Tis_Bearself
Patron
You’re right, thanks for the clarification.
- Status
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Unless your parents decided to vote for Mrs Clinton for the sole purpose of her views on abortion, they are fine.
The USCCB has provided wise guidance for all American Christians and they are clear, we are permitted to vote for candidates who hold views for things that are contrary to Church teaching as long as that is not the sole reason we are voting for them.
This could get super ugly, but, remember, Mr Trump also holds many views that are contrary to our Faith.
Some chose the “lesser of two evils”, some, like me, choose a third party. 3rd party votes are a valid option, as is, see the above linked document, deciding not to vote at all.
Don’t let some over zealous political folks make you feel that you or your parents sinned. Read what the Bishops say.
The USCCB has provided wise guidance for all American Christians and they are clear, we are permitted to vote for candidates who hold views for things that are contrary to Church teaching as long as that is not the sole reason we are voting for them.
This could get super ugly, but, remember, Mr Trump also holds many views that are contrary to our Faith.
Some chose the “lesser of two evils”, some, like me, choose a third party. 3rd party votes are a valid option, as is, see the above linked document, deciding not to vote at all.
Don’t let some over zealous political folks make you feel that you or your parents sinned. Read what the Bishops say.
Last edited:
M
midori
Guest
re: “revolution”, did you not read the Podesta emails when he got phished?
Newman (Voices for Progress) was communicating with the Clinton campaign chair (Podesta) in this email, for example. To save you a click, but it’s ugly due to the carats included from an email forward—
Newman (Voices for Progress) was communicating with the Clinton campaign chair (Podesta) in this email, for example. To save you a click, but it’s ugly due to the carats included from an email forward—
And Podesta answers back–
M
midori
Guest
and then Tara sez–
And so on.I did this thing at Brookings yesterday, with EJ (it was supposed also be with the bishops counsel but he bailed) and there was a lot of this. Though I agree with michael sheehan who I think said that the catholic church is not a democracy, if people want that they can become congregationalists, where the people in the pews matterFather thomas, from georgetown had one killer stat. One out of every 3 americans born catholic, leaves the catholic church. If that group of people formed one church it would be one of the largest (top 3) churches in the country. You know what all our catholic groups are missing? Deep serious theological thinking. They are organizing vessels - not engines of ideas. No one is more removed from heirarchy these days than the serious catholic scholars. There were some other good observations yesterday from lib catholics that are worth making it back to our friends.
J
Jimbo
Guest
From what I’ve read:
Voting for Hilary isn’t a sin, provided you aren’t voting for her in order to support her disgusting abortion views. Voting for her because you support abortion would be a sin because it is supporting an intrinsic evil, very grave act.
Voting for her because, on balance, you think that her opponent would bring about worse evils is acceptable.
Having said all that, it’s a fine line. IMHO too many people, right and left, in this country are soccer hooligans about their party. They jump onto Daily Beast or Breitbart and get their own views confirmed.
So a Democrat might just irrationally hate Trump, and a Republican might irrationally hate Hilary, and vote for their candidate because they are just very partisan. To me, that’s not a good enough reason to vote for someone who fully supports the dehumanization and unjust killing that make up abortion. Making that vote is more lazy factionalism.
Voting for a pro-choice person in a non sinful way would require, IMHO, that the opponent of the pro-choicer have some equally grave and numerous sin.
FWIW, I haven’t voted for either party (nationally) in years. The Republicans don’t seem to be all that fired up about protecting my rights or privacy in the face of large industry.
The Democrats are 100% disqualified because not only are they pro choice, but you can see with Hilary’s wanting to eliminate the Hyde amendment and Cuomo’s disgusting support of NY’s most recent abortion bill, that they are pro choice, anti baby zealots.
So folks like the American Solidarity party get my vote.
Voting for Hilary isn’t a sin, provided you aren’t voting for her in order to support her disgusting abortion views. Voting for her because you support abortion would be a sin because it is supporting an intrinsic evil, very grave act.
Voting for her because, on balance, you think that her opponent would bring about worse evils is acceptable.
Having said all that, it’s a fine line. IMHO too many people, right and left, in this country are soccer hooligans about their party. They jump onto Daily Beast or Breitbart and get their own views confirmed.
So a Democrat might just irrationally hate Trump, and a Republican might irrationally hate Hilary, and vote for their candidate because they are just very partisan. To me, that’s not a good enough reason to vote for someone who fully supports the dehumanization and unjust killing that make up abortion. Making that vote is more lazy factionalism.
Voting for a pro-choice person in a non sinful way would require, IMHO, that the opponent of the pro-choicer have some equally grave and numerous sin.
FWIW, I haven’t voted for either party (nationally) in years. The Republicans don’t seem to be all that fired up about protecting my rights or privacy in the face of large industry.
The Democrats are 100% disqualified because not only are they pro choice, but you can see with Hilary’s wanting to eliminate the Hyde amendment and Cuomo’s disgusting support of NY’s most recent abortion bill, that they are pro choice, anti baby zealots.
So folks like the American Solidarity party get my vote.
J
Jimbo
Guest
Is there a source or site for this? I’d be very interested in reading it.
M
midori
Guest
They’re posted two and three messages upthread. 
G
giuseppe96
Guest
Do you mean the Catholic Church in Sweden, or the Lutheran church?
A
Annie
Guest
Link: https://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfworthycom.htm
The relevant passage is the last paragraph, the Nota Bene:
[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]
The relevant passage is the last paragraph, the Nota Bene:
[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]
Last edited:
G
giuseppe96
Guest
Sorry, I forgot to provide a link:
G
Genesis315
Guest
The point of the government is to defend and advance the common good of its subjects within the bounds of the objective moral order. We should vote for whoever we think will do that best (not necessarily ideally). None of us are omniscient, so there will be disagreement as to what measures best serve the circumstances.
The common good is defined as “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.”(CCC 1906).
Again, there is often plenty of room for disagreement on what measure best serve this purpose. Whether the common good would be better served by funds being expended on a new road or for something else is an example where people might differ on an analysis of the facts. On a hot button issue of our time, there are circumstances where different criteria for admission of immigrants or allowing more or less in at a given time might better serve the common good (cf. CCC 2241)–people might disagree on what’s best for that given time, again, since none are omniscient.
Most political issues are like that–politics, at its best, should be about the process of reaching the best conclusion in such cases. The problem with abortion is that it is always by its very nature an attack on the common good since by definition it excludes a large class of people from the basic protections necessary for them to reach their fulfillment, by not even allowing them to be born alive in the first place. That’s something that needs to be taken into account when deciding who would best serve the common good.
Certainly the personality of an elected official has some impact on the common good, since powerful people tend to be personally influential even outside of their official acts. But I imagine it usually has less impact than their official acts do–but, it does deserve some consideration.
The common good is defined as “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.”(CCC 1906).
Again, there is often plenty of room for disagreement on what measure best serve this purpose. Whether the common good would be better served by funds being expended on a new road or for something else is an example where people might differ on an analysis of the facts. On a hot button issue of our time, there are circumstances where different criteria for admission of immigrants or allowing more or less in at a given time might better serve the common good (cf. CCC 2241)–people might disagree on what’s best for that given time, again, since none are omniscient.
Most political issues are like that–politics, at its best, should be about the process of reaching the best conclusion in such cases. The problem with abortion is that it is always by its very nature an attack on the common good since by definition it excludes a large class of people from the basic protections necessary for them to reach their fulfillment, by not even allowing them to be born alive in the first place. That’s something that needs to be taken into account when deciding who would best serve the common good.
Certainly the personality of an elected official has some impact on the common good, since powerful people tend to be personally influential even outside of their official acts. But I imagine it usually has less impact than their official acts do–but, it does deserve some consideration.
Last edited:
E
Emedan
Guest
Lutheran Church which was state church at the time (up to 2000)
J
JamalChristophr
Guest
Yeah, I suppose you are right. I’m not political at all really, so I had not thought it through well.
I do spend a lot of time around some highly pro-life Catholics, so the thought of voting for Hillary Clinton is somewhat anathema.
I do spend a lot of time around some highly pro-life Catholics, so the thought of voting for Hillary Clinton is somewhat anathema.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
i spend time around everybody and there are just as many Catholics who think voting for Trump is anathema because of what they perceive as his disregard for the illegal immigrants and his treatment of women in the past. There are also a lot of immigrants of dubious status in the Catholic communities where I worship who are in genuine fear of immigration authorities showing up at their door to drag Daddy or Mommy away.
When the election results were announced, I was on a large Catholic pilgrimage flying to Portugal. When the plane landed and everybody went for their phone and saw the results, some of the pilgrimage members were rejoicing and some of them were sitting there trying not to say what they really felt because it would have been super negative.
When the election results were announced, I was on a large Catholic pilgrimage flying to Portugal. When the plane landed and everybody went for their phone and saw the results, some of the pilgrimage members were rejoicing and some of them were sitting there trying not to say what they really felt because it would have been super negative.
Last edited:
O
OnAJourney
Guest
Just on principle I couldn’t vote for Hillary, knowing all the corruption surrounding her and all the connections to Wall Street is something I can’t ignore. Come next year I have absolutely no idea who I’ll vote for
Tis_Bearself
Patron
My husband didn’t want to vote at all, which was weird because he thought doing his civic duty in all things was of great importance, both from a citizenship standpoint and a Christian standpoint. I had to talk him into going and casting a vote. I told him it didn’t matter if he ended up just writing in Bugs Bunny (I had a former friend who wrote in Bugs or Daffy Duck for every Presidential election) but he had to go cast a vote.
Last edited:
O
OnAJourney
Guest
I may end up spoiling my ballet and writing in Theodore Roosevelt or something like that. I’m not liking any of the options for the election so far
J
JamalChristophr
Guest
I suppose I tend to follow the lesser of two evil’s principle when it comes to politics and many other things. It makes choosing the relatively greater good possible. Though I’m extremely apolitical to a great fault, I like seeing the two new supreme court justices that have been appointed by the President.
O
OnAJourney
Guest
I think the reason we had the choices we did last time is because we view things through the lens of lesser of two evils. I think we’ve given up on striving for our ideals and holding our politicians accountable.
J
Jimbo
Guest
Thank you!
Last edited:
- Status