It is a Sin to Vote for Pro-Abortion Candidates

[Worthy5]

CWBetts;6533009]Democracy–dependent on the will of the majority of the people, and by extension, the world. Since faithful Christians are in the minority, democracy is not beneficial to Christianity.

The Church is not a democracy. We do not “vote” on Dogmas. It is not the responsibility of the Bishops to represent our interests. I find it disconcerting that you have elevated mob rule as an ideal.

Carl come on, what are you talking about?

 

[estesbob]

Who is talking about an indvidual Catholic not following Church teachings. This is about what the govt is doing not the individual.

And yes a civil democracy does matter----because it is this govt that protects your freedom to practice your faith.

We are talking about the morality of a catholic supporting abortion-either directly or indirectly.My Freedoms, my rights come from God-not the Govt. There is no way the Govt can take away my freedom to worhsip-the white robed army of Martyrs proves this.

A civil Democracy that allows 1.2 million people a year to be killed at the will of their Mother needs to be changed-and you dont change it by empowering those who support the slaughter.

 

[CPA2]

…Judas Iscariot, the Patron Saint of Social Justice, where people are concerned with humanity but ignore the truths of God…—Bishop Fulton Sheen

Back to TRUTH and abortion:

“…Because many of the questions do concern the issue of abortion, I would like for your members to be informed of my position on the state’s responsibility in that area. “I am opposed to abortion and to government funding of abortions. We should not spend state funds on abortion because so many people believe abortion is wrong…(Bill Clinton)”

Bill Clinton wrote this letter to the Arkansas Right to Life in 1986. Most of you may think that I am pleased because Bill Clinton was opposed to abortion. Wrong. Look at what Clinton said, “I am opposed to abortion… because so many people believe abortion is wrong…” Clinton did not say that abortion was wrong. He did not indicate that his position was based on truths that he believed. Clinton’s opinion was based on the truths of others, in this case, the members of the Arkansas Right to Life.

Clinton’s truth changed again when he was president. I can just see him getting a Gallop Poll to know what to believe. His beliefs were fluid. I remember his infamous words, “That depends on what the definition of is, is.” Wow!

These are some of the questions that I hear many of you asking, “Who are you to tell me or anyone else how to live or what is right?” “How dare you tell me what values I am suppose to have!” “Who do you think you are to impose your beliefs on me?” I also hear you saying, “I am a good person. I am not a bad!”

Who is right? Where is truth? I will address some of these questions in a later post. I am not afraid of the truth. Truth needs to stand up to scrutiny. God told Abraham over 4,000 years ago, “I am your God. You are my people.” Judaism has withstood the test of time. Israel is alive as a nation! Catholicism has also withstood the test of over 2,000 years.

 

[BillP]

Why, oh why, do so many people willfully misrepresent the Church’s teaching on this issue.

Its been quoted, time and time again on these fora. The bishops say that voting for a pro-choice politician is sinful only if a Catholic votes for a Pro-choice politician because that politician is pro-choice. If the Catholic is voting for that politician in spite of their pro-life alignment, for some “morally grave” reason that the voter considers proportionate, then no sin is committed.

From Forming Consciences from the USCCB (usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf)

1. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so
   important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper
   relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes
   a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s
   intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal
   cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s
   opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other
   important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

1. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

Here is what Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) had to 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 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

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

(All emphasis in both quotes is mine)

It is possible to endlessly debate what constitutes “morally grave” reasons in the context of today’s political environment, but the fact is that the alternative exists. People who assert otherwise are ill-informed, or intentionally misrepresenting what the Church says.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Why, oh why, do so many people willfully misrepresent the Church’s teaching on this issue.

Its been quoted, time and time again on these fora. The bishops say that voting for a pro-choice politician is sinful only if a Catholic votes for a Pro-choice politician because that politician is pro-choice. If the Catholic is voting for that politician in spite of their pro-life alignment, for some “morally grave” reason that the voter considers proportionate, then no sin is committed.

…]

It is possible to endlessly debate what constitutes “morally grave” reasons in the context of today’s political environment, but the fact is that the alternative exists. People who assert otherwise are ill-informed, or intentionally misrepresenting what the Church says.

^^^^^^^^This.

Also, I find it just a bit disingenuous that the same peple who say it’s “sinful” to vote Democratic just happen to hold political views in lockstep with the rest of the Republican Platform. What a fascinating coincidence! I’m inclined to believe that if more Democrats were pro-life than Republicans, this “sinner” epitaph wouldn’t be thrown around quite so casually, hmm?

 

[CPA2]

We are talking about the morality of a catholic supporting abortion-either directly or indirectly.My Freedoms, my rights come from God-not the Govt. There is no way the Govt can take away my freedom to worhsip-the white robed army of Martyrs proves this.

A civil Democracy that allows 1.2 million people a year to be killed at the will of their Mother needs to be changed-and you dont change it by empowering those who support the slaughter.

Amend!

 

[Worthy5]

=estesbob;6533175]We are talking about the morality of a catholic supporting abortion-either directly or indirectly.

My friend, this poster is not responsible for a choice another person makes.

My Freedoms, my rights come from God-not the Govt.

Yes, they come from God, but in this world it is the govt that helps protect them.

There is no way the Govt can take away my freedom to worhsip-the white robed army of Martyrs proves this.

Well, a government that is not limited in power can take alot of things away from you. There is no nobility in willingly being a martyr my friend.

A civil Democracy that allows 1.2 million people a year to be killed at the will of their Mother needs to be changed-and you dont change it by empowering those who support the slaughter.

Calm down. A society can do other things to help attack this problem without expansive use of the govt police power.

 

[CWBetts]

Well, a government that is not limited in power can take alot of things away from you. There is no nobility in willingly being a martyr my friend.

I disagree. We should all be willing to be counted among those who paid the ultimate price for the Faith. I would suggest you destroy your idol of small government and worship the true God.

 

[Worthy5]

CWBetts;6533841]I disagree. We should all be willing to be counted among those who paid the ultimate price for the Faith.

Thomas More: " God made angles to show Him splendor, animals for their innocence, plants for their simplicity. But man he made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of his mind. If He suffers us to fall to such a case that there is no escaping, then stand to our tackle…but its God’s part, not our own, to bring ourselves to that extremity!"

A great play, huh?

I would suggest you destroy your idol of small government and worship the true God

Will you arrest me if this poster does not?

Regards Carl,

God Bless

 

[CWBetts]

Thomas More: " God made angles to show Him splendor, animals for their innocence, plants for their simplicity. But man he made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of his mind. If He suffers us to fall to such a case that there is no escaping, then stand to our tackle…but its God’s part, not our own, to bring ourselves to that extremity!"

A great play, huh?

Will you arrest me if this poster does not?

Regards Carl,

God Bless

Though I have great admiration for St. Thomas More, every word he uttered is not infallible, and further, you cannot use lines from Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons as authoritative. Try reading the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, especially his letter to the Romans.

 

[csuliman]

Though I have great admiration for St. Thomas More, every word he uttered is not infallible, and further, you cannot use lines from Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons as authoritative. Try reading the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, especially his letter to the Romans.

Even the great Angelic Doctor allowed that the state should not enforce everything in the Christian moral code.

Summa Theologica: Part II of book II, question 10, article 11

I answer that, Human government is derived from the Divine government, and should imitate it. Now although God is all-powerful and supremely good, nevertheless He allows certain evils to take place in the universe, which He might prevent, lest, without them, greater goods might be forfeited, or greater evils ensue. Accordingly in human government also, those who are in authority, rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain greater evils be incurred: thus Augustine says (De Ordine ii, 4): “If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust.” Hence, though unbelievers sin in their rites, they may be tolerated, either on account of some good that ensues therefrom, or because of some evil avoided. Thus from the fact that the Jews observe their rites, which, of old, foreshadowed the truth of the faith which we hold, there follows this good–that our very enemies bear witness to our faith, and that our faith is represented in a figure, so to speak. For this reason they are tolerated in the observance of their rites.

 

[csuliman]

We must have a separation of Church and state. The only things the state should prohibit or regulate are things for which a secular reason exists to ban or regulate. Thus, pork might be seen as evil by Muslims, but that cannot in itself be reason to ban pork. On the other hand, murder is banned in religion, but it is also banned by secular law. However, the secular state bases its condemnation of murder on secular reasons- not because God told us it is bad but because it violates the inherent dignity of another human being, etc.

The Church can only become corrupted by earthly power. When the Church was at its height in terms of political power, it was also the most corrupt.

 

[Worthy5]

=CWBetts;6533927]you cannot use lines from Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons as authoritative.

Thanks Carl. But in regards to authority, on issues of American law, this poster will look to the Supreme Court.

Try reading the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, especially his letter to the Romans

Thanks, but St. I is not on the Supreme Court

Thanks Carl for the debate. Good luck in your studies. God Bless.

 

[CWBetts]

Thanks Carl. But in regards to authority, on issues of American law, this poster will look to the Supreme Court.

Thanks, but St. I is not on the Supreme Court

Thanks Carl for the debate. Good luck in your studies. God Bless.

If i have to choose between the Church (which deals with eternity) and my country (which governs the temporal), I side with the Church.

 

[estesbob]

Why, oh why, do so many people willfully misrepresent the Church’s teaching on this issue.

Its been quoted, time and time again on these fora. The bishops say that voting for a pro-choice politician is sinful only if a Catholic votes for a Pro-choice politician because that politician is pro-choice. If the Catholic is voting for that politician in spite of their pro-life alignment, for some “morally grave” reason that the voter considers proportionate, then no sin is committed.

From Forming Consciences from the USCCB (usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf)

Here is what Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) had to say:

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

(All emphasis in both quotes is mine)

It is possible to endlessly debate what constitutes “morally grave” reasons in the context of today’s political environment, but the fact is that the alternative exists. People who assert otherwise are ill-informed, or intentionally misrepresenting what the Church says.

So what proportinate reasons do you think would allow a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion Canidate? Please make your answer in light the numreous sources given where the Church has said that neither social issues nor war nor Captial punishement singly or combined are proportionate enough to allow a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion canidate. As has been posted ad nauseum the Church teaches that the ONLY situation a Catholic may vote for a pro-abortion canidate is if their opponent is more pro-abortion than they are.

Can you show us, for instance, one single member of the Magestrium who said there were proportionste reasons that woul have allowed a Catholic to vote for Obama? Many of us have posted numerous quotes where Bishops said categorically there were not.

 

[CPA2]

Thanks Carl. But in regards to authority, on issues of American law, this poster will look to the Supreme Court.
QUOTE]

I lost my respect for the Supreme Court in 1973 when it ruled on Roe versus Wade. The decision of the Supreme Court violates natural law. The legal veil that covers abortion was mistakenly recognized by the Supreme Court, and the decision will be overturned.

 

[estesbob]

^^^^^^^^This.

Also, I find it just a bit disingenuous that the same peple who say it’s “sinful” to vote Democratic just happen to hold political views in lockstep with the rest of the Republican Platform. What a fascinating coincidence! I’m inclined to believe that if more Democrats were pro-life than Republicans, this “sinner” epitaph wouldn’t be thrown around quite so casually, hmm?

The Church does not say one can not for a Democrat-they say one can not vote for one who supports abortion. The fact the Demopcrat party has become the number one champion of abortion in this country is unfotunate but the blame for the difficulty of Catholics to find a democrat they can vote for rests with the Democrat party-not those who vote republican

 

[CPA2]

So what proportinate reasons do you think would allow a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion Canidate? Please make your answer in light the numreous sources given where the Church has said that neither social issues nor war nor Captial punishement singly or combined are proportionate enough to allow a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion canidate. As has been posted ad nauseum the Church teaches that the ONLY situation a Catholic may vote for a pro-abortion canidate is if their opponent is more pro-abortion than they are.

Can you show us, for instance, one single member of the Magestrium who said there were proportionste reasons that woul have allowed a Catholic to vote for Obama? Many of us have posted numerous quotes where Bishops said categorically there were not.

Amend!

Life begins at conception. This is an unalterable teaching of the Catholic Church. ** If you do not accept this you are a heretic **in plain English. A single abortion is homicide.

“No other issue, not all other issues taken together, can constitute a proportionate reason for voting for candidates that intend to preserve and defend this holocaust of innocent human life that is abortion (Father John Corapi).”

 

[Worthy5]

estesbob;6536126]The Church does not say one can not for a Democrat-they say one can not vote for one who supports abortion. The fact the Demopcrat party has become the number one champion of abortion in this country is unfotunate but the blame for the difficulty of Catholics to find a democrat they can vote for rests with the Democrat party-not those who vote republican

The reality is Bob, that we have a two party system for a reason----multi party systems threaten systemic stability. With two parties, you are going to have a party that is legal pro-life and one that is not. There are other critical policies that a society has to advance in order for it to function and prosper.

The Bishops have no rubric of authority on issues of American law. I mean are the Bishops really this dense. They should spend time on speaking out morally on abortion and insuring that Catholic women never make such a decision --(not to mention the Church needs to get its own house in order.) If women make the right decision, then you do not need the civil law.

 

[Worthy5]

CPA2;6536115

I lost my respect for the Supreme Court in 1973 when it ruled on Roe versus Wade. The decision of the Supreme Court violates natural law. The legal veil that covers abortion was mistakenly recognized by the Supreme Court, and the decision will be overturned

Well news for you CPA, the U.S. Supreme has the authority to define U.S. law in this matter—not the Church.