Sanders Thread

[Crossbones]

Again verifying the fact the only proportionate reason allowing one to vote for a pro abortion candiDate is if their opponent is more pro abortion than they are . As the numerous quotes and documents I have posted verify a vote for a pro abortion candidate is not in itself cooperation with evil unless there was a more pro-life available . How one can take the quotes you have given and translate them into saying a Catholic can support a pro abortion candidate if they think he is right on the “other issues” is beyond me

I don’t think that verifies that at all. I would think that the Bishop would have said something to the effect of “Oh, sure, it’s a slam dunk that you should not vote for the pro-choice candidate” when given the opportunity. Or that you have to weigh issues, when, in fact, in your interpretation, you don’t have to weigh issues at all.

In fact, I don’t understand how someone can read what the bishop said and come away with your interpretation of what he said. Can you please go through it and explain to me how it supports your view?

 

[estesbob]

I don’t think that verifies that at all. I would think that the Bishop would have said something to the effect of “Oh, sure, it’s a slam dunk that you should not vote for the pro-choice candidate” when given the opportunity. Or that you have to weigh issues, when, in fact, in your interpretation, you don’t have to weigh issues at all.

In fact, I don’t understand how someone can read what the bishop said and come away with your interpretation of what he said. Can you please go through it and explain to me how it supports your view?

What the Bishop said is there is a circumstance where one can vote for a pro-abortion . No one disputes that, In fact just about every quote have posted acknowledged this and spelled out the specific circumstance where it was accetable…

For example:

"You can never vote for someone who favors absolutely the right to choice of a woman to destroy a human life in her womb or the right to a procured abortion. " You may ,in some circumstances, where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country. But you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone.

Cardinal Edmund Burke

 

[Sy_Noe]

Just as there are Democrats who are hoping Trump get’s the nomination so that the GOP can now be labeled as a party of the extreme right, I’m hoping Sanders get’s the nomination so that the Democrats can be labeled as a party of the extreme left. Course’ in this day and age it might not make that much difference in the case of the latter.

FWIW as a Democrat I’m actually hoping for Cruz or Trump. I actually think Cruz would give the GOP the most far right label.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

FWIW as a Democrat I’m actually hoping for Cruz or Trump. I actually think Cruz would give the GOP the most far right label.

As an Independent who votes Democratic, I should hope for Trump, but I don’t know if I do. He’s just so unqualified, it’s hard to wish he wins the nomination even though either Sanders or Hillary would steamroll over him.

 

[Crossbones]

What the Bishop said is there is a circumstance where one can vote for a pro-abortion . No one disputes that, In fact just about every quote have posted acknowledged this and spelled out the specific circumstance where it was accetable…

For example:

"You can never vote for someone who favors absolutely the right to choice of a woman to destroy a human life in her womb or the right to a procured abortion. " You may ,in some circumstances, where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country. But you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone.

Cardinal Edmund Burke

Of course, the bishop did not say that there was only one circumstance where one could vote for pro-abortion candidate. In fact, he said that Catholics had to weigh a lot of issues and then refused the opportunity to call who to vote for a ‘slam dunk’. I don’t think you can come to the conclusion that the bishop is supporting the position that one cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate based on his comments. Can you explain to me how you come to that conclusion without quoting other people?

 

[Monkey1976]

I don’t think you can come to the conclusion that the bishop is supporting the position that one cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate based on his comments. Can you explain to me how you come to that conclusion without quoting other people?

What about this is so hard to understand?
Raymond Cardinal Burke:

But you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone.

Is there some new definition of “never justify” that I’ve somehow missed?

 

[Crossbones]

What about this is so hard to understand?Is there some new definition of “never justify” that I’ve somehow missed?

No, you’re just not following the conversation correctly. I was referring to Bishop Kicanas’ comments.

 

[estesbob]

Of course, the bishop did not say that there was only one circumstance where one could vote for pro-abortion candidate. In fact, he said that Catholics had to weigh a lot of issues and then refused the opportunity to call who to vote for a ‘slam dunk’. I don’t think you can come to the conclusion that the bishop is supporting the position that one cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate based on his comments. Can you explain to me how you come to that conclusion without quoting other people?

The bishop said there some cases you could vote for pro abortion candidate No one disputes that . You have to look at the teaching as a whole -you can’t just grab a random quote, give your personal interpreation of it, and claim that trumps the clear teaching of the rest of the magisterium and of the church

 

[estesbob]

What about this is so hard to understand?Is there some new definition of “never justify” that I’ve somehow missed?

Or 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.”

This guidance applies precisely to the question we hear most often from members of our two dioceses: “What if I reject a candidate’s stance in favor of legalized abortion but wish to vote for that candidate for other reasons?” In assessing whether such reasons would justify such a decision, we first observe that such reasons would certainly need to be not only morally grave but also proportionately grave — that is, equally serious or even more serious than abortion.

In other words, one would need to compare the gravity of abortion against the gravity of the other considerations. And making that comparison would necessarily involve examining just how serious abortion is in terms of its very nature and in terms of its impact on members of the human family. That means we must appreciate the difference in moral gravity between policies which are intrinsically unjust (e.g., abortion, euthanasia, and the deliberate destruction of human embryos) and policies involving prudential judgments about which people of good will may disagree concerning various means of promoting economic justice, public safety, and fair opportunities for every person. As paragraph 37 of the U.S. bishops’ statement explains, “(T)he moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions.”

Moreover, we must fully understand that so-called “abortion rights” deny the most fundamental human right (and hence all rights) to an entire class of people, and we must confront the almost incomprehensible fact that abortions extinguish the lives of nearly 4,000 children per day (and well over one million per year) in the United States alone.

Most Reverend Paul S. Loverde, Bishop of Arlington

 

[Crossbones]

The bishop said there some cases you could vote for pro abortion candidate No one disputes that . You have to look at the teaching as a whole -you can’t just grab a random quote, give your personal interpreation of it, and claim that trumps the clear teaching of the rest of the magisterium and of the church

Now, what the bishop said specifically is

“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.”

which suggests to me that a Catholic is to consider issues (plural), not a single issue and weigh them appropriately. He goes further to say “These are never easy choices.” again suggesting that no single issue should be the determining factor (after all, it would then be an easy choice then).

I do not think I am interpreting this any differently than those without a particular opinion or view on the topic would. He simply did not say what you want to say he said or say it in such a way to support your view on this matter.

 

[anon67074017]

What are the chances of the South seceding again if Bernie wins the general election?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Now, what the bishop said specifically is

“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.”

which suggests to me that a Catholic is to consider issues (plural), not a single issue and weigh them appropriately. He goes further to say “These are never easy choices.” again suggesting that no single issue should be the determining factor (after all, it would then be an easy choice then).

I do not think I am interpreting this any differently than those without a particular opinion or view on the topic would. He simply did not say what you want to say he said or say it in such a way to support your view on this matter.

 

[Little_Sheep]

Those are very good groups, I agree, probably the best. The people who join those groups usually receive much support.

And you are to be commended for your help and support and your sobriety. I hope it continues and wish you well in your work with others who are suffering.

Of course, no reasonable person would ever discount the service of this poster.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Now, what the bishop said specifically is

“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.”

which suggests to me that a Catholic is to consider issues (plural), not a single issue and weigh them appropriately. He goes further to say “These are never easy choices.” again suggesting that no single issue should be the determining factor (after all, it would then be an easy choice then).

I do not think I am interpreting this any differently than those without a particular opinion or view on the topic would. He simply did not say what you want to say he said or say it in such a way to support your view on this matter.

 

[estesbob]

Now, what the bishop said specifically is

“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.”

which suggests to me that a Catholic is to consider issues (plural), not a single issue and weigh them appropriately. He goes further to say “These are never easy choices.” again suggesting that no single issue should be the determining factor (after all, it would then be an easy choice then).

I do not think I am interpreting this any differently than those without a particular opinion or view on the topic would. He simply did not say what you want to say he said or say it in such a way to support your view on this matter.

Notice the parsing of words He said “issues” And there are never easy “choices” .And from
that we jump to " I can vote for a pro-abortion candidate if he right on the “other issues” It’s like people believe the church is writing in riddles and asking us to figure their teachings out . Of course this is, as Archbishop Chaput points out, the mental gymnastics necessary to vote to support evil . We have seen presented the words of exactly one member of the magisterium whose use of the plural with “issues” and "choices " supposedly trumps the teachings of every other member of the magisterium and the church . This bishop did not even hint what these other "issues " might be-in reality he was just affirming what we all know -it is a difficult choice to vote for a pro-abortion candidate even when his opponent is more pro-abortion than they are . However to refrain from voting for such a candidate cedes the political playing field to the culture of death . It is sad that people would try to twist this bishops sound advice in support for their own political agenda.

If one does find themselves confused by this bishops words I suggest they look at them in the context of the teachings of the church and the comments ,quotes and documents we have posted here

 

[Crossbones]

Notice the parsing of words He said “issues” And there are never easy “choices” .And from
that we jump to " I can vote for a pro-abortion candidate if he right on the “other issues” It’s like people believe the church is writing in riddles and asking us to figure their teachings out . Of course this is, as Archbishop Chaput points out, the mental gymnastics necessary to vote to support evil . We have seen presented the words of exactly one member of the magisterium whose use of the plural with “issues” and "choices " supposedly trumps the teachings of every other member of the magisterium and the church . This bishop did not even hint what these other "issues " might be-in reality he was just affirming what we all know -it is a difficult choice to vote for a pro-abortion candidate even when his opponent is more pro-abortion than they are . However to refrain from voting for such a candidate cedes the political playing field to the culture of death . It is sad that people would try to twist this bishops sound advice in support for their own political agenda.

If one does find themselves confused by this bishops words I suggest they look at them in the context of the teachings of the church and the comments ,quotes and documents we have posted here

Bishop Kicanas talks on the need to weigh issues when making a vote. Again, plural … more than one. As the bishop was talking about the Forming Consciences guide, we can infer that he was talking about the issues raised in that guide. And he talks about there are no easy choices, suggesting that some issues will have to be compromised no matter who a voter votes for.

I don’t think I am confused by the bishop’s words at all, nor do I think most people would be. He is clearly saying that there are a variety of issues that need to be examined and weighed upon when making a decision on who to vote for.

 

[estesbob]

Bishop Kicanas talks on the need to weigh issues when making a vote. Again, plural … more than one. As the bishop was talking about the Forming Consciences guide, we can infer that he was talking about the issues raised in that guide. And he talks about there are no easy choices, suggesting that some issues will have to be compromised no matter who a voter votes for.

I don’t think I am confused by the bishop’s words at all, nor do I think most people would be. He is clearly saying that there are a variety of issues that need to be examined and weighed upon when making a decision on who to vote for.

Again we are asked to “infer” what a single Bishop says and ignore the multitude of clear concise documents and statements that address this issue, like this one:

*Since abortion and euthanasia have been defined by the Church as the most serious sins prevalent in our society, what kind of reasons could possibly be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion? None of the reasons commonly suggested could even begin to be proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for such a candidate. Reasons such as the candidate’s position on war, or taxes, or the death penalty, or immigration, or a national health plan, or social security, or aids, or homosexuality, or marriage, or any similar burning societal issues of our time are simply lacking in proportionality.
*
Bishop Henry Gracida

Please tell us what issue Bernie Sanders supports that mitigates his support of abortion to such an extent a catholic can vote for him. Also please reference any member of the magestrium or Church documents who supports that view.

 

[J_Peterson]

I wonder, if a pro-choice politician get’s elected and ends up directly reducing abortion rates as a result of their policies, is it still a sin to vote for them? If a pro-life politician’s policies result in more abortions, is it a sin retroactively?

The Church expects us to think for ourselves and weigh options intelligently. We don’t lose our brain at baptism.

 

[estesbob]

I wonder, if a pro-choice politician get’s elected and ends up directly reducing abortion rates as a result of their policies, is it still a sin to vote for them? If a pro-life politician’s policies result in more abortions, is it a sin retroactively?

The Church expects us to think for ourselves and weigh options intelligently. We don’t lose our brain at baptism.

We are to weigh options intelligently-guided by the teachings of Holy Mother Church. You are right we dont lose our brain we are baptized but many seem to lose it when Church teaching conflicts with their political allegiances.

 

[mary_bobo]

We are to weigh options intelligently-guided by the teachings of Holy Mother Church. You are right we dont lose our brain we are baptized but many seem to lose it when Church teaching conflicts with their political allegiances.