Pope’s climate views press Catholic candidates

[ishii]

You would have no basis to make such a judgement because you have no clue what their choice set is.

Choice set? Its not hard to know what candidates are running in a given election.

Maybe we should ask pnewton this, as he seems to be able to determine if people have a properly formed conscience:

FYI - My Conscience is **not** malformed, **neither is that of the other person I was thinking of. **

As a hypothetical, I would consider a Catholic who vote for Nancy Pelosi to either not care about the sanctity of life or have an malformed conscience.

Ishii

 

[stinkcat_14]

Choice set? Its not hard to know what candidates are running in a given election.

In an election where both the republican and democrat are both pro-abortion, but the democrat is against the death penalty, then one clearly could vote for the democrat, because the democrat is better on life issues. The death penalty is not an absolute requirement, but one can certainly argue that the democrat is more pro-life when they are both equally bad on abortion.

 

[ishii]

In an election where both the republican and democrat are both pro-abortion, but the democrat is against the death penalty, then one clearly could vote for the democrat, because the democrat is better on life issues. The death penalty is not an absolute requirement, but one can certainly argue that the democrat is more pro-life when they are both equally bad on abortion.

(my bold italics)

Does the “pro-life” Democrat support the Democrat speaker or majority leader in the senate? Campaign for Barack Obama? (he supported infanticide, you’ll remember). Would the “pro-life” politician support Obama’s supreme court justices? Would he/she oppose Republican nominated ones? As usual, Stinkcat, its a little more complex than you portray.

Ishii

 

[stinkcat_14]

(my bold italics)

Does the “pro-life” Democrat support the Democrat speaker or majority leader in the senate? Campaign for Barack Obama? (he supported infanticide, you’ll remember). Would the “pro-life” politician support Obama’s supreme court justices? Would he/she oppose Republican nominated ones? As usual, Stinkcat, its a little more complex than you portray.

Ishii

Back up what you are saying by Church teaching. Please tell me where it says we can vote for a less pro-life candidate because we don’t like that candidate’s party.

 

[ishii]

Back up what you are saying by Church teaching. Please tell me where it says we can vote for a less pro-life candidate because we don’t like that candidate’s party.

I’m disagreeing with your contention that the candidate who says “I am pro-life” but then sides with Obama when it counts, is somehow more pro-life than the Republican “pro-choice” candidate.

Ishii

 

[estesbob]

Back up what you are saying by Church teaching. Please tell me where it says we can vote for a less pro-life candidate because we don’t like that candidate’s party.

You are correct. Party is irrelevant. It is what the candidate stands for that we must look at.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I’m disagreeing with your contention that the candidate who says “I am pro-life” but then sides with Obama when it counts, is somehow more pro-life than the Republican “pro-choice” candidate.

Ishii

In a situation like I described, it comes down to one prudential judgement. Each individual would have to look at the democrat and republican candidate to see who is more pro-life and that is always going to be a judgement call whenever both candidates support unrestricted abortion on demand.

 

[Crossbones]

From the guide:

1. Aided by the virtue of prudence in the exercise of well-formed consciences, Catholics are called to make practical judgments regarding good and evil choices in the political arena.
2. There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called “intrinsically evil” actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. In our nation, “abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.

ALWAYS must be opposed…

Stopped a paragraph too soon.

From the guide:
23. Similarly, direct threats to the sanctity and dignity of human life, such as
human cloning and destructive research on human embryos, are also intrinsically
evil. These must always be opposed. Other direct assaults on innocent human
life and violations of human dignity, such as genocide, torture, racism, and the
targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war, can never be justified.

There’s that torture thingy.

And then there’s this:

1. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable
   position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.
   Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to
   advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental
   moral evil.

So, it seems like someone can vote for someone who supports an intrinsic evil over someone who supports other morally grave concerns.

It seems like if the Bishops’ intention was that someone should never vote for a candidate that supports abortion, they would have been more clear. But they weren’t.

 

[ishii]

You are correct. Party is irrelevant. It is what the candidate stands for that we must look at.

I think party is relevant - how can someone who is pro-life belong to the party which is joined at the hip with the abortion lobby and elected the most pro-abortion president in history? It doesn’t seem consistent. Would voting for a “pro-life” Democrat senator who would guarantee a pro-abortion majority in the Senate be, in the end, a pro-life voting decision? Do we want to empower Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi?

Ishii

 

[phil19034]

In a situation like I described, it comes down to one prudential judgement. Each individual would have to look at the democrat and republican candidate to see who is more pro-life and that is always going to be a judgement call whenever both candidates support unrestricted abortion on demand.

In the State of Pennsylvania, our state pro life organization does a lot of research on voting patterns and if they defend party leadership who is pro abortion.

I assume many states have this. I use it when voting to make sure the republican are Pro Life and if the dem is pro life, how they shape up on other pro life issues.

Sometimes, sometimes pro life Dems are ok with stem cell research, etc.

Look - I would love to be able to vote for a Democrat. There was a time when most of the Bishops were Democrats. Archbishop Chaput used to be a democrat before they became nationally anti-life.

In the US, we currently do not have a party that 100% matches up to Catholic moral and social teaching. But in general, Republican Party is currently the one that defends the right to life for the innocent. While in general, the Dems only defend the right to life for the guilty.

Both are important, but defending the lives of the unborn and sick & elderly far exceeds that anything else.

Catholics have the ability to affect change in America, but only if we unite.

Plus… Today, how can Catholic defend a party who’s leaders are attacking the Catholic Church, by attempting to make nuns pay or birth control and attempting to force Catholic Hospitals & Colleges to provide abortions and birth control?

The Democratic Party used to be a safe place for Catholics, today it is nationally against all most everything the Magisterium teaches in regards to society and morality.

 

[ishii]

In a situation like I described, it comes down to one prudential judgement. Each individual would have to look at the democrat and republican candidate to see who is more pro-life and that is always going to be a judgement call whenever both candidates support unrestricted abortion on demand.

Of course its a judgement call. All of this involves judgement. All I am saying is, given how virulently pro-abortion the Democratic party is, should we give them more power? I mean, what good comes from giving them one or two token “pro-life” members when it empowers the other 98% which is pro-abortion?

I only make this argument because the urge on the part of so many Catholics who are dyed in the wool Democrats, to vote Democrat whenever possible and avoid voting Republican at all costs.

Ishii

 

[zz912]

Stopped a paragraph too soon.

From the guide:
23. Similarly, direct threats to the sanctity and dignity of human life, such as
human cloning and destructive research on human embryos, are also intrinsically
evil. These must always be opposed. Other direct assaults on innocent human
life and violations of human dignity, such as genocide, torture, racism, and the
targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war, can never be justified.

There’s that torture thingy.

And then there’s this:

1. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable
   position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.
   Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to
   advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental
   moral evil.

So, it seems like someone can vote for someone who supports an intrinsic evil over someone who supports other morally grave concerns.

It seems like if the Bishops’ intention was that someone should never vote for a candidate that supports abortion, they would have been more clear. But they weren’t.

There’s that claim that the GOP supports torture, or pretending that there are a bunch of torture-supporting GOP candidates. And it’s laughable that there is a comparison between the full-throated promotion of abortion by the DNC, with the result of over 1 MILLION baby murders EVERY YEAR, but some Democratic Catholics will hold on fiercely to the fact that exactly 3 mass-murdering terrorists were waterboarded a few times over a decade ago. They will use this as an excuse to continue voting for the promoters of the murder of 1 MILLION babies!!! Even though the waterboarding is ended and the people who authorized it are not on the ballot and not leading the party.

No, those portion you cited do NOT give license to vote for a Democrat, even one who claims to be “pro-life” but supports the pro-abortion party leadership.

 

[zz912]

You are correct. Party is irrelevant. It is what the candidate stands for that we must look at.

Absolutely disagree. You must consider both the candidate AND the party.

A candidate who claims to be “pro-life”, but supports and helps empower virulently pro-abortion leadership is NOT pro-life.

 

[bobcrawford]

there is no climate change except for the climate change that occurs four times a year called Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter.

This is all about wealth redistribution.

 

[InigoMontoya]

A candidate who claims to be “pro-life”, but supports and helps empower virulently pro-abortion leadership is NOT pro-life.

One could argue that neither is a candidate who claims to be “pro-life” and supports and helps a party with “pro-life” in their platform… but whom never acts upon it or devotes their time and resources on “pro-life” causes.

The argument that you’re attempting to make, ceases to hold weight without a conviction that the party is actually going to make a difference on the “pro-life” agenda. Unfortunately, some of us are far from convinced that the Republican party views “pro-life” as anything but a slogan to gain votes.

 

[ProVobis]

In a situation like I described, it comes down to one prudential judgement. Each individual would have to look at the democrat and republican candidate to see who is more pro-life and that is always going to be a judgement call whenever both candidates support unrestricted abortion on demand.

Good point.

I guess sometimes it’s a matter of who’s willing to pass the more restrictive measures against abortion. To me, willing to keep the status quo isn’t the sign of a bona fide pro-life candidate.

 

[InigoMontoya]

I guess sometimes it’s a matter of who’s willing to pass the more restrictive measures against abortion. To me, willing to keep the status quo isn’t the sign of a bona fide pro-life candidate.

Agreed

 

[Crossbones]

There’s that claim that the GOP supports torture, or pretending that there are a bunch of torture-supporting GOP candidates. And it’s laughable that there is a comparison between the full-throated promotion of abortion by the DNC, with the result of over 1 MILLION baby murders EVERY YEAR, but some Democratic Catholics will hold on fiercely to the fact that exactly 3 mass-murdering terrorists were waterboarded a few times over a decade ago. They will use this as an excuse to continue voting for the promoters of the murder of 1 MILLION babies!!! Even though the waterboarding is ended and the people who authorized it are not on the ballot and not leading the party.

No, those portion you cited do NOT give license to vote for a Democrat, even one who claims to be “pro-life” but supports the pro-abortion party leadership.

I guess I must be missing all the Republicans condemning waterboarding and the Iraq War. Well, it says something in the platform and that’s good enough for the Republican Catholics here. Bomb, bomb, bomb Iraq. I’m sure it could never, ever happen again. How many wars do you suppose a President McCain would have the US in? Iran, Syria, Libya, Syria again… I can’t keep track.

It’d be great if the Republicans would just repudiate the mistakes of President GW Bush, but they can’t bring themselves to do it.

And basically, you’ll excuse me if I don’t follow your incredibly narrow interpretation of the Voter’s Guide. It’s odd that the guide talks on basic needs such as food, shelter, health care, education and meaningful work, racism, unjust discrimination, use of torture, unjust wars, war crimes, immigration policy, but all that is to be ignored because abortion is the only issue that matters. Maybe you should petition to rewrite the voter’s guide to better match your views.

 

[ishii]

I guess I must be missing all the Republicans condemning waterboarding and the Iraq War. Well, it says something in the platform and that’s good enough for the Republican Catholics here. Bomb, bomb, bomb Iraq. I’m sure it could never, ever happen again. How many wars do you suppose a President McCain would have the US in? Iran, Syria, Libya, Syria again… I can’t keep track.

It’d be great if the Republicans would just repudiate the mistakes of President GW Bush, but they can’t bring themselves to do it.

And basically, you’ll excuse me if I don’t follow your incredibly narrow interpretation of the Voter’s Guide. It’s odd that the guide talks on basic needs such as food, shelter, health care, education and meaningful work, racism, unjust discrimination, use of torture, unjust wars, war crimes, immigration policy, but all that is to be ignored because abortion is the only issue that matters. Maybe you should petition to rewrite the voter’s guide to better match your views.

Just more excuses to vote for the pro abortion Democratic Party. I think zz912 correctly outlined the typical excuses catholics make to justify voting for the party which keeps legal the wholesale slaughter of the most vulnerable among us. Estesbob also points out that abortion will remain legal when enough catholics learn to hate abortion more than they hate the Republican Party.

Ishii

 

[lynnvinc]

1. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable
   position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.
   Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to
   advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental
   moral evil.

Looks like many are going to use this as a justification to vote for those who deny climate change and wittingly (or perhaps unwittingly) support human annihilation or massive genocide over the next 100s or 1000s of years through AGW and its knock on effects, not to mention from the other serious concomitant environmental harms those politicians also deny.