Non-Negotiable Issues

[Kirane]

whatevergirl:

Again, read my post above about what ‘makes up’ a mortal sin…if the person is ignorant, it wouldn’t be a mortal sin, then.

It appears that Father Greeley disagrees with this as he has announced in an interview with Brian Gumbel that it would be a mortal sin for a Catholic to vote for a Republican. I could be wrong, but I think his justification for saying this is that the social platform of the Republican party is at variance with Catholic teaching on social issues.

 

[vz71]

Kirane:

It appears that Father Greeley disagrees with this as he has announced in an interview with Brian Gumbel that it would be a mortal sin for a Catholic to vote for a Republican. I could be wrong, but I think his justification for saying this is that the social platform of the Republican party is at variance with Catholic teaching on social issues.

You are just repeating yourself.
Fr. Greeley has been shown to be wrong.

 

[Kirane]

vz71:

You are just repeating yourself.
Fr. Greeley has been shown to be wrong.

Do Catholics have any obligation to follow
Catholic teaching on social issues?

 

[vz71]

Kirane:

Do Catholics have any obligation to follow
Catholic teaching on social issues?

I would say so.
But that does not mean that Greeley has the authority to interpret this teaching for us.

 

[Liberalsaved]

Turns out, shock of shocks, that the Catholic Church will allow membership to anyone. People who consistently list what they think makes a Catholic have no authority to actually tell someone whether they are a Catholic or not.

 

[Flopfoot]

Liberalsaved - I look back over 20 posts and also at the OP and didn’t find any post that relates to what you’re saying here. If you’re responding to a post far back in the thread could you please quote it so we understand the context of what you’re posting?

Anyway, from what I understand, anyone who has a valid Catholic baptism becomes a Catholic, but then it is also possible for someone who was a Catholic to be excommunicated and hence they aren’t a Catholic any more. And that there are some things which cause someone to be automatically excommunicated. So, for example, an abortion doctor might have been a Catholic before he started doing abortions but then he excommunicates himself by doing abortions so then couldn’t someone tell that abortion doctor that he is not a Catholic?

Can anyone clarify?

 

[Liberalsaved]

Just a general note of the many folks here who spend a lot of time dictating their idea of a Catholic.

 

[astarte]

I see someone misrepresented Kerry’s position on abortion.

It is my understanding that John Kerry supports the sanctity of life. The difference for Kerry is a legal matter. Kerry does not believe that the constitution of the United States provides the federal goverment the authority to outlaw abortion.

Supporting a candidate on a single issue is short sighted.

For instance the RNC agenda and the fundamentalist right do not endorse the same sanctity of life as I understand is my moral obligation as a Catholic.

Sanctity of Life includes ALL live. The RNC supports capital punishment, which I believe does not honor the sanctity of human life.

Further, Bush, nor the RNC have no agenda to outlaw contraceptives, nor would they under our current political climate. However, the church is clear concerning the use of contraceptives.

 

[vz71]

astarte:

Supporting a candidate on a single issue is short sighted.

I disagree.
I vote for the candidate that is pro-life. I look no further into his politics then that.

Assuming I did look further, I would have to have placed some issue ahead of abortion. I could not in good conscience place any other issue ahead of that.

 

[aspawloski4th]

vz71:

I disagree.
I vote for the candidate that is pro-life. I look no further into his politics then that.

Assuming I did look further, I would have to have placed some issue ahead of abortion. I could not in good conscience place any other issue ahead of that.

Amen as should all Catholics!!! If all Catholics took this attitude abortion would end in a hearbeat.

 

[trogiah]

vz71:

I disagree.
I vote for the candidate that is pro-life. I look no further into his politics then that.

Assuming I did look further, I would have to have placed some issue ahead of abortion. I could not in good conscience place any other issue ahead of that.

I have seen others who share this point of view and thought I would take this chance to, respectfully, disagree.

The first thing I want to point out is that I am sure that God’s kingdom will not be brought about by the election of some particular person to the office of President of the United States. Every president - past, present, and future- is flawed just like the rest of us, and if it is sin to vote for a flawed person then our only recourse is to stop voting

On a pragmatic level, voting for a person who supports keeping abortions legal is not the same thing as voting to support abortion. During President Clinton’s 8 years in office, the rate of abortion decreased every year. The reasons for that may be debated (I know the use of contraception is likely a factor) but I believe part of the answer is found in people having hope and deciding to choose life. Again, I don’t think any president has the ultimate power to bring us hope or despair but the many decisions a president makes does have some effect on our lives and can make it easier to find hope. The legalization of abortion is only one of many decisions. People should realize that making abortions illegal is not the same thing as preventing abortions and also that the President of the United States has limited power to make abortions illegal. President Bush has been in office several years and abortions are still legal.

To summarize, I think a society in which abortions are legal but they never (or rarely) occur is better than a society that makes abortions illegal but they still happen because people find it difficult to have hope.

I do have my own high priority issue regarding the election of presidents. I vote for the one who, as best I can tell, will act to reduce the national debt rather than to raise it. It may seem like a rather unimportant issue compared to abortion but when it comes down to it, the continually increasing national debt amounts to stealing from future generations. And while stealing from future generations is not as objectively bad as killing them, the fact that this stealing is mandated by the federal government, (as opposed to simply being allowed in the case of abortion) makes me feel that the issue of the national debt should be an important one in regard to the choice of the leaders of the federal government.

Future generations will have to struggle harder to find hope because of the decisions of todays leaders to borrow money. That very well may cause more people to consider abortions. But that is just my opinion.

Regarding the question of the original post, I remember reading somewhere, I think from a bishop but I am not sure, that it is wrong (from the point of view of the Catholic Church) for a person to vote for a particular candidate because they support abortion. Similarly it is wrong (from the point of view of the Catholic Church) to vote for a candidate because they support the death penalty. However it is acceptable to pick any candidate because we believe they represent the candidate who will overall serve the best interests of the country - realizing that no one will get it completely right.

Jim

 

[Scott_Waddell]

trogiah:

I have seen others who share this point of view and thought I would take this chance to, respectfully, disagree.

Ok, let’s see if your arguments add up.

The first thing I want to point out is that I am sure that God’s kingdom will not be brought about by the election of some particular person to the office of President of the United States. Every president - past, present, and future- is flawed just like the rest of us, and if it is sin to vote for a flawed person then our only recourse is to stop voting

Nobody has suggested that God’s will is dependent on good voting. However, when He returns there will be accountabilty for what we have done to either obey Him or attempt to thwart Him.

On a pragmatic level, voting for a person who supports keeping abortions legal is not the same thing as voting to support abortion.

On a moral level it is, which, considering we must render an acount at Judgement is the only one that matters. The ends do not justify the means.

During President Clinton’s 8 years in office, the rate of abortion decreased every year. The reasons for that may be debated (I know the use of contraception is likely a factor) but I believe part of the answer is found in people having hope and deciding to choose life.

Irrelevant to the rightness or wrongess of voting for someone supporting something intrinsicly evil.

Again, I don’t think any president has the ultimate power to bring us hope or despair but the many decisions a president makes does have some effect on our lives and can make it easier to find hope. The legalization of abortion is only one of many decisions. People should realize that making abortions illegal is not the same thing as preventing abortions and also that the President of the United States has limited power to make abortions illegal. President Bush has been in office several years and abortions are still legal.

This assumes that right actions are only right if they yield right results. Again, the ends do not justify the means.

To summarize, I think a society in which abortions are legal but they never (or rarely) occur is better than a society that makes abortions illegal but they still happen because people find it difficult to have hope.

You have merely implied that keeping abortion legal provides hope but have provided no support for such a contention.

I do have my own high priority issue regarding the election of presidents. I vote for the one who, as best I can tell, will act to reduce the national debt rather than to raise it. It may seem like a rather unimportant issue compared to abortion but when it comes down to it, the continually increasing national debt amounts to stealing from future generations. And while stealing from future generations is not as objectively bad as killing them, the fact that this stealing is mandated by the federal government, (as opposed to simply being allowed in the case of abortion) makes me feel that the issue of the national debt should be an important one in regard to the choice of the leaders of the federal government. Future generations will have to struggle harder to find hope because of the decisions of todays leaders to borrow money. That very well may cause more people to consider abortions. But that is just my opinion.

There is nothing intrisicly evil about national debt. It may be imprudent (negotiable), unwise (negotiable), but not evil in and of itself. No serious mind will equate national debt with stealing from future generations. The are plenty of wise economists that can persuasively argue that national debt isn’t even necessarily imprudent.

Regarding the question of the original post, I remember reading somewhere, I think from a bishop but I am not sure, that it is wrong (from the point of view of the Catholic Church) for a person to vote for a particular candidate because they support abortion. Similarly it is wrong (from the point of view of the Catholic Church) to vote for a candidate because they support the death penalty. However it is acceptable to pick any candidate because we believe they represent the candidate who will overall serve the best interests of the country - realizing that no one will get it completely right.

I would need to see the quote, but if it is as stated, it is flat-out wrong. A Catholic may vote in good conscience for a candidate in support of the death penalty as it is not intrinsicly evil. The only pick-any-candidate option there is is when both candidates do not support intrinsic evils, or when both candidates do and you are seeking to reduce the harm.

 

[vz71]

trogiah:

I have seen others who share this point of view and thought I would take this chance to, respectfully, disagree.

Your welcome to do so. My wife disagreed with me on this point for years. Neither her or myself know what changed her mind, but some time during the last election she came to see it the same way.

trogiah:

Every president - past, present, and future- is flawed just like the rest of us, and if it is sin to vote for a flawed person then our only recourse is to stop voting

It is not a sin to vote for a flawed person.
But I do place a priority on the pro-life issue that it effectively excludes any other issue at the time.

trogiah:

…voting for a person who supports keeping abortions legal is not the same thing as voting to support abortion.

Oh absolutely it is. We are obligated to stand in opposition of abortion. If your vote does not stand against abortion, what does it stand for? What have we placed ahead of the life of an unborn child?

trogiah:

During President Clinton’s 8 years in office, the rate of abortion decreased every year. The reasons for that may be debated but I believe part of the answer is found in people having hope and deciding to choose life.

Perhaps. But it is a much more direct to simply vote for the pro-life candidate then to believe that somehow, in spite of the president’s position, abortion will somehow be outlawed.

trogiah:

The legalization of abortion is only one of many decisions. People should realize that making abortions illegal is not the same thing as preventing abortions and also that the President of the United States has limited power to make abortions illegal.

I agree with you, abortion is only one of many decisions.
But which decision is more important then the life of an unborn child?
Making abortion illegal will never prevent all abortions. But it will go far. To get rid of abortion completely you will need to convert all of the hearts out there. That is a tall order.
God has a hard time with that…just look at all of the open rebellion against him.
It comes down to doing what we can when we can.
While it is a point that pro life Bush has been in office for 7 years and abortion is still legal, look at what has been done.
Legal Abortion is literally on the edge of oblivion. It has never been this close to illegal since Roe V Wade. We have predominately pro-life federal judges, we have a majority pro-life supreme court. We are literally one court case away from making abortion illegal.
Would all of this been done without the influence of a pro-life president? I doubt it.

trogiah:

To summarize, I think a society in which abortions are legal but they never (or rarely) occur is better than a society that makes abortions illegal but they still happen because people find it difficult to have hope.

Your position stands in stark contrast to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
The ‘legal-but-rare’ logic is inherently flawed.
There is no way to legislate the rate at which it occurs, thus legal-but-rare really is legal. And eventually becomes legal and common.

trogiah:

I vote for the one who, as best I can tell, will act to reduce the national debt rather than to raise it…And while stealing from future generations is not as objectively bad as killing them, the fact that this stealing is mandated by the federal government, (as opposed to simply being allowed in the case of abortion) makes me feel that the issue of the national debt should be an important one in regard to the choice of the leaders of the federal government.

Well, somewhere in there you are have an acknowledgement that you are choosing the national debt as your priority over the bannishment of abortion. I believe your priorities are mixed up. And I believe you may be seeing the same logic as you also listed that “stealing from future generations is not as objectively bad as killing them.”
You are correct. It is not as bad. This is essentially the same as stating that without this right in place first, there can be no other rights.

trogiah:

Future generations will have to struggle harder to find hope…That very well may cause more people to consider abortions. But that is just my opinion.

It may. But one could also just as effectively say that the outlawing of abortion would cause equal if not greater hope in all people of this country.

trogiah:

…that it is wrong (from the point of view of the Catholic Church) for a person to vote for a particular candidate because they support abortion. Similarly it is wrong (from the point of view of the Catholic Church) to vote for a candidate because they support the death penalty.

Let us not make the mistake of comparing abortion to the death penalty. They both are wrong. But for different reasons, and under different circumstances. It is a bad comparison.

 

[1ke]

Kirane:

Do Catholics have any obligation to follow
Catholic teaching on social issues?

I already answered this for you in my previous post.

Repeat of previous post that answers your question, emphasis added in this post:

If you will read my post to the OP, you will see that within Catholic teaching there is a difference between issues that are intrinsically a grave evil and therefore can never be supported and those issues *on which it is possible to hold various positions * (welfare, health care, etc) as to the proper role of government and the method of implementation.

The Church has stated which issues fall into which category. Therefore there is no quandry and there is no impasse.

Social teachings do not fall under the “non-negotiables” because there is no one right or wrong way to implement these ideas. A moral teaching, however, does fall under the non-negotiable category because there are not multiple valid choices on these issues: they are wrong, period.

This is where Fr. Greeley is in error as he has confused one and the other.

It is equally legitimate to hold that the government should pay for everyone’s health care and that health care for those who cannot afford to pay belongs in the private sector through the work of charities. **
**
It is not equally legitimate to hold the position that aborton should be legal and the position that abortion should not be legal. There is only one position that a Catholic can hold.

Please read the Catechism, as it has extensive information on these topics.

 

[1ke]

Liberalsaved:

Turns out, shock of shocks, that the Catholic Church will allow membership to anyone.

As it turns out, this must be qualified. “Anyone” who publically professes to believe and hold to all the church believes and teaches can be received into full communion.

Subsequently, there is a process for removing those who fail to actually profess and believe what the church teaches. It’s call Excommunication.

Liberalsaved:

People who consistently list what they think makes a Catholic have no authority to actually tell someone whether they are a Catholic or not.

But, the Church does.

 

[trogiah]

Scott Waddell:

You have merely implied that keeping abortion legal provides hope but have provided no support for such a contention.

I did not intend to imply such a thing so let me clarify.

As voters in our current system of government we are given two realistic options. Either a Democratic candidate will win or a Republican candidate will win. In my opinion neither one is ideal but God never promised us ideal candidates. There are many issues that matter with regard to what provides hope. I do contend that overall the Democratic party, in spite of its plank that supports the continued legalization of abortion, provides the best chance for long term hope. I do acknowledge that the matter is debatable among serious people.
Scott Waddell:

There is nothing intrisicly evil about national debt. It may be imprudent (negotiable), unwise (negotiable), but not evil in and of itself. No serious mind will equate national debt with stealing from future generations. The are plenty of wise economists that can persuasively argue that national debt isn’t even necessarily imprudent.

.

I consider myself a serious mind on this matter and so I think you have at least one incorrect statement there. Please consider this with regard to the national debt.

When you or I borrow money, we have an obligation to pay it. That obligation extends to whatever we may possess when we die. If I still owe money on my house when I die, the bank gets something from the sale of the house before my children do. But that is where it ends.

If what I own is not enough to cover what I owe, my children do not have to pay for my debts from their own paychecks.

That is not true with regard to the national debt.
Future generations will not be able to shrug off the burden placed on them by earlier generations without making substantial sacrifices of some kind.

And the federal government is not simply allowing this, it is causing this.

Jim

 

[vz71]

trogiah:

I consider myself a serious mind on this matter and so I think you have at least one incorrect statement there. Please consider this with regard to the national debt.

When you or I borrow money, we have an obligation to pay it. That obligation extends to whatever we may possess when we die. If I still owe money on my house when I die, the bank gets something from the sale of the house before my children do. But that is where it ends.

If what I own is not enough to cover what I owe, my children do not have to pay for my debts from their own paychecks.

That is not true with regard to the national debt.
Future generations will not be able to shrug off the burden placed on them by earlier generations without making substantial sacrifices of some kind.

Jim

Bottom line. You are placing money ahead of life.
I do not want to sound blunt, you seem sincere in your concern for future generations. But which is of greater importance? The burdens the future generation may have, or the future generation itself?

 

[lcalise]

midnightstar17:

I never started the thread to incite a political debate. I only wanted a question answered. So was it a mortal sin for my parents to vote for Kerry?

Jenny

Look, the fact is your parents probably voted for Kerry more for personal reasons than godly reasons.

What could be an issue that your parents could use to rationalize voting for Kerry over the issues that the Church specifically mentions?

The answer to your question: Probably, but not certainly. It’s an issue of indirectly supporting immorality via the candidate. It’s not black and white, but odds are there isn’t any part of Kerry’s political philosophy that is inherently better for God’s people than ending the immoral things Kerry supports.

(Consider that even in a a Kerrian socialist utopia, there would still be millions of babies being murdered by abortion. From a utilitarian perspective, I think the abortion issue still trumps all)

 

[trogiah]

vz71:

Oh absolutely it is. We are obligated to stand in opposition of abortion. If your vote does not stand against abortion, what does it stand for? What have we placed ahead of the life of an unborn child?
.

For the record, I do stand in opposition to the choice of abortion. It is the choice of ignorance and/or desperation. However I am no more opposed to legal abortions than I am to illegal ones. So making abortions illegal is not my only concern in that regard.

vz71:

Perhaps. But it is a much more direct to simply vote for the pro-life candidate then to believe that somehow, in spite of the president’s position, abortion will somehow be outlawed.
.

But the problem is, that candidate will make many decisions, some of which may result in widespread loss of hope.

vz71:

Making abortion illegal will never prevent all abortions. But it will go far.

.

I remain uncertain as to how far it will go in accomplishing the desired result.

vz71:

To get rid of abortion completely you will need to convert all of the hearts out there.

.

There is a statement I am absolutely in 100% agreement.

vz71:

The ‘legal-but-rare’ logic is inherently flawed.
There is no way to legislate the rate at which it occurs, thus legal-but-rare really is legal. And eventually becomes legal and common.
.

I would suggest that current trends indicate otherwise. Abortion rates are decreasing in spite of the fact that abortion remains legal.

vz71:

Well, somewhere in there you are have an acknowledgement that you are choosing the national debt as your priority over the

bannishment of abortion. I believe your priorities are mixed up. And I believe you may be seeing the same logic as you also listed that “stealing from future generations is not as objectively bad as killing them.”
You are correct. It is not as bad. This is essentially the same as stating that without this right in place first, there can be no other rights.

.

Please note the other side of that coin. I choose the national debt as a priority when voting for national candidates over the issue of the legalization of abortion because the national candidates can do much more about the national debt than they can about abortion. Presidents and legislators do not directly cause abortions by keeping them legal. They do directly cause great problems for future generations by borrowing enormous amounts of money that they will never pay back.

vz71:

It may. But one could also just as effectively say that the outlawing of abortion would cause equal if not greater hope in all people of this country.
.

I disagree with the assumption that laws outlawing abortions (by themselves) will bring hope to any country. There are countries where abortion is outlawed but the people, especially women, still struggle to find hope.

respectfully

Jim

 

[HappyCatholic01]

trogiah:

On a pragmatic level, voting for a person who supports keeping abortions legal is not the same thing as voting to support abortion.

I have posted my response to this before, and some people felt it was extreme, but I am going to do so again because it bears merit, unpleasant or not.

What you said was "On a pragmatic level, voting for a person who supports keeping abortions legal is not the same thing as voting to support abortion. "

All you have to do is change the object of that sentence to see the inherent flaw. It is a mortal sin for a Catholic to have abortion, we agree on that. It is a grave matter. Now change abortion to the following:

On a pragmatic level, voting for a person who supports keeping rape legal is not the same thing as voting to support rape.

On a pragmatic level, voting for a person who supports keeping pedophilia legal is not the same thing as voting to support pedophilia.

On a pragmatic level, voting for a person who supports *child pornography * legal is not the same thing as voting to support *child pornography. *

Abortion - grave matter
Rape - grave matter
Pedophilia - grave matter
Child pornography - grave matter

The only reason people don’t like this example is because the latter three are “icky.” The Catholic Church makes no difference in these mortal matters. They are disordered, they are barbaric, they are wrong.

Then problem is often times we apply TOO much thought to these types of things. The Vatican’s position is clear on these matters. Surmising that the national debt may be a problem, much like saying I don’t care for the way a certain party handles social justice do not EVER trump something like abortion. When the Vatican speaks, our thought process should end. Speaking metaphorically, if they Vatican says jump, as Catholic, we are to simply say how high? End of story.