"One Issue Voter"

[Elizabeth502]

It does not matter why someone voted for Obama, but a vote for him was a vote for abortion, whether that was the intent or not

Except that the Catholic Church teaches that intent is a key ingredient of culpability.

 

[Spirithound]

And no matter how you “rationalize it,” you, to my knowledge, have not been appointed overseer of other people’s consciences. I’m not willing to say that the consciences of all those Catholic priests were “wrong,” because I have no private insight into that, nor do you. Again, which was addressed in an earlier thread, moral theology is not a collection of rules or military orders. It’s a system of decision-making, based on Catholic moral principles, which in turn is based on Catholic philosophy.

Elizabeth, what kind of choices does a properly formed conscience make?

 

[Spirithound]

Except that the Catholic Church teaches that intent is a key ingredient of culpability.

No, reckless endangerment is culpable too.

 

[Christopher68]

Two points:

1. None these rise anywhere near the seriousness of abortion
2. Since Obama took over we got abortion,and a bankrupt foreign policy coupled with a deepening recessing and rising debt and unemployemt. Those who vote for Mccain are looking better every day.

I dont know about you but I really miss George Bush

You have to go back to 1980 when Reagan took over for Carter to have a reference point for the pile of dung that Obama inherited from Bush.

If you’re referring to George HW Bush, then I would agree. In hindsight he wasn’t half bad. However, if you’re referring to George W Bush, then I disagree with every fiber of my being.

 

[StTommyMore]

Except that the Catholic Church teaches that intent is a key ingredient of culpability.

Stop trying to justify a vote for that butcher. If you hit somebody, and they die, even if you did not intend to kill them, you still hold a degree of culpability.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Stop trying to justify a vote for that butcher. If you hit somebody, and they die, even if you did not intend to kill them, you still hold a degree of culpability.

I’m not “trying to justify” anyone or anything. However, just for your information, I don’t take commands from CAF posters, so you can stop issuing them to me.

What I am doing, and will continue to do, is to correct wrong theology when it’s incorrectly stated as absolute by random CAF posters. (Vs. what is stated by those who have the credentials to state it, and have done so publicly. Hence, my earlier reference to the VP for Moral Theology.)

 

[StTommyMore]

I’m not “trying to justify” anyone or anything. However, just for your information, I don’t take commands from CAF posters, so you can stop issuing them to me.

What I am doing, and will continue to do, is to correct wrong theology when it’s incorrectly stated as absolute by random CAF posters. (Vs. what is stated by those who have the credentials to state it, and have done so publicly. Hence, my earlier reference to the VP for Moral Theology.)

It is NEVER acceptable to vote for a pro-abortion candidate when a pro-life candidate is available. This has been made clear by the bishops. To vote for a pro-abortion candidate is, in a way, to cooperate in the sin of abortion. How do you sleep at night, knowing that abortion has been expanded in this country and around the world, just because people were more concerned about their bank accounts than life? It is utterly revolting to even consider selling off the lives of the unborn so cheaply.

 

[SalesianSDB]

To place economics (read:greed) above life is nothing short of morally bankrupt.

I’m sorry if it didn’t come across in my post, but what I meant was that pro-life isn’t my only main issue, but also economics. I have three “nonnegotiable” issues (In no particular order):

1- I will not vote for someone who doesn’t support a free-market capitalist economy (it is the only economy that has benefited the most amount of people the most (including the poor)
2- I will not vote for a pro-choice candidate.
3- I will not vote for someone who supports overturning birthright citizenship.

Usually, a person who supports a total free market capitalist economy is also pro-life. This is most often the case, so I never really have to chose between one or the other. And the candidates I have chosen for this election cycle match all three criteria.

 

[StTommyMore]

I’m sorry if it didn’t come across in my post, but what I meant was that pro-life isn’t my only main issue, but also economics. I have three “nonnegotiable” issues (In no particular order):

1- I will not vote for someone who doesn’t support a free-market capitalist economy (it is the only economy that has benefited the most amount of people the most (including the poor)
2- I will not vote for a pro-choice candidate.
3- I will not vote for someone who supports overturning birthright citizenship.

Usually, a person who supports a total free market capitalist economy is also pro-life. This is most often the case, so I never really have to chose between one or the other. And the candidates I have chosen for this election cycle match all three criteria.

I am sorry if I misunderstood.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It is NEVER acceptable to vote for a pro-abortion candidate when a pro-life candidate is available. This has been made clear by the bishops. To vote for a pro-abortion candidate is, in a way, to cooperate in the sin of abortion. How do you sleep at night, knowing that abortion has been expanded in this country and around the world, just because people were more concerned about their bank accounts than life? It is utterly revolting to even consider selling off the lives of the unborn so cheaply.

Again, I don’t know why you’re addressing me with such preposterous questions. It is merely that your sentence #1 in this quote is incorrect. It is incorrect according the VP for Moral Theology on Catholic Answers. So take your argument up with him. It’s his argument. You’re not a credentialed theologian; he is.

 

[StTommyMore]

Again, I don’t know why you’re addressing me with such preposterous questions. It is merely that your sentence #1 in this quote is incorrect. It is incorrect according the VP for Moral Theology on Catholic Answers. So take your argument up with him. It’s his argument. You’re not a credentialed theologian; he is.

Enlighten me. When is it acceptable to vote for a pro-death candidate? Please do not say “when there are proportionate issues” unless you are willing to give examples.

 

[estesbob]

Again, I don’t know why you’re addressing me with such preposterous questions. It is merely that your sentence #1 in this quote is incorrect. It is incorrect according the VP for Moral Theology on Catholic Answers. So take your argument up with him. It’s his argument. You’re not a credentialed theologian; he is.

I was not aware that CAF had a vice president for moral theology more or less that he said it was okay fora Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Could you give us a link?

 

[elts1956]

So a politician can oppose the issues mentioned above, and yet be responsible for disastrous foreign policy and economic policy and throw the country into a near depression - and that’s preferable because he’s in-line with the ‘most important’ issues??

That is ‘ivory tower’ thinking that doesn’t reflect real world situations. Someone who’s lost his job and his health insurance is going to less concerned with embryonic stem cell research than he is in actually finding a job and being able to support himself and his family.Many have forgotten prayer, trust in God and the belief in miracles.

Well gee. Then I guess the Pope lives in an Ivory Tower along with the Magisterium. The Catholic Church has always elevated its sights and teachings above the ordinary.

 

[elts1956]

So a politician can oppose the issues mentioned above, and yet be responsible for disastrous foreign policy and economic policy and throw the country into a near depression - and that’s preferable because he’s in-line with the ‘most important’ issues??

That is ‘ivory tower’ thinking that doesn’t reflect real world situations. Someone who’s lost his job and his health insurance is going to less concerned with embryonic stem cell research than he is in actually finding a job and being able to support himself and his family.

To me, it did not look specific. Sorry. No where did it say, “you can’t vote this way” or “you have to vote that way”.

Proportionate reasons allowing a Catholic to vote for Obama depends on the voter and what is important to them. Subjective truth means everyone is correct. How can this be and still be the TRUTH as taught by the Church?I’m sure every Catholic is not going to ask the Magesterium for whom they should vote. I know I don’t.

Of course not every voter is going to ask the Magisterium for whom they should vote. That is a proven by looking at the 2008 POTUS election. Porportionate reasons for voting for a pro death candidate means those reasons supported by OBJECTIVE truth, truth that is ABSOLUTE, NOT SUBJECTIVE as is so willy nilly claimed by many confused catholics.

 

[Rence]

It is NEVER acceptable to vote for a pro-abortion candidate when a pro-life candidate is available. This has been made clear by the bishops. To vote for a pro-abortion candidate is, in a way, to cooperate in the sin of abortion. How do you sleep at night, knowing that abortion has been expanded in this country and around the world, just because people were more concerned about their bank accounts than life? It is utterly revolting to even consider selling off the lives of the unborn so cheaply.

Actually, no it hasn’t been made clear by the Bishops that it is forbidden for Catholics to vote for a pro-choice candidate. What the Bishops made clear in their statement usccb.org/bishops/FCBullInsert.pdf was:

We do not tell Catholics how
to vote. The responsibility to make political choices rests with each person and his or her
properly formed conscience.

Note in the below quote from the Bishops, a candidate who supports abortion rights “may disqualify a candidate from receiving support”, however, does not forbid it…

As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not
sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that
involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may
legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support

What to consider when voting…

The basic right to life implies and is linked to other
human rights to the goods that every person needs to live and thrive—including food, shelter, health care, education, and meaningful work. The use of the death penalty, hunger, lack of health
care or housing, human trafficking, the human and moral costs of war, and unjust immigration
policies are some of the serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act.

The Bishops go on to list a number of issues, all to consider when voting. Not one issue. All together. The whole picture.

 

[elts1956]

Actually, no it hasn’t been made clear by the Bishops that it is forbidden for Catholics to vote for a pro-choice candidate. What the Bishops made clear in their statement usccb.org/bishops/FCBullInsert.pdf was:

Note in the below quote from the Bishops, a candidate who supports abortion rights “may disqualify a candidate from receiving support”, however, does not forbid it…

What to consider when voting…

The Bishops go on to list a number of issues, all to consider when voting. Not one issue. All together. The whole picture. Bernadin’s Seamless Garment theory rises again. This theory has done more to break down belief in absolutes than any other theory. It is insiduous and WRONG SO WRONG.

.

Most of the US Bishops did not have the backbone to advise specifically not to vote for a pro abort pol. no matter what the voter’s subjective “opinion” was. But at least 1/3 of Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals etc. did. If you could read the mandate written by God on your heart, the Natural Law, you would know without a doubt that voting for a pro abortion pol when a more pro life pol was available was wrong and will remain wrong unless there is NO OTHER choice. One may state their obstinance to Church law ad nauseum, but until the end of time that person will not be carrying out the the teachings of the Church.

Perhaps reading more statements by Bishops not as progressive as the majority of the members of the USCCB would be of help. Unless one persists in one’s ignorance.

Again bye, am shaking my sandals.

 

[elts1956]

Actually, no it hasn’t been made clear by the Bishops that it is forbidden for Catholics to vote for a pro-choice candidate. What the Bishops made clear in their statement usccb.org/bishops/FCBullInsert.pdf was:

Note in the below quote from the Bishops, a candidate who supports abortion rights “may disqualify a candidate from receiving support”, however, does not forbid it…

What to consider when voting…

The Bishops go on to list a number of issues, all to consider when voting. Not one issue. All together. The whole picture.

.

Most of the US Bishops did not have the backbone to advise specifically not to vote for a pro abort pol. no matter what the voter’s subjective “opinion” was. But at least 1/3 of Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals etc. did. If you could read the mandate written by God on your heart, the Natural Law, you would know without a doubt that voting for a pro abortion pol when a more pro life pol was available was wrong and will remain wrong unless there is NO OTHER choice. One may state their obstinance to Church law ad nauseum, but until the end of time that person will not be carrying out the the teachings of the Church.

Remember the USCCB document on voting was written by a committee. Then most likely voted upon. The more conservative outspoken Bishops were in all liklihood voted down by the modernists, thus the muddled mess which anyone can interpret as one pleases.

Perhaps reading more statements by Bishops not as progressive as the majority of the members of the USCCB would be of help. Unless one persists in one’s ignorance.

Again bye, am shaking my sandals.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I was not aware that CAF had a vice president for moral theology more or less that he said it was okay fora Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Could you give us a link?

Been there, done that. Discussed that on a thread in which you were very active. You, and some others, expressed disbelief that you did not have all the definitive answers in this matter, demanded to know quotes – and because I was driving when I had heard the program and unable to take notes – I could not 'provide quotes," but I did provide all of you the approximate time of day and the precise ETWN radio show on which that exchange occurred – which was like a day or two before the CAF discussion. At the time I found it interesting that virtually all of the incredulous posters refused to actually download the podcast for verification, but rather doubted that the exchange had occurred (challenged me) – and further, refused to address their concerns with the expert author of that opinion, but rather insisted on badgering me instead of the source. The truth is, no one who was continuing to protest actually wanted to hear the source.

I was very specific on that thread about there being such a position on Catholic Answers. Interestingly, despite all the disbelief registered, no one until now has questioned that there is indeed such a position. I did not make that up, either. If you doubt that, you would have to take that up with the one who introduced him; that person is Patrick Coffin.

So I encouraged posters at the time to do their homework so that the discussion could proceed. Instead, those who stuck it out on the thread merely continued to express disbelief, and even rationalized their disbelief with some assertion that said theologian could not possibly have it right, but must be a “dissident” which is laughable if you have ever actually heard him and aren’t merely sitting inside an echo chamber.

 

[StTommyMore]

Actually, no it hasn’t been made clear by the Bishops that it is forbidden for Catholics to vote for a pro-choice candidate. What the Bishops made clear in their statement usccb.org/bishops/FCBullInsert.pdf was:

Note in the below quote from the Bishops, a candidate who supports abortion rights “may disqualify a candidate from receiving support”, however, does not forbid it…

What to consider when voting…

The Bishops go on to list a number of issues, all to consider when voting. Not one issue. All together. The whole picture.

Nice try. dis you see that phrase “properly formed conscience”? Someone with a prperly formed conscience would not throw their support behind a proponent of an intrinsic moral evil. Sorry, you lose.

 

[estesbob]

Been there, done that. Discussed that on a thread in which you were very active. You, and some others, expressed disbelief that you did not have all the definitive answers in this matter, demanded to know quotes – and because I was driving when I had heard the program and unable to take notes – I could not 'provide quotes," but I did provide all of you the approximate time of day and the precise ETWN radio show on which that exchange occurred – which was like a day or two before the CAF discussion. At the time I found it interesting that virtually all of the incredulous posters refused to actually download the podcast for verification, but rather doubted that the exchange had occurred (challenged me) – and further, refused to address their concerns with the expert author of that opinion, but rather insisted on badgering me instead of the source. The truth is, no one who was continuing to protest actually wanted to hear the source.

I was very specific on that thread about there being such a position on Catholic Answers. Interestingly, despite all the disbelief registered, no one until now has questioned that there is indeed such a position. I did not make that up, either. If you doubt that, you would have to take that up with the one who introduced him; that person is Patrick Coffin.

So I encouraged posters at the time to do their homework so that the discussion could proceed. Instead, those who stuck it out on the thread merely continued to express disbelief, and even rationalized their disbelief with some assertion that said theologian could not possibly have it right, but must be a “dissident” which is laughable if you have ever actually heard him and aren’t merely sitting inside an echo chamber.

So much for the myth that the alleged VP of moral theologysaid its OK for a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion canidate.