Paul leads GOP NH field 2016, Hillary leads Dems

[_Abyssinia]

Neither party fully supports Catholic teaching. Each falls short in different ways. Both fall short in some areas. Contrary to what is constantly repeated on this forum, the Church does not dictate which political party or which particular politicians Catholics should support. Nor does the Church provide a list of issues that automatically trump other issues. Each Catholic is to search their own conscience and vote their conscience. That is what the Church has consistently taught.

Voting by Conscience

The only difference between the voting booth and the conscience is we usually have to wait in line to get into one of them. Apart from that, the same thing is supposed to happen in each place as that small cubicle reveals me to myself.

You and I can only vote once in the election this fall. But before we do, hopefully we have repeatedly visited our own conscience. My conscience is what separates the voting machine from a slot machine, and only the human conscience can ensure that the ballot lever is not pulled on a gamble.

The U.S. bishops emphasize the role of conscience in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, a guide for Catholics as they prepare for the 2008 elections.

What does conscience look like? It is that part of me that is bigger than me. Many issues volley for attention: immigration; affordable education; war; neighborhood violence; health care; abortion; the hungry and homeless; the environment; human embryonic stem cell research; the dignity of marriage between one man and one woman as the most commonly recognized institution in history; economic inequality; gas prices; and the beat goes on.

The common misunderstanding is that conscience amounts to “what I think” on an issue. Conscience is not just “what I think,” but it is me “thinking about what is just” and true. It is not a partial appraisal based on the words of a preacher, politician or passions. The inner moral sense is not built on a sum total of what I think, but is a manifestation linked with truth itself regardless of my preferences.

Conscience does not allow a citizen to forget he is first a person. It tells me I am a person, and, as such, I must look at a quandary according to a certain order: How does this act here and now, in and of itself, fit with being human, and not simply lower prices? Conscience insists that human dilemmas are moral concerns long before they are political points of view. Conscience tells me that to be free I must admit the truth that some acts are inescapably evil and no manner of circumstances or intentions can make them somehow good. Conscience bursts all other bubbles: It tells me the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, based not on the truth of circumstances or best intentions, but first and foremost on the truth of things in themselves.

Conscience must be formed, and, as such, it looks in three directions at once: It looks at me, looks at the moral dilemma at hand, and it sees the truth of both without favor. So often the voter makes appeal to only to the first two categories, me and the dilemma. Mere opinion then substitutes for conscience. To make a decision in conscience is to consult the truth of the nature of things in themselves. Conscience begins “outside-in.” The objective reality summons accountability from me and forms the central coordinate of conscience. Conscience must begin with the true good. This starting point ensures that freedom and truth are not enemies.

There is a faculty deep within that I do not create. It is not programmed. This region is more than super ego or social convention. It is however, formed. The moral sense of conscience must be molded, not developed simply by feelings, opinions, circumstance, intentions or movements, but by the deep moral sense in which we participate by being human and capable of reason. Conscience does not simply decide for happy or sad, but for good or evil. Conscience lines up the quandaries in size order and sees the resemblance. Marriage, racism, the environment, hunger, and abortion are not competing events. They are cousins, if not siblings. Conscience refuses to let one of these become an “issue.”

Conscience winces when it hears a candidate claim that he can fix health care, but still agree that a child in the womb can be killed. Conscience knows that if a candidate favors human embryonic stem cell research, which always includes the killing of a human person, then our neighborhoods can never be free of violence – because we just voted for violence. The moral sense knows that if you treat the environment any way you like, sooner or later you will need treatment because of the environment. Conscience realizes that if you support torture you have just paid the deposit for a war twenty years from now.

Conscience sees broadly. It breaks the bubble, brushes back the curtain, pries down the lever, and by the leverage of honest truth can not simply change, but can transform, the world.

by Fr Brian Bransfield

Bishop Ricken said

“A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program that contradicts fundamental contents of faith and morals.’ Intrinsicically evil actions are those which have an evil object. In other words, an act is evil by its very nature and to choose an action of this type puts one in grave moral danger. But what does this have to do with the election? Some candidates and one party have even chosen some of these as their party’s or their personal election platform. To vote for someone in favor of these positions means that you could be morally ‘complicit’ with these choices which are intrinsically evil. This could put your own soul in jeopardy”

greenbaypressgazette.com/assets/pdf/U01963741026.PDF

 

[gracepoole]

Not so fast with the thumbs up…there are non negotiables within our faith that weigh heavily in ones’ consideration re candidates.abortion trumps everything else.To support someone like Obama who is the MOST pro abortion occupier of theWH,ever,is to cooperate with a gravely intrinsic evil. Period,end of sentence!Oh,here’s a for ya!

Where, specifically, are you receiving this message that abortion trumps all else?

From the USCCB’s Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility:

1. There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called “intrinsically evil” actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. In our nation, “abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.

Abortion and euthanasia – where is the privilege of one above the other?

1. Similarly, direct threats to the sanctity and dignity of human life, such as human cloning and destructive research on human embryos, are also intrinsically evil. These must always be opposed. Other direct assaults on innocent human life and violations of human dignity, such as genocide, torture, racism, and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war, can never be justified.

So when GW Bush supported the use of torture, for which candidate was a Catholic supposed to vote?

 

[Havard]

Where, specifically, are you receiving this message that abortion trumps all else?

From the USCCB’s Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility:

Abortion and euthanasia – where is the privilege of one above the other?

So when GW Bush supported the use of torture, for which candidate was a Catholic supposed to vote?

IIRC, the first big story on waterboarding and enhanced interrogation techniques broke in 2005, after George W. Bush’s second-term election.

Then waterboarding was banned by CIA director Hayden in 2007, followed soon after by an executive order by then President Bush to ban other forms of inhumane treatment. So by the 2008 election, it was already off the table as an issue.

I’m not justifying any inhumane treatment that may have happened, but as a voter, I just don’t see how this can be construed as a wedge issue in recent elections.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Where, specifically, are you receiving this message that abortion trumps all else?

From the USCCB’s Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility:

Abortion and euthanasia – where is the privilege of one above the other?

So when GW Bush supported the use of torture, for which candidate was a Catholic supposed to vote?

Read your own post…abortion,the taking of an innocent life is a grave intrinsic evil,period.
Any politician who supports this grave evil ,according to Church Doctrine ,not a viable candidate,worthy of a vote.

 

[99th_Monkey]

Read your own post…abortion,the taking of an innocent life is a grave intrinsic evil,period.
Any politician who supports this grave evil ,according to Church Doctrine ,not a viable candidate,worthy of a vote.

Is a candidates position on abortion your sole criteria for a vote?

 

[gracepoole]

IIRC, the first big story on waterboarding and enhanced interrogation techniques broke in 2005, after George W. Bush’s second-term election.

Then waterboarding was banned by CIA director Hayden in 2007, followed soon after by an executive order by then President Bush to ban other forms of inhumane treatment. So by the 2008 election, it was already off the table as an issue.

I’m not justifying any inhumane treatment that may have happened, but as a voter, I just don’t see how this can be construed as a wedge issue in recent elections.

The 21 June 2004 issue of Newsweek stated that the Bybee Memo, an early August 2002 legal memorandum drafted by John Yoo and signed by his boss, Jay S. Bybee, then head of the Office of Legal Counsel, described interrogation tactics against suspected terrorists or terrorist affiliates the George W. Bush administration would consider legal, was “prompted by CIA questions about what to do with a top Qaeda captive, Abu Zubaydah, who had turned uncooperative… and was drafted after White House meetings convened by George W. Bush’s chief counsel, Alberto Gonzales, along with Defense Department general counsel William Haynes and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney’s counsel, who discussed specific interrogation techniques”, citing “a source familiar with the discussions”. Amongst the methods they found acceptable was waterboarding.[22] Jack Goldsmith, head of the Office of Legal Counsel (October 2003-June 2004) in the Department of Justice, later said this group was known as “the war council”.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#Contemporary_use_and_the_United_States

But one needn’t consider torture – it’s certainly possible to consider this from the USCCB instead:

1. Catholics must also work to avoid war and to promote peace. Nations should protect the dignity of the human person and the right to life by finding more effective ways to prevent conflicts, to resolve them by peaceful means, and to promote reconstruction and reconciliation in the wake of conflicts. Nations have a right and obligation to defend human life and the common good against terrorism, aggression, and similar threats. This duty demands effective responses to terror, moral assessment of and restraint in the means used, respect for ethical limits on the use of force, a focus on the roots of terror, and fair distribution of the burdens of responding to terror. **The Church has raised fundamental moral concerns about preventive use of military force.**8 Our Church honors the commitment and sacrifice of those who serve in our nation’s armed forces, and also recognizes the moral right to conscientious objection to war in general, a particular war, or a military procedure.

1. Society has a duty to defend life against violence and to reach out to victims of crime. Yet our nation’s continued reliance on the death penalty cannot be justified. Because we have other ways to protect society that are more respectful of human life, the USCCB supports efforts to end the use of the death penalty and, in the meantime, to restrain its use through broader use of DNA evidence, access to effective counsel, and efforts to address unfairness and injustice related to application of the death penalty.

 

[gracepoole]

Read your own post…abortion,the taking of an innocent life is a grave intrinsic evil,period.
Any politician who supports this grave evil ,according to Church Doctrine ,not a viable candidate,worthy of a vote.

The point is that it’s not *the *grave, intrinsic evil. And the Church does not position it above other issues related to human dignity.

 

[99th_Monkey]

The point is that it’s not *the *grave, intrinsic evil. And the Church does not position it above other issues related to human dignity.

But…but…but…that’s what they have indoctrinated to recite. Nothing else matters. The pope has brought this ideology to the forefront for a reason.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Is a candidates position on abortion your sole criteria for a vote?

We are to use prudential judgement in deciding who to support as a candidate.The lesser of two evils,so to speak.Using the last election as an example.Obama is the most pro abortion president ever to grace the WH.He also supports SS marriage,two non negotiables of our faith.
Romney,while supportive of abortion under certain circumstances( which I happen to thnk is a load of…) was still the better choice of the two.
So,yes abortion is a big indicator,in my opinion of the values of a potential candidate. If we cannot protect the most innocent among us,nascent life in the womb,well…you see where we are as a society right now.Eventually all life loses value,as is evidenced by the suicides,euthanasia…

 

[99th_Monkey]

We are to use prudential judgement in deciding who to support as a candidate.The lesser of two evils,so to speak.Using the last election as an example.Obama is the most pro abortion president ever to grace the WH.He also supports SS marriage,two non negotiables of our faith.
Romney,while supportive of abortion under certain circumstances( which I happen to thnk is a load of…) was still the better choice of the two.
So,yes abortion is a big indicator,in my opinion of the values of a potential candidate. If we cannot protect the most innocent among us,nascent life in the womb,well…you see where we are as a society right now.Eventually all life loses value,as is evidenced by the suicides,euthanasia…

Maybe we can agree on your last sentence that all life has value…even those who’s lives we don’t value.
See JeanneS. It’s Friday night and we are agreeing again Want to meet for a quick drink? I’m already having a glass of red.

 

[SaintAugustine]

If you follow the above conversation, you didn’t challenge the efficacy of polling data.

What I explained was that a generic “Republicans” poll doesn’t have the same value or meaning as a poll of an individual. Perhaps efficacy isn’t the right word, but it has nothing to do with my party affiliation or voting habits. Your question was an odd non sequitor.

 

[Jeanne_S]

The point is that it’s not *the *grave, intrinsic evil. And the Church does not position it above other issues related to human dignity.

Oh really,than what in your opinion is THE grave intrinsic evil?

 

[Jeanne_S]

Maybe we can agree on your last sentence that all life has value…even those who’s lives we don’t value.
See JeanneS. It’s Friday night and we are agreeing again Want to meet for a quick drink? I’m already having a glass of red.

Haa,actually,I am drinking a frosty,Michelob Ultra,

 

[gracepoole]

Oh really,than what in your opinion is THE grave intrinsic evil?

There isn’t “THE” grave, intrinsic evil. There are multiple intrinsic evils. I’ll ask again – where did you hear that abortion is privileged above other intrinsic evils related to human dignity?

 

[99th_Monkey]

Haa,actually,I am drinking a frosty,Michelob Ultra,

Cheers! and goodnight for now.

 

[gracepoole]

What I explained was that a generic “Republicans” poll doesn’t have the same value or meaning as a poll of an individual. Perhaps efficacy isn’t the right word, but it has nothing to do with my party affiliation or voting habits. Your question was an odd non sequitor.

I’m really lost, Augustine. What question?

 

[SaintAugustine]

Candidates align themselves with specific parties because others within those groups share the same general values. I’m guessing there’s no chance you might ever vote for a Democrat, for example, and that’s because the individual and the party are aligned and you reject both. It’s not quite as simplistic as separating individuals from parties.

I’m really lost, Augustine. What question?

Sorry…your “statement” had nothing to do with what I posted about the differences in polling data and was a non sequitor.

 

[Jeanne_S]

There isn’t “THE” grave, intrinsic evil. There are multiple intrinsic evils. I’ll ask again – where did you hear that abortion is privileged above other intrinsic evils related to human dignity?

Geez I never thought of abortion as being privledge,what an odd choice of words.
I “heard” through the grapevine that the taking of innocent life in the womb is a big no no in the eyes God.I believe one of the Commandments states this as well.
I have observed on this forum and in conversations with fellow Catholics,the mental gymnastics our more liberal brethren are willing to perform,in order to justify their support of the most pro death president ever.Quite something to see.

 

[gracepoole]

Geez I never thought of abortion as being privledge,what an odd choice of words.
I “heard” through the grapevine that the taking of innocent life in the womb is a big no no in the eyes God.I believe one of the Commandments states this as well.
I have observed on this forum and in conversations with fellow Catholics,the mental gymnastics our more liberal brethren are willing to perform,in order to justify their support of the most pro death president ever.Quite something to see.

I’ve pointed out that the Church identifies several issues of human dignity which all merit careful consideration when voting. I haven’t even said that abortion isn’t one of these issues so I can’t fathom how your last sentences here relate to me.

 

[Jeanne_S]

There isn’t “THE” grave, intrinsic evil. There are multiple intrinsic evils. I’ll ask again – where did you hear that abortion is privileged above other intrinsic evils related to human dignity?

There are five non negotiables that a Catholic in good conscience may never support

1. Abortion
   2Euthansia
   3.Stem Cell Research
   4in Vitro Fertilization
   5 Same sex marriage