Political Party in Re: to Catholicism

[frankadams]

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.

Regarding the first part of your well-reasoned reply, “proportionate reasons” is a matter of interpretation. I have seen many interpretations here of Catholic statements. Capital punishment is a good example. The Catechism states that capital punishment may only be used if “it is the only possible way to effectively defend human lives against the unjust aggressor,” and that “the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are ‘rare if not practically non-existent.’” Some Catholics, having read the Catechism in good conscience, have concluded that there an “absolute necessity” of having thousands of executions. Others (including the Pope and dozens of episcopal conferences) have concluded that there is no “absolute necessity” for any executions whatsover. This is not to put capital punishment at the same moral level as abortion. It is not. It is a “life issue” that I am using to show that “proportionate reasons,” just like “cases of absolute necessity” is a somewhat subjective concept. As such, both statements can sometimes be interpreted differently by well-informed, thoughtful, prayerful Catholics.


Regarding the last part of your reply, in a just a few sentences, you manage to make a strong case that “proportionate reasons” do not exist in the upcoming presidential election. However, at this point in the discernment process regarding my vote and my support, I am not yet fully convinced of the certitude of this conclusion.

 

[frankadams]

Originally Posted by frankadams forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
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?

The evil of the Nazi holocaust is seen as evil for multiple reasons, including numbers. These other reasons might explain why this genocide is the “poster boy” of pure evil, rather than Stalin’s genocide, which likely doubled that of Hitler’s in terms of numbers.


Nonetheless, when you state that “the numbers are a central part of this issue,” I agree. Tht is why I stated that an assessment of “proportionate reasons” does not simply mean a “body count.”


Allow me another crazy example: A pro-abotion presidental candidate might promise to end all murders around the world. That does not mean that he would get my vote, because even though there are more murders around the world than there are murders via abortion in America, another part of the “proportionate reasons” equation would be my assessment as to whether or this candidate could actually stop all murders around the world.

 

[mary_bobo]

We’ve had so many different “takes” on what the Church teaches and what the Holy Father said that I am getting dizzy. There must be a truth in there somewhere in all the rhetoric.

 

[iamrefreshed]

We’ve had so many different “takes” on what the Church teaches and what the Holy Father said that I am getting dizzy. There must be a truth in there somewhere in all the rhetoric.

Don’t let anyone confuse you. Just hop onto another thread to see their opinions on other catholic ‘non-negotibles’ like same sex marriage.

You will find that posters in this thread who would vote pro-choice just keep the republicans out of office are the same ones who belive same sex marriage is hunky-dory!

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Don’t let anyone confuse you. Just hop onto another thread to see their opinions on other catholic ‘non-negotibles’ like same sex marriage.

You will find that posters in this thread who would vote pro-choice just keep the republicans out of office are the same ones who belive same sex marriage is hunky-dory!

Oh, really? I’d like to see you post an example of me doing such a thing. Oh, wait…you can’t because I wouldn’t post such nonsense.

Apology will be accepted when offered.

 

[SoCalRC]

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.

Exactly my point. They are all listed as non-negotiable moral principles. It is no more moral to vote for a war you know to be unjust just because a candidate presents a more restrictive view on abortion than it is to vote for the reverse.

Arguing otherwise just undermines the faith. Arguing on the basis of fewer or more bodies is a rejection of our underlying moral understanding of both immoral acts. We believe that we are each a unique creation by God, Loved infinitely, a love we are supposed to mimic as fully as we can.

Poverty shortens the lives of billions of people, climate change can effect everyone on the plantet, abortion claims millions of victimes, and war claims hundreds of thousands of lives and adversely effects the lives of millions more. We have a Christian obligation to examine all these issues in proper light of our beliefs.

A first first step would be to give up on the promise of quick fixes and easy solutions. Look at Vern’s comment. We actually tried this. Pope Sixtus V, having full control over Rome, tried to combat rampant prostitution by making abortion an offense punishable by excommunication and death. The net result? People stopped coming to confession. Within three years, the changes were recinded and the long standing distinction regarding the animated fetus was reinstated.

Saying that we just need to compromise a little longer and then moral-magic means what? Maybe Roe v. Wade gets overturned? Then we fight it state by state… Ignoring that the two latest court appointments stood with Roe and Casey in their first opportunity to rule on it, even if you can get abortion largely restricted in secular law, it is just the beginning.

Our belief about abortion is absolute, so we will still have to battle laws that make exceptions for rape, incest, and health. And we will still have the problem of illegal abortion. With modern chemical abortificants and procedures, and a largely non-religious secular Europe, it is silly to think that the problem won’t be wide spread.

Is the battle worth fighting? Of course, but compromises just shoot us in the foot. Myoptic thinking has gotten us what? Thanks to pre-emptive war, a focus on rewarding the wealthy, and unbelievable levels of corruption, secular progressives are in the best political shape they have been in decades.

The Church seems to understand this, that is why it refers to focus on a single teaching to the detriment of others “incoherent”. But even if you reject this message, we all still compromise. Even if you claim to vote solely on abortion, very few voters can point to their candidates and say they are in true accordance with our teachings.

In that light, what I have repeatedly encouraged is for everyone to stop professing that their choices are the only true Catholic choice. This simply compounds the seemingly doomed path of poltiical compromise with intentional acts of division and hate.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Oh, really? I’d like to see you post an example of me doing such a thing. Oh, wait…you can’t because I wouldn’t post such nonsense.

Apology will be accepted when offered.

Are you really so egotistical as to think every post I write refers to you?

My what a large hat you must wear!

 

[SoCalRC]

Don’t let anyone confuse you. Just hop onto another thread to see their opinions on other catholic ‘non-negotibles’ like same sex marriage.

You will find that posters in this thread who would vote pro-choice just keep the republicans out of office are the same ones who belive same sex marriage is hunky-dory!

And plenty of Catholics here who cite the Pope as authority on abortion readily dismiss Peter’s successor when it comes to the death penalty and war…

But I think the sadest thing about trying to connect partisan politics to Catholicism is that the odious practice of stereotyping large groups of people and then denomizing them as morally inferior comes with it.

You would think that people might realize that what passes for political discourse from, say, an obese, convicted drug offender who repeatedly fails at marriage and who gets caught taking a bucket of Viagra to a “boys vacation” at the under age male prostitute capital of the western hemisphere is on a different plane from doctrinal discussions about a 2000 year old faith nutured on the blood of sacrifice and martyrdom, but I guess it is expected.

A 5-10 minute Homily can hardly compete with, say 15 hours a week of partisan hackery.

 

[SoCalRC]

My what a large hat you must wear!

As I mentioned once before in this thread, it is a quirk of our Faith that, simply by declaring someone to be Pharisee-like, we become so ourselves…

The point was made that you were making a stereotype which was demonstrably false, thus disenfranchising and dehumanizing people.

This is common, particular in modern political speech. Rather it is “Godless liberals” or “Right wing facists”, but it is very un-Christian. In Catholicism we pray each week for unity and peace. That is not a prayer for one side to announce the other’s moral superiority and renounce it’s ways, but a prayer that we will be granted piece in response to our own effects to create it. Remember, we offer the sign of peace to each other.

Even if you believe that there is demonstrable truth in your stereotype, it does not justify a profession of moral superiority. For example, you would not like it if I claimed that all Republicans support slave labor and forced abortions. But we could look to the USCCB to find that, in a specific way, the Church agrees.

 

[iamrefreshed]

And plenty of Catholics here who cite the Pope as authority on abortion readily dismiss Peter’s successor when it comes to the death penalty and war…

Really? I do recall reading several posts where the writer (pro-life) actually picketed outside prisons to protest the death penalty.

I beleive he was dismissed as a neo-con?

 

[iamrefreshed]

As I mentioned once before in this thread, it is a quirk of our Faith that, simply by declaring someone to be Pharisee-like, we become so ourselves…

The point was made that you were making a stereotype which was demonstrably false, thus disenfranchising and dehumanizing people.

This is common, particular in modern political speech. Rather it is “Godless liberals” or “Right wing facists”, but it is very un-Christian. In Catholicism we pray each week for unity and peace. That is not a prayer for one side to announce the other’s moral superiority and renounce it’s ways, but a prayer that we will be granted piece in response to our own effects to create it. Remember, we offer the sign of peace to each other.

Even if you believe that there is demonstrable truth in your stereotype, it does not justify a profession of moral superiority. For example, you would not like it if I claimed that all Republicans support slave labor and forced abortions. But we could look to the USCCB to find that, in a specific way, the Church agrees.

Oh…I finally get what you are saying!!! You set a perfect example when you said this…

“And plenty of Catholics here who cite the Pope as authority on abortion readily dismiss Peter’s successor when it comes to the death penalty and war…”

That’s a perfect example of ‘moral superiority’, ‘disenfranchising’ and ‘dehumanizing’.

How good of you to partake in what you accuse others of!

 

[SoCalRC]

Really? I do recall reading several posts where the writer (pro-life) actually picketed outside prisons to protest the death penalty.

You’re almost there - you seem to understand the importance of respecting the individual in some cases. You just need to grasp that only principles applied universally are truly held. Think Golden Rule, you want your position as a unique, infinitely loved, creation of God to be respected, so you should take care in lumping others into groups.

I beleive he was dismissed as a neo-con?

I’m not sure what you are talking about. Neo-conservatism is an ideology principally expressed in foreign policy, though conservative philosopher Frances Fukuyama, who is often called the “father” of the movement has recently stated publicly that it also was subverted for partisan purposes.

In other words, **** Cheney promotes neo-conservatism as foreign policy, but Fukuyama says that neo-conservatism itself was altered to promote Cheney’s political party.

So, if the person was promoting the use of military force for national and personal self interest, orienting government around the interests of large corproations, or simply support of current US foreign policy, the label may have been appropriate.

However, if it was used in another context, say simply to bring to mind the dismal foreign policy record of the Bush adminstration or the Vatican’s general disapproval of it, that would be inapproprate. Another example of the sort of intentional dehumanization that has become the norm in US politics.

 

[SoCalRC]

Oh…I finally get what you are saying!!! You set a perfect example when you said this…

That is what I was trying to do. Set an example. The statement has a foundation in truth, but is a dehumanizing way to address people. In teaching this is called ‘mirroring’, showing you the reverse so you understand the implications.

But I could not quite go all out. Notice I said “plenty”, not the same. Also, the remark is demonstrably true. Many of the participants here have stated that they disagree with the Pope on the death penalty and the war in Iraq.

I’m glad you saw the connection, but the fact that you are responding with a moral judgment suggests to me that you still don’t quite get it.

 

[iamrefreshed]

That is what I was trying to do. Set an example. The statement has a foundation in truth, but is a dehumanizing way to address people. In teaching this is called ‘mirroring’, showing you the reverse so you understand the implications.

But I could not quite go all out. Notice I said “plenty”, not the same. Also, the remark is demonstrably true. Many of the participants here have stated that they disagree with the Pope on the death penalty and the war in Iraq.

I’m glad you saw the connection, but the fact that you are responding with a moral judgment suggests to me that you still don’t quite get it.

You are the one ‘not getting it’. That post of your was well up in the thread and had no bearing on our discussion. You said it AND meant it before you decide to deride me.

You did EXACTLY what you accused me of doing.

The really, really sad yet funny part is that you are absolutely clueless that you did it!

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Oh…I finally get what you are saying!!! You set a perfect example when you said this…

“And plenty of Catholics here who cite the Pope as authority on abortion readily dismiss Peter’s successor when it comes to the death penalty and war…”

That’s a perfect example of ‘moral superiority’, ‘disenfranchising’ and ‘dehumanizing’.

How good of you to partake in what you accuse others of!

Uh…not so much. He’s stating an observation when it comes to what some people do right here on this forum. He’s not calling them names or dehumanizing anyone.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Really? I do recall reading several posts where the writer (pro-life) actually picketed outside prisons to protest the death penalty.

I beleive he was dismissed as a neo-con?

This poster is the exception to the rule, though. I actually respect his stance if not some of his odious tactics.

 

[gkroeger]

Regarding the first part of your well-reasoned reply, “proportionate reasons” is a matter of interpretation. I have seen many interpretations here of Catholic statements. Capital punishment is a good example. The Catechism states that capital punishment may only be used if “it is the only possible way to effectively defend human lives against the unjust aggressor,” and that “the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are ‘rare if not practically non-existent.’” Some Catholics, having read the Catechism in good conscience, have concluded that there an “absolute necessity” of having thousands of executions. Others (including the Pope and dozens of episcopal conferences) have concluded that there is no “absolute necessity” for any executions whatsover. This is not to put capital punishment at the same moral level as abortion. It is not. It is a “life issue” that I am using to show that “proportionate reasons,” just like “cases of absolute necessity” is a somewhat subjective concept. As such, both statements can sometimes be interpreted differently by well-informed, thoughtful, prayerful Catholics.


Regarding the last part of your reply, in a just a few sentences, you manage to make a strong case that “proportionate reasons” do not exist in the upcoming presidential election. However, at this point in the discernment process regarding my vote and my support, I am not yet fully convinced of the certitude of this conclusion.

Fair enough…

I was expressing what my conscience dictates based on my studies of church teachings. As I stated “I” cannot see how a well informed conscience can vote for a pro abortion candidate, with the political issues before us today, however, each individual is responsible for forming and following their own conscience. In the final judgement we will be judged only on our own actions or omissions.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Uh…not so much. He’s stating an observation when it comes to what some people do right here on this forum. He’s not calling them names or dehumanizing anyone.

You say “observation,” others say “hoilier than thou accusations.”

I vote with the majority.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

You say “observation,” others say “hoilier than thou accusations.”

I vote with the majority.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Uh…not so much. He’s stating an observation when it comes to what some people do right here on this forum. He’s not calling them names or dehumanizing anyone.

Funny how when we say exactly the same thing you can only see it one way.

At least I am willing to look inward and consider that I may be offending someone.

You and he seem to be above that. Good luck to you, but I think I’ll let someone else remove the splinter from my eye. Maybe someone who can see better than you two.