Political Party in Re: to Catholicism

[SoCalRC]

This total insanity is still going on. It could go on for 100 posts or more…I will vote for who I want, period. I will tell no one who I voted for, none of their business. I will remain and independent/moderate. I will never vote a straight ticket. I will not submit to “scare tactics” by any “human being”. I think a third party, even a fourth would be breath of fresh air. In the end, it doesn’t matter who I vote for, Democrat or Republican, my taxes will go up, gas will go up, cost of living will go up, and the folks in Washington will still not have a clue how people live their lives or practice their faith.

Actually, your position is seemingly a lot closer to the Church’s than many. You appear to fully vote your concience, without regard to the ‘pragmatism’ of using the political party system to amplify political might.

Of course, as a very conservative Catholic, I think your concience and the full teachings of Church should be merging. Further, I think that the Church does have the righful Gift of Authority and we should stive to obey.

But then the Church’s teachings are a poor fit for either political party. That is, there is plenty of principles, even those listed as being critically important in voting by the Church, that are at odds with the platforms and actions of either major party in the US.

So, again, while we may disagree on rightful authority. And possibly on specific issues, the end result is the same. I am an independant who holds a combination of ‘conservative’ and ‘progressive’ ideas dear, an now votes them without regards to the probable political outcome.

Peace

 

[Julianna]

Actually, your position is seemingly a lot closer to the Church’s than many. **Wow! that’s a first…according to some I am the exact opposite. A revelation for sure. **You appear to fully vote your concience, without regard to the ‘pragmatism’ of using the political party system to amplify political might.I check out all candidates, read, read, read…check the issues where I believe they may make a difference in my life in the real world. Political Party…eh…I could take it or leave it. I am cautious not to vote the “extreme”. I leave religion out of it.

Of course, as a very conservative Catholic, **Me?! conservative?!, Vern, OtherEric, and estesbob are gagging right now… **I think your concience and the full teachings of Church should be merging. Further, I think that the Church does have the righful Gift of Authority and we should stive to obey.Human beings need structure…but they also have free will.

But then the Church’s teachings are a poor fit for either political party. **Glad you pointed that out…as it should be…in the US of A.**That is, there is plenty of principles, even those listed as being critically important in voting by the Church, that are at odds with the platforms and actions of either major party in the US.

So, again, while we may disagree on rightful authority. And possibly on specific issues, the end result is the same. I am an independant who holds a combination of ‘conservative’ and ‘progressive’ ideas dear, an now votes them without regards to the probable political outcome.

Peace

 

[SoCalRC]

So, given two candidates; one of whom espouses a pro-life position (albeit imperfectly) and the other espouses a pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

The answer is no.

No, the quote is a condition of ‘limiting harm’, not a precursor. In other words, it means exactly what it says. If both compromise on abortion, neither is acceptable.

This is why I find the CAF position incoherent. If something is “non negotiable”, then it is just that, something you don’t compromise on. Turning around and accepting partial compliance makes no sense to me. If we compromise on something, how can we claim to hold it dear?

You keep giving two choices, but in the US, political parties give you dozens of choices. Write-in gives you millions. The only reason to compromise on a fundemental moral issue of one’s faith in that context is idolatry. That is, a lack of trust and faith in God. Face it, if you have more faith in earthly works and power constructs of man than the power of God, then you are serving two masters and showing, through your actions, which one you love most.

Yet again, let me state that we all make moral compromises and we are all sinners. I do not condemn people for a lack of trust in God. I know that my own trust has faultered in difficult situations. I just think it is foolhardy to argue that any particular comprise, particularly on life, is especially “rightous”.

 

[SoCalRC]

conservative…

You missunderstand. I was saying that I am very conservative, I realize you are not (or at least would not describe yourself as such). I was indicating that I acknowledge the Gift of Authority and, of course, hope you will too.

But again, the Church tells us that our faith is a cohesive whole. So fully voting your concience makes good theological sense.

Peace.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No, the quote is a condition of ‘limiting harm’, not a precursor. In other words, it means exactly what it says. If both compromise on abortion, neither is acceptable.

“If both compromise on abortion?”

What sort of compromise do you have in mind?

Are you saying that between two candidates, one of whom wouild allow abortion “in the case of rape or incest” and the other who supports “abortion on demand” and would have the taxpayers pay for it, there is no moral guideline a Catholic can follow?

This is why I find the CAF position incoherent. If something is “non negotiable”, then it is just that, something you don’t compromise on. Turning around and accepting partial compliance makes no sense to me. If we compromise on something, how can we claim to hold it dear?

You seem to be saying that we “compromise” when we vote for the lesser of two evils. That’s like saying we “compromise” when we reorganize on the objective before continuing the attack.

You keep giving two choices, but in the US, political parties give you dozens of choices.

Riiiiight. Come November of 2008, there will be “dozens” of candidates running for President.

Write-in gives you millions. The only reason to compromise on a fundemental moral issue of one’s faith in that context is idolatry. That is, a lack of trust and faith in God. Face it, if you have more faith in earthly works and power constructs of man than the power of God, then you are serving two masters and showing, through your actions, which one you love most.

Ah, the old “I can vote for a pro-abortion candidate, and God will prevent him from doing any damage” ploy.

Way to shift the moral imperatives!

Yet again, let me state that we all make moral compromises and we are all sinners. I do not condemn people for a lack of trust in God. I know that my own trust has faultered in difficult situations. I just think it is foolhardy to argue that any particular comprise, particularly on life, is especially “rightous”.

Who used the word “rightous” other than you?

Do you hold that no one can discuss Catholic morality as applied in the modern world, except yourself? 'Cause you’re in this discussion, too, you know!

 

[mikew262]

So, given two candidates; one of whom espouses a pro-life position (albeit imperfectly) and the other espouses a pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

The answer is no.

Wake up!! There are multiple issues at stake when voting for a President. Each voter, at least the wise voter, considers multiple things and issues. While obviously, the abortion issues carries great weight with you, it may not with somebody else.

Again, it’s nobody’s business how a person votes, and they shouldn’t be harassed if they happen to feel differently than you.

You are not the Catholic voter police! :tsktsk:

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Whoa, Nelly!!

Here’s a tip – when you get caught in something like this, it’s your fault, not the fault of the guy who caught you.

Did I not admit that I may have been wrong? Yes, as a matter of fact I did. What you’re doing is called rubbing the nose therein. Is this about winning or is it about proclaiming the truth (something I admit I flubbed on – now drop it or admit that this is more about looking good than honest, open debate). Not a very Christian way of acting. I don’t see Jesus doing such things, do you?

I made a mistake and I’ll clarify myself so I don’t get the likes of you twisting my words:

Since the Church didn’t outright condemn the CA voter guide, the USCCB did refuse to approve it, it’s up to each person to decide: will I listen to the voice of the Princes of the Church or will I listen to the voice of a lay ministry that wrote a document that has an overt political bias toward a particular political party?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Wake up!! There are multiple issues at stake when voting for a President. Each voter, at least the wise voter, considers multiple things and issues. While obviously, the abortion issues carries great weight with you, it may not with somebody else.

And that is merely a restatement of the pro-choice argument.

Again, it’s nobody’s business how a person votes, and they shouldn’t be harassed if they happen to feel differently than you.

If you feel like you’re being harassed, you’re perfectly free not to join these threads where we debate Catholic morality.

You are not the Catholic voter police!

And you are not the Censor.:tsktsk:

 

[Julianna]

Wake up!! There are multiple issues at stake when voting for a President. Each voter, at least the wise voter, considers multiple things and issues. While obviously, the abortion issues carries great weight with you, it may not with somebody else.

Again, it’s nobody’s business how a person votes, and they shouldn’t be harassed if they happen to feel differently than you.

You are not the Catholic voter police! :tsktsk:

**Another good reason by keeping your vote to yourself. Some would like to have votes made public so they could “harrass” you and show what a heretic you are, a bad person, a horrible Christian and anti-Catholic… Let the ex-communications begin! Actually, I don’t think I would have made it during the Middle Ages or the early years in US. I would have been burned at the stake or hanged for sure. Ah, the good ‘ol days! Suddenly I have a hankerin’ for a Starbucks Mocha Latte. **

 

[Amolibri]

And that is merely a restatement of the pro-choice argument.

If you feel like you’re being harassed, you’re perfectly free not to join these threads where we debate Catholic morality.

And you are not the Censor.:tsktsk:

Mike, very predictably, you have been “un-invited” to participate in this forum…because you hold the “wrong” position. Talk about censorship! Hang in, if you can.
**

 

[estesbob]

Wake up!! There are multiple issues at stake when voting for a President. Each voter, at least the wise voter, considers multiple things and issues. While obviously, the abortion issues carries great weight with you, it may not with somebody else.

Again, it’s nobody’s business how a person votes, and they shouldn’t be harassed if they happen to feel differently than you.

You are not the Catholic voter police! :tsktsk:

What issue trumps 50 million dead babies?

 

[gkroeger]

I most assuredly did say ‘rejected’. I also didn’t think that an additional reference was nec., the Catholic News Services link posted covered the salient facts. An archdiocese asked for guidance. The query could have been answered in one of three ways, endorsement, neutrality, or a recommendation against. The Church responded with the last.

If you want to argue that ‘we would prefer this not be used’ is not rejection, we should move the conversation into the present. The article is several years old. A commission was formed and now their is a prohibition against materials that do not meet specific criteria. The CAF voting guide would appear not to meet those ctieria. You can read more about the matter, including Amicus briefs from the Church on the applicability of US law, etc.at www.usccb.org

There you go again making unfounded assumptions. Since the voting guide is completely within the teaching of the Catholic Church; the only indication that we have that some church authorities have stated “they would rather use the Bishops own voting guide lines”, is because of concern for tax exempt status AND I am sure some are concerned about stepping on some toes. However, you jump to the conclusion that it does not meet some new criteria from the Vatican. This could and may happen, but I doubt it and it certainly has not happened yet.

You claim to be a conservative Catholic but sound more like a liberal Democrat. Your responses and post’s fall more in line with the other posters on this forum who are obviously looking for justification to vote for a Pro-Choice candidate.

You not only said “rejected” you said “rejected by the church” implying that the Pope or the Magisterium rejected the voting guide. Since this is NOT true, you were apparently attempting to mislead someone. If every document was subjected to this criteria (some, priest, bishop, or other member of the church stated that “they would rather use a different document”) no document the church uses would be immune.

My definition is that of the CCC, in Part One, where it explains the part of the Creed where we profess belief in “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”.

I do not understand the rest of your statement, I am suggesting that we use a document from the Holy See, you are suggesting that we use a document from the laity.

In other words, I do not recognize any teaching authority for CAF, I do for the Pope and the Magesterium.

There you go again attempting to mislead. I never said or implied not using Vatican Documents; they are of course the guiding force for our faith. I was challenging your interpretation of the Vatican Documents. And your obvious attempt to imply it (the Doctrinal Note) was supporting your claim. You are obviously comparing apples and oranges when comparing the use of the term non-negotiable from the Doctrinal Note and the term non-negotiable from the voting guide.
The term non-negotiable is used once in the Doctrinal Note.
“Democracy must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society.”
This obviously refers to a Democracy adhering to ALL ethical (moral) principles. It does not assign weight to these various principles. However, the paragraph from Cardinal Razinger’s letter that I posted previously DOES assign weight to some of these principles. I repost that paragraph here….

1. 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.

The Voting Guide lists 5 non-negotiables which fall in line with the above statement by Cardinal Razinger

So, as I hope you can see your constant pounding on the individuals on this thread that their reference to 3 or 5 or 20 non-negotiables are in error is totally irrelevant.

 

[gkroeger]

Which brings us to another part of your statement, abortion. As a conservative Catholic, I hold a rather extreme understanding of abortion. For example, I accept the absolute nature of the the Decree of 1889, it’s reassuring in 1902, and it’s elevation to the status of infalliblity in 1995 without reservation. In other words, I hold that the 50,000-150,000 abortive procedures conducted each year in Catholic Hospitals under various theological arguments (contrary to popular belief, Double Effect is not the only argument used) are illicit, at least until the Church gives more guidance on the matter.

I am certain glad to hear this. I hope to see evidence of it in your future posts. To date the only thing your posts have done is give the Pro-Choice voters hope.

 

[gkroeger]

I was not referring specifically to this issue. I recognize the tax exempt status problem. I am not sure that was the only objection. I do not equate this in any way as proof that any pro-abortion stance is correct. That is simply a bizarre conclusion to say the least. The USCCB firmly states a pro-life position.

Generally the USCCB is made fun of here on all sorts of issues. Routinely I see posters claim that somebody else’s priest is giving false information and incorrect doctrine. I have seen on more than one occassion religious sisters made fun of as ‘liberals’ who have been poorly taught. I seems that except for a bishop here or there, most Church hierarchy in this country is worthless, being products of lousy Catholic teaching at unversities and seminaries. Yet someone we are told on the other hand that we are to respect the Church and its hierarchy, and follow our bishops and priests. So its most confusing. People say one thing, yet seem to be in some cases, doing quite the opposite.

Unfortunately, Priests, Bishops, Cardinals, and even the Pope are human and subject to human failings. The Pope does have Infallibility on Docrtinal issues. The only thing we have to cling to is the fact that the church still stands after 2000 years in spite of its human leaders. Kind of makes you believe Christ’s statement that “the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.” Mat 16:18

 

[gkroeger]

I am certainly glad to hear this. I hope to see evidence of it in your future posts. To date the only thing your posts have done is give the Pro-Choice voters hope.

 

[vern_humphrey]

First you say this:

Did I not admit that I may have been wrong? Yes, as a matter of fact I did. What you’re doing is called rubbing the nose therein. Is this about winning or is it about proclaiming the truth (something I admit I flubbed on – now drop it or admit that this is more about looking good than honest, open debate). Not a very Christian way of acting. I don’t see Jesus doing such things, do you?

Then you say this:

I made a mistake and I’ll clarify myself so I don’t get the likes of you twisting my words:

Since the Church didn’t outright condemn the CA voter guide, the USCCB did refuse to approve it, it’s up to each person to decide: will I listen to the voice of the Princes of the Church or will I listen to the voice of a lay ministry that wrote a document that has an overt political bias toward a particular political party?

So, even though you distorted the meaning of the USCCB action, you continue to hold the Church has rejected the concept of not supporting pro-choice politicians?

Back to the original question: Given two candidates, one who espouses a pro-life position (albeit imperfectly) and one who is pro-choice, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

 

[SoCalRC]

You not only said “rejected” you said “rejected by the church” implying that the Pope or the Magisterium rejected the voting guide…

Seriously, do you understand what ‘Magisterium’ means?

The Voting Guide lists 5 non-negotiables which fall in line with the above statement by Cardinal Razinger

Because it really seems not. Not only do you not seem to get the relaship of the College to the Pope, you don’t seem to realize that Cardinal Ratzinger was not then Pope. He was Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. The letter in question was to the Bishops, not the laity, so it would be up to the Bishops to interpret it and apply it to their flocks, not us.

The Doctrinal Note was also prepapred by, drum roll, Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect. It was addressed to the laity as well as the Bishops and Catholic Politicians, and it was approved by the Pope, John Paul II.

That document clearly lays out more principles on which we are called not to compromise than the five supposedly applied by CAF. With all your name calling notwithstanding, are you really asserting that CAF has more authority on Catholic Doctrine than the Pope and the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith?

If so, you are challenging the authority of the successor of Peter. This is covered in our dogmatic constitution:

“If anyone should say that the Roman Pontiff has merely the function of inspection or direction but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in matters pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the entire world, or that he has only the principal share, but not the full plenitutde of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate over all Churches and over each individual Church, over all shepherds and all the faithful, and over each individual one of these: let him be anathema” - Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ, #3

If you concede that the Vatican’s explanation of the application of Church Doctrine to participation in public life, including voting, has the full authority of the church, what exactly are you squawking about? Are you asserting that the CAF is somehow better equipped to pass on the Doctrinal Note’s meaning than the Heirarhcy of the Chuirch? That would seem to be heresy (CCC 817-819, CCC 2089).

I am really trying to understand your point, but am still at a loss to understand how voting as the Vatican advises instead of compromising on abortion, euthanasia, and stem cell research as the CAF advises represents the threat to the body of the faithful you proprose. I am not judging you for compromising on issues we consider non-negotiable, I am just trying to understand your assertion that not doing so is to the detriment of the faith.

So why, exactly, is listening to the Vatican ‘bad’ and the CAF ‘good’?

 

[SoCalRC]

What sort of compromise do you have in mind?

How about federal funding for abortions, federal funding for stem cell research, connections to abortion profits, or laws that expand euthanasia?

For me they are non negotiable. I’m a Catholic, I’m interested in works - what they do, not in lip service.

Riiiiight. Come November of 2008, there will be “dozens” of candidates running for President.

Actually, yes, there will be at least a dozen candidates on the ballot here. And I can write in almost anyone I want. You are only sneering because you believe in a strategy of pragmatism. ‘So what if there are icky ties to human trafficing and forced abortion, so what if the health care industry can euthanize a few more people unable to pay… We can win, and suddenly abortion will vanish…’

The only problem, is that there have been so many compromises, that regardless of the outcome for the WH, the prospects for secular progressivism at all levels of government have never looked better. It is the same old story, when religion and politics get into bed, it is always religion that ends up feeling like a hooker in the morning.

So I vote my faith, as explained by the Church, as completely as I can. I trust God to ultimately reward what is right. If you want to put more faith in politicians, it’s not my place to judge, but given the track record over the last couple decades and the prospects of at least a generation in the cold, I don’t think I would be selling your philosophy as a reasonable alternative to the Mother Church’s teaching just yet.

 

[rlg94086]

How about federal funding for abortions, federal funding for stem cell research, connections to abortion profits, or laws that expand euthanasia?

For me they are non negotiable. I’m a Catholic, I’m interested in works - what they do, not in lip service.

Sounds like you are results oriented, yes?

SoCalRC:

Actually, yes, there will be at least a dozen candidates on the ballot here. And I can write in almost anyone I want. You are only sneering because you believe in a strategy of pragmatism. ‘So what if there are icky ties to human trafficing and forced abortion, so what if the health care industry can euthanize a few more people unable to pay… We can win, and suddenly abortion will vanish…’

The only problem, is that there have been so many compromises, that regardless of the outcome for the WH, the prospects for secular progressivism at all levels of government have never looked better. It is the same old story, when religion and politics get into bed, it is always religion that ends up feeling like a hooker in the morning.

So I vote my faith, as explained by the Church, as completely as I can. I trust God to ultimately reward what is right. If you want to put more faith in politicians, it’s not my place to judge, but given the track record over the last couple decades and the prospects of at least a generation in the cold, I don’t think I would be selling your philosophy as a reasonable alternative to the Mother Church’s teaching just yet.

It’s interesting to me that someone who rejects “lip service” and looks for actual works rejects a pragmatic voting strategy when it comes to Catholic issues. While it is completely legitimate of course to vote for a 100% Catholicism-approved candidate, write someone in or withhold your vote; it seems contrary to your earlier statement. The result, or “works,” of your vote will most probably help the major candidate that is less “Catholic” in their views.

So, if I look at your track record, regarding who your vote or non-vote supported from a pragmatic standpoint, your votes actually have a negative effect on Catholic issues. How does this make sense for you? Does that make your ‘I vote Catholic’ statements “lip service?” Does it just make you feel better to vote for someone who has no chance of winning but agrees with your views?

 

[repo_man]

i live in a primarily republican area yet i don’t see any reason for a catholic to be a republican. not one. all that right to life stuff is just something that comes up around election time.

we’ve had republican presidents for 20 of 28 years. we had a republican majority for 12 years (half of those 12 were also under a republican president)… i forget the link, but it cited the specific article in the constitution which essentially said this is all you need to overturn something like roe v. wade. the republicans HAVE to cling to the life issue because if they didn’t, what reason would catholics (or perhaps christians in general) have for voting for them? they’re not actually going to do anything about it. they never have and they never will. i know people who seriously vote republican just because they are “prolife” and that’s frightening that they’re being manipulated so easily by scoundrels like the GOP (not to let the dems off the hook, plenty of crooks there as well).