It is a Sin to Vote for Pro-Abortion Candidates

[estesbob]

The bishops taught that Catholics should avoid single-issue voting. Voting for Democratic candidates – including Obama – is morally permissible. I am aware of Church teaching on the subject. I’ll continue to vote for Democratic candidates, thank you very much.

That is not correct. They specifially said a canidates support of abortion could disqualify him from recieving a Catholics vote.

As Pope Benedict put it:

*3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
*

 

[Lypher]

Just curious, I didn’t read anything in the Bishops statement that anyone HAD to show prove their reasoning to you or anyone else. Did I miss something? We will all have to account to God (only)

Absolutely valid point. You only need to show God, but the thread asks a question and so using your response unless I agree with you I cannot answer the question. Again this is a loaded question. If I had a choice between these two candidates.

Candidate A Will vote for abortion and be responsible for 20 Million deaths.

Candidate B will start a Nuclear war and be responsible for 20 Million and 1 deaths.

In this case I would have a valid reason to vote for candidate A. The problem is KNOWING… Many candidates have a record showing they are involved with killing the innocent. I don’t see any running on a platform proposing any action that kills as many?

So in the strict sense “is a Sin to Vote for Pro-Abortion Candidates?” The answer is NO…with a MAJOR qualification, and that is what the USCCB says…

As Alan55 points out…

1. The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.

You can vote the way you want. You have the right and if your understanding is that 20 million innocent lives are worth less then some social issue then all I can say is I humbly disagree and ask you WWJD?

And this discussion on the value of life a convert must debate with an RC Deacon…very sad.

 

[DeaconDen]

A Catholic who voted for Obama either wilfully disregarded the teachngs of the Church or did not do due diligence in seeking out the Church’s teachings on abortion and voting.

Wow mind reading and name calling , what a surprise on this thread!
The bishops said what they did, the document is what it is and is in line with traditional Catholic teaching.
I do not have a graduate degree in Theology, but after 5 years of study at one of the most conservative seminaries in the US, I think I picked up a thing or two.
One thing I am not is a pro-abortion Catholic. Too many marches in DC and visits to legislators.
I think perhaps the real issue is that some do not feel comfortable about freedom and feel threatened “Tell us how to vote, bishops!” Others, have gotten their Faith and politics all wrapped up in the same knot. Never healthy. Sometimes the politics replaces the Faith.
I have no problem for people who weighed the issues and ended up backing McCain. I will not attack them, call them names nor attempt to read their minds.
This is a mean and angry place, hardly a place where I see the Gospel proclaimed.
God bless,

 

[DeaconDen]

That is not correct. They specifially said a canidates support of abortion could disqualify him from recieving a Catholics vote.

As Pope Benedict put it:

*3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
*

The weight on voters and the weight on politicians differ. I believe B16 is referring to those in office, if not please provide link to source for context.
Thanks,

 

[Lypher]

I’ve enjoyed reading other forums on this site, but this particular one:
It is a Sin to Vote for Pro-Abortion Candidates
is a Spy vs Spy flame battleground.
I believe it is possible to express views in a spirit of Christian charity.
Don’t see a lot of it here.
-Just my opinion.

Well Spy vs Spy is a comic…no bodies in the trash bucket.

Views can be expressed… Thou shall not kill… Your the Deacon, or are you? So where else in the teachings of the church does she speak about the evils of abortion?
Christian Charity…I have a lot of compassion for those that are forced to kill, charity for those that are the subject of the killing and prayerful thought for those that actively support, lobby, or cause the conditions for others to freely kill the innocent.

Unfortunatly if you are a Deacon your opinion carries more weight then the average Joe, or at least it should…especially those forming their faith.

 

[estesbob]

The weight on voters and the weight on politicians differ. I believe B16 is referring to those in office, if not please provide link to source for context.
Thanks,

What issues do you beleive trump abortion?

You can find the Popes letter here.:

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

The abortion apolgist resonse to this is that the Pope was only talkng about pro-abortion politicians , not those who vote for them.Akin, IMO, to saying that after World war II we should have punished those who ran the gas chambers but not those who hired them to do so.

 

[CMatt25]

Looks like you are Cherry picking yourself. here what the Bishops actually said"
*As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single *
*issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. **Yet a candidate’s position on a ***
***single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the ******promotion of racism, ***
may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.

Wow estesbob I leave this thread and back-up arrived!

Anyway define “may”. Is that as in “can” or do you have a new definiton of “may” meaning “must”.

Peace.

If I am cherry picking you should have no problem finding a Bishop that agree’s there were proportionate reasons that would have allowed a catholic to vote for Obama.

I am always amused the way these dicsussions go:

Catholic Abortion supporter Canidate apologist:

“The Bishops were not specific enough”

Pro-life Catholic :

“Thats not true here what Bishop so and so specifically said”

Catholic Abortion supporter Canidate apologist :

“He was only speaking for himself”

The truth is if the magestrium had issued a statement saying you cant vote for Obama the Catholic Abortion supporter Canidate apologist’s would have claimed they were talking about another Obama.

A Catholic who voted for Obama either wilfully disregarded the teachngs of the Church or did not do due diligence in seeking out the Church’s teachings on abortion and voting.

 

[DeaconDen]

Unfortunatly if you are a Deacon your opinion carries more weight then the average Joe, or at least it should…especially those forming their faith.

Yes, that is why I am concentrating on current correct teaching.
I was ordained in Philadelphia on June 2, 2002

archdiocese-phl.org/clergy/deacons.htm

I am currently assigned to DC as I am working here now. I lead RCIA at my parish.
If you think I am a bad deacon, perhaps you should notify my Archbishop (Donald Wuerl )
I am confident I’ve posted nothing here contrary to our Faith.

God Bless,

 

[DeaconDen]

What issues do you beleive trump abortion?

You can find the Popes letter here.:

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

The abortion apolgist resonse to this is that the Pope was only talkng about pro-abortion politicians , not those who vote for them.Akin, IMO, to saying that after World war II we should have punished those who ran the gas chambers but not those who hired them to do so.

Thanks for the link.
No, I do not disagree with the Holy Fathers teachings on abortion. Quite the contrary.
The note on the bottom of the letter clarifies the voting thing
[N.B. 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.]

I did not vote for Obama because of his abortion stance. I differed with him there.

 

[Lypher]

Yes, that is why I am concentrating on current correct teaching.
I was ordained in Philadelphia on June 2, 2002

archdiocese-phl.org/clergy/deacons.htm

I am currently assigned to DC as I am working here now. I lead RCIA at my parish.
If you think I am a bad deacon, perhaps you should notify my Archbishop (Donald Wuerl )
I am confident I’ve posted nothing here contrary to our Faith.

God Bless,

I have no idea if you are good, as I am not even confirmed yet. That being said I would likely remain a Lutheran if I was in your class. Why change? Humanae Vitea was the document that caused me to start asking questions… I would likely not have recieved the pro-life answers I was looking for… Oh well I am sure you are doing your best.

 

[CMatt25]

here what the Bishops actually said "a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism,may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.

If I am cherry picking…

Wow estesbob I depart from this thread and Catholic back-up arrived!

Anyway it’s not IF you are cherry picking unless you have come up with a new different definition for “may” and it no longer means “can” but “must”.

Peace.

 

[estesbob]

Thanks for the link.
No, I do not disagree with the Holy Fathers teachings on abortion. Quite the contrary.
The note on the bottom of the letter clarifies the voting thing
[N.B. 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.]

I did not vote for Obama because of his abortion stance. I differed with him there.

Ah -I see you are a single footnote voter. One of those Catholics who ignore catholic teaching on voting and abortion , even ignore the body of the Popes letter and hang their hat on their own personal interpreation of a one line footnote.

So does Obama do less damage because some of those who voted for him did not support his stance on abortion? I fail to see how supporting an intrinisc evil is OK if you don’t agree with a canidates support of that intrinsic evil? Did Bishop Wuerl state there were proportionate reasons that would have allowed a Catholic’s to vote for Obama in spite of his support of unrestricted taxpayer funded abortions on demand?

Cna you tell us the error in Archbishops Chaputs reasoning?

 

[DeaconDen]

I have no idea if you are good, as I am not even confirmed yet. That being said I would likely remain a Lutheran if I was in your class. Why change? Humanae Vitea was the document that caused me to start asking questions… I would likely not have recieved the pro-life answers I was looking for… Oh well I am sure you are doing your best.

Yes I am I hope. I’ve studied Humanae Vitea too. I am pro-life. Hope I did not write something that caused you to think I wasn’t. Weighing things out is much harder than researching one single issue tho.

 

[estesbob]

I have no idea if you are good, as I am not even confirmed yet. That being said I would likely remain a Lutheran if I was in your class. Why change? Humanae Vitea was the document that caused me to start asking questions… I would likely not have recieved the pro-life answers I was looking for… Oh well I am sure you are doing your best.

People in CAF can hold themselves to be anything they want to which is why it is a good idea to stick with posts where documents are posted and not ones personal opinions.

 

[DeaconDen]

People in CAF can hold themselves to be anything they want to which is why it is a good idea to stick with posts where documents are posted and not ones personal opinions.

And who might you be estesbob?
Just another guy posting opinions.
I posted a link tho, and any one wishing to check me out may do so.
Call my pastor!

 

[estesbob]

And who might you be estesbob?
Just another guy posting opinions.
I posted a link tho, and any one wishing to check me out may do so.
Call my pastor!

Actaully I am about the only one posting sources to back up what I say. All i get in return is “thats not what they mean”

 

[DeaconDen]

Actaully I am about the only one posting sources to back up what I say. All i get in return is “thats not what they mean”

Huh? I’ve posted a few links also, Some people didn’t like what they said.

Sometimes important documents can be taken in more ways than one for a purpose.

The Ratzinger letter makes the beginning of my point (at least I think so) and the USCCB completes it. You may not agree, but that is fine.

Really not more to say.

 

[CMatt25]

You may not agree, but that is fine.

Really not more to say.

 

[scipio337]

Which begs the question, per the USCCB, what is “proportionate reasons”?

 

[CWBetts]

The current administration is not enslaving people or making them wholly dependent on the government. What a crock…

Sure is. We are dependent on the government for retirement benefits (Social Security). Now Obama wants us to be dependent on the government for health care. You need to look down the read, not just here and now. The problem with radical leftists is they suffer from acute myopia.