Our Next President

  • Thread starter Thread starter BListon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
_Abyssinia said:
Because some so called Catholics do not give real consideration to what the Church teaches on the principals of voting. Whether they realize it or not, a vote for Barack Obama at the ballot box means they have constituted remote material cooperation or material cooperation with evil, depending on the voter’s reasons for voting.

GetReligion classifies the ‘Catholic Vote’ as this:

getreligion.org/2008/10/catholic-vote-vs-catholic-voters

Simply, you have properly catechized Catholics - they won’t vote for pro abortion, religious liberty impinging candidates. As the article says, the data shows the link between weekly mass attendance and not voting for a political party which opposes important Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this, Abyssinia-On-Fire!
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Hehehe, We, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, are prone to calling our northern border the DMZ and our northern neighbor the People’s Republik of Merryland (It was named after the Blessed Virgin, but I think she left a while ago).
Click to expand...
Actually, Maryland was not named for the Blessed Virgin. It was named for Queen Henrietta Maria, wife of King Charles I.

Little Freak State trivia for you there…
 
I am seriously considering voting for Ron Paul in the primary. He is pro-life in EVERY way: against abortion, unnecessary war, euthanasia, and capital punishment. No other candidate fills those requirements for me. However, it is my understanding that Dr. Paul believes that gay marriage should be decided by the states and that the federal government should not decide that issue. Therefore, we are going to have what we have now basically: states that allow gay marriage and states that don’t. Is it acceptable for me to vote for a candidate with these views? Other than that issue, Dr. Paul seems to me to have the most common sense of any of the candidates and seems to want to follow the Constitution better than anyone else as well. I won’t vote for Obama b/c he is pro-choice, but I am afraid that Romney and Santorum will get us involved in a war with Iran sooner rather than later. Any (name removed by moderator)ut?
 
Veronica97 said:
I am seriously considering voting for Ron Paul in the primary. He is pro-life in EVERY way: against abortion, unnecessary war, euthanasia, and capital punishment. No other candidate fills those requirements for me. However, it is my understanding that Dr. Paul believes that gay marriage should be decided by the states and that the federal government should not decide that issue. Therefore, we are going to have what we have now basically: states that allow gay marriage and states that don’t. Is it acceptable for me to vote for a candidate with these views? Other than that issue, Dr. Paul seems to me to have the most common sense of any of the candidates and seems to want to follow the Constitution better than anyone else as well. I won’t vote for Obama b/c he is pro-choice, but I am afraid that Romney and Santorum will get us involved in a war with Iran sooner rather than later. Any (name removed by moderator)ut?
Click to expand...
Yes voters often find themselves in a predicament. Unless God Himself was a Republican or a Democrat and a candidate, you’re probably not going to find perfection in any human candidate. Peace.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Because some so called Catholics do not give real consideration to what the Church teaches on the principals of voting. Whether they realize it or not, a vote for Barack Obama at the ballot box means they have constituted remote material cooperation or material cooperation with evil, depending on the voter’s reasons for voting.
Click to expand...
Both political parties support activities that are regarded by the Church as evil. As a result, unless we vote for some third party candidate, we are all guilty of remote material cooperation with evil. However, since we are expected to participate in the electoral process, the Church regards our action in voting to be justified as long as our intention is to support what we understand to be the greater good and is not meant to condone or promote the evil that goes along with it. Remote material cooperation with evil is even further from the intention associated with the evil that results.

You throw it out there like this is some terrible thing, when really it is a great mercy on the part of the Church, which realizes that we live in an imperfect world and sometimes are forced to act in ways that are less than ideal.
 
bellasbane said:
Both political parties support activities that are regarded by the Church as evil. As a result, unless we vote for some third party candidate, we are all guilty of remote material cooperation with evil. However, since we are expected to participate in the electoral process, the Church regards our action in voting to be justified as long as our intention is to support what we understand to be the greater good and is not meant to condone or promote the evil that goes along with it. Remote material cooperation with evil is even further from the intention associated with the evil that results.

You throw it out there like this is some terrible thing, when really it is a great mercy on the part of the Church, which realizes that we live in an imperfect world and sometimes are forced to act in ways that are less than ideal.
Click to expand...
You don’t understand proportionality, Bellesbane. Please explain to me what is a greater evil than a million unborn babies aborted every year? And you are also confusing the issues in this election with regard to the real differences between Obama and Romney. Obama wants abortion on demand, government funded. He will nominate justices who share this faith in abortion rights. If you like abortion on demand to continue, then vote for Obama. On the other hand, Romney will work toward repealing Obama care and/or the HHS mandate. He will nominate justices in the mold of Scalia and Alito. If you look at the positions the candidates take now in this election campaign, I think the choice is pretty clear. Even if you compare the misleading caricature of Romney that you conjured up, with Obama, there is still a clear choice between two very different candidates. The etch a sketch might be a convenient (but a gaffe) metaphor for a campaign that swings right for the nomination but moves to the middle in the general based on political reality that has been true for decades. The etch a sketch might help erase an image, but the Obama policies help keep in place policies that erase unborn human lives. There is no comparison between Romney and Obama for a serious catholic, or for a catholic who isn’t invincibly ignorant.

Ishii
 
bellasbane said:
Both political parties support activities that are regarded by the Church as evil. As a result, unless we vote for some third party candidate, we are all guilty of remote material cooperation with evil. However, since we are expected to participate in the electoral process, the Church regards our action in voting to be justified as long as our intention is to support what we understand to be the greater good and is not meant to condone or promote the evil that goes along with it. Remote material cooperation with evil is even further from the intention associated with the evil that results.

You throw it out there like this is some terrible thing, when really it is a great mercy on the part of the Church, which realizes that we live in an imperfect world and sometimes are forced to act in ways that are less than ideal.
Click to expand...
Here is part of a letter Bishiop Gracida wrote before the 2004 election:
*Since abortion and euthanasia have been defined by the Church as the most serious sins prevalent in our society, what kind of reasons could possibly be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion? None of the reasons commonly suggested could even begin to be proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for such a candidate. Reasons such as the candidate’s position on war, or taxes, or the death penalty, or immigration, or a national health plan, or social security, or AIDS, or homosexuality, or marriage, or any similar burning societal issues of our time are simply lacking in proportionality.
Click to expand...
Code: 
   There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life. That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not.
Click to expand...
Code: 
   Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.
Click to expand...
Code: 
   The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be **formal cooperation in the sin of abortion*** if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.
Click to expand...
Code: 
   The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry).
Click to expand...
Code: 
   Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and introduces legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils, which is morally permissible under these circumstances.
Click to expand...
Code: 
   Of course, the Catholic voter could choose not to vote. But that would be a serious abdication of the Catholic voter’s civic and moral obligation to participate in the election. By not voting the Catholic voter could well be assisting in the election of candidate (A, Kerry) and while that would not carry the same guilt as formal participation in candidate (A, Kerry’s) support of abortion-on-demand it would still be sinful, even if only a sin of omission.
Click to expand...
Code: 
   Those Catholic voters who love moral absolutes would have no choice but to vote for candidate (C, Peroutka), but those Catholics who recognize that in the real world it is sometimes necessary to choose the lesser of two evils in order to prevent greater harm—in this case harm to innocent unborn children would vote for candidate (B, Bush).
Click to expand...
Time and time again Bishops have continually said, asPope Benedict has, the defense of human life from conception to natural death trumps other issues. In Catholic Teaching there is not an equal playing field of different issues that Catholics should weight up before voting, some issues have been clearly taught are much more important than others (abortion and euthanasia), and some issues Catholics can have a diversity of opinion (global warming etc).
 
pnewton said:
Would that I had a dollar for everyone that equates politics and Christianity, or at least makes and attempt at such a correlation.
Click to expand...
Seriously, how anyone could interpret “pick up your cross and follow after me” could mean “elect someone into office so they can take your cross and put it on someone else’s shoulders” is beyond me. 🤷

This passage is interesting, considering some people’s take that Jesus was a prefiguration of Robin Hood.

"While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table. When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. “This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.” Aware of this, Jesus said to them, “Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.” Matthew 26:6-13

Maybe CMatt25, who continually reminds us of our duty to the poor, can square chapter 26 with chapter 25.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Seriously, how anyone could interpret “pick up your cross and follow after me” could mean “elect someone into office so they can take your cross and put it on someone else’s shoulders” is beyond me. 🤷

This passage is interesting, considering some people’s take that Jesus was a prefiguration of Robin Hood.

"While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table. When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. “This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.” Aware of this, Jesus said to them, “Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.” Matthew 26:6-13

Maybe CMatt25, who continually reminds us of our duty to the poor, can square chapter 26 with chapter 25.
Click to expand...
How fitting for Holy Week. John’s version was yesterday’s Gospel.🙂
 
bellasbane said:
I don’t need to look for reasons not to like Mitt Romney. He was my pro-choice Republican governor for four years. I didn’t like him then, why should I like him now? 🤷
Click to expand...
Of course! And it was his “pro-choice” stance that turned you away from him?

LOL.
 
mary_bobo said:
It should be remembered that there are five non-negotiables as far as the Church is concerned and the current president is in favor of all of them. The other things that have been mentioned are not as black and white and IMO are only thrown in to muddy the waters by those who put party over policy. Often these are the same folks who think there is only one way to solve a problem and that would be to throw more money at it.
Click to expand...
And the most likely nominee, of Etch-A-Sketch fame, is for or against the five non-negotiables? Let me know after he shakes the tablet again…With McCain there was some sort of argument, with Romney…I just don’t see what moral advantage he has over Obama.
 
iamrefreshed said:
I’ve never heard anyone here stating they were against everything you just posted after your highlighted word exist. It is just more hyperbole.
Click to expand...
Hyperbole is this:
What I have heard is those who don’t support forcible union dues…or support Affirmative Action…or support Obamacare…or support unfettered and unending welfare.
Click to expand...
Or are you saying that Romney now cares about the poor?
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Maybe CMatt25, who continually reminds us of our duty to the poor, can square chapter 26 with chapter 25.
Click to expand...
Jesus was about to be crucified. There is no way this verse can have any bearing on treatment of the poor until Jesus returns. Then it applies again. The Catholic Church has never taken this verse to mean that we should abandon charity and be insensitive to the poor, not that any of this has to do with the Voris video. Rather, if one want “RealCatholic” teaching, then look to the shepherds, not the sheep.

I do not agree with most of what Democrats want as far as programs. I am totally against deficit spending. However, this is not a “Catholic” issue and has nothing to do with the existence of Hell.
 
seekerz said:
And the most likely nominee, of Etch-A-Sketch fame, is for or against the five non-negotiables? Let me know after he shakes the tablet again…With McCain there was some sort of argument, with Romney…I just don’t see what moral advantage he has over Obama.
Click to expand...
Seekerz, you know that the “etch a sketch” comment was regarding the campaign.

Should we compare records on the 5 non-negotiables. There is a HUGE moral advantage, in words, and deeds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top