That’s what I figured, which is why I asked for the source you were consulting. These five “non-negotiables” were circulated by Catholic Answers and Deal Hudson, not the USCCB. The USCCB’s voters’ guide makes it quite clear that other issues which a Catholic must never support do in fact exist.
Well no doubt that is true however,these are the biggies.Obama ticked off at least four of the five.Howcany Catholic could support him is mind boggling.Any other issues anyone supporting him may have thought trumped these five is due to lack of prudential judgement.
Jeanne S, I’m with you. But when you consider that American Catholics support same-sex marriage 60 – 31 percent. And even those who attend religious services regularly support same- sex marriage 53 – 40 percent. And Catholics who attend Mass regularly support women priests 52 – 38 percent, and overall 60 – 30 percent, and you find that these numbers are similar with divorce, contraception, etc. etc. etc…you quickly come to the realization that those who follow Church teachings are in fact the minority. And that is the sad fact. But when one of every four Catholics attends Mass, my question is; should we really be surprised that most Catholics today are progressive?
Gracepoole, you’re missing the point. No one here argues that the “biggies” in the quote you posted - slavery, prostitution, human trafficing,etc. are acceptable or aren’t intrinsically evil. Notice abortion is one of the big issues. But notice - there isn’t a party that runs on a “freedom to traffic humans” platform. There is a “freedom to abort” party. See the difference? I think you are obfuscating the more pressing issue before us now - which is the plight of the unborn - by bringing up the point about there being multiple “big” issues that are also intrinsically evil.
Can any group be considered as being “the least among us” more than unborn children murdered because they are inconvenient?
Scripture verse where Christ himself says that the GOVERNMENT should care for the poor and not US?
I am not arguing the fact that there are many"biggies".
WOW. The left wing media oppresses the poor by selling them themes of sex, drugs, and violence in the media for billions of dollars in privatized profits, yet they have fooled voters into socializing the costs to pay for all this dependency on innocent taxpayers, and you can’t seem to see it. Liberal behaviors are the root cause of much dependency. The 2 cures are: Conservative romantic nuclear family behaviors, or bullet proof birth control and abortion. One is Catholic and the other is most definitely the choice of the atheist progressives. Which is Christ’s message again? Catholics flock to vote for the atheist progressives due to the financial dependency caused by the behaviors being promoted by the atheist progressives. WHERE’S THE LOGIC? Can you see more clearly now??
I would not consider Allen West a viable candidate. Has he declared his intention to run?
What do you mean by “progressive” Catholic? Does that mean part of the Liberal Catholic Church, Old Catholic Church, you are part of the Catholic Church and added progressive for some reason, or something else?
Nope – not missing the point at all. See below.
Actually, our conversation began when you posted this:I am not arguing the fact that there are many"biggies".
The point I am trying to get across,especially as it pertains to Catholics who voted O into a second term.
The arguments for supporting him seem week at best,in view of the many intrinsic evils he supports whoheartedly.Can’t understand why his alleged caring for the little guy(which by the way he has done nothing to improve the plight of the poor and disenfranchised,in fact the Dems as a whole are full of promises never kept,the poor are still poor) was enough for these Catholics to overlook the negatives of O’s policies.
It goes back to the lesser of two evils,in this instance,I don’t see a strong argument for supporting O over Romney.As a result,we are no living out the ruinous effects.
And as I’ve pointed out, there are multiple intrinsic evils that must be considered when voting. Abortion, then, doesn’t “trump everything else.”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 afor ya!
So in your opinion, which issue would trump abortion? In other words, which issue (or issues) during the 2012 election made you vote for Obama, in spite of his being pro-abortion? Like I mentioned earlier, there wasn’t a party which was for human trafficking, but there was a party for abortion rights.
Why do I feel this has become a circular argument?I have acknowledged that,yes,there are many biggies as you state.However,My contention from the start has been,abortion is a gravely intrinsic evil that yes it should have more bearing on how one votes,because,if we don’t value life in it’s most nascent and vulnerable state,then all the other biggies become irrelevant.Everything is hinged on protecting the unborn,otherwise,
Thank you for that quote, gracepoole. JPII certainly includes a good list. I’ve bolded the only ones that appear to be an issue in the US:
As I’ve stated before, there isn’t *one *issue that trumps all else – that’s been my point all along. We must use prudential judgment to consider how each candidate will navigate and respond to many intrinsic evils. I haven’t claimed that people shouldn’t vote for a Republican or that they should vote for a Democrat – and Ishii, I don’t recall claiming that I voted for Obama. You asked what I found so disturbing about GW Bush’s presidency and I answered your question. But it is false to claim that abortion or any other singular issue must dictate how Catholics should vote. When that claim was made, it was necessary to identify and refute it. That’s it.
I agree, but there are some people who argue for it in the immigration debate. I’ve met both Democrats and Republicans who have told me they believe we should “just round them all up and send them back.” They are the fringe though, of course.