Obama and Romney Hit Final Stretch Part 3

  • Thread starter Thread starter qui_est_ce
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Aside from viewing it as a stolen vote, is it consistent with Church teaching to not vote, or write in a third party candidate?
Click to expand...
luigi is just giving his opinion, which is not the same as Church teaching. There is no church teaching that says you cannot vote for a prolife candidate, regardless of whether they have a chance to win.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
luigi is just giving his opinion, which is not the same as Church teaching. There is no church teaching that says you cannot vote for a prolife candidate, regardless of whether they have a chance to win.
Click to expand...
Surprisingly, many are overlooking the question. 🤷

I have not gained my popularity simply by questioning a candidate’s credibility, but partially through stating I am not voting, or writing in a third party candidate. I have been told it was not consistent with Church teaching. :confused:
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Surprisingly, many are overlooking the question. 🤷

I have not gained my popularity simply by questioning a candidate’s credibility, but partially through stating I am not voting, or writing in a third party candidate. I have been told it was not consistent with Church teaching. :confused:
Click to expand...
Can you quote someone who said that voting third party was inconsistent with Church teaching?
 
stinkcat_14 said:
luigi is just giving his opinion, which is not the same as Church teaching. There is no church teaching that says you cannot vote for a prolife candidate, regardless of whether they have a chance to win.
Click to expand...
There is not. However, not voting for the only candidate that has a realistic chance of beating Obama seems a tad misguided to me. What we absolutely can not do, in light of Church teaching, is to vote for Obama.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
luigi is just giving his opinion, which is not the same as Church teaching. There is no church teaching that says you cannot vote for a prolife candidate, regardless of whether they have a chance to win.
Click to expand...
None specifically saying that. Nor is there ever likely to be.

But I think most would agree that we have an affirmative duty to vote. And we have an affirmative moral duty to oppose evil. When we deliberately choose ineffective means of opposing evil, we are failing in that duty, just as we would if we had a pea in one hand and a pistol in the other while witnessing an aggressor strangle another, and pocketed the pistol and threw the pea.
 
Ridgerunner said:
None specifically saying that. Nor is there ever likely to be.

But I think most would agree that we have an affirmative duty to vote. And we have an affirmative moral duty to oppose evil. When we deliberately choose ineffective means of opposing evil, we are failing in that duty, just as we would if we had a pea in one hand and a pistol in the other while witnessing an aggressor strangle another, and pocketed the pistol and threw the pea.
Click to expand...
Brilliant:thumbsup:😃
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
There is not. However, not voting for the only candidate that has a realistic chance of beating Obama seems a tad misguided to me.
Click to expand...
Right, one can argue whether voting third party is prudent or imprudent, but nobody can say it is immoral.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Surprisingly, many are overlooking the question. 🤷

I have not gained my popularity simply by questioning a candidate’s credibility, but partially through stating I am not voting, or writing in a third party candidate. I have been told it was not consistent with Church teaching. :confused:
Click to expand...
It isn’t, of course, but not voting is better than voting for Obama. Having read many of your posts here, I thank you for not voting. And you are not the only one I would thank for that.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
It’s not a closed case until we get a unified voice of the Church, or the one voice that can unify. I appreciate many of the apologists for the Church, but they have no more authority than I do, and we are going to disagree on interpretations of below, also from the voter’s guide.
Click to expand...
Back in 2008 it was expressed another, though similar, way. A fair number of Obama supporters would not accept anything short of an Ex Cathedra pronouncement by the Pope that they coudl not vote for Obama, and said so, no matter what any number of bishops, or even the Pope himself said.
 
Ridgerunner said:
None specifically saying that. Nor is there ever likely to be.

But I think most would agree that we have an affirmative duty to vote. And we have an affirmative moral duty to oppose evil. When we deliberately choose ineffective means of opposing evil, we are failing in that duty, just as we would if we had a pea in one hand and a pistol in the other while witnessing an aggressor strangle another, and pocketed the pistol and threw the pea.
Click to expand...
Of course, the real debate is whether voting for Romney is an effective means of opposing evil.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Back in 2008 it was expressed another, though similar, way. A fair number of Obama supporters would not accept anything short of an Ex Cathedra pronouncement by the Pope that they coudl not vote for Obama, and said so, no matter what any number of bishops, or even the Pope himself said.
Click to expand...
That’s is speculation.

Now it’s different, we know that almost half, or more, Catholics voted for Obama. Many have said it was at the peril of those voter’s souls. If that were true, wouldn’t the voter’s guide have changed, or the Pope spoken out? Christ gave a parable about one lost sheep, and we’re discussing millions. Surely we cannot speculate that because it is possible the Pope would have been ignored, he chooses not to speak correction of any sorts?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top