Pope Benedict XVI and voting pro-life

[vern_humphrey]

The link from the archbishop makes the point very well. This cycle we will not have a candidate who will support all of catholic teaching. That is one reason the Church in Her wisdom gives us moral theology. We need to reason correctly and not obfuscate.

You are quite right. Although I might point out that in this thread we are over-run with obfuscators.

And I’ll bet you a nickle none of them will give a simple yes or no answer to the question I proposed above.

 

[frankadams]

Originally Posted by frankadams forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Thank you for Archbishop Myers interpretation of the Holy Father’s statement regarding “proportionate reasons.” It is one of many intelligent, thoughtful interpretations of that statement. However, Archbishop Myers’ interpretation is not dogmatic nor doctrinal.

It does not have to be dogmatic to be true or binding on conscience.

You are correct. It can be true or binding on conscience and not dogmatic. So, kindly let me ask you: Is this interpretation of this particular Archbishop binding on the conscience of all Catholics?

 

[fix]

You are correct. It can be true or binding on conscience and not dogmatic. So, kindly let me ask you: Is this interpretation of this particular Archbishop binding on the conscience of all Catholics?

Is his explanation contrary to what the Vatican has said? He gave an explanation using specific examples. The moral reasoning he uses is accurate.

So, you ask is the teaching binding on all Catholics? He gave no new teaching he simply explained what the Church teaches already.

It is much like asking if the teaching on contraception is binding on all Catholics based on a local Bishop’s explanation.

 

[Dale_M]

When given a choice between to candidates; one who espouses the pro-life position (even if imperfectly) and one who espouses the pro-choice position, a Catholic cannot vote for the latter.

I don’t think it is quite that categorical. If the candidates are running for the Board of the Sanitary District, their positions are irrelevant to the decisions which they will be making.

If the candidates are running for the state legislature, pro-life positions are very much relevant… with the possible exception of abortion since that point is moot until the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. Voting for someone who is pro-life except on the abortion issue may be more important that voting for someone who is simply anti-abortion (and otherwise not pro-life) because the abortion is not actionable, but the other pro-life issues are.

If the candidates are running for President of the U.S… then, yes, I agree with your statement. The President appoints Supreme Court justices, and the ones he selects will determine how soon Roe is overridden.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I don’t think it is quite that categorical. If the candidates are running for the Board of the Sanitary District, their positions are irrelevant to the decisions which they will be making.

Only if one turns a blind eye to the results. The election of any pro-abortion candidate proves pro-abortion is a winning strategy. Higher level politicians depend on lower-level politicians for support. And low-level politicians build power bases to achieve higher office.

As a very knowledgeable horsewoman once told me, “Train them young. When they grow up, they’re much harder to handle.” The same holds true for politics – teach a politician he can’t win as a pro-abortion candidate in his first run for office.

If the candidates are running for the state legislature, pro-life positions are very much relevant… with the possible exception of abortion since that point is moot until the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. Voting for someone who is pro-life except on the abortion issue may be more important that voting for someone who is simply anti-abortion (and otherwise not pro-life) because the abortion is not actionable, but the other pro-life issues are.

Politicians who are pro-choice work to block attempts to limit abortion by laws, and in the Senate work to block pro-life judges at all levels.

If the candidates are running for President of the U.S… then, yes, I agree with your statement. The President appoints Supreme Court justices, and the ones he selects will determine how soon Roe is overridden.

 

[SoCalRC]

Let’s see, we’ve been called liars, schismatics and heretics, and anethema. All for advancing this simple proposition:

Actually, no. And I do not understand what you can possibly serve to accomplish by loudly proclaiming something people can disprove by simply scrolling.

You miss represented a statement by the Pope, and presented the miss representation as Church Doctrine.

I pointed out:

a) Both transgressions
b) The demonstrable fact that I have repeatedly provided you with a link to the actual Church Doctrine (in the form of a Doctrinal Note from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith)

Could I guess at your motives? Of course, but I can’t look in your heart and mind. You could have seen the document and just be lying or you could be too intellecutallly lazy to ever have even looked at what Rome actually has to say. For all I know you could be mentally ill or have a learning disability.

But all the chest puffing and bravado in the world does not change the fact that you were presenting false Church doctrine, despite many attempts at directing you to authoritative correction from Rome.

Again, I could guess at why you are not happy to have been stopped from leading Catholics astray. But I still can’t look in your heart and mind.

But I can’t help how the Church defines Heresy or Schism or how it calls for Anathema. If you present false doctrine, defy the Pope, or question his authority as Peter’s heir, they apply.

P.S. If you really care about your simple proposition - try reading the document. It covers appropriate application of ‘proportionality’ and the ‘limiting of harm’ in some detail.

 

[frankadams]

Originally Posted by frankadams forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
You are correct. It can be true or binding on conscience and not dogmatic. So, kindly let me ask you: Is this interpretation of this particular Archbishop binding on the conscience of all Catholics?

Is his explanation contrary to what the Vatican has said? He gave an explanation using specific examples. The moral reasoning he uses is accurate.

So, you ask is the teaching binding on all Catholics? He gave no new teaching he simply explained what the Church teaches already.

It is much like asking if the teaching on contraception is binding on all Catholics based on a local Bishop’s explanation.

I don’t believe your analogy stands. “Proportionate reasons” can be interpreted differently. In this case, the Archbishop provides and interpretation of what that means, rather than merely an “explanation.”


As you can easily see here on the forums, there are many interpretations here. A popular interpretation is what “cases of absolute necessity” (CCC 2267) means when it comes to capital punishment, as well as those cases being “rare if not practically non-existent.” (CCC 2267). I am not equating capital punishment to abortion. Abortion is a much graver evil. I am saying that there is room to interpret “proportionate reasons” in the same way that there is room to interpret “absolute necessity,” and that the Archbishop’s interpretation is not binding upon all Catholics.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Actually, no. And I do not understand what you can possibly serve to accomplish by loudly proclaiming something people can disprove by simply scrolling.

You miss represented a statement by the Pope, and presented the miss representation as Church Doctrine.

You’ve said it, now prove it.

Just exactly what words did I add or subtract from the Pope’s statement.

But I can’t help how the Church defines Heresy or Schism or how it calls for Anathema. If you present false doctrine, defy the Pope, or question his authority as Peter’s heir, they apply.

Who gave you the authority to say such a thing?

P.S. If you really care about your simple proposition - try reading the document. It covers appropriate application of ‘proportionality’ and the ‘limiting of harm’ in some detail.

Weave, duck and dodge – but never give a straight answer, eh?

 

[Ender]

I am saying that there is room to interpret “proportionate reasons” in the same way that there is room to interpret “absolute necessity,” and that the Archbishop’s interpretation is not binding upon all Catholics.

Regrettably I think you are correct; it is quite clear that not all bishops hold the same opinion as Archbishop Myers. I am befuddled as to why they don’t have the same understanding but if they did they would have said so in the November release of the Faithful Citizenship document. That letter danced around the issue. The bishops washed their hands on this one.

Ender

 

[goofyjim]

The difficulty as I see it is that there are no prolife candidates. There are anti abortion candidates but that is only a part of being prolife and will never satisfy the opposition. Unless we get a candidate who is prolife across the board we will always be accused of hypocrisy, and rightly so.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

The difficulty as I see it is that there are no prolife candidates. There are anti abortion candidates but that is only a part of being prolife and will never satisfy the opposition. Unless we get a candidate who is prolife across the board we will always be accused of hypocrisy, and rightly so.

This is what I’ve been trying to say.

 

[goofyjim]

This is what I’ve been trying to say.

I told you we think alike.

 

[Ridgerunner]

As a simple guy, I keep thinking that if all Catholics voted against all pro-abortion candidates in one election cycle…just once…it would free the Democrat party from its alliance with the abortion lobby. The party would never risk a disaster like that again, and would scurry to find some prolife candidates, no matter what the abortion lobby wanted. Money doesn’t help if you are going to lose anyway. And it would be a stern warning to the Republican party not to flirt with a pro-abortion stance in the future.

Then Catholics who would like to be Democrats for other reasons could feel free to support candidates, and wouldn’t have to agonize or rationalize voting for abortion supporters either.

 

[vern_humphrey]

As a simple guy, I keep thinking that if all Catholics voted against all pro-abortion candidates in one election cycle…just once…it would free the Democrat party from its alliance with the abortion lobby. The party would never risk a disaster like that again, and would scurry to find some prolife candidates, no matter what the abortion lobby wanted. Money doesn’t help if you are going to lose anyway. And it would be a stern warning to the Republican party not to flirt with a pro-abortion stance in the future.

Then Catholics who would like to be Democrats for other reasons could feel free to support candidates, and wouldn’t have to agonize or rationalize voting for abortion supporters either.

I have said over and over, to those who identify with the Democratic party, clean your up! Deny pro-abortion candidates the nomination (for any office) and don’t support them in the general election.

It won’t take long for them to get the message.

 

[goofyjim]

As a simple guy, I keep thinking that if all Catholics voted against all pro-abortion candidates in one election cycle…just once…it would free the Democrat party from its alliance with the abortion lobby. The party would never risk a disaster like that again, and would scurry to find some prolife candidates, no matter what the abortion lobby wanted. Money doesn’t help if you are going to lose anyway. And it would be a stern warning to the Republican party not to flirt with a pro-abortion stance in the future.

Then Catholics who would like to be Democrats for other reasons could feel free to support candidates, and wouldn’t have to agonize or rationalize voting for abortion supporters either.

But within the Republican party we need prolife candidates not just antiabortion ones. Or are you just ignoring my thinking here?

 

[vern_humphrey]

But within the Republican party we need prolife candidates not just antiabortion ones. Or are you just ignoring my thinking here?

A great fallacy is that if you cannot get a perfect candidate, you are free to vote for one even worse on the crucial issues.

Vote pro-life and save hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. End the abortion Holocaust, and then we can move on to other things. But there can be no such thing as social justice in a society that kills infants on an assembly line basis on mere whims.

 

[goofyjim]

A great fallacy is that if you cannot get a perfect candidate, you are free to vote for one even worse on the crucial issues.

Vote pro-life and save hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. End the abortion Holocaust, and then we can move on to other things. But there can be no such thing as social justice in a society that kills infants on an assembly line basis on mere whims.

And I didn’t say vote for a worse candidate. But we cannot settle on just an antiabortion candidate. We must seek to form a prolife candidate across the board. Ending abortion is just the beginning. Then we must end the death penalty and stupid wars where our men are dying unnecessarily. Only then will we be prolife.

 

[vern_humphrey]

And I didn’t say vote for a worse candidate. But we cannot settle on just an antiabortion candidate. We must seek to form a prolife candidate across the board.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the Candidate Fairy would bring us the Perfect Candidate?

But we are imperfect humans, and must work with the material we have at hand. Of course, if we were more proactive, we could recruit and back better candidates.

Ending abortion is just the beginning. Then we must end the death penalty and stupid wars where our men are dying unnecessarily. Only then will we be prolife.

If you do nothing to begin, you will never reach the end.

As for “stupid wars” where men “die unnecessarily” I point out that the men doing the actual fighting have a different opinion – but their mere experience, of course, doesn’t trump other people’s imagination.

 

[goofyjim]

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the Candidate Fairy would bring us the Perfect Candidate?

But we are imperfect humans, and must work with the material we have at hand. Of course, if we were more proactive, we could recruit and back better candidates.

If you do nothing to begin, you will never reach the end.

As for “stupid wars” where men “die unnecessarily” I point out that the men doing the actual fighting have a different opinion – but their mere experience, of course, doesn’t trump other people’s imagination.

Well I do start at the beginning and vote against abortion. But I will never be content to rest there. There must be some changes towards being more prolife. Maybe I’ll run.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well I do start at the beginning and vote against abortion. But I will never be content to rest there. There must be some changes towards being more prolife. Maybe I’ll run.

If more people took that position – do first things first, and then clean up lesser problems afterward, we’d be a lot farther ahead.