Is Voting for a Pro-Choicer a Mortal Sin?

[JoeyWarren]

Continued…

While I respect **Archbishop Burke’s **integrity and sincerity, as well as his good intentions, I want to point out that a number of our Cardinals nevertheless think **his public stance is unwise **-- more damaging to our Church here in America than it is helpful. Cardinal McCarrick summed up the thinking of these Cardinals when in a recent interview he said: “I think the canons [in the Church’s Code of Canon Law] remind us that we have to tell our people that if they are not in communion with the church they should not go and receive Communion. But that doesn’t say to us that we should deny them Communion when they come. I would be very uncomfortable to have a confrontation at the altar, because it implies that I know precisely what’s in a man’s heart or in a woman’s heart, and I’m not always sure.”

I must bring this to a close now by observing once again that we are lawyers and priests, each one of us following our own discipline in both the objective order and the subjective order. All of us here are called by God, vessels of clay that we are, to help others to do good and avoid evil. We are called to observe what is objective and visible and then to serve the invisible God made visible in those around us, remembering always that those whom we serve have inner and hidden souls made in the image and likeness of God. May all of our judgments be made in fear and trembling before God, for we, too, will one day stand before His throne to be judged. May God in His mercy help us in full measure to be his good servants. Whatever we may do that is legally permissible, may it always be what is morally right. For while we are the Law’s good servants, we are God’s first.

Fr. Charles E. Irvin, J.D.

 

[mnowlin1]

Why are Jews pro-choice?

Typically Orthodox Jews are very pro life. Reform Jews, the movement to which the SC justices belong, are notoriously pro choice and usually very socially liberal as well.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Here is something interesting from home.catholicweb.com/lansingcatholiclawyersguild/index.cfm/NewsItem?ID=124306&From=Home

This needs to be put in perspective. In some countries where the rule of law or other challenges may exist, this may allow abortion to not be the only issue. For instance, if there were an election in Darfur, one could determine that the person who would end the genocide may take precedence over abortion. Or in a country that is having a problem with freedom of Catholic’s to worship or persecution of Bishops as in China. I really hesitate to give examples in situations that I am not familiar with and know the teachings of the Church and the local Bishop with regard to the situation there.

But in the US, the Bishops have made it clear that this is not the case because other major church issues are essentially resolved in the Consitution. They have determined that this issue over-rides all other issues.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Let’s address Father Irvin’s questions:

1 – Should Canon 915 be enforced during this presidential election?

We have an election every two years, a presidential election every four years. In some states (Virginia, for example) they have odd year elections for state office.

2 – Should it be enforced at a later time because its enforcement at this time would give the appearance that the U. S. bishops are trying to determine the outcome of this election?

If we don’t enforce it in one year, how can we enforce it in another year? Is it okay to murder a baby in 2007 but not in 2008?

3

– Would its enforcement upon Catholic voters jeopardize the tax-exempt status of every Catholic parish and institution in dioceses where the bishops have taken this prohibitive stance?

Are we to sell our immortal souls for a tax-exempt status? Will we be comforted in Hell to know that even if we’re burning, we aren’t paying taxes?

4 – As long as Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land, what can a Catholic legislator or governor or president really do? Any actions they take would be negated by the judiciary, and any pro-life public pronouncements made legislators or politicians running for office would be seen as mere posturing and vote-pandering. Our nation’s abortion question will be resolved as a legal matter not in the legislative branch or in the executive branch, but only in the judicial branch.

Catholic politicians can:

• Pass laws restricting abortions – as Roe vs Wade said they can.
• Eliminate laws that allow school nurses, for example, to whisk underage girls off to abortionsts without notifying the parents.
• Choose and confirm judges who will overturn this monstrous ruling.
• Speak out forthrightly against the murder of the unborn.
• Demonstrate, by winning elections, that the American people do not favor abortion on demand.
• And do what leaders are supposed to do – lead! Lead this country out of this horrible holocaust.

 

[fix]

The controlling question, it seems to me is this: “Should the State by its laws and powers of enforcement make what is immoral to be at the same time and to the same extent illegal?”

“Should the State by its laws make what is immoral to be illegal?”

I would answer “No” it should not…

Well, how is this reasoning reconciled with this?:

2273 "The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81

And as for voting for a pol who supports abortion and subjective culpability for sin what about this?:

[N.B. 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 favour 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.]

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

 

[vern_humphrey]

The controlling question, it seems to me is this: “Should the State by its laws and powers of enforcement make what is immoral to be at the same time and to the same extent illegal?”

“Should the State by its laws make what is immoral to be illegal?”

I would answer “No” it should not…

Then should the state make murder (which is clearly immoral) illegal? Should it make child molestation, rape, or bank robbery illegal?

What a stupid position to take!!

 

[JoeyWarren]

moral?

of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

Based on the primary definition of what is moral

Disobeying any one of the 10 commandments is immoral.

So let’s institute legislation to that affect.

 

[fix]

moral?

Based on the primary definition of what is moral

Disobeying any one of the 10 commandments is immoral.

So let’s institute legislation to that affect.

Not every single immoral act should be made illegal because that may lead to greater evils. That is not the point.

The right to life is fundamental. Of all things not protecting such a fundamental principle, or even encouraging it through law, cannot be justified. What do you say to the CCC piece I posted before?

 

[vern_humphrey]

moral?

Based on the primary definition of what is moral

Disobeying any one of the 10 commandments is immoral.

So let’s institute legislation to that affect.

I see your point! We should do away with all that old, outmoded moralty. We should abolish the laws against murder, child molestation, rape, and bank robbery illegal.

Let each person do his own thing. After all, who are we to judge!

 

[JoeyWarren]

Not every single immoral act should be made illegal because that may lead to greater evils. That is not the point.

The right to life is fundamental. Of all things not protecting such a fundamental principle, or even encouraging it through law, cannot be justified. What do you say to the CCC piece I posted before?

What do you have to say about it.

I have no problem with what it says. But here is where we have a quandary.

1. You are RCC
2. You are a citizen of the USAGoverment.
3. RCC The right to life is fundamental.
4. The USAG does not believe this.
5. You can’t support abortion.
6. You support the USAG as required by the Catechism and the Bible
7. You support abortion by supporting the USAG by paying taxes that are used to support abortion.

The Catechism 2273 is in direct opposition to the United States Governmnet. The goverment is not going to change the law. So 2273 is moot point. We are never going to have enough conservatives in office to ever affect a change. Our Catholic and Protestant Christian college students are leaving christianity in huge numbers. Matter of fact, this so much of a concern that CA is advertising some stuff concerning this: catholic.com/projects/help_kids_stay_catholic_in_college.asp

Jesus has a better chance of returning in the next 100 years than RvsW being overturned.

WHAT DO YOU DO?

A. Stop Paying Taxes?

B. Leave the USA and become a citizen of some country that does not support abortion with your taxes?

C. other? explain_____________________

WHAT DO I DO? I vote for those issues that have a more likely chance of being taken care of. I can’t turn a blind eye to those issue that can be affected either immediately or in the near future for an issue that has a very small possibility of being affected. I cannot neglect the other parts of the catechism because of 2273.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What do you have to say about it.

I have no problem with what it says. But here is where we have a quandary.

1. You are RCC
2. You are a citizen of the USAGoverment.
3. RCC The right to life is fundamental.
4. The USAG does not believe this.
5. You can’t support abortion.
6. You support the USAG as required by the Catechism and the Bible
7. You support abortion by supporting the USAG by paying taxes that are used to support abortion.

The Catechism 2273 is in direct opposition to the United States Governmnet. The goverment is not going to change the law. So 2273 is moot point. We are never going to have enough conservatives in office to ever affect a change. Our Catholic and Protestant Christian college students are leaving christianity in huge numbers. Matter of fact, this so much of a concern that CA is advertising some stuff concerning this: catholic.com/projects/help_kids_stay_catholic_in_college.asp

Jesus has a better chance of returning in the next 100 years than RvsW being overturned.

WHAT DO YOU DO?

A. Stop Paying Taxes?

B. Leave the USA and become a citizen of some country that does not support abortion with your taxes?

C. other? explain_____________________

WHAT DO I DO? I vote for those issues that have a more likely chance of being taken care of. I can’t turn a blind eye to those issue that can be affected either immediately or in the near future for an issue that has a very small possibility of being affected. I cannot neglect the other parts of the catechism because of 2273.

First of all, I’m not an RCC (whatever that is.) I’m a Catholic.

Secondly, murder is wrong – and the age, state of development or physical condition of the victim does not alter that. It is wrong to kill a man in his prime, a woman in her 90s, or a child in the womb. It’s all murder. And we have an obligation to stop it.

There are no other issues so important as this – we cannot put on blindfolds, nor turn away from this massive, gruesome massacre of the innocent.

 

[JoeyWarren]

First of all, I’m not an RCC (whatever that is.) I’m a Catholic.

Secondly, murder is wrong – and the age, state of development or physical condition of the victim does not alter that. It is wrong to kill a man in his prime, a woman in her 90s, or a child in the womb. It’s all murder. And we have an obligation to stop it.

There are no other issues so important as this – we cannot put on blindfolds, nor turn away from this massive, gruesome massacre of the innocent.

RCC is roman catholic church.

As for abortion being murder. The United States Government has declared it is not in accordance with rulings on Roe vs Wade.

You put on a blindfold everytime you pay taxes to the United State Government.

When a Pro-Life Elected official takes the Oath of Office, he then becomes a Pro-choice Elected official. That Oath binds him to the Laws, Statutes, and Rulings of the United States Government.

Get mad all you want, it will not change a thing.

 

[Orionthehunter]

RCC is roman catholic church.

As for abortion being murder. The United States Government has declared it is not in accordance with rulings on Roe vs Wade.

You put on a blindfold everytime you pay taxes to the United State Government.

When a Pro-Life Elected official takes the Oath of Office, he then becomes a Pro-choice Elected official. That Oath binds him to the Laws, Statutes, and Rulings of the United States Government.

Get mad all you want, it will not change a thing.

Get mad at what? Nonsense?

First, any amount of my tax dollars that may go to abortion are a miniscule percentage of my total taxes. Less than a penny. Thus by paying taxes my “cooperation” is immaterial. There is a materiality test regarding cooperation. It has been determined by the Bishops that a vote for a pro-choice candidate is material cooperation. Your position is nonsense.

Second, a Pro-Life official doesn’t become Pro-choice upon getting elected. See below for the oath of office of a US Congressman. It is about defending the Constitution. Whatever his office, he is obliged to protect her from error and is obligated to work to rectify where she may be misinterpreted. He/she is able to work for the changing of laws, in fact this right is protected in the Constitution for the elected and the electors. Again, nonsense.

Joey, there has been a marked change in your posts. You have gone from a poster who formally posted in support of the magisterium and Church Teaching authority to one who tries to justify being a magisterium of one. It appears that there has been a significant event in your life that has caused you to change your overall outlook. If my supposition is correct, such a significant event warrants pursuit of spiritual direction and prayer. God Bless you.

Oath of Office: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

 

[JoeyWarren]

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States

Defending the Constitution includes the Laws and Rulings based on the Constitution.

 

[vern_humphrey]

RCC is roman catholic church.

What church is that? I am a Catholic.

As for abortion being murder. The United States Government has declared it is not in accordance with rulings on Roe vs Wade.

Man does not have the power to declare such a thing. An unborn child is as human as you or I.

You put on a blindfold everytime you pay taxes to the United State Government.

Proof?

When a Pro-Life Elected official takes the Oath of Office, he then becomes a Pro-choice Elected official. That Oath binds him to the Laws, Statutes, and Rulings of the United States Government.

The oath of office does not require a man to set aside his conscience or values.

Get mad all you want, it will not change a thing.

Actually, it will – the harder I and others work, the sooner legal abortion will become a horror of the past, not the present.

 

[rr1213]

When a Pro-Life Elected official takes the Oath of Office, he then becomes a Pro-choice Elected official. That Oath binds him to the Laws, Statutes, and Rulings of the United States Government.

This is only partly true. Certainly, an elected official (and non-elected members of the government) have an obligation to abide by and to enforce the law of the land. After all we are supposed to be a nation of laws, not a nation of men. Nonetheless, this does not mean that these elected officials cannot work for the change of an offensive law. This could be through appointment of judicial nominees who do not believe that the Constitution mandates the right to an abortion (you would not need to be “pro-life” per se, just persuaded that this is something not addressed by the Constitution) or through a Constitutional amendment to reverse Roe v. Wade or through legislation that, while operating within the constraints of Roe v. Wade, would try to limit the breadth of the decision’s application.

 

[JoeyWarren]

You have gone from a poster who formally posted in support of the magisterium and Church Teaching authority to one who tries to justify being a magisterium of one

I do support the magisterium and the Church Teaching Authority in it’s proper context, not in the context of what I consider a rogue Bishop that says voting for a pro-choice candidate is a mortal sin without exception.

I don’t like abortion anymore than the next Catholic. But I am also a member of the United States of America. I an a disabled veteran as well. And as an ex-soldier and compatriot, I have to uphold the laws that are in place.

And I support a proposed addition to the “Pledge of Allegience” which adds “Born, UnBorn” to the end of it.

I will pm you the rest.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Defending the Constitution includes the Laws and Rulings based on the Constitution.

The Oath of Office and defending the Constitution do not require officials to surrender the rights of their fellow human beings, regardless of what activist judges say.

 

[rr1213]

And I support a proposed addition to the “Pledge of Allegience” which adds “Born, UnBorn” to the end of it.

This would accomplish little since the Pledge of Allegiance has not legal effect on the “right” to an abortion. Also, those who disagree with the proposed change would simply not say it.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Defending the Constitution includes the Laws and Rulings based on the Constitution.

LOL Under this logic, the first Senator who proposed to change a law change would be violating his oath.

Or alternatively, Joe is elected to the Senate and campaigned to promote legislation to prohibit the consumption of alcohol. Prior to the swearing in ceremony, Joe was clearly anti-alcohol consumption. But because when he is sworn in and the laws allow alcohol consumption, he is now pro-alcohol consumption. Nonsense.

Finally, Sally is elected to the Senate and campaigned to promote a consitutional amendment to ban abortions. Are you saying that she is now pro-abortion by taking the oath of office? Nonsense.

Joey, when person takes the oath of office to be a Congressman, they swear to take legal steps to change laws. Despite the current law being contrary to their position, a Senator can support legislation that would say that children without two parents will be taken into state custody. What they can’t do is take unilateral action and start seizing children from such homes.

So it is with abortion. A pro-life Senator can do all within his legal means to change the law to regulate, restrict or outlaw abortions.

Finally, it is not contrary to their oath to promote legislation that has previously been determined unconstitutional or is apparently unconstitutional. For instance, Joe can support legislation that removes our right to a jury trial. In fact a majority of both houses and the President are free to support it without a breach of their oath. They just can’t take action to universally deny jury trials. It is the job of the Supreme Court to determine whether any law passed is Consitutional.