No Compromises: Kansas State Bishops Declare Voting for Abortion Candidate is "Evil"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pro_Life_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ChooseLife said:
The Kansas Bishops’ statement, guided by the Holy Spirit and the True Magisterial Teachings of the Catholic Church, is not only faithful but refreshing! “…A correct conscience recognizes that there are some choices that always involve doing evil and which can never be done even as a means to a good end. These choices include elective abortion, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, the destruction of embryonic human beings in stem cell research, human cloning, and same-sex “marriage.” Such acts are judged to be intrinsically evil, that is, evil in and of themselves, regardless of our motives or the circumstances…” “…In light of the above, it is a correct judgment of conscience that we would commit moral evil if we were to vote for a candidate who takes a permissive stand on those actions that are intrinsically evil when there is a morally-acceptable alternative…” This statement is unequivocal in its guidance, based on the True Teachings of the Catholic Church.
The LifeSiteNews article information is misleading by omitting some very important “morally-acceptable alternative” candidate information. Any candidate who supports intrinsic evil cannot be voted for “when there is a morally-acceptable alternative.” If all abortions are committed based on how the child is conceived, then anyone who is not 100% pro-life is 100% pro-abortion. The Kansas Bishops’ statement makes it very clear–neither party nor chances of winning can be allowed as a consideration. The candidate’s views on the Catholic non-negotiables must be a priority in our vote–no exceptions. There is a morally-acceptable alternative to traditional political parties. Since we’re not allowed to name names in this forum, it’s up to each one of us to do due diligence when we vote by finding those “morally-acceptable alternatives.” With the gift of the Internet, we have no excuse not to properly inform our consciences.
Click to expand...
The only question I have is where a third party pro-life candidate exists if the one pro-life party abandons its position either by a vice presidential choice or a change in party platform,

How is a third party candidate an “alternative” if he has no chance of winning and is otherwise completely undesireable ( my own assessment of his positions )? Don’t mistake me, my committment is to a moral vote, but how does such an undesireable individual become an “alternative”?
 
“…We do not intend to endorse or oppose any particular candidate, political party, or political action committee…” The Kansas Bishops were prudential and inspirational in that they do not endorse or oppose ANY candidate, party, or political action committee. The Kansas Bishops, representing the True Magisterial Teachings of the Catholic Church, do not take polls, do not guess as to a candidate’s electability, and do not base their Teachings on party affiliation or popularity. “…To act against the judgment of conscience when it is certain about what is good and evil has the same seriousness as disobeying God…”
“…The Second Vatican Council taught us that “all citizens are to bear in mind that it is both their right and duty to use their free vote to promote the common good” (The Church in the Modern World 75). What is more, we have a duty to vote guided by a well-formed conscience, and not simply on the basis of self-interest, party affiliation, or the personal charisma of any individual…”
A person’s subjective guess as to a candidate’s chances of winning or party affiliation are not to be considered. The candidate’s adherence to the non-negotiables of the Catholic Faith are the only priority to be given to our vote. When there is a candidate who is morally acceptable, we must vote for that candidate. Anything less would be compromising our Faith and the lives of preborn children, making us accomplices to an intrinsic moral evil. Oremus!
 
Dear, ChooseLife, we really have no argument, but my question remains. We are very possibly about to be faced with an unprecedented situation where one of four candidates of the two parties, the one at the top of one ticket, is pro-life. There will be an unattractive third party candidate with nothing to recommend him except his pro-life stance, and who, if elected, could objectively be understood as unprepared to govern.

How is the third party candidate an “alternative”? I am not talking about his likelihood of winning or his viability, but rather about his objective unpreparedness to govern.

I do not view him as an alternative, and am wondering why I should not chose between the lesser of evils when my choice in the above hypothetical would not explicitly be a choice to elect an abortion advocate to office?

The undoubted result of splitting the vote on one side would be the election of a fierce abortion advocate to office, perhaps the most vocal and shockingly candid abortion advocate to run for the highest office in history. I am ready to be convinced, but at this time I do not believe that voting for the person at the top of one ticket, despite obvious flaws, is an immoral vote. I think more than a formuila is required to make the case.
 
Let’s trying breaking it down this way: If someone asked us to support a presidential candidate that is for the murder of a “small” portion of Americans, would we vote for him or would we run him out of town? I would hope we’d run him out of town, but some of us, instead, support whomever traditional political parties send us for candidates.

If you research American history, there have been several instances of political party changes when a party either abandons its core principles or some other reason. This is not new, and I believe we’re living in the same transitional time of starting/eliminating political parties as has been experienced throughout American history. As long as the traditional parties send us candidates that do not uphold the True Teachings of the Catholic Church, we have many options as to how to send our message of Faithfulness.

You may also consider the analogy of this question: If someone handed you a drink of water and said there was only one drop of poison in it, would you drink it? One drop of poison could kill your physical body (in this case your eternal soul)–would you drink it? If we don’t send a powerful message to the traditional parties, WHEN will we be able to support any of the traditional party candidates without compromising our Faith? The Kansas Bishops rightly cited the need to forego a candidate’s charisma, party or political action committee. Any candidate who is registered with the FEC should be a consideration for our vote, or consider a write-in. It’s up to us to choose which candidate best upholds the Magisterial Teachings of the Catholic Church. We cannot judge based on extraneous subjective whims. We must choose the candidate who best upholds the non-negotiables of our Faith. The Bishops never mentioned choosing the lesser of two evils, because there IS no lesser of evil–evil is evil. By their statement, they specifically state, without exception, if there is a “morally-acceptable alternative”, without regard to political party, charisma or name, we must choose that candidate. If you read the whole statement, its beauty lies in its faithful guidance. It is up to us to choose based on a well-formed conscience, and the Kansas Bishops help us form our consciences faithfully. Those who did nothing for the slaughtered millions during the Holocaust will be held accountable. So will we.
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” John Quincy Adams
 
ChooseLife said:
Let’s trying breaking it down this way: If someone asked us to support a presidential candidate that is for the murder of a “small” portion of Americans, would we vote for him or would we run him out of town? I would hope we’d run him out of town, but some of us, instead, support whomever traditional political parties send us for candidates.

If you research American history, there have been several instances of political party changes when a party either abandons its core principles or some other reason. This is not new, and I believe we’re living in the same transitional time of starting/eliminating political parties as has been experienced throughout American history. As long as the traditional parties send us candidates that do not uphold the True Teachings of the Catholic Church, we have many options as to how to send our message of Faithfulness.

You may also consider the analogy of this question: If someone handed you a drink of water and said there was only one drop of poison in it, would you drink it? One drop of poison could kill your physical body (in this case your eternal soul)–would you drink it? If we don’t send a powerful message to the traditional parties, WHEN will we be able to support any of the traditional party candidates without compromising our Faith? The Kansas Bishops rightly cited the need to forego a candidate’s charisma, party or political action committee. Any candidate who is registered with the FEC should be a consideration for our vote, or consider a write-in. It’s up to us to choose which candidate best upholds the Magisterial Teachings of the Catholic Church. We cannot judge based on extraneous subjective whims. We must choose the candidate who best upholds the non-negotiables of our Faith. The Bishops never mentioned choosing the lesser of two evils, because there IS no lesser of evil–evil is evil. By their statement, they specifically state, without exception, if there is a “morally-acceptable alternative”, without regard to political party, charisma or name, we must choose that candidate. If you read the whole statement, its beauty lies in its faithful guidance. It is up to us to choose based on a well-formed conscience, and the Kansas Bishops help us form our consciences faithfully. Those who did nothing for the slaughtered millions during the Holocaust will be held accountable. So will we.
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” John Quincy Adams
Click to expand...
The lesser of evils is not available as a choice when the lesser evil results in innocent death. Agreed. But surely you recognize that it is necessary to chose between evils in an absolute sense since the perfect is also not available as a choice. It is an evil for one man to govern another. War is an evil. The imprisonment of individuals is an evil. One cannot opt to avoid all evil, therefore one must weigh at some point what provides the greatest opportunity for good. We consent to government because it is preferable to anarchy We consent to war because it is prefereable to the evil it resists. We consent to imprison because it secures peace for the greatest number.

One cannot avoid drinking poison and the question is what can be consumed and survived.

We are also not electing a religious representative. The question of birth control would have to be asked of these candidates by your logic, since it is an abortifacient in many forms. To follow you logic completely, we would need to know the candidate’s stances on it, and I daresay there would be none to vote for.

I have never voted for a pro-abort in any election and changed political parties in the end over the issue. But I also do not think you can let the perfect become the enemy of the good. If the person at the top of the ticket is pro-life vocally and by voting record, I am not convinced there is an issue of morality in voting for him.
 
War is a negotiable.

Wrongful imprisonment is a negotiable.

Ability to govern is a negotiable.

Infanticide in any form is a non-negotiable, including human embryonic experimentation and extermination, surgical abortion, abortifacients, etc.

You’re on the right track at least trying to find the perfect candidate. I’ll bet if you search enough, you will find him. Thou Shalt Not Kill does not end with “if you’re in the mood.”

Read again, word-for-word, the Kansas Bishops’ statement. They purposefully do not use words that are being used by others to justify a vote for known infanticide supporters. If you adhere to their Divinely-inspired statement, without adding to their words or taking away their words, your conscience will be well-formed.
 
I agree completely with your analysis of the issue, except as to the politics, and with all due respect, the bishops are late coming to this debate and in many parts of the country off the mark.

There is a distinction between, for example, declaring yourself Catholic as a poltician, receiving the Sacraments and at the same time voting an abortion slate, and as a voter voting for a split ticket where the decision making candidate is pro-life. Confusing the two denies the relative seriousness of the one situation and the inability of the voter to chose a perfect slate on the other. If the bishops were to cause a situation where unrepentant Catholic politicians were prevented from receiving the sacraments, their first duty would be fufilled. Of course, for political reasons, most take no position whatever on the matter.

I continue to hope the split ticket outcome does not arise in the present campaign. If it does, I am not sure at this point how I personally will vote. But I would feel personally responsible if I cast my vote away and thereby permitted a ferocious pro-abortion advocate who will promote public funding of abortions, a return to abortion paid in the military, an expansion of international anti-life policies, aetc. to take the highest office. There, in my opinion is where the morality of my vote lies. If Catholics do not find a way to reward a declared pro-life candidate, they are betraying him and relinquishing their responsibility to advance life politically. And that’s a sin.

Under the persecution of Diocletian, so many Christians apostacized that in the end, the means of forgiving apostacy had to be expanded and changed or the Church may not have survived. This disaster is of the same proportions and similar measures are required.
 
I noticed that the full document has not been linked on this post. This Kansas Bishops statement is faithful and obedient. It is short and succinct. Please take time to read the statement in its entirety. By reading the whole statement, you will receive the full guidance where the LifeSiteNews article is lacking. Here are the links:

kscathconf.org/bins/site/content/documents/moral%20principles_print.pdf?_resolutionfile=ftppath|documents/moral%20principles_print.pdf

Home page: kscathconf.org/bins/site/templates/splash.asp?NC=9215X

Oremus!
 
I see nothing there that would necessitate voting for a third party candidate who cannot win and is not fit to govern. This vote would be immoral for the same reason not voting is immoral.
 
The Kansas Bishops state:

“We do not intend to endorse or oppose any particular candidate, political party, or political action committee.”

You said it yourself: Third-party is a political party, and the bishops do not intend to endorse or oppose any particular candidate, political party, or political action committee. Chance of winning is not to be considered; governability is not to be considered. The 5 Catholic non-negotiables are to be the only consideration.

Judie Brown of the American Life League states this very well: ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum10&recnu=8&number=551802
 
I am using the term loosely since there is no third party, at least not yet, but simply a third candidate who is no alternative. It is possible to vote for a pro-life candidate at the top of the ticket from among the two political parties. That is where the a Catholic vote belongs unless the situation changes.

A confused and divided Catholic electorate will only prolong the abortion state, and that is a matter of conscience. The Catholic vote is large enough to be determinant, therefore we bear the guilt for the perpetuation of the abortion state. That too is a matter of conscience.

Some people find security in a formula. The world isn’t like that.

Did I write that large enough?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top