It is a Sin to Vote for Pro-Abortion Candidates

[CWBetts]

Ok but no I do not want to derail. What I would prefer is that Catholics on CAF admitted who the Church calls Catholic. I am not the one who brought up that a Catholic can not vote for a candidate who is pro choice. Semantics come into play when people don’t recognize who is Catholic according to the Catholic Church. God bless you and peace.

I think that it would be best to say that a truly faithful Catholic cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate.

 

[CMatt25]

I think that it would be best to say that a truly faithful Catholic cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate.

If it’s a so-called infallible teaching that fully faithful Catholics can not, then that’s a much better way of putting it than calling Catholics, Protestants. :clapping: I knew if I had started my own thread simply on who is a Catholic as someone suggested, that it should only be one post. Peace.

 

[Lypher]

I think people don’t understand that words (and actions) mean things.

If you say you are Catholic, but openly dissent from her teachings, you are not Catholic - by definition, you are probably Protestant.

B I N G O… This is what I have been saying…M&M’s Modern Martin’s (I just created a new definition… ) This is kinda cool, we have smörgåsbord or cafeteria types that select what they like and now M&M’s that through out what they don’t like… I wonder if they are Red, Yellow, Blue or Green.

 

[elts1956]

I admit I dissent. You said it would be better off to join another religion even though the Church says someone is a member of the Church which no act can take way. You can reread who the Church considers Catholic. Also it seems odd to be telling someone to join another religion if they “could not be saved” by not remaining. Peace.

One might find it “just as hard to be saved” if one overtly gives scandal to others by proclaiming to be Catholic, but acting and saying othrwise by not accepting all the Church’s teachings. If one does this, one is neither fully Catholic, nor wholly Protestent, but somewhere in between, lukewarm.

I am no judge of who will be saved or not. All I can do is read statements, see actions, and give warning.

 

[CMatt25]

One might find it “just as hard to be saved” if one overtly gives scandal to others by proclaiming to be Catholic, but acting and saying othrwise by not accepting all the Church’s teachings. If one does this, one is neither fully Catholic, nor wholly Protestent, but somewhere in between, lukewarm.

I am no judge of who will be saved or not. All I can do is read statements, see actions, and give warning.

You think lukewarm means not fully Catholic or not wholly Protestant? Interesting. I believe lukewarm means something more like not on fire for Christ. Or speaking Christ but whose heart is elsewhere. Nothing to do with Catholic/Protestant. The words Catholic and Protestant are not even in the Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition. They are post-Apostolic terms. The Catholic Encyclopedia states the term Catholic was first used in written form in around yr 110. Approximately 80 yrs after Christ resurrected. About a decade after the last surviving Apostle died. Catholic, Protestant are manmade terms. Christian on the otherhand found in Acts. God bless and peace.

 

[elts1956]

I admit I dissent. You said it would be better off to join another religion even though the Church says someone is a member of the Church which no act can take way. You can reread who the Church considers Catholic. Also it seems odd to be telling someone to join another religion if they “could not be saved” by not remaining. Peace.

You think lukewarm means not fully Catholic or not wholly Protestant? Interesting. I believe lukewarm means something more like not on fire for Christ. Or speaking Christ but whose heart is elsewhere. Nothing to do with Catholic/Protestant. The words Catholic and Protestant are not even in the Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition. They are post-Apostolic terms. The Catholic Encyclopedia states the term Catholic was first used in written form in around yr 110. Approximately 80 yrs after Christ resurrected. About a decade after the last surviving Apostle died. Catholic, Protestant are manmade terms. Christian on the otherhand found in Acts. God bless and peace.

I’m not getting into Protestant/Catholic diversions. You are right, the opposite of lukewarm is to be “on fire” for Christ. I do try not to get buried down in words, words, words.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Remain on topic and cease from discussing who is and who is not Catholic.

 

[CPA2]

Who is right? Where is truth?
by a friend of Medjugore

People today base their relative truth on opinions, and their opinions are based on feelings. There are millions of variations of relative truth. The logic goes something like this: Your truth is relative. It has to do with your circumstances. Your truth is related to you personally. It may not be related to the lifestyle others.

People say you must be informed. We are told that you must educate yourself so that you can know the issues, and how to form your opinions. There are many people believing differently, however, and they all believe their beliefs are right. They base their beliefs on their own relative truth.

Society is guided by all of these different relative truths. Society thinks that everyone must live by his own truths. All of these different relative truths are based on nothing more than what a person feels.

There is no absolute truth in today’s world. There are many relative truths, however. Since there are no absolutes, there are many things that you can believe. You can believe this way, or you can believe that way. This is the belief system of most people in society today.

People are led by their feelings. Their actions are erratic. For example, a person can live an abominable life-style that is contrary to God’s natural law. However, he sees himself living by a convention or standard which he views as normal. One living in degradation might say, “I am a good person. I would never commit murder. After all, those things are wrong!” However, the person saying this is practicing an abomination!

 

[Alan55]

Remain on topic and cease from discussing who is and who is not Catholic.

I was invited to refrain from receiving communion on CA today for stating that I voted for Obama. Vote for Obama meant automatic excommunication for this person, apparently. I refuse to believe that it is a sin to vote for Obama or any other candidate for political office who is a member of the Democratic party, let alone the kind of offense that would automatically excommunicate me.

 

[CWBetts]

I was invited to refrain from receiving communion on CA today for stating that I voted for Obama. Vote for Obama meant automatic excommunication for this person, apparently. I refuse to believe that it is a sin to vote for Obama or any other candidate for political office who is a member of the Democratic party, let alone the kind of offense that would automatically excommunicate me.

A vote for a public official who is virulently pro-death, when pro life candidates are an option is a grave matter. It is also a matter of choice, so it has full consent of the will. Now if you were ignorant of Obama’s stance which is antithetical to Catholic doctrine and you knew the seriousness of the action, it would then be a mortal sin. Remember that if you are in a state of mortal sin, you are not to receive communion. You do not have to be formally excommunicated to refrain from the Eucharist, you must only have unconfessed mortal sin.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

A vote for a public official who is virulently pro-death, when pro life candidates are an option is a grave matter. It is also a matter of choice, so it has full consent of the will. Now if you were ignorant of Obama’s stance which is antithetical to Catholic doctrine and you knew the seriousness of the action, it would then be a mortal sin. Remember that if you are in a state of mortal sin, you are not to receive communion. You do not have to be formally excommunicated to refrain from the Eucharist, you must only have unconfessed mortal sin.

 

[CPA2]

The Taliban and the Crusaders practiced salvation by the sword. Today the people who practice violence are those who raise a "sword” against the unborn through abortion. The Catholic Church cannot force politicians to change their positions on abortion. However, the Church does ask these politicians to HONESTLY admit in public that they are not in “full union” with the Church.

“Catholic” politicians, who dissent in a public forum from the Catholic Church’s teaching on the right to life of all unborn children, freely do so. These politicians choose to separate themselves from the Church’s teachings. They also separate themselves from the Catholic community. They have abandoned the full Catholic faith. It is DISHONEST for such a person to express “communion” with Christ and His Church through the sacrament of the Eucharist. These politicians may not claim to be Christians, and yet disbelieve what the Church teaches. There is a split between what they profess to believe and their daily lives.

It does not take a bishop to excommunicate these politicians. These “Catholic” politicians have distanced themselves from Jesus Christ and His Church. They have excommunicated themselves. These politicians may not receive Holy Communion in any Catholic Church in the world! To do so would be a lie. It would be a scandal.

Abortion is an “abominable crime.” It is an injustice of the first order. The Catholic Church only has one position on abortion. It is plain for the whole world to see. There is no room for interpretations to justify abortion. There are no evaluations to justify the crime. Abortion is the deliberate targeting and destruction of a child.

Additionally, it is a sin for a Catholic to knowingly vote for a candidate who supports abortion. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for anyone in the Democrat Party because, as I understand it, the Democrat Party supports abortion. A Christian conscience does not permit me to vote for a candidate or political program that contradicts the fundamental content of faith and morals. I take my Christian conscience to the polls when I vote!

 

[Garland]

All, abortion is murder, that is a fact that cannot be spun to mean anything else. To vote for a person or support a party that has this plank in its platform is indeed a serious matter. When you cast a vote for this party knowing it is against any form of control on abortion, you willinglygive your consent to them for whatever they wish to do to the unborn. Mr obama made no secret that he was pro-abortion even up to letting a baby, surviving the abortion process, lay on a cold table and die for lack of care. His first official act as pres. was to give our tax money to any country, outside our borders, that would use it to kill babies. If you fail to see the evil you tie yourself to when you vote for these people, you really need to pray for guidence and understanding of what it means to be christian. There are no rights to consider if you dont have a right to life. The only difference between me, you, or anyone and a baby in the womb, is a little time. The german people that heard the death trains going to the gas chambers confessed after the war that they were so ashamed for not doing something, when they heard the screams of the people on those trains. How different was that and abortion? The main difference was 11 million jews, christians, and disabled brothers and sisters, went to an untimley death, and 50 million plus unborn gifts of almighty God have been butchered by the dems. and the people who vote for them. The only thing a polotician understands is when he doesnt get elected, he changes. As long as they get YOUR permission [vote] they do as they like.

   Roe v Wade is not based on good law and the two liberal judges obama has appointed would have been enough, had they been conser., to ban abortion on demand. Before you spin the rights of the woman, let me say, if a woman has a child and it interferes with her plans, why is she not given the right to drown, shoot, knife, or dispose of it as she pleases? There is NO DIFFERENCE, in a child beside you and a child inside you. Both are truly human and to snuff out the life of either, is murder. If you vote for people who push this,  you are NOT in a state of GRACE and should NOT recieve our LORD until you make a good confession and REPENT of this dasterdly act.  BE CHRISTIAN FIRST, polotical second. HOW can you justify this to JESUS?

  This thread is IT IS A SIN TO VOTE FOR A PRO-ABORTION CANDIDATE.

 Blessings, Garland

 

[Lypher]

What about CCC 1868 and 1869?
An old saying…“You are what you eat”…I wonder if “You are what you vote” works too?

 

[CPA2]

The United States Supreme Court took the first step down a dark and slippery slope by legalizing abortion in 1973. A child is legally entitled to life only if his or her mother wants that child. Abortion is murder, pure and simple. Abortion is not a religious issue. It is an issue of a human right – the right to life.

There is no shortage of issues that are threats to human life. However, I think that we have to recognize that not all issues are of equal weight. Some issues are more fundamental than others. Therefore, we can justify placing a priority on certain issues. Life itself is the most fundamental of all values. Human life must take precedence over lesser human values, such as Medicaid and healthcare. Abortion and euthanasia are the primary threats to human life. Both attack the dignity of life and life itself.

The days of Roe vs. Wade are numbered. Roe vs. Wade is not worth the paper that it is written on. 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. The reason is simple. The Constitution and American history guarantee equal dignity to all people. The names differ, but at various times in our history people were deprived of their rights. The Supreme Court gave legal cover to these acts of violence; however, the Supreme Court always reversed itself. The most famous case that comes to mind is the Dred Scott decision, the slaveholder’s right to property.

There is no precedent on abortion in the law. However, that is not unusual. The Supreme Court has reversed itself many times, especially when new evidence is brought forth that someone’s rights, not previously recognized, were violated.

There is another aspect of Roe vs. Wade that we did not discuss: the power of government to tell us who is and who is not a person. When some of you say that the government should not be involved in the abortion decision, I agree. However, I agree from a different perspective. The government got too involved in 1973 when it said that an unborn child is not a person. The world has been down this slippery slope of “non-persons” before.

Could the government ever declare us to be “non-persons?” That idea is not so far fetched as it sounds. I do not think that we have considered the full implication of Roe vs. Wade.

 

[Lycorth]

Amen, CPA2.

In answer to the question: I do not know if it is a sin, but it ought to be. How can any so-called Catholic cast a vote for someone who approves of the murder of the unborn? That’s sick.

 

[CPA2]

“Roe,” the plaintiff and victor in Roe v. Wade, asked the Supreme Court to overturn their decision. She said flatly that the Supreme Court made a mistake. She also says that she was used by her attorneys to pursue a political agenda. “Roe” filed her motion based on changes in the law and changes in factual conditions. She said that the decision that the Supreme Court handed down in 1973 is “no longer just.”

 

[elts1956]

I was invited to refrain from receiving communion on CA today for stating that I voted for Obama. Vote for Obama meant automatic excommunication for this person, apparently. I refuse to believe that it is a sin to vote for Obama or any other candidate for political office who is a member of the Democratic party, let alone the kind of offense that would automatically excommunicate me.

If you interpreted the USCCB document on voting wherein one could misguidedly believe one’s own supreme conscience instead of the Church Magisterium, one could vote for a pro abort politician as long as one was not voting for that politician because of s/his pro abort policies, but were voting for other issues which one misguidedly considered to be of proportionate evil to abortion, one could do that. Now, the problem with this outlook, is one, the voter’s conscience was not formed according to Church teaching, second there was NO PROPORTIONATE Intrinsic evil on a par with the Intrinsic evil and issue of abortion in this election. The NUMBER ONE issue was abortion and the right to life of all from conception to natural death. It is very clear we have some very misinformed Catholics in the US, at least 56% of those who voted for the bo regime.

You were misguided period. How culpable you are, that is not for any of us to say. I hold most of the Bishops in the US more culpable for not stating “CLEARLY”, it is a sin of great magnitude for a Catholic to allow their vote to, however indirectly, support the heinous crime of abortion, no matter how serious one thought the other issues were…

There were some Bishops who came out strongly during the POTUS election against any candidate, (no names, but it didn’t take rocket science to figure out who they were talking about.), who used abortion as part, and in this instance, a big part of their political platform. Some loyal upstanding Bishops and Archbishops such as Burke, Chaput, Martino, Finn, Herman and many others came out and CLEARLY said it was wrong to vote for a pro abort party in any way.

So what excuse did the pro bo Catholics use then? If they read the sermons given by the above men, they then used the excuse, “Oh well, he’s not MY Bishop”. So easy to toss responsibility and vote the way one’s misguided conscience tells one. More than sad. It was a tragedy for the Catholic Church.

As a result of this miscommunication, we now have international funding of abortion, more and more money being given to Planned Parenthood and now Health Care which forces even those, who don’t condone abortion, to pay for it through their taxes.

We commit not only sins of commission, but of omission. To fail to do all we can to save those innocents is indeed a grave sin.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Turn your head any which way you want and you will see fingers pointing directly at you. I tend to think it would be the tiny fingers of all those babies you have allowed to be aborted.

What an outrageously offensive statement.

Alan55 is not personally responsible for “allowing” a single abortion, unless he somehow took part in engineering the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. The decision has not been overturned by the Supreme Court in place at that time. Nor did Republican administrations aggressively or effectively wage a national campaign for its repeal.

Get a grip.

 

[Alan55]

If you interpreted the USCCB document on voting wherein one could misguidedly believe one’s own supreme conscience instead of the Church Magisterium, one could vote for a pro abort politician as long as one was not voting for that politician because of s/his pro abort policies, but were voting for other issues which one misguidedly considered to be of proportionate evil to abortion, one could do that. Now, the problem with this outlook, is one, the voter’s conscience was not formed according to Church teaching, second there was NO PROPORTIONATE Intrinsic evil on a par with the Intrinsic evil and issue of abortion in this election. The NUMBER ONE issue was abortion and the right to life of all from conception to natural death. It is very clear we have some very misinformed Catholics in the US, at least 56% of those who voted for the bo regime.

You were misguided period. How culpable you are, that is not for any of us to say. I hold most of the Bishops in the US more culpable for not stating “CLEARLY”, it is a sin of great magnitude for a Catholic to allow their vote to, however indirectly, support the heinous crime of abortion, no matter how serious one thought the other issues were…

There were some Bishops who came out strongly during the POTUS election against any candidate, (no names, but it didn’t take rocket science to figure out who they were talking about.), who used abortion as part, and in this instance, a big part of their political platform. Some loyal upstanding Bishops and Archbishops such as Burke, Chaput, Martino, Finn, Herman and many others came out and CLEARLY said it was wrong to vote for a pro abort party in any way.

So what excuse did the pro bo Catholics use then? If they read the sermons given by the above men, they then used the excuse, “Oh well, he’s not MY Bishop”. So easy to toss responsibility and vote the way one’s misguided conscience tells one. More than sad. It was a tragedy for the Catholic Church.

As a result of this miscommunication, we now have international funding of abortion, more and more money being given to Planned Parenthood and now Health Care which forces even those, who don’t condone abortion, to pay for it through their taxes.

We commit not only sins of commission, but of omission. To fail to do all we can to save those innocents is indeed a grave sin.

I’ve learned today that I’m misguided and “a sinner of great magnitude” from your post. Let me try one more time. Even if you agree that abortion is the most important issue for voters to consider, I do not agree with the approach of many on CAF who collapse all issues to abortion, as if that was the only issue to consider. Neither the pope nor the bishops have offered the kind of guidance that would make a vote for a candidate from the Democratic Party, including Pres. Obama, a “sin of great magnitude.” I think that view is misguided. The Republicans have used abortion as a wedge issue to attempt to represent the Republican Party as the “Catholic Party.” I’m old enough to remember when the Democratic Party was supposedly the Catholic Party. I’ve seen the bishops and the U.S. (and worldwide) church move to the right, shifting the rhetoric from an emphasis on justic issues to an emphasis on abortion. I read and consider carefully the guidance offered by the Magisterium, and I find nowhere the notion that abortion is the only issue that matters. I understand the comfort offered by single-issue politics, but I don’t vote that way, not do I judge and condemn those who vote differently than I do.