Sanders Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter SuperLuigi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lynnvinc said:
I think those voting for anti-environmentalists (like Trump and esp Cruz) would be committing by far the larger sin.

To me it isn’t what the candidates believe or “know” – such as Cruz saying he doesn’t believe that climate change is real, ergo it is okay to vote for him. Or, him saying if we pass anti-abortion laws that will end abortion, ergo it is good to vote for him.

It is more a matter of what the voter knows and understands.

I know laws against abortion will not end and may not even reduce abortion (I was a young woman in the 60s when abortion was illegal, and I knew well what was going on then).

And I know climate change and other serious environmental problems are killing and harming people and will continue to do so, and exponentially so, on into the future for 1000s of years annihilating a large portion of humanity, unless we work very hard starting yesterday (as Sanders says) to mitigate these problems – and even then at this very late point we can only hope to cut the losses.

I know what the larger threat to life on planet earth is. I vote my conscience. Then I go to confession, just in case my reasoning was flawed and my knowledge was wrong in some way. I suggest those voting Republican do the same.
Click to expand...
There is more than enough evidence to show the global warming movement is an out and out scam. If it was not a scam, they would not have changed the terminology from global warming to climate change.

It truly is unreal what I am seeing right before my eyes. You think I am compared to mccarthyism when I have offered up more than enough evidence to show the left wing socialist / communist leanings.

The climate changel movement is a global redistribution socialist movement. That is it and that is all.

You compare that to the murder and butchering of thousands of babies on a daily basis?

Just unreal what is happening. Want me to list all of the predictions the global warmers have gotten wrong? Want me to show the facts about abortion?

Some of you would probably have a problem with him meeting Trump but have no problem when the pope meets the Castros?

Btw, is anyone going to list the socialist country that has no poor people? Why is it that you believe socialism is so great for the poor? Please explain.

If it is, then why are so many poor people from socialist countries desperate to get to America? Why are poor people desperately trying to escape America?

Truly unreal.
 
CatholicKnight3 said:
There is more than enough evidence to show the global warming movement is an out and out scam. If it was not a scam, they would not have changed the terminology from global warming to climate change.

It truly is unreal what I am seeing right before my eyes. You think I am compared to mccarthyism when I have offered up more than enough evidence to show the left wing socialist / communist leanings.

The climate changel movement is a global redistribution socialist movement. That is it and that is all.

You compare that to the murder and butchering of thousands of babies on a daily basis?

Just unreal what is happening. Want me to list all of the predictions the global warmers have gotten wrong? Want me to show the facts about abortion?

Some of you would probably have a problem with him meeting Trump but have no problem when the pope meets the Castros?

Btw, is anyone going to list the socialist country that has no poor people? Why is it that you believe socialism is so great for the poor? Please explain.

If it is, then why are so many poor people from socialist countries desperate to get to America? Why are poor people desperately trying to escape America?

Truly unreal.
Click to expand...
Still, I suggest you go to confession after your vote, as I do, just in case you are wrong.
 
estesbob said:
Party is irrelevant. You can’t vote for a pro-abortion candidate regardless of their party affiliation As a cradle Democrat I can not tell you how much it saddens me that the once great Democrat party has so embraced the culture of death it is difficult to find one you can vote for, at least on a national level.
Click to expand...
Of course, it bears repeating that this a Catholic cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate is not in the USCCB’s Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship document. It seems like we are called to consider a variety of issues including abortion.
 
I will never vote democrat, ever.

And there are toxins ruining our environment that are promoted by democrats - artificial hormones that are in the form of the pill.

I’m not anti environment. I just think we need to look at getting factory farms shut down and assisting more organic farms. Less toxins are better for everyone. Cleaner meat that has normal behaviors and grass fed or pasture raised and not given antibiotics and hormones is also better for the environment. Does Bernie support that? Or does he just want more taxes on the so called "evil rich"and “free tuition” which really isn’t free because tax payers are paying for it with high taxes. And those countries so-called free tuition? They also pay high sales tax. The poor would suffer the most if we had that happen.
 
meltzerboy said:
Sanders describes himself as a democratic socialist and emphasizes the word democratic. Does that make a difference?

Anyhow, I don’t think labels are all that important nowadays. It’s the policies of the candidates, both past and present, that we should examine.
Click to expand...
Socialism is always bad. It does not make a difference if it is democratic or not.
 
Crossbones said:
Of course, it bears repeating that this a Catholic cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate is not in the USCCB’s Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship document. It seems like we are called to consider a variety of issues including abortion.
Click to expand...
Which is why we rely on the direct teachings of members of the Magestrium and not ones personal interpretation of a USCCB document
 
estesbob said:
Which is why we rely on the direct teachings of members of the Magestrium and not ones personal interpretation of a USCCB document
Click to expand...
Of course, everyone should read the document and decide for themselves.

Here is the teaching of Bishop Kicalas from an interview (priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/kicanas-synod.htm):🙂

Interviewer: If I’m hearing you correctly, you’re saying that for a Catholic who wants to approach his or her vote in three weeks with the mind of the church, it’s not a slam-dunk which way that vote should go. Is that right?

Bishop Kicalas: Yes, and I think that’s what “Faithful Citizenship” is saying. As a disciple, as a citizen, you have to weigh issues, you have to consider the character of candidates, what you think they will be able to do in terms of affecting the society and the culture in which we live. Clearly, the document is saying that to vote for someone who is proposing actions that are intrinsically evil, because of their position on those intrinsically evil acts, is certainly problematic for someone who is a believer in Christ. You don’t believe in Christ and then vote for a person simply, or primarily, because they hold a position that’s contrary to the church. You have to take those positions into consideration, and then make a choice. These are never easy choices
 
Crossbones said:
Of course, everyone should read the document and decide for themselves.

Here is the teaching of Bishop Kicalas from an interview (priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/kicanas-synod.htm):🙂

Interviewer: If I’m hearing you correctly, you’re saying that for a Catholic who wants to approach his or her vote in three weeks with the mind of the church, it’s not a slam-dunk which way that vote should go. Is that right?

Bishop Kicalas: Yes, and I think that’s what “Faithful Citizenship” is saying. As a disciple, as a citizen, you have to weigh issues, you have to consider the character of candidates, what you think they will be able to do in terms of affecting the society and the culture in which we live. Clearly, the document is saying that to vote for someone who is proposing actions that are intrinsically evil, because of their position on those intrinsically evil acts, is certainly problematic for someone who is a believer in Christ. You don’t believe in Christ and then vote for a person simply, or primarily, because they hold a position that’s contrary to the church. You have to take those positions into consideration, and then make a choice. These are never easy choices
Click to expand...
Where does he say it is licit for a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate? I have posted over a dozen quotes from members of the Magestrium that says it is not.
 
estesbob said:
Where does he say it is licit for a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate? I have posted over a dozen quotes from members of the Magestrium that says it is not.
Click to expand...
He would have given a very different answer to the question if you couldn’t.
 
estesbob said:
Where does he say it is licit for a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate? I have posted over a dozen quotes from members of the Magestrium that says it is not.
Click to expand...
Right here.

He says it is only problematic to vote for a candidate who proposes intrinsic evil if the Catholic voter does so primarily because of the candidate’s position on an intrinsic evil. But Catholics are to consider issues (ending in an “s” means plural) along with a candidate’s character and ability to actually affect anything. Then make a choice of which there are never easy ones.

“Yes, and I think that’s what “Faithful Citizenship” is saying. As a disciple, as a citizen, you have to weigh issues, you have to consider the character of candidates, what you think they will be able to do in terms of affecting the society and the culture in which we live. Clearly, the document is saying that to vote for someone who is proposing actions that are intrinsically evil, because of their position on those intrinsically evil acts, is certainly problematic for someone who is a believer in Christ. You don’t believe in Christ and then vote for a person simply, or primarily, because they hold a position that’s contrary to the church. You have to take those positions into consideration, and then make a choice. These are never easy choices.”

He also says in regard to if there is consensus in the conference on whether a pro-choice vote amounts to formal cooperation, "No, I’m sure there isn’t. "

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/kicanas-synod.htm
 
Sy_Noe said:
Right here.

He says it is only problematic to vote for a candidate who proposes intrinsic evil if the Catholic voter does so primarily because of the candidate’s position on an intrinsic evil. But Catholics are to consider issues (ending in an “s” means plural) along with a candidate’s character and ability to actually affect anything. Then make a choice of which there are never easy ones.

“Yes, and I think that’s what “Faithful Citizenship” is saying. As a disciple, as a citizen, you have to weigh issues, you have to consider the character of candidates, what you think they will be able to do in terms of affecting the society and the culture in which we live. Clearly, the document is saying that to vote for someone who is proposing actions that are intrinsically evil, because of their position on those intrinsically evil acts, is certainly problematic for someone who is a believer in Christ. You don’t believe in Christ and then vote for a person simply, or primarily, because they hold a position that’s contrary to the church. You have to take those positions into consideration, and then make a choice. These are never easy choices.”

He also says in regard to if there is consensus in the conference on whether a pro-choice vote amounts to formal cooperation, "No, I’m sure there isn’t. "

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/kicanas-synod.htm
Click to expand...
👍

Keep fighting for the right to vote for the candidate of choice, Sy! Great post!
 
Anti-socialist seems to be a very US problem Here in Europe Catholics have no problem voting socialist - in fact many Socialists elected to European parliaments are Catholic. US Catholics do seem to me to have a different more narrow view of Catholicism than those Catholics in Europe and South America. Catholics are far less politically polarised in these continents.
 
estesbob said:
Which is why we rely on the direct teachings of members of the Magestrium and not ones personal interpretation of a USCCB document
Click to expand...
Bob, your patience in explaining this is admirable. Keep up the good fight!
 
estesbob said:
Where does he say it is licit for a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate? I have posted over a dozen quotes from members of the Magestrium that says it is not.
Click to expand...
First of all, no one ever says they are “pro-abortion,” rather they frame it as “pro-choice.” It is possible for a person to be against abortion, but “pro-choice” – I ran into those types when I was out campaigning for Democrat Ellen McCormack (anti-abortion platform) in 1976. At least some understood that pushing women out into back alley abortions was harmful not only to the baby but also to the woman. I did know a couple of women who nearly bled to death circa 1965.

On the other hand, this label “pro-life” that people take on for themselves when they have no concern at all about their participation of wiping out life on earth thru environmental harms, etc. is a misnomer. They might be “anti-abortion,” but they don’t really seem to care about life or killing people.
 
lynnvinc said:
First of all, no one ever says they are “pro-abortion,” rather they frame it as “pro-choice.” It is possible for a person to be against abortion, but “pro-choice” – I ran into those types when I was out campaigning for Democrat Ellen McCormack (anti-abortion platform) in 1976. At least some understood that pushing women out into back alley abortions was harmful not only to the baby but also to the woman. I did know a couple of women who nearly bled to death circa 1965.

On the other hand, this label “pro-life” that people take on for themselves when they have no concern at all about their participation of wiping out life on earth thru environmental harms, etc. is a misnomer. They might be “anti-abortion,” but they don’t really seem to care about life or killing people.
Click to expand...
Just unreal. I love how you all imply republicans are “against the environment.”

While you claim someone who is pro choice is not “really for abortion.”

I am done reading your posts.
 
Sy_Noe said:
Right here.

He says it is only problematic to vote for a candidate who proposes intrinsic evil if the Catholic voter does so primarily because of the candidate’s position on an intrinsic evil. But Catholics are to consider issues (ending in an “s” means plural) along with a candidate’s character and ability to actually affect anything. Then make a choice of which there are never easy ones.

“Yes, and I think that’s what “Faithful Citizenship” is saying. As a disciple, as a citizen, you have to weigh issues, you have to consider the character of candidates, what you think they will be able to do in terms of affecting the society and the culture in which we live. Clearly, the document is saying that to vote for someone who is proposing actions that are intrinsically evil, because of their position on those intrinsically evil acts, is certainly problematic for someone who is a believer in Christ. You don’t believe in Christ and then vote for a person simply, or primarily, because they hold a position that’s contrary to the church. You have to take those positions into consideration, and then make a choice. These are never easy choices.”

He also says in regard to if there is consensus in the conference on whether a pro-choice vote amounts to formal cooperation, "No, I’m sure there isn’t. "

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/kicanas-synod.htm
Click to expand...
This is what two Bishops, Bishop Kevin W. Vann and Kevin J. Farrell say in this letter regarding Faithful Citizenship:
  1. Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, in paragraphs 34 – 37, addresses the question of whether is is morally permissible for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil – even when the voter does not agree with the candidate’s position on that evil. The only moral possibilities for a Catholic to be able to vote in good conscience for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil are the following:
Click to expand...
If both candidates running for office support abortion or “abortion rights,” a Catholic would be forced to then look at the other important issues and through their vote try to limit the evil done; or,
If another intrinsic evil outweighs the evil of abortion. While this is sound moral reasoning, there are no “truly grave moral” or “proportionate” reasons, singularly, or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year.
To vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion or “abortion rights” when there is a morally acceptable alternative would be to cooperate in the evil – and, therefore, is morally impermissible.
Click to expand...
jeffdodson.com/2008/11/02/catholics-and-voting/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top