Political Party in Re: to Catholicism

[SoCalRC]

I’m not sure anyone has actually expressed a determination to vote pro-choice as you state. Your lumping of people into categories I think is unfair.

I certainly have never suggested voting pro-life, but I have suggested that some stated positions are at odds with Church teachings - though I have always tried to back such assertions up with Church documents.

There is no doctrine of non-negociability.

I would disagree. It is not infallible, but the Holy See has produced a list of non negotiable principles in voting (see me previous two posts). Catholics often error by either truncating it, or, in the case of the CAF, extrapolating them and/or prioritizing them.

The Church’s list is not partisan. For example, you cannot apply the principle of gay marriage but ignore divorce, another threat to the Sacrament of Marriage as we understand it.

I personally have great empathy on the issue of civil unions, since it crosses into the area of civil rights and even family (hospital visitation comes to mind), but I also cannot ignore that the Church (particularly via the USCCB) has taken a strong stance. But nor should people who have no empathy for supporters of civil unions ignore what the Church has to say. Hate, discrimination, osterization, etc. is not the Church’s position.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Sometimes, you just gotta vote for the guy you dislike the least, which is what I’m looking at having to do in 08.

This year, no ONE candidate satisfies all my major talking points- i.e. pro life, immigration, terrorism, taxes, big govt.

I do know this, if a guy is pro choice, won’t get my vote. But I don’t have that dilemnia, pro lifers are mostly conservative, some just more than others.

Not a single, Democratic candidate for prez is pro life, not one. If one of them wins this election, rest assured he will NOT nominate a judge who would even HINT at overturning Roe V Wade. All his lower court nominees will reflect that thinking, I’d expect nothing less, cause I’d want my guy to do the same, why I VOTED for him. If you can live with that by holding your nose in the voting booth, because he advances your agenda in reagards to the Patriot Act, taxes, healthcare etc, then ok. Only the individual can make that call. Just recognize it for what it is.

I thought you said that we needn’t worry because the south would prevent a democratic win?

 

[iamrefreshed]

no quite sadly you are not quite getting it, and lashing out at the person who has been more polite and civil than anyone here. That truly is the irony of it.

I’ve read your blog. Your opinions could not mean less to me.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’ve read your blog. Your opinions could not mean less to me.

Now you’ve done it!

He’s going to call you a heretic, a schismatic, and excommunicate you from the Church.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Now you’ve done it!

He’s going to call you a heretic, a schismatic, and excommunicate you from the Church.

I can only assume I’ll be in good company

 

[LCMS_No_More]

No it’s not confusing. Some are just making it so in order to justify to themselves possibly voting a pro-choice canidate into office. There disgust of the present administration has blinded them.

To me pro-life trumps tapping a suspected terrorists phone line.

I’ll take the live baby everytime:thumbsup:

I don’t think anyone is trying to justify voting pro-choice. I think people are trying to explain why they don’t plan to vote for candidate who claim to be anti-abortion but don’t espouse an ideology that places human life at the forefront of priorities. Again, that doesn’t mean that they will vote for the pro-choice candidate. It’s been said that “none of the above” is a valid option.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I certainly have never suggested voting pro-life, but I have suggested that some stated positions are at odds with Church teachings - though I have always tried to back such assertions up with Church documents.

I would disagree. It is not infallible, but the Holy See has produced a list of non negotiable principles in voting (see me previous two posts). Catholics often error by either truncating it, or, in the case of the CAF, extrapolating them and/or prioritizing them.

The Church’s list is not partisan. For example, you cannot apply the principle of gay marriage but ignore divorce, another threat to the Sacrament of Marriage as we understand it.

I personally have great empathy on the issue of civil unions, since it crosses into the area of civil rights and even family (hospital visitation comes to mind), but I also cannot ignore that the Church (particularly via the USCCB) has taken a strong stance. But nor should people who have no empathy for supporters of civil unions ignore what the Church has to say. Hate, discrimination, osterization, etc. is not the Church’s position.

Thanks for correcting me. I was referring to non-negociables in the sense used by CAF. I have gone to read, based on your links, the Vatican list of non-negociable items and I agree with your interpretation of it. I read it the same way. It was my mistake in not stating my understanding more clearly of what I refer to as the CAF list and how it is used as a one issue trump card.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I’ve read your blog. Your opinions could not mean less to me.

Well aren’t you just as nice as can be. Bless you dear. I shall do my best to continue to hear what you have to say even though you are unable to grant me such a curtesy.

 

[vern_humphrey]

First you say this,

I don’t think anyone is trying to justify voting pro-choice.

And then you say this,

I think people are trying to explain why they don’t plan to vote for candidate who claim to be anti-abortion but don’t espouse an ideology that places human life at the forefront of priorities. Again, that doesn’t mean that they will vote for the pro-choice candidate. It’s been said that “none of the above” is a valid option.

To paraphrase Kipling:

After the fight at Otterburn,
Before the ravens came
The witch-wife rode across the fern
And called dead Percy’s name

"Stand up, stand up, Northumberland.
"Stand up and tell me true.
"If ever ye dealt in blade and brand,
“how went the fray with you?”

“Hither and yon,” the Percy said.
"As every fight must go.
"For some they fought, and some they fled.
“And some struck ne’er a blow.”

 

[gkroeger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by gkroeger
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.

No, only one of the issues mentioned in my quote is listed as non-negotiable.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

First you say this,

And then you say this,

To paraphrase Kipling:

Meaningless. Just go back to your “vote Republican or you’re a bloody baby killing ghoul” tactic. It’s more…je ne sais quois.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Well aren’t you just as nice as can be. Bless you dear. I shall do my best to continue to hear what you have to say even though you are unable to grant me such a curtesy.

Keep your blessings for yourself, you may need them. I’ve read some of your postings on others threads that contradict catholic teachings. That is why I’m unconcerned with your opinion of my (catholic) beliefs.

Being christian doesn’t always mean being nicey-nicey. You won’t find me condoning actions that the church has ruled as disordered.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Meaningless. Just go back to your “vote Republican or you’re a bloody baby killing ghoul” tactic.

Another baseless smear – typical.

It’s more…je ne sais quois.

I agree, you don’t know what.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Another baseless smear – typical.

I agree, you don’t know what.

You imply that people who oppose or question the core of Republican ideology (pro-business/anti-labor, cut taxes/cut services, etc.) are voting FOR candidates who are pro-choice-on-abortion even they have stated that they won’t vote for such a person. You don’t come right out and say it, but you ask people who clearly say that they are pro-life but not Republican to make a fool’s choice without consideration of any other factors (your “pro-life (albeit imperfect) vs. pro-choice” challenge). It’s a fool’s choice because there are other factors involved and there’s always the “none of the above” option if the “pro-life” candidate is otherwise repugnant. It may be entertaining on Rush’s show but it’s not based in reality.

 

[SoCalRC]

No, only one of the issues mentioned in my quote is listed as non-negotiable.

Perhaps you should read the Vatican link that I provided, or, for that matter, the quote from it in my post.

The Pope listed examples of non negotiables in a speech, in context, I do not see how you make the leap that they are the only non negotiables.

As noted, we don’t have to guess on Benedict’s meaning, that is why we have the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (an office of the Holy See). In this case it seems particular absurd to try to stretch meaning into a snippet from a speech. The Doctrinal Note in question was prepared by then Cardinal Ratzinger and approved by the Pope who actually introduced the principle in the first place.

Since the Pope excerpted the same language and has not instructed the Church to issue a new position, there is no credible reason to assume that failure to read the position in full in the format in question infers any change in position.

Regardless of one’s position, conjuring doctrine from snippets, and then asserting its authority over an official doctrinal note from the Church is counter productive. We should not knowingly mistate Church teaching, particularly to other Catholics.

 

[SoCalRC]

Then you ought to be able toanswer my question without tap-dancing.

The simple answer is no. If you are Catholic you should not vote for a pro-choice politician.

But that is not, as of yet, infallible. Direct abortion is an infallible teaching. But like our teaching on the death penalty, our teachings on limiting harm and a voting obligation are essentially new. By encyclical and doctrinal note, it has been placed on politicians. By speech and letter, the concept has been expanded to include (seemingly) the laity.

The Church made it clear that it is possible to give the teaching too much weight (to the “detriment” of the whole of Catholic teaching, as the Doctrinal Note would say) when it rejected the CAF voting guide.

Frankly, I am not sure why you think this is such a ‘gotcha’ question for me. From the posts it seems I may well be the most conservative (in a Catholic sense) voter here.

A Pope connected the death penalty to abortion and euthanasia, I begrudgingly obeyed (later to agree, reaffirming my belief in the Church’s Apostolic nature). The USCCB took a stand against civil unions, I again (with some reservation because of the civil rights issues also involved) obeyed. Two Popes expressed an opinion that a war was/is not just, that was good enough for me…

I make moral compromises and, like all else here, am a sinner, but as my handle suggests, I take the whole heirarchy and Apostolic thing pretty seriously. Since you are more liberal than me on even abortion voting and are confident in voting against at least one serious prudential teaching, you are probably better equipped to advise voters who feel morally compelled to distance themselves from Rome than me.

 

[BamaRider]

I fail to see why this is so complicated.

If a Catholic votes for a pro choice candiate, all you’re saying his stance on Iraq, free healthcare, Patriot Act etc is more important to ya than the abortion issue. Why camouflage it with, “but Guy, not that simple.” Yes, it is. Just do what ya gotta do.

Just know this, the pro choice prez, if presented with the oppurtunity, (and you never know when it might happen) WILL place a lifetime appointed judge on the Court, and he/she will vote pro abortion EVERYTIME the issue comes before him. He will be there long after this war in Iraq is over, and folks will say, "Patriot Act? Wasn’t that a movie 15 years ago? And that Justice will STILL be sitting on that chair.

If a guy is ok with all that, then don’t whine and moan when a case in the court doesn’t go our way.

Now if ya feel like ya gotta stay home because the stench in the voting booth is so bad, that’s ok to, cos then your vote won’t be cancelling out my pro life vote.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The simple answer is no. If you are Catholic you should not vote for a pro-choice politician.

So we agree. Catholics cannot vote for pro-choice candidates when there is a pro-life choice. And other issues cannot over-ride that.

 

[mikew262]

So we agree. Catholics cannot vote for pro-choice candidates when there is a pro-life choice. And other issues cannot over-ride that.

Poppycock!

BTW, IMO, a person’s political (including how they vote) and religious views are personal to that person, and unless they themselves reveal them, it’s nobody’s else’s business. This includes, the Church staying out of the political process and vice versa.

If the Church wants to make statements concerning their stance on particular social situations fine, but to try to force (either actively or passively) people to vote one way or another is wrong (IMO).

 

[gkroeger]

Perhaps you should read the Vatican link that I provided, or, for that matter, the quote from it in my post.

Dear SoCalRC

Thank you for the info, I did find your link and read the Doctrinal Note. I found nothing in it which contradicts my posting by Cardinal Razinger which states the various levels of morality or the Catholic Answers Action “Voting Guide for Serious Catholics” which as I stated lists only (5) non-negotiables. War, concern for the poor, social programs, are not listed as non-negotiables.