It is a Sin to Vote for Pro-Abortion Candidates

[Sean_Boyle]

Can you please? I would love to see this proof! Honestly! I don’t doubt it, I just want to see it.

This will take some work on your part. What is the “susposed” legal exception that allows the killing of a fetus? Chapter and verse…

 

[estesbob]

donna jean;6724031:

As far as Obama giving money for abortion in different countries…Did he do this for woman’s health care and the places that perform the best health care in these countries also perform abortions at the facilities? Or are you saying that Obama just wants women to have abortions and he doesn’t care about the health care??? Is the information resourced from legalistic Republicans?

Too bad you didnt research this issue before you voted for Obama, He is providing US funds to international l abortion providers. There are a multitude organiztions that provide health care for women in third world countries that do NOT provid abortions.-Under Bush these were the organizations that recieved funding. If you had done a little research before making your vote you would also have found that during then Clinton years these funds, in addition to paying for overseas abortions, were used to pay for forced sterilizationsa in Peru. catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=292

Hopefully you would not consider that “womens health care”

Obama made no secret of his support for unresticted taxpayer funded abortions on demand. In fact he was on record saying children born as the result of a bothced abortion should be allowed to die.

Class guy this Obama -not only did he release the funds-he did so on the day after the Annual Right to Life march , while DC was still full of Pro-life advocates from all over the country. Guess he wanted to rub their noses in it.

 

[BryanM27]

This will take some work on your part. What is the “susposed” legal exception that allows the killing of a fetus? Chapter and verse…

Honestly I don’t know. The only argument I’ve ever heard is the supposed 9th Ammendment protection of the mother’s rights.

 

[elts1956]

Perhaps Fr Corapi needs to study who the Church defines as a Catholic. I believe perhaps he instead meant to say something to the effect you can not be a fully faithful 100% practicing Catholic.

I believe that is what he means. But then maybe he meant to say if you are not 100%, you aren’t Catholic, but don’t put words in his mouth. That is the way I interpret it though. Have you ever heard him? Quite a priest and preacher!

 

[CMatt25]

I believe that is what he means. But then maybe he meant to say if you are not 100%, you aren’t Catholic, but don’t put words in his mouth. That is the way I interpret it though. Have you ever heard him? Quite a priest and preacher!

Elts, it’s nearly impossible to spend a day on CAF without hearing of him! I’m waiting for him to move up the ladder to eventually become Pope so he can change the definition of Catholic.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Hi, CMatt.

Despite the fact that many CAF members over the years have misquoted Fr. Corapi, he has been very clear (I have heard many of his lectures multiple times on radio & TV) that, except by deliberate efforts in repudiation and self-identification, one never loses one’s Catholic identity. This is an important point theologically, because it means that one will be (according to the Church) judged at the end of one’s life within the framework of Catholic standards. One can be a totally non-practicing Catholic (used to be called “lapsed”), but you don’t become “Catholic” in quotes only; you become non-observant in that case, a non-observant, non-practicing Catholic. (no quotes)

1- A baptized Catholic can repudiate Catholicism passively, by not subscribing to its requirements: That repudiation is considered sin. (Abandonment of the faith.)
2- A baptized Catholic can repudiate Catholicism actively, by formally announcing one’s departure from the faith, such as writing to the bishop.
3- A baptized Catholic can repudiate Catholicism even more actively and more formally by embracing and formally entering into (by conversion) a different faith system, which usually involves ritual and some documentation.

Only #2 and #3 make a baptized Catholic “no longer Catholic.”

 

[diggerdomer]

(Information based on “Priests For Life”)

If you believe in “abortion rights,” and knowingly and willfully vote for a candidate who promises to protect those “rights,” you have committed a sin. This is especially true for Catholics who have 2,000 years of Church teaching and tradition to back them up (Church’s teaching in the 2nd century). A voter who votes for a candidate who supports abortion has intentionally and deliberately helped someone who promotes a violent and destructive activity. That vote is similar in seriousness to participating in a pro-abortion rally, or writing an editorial that supports abortion.

These are the moral implications of voting. I once belonged to the Democrat Party, then I joined the Republican Party, and I now belong to the Constitution Party. However, my moral obligation is to keep out candidates who support abortion, usually Democrats; therefore, I often vote for Republicans who oppose abortion.

We can commit sin in the voting booth. Everything that we say or do either affirms or denies moral law. We are either getting closer to God, or farther away from Him. Everything that we say or do either strengthens us in virtue or enslaves us in vice. You cannot sing God’s praises in the choir and then say that you believe in abortion.

The simple act of voting for a given political candidate may or may not be sinful. It depends BOTH on the candidate’s positions and an individual’s reasons for voting for that candidate.

 

[CMatt25]

Hi, CMatt.

Despite the fact that many CAF members over the years have misquoted Fr. Corapi, he has been very clear (I have heard many of his lectures multiple times on radio & TV) that, except by deliberate efforts in repudiation and self-identification, one never loses one’s Catholic identity. This is an important point theologically, because it means that one will be (according to the Church) judged at the end of one’s life within the framework of Catholic standards. One can be a totally non-practicing Catholic (used to be called “lapsed”), but you don’t become “Catholic” in quotes only; you become non-observant in that case, a non-observant, non-practicing Catholic. (no quotes)

1- A baptized Catholic can repudiate Catholicism passively, by not subscribing to its requirements: That repudiation is considered sin. (Abandonment of the faith.)
2- A baptized Catholic can repudiate Catholicism actively, by formally announcing one’s departure from the faith, such as writing to the bishop.
3- A baptized Catholic can repudiate Catholicism even more actively and more formally by embracing and formally entering into (by conversion) a different faith system, which usually involves ritual and some documentation.

Only #2 and #3 make a baptized Catholic “no longer Catholic.”

Hi Elizabeth, so “non-practicing” is back in vogue now and not “lapsed”? Yrs ago it was “non-practicing” and then “lapsed”.

Didn’t Benedict though last yr end formal defection at least as it relates to releasing a Catholic from marriage laws. Catholics are no longer released by any formal defection.

"Experience, however, has shown that this new law gave rise to numerous pastoral problems. First, in individual cases the definition and practical configuration of such a formal act of separation from the Church has proved difficult to establish, from both a theological and a canonical standpoint… Therefore I decree that in the same Code the following words are to be eliminated: “and has not left it by a formal act” (can. 1117); “and has not left it by means of a formal act” (can. 1086 § 1); “and has not left it by a formal act” (can. 1124).

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20091026_codex-iuris-canonici_en.html

Then there’s this…

1. It remains clear, in any event, that the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20060313_actus-formalis_en.html

 

[Elizabeth502]

CMatt, I think Fr. Corapi is referring to #7 that you quoted. The context of his remarks has never been limited to technical legalities of marriage, but rather identification, membership, participation, so I don’t think the canonical quotes about marriage laws are all that helpful.

He was making a point about identity. (So was I.)

The point being that other lay people are not in a posiiton to define the Catholic character of any particular baptized Catholic. Rather, the individual is, by action/inaction, and by proclamation of re-identification.

 

[CMatt25]

How do you tell slave owners before emanication that they are wrong in the eyes of God and man?

We all know that they were…

Apply the same answer here…

Yes, it is the same thing. I’ll be happy to prove it.

Since slavery was practiced in Biblical times, while you’re at it I can explain too why Paul was wrong as it relates to today and women can not only speak in church but they can even speak as lectors and serve as EMHCs today. It’s a funny thing how those Biblical customs change as God continues to enlighten and speak to us. I think it’s the UCC whose slogan is “God is still speaking”. And ain’t that the truth. Thank God for that or we might still be practicing slavery. God bless and peace.

 

[CMatt25]

CMatt, I think Fr. Corapi is referring to #7 that you quoted. The context of his remarks has never been limited to technical legalities of marriage, but rather identification, membership, participation, so I don’t think the canonical quotes about marriage laws are all that helpful.

He was making a point about identity. (So was I.)

The point being that other lay people are not in a posiiton to define the Catholic character of any particular baptized Catholic. Rather, the individual is, by action/inaction, and by proclamation of re-identification.

Elizabeth, but if Fr was referring to #7 how does even formally entering into another faith tradition constitute “no longer Catholic” if belonging to the Church can not be lost by any act?

 

[CMatt25]

Elizabeth, in addition if a formal act of defection no longer exists to exempt the Catholic from Church marriage laws and according to Benedict’s 2009 decree the Catholic remains bound to them, it would seem they also are still Catholic if the Church considers them to be bound to Church law.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Honestly I don’t know. The only argument I’ve ever heard is the supposed 9th Ammendment protection of the mother’s rights.

The 9th expands rights to all human beings ratified in 1791. Slavery existed because “the people” didn’t reconized africian slaves as being human. There was even a “science” sourrounding this belief. See a connection.

The 9th is not actually behind the reseasoning to allow abortion. But as you can see it is wrong from any way you look at it.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Elizabeth, but if Fr was referring to #7 how does even formally entering into another faith tradition constitute “no longer Catholic” if belonging to the Church can not be lost by any act?

You bring up a good point, and I did think of the same. In practical terms, though, it’s unworkable to bind an individual, in the terms under which the Church holds all persons having free will, to a faith that has been formally renounced. That’s why it’s so important at baptism that the candidate, or the candidate’s proxy, proclaim formal adherence to essential tenets of belief and renounce “Satan,” “all his works,” etc. The Church is recognizing that without free assent, membership is without value. The language of free will, clear knowledge, free assent, etc., is sprinkled throughout the CCC and other official church documents.

 

[BryanM27]

The 9th expands rights to all human beings ratified in 1791. Slavery existed because “the people” didn’t reconized africian slaves as being human. There was even a “science” sourrounding this belief. See a connection.

The 9th is not actually behind the reseasoning to allow abortion. But as you can see it is wrong from any way you look at it.

I had never thought of it that way…but that argument does make sense.

It also poses the problem of where do the rights of the child begin and the rights of the mother end. Not saying I support abortion, because I don’t, but that’s where I think people get caught up.

They forget that their freedoms end the moment they place someone else’s physical safety in jeopardy. (Can’t falsely yell fire in a crowded movie theatre)

 

[elts1956]

The simple act of voting for a given political candidate may or may not be sinful. It depends BOTH on the candidate’s positions and an individual’s reasons for voting for that candidate.

One would have to be awfully dim to not know that by voting for a pro abort pol, one is advancing the pro abortion cause. Advancing abortion is a NO NO.

 

[elts1956]

The simple act of voting for a given political candidate may or may not be sinful. It depends BOTH on the candidate’s positions and an individual’s reasons for voting for that candidate.

I am pro-life, not pro-choice, thank you. And IMHO there is something positive that has come out of the current administration. We did not blindly hand ourselves over to emotion and remove our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Thank God Obama at least checked his ego at the door on that one.

Health care? Well there are some positives to that one but I agree that it comes at a terrible price.

From a moral standpoint, you’re right and I agree wholeheartedly. However it has unfortunately become a political issue.

And as others have stated already this is a more complex issue politically than it is morally. There are numerous people that are involved in this process. It starts with electing someone brave enough to introduce anti-abortion legislature in Congress, and then with electing other who will support them and push that bill through both houses. Only then can the President sign off on it. If he does, then comes the legal challenge and the President must be able to appoint justices who will support the new law, whether that is for or against abortion.

In reality, the President has little control over the major issues. It will take a vast amount of change throughout the US government.

Uh huh, and who deleted the Mexico City ruling that now causes me to fund international abortions? Who signed off on this? Did bo have a stand in? Did he bi locate? I know he really likes those vacations during oil spills etc.

First, we have to convince folks they don’t have to vote the party, either Dems. or Pubs. Few people vote because of individual voting records of the candidates. It is about time people start to think about what they truly want here in the U.S. And I don’t necessarily mean Palin or Romney. I greatly admire the members of the Tea Party groups. They know what they want and don’t want and stand up for it.

 

[estesbob]

One would have to be awfully dim to not know that by voting for a pro abort pol, one is advancing the pro abortion cause. Advancing abortion is a NO NO.

Agreed-the idea you can vote for a pro-abortion canidate and not be supporting abortion is specious.

 

[elts1956]

Elts, it’s nearly impossible to spend a day on CAF without hearing of him! I’m waiting for him to move up the ladder to eventually become Pope so he can change the definition of Catholic.

I think Archbishop Burke may be a step higher on the ladder. Pray for him.

 

[elts1956]

Elts, it’s nearly impossible to spend a day on CAF without hearing of him! I’m waiting for him to move up the ladder to eventually become Pope so he can change the definition of Catholic.

Life begins at conception and ends at natural death. The Obama definition is that life begins at birth and ends when it is no longer useful

bo’s definition of the beginning of life doesn’t even begin with the birth of the baby. He voted against the ban on partial birth abortion, leaving babies, who are viable enough to survive with a little help, to die in back rooms filled with dirty laundry. See Jill Stanek’s articles about this.