only with the appointment of justices who acknowledge its flaws … which, in this election, could happen only with the election of the Republican.
I agree with you that we have a moral obligation to oppose abortion laws, and I don’t think that voting Republican is the only way to do that.
Click to expand...
This is literally true but as a practical matter is a bit like saying pumps are not the only way to bail out a ship, you can also use cups and spoons. It seems evident to me that the damage done by your left hand will never be undone by the ineffectual efforts of your right hand.

Ender
 
tuviskazinai said:
I don’t really understand…if you believe that universal health care has no “moral component,” I think you are wrong.
Click to expand...
This is a significant point and one that I believe is poorly understood. There is no question that health care is an important issue that directly affects the lives and welfare of us all but where is the moral aspect in determining how best to provide such care? Maybe a simpler issue will illustrate my point: do you believe that raising the minimum wage is a moral issue? Think about that before you continue … If you do then you need to be able to state what the “moral” wage should be. Don’t know what it is? Do you think that simply wanting to set it to the “moral” value is of any help in determining where to set the wage?

The same argument holds for health care. The debate is about how to provide the best level of care for the most people; it is not about whether or not the poor should be looked out for. The fact that you believe your health care solution will work better than (e.g.) mine doesn’t make my opposition to your proposal immoral. We do not disagree on the destination; we disagree on the means to accomplish our shared goal. We are at a fork in the road, you think we need to go left - it is not immoral of me to believe that we can arrive at our goal only by going right.
I do think we need to be careful to avoid branding all pro-choice people as cruel, heartless infanticides who hate the Church, hate men, and hate children.
Click to expand...
You have shown too much honesty in your previous arguments to be comfortable with this one. Don’t resort to caricature.

Ender
 
Please check out my video on Youtube. My user name is Romgtr. My video is called, “How to find the true religion.” God bless!
 
lizaanne said:
The Episcopal Church does not hold the fullness of Truth, nor do they have Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. I don’t feel that pointing anyone toward anything less that what Christ intended (His One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church - the Catholic Church) is extremely irresponsible.

If someone has issues with the Catholic Church they need to change their understanding and acceptance to conform to the Truth - not just find a shoe that fits.

~Liza
Click to expand...
Amen. :signofcross:
 
tuviskazinai said:
Ok, guys, I give up…you win…
hahaha.
Peace,
+AMDG+
Click to expand...
Look, I think it’s worth saying that assertions like “Democrats do more for the poor than Republicans” are purely ideological, their truth value depending on all kinds of complicated factors. There are data that can be squeezed to suggest such statements are accurate, but the important point is that we’re talking about a ‘truth effect’ here, a ‘construction’, a thing about which reasonable people can disagree amicably because the data can lead to other equally compelling but opposite conclusions. So, you can vote for Obama and I can vote for McCain and we can both have a beer together afterwards, discuss our political theories, and enjoy one another. Hence your joviality, “hahaha”.

But abortion is a different category altogether. At fertilization, the only possible outcome is human being. Period. The DNA, the finger prints, the summersaults. This is not an effect of manipulating data. It is not an ideological construct.

If you’re an abortionist, for example, and I’m a teacher, we can’t go have a beer after our respective hard day’s work. You destroy the very thing I seek to cultivate. That my students’ parents wanted their children did not imbue those children with human being; desire for a child is not the thing that makes an embryo human being. Call me an essentialist, but human being precedes desire. It comes before ideology. Indeed, it comes from our Creator.

That’s why I don’t believe you can look to some ideological argument about the Democrats’ position on poverty (economy, war, whatever) to justify pro-abortion voting. I mean, you can, obviously, because you do; in my opinion, that justification is pretty lame even before we look at what the Holy Father and the bishops have said.

It’s a crucial challenge facing faithful Catholics: How do we “show” people that the question of being (ie, of human being) is categorically different than, say, the question of which political plan (eg, income redistribution or the Fair Tax) best serves the interests of poor people? I mean, faithful Catholics tend to intuitively “see” that political questions are of a different nature than the question of being. Ongoing Christian enthusiasm for pro-abortion candidates seems to suggest that millions don’t perceive any difference.

Peace, all.
 
tuviskazinai said:
I’ll be honest: this is the hardest thing for me, the fact that so many bishops came out against Obama.
There was not a single bishop who came out against Obama. What they spoke out about was the significance of the issue of abortion but their words were applicable to all candidates. The significance in the presidential race is that their condemnation applied only to Obama but that was the inevitable consequence of his position on this issue. Their comments were not about Obama and the bishops’ stance will not change over the course of time regardless of the candidates.

Why did the bishops never come out en masse before 2000 to threaten Democratic voters with hellfire?
The bishops had made the tactical decision not to press this issue as they believe it would do more harm than good. I think they are reassessing that decision.

It is true that many of them were vocally in favor of McCain.
Name one and provide a citation.

But there were just as many who said nothing, and even those who were forceful about a McCain vote declined to call an Obama vote a sin. Why?
How does one speculate on the meaning of what someone hasn’t said? Deal with the arguments from those who spoke out.

I believe this is because we are justified in searching our souls and arriving at a Democratic vote in prayer as long as we are very, very sure that our reasons for voting this way are just.
There were specific criteria the bishops provided for deciding how to cast our votes. This discussion is over whether your justifications met those criteria.

What the world did need, and does, and always will, is the Church’s voice on abortion
And what did the Church say about abortion, about politicians who support it, and about nations that allow it? And, … um how did you respond to that voice?

Rest assured, I feel I have as much reason to believe the Democrats’ policies are better for the poor as you have to believe the Republicans’ policies are better for the poor.
I’m sure you do. The point is that neither of us can claim that our social policies are more moral whereas there is no doubt about the moral superiority of one side versus the other on the question of abortion
Click to expand...
Ender
 
:rotfl:
McCain said he would never overturn Roe vs Wade. That argument is totally moot.
So which is it, Ender, character and principle or effectively reducing abortions? You seemed to contradict yourself there. If it’s all about principle and not what we predict will happen or the person’s character, then you should note McCain doesn’t have the principal either. He simply said he will not end all abortion. If we base a vote on the possibility of ending all abortion 100%, then McCain ain’t the guy.
:banghead:
 
Ender"The bishops had made the tactical decision not to press this issue as they believe it would do more harm than good. I think they are reassessing that decision."
So did I make a “tactical decision” to not do more harm than good.
😉
 
Augustin83008 said:
Look, I think it’s worth saying that assertions like “Democrats do more for the poor than Republicans” are purely ideological, their truth value depending on all kinds of complicated factors. There are data that can be squeezed to suggest such statements are accurate, but the important point is that we’re talking about a ‘truth effect’ here, a ‘construction’, a thing about which reasonable people can disagree amicably because the data can lead to other equally compelling but opposite conclusions. So, you can vote for Obama and I can vote for McCain and we can both have a beer together afterwards, discuss our political theories, and enjoy one another. Hence your joviality, “hahaha”.

But abortion is a different category altogether. At fertilization, the only possible outcome is human being. Period. The DNA, the finger prints, the summersaults. This is not an effect of manipulating data. It is not an ideological construct.

If you’re an abortionist, for example, and I’m a teacher, we can’t go have a beer after our respective hard day’s work. You destroy the very thing I seek to cultivate. That my students’ parents wanted their children did not imbue those children with human being; desire for a child is not the thing that makes an embryo human being. Call me an essentialist, but human being precedes desire. It comes before ideology. Indeed, it comes from our Creator.

That’s why I don’t believe you can look to some ideological argument about the Democrats’ position on poverty (economy, war, whatever) to justify pro-abortion voting. I mean, you can, obviously, because you do; in my opinion, that justification is pretty lame even before we look at what the Holy Father and the bishops have said.

It’s a crucial challenge facing faithful Catholics: How do we “show” people that the question of being (ie, of human being) is categorically different than, say, the question of which political plan (eg, income redistribution or the Fair Tax) best serves the interests of poor people? I mean, faithful Catholics tend to intuitively “see” that political questions are of a different nature than the question of being. Ongoing Christian enthusiasm for pro-abortion candidates seems to suggest that millions don’t perceive any difference.

Peace, all.
Click to expand...
Well said!👍
 
seekdatruth said:
McCain said he would never overturn Roe vs Wade. … He simply said he will not end all abortion.
Click to expand...
These are two very different statements and I don’t believe he made the first one. First, no president has that power anyway, and second what I believe he said was that he would have no “I’m against Roe” litmus test for nominating justices. Finally, overturning Roe would not mean the elimination of abortion, only that the issue would return to the states so it was a simple statement of fact to say that he would not end all abortion.
If we base a vote on the possibility of ending all abortion 100%, then McCain ain’t the guy.
Click to expand...
There has never been and never will be such a possibility. The choice is between supporting or opposing those who support abortion, nothing more.

Ender
 
D0UBTFIRE said:
I read somewhere that if a Catholic votes for a politician that is not pro-life that they are automatically excommunicated. Is that how it is?
Click to expand...
Mm, I don’t think so. Those who vote for an anti-life politician a) without just reasons, and b) who had the choice to do otherwise commit grave sin – sin that is even mortal, if they are fully cognizant of what they’re doing. (See the three conditions for mortal sin.)

I know a Catholic woman who voted for Obama, despite his horrendous policies of death (concerning abortion) because she thought he might decrease poverty to the point of decreasing the number of abortions, as opposed to McCain, who she thought was less likely to decrease the number of abortions, despite his speaking against it.

Did she screw up? Probably yes, but ignorance diminishes accountability: she considers her reasons to be just, that voting for Obama would decrease the number of human lives lost. Is she excommunicated? No.

I suppose this issue, and excommunication, has already been addressed, since this thread is eleven pages long. Sorry if I’ve wasted time!
 
Ender said:
Nothing of significance can be done about abortion until Roe is overturned; everything else is nibbling around the edges. As you say, reversing Roe won’t end abortion but it will begin the debate about it. There was a lengthy and detailed discussion about partial birth abortion because it was believed that it could be banned by legislation. Since abortion per se cannot be limited by legislation there has been no comparable discussion about it; right now it’s an all or nothing battle. The discussion on the particulars of abortion has never been held. That can change only with the reversal of Roe - which can happen only with the appointment of justices who acknowledge its flaws … which, in this election, could happen only with the election of the Republican.
This is literally true but as a practical matter is a bit like saying pumps are not the only way to bail out a ship, you can also use cups and spoons. It seems evident to me that the damage done by your left hand will never be undone by the ineffectual efforts of your right hand.

Ender
Click to expand...
I think you make some very shrewd points here. In particular, you may be right about opening a debate on Roe…that’s pretty truthful.

Your cups and spoons also hit the mark. But I mean, as long as we only talk about abortion in these posts, you are always going to have the stronger argument. I agree with you that the best thing we can do to fight abortion is to overturn Roe v Wade. But I am also concerned about the damage McCain could have done to the economy, the environment, global food and water supplies, the world’s dependence on gasoline, attempts to find peace in the war on terror, etc. It is true that Obama does not have a magic wand for these problems, but in my view he has the pumps on these ones, while McCain is working with cups and spoons.

And of course none of these issues seems as grave as abortion. But I believe we are at a turning point on all of these issues, and that the quality of life of billions of people over the next century could be at stake. Maybe this is a topic for another post, and I would be happy to investigate it together. Just as there is no public debate on the unborn because they are concealed in their mothers’ wombs, there is not much more of a public debate on the 119 million people who have been forced into poverty by the barely discussed global food crisis, or the one billion climate migrants that are expected to be displaced from subsaharan regions by 2050, or the three billion people who are expected to face severe water shortages by 2080 if nothing is done to regulate the way industrialized nations consume resources and destroy the environment with their waste.

A) You can condemn this all as sky-is-falling rhetoric, but I think it’s worth debating before either of us draws conclusions…like I said, in another forum?

B) True, no one policy on these or on any issues is as blatantly wrong as support for Roe vs Wade, as you’ve brought up in other posts. But frankly, when I vote for a president I am voting for a leader, not a moral theologian. If I believe the net effect of a morally flawed candidate will be more beneficial to mankind than that of a candidate who is on the right side of even the single most important ethical struggle, I am going to vote for the one who I believe will in the end save more lives and promote peace on earth. It’s always a gamble, but I see a need to do the very difficult calculations I’m talking about, rather than to settle for voting for “the good guy” who has a firmer position on a single issue.

Lastly, I have to take issue with your left hand-right hand comment. I know what you mean, and no offense taken, but I honestly believe my intellect and my spirituality are working together on this one. They’re both wrong, or neither of them is.

Ok, going to scurry over and respond to another post…!
Peace,
+AMDG+
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top