New Catholic Cardinal: Catholics Can’t Vote for Pro-Abortion Candidates

[rlg94086]

Where were these very vocal Cardinals and Bishops in 2008?

I think he was in St Louis, MO in 2008…saying the same things.

 

[Veridical16]

Go Cardinal Burke!

Pray for him

 

[CMatt25]

You are right, you can’t be pro choice and a true Catholic.

Actually you’re both wrong. According to the Church you are a Catholic once baptized into or received into the Church. So if a Catholic is pro choice, it is true they are still a Catholic.

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS ACTUS FORMALIS DEFECTIONIS
AB ECCLESIA CATHOLICA

Vatican City, 13 March 2006

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.

And you can read further about how we become incorporated members of the Church in the CCC.

I hope that helps!

 

[rlg94086]

Actually you’re both wrong. According to the Church you are a Catholic once baptized into or received into the Church. So if a Catholic is pro choice, it is true they are still a Catholic.

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS ACTUS FORMALIS DEFECTIONIS
AB ECCLESIA CATHOLICA

Vatican City, 13 March 2006

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.

And you can read further about how we become incorporated members of the Church in the CCC.

I hope that helps!

Exactly. You can be an unrepentant serial murderer and rapist and still be a Catholic. Thanks for pointing that important piece of information out…it enriches us all.

 

[sidbrown]

Just remember you can’t be a pro-choice Catholic.

There was a Senator from Massachusetts, Senator E. Kennedy, who was very much publicly pro-choice and did not publicly sway from this position, as far as I know. And yet he was given a splendid Roman Catholic funeral in Boston. If he was not a Catholic, then why did the Roman Catholic Cardinal Sean O’Malley give him such an extravagant Catholic funeral?

 

[elts1956]

Actually you’re both wrong. According to the Church you are a Catholic once baptized into or received into the Church. So if a Catholic is pro choice, it is true they are still a Catholic.

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS ACTUS FORMALIS DEFECTIONIS
AB ECCLESIA CATHOLICA

Vatican City, 13 March 2006

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.

And you can read further about how we become incorporated members of the Church in the CCC.

I hope that helps!

Okay, you are right, once you receive a Sacrament, you can’t undo it. You have said the same thing on other threads. Words, words, words. That is all it is, unless one is immersed completely in the teachings of the Church. I guess there is safety in illusion, at least on Earth.

Perhaps a better way to say it would be, one can “call” him/her self Catholic and be Pro Choice. The TITLE or NAME, does not a Catholic make.

 

[elts1956]

Exactly. You can be an unrepentant serial murderer and rapist and still be a Catholic. Thanks for pointing that important piece of information out…it enriches us all.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

 

[elts1956]

Exactly. You can be an unrepentant serial murderer and rapist and still be a Catholic. Thanks for pointing that important piece of information out…it enriches us all.

There was a Senator from Massachusetts, Senator E. Kennedy, who was very much publicly pro-choice and did not publicly sway from this position, as far as I know. And yet he was given a splendid Roman Catholic funeral in Boston. If he was not a Catholic, then why did the Roman Catholic Cardinal Sean O’Malley give him such an extravagant Catholic funeral?

Why dare you ask?? He was a KENNEDY? O’Malley is a Cardinal. Who would touch either to say nay? Kennedy and O’Malley will have to make the final explanation of their actions to the Almighty. We can get angry about the actions of some prelates of the Church, but we are not to judge. Oh my! Things just get curioser and curioser. But let me say, such a scandal would not have happened forty years ago. Not publically anyway.

Oh, and you must realize, this happened in Boston.

 

[Ockham]

Actually you’re both wrong. According to the Church you are a Catholic once baptized into or received into the Church. So if a Catholic is pro choice, it is true they are still a Catholic.

Look up the Church’s position on moral relativism.

Kennedy was given a Catholic funeral possibly because some clergy don’t enforce Church teaching. Kennedy may have made a full confession and cleared his soul of support for abortion. Whatever the case, abortion is murder and no Catholic should vote for a poltican who supports it.

 

[mary_bobo]

I’ve been trying for over forty years to get Popes, bishops to OBEY Canon Laws #912 # 915 # 1329 #1398 AND Follow Church Doctrine by Excommunicating all bishops,priests,Polititins who AID, ABET and Counsel abortion and\or homosexuality? They MUST destroy the "IN " Crowd before the “in” crowd destroys Catholic Identity at Notre Dame and 96 other Catholic Universities? We also have an uphill battle, no one listens to the faithfull catholic ,but listen to the more vocal "in " crowd./QUOTE

More to the point, the “in” crowd does not listen to the Church. The Church has been vocal on the non-negotiable points.

 

[tskrobacz]

I would not like to be a politician in today’s environment. They are expected to uphold the laws on the land on one hand and reject them on the other if they are contrary to the teachings of the Church. From our perspective we are asked to vote for candidates that are willing to stand against the laws of the land which itself breeds mistrust for our political system and disunity. Whenever we add oppositional energy we create opposition.

 

[StTommyMore]

I would not like to be a politician in today’s environment. They are expected to uphold the laws on the land on one hand and reject them on the other if they are contrary to the teachings of the Church. From our perspective we are asked to vote for candidates that are willing to stand against the laws of the land which itself breeds mistrust for our political system and disunity. Whenever we add oppositional energy we create opposition.

In other words, you would not like to be a politician because in today’s culture, it would rquire a great deal of moral courage. Unfortunately most politicians are cowards.

 

[Rence]

The new Catholic Cardinal has the right to state his opinion, and to get his point across as he feels necessary. He’s doing what he has to do to try and get voters to vote with their conscience.

I prefer the USCCB website for guidelines, and I especially like their guidelines as state here: usccb.org/bishops/FCBullInsert.pdf

Among other things, the guidelines say:

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.1

Notice, they do not say that we cannot vote for a candidate taht is in support of abortion. It says, it “MAY” legitimately lead to disqualification.

Further, the directives from the US Bishops say:

As Pope John Paul II said, “the fact that only the negative
commandments oblige always and under all circumstances does not mean that in the moral life prohibitions are more important than the obligation to do good indicated by the positive commandment” (Veritatis Splendor, no. 52). The basic right to life implies and is linked to other human rights to the goods that every person needs to live and thrive—including food, shelter health care, education, and meaningful work. The use of the death penalty, hunger, lack of health care or housing, human trafficking, the human and moral costs of war, and unjust immigration policies are some of the serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act.

Of course no one wants to vote for someone who is pro-abortion. But I don’t see the point of voting for the only candidate who is anti-abortion if that candidate ignores some or all of the other needs of society, or who makes it worse for citizens or particular groups of citizens to have access to basic needs. I couldn’t, in all good conscience, vote for an anti-abortion candidate if they affected the other basic rights of groups of individuals. All matters are important to consider. I have to look at the whole picture.

I just hope that a good pro-life candidate is on the ballot.

 

[jackangelo1]

jackangelo1;7210118:

I’ve been trying for over forty years to get Popes, bishops to OBEY Canon Laws #912 # 915 # 1329 #1398 AND Follow Church Doctrine by Excommunicating all bishops,priests,Polititins who AID, ABET and Counsel abortion and\or homosexuality? They MUST destroy the "IN " Crowd before the “in” crowd destroys Catholic Identity at Notre Dame and 96 other Catholic Universities? We also have an uphill battle, no one listens to the faithfull catholic ,but listen to the more vocal "in " crowd.

COULD YOU IMAGINE, with glee , the Pope and his bishops Squirming at the thought that their flocks are asking Questions like ; Where were the Pope and his bishops when homosexuality Ruled at the Seminaries in the 50s? Where were the Pope and his bishops in 1973 when America Legalized murdering babies??AND Where have they been in Confronting and Condemning evil and evildoers throughout our history???A Burning Question?? if indeed the Pope is Canon Law , Why are pro-abortion Polititions,pro-abortion Catholics still members of Catholicism??

 

[Ockham]

The bottom line with this thread is the Pope and Cardinal Burke have given guidelines for next week’s vote. The individual has a choice: follow those guidelines or not. I empathize with US voters as most have only two choices and clearly one is pro-abortion. In Canada we have more than two parties and in the next federal election I’ll be casting my vote for a small fringe party that has no chance of forming the government yet are very pro-life. No issue is more important right now than saving the lives of the unborn. Abortion is a modern day holocaust.

“Pope Benedict told the Brazilian bishops that while direct involvement in politics is the responsibility of the laity, “when the fundamental rights of the person or the salvation of souls requires it, pastors have a serious duty to make moral judgments even in political matters.””

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004432.htm

 

[tskrobacz]

In other words, you would not like to be a politician because in today’s culture, it would rquire a great deal of moral courage. Unfortunately most politicians are cowards.

I’m not sure it is an issue of moral courage…the US system is corrupted by financing from large businesses. It takes more than moral courage to make changes in a corrupt system - to oppose the very factors that were responsible for putting you in office in the first place.

 

[rlg94086]

I would not like to be a politician in today’s environment. They are expected to uphold the laws on the land on one hand and reject them on the other if they are contrary to the teachings of the Church. From our perspective we are asked to vote for candidates that are willing to stand against the laws of the land which itself breeds mistrust for our political system and disunity. Whenever we add oppositional energy we create opposition.

Actually, this is not a difficult thing to do. It doesn’t “breed mistrust” for us to expect legislators to change legislation or for Supreme Court justices to actually judge according to the Constitution. Or, do you think slavery should still be the “law of the land?”

 

[Brendan]

Further, the directives from the US Bishops say:

Pope John Paul II said, “the fact that only the negative
commandments oblige always and under all circumstances does not mean that in the moral life prohibitions are more important than the obligation to do good indicated by the positive commandment” (Veritatis Splendor, no. 52). The basic right to life implies and is linked to other human rights to the goods that every person needs to live and thrive—including food, shelter health care, education, and meaningful work. The use of the death penalty, hunger, lack of health care or housing, human trafficking, the human and moral costs of war, and unjust immigration policies are some of the serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act.

You are correct that they are linked, but not in the way you seem to be stating.

" Above all, the common outcry which is justly made on behalf of human rights – for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture – is false and illusionary if the right to life, the most basic fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights is not defended with maximum determination.”

• Christifideles Laici 1988

As Pope John Paul II correctly noted, things like a right to work or right to health care is actually meaningless unless the right to life exists first.

That particular right is the one all the others are based on. So any discussion about a “right to health care” is an illusion as long as legal abortion exists.

So there, and only there, is where a Catholic needs to place his vote until the abomination known as abortion is put to an end.

 

[JHow]

…the US system is corrupted by financing from large businesses. It takes more than moral courage to make changes in a corrupt system - to oppose the very factors that were responsible for putting you in office in the first place.

If by “businesses” you mean unions (teachers, govt. employees, SEIU)?

Businesses donate to both sides and whoever they think will win, not because they support the politicians or their policies, but because they fear the same. I know that the CEO of my company is personally a staunch Republican, yet he is going with Obama to India because the govt. could (already has) wreck(ed) a large part of our business activities very easily.

Business money flows to politics because politics is corrupt, not the other way around. When you pay “protection” to the mob, who is the real criminal?

 

[StTommyMore]

I’m not sure it is an issue of moral courage…the US system is corrupted by financing from large businesses. It takes more than moral courage to make changes in a corrupt system - to oppose the very factors that were responsible for putting you in office in the first place.

That is pretty much moral courage by definition…to bite the hand that feeds you on a matter of principle.