Pope’s climate views press Catholic candidates

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
estesbob said:
If all those who claimed to be pro-life had voted for Romney he would have won. we don’t bring about change by throwing our votes away on unviable canidates in order to make ourselves feel “good”
Click to expand...
If all those in my state who were pro-life voted for Romney he still would have lost. I knew that voting for Romney was a waste and he wasn’t even pro-life anyway. There is nothing that says we have to vote for a pro-abortion candidate who has no chance of winning.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
If all those in my state who were pro-life voted for Romney he still would have lost. I knew that voting for Romney was a waste and he wasn’t even pro-life anyway. There is nothing that says we have to vote for a pro-abortion candidate who has no chance of winning.
Click to expand...
Swing states.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The quote of mine that you quoted was not directed to you and was not about you. So I certainly could not be misrepresenting you.
Click to expand...
Really?
ishii said:
If by “ideal candidate” you mean Virgil Goode or some other 3rd party “true believer” candidate with absolutely NO chance to stop the infanticide policies of Barack Obama / Democrats then YES it is meaningless as a pro-life strategy.

Ishii
Click to expand...
LeafByNiggle said:
Then, staying with the consequentialism theme, why isn’t praying the rosary a meaningless gesture? It does not add a single vote to the Romney column, nor take away a single vote from the Obama column. And the time you spend praying the rosary you could have spent out there campaigning for Romney.
Click to expand...
Ishii
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Your analogy is inadequate because it fails to represent a key characteristic of this decision: You cannot vote for both Romney and Goode. Whereas you can both pray and take actions for a safe trip.
Click to expand...
Nor can you both hide under your bed to stay 100% safe, and still get to your destination.

It still stands that voting for Goode was like hiding under the bed. Voting for Romney was taking a chance or two but still having a chance to get to your destination (or get closer).

Ishii
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I agree with you. That is why I don’t think praying the rosary is a meaningless gesture, and I don’t think voting for an ideal candidate who has little chance in the polls is a meaningless gesture.
Click to expand...
But the latter is only a gesture, whereas the former is a good deal more than that.
 
ishii said:
It still stands that voting for Goode was like hiding under the bed. Voting for Romney was taking a chance or two but still having a chance to get to your destination (or get closer).

Ishii
Click to expand...
My father was pure Irish. Not only was he Irish, he was the son of Irish who left Ireland when Ireland was still the Ireland of Irish lore. He wasn’t a violent man; far from it. But his dictum was “when you’re right, don’t fight until they knock you down, fight until they knock you out and you can’t fight anymore.”

For simplistic me, the party that puts abortion on demand in its platform and is dedicated to abortion in every way (and to which I once belonged) is in pursuit of evil. And if I do not fight them in every way that’s even remotely effective, I have failed in my duty to fight evil. I have, by my inaction, willingly allowed it to thrive and succeed.

And so, if Romney was even prolife because he would lose his constituency if he wasn’t, voting for him was a vote against the absolutely certain promoters of abortion. He wasn’t my first choice, or even my second, and I have never been a Republican. But I voted for him all the same because he was the only one who could have possibly defeated the candidate of death.

And I would do it again.
 
As a Catholic, I wouldn’t look to any ideological politician from the left or right for spiritual advice. While I can’t help but wonder why Bush and Santorum chose to speak publicly in opposition to a papal encyclical, I think that they did so was pure politics and as politics was a distancing of themselves from the teachings of the Pope. And since I believe it is only politics, I really don’t care what they have to say about the encyclical.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The difference is easy. When Rick Santorum speaks out on climate change, he is not speaking as a representative of the Church. He is speaking out as a layperson giving his own opinion, and everyone knows that. When the Pope speaks out on climate change, even if he is speaking for himself, many people will interpret that to mean he is speaking authoritatively for the Church.
Click to expand...
Exactly, he does not speak for most Catholics, I think. Rick Santorum probably needs to keep his comments about the Vicar of Christ to himself. Someone advised me today that Santorum was a self reported Catholic, I thought not because he is not prolife (he’s pro death penalty) along with his attacks on the poor and underprivileged. I will pray for him.
 
Ridgerunner said:
But the latter is only a gesture, whereas the former is a good deal more than that.
Click to expand...
Actually, I can support a vote for a seemingly non-viable candidate on the grounds of outcome too, just like everybody else is doing.

Popularity of a candidate or a movement spreads from year to year and from election to election. If no one votes for an independent this election, when the next election comes voters will look back at the previous election to see that party X didn’t get more than a token number of votes, so they are more likely to avoid voting for an independent candidate this time too. But if people vote their best conscience this election, even if they lose, they will raise awareness of the candidate, or the movement that candidate stands for. Eventually popularity grows to the point where the previously non-viable party or movement or candidate becomes a serious contender, and may eventually win.

On the other hand, if everyone votes only for candidates that are polling at least 30%, we could be doomed to an infinite succession of mediocre candidates and never outlaw abortion.

Every candidate is viable in the sense that they could get elected if enough people voted that way. Assuming that not enough others will vote the best way is to give in to despair, and seems very contrary to the sense of Catholic tradition. What chance did the 1st century Christians have of growing their tiny movement to eventually become the official religion of the Roman Empire? But they did not listen to the despair of what seemed humanly impossible. They had faith. It only looks inevitable to us because we look back on those events as history. But to the Christians who lived through that era, things had to have looked pretty hopeless. If they had given in only to what was “good enough” and compromised on some of their principles to avoid raising the ire of Rome, that would not have been the Church that the Holy Spirit was inspiring.
 
ishii said:
That tells me that many Democrats would prefer an alternative to Hillary. It is not a given that she will win the general. Perhaps some view her as too risky considering all the scandals. The Democrats seem to have put all their money on Hillary.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Bernie Sanders supported the Pope message. It appears that Bernie Sanders views are much closer to Catholic teaching that others (republican and dems).
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Once again, by focusing only on the outcome you are buying into the doctrine of consequentialism, hook, line, and sinker.
Click to expand...
So we cannot consider the consequences of our actions, lest we fall hook line and sinker into the dreaded doctrine of “consequensialism” ? Or is this only when judging a meaningless 3rd party candidate?

Ishii
 
seaton2005 said:
Bernie Sanders supported the Pope message. It appears that Bernie Sanders views are much closer to Catholic teaching that others (republican and dems).
Click to expand...
How so? Does Sanders believe in the principle of subsidiarity? As a socialist, I’m guessing he doesn’t. Probably not on social issues. What views of Sanders are in line with Church teaching? Or are you just talking about environment / climate change?

Ishii
 
ishii said:
So we cannot consider the consequences of our actions, lest we fall hook line and sinker into the dreaded doctrine of “consequensialism” ? Or is this only when judging a meaningless 3rd party candidate?

Ishii
Click to expand...
See my post #673. I can play the consequentialism game too.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
See my post #673. I can play the consequentialism game too.
Click to expand...
I went back and read the post. Do you play the lottery too - instead of saving your money and working at a job? Somebody has to win, right? Certainly the early Christians faced long odds too, right?

Of course not.

The fact remains, LeafByNiggle, that Romney was the most viable, pro-life candidate available. We will never know what kind of difference he could have made which is too bad. We need to make choices, not hide under the bed in a fit of over scrupulosity.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
How so? Does Sanders believe in the principle of subsidiarity? As a socialist, I’m guessing he doesn’t. Probably not on social issues. What views of Sanders are in line with Church teaching? Or are you just talking about environment / climate change?

Ishii
Click to expand...
Sanders might very well believe in the principle of positive subsidiarity, i.e., the ethical imperative for institutional, communal and governmental action to create the social conditions necessary for the full development of the person–decent housing, health care, right to work. For that matter, I’m not so sure the papal encyclical isn’t in line with this very concept, inasmuch as it views climate change and other environmental damage as detrimental to the development of individuals.
 
The fact remains, LeafByNiggle, that Romney was the most viable, pro-life candidate available. We will never know what kind of difference he could have made which is too bad. We need to make choices, not hide under the bed in a fit of over scrupulosity.
Click to expand...
If you’re not first you’re last. Besides, at least Obama only bombed Libya and armed the Syria rebels. Romney came off sounding like he would have invaded the entire Middle East.
 
Thomas_White said:
Sanders might very well believe in the principle of positive subsidiarity, i.e., the ethical imperative for institutional, communal and governmental action to create the social conditions necessary for the full development of the person–decent housing, health care, right to work. For that matter, I’m not so sure the papal encyclical isn’t in line with this very concept, inasmuch as it views climate change and other environmental damage as detrimental to the development of individuals.
Click to expand...
But, being a socialist Sanders would defer to the larger government authority - in violation of the principle of subsidiarity. Hard to imagine a socialist conforming to the principle of subsidiarity. In fact, he is a hard core secular leftist - and therefore incompatible with the teachings of the Catholic church.

Ishii
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top