Hello mikew262Poppycock!
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).
Why would you need the Church to tell you that you shouldnt vote for someone who supports dismembering children? This is a serious question-I can not for the life of me understand why this would even be an issue?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).
Because these are things honest men can differ on. We can have social programs, for example, that for all our good-hearted charity actually hurt the poor. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to have differing opinions on a given war, a specific social program or how best to help the poor.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.
But virtually no one here has said that. The issue is the reverse, can you ignore other important Catholic principles just because a candidate is closer to Catholic teaching on abortion?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.
I asked a simple question; given a choice between two candidates, one of whom espouses a pro-life position (albeit imprefectly) and one who espouses pro-choice, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?But virtually no one here has said that. The issue is the reverse, can you ignore other important Catholic principles just because a candidate is closer to Catholic teaching on abortion?
.
Do you now say that a Catholic can morally vote for a pro-choice candidate over a pro-life candidate? Yes or no?Originally Posted by SoCalRC
The simple answer is no. If you are Catholic you should not vote for a pro-choice politician.
How on earth could you possibly twist my last post to suggest a contradition?IDo you now say that a Catholic can morally vote for a pro-choice candidate over a pro-life candidate? Yes or no?
Did you not post this?How on earth could you possibly twist my last post to suggest a contradition?
But virtually no one here has said that. The issue is the reverse, can you ignore other important Catholic principles just because a candidate is closer to Catholic teaching on abortion?
I’m shocked and saddened at your uncharitableness. I have not condoned any disordered actions as you put it. And its a first here to be told that my general blessing is unwanted by a Christian. I will continue to pray for peace, understanding, and compassion in the world, but of course I shall respect your wishes and leave you out of it. Have a nice day.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.
I think that SoCal has correctly framed the issue and IMO correctly stated the applicable Church teaching. It is a bit difficult to understand at first, but after reading the links he supplied about 3 times, i think his analysis is correct.I’m not going to get into a long drawn out discussion concerning pro-life vs. pro-choice or anything similar. It been done on this forum many times.
My point is everybody should feel free to vote their conscience without undue harassment (passive or active) from any one organization (including a Church) or person. It’s one of the many principles this country was built on.
Everybody will have to face God one day on the choices they made in their life, including myself, estesbob, and Vern. Let him be the Judge.
Which is basically a restatement of the pro-choice philosophy.I’m not going to get into a long drawn out discussion concerning pro-life vs. pro-choice or anything similar. It been done on this forum many times.
My point is everybody should feel free to vote their conscience without undue harassment (passive or active) from any one organization (including a Church) or person. It’s one of the many principles this country was built on.
Everybody will have to face God one day on the choices they made in their life, including myself, estesbob, and Vern. Let him be the Judge.
I asked a simple question; given a choice between two candidates, one of whom espouses a pro-life position (albeit imprefectly) and one who espouses pro-choice, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?
And you answered:
Do you now say that a Catholic can morally vote for a pro-choice candidate over a pro-life candidate? Yes or no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vern humphrey
IDo you now say that a Catholic can morally vote for a pro-choice candidate over a pro-life candidate? Yes or no?
Then SoCal said-
How on earth could you possibly twist my last post to suggest a contradition?
My position remains unchanged, in fact, I can lay it out here:
- Catholics, because of the nature of our faith, should strive to fully follow it. That is, we should strive to live the entire Catechism, with ‘living’ including our voting.
- Catholics, by virtue of being Christian, must accept that we will all fail with regards to #1. We should continue to strive, but concious of our own unworthiness and sin, we should not assert our moral authority over others who simply have different failures than our own.
- The Church, acknowledging #2, and recognizing that all not teachings have equal weight (though weight has changed over time and all remain important), has advised Catholics on nine principles that should not be compromised during participationin public life. In addition, it has given some broad principles that should also be given great weight. I believe that this list and overriding principles should be dutifully followed to the best of one’s ability, even at the ‘cost’ of earthly political power.
- Willfully misguiding members of the Body of the Faithful on Church teaching is a grievous sin, to always be avoided.
If you can find a post of mine in this thread that you believe does not match these principles, please bring it to my attention. I am quite certain that in all cases we will find that it is either a problem in clarity, or interpretation.
There is ZERO room in the above list for voting pro-choice. There never has been. I realize that many people here spend a lot of time listening to ‘light switch’ intellecualism (the shallowness and sheer stupidity of most of our public discourse in this country continues to amaze me), but think back to 3rd grade math. A larger ‘set’ includes the ‘subset’. There is no contradiction in voting a larger set of Catholic values unless one engages in idolotry.
Regarding rather we “agree”. I would have to say no. Based on your posts, not just here but from extensive posts in other threads, my interpretation would be that you reject all 4 of the points above.
You have expressed a Calvinist view towards teachings the Church deems “pro life”, you are quite comfortable asserting the moral superiority of your voting decisions, you have expressly argued that not only can principles that the Church has described as non-negotiable, but that they should be for pragmatic political purposes- and you have repeatedly supported this last position with false Church doctrine, while disregarding corrective materials from Rome.
And in all that I still failed to see an answer to simple question yes or no question.This does not make you a better or worse person, but it makes it appear clear that we do not agree about the Apostolic nature of the Church or the importance of the Catholic faith in voting.
Are there circumstances hen your “conscience” would allow you to vote for someone who supports abortion?I’m not going to get into a long drawn out discussion concerning pro-life vs. pro-choice or anything similar. It been done on this forum many times.
My point is everybody should feel free to vote their conscience without undue harassment (passive or active) from any one organization (including a Church) or person. It’s one of the many principles this country was built on.
Everybody will have to face God one day on the choices they made in their life, including myself, estesbob, and Vern. Let him be the Judge.
I don’t know about that, but it makes sense and you should reread it again and again till it sinks in.Which is basically a restatement of the pro-choice philosophy.
I have a question…I don’t know about that, but it makes sense and you should reread it again and again till it sinks in.
I know you don’t agree, but there is a difference between supporting abortion and supporting choice.Are there circumatnces when your “conscience” would allow you to vote for someone who supports abortion?
In addtion one can not just dimiss this deabte "we’ll have to answer to God " when we are talking about 1.2 million children being slaughtered every year…
Is it really possible that you cannot grasp this simple concept?Did you not post this?
Look at my previous post, first sentence. The simple answer is “no”, Catholics should not support Choice.And in all that I still failed to see an answer to simple question yes or no question.
This response really hits on the meat of the problem. Mikew262’s response seems to be in line with the “opening” left in Cardinal Razinger’s 7 paragraph letter previously posted. The problem here is how someone determines that the pro life candidate is an idiot. This leaves a very dangerous loop hole that allows a somewhat lax conscience to vote for a abortion supporting candidate and keep their conscience clear (in their mind). Most candidates while less then desirable are not idiots. The current President is an idiot in many peoples minds, however, he probably has a higher level of education and IQ then most of his detractors.I know you don’t agree, but there is a difference between supporting abortion and supporting choice.
If my choice was between a candidate who was a complete idiot whose actions might let us get over run with terrorists, drive the economy into the ground, and accomplish other things that I disagree with, vs. one who would accomplish everything I agree with the exception that he/she is pro-choice, then yes, I would most likely vote for the pro-choice one. To do other wise would be a total waste of my vote.
The President is only part of the picture when it comes to abortion vs. choice. The Congress and the courts are also very much involved. Many folks forget that. To get tied up over just one issue, even one you may feel strongly about, and virtually ignore the others is not a wise way to vote (IMO) when considering the next leader of your country.
How is there a difference??? The only way abortion remains legal in this country is that it has political support and the only way it has plotical support is if people put in office pro-abortion canidates. Do you really want to put in a leadrship postion someone moraly flawed they believe dimembering children is OK?. Better no vote that a vote for the abortion apologosits.I know you don’t agree, but there is a difference between supporting abortion and supporting choice.
If my choice was between a candidate who was a complete idiot whose actions might let us get over run with terrorists, drive the economy into the ground, and accomplish other things that I disagree with, vs. one who would accomplish everything I agree with the exception that he/she is pro-choice, then yes, I would most likely vote for the pro-choice one. To do other wise would be a total waste of my vote.
The President is only part of the picture when it comes to abortion vs. choice. The Congress and the courts are also very much involved. Many folks forget that. To get tied up over just one issue, even one you may feel strongly about, and virtually ignore the others is not a wise way to vote (IMO) when considering the next leader of your country.