It is a Sin to Vote for Pro-Abortion Candidates

  • Thread starter Thread starter CPA2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for the links. Now can you post a quote from a single member of the Magestrium who stated there were proportionated reasons that would allow a Catholic to have voted for Obama?
bustedhalo.com/questionbo…ive-communion/
“Archbishop Vlazny of Oregon offered these thoughts in the Portland Catholic Sentinel: “If they vote for pro-choice politicians precisely because they are pro-choice, I believe they, too, should refrain from the reception of Holy Communion because they are not in communion with the church on a serious matter. But if they are voting for that particular politician because, in their judgment, other candidates fail significantly in some matters of great importance, for example, war and peace, human rights and economic justice, then there is no evident stance of opposition to church teaching and reception of Holy Communion seems both appropriate and beneficial. Catholics who support pro-choice politicians still have serious responsibilities with regard to their stance on this matter. They must make it very clear to these politicians and governmental leaders that their support is in no way based on the pro-choice advocacy of these political leaders.””
 
We can’t equate what is legal with what is moral. It was legal in many parts of the world to own and murder slaves. It was legal to beat your wife. It was legal to send 60 million people to Siberia. The Cambodian massacres were legal in Cambodia at the time. etc etc…

The Church gives us moral guidelines to guide us on how to behave and on what to, or not to support. When we get to that final Judgement I don’t think saying “Ya but… it was legal” is going to carry much weight.

Leviticus 18:5 So you must keep my statutes and my regulations; anyone who does so will live by keeping them. I am the Lord.

I think that we do have an obligation to point out each others errors as to stand by and watch siomeone continue on a wrong path without at least trying to correct him, isn’t love. That is we can judge peoples actions and what they say but not people. On the otherhand I don’t think God’s word should be used as a sludge hammer either.

Matthew 18:15 Take heed to yourselves: if thy brother sin, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
 
bustedhalo.com/questionbo…ive-communion/
“Archbishop Vlazny of Oregon offered these thoughts in the Portland Catholic Sentinel: “If they vote for pro-choice politicians precisely because they are pro-choice, I believe they, too, should refrain from the reception of Holy Communion because they are not in communion with the church on a serious matter. But if they are voting for that particular politician because, in their judgment, other candidates fail significantly in some matters of great importance, for example, war and peace, human rights and economic justice, then there is no evident stance of opposition to church teaching and reception of Holy Communion seems both appropriate and beneficial. Catholics who support pro-choice politicians still have serious responsibilities with regard to their stance on this matter. They must make it very clear to these politicians and governmental leaders that their support is in no way based on the pro-choice advocacy of these political leaders.””
Thank you for the quote. Now can you post a quote from a single member of the Magestrium who stated there were proportionate reasons that would have allowed a Catholic to vote for Obama.? The above quote reiterates Catholic Teaching on why a Catholic **could **vote for someone like McCain even though he was pro-abortion in cases of rape and incest because his opponent suported taxpayer funded abortions on demand with no resrtrictions up until a few hours after the child was born. Nte I said COULD, not MUST

Btw-The Pope specifically stated that ones stance on war was NOT a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion politician.
 
My friend, the " common good" is a very vague thing. Pro-choice position is based on the notion that the policy of a limited government is necessary for the" common good " of a free society.
Pro-choice and limited government are unrelated and usually held by people with differing world views. This statement could not be more incorrect.
 
Pro-choice and limited government are unrelated and usually held by people with differing world views. This statement could not be more incorrect.
Which begs the question as to why anyone would vote for somene who had a worldview that a mother has the right to kill her child up until their childs head fully exits the womb? Why would someone need to the Church or anyone else to tell them that such a person is so moraly flawed as to be unfit to govern?
 
bustedhalo.com/questionbo…ive-communion/
“Archbishop Vlazny of Oregon offered these thoughts in the Portland Catholic Sentinel: “If they vote for pro-choice politicians precisely because they are pro-choice, I believe they, too, should refrain from the reception of Holy Communion because they are not in communion with the church on a serious matter. But if they are voting for that particular politician because, in their judgment, other candidates fail significantly in some matters of great importance, for example, war and peace, human rights and economic justice, then there is no evident stance of opposition to church teaching and reception of Holy Communion seems both appropriate and beneficial. Catholics who support pro-choice politicians still have serious responsibilities with regard to their stance on this matter. They must make it very clear to these politicians and governmental leaders that their support is in no way based on the pro-choice advocacy of these political leaders.””
Thank you!!! This is what I’ve been trying to say. “Matters of great importance” will vary from individual voter to voter. Yes, the Church is there to guide us, but I am not aware of them endorsing or telling Catholics they can vote or are forbiddent to vote for specific candidates. We still follow our conscience and weigh the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate.
 
I and most Christians look forward to the end of legalized abortion. It is not enough to personally oppose abortion. We must put an end to this legalized murder.

A church that permits abortion betrays the Gospel. Individuals who fail to do their part to correct the injustice of abortion betray the very essence of being human. Abortion is not an issue. Abortion is about people and it affects all of us. Abortion requires a response from all of us, and it is a measure by which God will judge us individually and as a nation.

God’s justice and the reasons for it are sufficiently given in Daniel 5:23-28: “You have defied the Lord of Heaven, you have had the vessels from His Temple brought to you, and you, your noblemen, your wives and your singing women have drunk your wine out of them. You have praised gods of gold and silver, of bronze and iron, of wood and stone, which cannot either see, hear or understand; but you have given no glory to the God who holds your breath and all your fortunes. That is why He has sent the hand which, by itself, has written these words. The writing reads: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, and PARSIN. The meaning of the words is this: MENE, God has measured your sovereignty and put an end to it; TEKEL, you have been weighed in the balance and found wanting; PARSIN, your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and the Persians.”

There are moral implications of voting for a pro-abortion candidate!
 
That is why He has sent the hand which, by itself, has written these words. The writing reads: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, and PARSIN. The meaning of the words is this: MENE, God has measured your sovereignty and put an end to it; TEKEL, you have been weighed in the balance and found wanting; PARSIN, your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and the Persians.”
Voting for those who are pawns of the corrupt bankers, rapacious moneyed interests, devastaters of God’s green earth, and oppressors of the poor and laborers also has moral consequences. Since you brought up the “writing on the wall” here’s a poem you might enjoy:

"The Run Upon the Bankers", by Jonathan Swift

*The bold encroachers on the deep Gain by degrees huge tracts of land, Till Neptune, with one general sweep, Turns all again to barren strand.

The multitude’s capricious pranks Are said to represent the seas, Breaking the bankers and the banks, Resume their own whene’er they please.

Money, the life-blood of the nation, Corrupts and stagnates in the veins, Unless a proper circulation Its motion and its heat maintains.

Because 'tis lordly not to pay, Quakers and aldermen in state, Like peers, have levees every day Of duns attending at their gate.

We want our money on the nail; The banker’s ruin’d if he pays: They seem to act an ancient tale; The birds are met to strip the jays.

“Riches,” the wisest monarch sings, “Make pinions for themselves to fly;” They fly like bats on parchment wings, And geese their silver plumes supply.

No money left for squandering heirs! Bills turn the lenders into debtors: The wish of Nero now is theirs, “That they had never known their letters.”

Conceive the works of midnight hags, Tormenting fools behind their backs: Thus bankers, o’er their bills and bags, Sit squeezing images of wax.

Conceive the whole enchantment broke; The witches left in open air, With power no more than other folk, Exposed with all their magic ware.

So powerful are a banker’s bills, Where creditors demand their due; They break up counters, doors, and tills, And leave the empty chests in view.

Thus when an earthquake lets in light Upon the god of gold and hell, Unable to endure the sight, He hides within his darkest cell.

As when a conjurer takes a lease From Satan for a term of years, The tenant’s in a dismal case, Whene’er the bloody bond appears.

A baited banker thus desponds, From his own hand foresees his fall, They have his soul, who have his bonds; 'Tis like the writing on the wall.

How will the caitiff wretch be scared, When first he finds himself awake At the last trumpet, unprepared, And all his grand account to make!

For in that universal call, Few bankers will to heaven be mounters; They’ll cry, “Ye shops, upon us fall! Conceal and cover us, ye counters!”

When other hands the scales shall hold, And they, in men’s and angels’ sight Produced with all their bills and gold, "Weigh’d in the balance and found light!"*
 
Voting for those who are pawns of the corrupt bankers, rapacious moneyed interests, devastaters of God’s green earth, and oppressors of the poor and laborers also has moral consequences.
"
I most certainly wouldnt vote for anyone like that. However i wouldnt then take that as justification for supporting a pro-abortion canidate.
 
vox-nova.com/2007/05/23/can-catholics-vote-for-pro-abortion-politicians/

"Honest and serious Catholics who abhor abortion can come to different conclusions, and vote for candidates with vastly differing opinions on matter. The problem is when one side turns an issue that is non-negotiable in terms of moral licitness into a non-negotiable in terms of voting. It then risks aligning the Church with a single political party. Just look at the Catholic Answers list. As EJ Dionne noted, ‘The leaflet might as well have said that voting for President Bush was a non-negotiable position for Catholics”. Its selectivity surely violates the USCCB’s call to be “political but not partisan.’

These principles are all basic to Catholic moral reasoning, and yet many today seem to have forgotten them. Back in the 1980s, moralists Germain Grisez, Joseph Boyle, and John Finnis argued that the nuclear deterrent was intrinsically evil given its intent to kill innocent civilians. But they never argued that Catholics should not be allowed to vote for candidates supporting the nuclear deterrent, for the reasons explained above. It’s funny how those who take pride in their orthodoxy sometimes forget the basics."

answerbag.com/debates/catholics-vote-pro-choice-politicians-_1855513

“It doesn’t matter what the Bush Administration said it believed when it came to promoting and defending human life. Its real priorities were market deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, and war in Iraq. Just look at where the money went: billions in giveaways for the well-off and to fight a war the public no longer supports, and very little for programs that could have prevented abortions, not the least of which was an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance program – a measure the president vetoed. History may one day prove otherwise, but at this point in time, we’re hard pressed to argue that anyone is better off because of the policies of current president.”

bustedhalo.com/questionbox/abortion-should-catholics-who-vote-for-pro-choice-politicians-receive-communion/

"Archbishop Vlazny of Oregon offered these thoughts in the Portland Catholic Sentinel: “If they vote for pro-choice politicians precisely because they are pro-choice, I believe they, too, should refrain from the reception of Holy Communion because they are not in communion with the church on a serious matter. But if they are voting for that particular politician because, in their judgment, other candidates fail significantly in some matters of great importance, for example, war and peace, human rights and economic justice, then there is no evident stance of opposition to church teaching and reception of Holy Communion seems both appropriate and beneficial. Catholics who support pro-choice politicians still have serious responsibilities with regard to their stance on this matter. They must make it very clear to these politicians and governmental leaders that their support is in no way based on the pro-choice advocacy of these political leaders.”
 
vox-nova.com/2007/05/23/can-catholics-vote-for-pro-abortion-politicians/

"Honest and serious Catholics who abhor abortion can come to different conclusions, and vote for candidates with vastly differing opinions on matter. The problem is when one side turns an issue that is non-negotiable in terms of moral licitness into a non-negotiable in terms of voting. It then risks aligning the Church with a single political party. Just look at the Catholic Answers list. As EJ Dionne noted, ‘The leaflet might as well have said that voting for President Bush was a non-negotiable position for Catholics”. Its selectivity surely violates the USCCB’s call to be “political but not partisan.’

These principles are all basic to Catholic moral reasoning, and yet many today seem to have forgotten them. Back in the 1980s, moralists Germain Grisez, Joseph Boyle, and John Finnis argued that the nuclear deterrent was intrinsically evil given its intent to kill innocent civilians. But they never argued that Catholics should not be allowed to vote for candidates supporting the nuclear deterrent, for the reasons explained above. It’s funny how those who take pride in their orthodoxy sometimes forget the basics."

answerbag.com/debates/catholics-vote-pro-choice-politicians-_1855513

“It doesn’t matter what the Bush Administration said it believed when it came to promoting and defending human life. Its real priorities were market deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, and war in Iraq. Just look at where the money went: billions in giveaways for the well-off and to fight a war the public no longer supports, and very little for programs that could have prevented abortions, not the least of which was an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance program – a measure the president vetoed. History may one day prove otherwise, but at this point in time, we’re hard pressed to argue that anyone is better off because of the policies of current president.”

bustedhalo.com/questionbox/abortion-should-catholics-who-vote-for-pro-choice-politicians-receive-communion/

"Archbishop Vlazny of Oregon offered these thoughts in the Portland Catholic Sentinel: “If they vote for pro-choice politicians precisely because they are pro-choice, I believe they, too, should refrain from the reception of Holy Communion because they are not in communion with the church on a serious matter. But if they are voting for that particular politician because, in their judgment, other candidates fail significantly in some matters of great importance, for example, war and peace, human rights and economic justice, then there is no evident stance of opposition to church teaching and reception of Holy Communion seems both appropriate and beneficial. Catholics who support pro-choice politicians still have serious responsibilities with regard to their stance on this matter. They must make it very clear to these politicians and governmental leaders that their support is in no way based on the pro-choice advocacy of these political leaders.”
Can you name a single member of the magestrium that said there were proprtionate reasons that would allow for a Catholic to vote for Obama.

Ps: EJ Dionne is not a meber of the Magestrium.
 
The bottom line is that there are no proportionate reasons to vote for a political candidate who supports abortion. Your moral obligation is to actively oppose abortion. Doing nothing is not an option.
 
Sometimes the “bottom line IS to do nothing.” Case in point: Both candidates support abortion or some form of abortion under certain conditions. This is truly the case in many campaigns. And, too, politicians who tout themselves anti-abortion will admit that abortion is okay when the mother’s life is at stake, and/or due to rape, and/or incest. Beware of the many anti-abortionists who are NOT pro life!
 
Sometimes the “bottom line IS to do nothing.” Case in point: Both candidates support abortion or some form of abortion under certain conditions. This is truly the case in many campaigns. And, too, politicians who tout themselves anti-abortion will admit that abortion is okay when the mother’s life is at stake, and/or due to rape, and/or incest. Beware of the many anti-abortionists who are NOT pro life!
This is where proportionality comes in. Canidate A supports abortion only in the case of rape and incest, canidate b supports unrestricted taxpayer funded abortions on demand. One can vote for canidate A but not canidateB As Arhbisop Chaput put it this is not voting for the lesser of two evils, it is voting to lessen evil.
 
This is where proportionality comes in. Canidate A supports abortion only in the case of rape and incest, canidate b supports unrestricted taxpayer funded abortions on demand. One can vote for canidate A but not canidateB As Arhbisop Chaput put it this is not voting for the lesser of two evils, it is voting to lessen evil.
This is a good explanation of proportionality!
 
This is a good explanation of proportionality!
I am very blessed to live in Archbishop Chaput’s diocese and he has been diligent in explaining Church teaching on this issue. In our Diocese every Parish was read a letter outlining the teachings. We were also kept infomed of the Bishops objection to the healh care Bill. Chaput is part of the new generation of Orthodix Bishops who will bring about greater understaning of what a Catholics reponsibilites are-both i voting and living their lives
 
Again, post #414 is non-responsive and illogical.

The only thing that “doesn’t end well” is for anyone on CAF to assume, and then post publicly, that he or she knows the motivations, ballot choices, conscience, and voting behavior of any particular Catholic voter. You do not. You are not to invade the conscience of any other Catholic, because that is forbidden by the Catholic Church, and in fact such judgments are mortally sinful. The individual Catholic is accountable to the teachings of the Church and the choices available to that Catholic; he or she is not accountable to you or to any other non-expert, non-authority on CAF without the ability to discern. You are not anyone’s confessor unless you are clergy, and no clergy on CAF has ever, in the time I have been on this forum, made statements from afar about the purity of anyone’s conscience as judged from forum postings. No well-trained Catholic priest would ever do that; he knows much better because he knows that without speaking to such a layperson, judgment is not possible and very likely inaccurate.

You’re responsible for your conscience, not mine or anyone else’s. The saints were not focused on other people’s consciences but their own consciences and behavior and sinfulness.
I am glad I am not a Priest sometimes… I can judge the actions of every single killer, politician, ruffian, abortionist that I want to… As I say my prayers at night and ask God to forgive me for destesting what Hitler did, or Margaret Sangar, or anyone that supports Planned Parenthood or any of the people that vote or advocate the killing of children. I will also ask for forgiveness for believing that Catholics that say they are Catholics but practice things outside of the Church are the same a Pagans or Muslims, or JW to me…

I have a lot of things to pray for forgiveness for, but I won’t have to pray for putting baby killers in offce… thank goodness for that…👍
 
I am glad I am not a Priest sometimes… I can judge the actions of every single killer, politician, ruffian, abortionist that I want to… As I say my prayers at night and ask God to forgive me for destesting what Hitler did, or Margaret Sangar, or anyone that supports Planned Parenthood or any of the people that vote or advocate the killing of children. I will also ask for forgiveness for believing that Catholics that say they are Catholics but practice things outside of the Church are the same a Pagans or Muslims, or JW to me…
Good. Apparently you feel that you need to do quite a bit of such asking for forgiveness.

Omniscience is God’s; not yours, not mine. We are told this over and over in scripture (including by Jesus himself) and in the full tradition of Catholic teaching from the early Fathers onward. As such, only God knows why a person does anything, including what choices that person had, including what disposition that person had when making the choice, including how emotionally balanced that person was or was not, what else was interfering with any decision to act, to vote, to speak, or to enter keystrokes on a computer keyboard. This is why even the Catholic Church specifically says that several conditions are necessary to move from grave matter to mortal sin, and that no one from the outside of that person’s mind (including CAF members) can know whether all those conditions are present – except anyone to whom that person wishes to reveal his or her mind.
I have a lot of things to pray for forgiveness for, but I won’t have to pray for putting baby killers in offce… thank goodness for that…👍
Nor will I. I don’t put baby-killers in office. But plenty of fornicators and their accomplices willingly – not by force – enter into buildings where they choose to kill their babies. Before Roe v. Wade, such killers of their own babies did this regularly, underground, overseas, or otherwise illicitly. In the vast majority of cases, an abortionist cannot force a woman to have an abortion. Some women go to abortionists with their minds solidly made up. Others go tentatively, then decide not to proceed. In the case of a single act, the abortionist is as, and no more, morally culpable, than the woman herself – presuming she was not coerced but was free to make a choice.

Lots of things are legal but potentially lethal (becoming intoxicated to danger of self & others; becoming a heavy smoker). Lots of things are legal but immoral (pornography). Lots of things are legal but morally neutral unless abused (gambling; addiction to media such as video games or discussion forums). It is not the legality of the situation but the freely willed participation in it, that constitutes the morality or lack of it.

Voting for a particular candidate who is not willing to fantasize that he or she will singlehandedly overturn Roe v. Wade, does not change the moral equation, nor the statistics, for those who choose abortions. Those who want them will obtain them by whatever means they can. Neither “more” nor “less” babies will die as a result of a particular candidate necessarily being voted into office. There are chemical abortions as an alternative, as well as surgical abortions in countries where the U.S. had no jurisdiction and not much influence.
 
I just read Chaput. Thanks for posting it. He is a marvelous writer. Sure makes me want to crawl into a closet and never return to the Catholic Church because of my vote. Not to mention many others who have written, spoken, and have shunned me personally because of this vote.

Is there anyone on this board that voted Obama?? How do you feel…can you go to church?

I am struggling to stay Catholic. I am hurting by others self righteous comments. I feel like my church of 22yr. which I have been highly active in has turned to one sided Republicans and not accepting of anyone else.

(I don’t feel that my choice was bad with the choices that we had and I do think it is a sin to vote for someone who wants to kill babies)

Certainly, my feelings about leaving the church don’t come from this board. This has helped me communicate my thoughts and feelings better so I appreciate it. However, I am not righteous, in my eyes, only God is…and I know that self-righteousness is not humble or gentle like God wants us to be.

Thanks for listening
ps~not the time Obama articles with response to my posting, thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top