Political Party in Re: to Catholicism

[frankadams]

Now, you calumniate those who don’t agree with Republicanism saying that they truly support pro-choice-on-abortion. That’s a bald-faced lie and they will tell you that, as I have been saying all along. Get it?

It isn’t just those people who are accused of supporting abortion. Asking questions about the logic used here also brings accusations of supporting abortion, as just about any other challenging question they have been asked. I have had my mind read multiple times by people on this post, as they happily enlighten me as to my true motive for raising any questions and not following their exact line of thinking. I had been taught by Mother Church that God alone knows our hearts and minds, but the posters of which you speak claim that same power.

 

[mary_bobo]

I think this whole thread has deteriorated to the point that most of us should be ashamed of ourselves. For those of us who have been around awhile, we each know what the other thinks. No need to go on and on with the vitriole. It is not for us to judge another’s mind. God will take care of that when the time comes. For those who truly want to know Church teaching on these issues in discussion, numerous sites have been provided. I think most of us are capable of reading and understanding. If anyone wants to go against what the Church has said, we cannot and should not go on and on about their failings. They will do what they will and no rant from the rest of us will change their minds. It’s too bad that adults (at least some are adults) can’t carry on a conversation without the hateful comments about someone else.

 

[StevenFrancis]

I grew up Southern Baptist, …
Please Help
In Christ Holy Love,
Sciansdaughter
P. S. I am 61 years

I certainly sympathize with your situation. With Catholic/Orthodox issues split up among the parties the way they are, we’re really in a jam. As long as this position exists, people of deep orthodox faith are going to be divided along lines we just simply shouldn’t have to be divided along. There are hundreds of theories about how we ended up this way. No matter how much lipstick you put on it, however, the stance of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches in the United States is that you must vote for a Republican for President, so long as no Democrats are pro-life.
I’ve tried reading these voting guides every which way, and that’s what they’re saying, (with the current pool of candidates).

I’ve prayed on this whole thing for a long while. I think the Lord has given me the answer for my dilemma. I’ll share it with you, but in the end, you’ll need to take the answer our good Lord gives to you.

I love the poor and disenfranchised too much to keep voting the currently popular type of Republican into the Presidency, and I respect life too much to keep voting pro-choice Democrats into office. I love the idea of America too much to keep voting anybody, from either party into the Presidency who advocates for free trade (vs. fair trade), goes for the current doctrine of “pre-emptive” war, is not willing to advocate for, and protect the poor and disenfranchised; take care of Veterans; put the brakes on corporations and greed; clean up political campaigns; dump voting machines or add a paper trail; Restore constitutional democracy and liberty; and put a stop to illegal immigration.

Until we change the landscape of America through grass roots elections for smaller offices, which in turn breeds our future Presidential campaigns, I’ve made a personal decision to not vote for the office of the President in the General election. I know, I know…This means I’ll just be stuck with whoever we get for President. Oh well. It certainly won’t be the first time. I’ve only been successful twice in my whole voting history. I will continue to vote for my Senator, Congress persons, Governor, State Legislature, State initiatives, Mayor, Council, Sherrif, etc… Instead of trickle down economics, I’m hoping for trickle UP Presidential Candidates in future elections which will change the political parties from the bottom up, instead of the top down. It’s a long term strategy. Oh…I might write someone in. It’s my right to do so, but I don’t hold any wild notions that it will mean anything. I’ll still be doing my patriotic duty as an American by voting on everything I can vote for conscientiously, and I won’t have to carry around any guilt or blame for whoever Eli Lilly, WalMart, and Exxon have decided the President should be in the mean time. I can criticize any administration’s follies with a clear and unfettered conscience. I’ll sleep just fine. I’ll be doing my voting where it counts at the local level, and I’m open to voting for the Presidency again every time there are pro-life candidates who will help the poor. Just 2 cents from the disenfranchised majority.

Peace to you in whatever you decide,

Blessings,

Steven

 

[gkroeger]

I’ve prayed on this whole thing for a long while. I think the Lord has given me the answer for my dilemma. I’ll share it with you, but in the end, you’ll need to take the answer our good Lord gives to you.

I love the poor and disenfranchised too much to keep voting the currently popular type of Republican into the Presidency, and I respect life too much to keep voting pro-choice Democrats into office. I love the idea of America too much to keep voting anybody, from either party into the Presidency who advocates for free trade (vs. fair trade), goes for the current doctrine of “pre-emptive” war, is not willing to advocate for, and protect the poor and disenfranchised; take care of Veterans; put the brakes on corporations and greed; clean up political campaigns; dump voting machines or add a paper trail; Restore constitutional democracy and liberty; and put a stop to illegal immigration.

Until we change the landscape of America through grass roots elections for smaller offices, which in turn breeds our future Presidential campaigns, I’ve made a personal decision to not vote for the office of the President in the General election. I know, I know…This means I’ll just be stuck with whoever we get for President.
Peace to you in whatever you decide,

Blessings,

Steven

Dear StevenFrancis

Welcome home. I watched a recorded “Journey Home” show this afternoon which was broadcast on EWTN on Monday Jan. 7th at 8:00 PM. Marcus Grodi hosts this weekly series if you have not seen it. Marcus guest this week was Paul Williams former Anglican and Buddhist. I wonder if you saw it and if so what you thought of it. If not, you can see it on EWTN’s web site.

Yes, I agree that the current state of situation in the U.S. is frustrating at best. Part of the problem I think is that many people take the political hype that each party staunchly stands by the stereotype that is promoted by the political pundits and media;

• Democrats are for the poor
• Republicans are for big business
  In fact I don’t believe either party does alot for the poor and they both are supported by big business in equal numbers.

I myself get around this dilemma by not expecting the government to support or fix all of the problems of the poor (they certainly haven’t improved their situation in many years of both parties being in charge). Instead if all of us that claim to care, personally did something about it, maybe it would begin to change.

It was mentioned by someone else on this thread (and I believe it to be true). Instead of throwing money at the problem (as the Government often does), we should help provide opportunity to these poor. Financial assistance is fine for people who are truly unable to work, however, most poor are kept that way by the leaders that keep screaming (share the wealth, take from the rich and give to the poor). We should have learned by now that human nature excels when they have a feeling of accomplishment. Handouts do not instill accomplishment. How does the old saying go? It is true but we seem not to believe it, "give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach him to fish and he will eat every day.

Unfortunately, these leaders that keep preaching that the governement should support the poor are themselves living in luxury and as long as they can keep up the scam they can continue to live in luxury at the expense of the poor that they claim to be concerned about…

 

[estesbob]

Quote:Originally Posted by estesbob Nobody says you should vote for a pro-life candidate just because they are pro-life. I never voted for Phil Gramm even though he was adamantly pro-life. By The same token I never voted for Kay Bailey Hutchinson even though she is a Republican because she was a little too wobbly on life issues for me. If faced with two pro-life candidates, all other things equal , I’ll always go for the Republican because of the way Congress works. A pro-life Democrat has little opportunity to bring about any change whatsoever. They’re also under great pressure to toe the party line Bob Casey being a good example of that.

You two have made the point clear with these two posts. Estesbob tells us that taking into account how much opportunity for a candidate to bring about change is something that he does. Gkroeger reminds us that Holy Father has stated that one may not vote for a pro-abortion candidate “precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia,” but that one who does not share that view may vote for the candidate in “the presence of proportionate reasons.” I agree with you both wholeheartedly.

Assuming of course the canidate is pro-life. Under no corcumstances should anyone vote for someone who is pro-abortion. I am glad we agreee on that also.

 

[frankadams]

Assuming of course the canidate is pro-life. Under no corcumstances should anyone vote for someone who is pro-abortion. I am glad we agreee on that also.

Actually, if you read the document, the Holy Father does not say that.

 

[frankadams]

Assuming of course the canidate is pro-life. Under no corcumstances should anyone vote for someone who is pro-abortion. I am glad we agreee on that also.

Read it! “Having a permissive stand on abortion” does not equal “pro-life.” I anxious await your pretzel logic telling me how it does.

 

[estesbob]

Read it! “Having a permissive stand on abortion” does not equal “pro-life.” I anxious await your pretzel logic telling me how it does.

I guess we dont agree then.

Im with Mary-this thread has degenrated into the absurd. im outa here

 

[Amolibri]

It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Too many Catholics believe there is nothing that can be done about abortion and therefore it’s okay for them to vote for pro-abortion candidates. If Catholics quit voting for pro-abortion candidates abortion would be eliminated in this country within two election cycles.

Surely you meant to say: “would be made illegal” not eliminated/I].

 

[gkroeger]

Actually, if you read the document, the Holy Father does not say that.

Actually, if you read the WHOLE document including paragraph 3.

“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.”

It makes it very difficult to vote for a pro abortion candidate by justifying it because they are anti war, for the poor, for social programs, etc.

 

[vern_humphrey]

One of the reasons abortion is so common in this country is that Catholics will tie themselves in knots rationalizing support for the pro-abortion position in politics.

If we all spoke with one voice – the voice of the Holy Father – we wouldn’t be having a debate on abortion now. That battle would be won, and we would be debating other things.

 

[goofyjim]

I will continue to vote for the prolife candidate but when it comes ot the other issues I will actively engage in getting rid of the monopoly by praying unceasingly for a prolife party in opposition to the Republicans that have a little of what I do like in the Democrats. I repeat, both sides are awful and rotten to the core.

 

[frankadams]

Actually, if you read the WHOLE document including paragraph 3.

“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.”

It makes it very difficult to vote for a pro abortion candidate by justifying it because they are anti war, for the poor, for social programs, etc.

Thanks for your response. I do not question Catholic teaching that issues like war and capital punishment are not at the same level as abortion ane euthanasia. I agree that Catholic politicians who support abortion should consider themselves to be not in communion with Holy Mother Church.


I also agree that this “hierarchy of issues” does make it, as you say, very difficult for a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. However, I do not believe it is therefore wholly impossible. In light of the Holy Father’s statement that one may vote for that candidate in the presence of “proportionate reasons,” I feel such situations may indeed exist. And I think that a prudent approach to applying “proportionate reasons” does not simply mean a "body count, " though I think that is the approach of most of the posters on this thread (at leas those who are willing to acknowledge the existence of the Pope’s statement). Using that sort of calculus in a ridiculous example, a pro-life candidate who says he plans to exterminate 1.1 million teenagers in gas chambers would have to be preferred because the other candidate supports the killing of 1.2 million unborn children.

 

[goofyjim]

One of the reasons abortion is so common in this country is that Catholics will tie themselves in knots rationalizing support for the pro-abortion position in politics.

If we all spoke with one voice – the voice of the Holy Father – we wouldn’t be having a debate on abortion now. That battle would be won, and we would be debating other things.

If only there were more choices among prolife candidates instead of the ones we have now. Ones who wouldn’t just garner the prolife vote but get in line with other issues of the Church as well, and I don’t mean moral issues but the economic ones. Many of these prolife candidates just do not meet the requirements here.

 

[gkroeger]

Thanks for your response. I do not question Catholic teaching that issues like war and capital punishment are not at the same level as abortion ane euthanasia. I agree that Catholic politicians who support abortion should consider themselves to be not in communion with Holy Mother Church.


I also agree that this “hierarchy of issues” does make it, as you say, very difficult for a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. However, I do not believe it is therefore wholly impossible. In light of the Holy Father’s statement that one may vote for that candidate in the presence of “proportionate reasons,” I feel such situations may indeed exist. And I think that a prudent approach to applying “proportionate reasons” does not simply mean a "body count, " though I think that is the approach of most of the posters on this thread (at leas those who are willing to acknowledge the existence of the Pope’s statement). Using that sort of calculus in a ridiculous example, a pro-life candidate who says he plans to exterminate 1.1 million teenagers in gas chambers would have to be preferred because the other candidate supports the killing of 1.2 million unborn children.

Yes, the end of Cardinal Razinger’s (Now Pope Benedict XVI)letter seems to leave open the “possiblity” of a Catholic to vote for a Pro-Abortion candidate, however, I fail to see how any Catholic with a properly formed conscience and full understanding of the Pope’s intent here could even remotely consider voting for a Pro Abortion candidate based on todays political issues.

I also think that it is even more important now during primary season to insure that at least one party remains pro life. If Catholics vote during the primaries for a pro abortion candidate for their republican choice and he ends up receiving the nomination, that leave us with no choice on this critical issue for the presidential election in November. This would be a major set back for all of the progress made during the last 8 years on the supreme court justices. A pro abortion president would undoubtly replace upcoming vacancies on the court with liberal pro abortion judges. This would be a disaster for the unborn for the next 10 or 20 years.

 

[fix]

And I think that a prudent approach to applying “proportionate reasons” does not simply mean a "body count, " though I think that is the approach of most of the posters on this thread (at leas those who are willing to acknowledge the existence of the Pope’s statement). Using that sort of calculus in a ridiculous example, a pro-life candidate who says he plans to exterminate 1.1 million teenagers in gas chambers would have to be preferred because the other candidate supports the killing of 1.2 million unborn children.

The numbers are a central part of the problem. Why is the Nazi holocaust seen as so evil?

 

[iamrefreshed]

I fail to see how any Catholic with a properly formed conscience and full understanding of the Pope’s intent here could even remotely consider voting for a Pro Abortion candidate based on todays political issues.

I’m with you in not understanding that logic.

The only thing I can come up with is that they hate the present administration soooo much that they are blinded by that hatred.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

So we should’ve lied to her? . She came in here claiming she could disobey church teaching because her priest told her so. We get this all the time in these forums. People come here claiming their priest told was okay to live together or their priest told them that homosexual behavior was okay or their priest told them that contraception was okay. Of course these priests are not here to speak for themselves but we must believe them-after all we wouldn’t want to hurt their feelings

actually Bob I’m actually quite happy you don’t have a clue what I’m talking about. You’re quite right, continue to explain that most priests don’t have nearly the understanding of Church teaching as you do.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Got here a little late to this debate, so spent the last hour reviewing the previous posts.

As a casual observer I’ve noticed one common theme- Vern and Estesbob have consistently placed some posters in the untenable position of answering why they support a party, that advances and supports the pro choice movement with such passion, when Vern has posted the Church’s uncompromising stance on the subject.

And in 50 posts I’m yet to get a straight answer. Oh I get all kinds of just war, death penanlty positions, they feed the poor, not the that simple, repubs aren’t really pro life (really?) et al

I don’t need a weather report, just tell us why ya think its ok.

That’s cuz their opinion on what Church teaching is is flawed and incorrect.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I certainly sympathize with your situation. With Catholic/Orthodox issues split up among the parties the way they are, we’re really in a jam. As long as this position exists, people of deep orthodox faith are going to be divided along lines we just simply shouldn’t have to be divided along. There are hundreds of theories about how we ended up this way. No matter how much lipstick you put on it, however, the stance of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches in the United States is that you must vote for a Republican for President, so long as no Democrats are pro-life.
I’ve tried reading these voting guides every which way, and that’s what they’re saying, (with the current pool of candidates).

I’ve prayed on this whole thing for a long while. I think the Lord has given me the answer for my dilemma. I’ll share it with you, but in the end, you’ll need to take the answer our good Lord gives to you.

I love the poor and disenfranchised too much to keep voting the currently popular type of Republican into the Presidency, and I respect life too much to keep voting pro-choice Democrats into office. I love the idea of America too much to keep voting anybody, from either party into the Presidency who advocates for free trade (vs. fair trade), goes for the current doctrine of “pre-emptive” war, is not willing to advocate for, and protect the poor and disenfranchised; take care of Veterans; put the brakes on corporations and greed; clean up political campaigns; dump voting machines or add a paper trail; Restore constitutional democracy and liberty; and put a stop to illegal immigration.

Until we change the landscape of America through grass roots elections for smaller offices, which in turn breeds our future Presidential campaigns, I’ve made a personal decision to not vote for the office of the President in the General election. I know, I know…This means I’ll just be stuck with whoever we get for President. Oh well. It certainly won’t be the first time. I’ve only been successful twice in my whole voting history. I will continue to vote for my Senator, Congress persons, Governor, State Legislature, State initiatives, Mayor, Council, Sherrif, etc… Instead of trickle down economics, I’m hoping for trickle UP Presidential Candidates in future elections which will change the political parties from the bottom up, instead of the top down. It’s a long term strategy. Oh…I might write someone in. It’s my right to do so, but I don’t hold any wild notions that it will mean anything. I’ll still be doing my patriotic duty as an American by voting on everything I can vote for conscientiously, and I won’t have to carry around any guilt or blame for whoever Eli Lilly, WalMart, and Exxon have decided the President should be in the mean time. I can criticize any administration’s follies with a clear and unfettered conscience. I’ll sleep just fine. I’ll be doing my voting where it counts at the local level, and I’m open to voting for the Presidency again every time there are pro-life candidates who will help the poor. Just 2 cents from the disenfranchised majority.

Peace to you in whatever you decide,

Blessings,

Steven

Sad to say I suspect your decision to set out the presidential election is the most intellectually honest one for sure. There is nothing to be said in favor of those who merely give lip service to life issues for votes or those that flout our form of govt by actively promoting themselves as “Christian leaders.” While, I’m of the opinion that I cannot judge anothers vote in this chaos of teachings and issues, I’m prepared at least to say that not voting is as morally a responsible choice as any other choice.