Non-Negotiable Issues

[1ke]

midnightstar17:

I was reading a thread here recently and someone posted the “Non-negotiable” issues of the church. I was just had a couple of questions. I was wondering how far that goes?

Non-negotiable issues are those that are both **always ** morally unacceptable-- what the Catholic Church would call grave matter and intrinsically evil-- and they are also so fundamental to our dignity as persons and to the rights of the human person and to society that they must be considered as the highest priority, before any other sort of issue-- like welfare, or health insurance, or your parent’s personal job situation.

midnightstar17:

Like, i’m against abortion unless having the baby will kill both the mother and the baby.

There is never a morally valid reason for abortion-- the direct and intentional killing of a child. In a serious medical situation the doctor is obligated to both patients, mother and child. If one dies in the attempt to save both, this is unfortunate and undesirable, but it is not an abortion.

The church teaching on abortion is not ambiguous and it is “non negotiable”. In other words, abortion is always wrong. Therefore your position that “some” abortions are ok is not in line with the reality of church teaching on the matter. I would encourage you do explore this further.

midnightstar17:

But was it wrong to support John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election (including your parents voting for him). Our family does not like Bush. My mom works for the government and gets so annyoed with Bush’s policies toward them.

Was it wrong? Yes. Can we say it was a sin? No. Sin requires full knowledge and full intent/consent. Your parents reason for voting for Kerry come in to play in any assessment of culpability (sinfulness).

The fact that they *ignored * the very serious, non-negotiable issues of the Catholic faith – in all cases Kerry explicitly supports the position in direct opposition to church teaching-- and instead focused on personal gain as a motive for voting for Kerry is highly questionable and (inserting opinion here) shows a lack of maturity in the faith and in concern for these issues on the part of your parents.

Using “I don’t like Bush” as a reason to vote for a person who supports all forms of immoral activity and the making legal of such immoral causes is totally irresponsible.

midnightstar17:

Was it a sin (even mortal) to vote for Kerry?

It was wrong to vote for Kerry, who explicitly supports the non-negotiable issues, when another candidate who rejects these immoral positions was a candidate available to them.

No one here can determine whether it was sinful or not. That requires knowing what your parents really know and understand about Catholic teaching.

midnightstar17:

I could never support Bush!

When we are young we are often tempted to do as our parents and follow what they say. You could “never support Bush” based on what? That your mom doesn’t like her job? You would instead support a man who supports legal baby-killing? You need to get your priorities in order and understand what is of the bigger importance here.

midnightstar17:

Also is it wrong to support stem-cell research as used for medical purposes (such as paralysis)?

Stem cells that come from killing human embryos are not morally licit. This is ALWAYS immoral-- a non-negotiable. However, stem cells also come from adult bone marrow, newborn baby’s cord blood, etc. So, it is not immoral to support all stem cell research, but is is immoral to support those methods that kill human persons to obtain their stem cells.

midnightstar17:

How about gay rights for civil unions?

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Church teaching is clear on this too.

midnightstar17:

I just dont’t know where the line is drawn?

I suggest you get a copy of the Catechism and start reading. The non-negotiables are, in themselves, an obvious place to start too because they are clear on the teaching of the Church. None of these things you mention above are acceptable-- they are immoral.

Study, study, study. It is good that you are here wanting to learn.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

LeahInancsi:

I’m a staunch Republican. I’ve always voted Repbulican (pro-life) with the exception of Bill Clinton in 1996. Since then, I’ve become much more politically involved. Abortion would be a deal breaker.

Please, no comments to this response to HappyCatholic01, but continue with the OP’s question.

Thanks for asking people not to respond to me. I had no idea you had that kind of power, wow.

Now, why may I ask?

My point is, having foll knowledge and consent and being an accesory is a grave matter.

I assume you don’t like my comparisons, but sometimes cold water in the face is all some people respond to. The allusion is valid.

 

[Brendan]

St.Sharky:

Why does being the victim of a rape mean that the woman has to spend at the very least the next 9 months of her life nurturing something inside of her that she doesnt want?.

Which of the rapists other children should be given the death penalty because of their father’s sin?

Or is it just one innocent life per rape that would make the woman feel better about herself?

By not giving that woman choice, and by forcing her to have that child you are lowering her to a sub human level, while she is probably feeling used and subhuman anyway after being raped.

Could you please explain how helping a innocent child to live is making the woman ‘subhuman’?

If anything, I would consider the killing of a child to be the subhuman act.

 

[1ke]

St.Sharky:

Oh right, because women that have been raped obviously have no right to an abortion, and its obviously up to a man to tell them this

No one has a right to baby-killing.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

St.Sharky:

obviously up to a man to tell them this

And It isn’t men telling them this, it’s God through the Church.

 

[Linnyo]

aspawloski4th:

Have you read your catechism lately? it does allow for the death penalty! It is very disingenuous to throw the death penalty in the debate. We are trying to save inocent defenseless lives here, not criminal. Also remember when Pope JP2nd was trying to convince various officials not to go through with capital punishment did he never did say it would be a sin. I take umbridge at anyone who would equate the life of an inocent helpless unborn child with a criminal. Not even my anti death penalty parents do that. Its domogoggery like that , that will keep it open season on the unborn in the USA. Abortion is a right to life issue, the quentisential one as a matter of fact, capital punishment most definitely is not.

It isn’t unheard of for people to be found guilty of crimes they didn’t commit and the Bible says that it is wrong to kill. The death penalty should be banned.

 

[LRThunder]

St.Sharky:

However, why should the mother have to donate the rest of her life to raising an unwanted child who will never have a father, all because some scum raped her?

Because if you really believe what you say then you are just lowering women down to the level of baby machines, and I would like to believe that we got past that stage many centuries ago.

On a side note how does it punish the offender? Or did they choose to go and rape someone because they wanted a baby?

As someone else pointed out, adoption is an option. Yes, that means she would have to go through child birth, but the child would live.

 

[buffalo]

Kirane:

It looks like Catholics are stymied:

1. It is a mortal sin to vote for Bush.
2. It is a mortal sin to vote for Kerry.
3. It is a mortal sin to reject good citizenship and not vote.

Nope! See here how we parse through it:

Catholic Voters Guide

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Linnyo:

It isn’t unheard of for people to be found guilty of crimes they didn’t commit and the Bible says that it is wrong to kill. The death penalty should be banned.

No, it says it is wrong to murder. I’m inclined to ban the death penalty myself, but Church teaching is unambiguously clear that capital punishment is not evil in and of itself.

 

[buffalo]

Scott Waddell:

No, it says it is wrong to murder. I’m inclined to ban the death penalty myself, but Church teaching is unambiguously clear that capital punishment is not evil in and of itself.

See Legitimate Defense:

Legitimate defense

[2263](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2263.htm’) The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

[2264](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2264.htm’) Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66 [2265](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2265.htm’) Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

[2266](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2266.htm’) The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

[2267](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2267.htm’) Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

 

[buffalo]

Then Intentional Homicide

Intentional homicide

2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.69

Infanticide,70 fratricide, parricide, and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break. Concern for eugenics or public health cannot justify any murder, even if commanded by public authority.

2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of *indirectly *bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.

The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.71

*Unintentional *killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone’s death, even without the intention to do so.

 

[Kirane]

buffalo:

Nope! See here how we parse through it:

Catholic Voters Guide

Catholics are still stymied because the Roman Catholic priest Father Greeley teaches and has publicly announced that it would be a mortal sin for a Catholic to vote for a Republican. However, it is also a mortal sin for a Catholic to vote for the Democrat candidate who is in favor of abortion, and it is a sin if you are a bad citizen and don’t participate in voting. So, under this scenario, a Catholic loses in any one of the three cases presented to him.

 

[midnightstar17]

1ke:

Non-negotiable issues are those that are both **always ** morally unacceptable-- what the Catholic Church would call grave matter and intrinsically evil-- and they are also so fundamental to our dignity as persons and to the rights of the human person and to society that they must be considered as the highest priority, before any other sort of issue-- like welfare, or health insurance, or your parent’s personal job situation.

There is never a morally valid reason for abortion-- the direct and intentional killing of a child. In a serious medical situation the doctor is obligated to both patients, mother and child. If one dies in the attempt to save both, this is unfortunate and undesirable, but it is not an abortion.

The church teaching on abortion is not ambiguous and it is “non negotiable”. In other words, abortion is always wrong. Therefore your position that “some” abortions are ok is not in line with the reality of church teaching on the matter. I would encourage you do explore this further.

Was it wrong? Yes. Can we say it was a sin? No. Sin requires full knowledge and full intent/consent. Your parents reason for voting for Kerry come in to play in any assessment of culpability (sinfulness).

The fact that they *ignored * the very serious, non-negotiable issues of the Catholic faith – in all cases Kerry explicitly supports the position in direct opposition to church teaching-- and instead focused on personal gain as a motive for voting for Kerry is highly questionable and (inserting opinion here) shows a lack of maturity in the faith and in concern for these issues on the part of your parents.

Using “I don’t like Bush” as a reason to vote for a person who supports all forms of immoral activity and the making legal of such immoral causes is totally irresponsible.

It was wrong to vote for Kerry, who explicitly supports the non-negotiable issues, when another candidate who rejects these immoral positions was a candidate available to them.

No one here can determine whether it was sinful or not. That requires knowing what your parents really know and understand about Catholic teaching.

When we are young we are often tempted to do as our parents and follow what they say. You could “never support Bush” based on what? That your mom doesn’t like her job? You would instead support a man who supports legal baby-killing? You need to get your priorities in order and understand what is of the bigger importance here.

Stem cells that come from killing human embryos are not morally licit. This is ALWAYS immoral-- a non-negotiable. However, stem cells also come from adult bone marrow, newborn baby’s cord blood, etc. So, it is not immoral to support all stem cell research, but is is immoral to support those methods that kill human persons to obtain their stem cells.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Church teaching is clear on this too.

I suggest you get a copy of the Catechism and start reading. The non-negotiables are, in themselves, an obvious place to start too because they are clear on the teaching of the Church. None of these things you mention above are acceptable-- they are immoral.

Study, study, study. It is good that you are here wanting to learn.

This is the very type of post that makes me want to leave this board. You don’t know me!!! You don’t know my parents!!! You don’t know what I do!!! I don’t think my parents are bad people because they don’t support Bush. How dare you say it’s for personal gain. That’s crazy. And to say I’m immature in my faith. I guess 13 years of Catholic schooling have done nothing for me.
I’m so sick of people on this board and their mean-spirted nature. I’m just going to go to the one person I can trust and ask him for the answer. God should help me out. I have many more questions but feel like it I asked them I would get a response like this one that makes me wanna cry!

 

[1ke]

midnightstar17:

This is the very type of post that makes me want to leave this board. You don’t know me!!! You don’t know my parents!!! You don’t know what I do!!!

I know what you posted. You asked if it was sinful, I said no one could judge the sinfulness of the actions but we can, based on Catholic teaching know the wrongness of the actions.

midnightstar17:

I don’t think my parents are bad people because they don’t support Bush. How dare you say it’s for personal gain. That’s crazy.

I did not say your parents were bad people because they don’t support Bush. You stated your mom disliked Bush because of policies that impact her work-- therefore, to vote against him to change her work situation is for personal gain rather than based on the principles the candidates espouse.

midnightstar17:

And to say I’m immature in my faith.

I did not say you were immature in your faith, I said your parents are immature in their faith.

midnightstar17:

I guess 13 years of Catholic schooling have done nothing for me.

13 years of Catholic schooling have made you wonder if what your parents did was mortally sinful-- so I’d say that you do in fact know that their voting for Kerry was somehow wrong.

midnightstar17:

I’m so sick of people on this board and their mean-spirted nature.

I am not mean-spirited. I am sorry you did not like the answer to your question. It does not, however, change the facts.

midnightstar17:

I’m just going to go to the one person I can trust and ask him for the answer. God should help me out.

The Catechism holds the answers you seek.

midnightstar17:

I have many more questions but feel like it I asked them I would get a response like this one that makes me wanna cry!

Why do you want to cry over my response? You asked questions, and I answered them. Abortion is a gravely immoral act. As is stem-cell research and homosexual sex acts. That is not anything new in Church teaching. And, to purposely attempt to put someone in office who holds these beliefs is a morally serious thing.

 

[1ke]

Kirane:

Catholics are still stymied because the Roman Catholic priest Father Greeley teaches and has publicly announced that it would be a mortal sin for a Catholic to vote for a Republican. However, it is also a mortal sin for a Catholic to vote for the Democrat candidate who is in favor of abortion, and it is a sin if you are a bad citizen and don’t participate in voting. So, under this scenario, a Catholic loses in any one of the three cases presented to him.

Fr. Greeley is not the Magesterium. I have no idea what he may have been talking about in this supposed-utterance. But, what is stated above in no way represents authentic Catholic teaching.

 

[1ke]

midnightstar17:

This is the very type of post that makes me want to leave this board. You don’t know me!!! You don’t know my parents!!! You don’t know what I do!!! I don’t think my parents are bad people because they don’t support Bush. How dare you say it’s for personal gain. That’s crazy. And to say I’m immature in my faith. I guess 13 years of Catholic schooling have done nothing for me.
I’m so sick of people on this board and their mean-spirted nature. I’m just going to go to the one person I can trust and ask him for the answer. God should help me out. I have many more questions but feel like it I asked them I would get a response like this one that makes me wanna cry!

If you disagree with what I’ve said then refute my arguments on their merit using facts and church teaching. You are not debating here, you are just typing a bunch of emotional outburst. You don’t know me, I don’t know you-- this is not personal.
Debate is how you learn, how you put together your thoughts and ideas, how you defend your position.

If you take exception to my position, fine-- then bring on the facts and documents to support your position. If you don’t think it was wrong to vote for Kerry-- then tell us why. If you don’t understand the non-negotiables then try to articulate specifically why and what you don’t understand.

Don’t fall back on a “you hurt my feelings” (which I certainly had no intention of doing) tirade. That will not get you anywhere at all.

 

[Kirane]

1ke:

Fr. Greeley is not the Magesterium. I have no idea what he may have been talking about in this supposed-utterance. But, what is stated above in no way represents authentic Catholic teaching.

I thought that Father Greeley was an authentic Catholic priest. I noticed that when he was in Los Angeles he was given a warm welcome by Cardinal Roger Mahony, who I guess from the newspapers is an authentic Catholic Cardinal. Anyway, it was reported a few times in the Wanderer newspaper that Father Greeley teaches that it is a mortal sin to vote for a Republican.

 

[vz71]

Kirane:

Catholics are still stymied because the Roman Catholic priest Father Greeley teaches and has publicly announced that it would be a mortal sin for a Catholic to vote for a Republican. However, it is also a mortal sin for a Catholic to vote for the Democrat candidate who is in favor of abortion, and it is a sin if you are a bad citizen and don’t participate in voting. So, under this scenario, a Catholic loses in any one of the three cases presented to him.

No. Even under his scenario he is not the Pope. He does not have any type of infallibility when speaking of faith and morals.
So just because he says it is so does not make it so.

Even under his scenario, Catholics are not ‘stymied.’

 

[BlestOne]

Oh My Gosh!!! I can’t believe some of the things I have read on this thread! Killing an innocent child so a woman doesn’t feel “icky” for 9 months…where do you get that? For your info there have been studies that show that a rape victim that has a child as a result of the rape actually fares better in their recovery than one who aborts. Talk about a childs parentage in only the negative…remember that the child is half the mothers DNA too…not just the “bad” fathers DNA. Geez!

St Sharky, no offense but you sounded like a rebellious teenager when you said something about “men” making a decision about a womans body…Morality cannot be legislated! Just because something is legal, does not make it moral… But you would go against Gods commandment to get back at your perceived male dominated society? Really!

Midnightstar… it is wrong to whine and act like your feelings are hurt when you don’t like the answer to a question you asked! Keep it on the topic…You asked if it was a mortal sin to vote for Kerry…the answer was: it was definitely wrong to do so, but we cannot judge whether it was a mortal sin…and that is exactly what you were told… if you don’t want the answer, don’t ask the question!

Personally, I really think you two need to read the CCC and pray. Thank you to 1ke for the very patient way the questions were disected and explained!

 

[Kirane]

vz71:

No. Even under his scenario he is not the Pope. He does not have any type of infallibility when speaking of faith and morals.
So just because he says it is so does not make it so.

Even under his scenario, Catholics are not ‘stymied.’

Why did we hear that it was a mortal sin to vote for Kerry and should Catholics have ignored that because whoever said so did not have any type of infallibility?
I could be wrong, but my understanding of the position of the authentic Father Greeley was based on Catholic social issues which had been promulgated in various papal documents. I think that it was his contention that the Republican party platform did not reflect the social teachings of the Catholic Church and therefore that was why he had announced in a TV interview with Brian Gumbel that it would be a mortal sin to vote Republican. This was not based on an opinion of his, but was based on Catholic social teaching.
So Catholics are still stymied. They cannot vote for Kerry since he favored abortion, but they cannot vote for Bush because he did not support Catholic social teaching. And if they do not vote, then they are not being responsible citizens. So American Catholics are placed by their priests in an impossible situation when it comes to voting.