"One Issue Voter"

[buffalo]

Listen and discuss - very short

"One Issue Voter"

August 3, 2010

operationrescue.org/images/minute.jpg

Wichita, KS - Operation Rescue has released a 1-minute radio commentary by Troy Newman discussing why the matter of abortion is so important to consider when casting a vote. This message is particularly timely as today is primary election day in several states. Troy’s commentary is airing on Bott Radio Network.

 

[Newbie2]

When it’s a clear choice between someone who is likely to influence abortion law or policy and we have the choice between a pro-lifer and a pro-abort, sure, it’s the most important issue.

But that all falls apart when you have two choices to vote for, and their both “pro-choice”.

 

[estesbob]

When it’s a clear choice between someone who is likely to influence abortion law or policy and we have the choice between a pro-lifer and a pro-abort, sure, it’s the most important issue.

But that all falls apart when you have two choices to vote for, and their both “pro-choice”.

At which point the church says we can vote for the one who would do the least damage concerning abortion. For instance if you have one candidate who supports taxpayer abortion on demand and his opponent supports abortion only in cases of rape and incest a Catholic could in good conscience vote for the latter but not the former

 

[Rascalking]

At which point the church says we can vote for the one who would do the least damage concerning abortion. For instance if you have one candidate who supports taxpayer abortion on demand and his opponent supports abortion only in cases of rape and incest a Catholic could in good conscience vote for the latter but not the former

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Black_Rose]

At which point the church says we can vote for the one who would do the least damage concerning abortion. For instance if you have one candidate who supports taxpayer abortion on demand and his opponent supports abortion only in cases of rape and incest a Catholic could in good conscience vote for the latter but not the former

Were does it say in the official Catholic literature that voters must have a monomaniacal view on abortion in politics? Surely, abortion is an important issue and no Catholic can be for abortion, but where is the evidence that it is an issue that trumps all others?

 

[Prof_K]

Were does it say in the official Catholic literature that voters must have a monomaniacal view on abortion in politics? Surely, abortion is an important issue and no Catholic can be for abortion, but where is the evidence that it is an issue that trumps all others?

Put simply, to support abortion is a serious sin. You can start with the Catechism (see below). But most Church authorities interpret this is that it is against Church teaching to vote for pro-Choice politicians. If you want the teaching explained to you in a clear and straight forward manner, although your choice of the word monmanical suggests you may not be open to it, I would recommend the teaching of Fr. Corapi.

catholicsvotecatholic.com/pdf/home_CorapiVoterGuide.pdf

aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=722&posts=11

If you don’t find his statement satisfactory, you may try the EWTN voter guide:
origin.ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm

Or the more academic, but still clear US Council of Catholic Bishops
nccbuscc.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html

---

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.

From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.71

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.72
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.73

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.
This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.
Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.74
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves.
Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.75

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.
The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.
"A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"76 "by the very commission of the offense,"77 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.78
The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy.
Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority.
These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin.
Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."79

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.
When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined…
As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."80

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual…
It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."81

2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."82
"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."83
"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities.
Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"84 which are unique and unrepeatable.

 

[estesbob]

Were does it say in the official Catholic literature that voters must have a monomaniacal view on abortion in politics? Surely, abortion is an important issue and no Catholic can be for abortion, but where is the evidence that it is an issue that trumps all others?

For starters:

1. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. …] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. …] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

---

From the Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus
of Pope John Paul II, 1 May 1991
47. Following the collapse of Communist totalitarianism and of many other totalitarian and “national security” regimes, today we are witnessing a predominance, not without signs of opposition, of the democratic ideal, together with lively attention to and concern for human rights. But for this very reason it is necessary for peoples in the process of reforming their systems to give democracy an authentic and solid foundation through the explicit recognition of those rights. (20)

Among the most important of these rights, mention must be made of the right to life, an integral part of which is the right of the child to develop in the mother’s womb from the moment of conception; the right to live in a united family and in a moral environment conducive to the growth of the child’s personality; the right to develop one’s intelligence and freedom in seeking and knowing the truth; the right to share in the work which makes wise use of the earth’s material resources, and to derive from that work the means to support oneself and one’s dependents; and the right freely to establish a family, to have and to rear children through the responsible exercise of one’s sexuality. In a certain sense, the source and synthesis of these rights is religious freedom, understood as the right to live in the truth of one’s faith and in conformity with one’s transcendent dignity as a person. (21)

Even in countries with democratic forms of government, these rights are not always fully respected. Here we are referring not only to the scandal of abortion, but also to different aspects of a crisis within democracies themselves, which seem at times to have lost the ability to make decisions aimed at the common good. Certain demands which arise within society are sometimes not examined in accordance with criteria of justice and morality, but rather on the basis of the electoral or financial power of the groups promoting them.

---

Respecting the Inviolable Right to Life
38. In effect, the acknowledgment of the personal dignity of every human being demands *the respect, the defense and the promotion of the rights of the human person. *It is a question of inherent, universal and inviolable rights. No one, no individual, no group, no authority, no state, can change – let alone eliminate – them because such rights find their source in God himself.

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the *inviolability of human life. *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 illusory if *the right to life, *the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination. **
From Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici (On the Vocation and Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the World) issued by Pope John Paul II on December 30, 1988
.

 

[Rascalking]

So, hypothetical situation. Joe and Dave are running for office. Joe is pro-choice, and thinks abortion is great. Dave would outlaw abortion except in cases or rape/inscest.

I’d vote for Dave (If I agreed with him on other issues as well) over a third party. If I vote for a third party, golly , I feel real good about myself. Pat myself on the back and everything. Than watch as Joe wins by one vote, and my pay check now funds abortions. But golly, I still didn’t vote for a guy who is would restrict abortion to just cases of rape/inscest!

 

[estesbob]

So, hypothetical situation. Joe and Dave are running for office. Joe is pro-choice, and thinks abortion is great. Dave would outlaw abortion except in cases or rape/inscest.

I’d vote for Dave (If I agreed with him on other issues as well) over a third party. If I vote for a third party, golly , I feel real good about myself. Pat myself on the back and everything. Than watch as Joe wins by one vote, and my pay check now funds abortions. But golly, I still didn’t vote for a guy who is would restrict abortion to just cases of rape/inscest!

The Church is made of very clear that a Catholic can, in good conscience, vote for Dave. He could not however vote for Joe no matter how much he agreed with Joe on the other issues. We are not required to throw our vote away on a nonviable third-party candidate no matter how good he is on life issues To do so would be to cede the political playing field to the forces of death.

 

[Rascalking]

The Church is made of very clear that a Catholic can, in good conscience, vote for Dave. He could not however vote for Joe no matter how much he agreed with Joe on the other issues. We are not required to throw our vote away on a nonviable third-party candidate no matter how good he is on life issues To do so would be to cede the political playing field to the forces of death.

Estesbob-
I agree with you! I was just trying to make it clear to other people. Perhaps make them think. However, I’ve noticed that third party people don’t think.

For what it’s worth, (admittedly, not much) I’ve had to hold my nose and vote for the “person who will do the least damage” a few times. Never pleasant, but perfect is the enemy of the good.

 

[estesbob]

Estesbob-
I agree with you! I was just trying to make it clear to other people. Perhaps make them think. However, I’ve noticed that third party people don’t think.

For what it’s worth, (admittedly, not much) I’ve had to hold my nose and vote for the “person who will do the least damage” a few times. Never pleasant, but perfect is the enemy of the good.

I agree-usyally tose who vote for third party sit on the sidelines criticizing everyone

 

[pnewton]

So, hypothetical situation. Joe and Dave are running for office. Joe is pro-choice, and thinks abortion is great. Dave would outlaw abortion except in cases or rape/inscest.

I’d vote for Dave (If I agreed with him on other issues as well) over a third party. If I vote for a third party, golly , I feel real good about myself. Pat myself on the back and everything. Than watch as Joe wins by one vote, and my pay check now funds abortions. But golly, I still didn’t vote for a guy who is would restrict abortion to just cases of rape/inscest!

The Church agrees that one can in good conscience vote the way of the greatest moral good. We can disagree with that.

I think your satire of third party voters a little on the hypocritical side. If you think a person like yourself should be able to vote your conscience in the matter, it is not “doing unto others” to withhold from them the same consideration. I myself vote third party on occassion. I do not do so for the rather judgemental reasons you give, but then I never judge others that do not vote as I do. I have found in life that every election I have voted in so far has not been the last one yet. There is always another one. Votes are the only thing politicians understand. Those that do not earn my vote, do not get it.

 

[Rascalking]

The Church agrees that one can in good conscience vote the way of the greatest moral good. We can disagree with that.

I think your satire of third party voters a little on the hypocritical side. If you think a person like yourself should be able to vote your conscience in the matter, it is not “doing unto others” to withhold from them the same consideration. I myself vote third party on occasion. I do not do so for the rather judgmental reasons you give, but then I never judge others that do not vote as I do. I have found in life that every election I have voted in so far has not been the last one yet. There is always another one. Votes are the only thing politicians understand. Those that do not earn my vote, do not get it.

Than great. We clearly disagree. It’s not hypocritical in the least-you want to throw you vote away, knock yourself out. I still have the right to my opinion, and I think third party people (for the most part) are self righteous and feel morally superior to others. That’s the third party radicals, which you probably aren’t, because you said you only voted with a third party from time to time.

Judgemental reasons? Sure, call them that if you wish. I call it the truth.

 

[pnewton]

Than great. We clearly disagree. It’s not hypocritical in the least-you want to throw you vote away, knock yourself out. I still have the right to my opinion, and I think third party people (for the most part) are self righteous and feel morally superior to others

…sigh…

 

[Rascalking]

…sigh…

Don’t let it get you down pal. I make up for being “judgemental” by being a snappy dresser and an otherwise cool guy

 

[Spirithound]

The Church is made of very clear that a Catholic can, in good conscience, vote for Dave. He could not however vote for Joe no matter how much he agreed with Joe on the other issues. We are not required to throw our vote away on a nonviable third-party candidate no matter how good he is on life issues To do so would be to cede the political playing field to the forces of death.

Oh, but if all the Catholics would start voting like Catholics, we could elect that third party (in some cases…)

 

[Newbie2]

So, hypothetical situation. Joe and Dave are running for office. Joe is pro-choice, and thinks abortion is great. Dave would outlaw abortion except in cases or rape/inscest.

I’d vote for Dave (If I agreed with him on other issues as well) over a third party. If I vote for a third party, golly , I feel real good about myself. Pat myself on the back and everything. Than watch as Joe wins by one vote, and my pay check now funds abortions. But golly, I still didn’t vote for a guy who is would restrict abortion to just cases of rape/inscest!

That’s a good point, R. Years ago I voted for Ross Perot. Now being in Michigan, there was no way my vote would be significant, as for the most part we (as a State) vote Democrat, have for years, and are unlikely to change anytime soon. The upcoming Governor’s race may be an exception this year.

But anyway, if everyone in Michigan who voted for Perot had voted for Bush instead, Clinton would still have taken Michigan.

But I couldn’t in good conscious vote for Bush 41, and I liked Perot’s ideas for fiscal reform. I knew there was no way he’d win…but I voted my conscious. I believe that Perot was against abortion, as was Bush, but Perot didn’t make a big deal about it. I did think about abortion, but in principal I felt that Perot would from a fiscal perspective cut funding for abortion sooner or later.

Soooo, there are ways of not being a “one issue voter” and still make the morally correct choice.

That being said, if it was a tight race in Michigan, I’d have gone with Bush, not wanting to throw my vote away.

The Church is made of very clear that a Catholic can, in good conscience, vote for Dave. He could not however vote for Joe no matter how much he agreed with Joe on the other issues. We are not required to throw our vote away on a nonviable third-party candidate no matter how good he is on life issues To do so would be to cede the political playing field to the forces of death.

Yep, very true. We could ***be ***that third party.

 

[St_Francis]

Listen and discuss - very short

"One Issue Voter"

August 3, 2010

operationrescue.org/images/minute.jpg

Wichita, KS - Operation Rescue has released a 1-minute radio commentary by Troy Newman discussing why the matter of abortion is so important to consider when casting a vote. This message is particularly timely as today is primary election day in several states. Troy’s commentary is airing on Bott Radio Network.

I think he makes a good point in saying that if a person can’t be trusted with the lives of the unborn, how can s/he be trusted with the lives of the born? And if you think about it, that’s how it actually works out.

If I were talking about this to a non-Catholic, or to someone for whom the issue does not carry much weight, or who is pro-choice, I would tell them that I am actually *not *a single-issue voter but that the issue of abortion is the biggest priority. Just as the other person might refuse to vote for someone based on his position on, say, homosexual “marriage,” or some other issue, the *first *thing I examine is a person’s position on abortion.

But this does not mean I would vote for an otherwise-terrible person, one of the villians of history for example, *just *because he was pro-life.

I think that the people who accuse pro-life people of being single-issue voters are 1. hypocritical because they would allow a person’s view on one thing or another to totally color *their *decision, and 2. are over-simplifying the issue in order to set up a strawman argument, putting up a false characterization of the opponent’s position in order to knock that down.

 

[Rascalking]

That’s a good point, R. Years ago I voted for Ross Perot. Now being in Michigan, there was no way my vote would be significant, as for the most part we (as a State) vote Democrat, have for years, and are unlikely to change anytime soon. The upcoming Governor’s race may be an exception this year.

But anyway, if everyone in Michigan who voted for Perot had voted for Bush instead, Clinton would still have taken Michigan.

But I couldn’t in good conscious vote for Bush 41, and I liked Perot’s ideas for fiscal reform. I knew there was no way he’d win…but I voted my conscious. I believe that Perot was against abortion, as was Bush, but Perot didn’t make a big deal about it. I did think about abortion, but in principal I felt that Perot would from a fiscal perspective cut funding for abortion sooner or later.

Soooo, there are ways of not being a “one issue voter” and still make the morally correct choice.

That being said, if it was a tight race in Michigan, I’d have gone with Bush, not wanting to throw my vote away.

Yep, very true. We could ***be ***that third party.

In my opinion, Perot voters handed Clinton the election, and gave him two Supreme Court nominees.

Just my opinion!

 

[Newbie2]

In my opinion, Perot voters handed Clinton the election, and gave him two Supreme Court nominees.

Just my opinion!

I’d agree, in states where it would have made a difference. I sorta felt bad about it for a while, but adding up all of the numbers, at least in Michigan, Perot + Bush < Clinton.