It is a Sin to Vote for Pro-Abortion Candidates

[donna_jean]

thanks Bob…I have been trying…which is why I am here…and I appreciate you not casting me off to another faith.

 

[Luke_Warmness]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Doc_Keele]

This thread is a positive microcosm of CAF.
A vocal group of quasi-vitalist monomaniacs are trying to convince people that their private revelation amounts to a Magisterial pronouncement, an assertion they can’t prove because it’s not true. They have singularly failed to provide proof, whilst demanding proof that it is permissible to vote for a pro-choice candidate (although confusingly they have already contradicted themselves on this).
The Magisterium couldn’t possibly endorse their position because it makes no sense. Let’s consider the possible outcomes of arguing this nonsensical doctrine.

1. the conscientious Catholic rejects their argument as nonsense and rejects it as representing the Magisterium’s position. The quasi-vitalist monomaniacs (QVMs) are rightly discredited.
2. the conscientious Catholic holds their argument as nonsensical but is convinced by the QVMs that it is the Magisterial position. This might either result in the person considering leaving the church (as per Donna Jean), becoming a convinced cafeteria Catholic who may then reject more rational and genuinely Magisterial doctrines, or submitting to the doctrine, unwittedly becoming a heretic and also subjecting the Church to ridicule from the outside - and also creating cognitive dissonance.
3. the conscientious Catholic accepts their position as true and reflecting the Magisterium, unwittedly becoming heretics and exposing the Church to ridicule. They may become more likely to accept other false and extreme statements, and look down on other Catholics as weak and liberal.

 

[estesbob]

This thread is a positive microcosm of CAF.
A vocal group of quasi-vitalist monomaniacs are trying to convince people that their private revelation amounts to a Magisterial pronouncement, an assertion they can’t prove because it’s not true. They have singularly failed to provide proof, whilst demanding proof that it is permissible to vote for a pro-choice candidate (although confusingly they have already contradicted themselves on this).
The Magisterium couldn’t possibly endorse their position because it makes no sense. Let’s consider the possible outcomes of arguing this nonsensical doctrine.

1. the conscientious Catholic rejects their argument as nonsense and rejects it as representing the Magisterium’s position. The quasi-vitalist monomaniacs (QVMs) are rightly discredited.
2. the conscientious Catholic holds their argument as nonsensical but is convinced by the QVMs that it is the Magisterial position. This might either result in the person considering leaving the church (as per Donna Jean), becoming a convinced cafeteria Catholic who may then reject more rational and genuinely Magisterial doctrines, or submitting to the doctrine, unwittedly becoming a heretic and also subjecting the Church to ridicule from the outside - and also creating cognitive dissonance.
3. the conscientious Catholic accepts their position as true and reflecting the Magisterium, unwittedly becoming heretics and exposing the Church to ridicule. They may become more likely to accept other false and extreme statements, and look down on other Catholics as weak and liberal.

Or-a conscinetous catholic doesnt need anyone, including the magestium, to tell them that one should not vote for those who support abortion.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Or-a conscinetous catholic doesnt need anyone, including the magestium, to tell them that one should not vote for those who support abortion.

…but it has already been conceded that actually one can…your position is totally incoherent.

 

[Lypher]

…but it has already been conceded that actually one can…your position is totally incoherent.

DOC, I believe you are incorrect and he is right. Can you explain how the below could be construed to allow one to vote to kill?
Take Care,​

CCC 1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

· by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
· by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
· by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
· by protecting evil-doers.

CCC 1869 Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. “Structures of sin” are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a "social sin."144

144 John Paul II, RP 16.

 

[Doc_Keele]

You are free to believe what you like on whatever grounds. You need to prove to me why your position is correct. Prove to me that this applies to voting. I don’t believe it can, because it would really entail Catholics not voting.
I would challenge you to find one person in the US or UK who has “voted to kill”.

 

[Lypher]

You are free to believe what you like on whatever grounds…

I agree with the above statement.

You need to prove to me why your position is correct. .

That would be like trying to prove to a Duck that a Lion is King of the Jungle.
So I would prefer that you prove to me that the Duck is…

Prove to me that this applies to voting. .

No you need to prove to me that it does not.

I don’t believe it can, because it would really entail Catholics not voting.

A semi wise man once said. “You are free to believe what you like on whatever grounds.”…

 

[Doc_Keele]

OK, so you can’t actually argue your case. That’s fine.
I have a good argument for my case, part of which I have stated already.None of the words in that part of the Cathechism suggest to me anything about voting whatsoever.
Don’t waste my time if you can’t actually articulate anything worth posting.

 

[Lypher]

OK, so you can’t actually argue your case. That’s fine…

Well I have a couple of Posts 453-458… I am really not trying to argue just pointing out paragraphs from the CCC… You accept it or not… As mentioned previously “One can believe whatever one wants.” I would add a caveat to that… One is responsible for what one believes and espouses as well.

I have a good argument for my case, part of which I have stated already…

Well it is nice that you believe that you do, but I don’t think so. I don’t want to be responsible for the death which that kind of thought brings about. I did not see where you pointed out anything in the Bible or CCC that allows me to vote for a Pro-abortion candidate? Did I miss something? Can you please point me to the post number? (Thank you)

None of the words in that part of the Catechism suggest to me anything about voting whatsoever. .

Well it is here to read, at least I see it, but if you fail to see what I see then all we can do is debate and I am not a Master Debater and really don’t want to be one.​

CCC 1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

· by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
· by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
· by not disclosing or** not hindering** them when we have an obligation to do so;
· by protecting evil-doers.

============================================================
I guess you can claim ignorance… Is that what you wish to do?​

CCC 1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
133 Cf. Mk 3:5-6; Lk 16:19-31.

 

[Lypher]

============================================================
Hopefully you will see the CCC’s points… None of them are mine…If it wasted your time…I am sorry.​

CCC 2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76
75 Didache 2, 2: SCh 248, 148; cf. Ep. Barnabae 19, 5: PG 2, 777; Ad Diognetum 5, 6: PG 2, 1173; Tertullian, Apol. 9: PL 1, 319-320.

76 GS 51 § 3

CCC 2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

77 CIC, can. 1398.

=============================================================

We are charged to point out sin in order to help each other avoid it. If you choose to ignore it then you are a creature of God and have been given free will. It would be sad however if your arguments convinced someone that voting Pro-Death is acceptable and not a grave Sin. Then again that would be something that you can bring up with God all I can do is point out areas in the CCC that “I” (Not you) think applies and try and warn you. I would hope and pray you would be considerate enough to do the same for me if you found something I might be doing that is wrong.

Well I tried DOC, In the end your soul is your very own… Take Care…

(P.S. I added a lot of emphasis on the CCC quotes as I was trying to show you what I see)

 

[Rence]

You are free to believe what you like on whatever grounds. You need to prove to me why your position is correct. Prove to me that this applies to voting. I don’t believe it can, because it would really entail Catholics not voting.
I would challenge you to find one person in the US or UK who has “voted to kill”.

That was my point: I don’t “vote to kill”. I vote for the candidate I believe is best for the job and who will serve our country and it’s citizens as best as I believe he can. The Church doesn’t tell us for whom to vote, or to not vote at all.

 

[Elizabeth502]

it would really entail Catholics not voting.

Indeed. That is the point, and such a position is an impossible position to support.

I’d also like to remind any potential opposers on this thread, that it is against the CAF Terms of Service to call CAF members “baby-killers” for voting for one particular candidate, or to call politicians baby-killers. I say this because these threads always bring out of the closet the greatest extremists who use unique rhetoric to support unique “theology.”

The Church provides guidance for living, praying, behaving, and voting, based on absolute principles and absolute values. Beyond that, it does not itself become a stand-in for an absolutist totalitarian political state telling people how to vote “or else.” That sounds like a dream fantasy for some people on CAF, but it is simply not how it works.

 

[CPA2]

I find it ironic that those politicians who support abortion also support socialism. If politicians cannot get abortion right, how can we expect them to get anything else right?

Socialism is the philosophy of failure.
Socialism is the creed of ignorance.
Socialism is the gospel of envy.

Winston Churchill

 

[estesbob]

That was my point: I don’t “vote to kill”. I vote for the candidate I believe is best for the job and who will serve our country and it’s citizens as best as I believe he can. The Church doesn’t tell us for whom to vote, or to not vote at all.

So at the end of World war II you have had us punish those who ran the gas chambers but not those who hired them?

 

[Doc_Keele]

Well I have a couple of Posts 453-458… I am really not trying to argue just pointing out paragraphs from the CCC… You accept it or not… As mentioned previously “One can believe whatever one wants.” I would add a caveat to that… One is responsible for what one believes and espouses as well

Yes, you’ve quoted the Catechism, but that is not actually making an argument. You quote parts of the Cathechism which do not say what you claim they say. And since the presumption of even the Catholic Church is that anything which is not forbidden is permissible, then the onus of proof is on you.

]Well it is nice that you believe that you do, but I don’t think so. I don’t want to be responsible for the death which that kind of thought brings about. I did not see where you pointed out anything in the Bible or CCC that allows me to vote for a Pro-abortion candidate? Did I miss something? Can you please point me to the post number?

The Bible doesn’t mention umpteen things which we are allowed to do. It’s very simple.

I guess you can claim ignorance… Is that what you wish to do?

Claim ignorance of what exactly? I think you and the other QCMs are ignorant of the Church;s teaching on voting.

CCC 1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart

133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
133 Cf. Mk 3:5-6; Lk 16:19-31.
Blah blah blah

 

[Doc_Keele]

Indeed. That is the point, and such a position is an impossible position to support.

I’d also like to remind any potential opposers on this thread, that it is against the CAF Terms of Service to call CAF members “baby-killers” for voting for one particular candidate, or to call politicians baby-killers. I say this because these threads always bring out of the closet the greatest extremists who use unique rhetoric to support unique “theology.”

The Church provides guidance for living, praying, behaving, and voting, based on absolute principles and absolute values. Beyond that, it does not itself become a stand-in for an absolutist totalitarian political state telling people how to vote “or else.” That sounds like a dream fantasy for some people on CAF, but it is simply not how it works.

Love this post!

 

[Doc_Keele]

I find it ironic that those politicians who support abortion also support socialism.

At last the hidden agenda is coming out…

 

[Rence]

So at the end of World war II you have had us punish those who ran the gas chambers but not those who hired them?

Those who hired people to run the gas chambers, hired those people specificly to run the gas chambers, so yes. So should the guards who rounded people up and brought them to the camps. So should those who turned in those who were hiding Jews and others targeted by the Nazis. How does that compare to voting for someone who is pro-choice?

The President of the US doesn’t hire those who performs abortions. Nor does he force women to go to abortion clinics or hospitals or doctors offices that perform them, nor does he prescribe the medications to induce them. He doesn’t even hire those people who…round up women and bring them to abortion clinics against their will.

 

[Rence]

So at the end of World war II you have had us punish those who ran the gas chambers but not those who hired them?

So, by your reasoning, if a Catholic hospital grants privelidges to a doctor on staff who also performs abortions at the non-Catholic hospital a few miles down the road, then they guilty of supporting doctors who perform abortion clinics. I don’t agree with this line of reasoning.