Sanders Thread

[anon67074017]

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.

That is one reason why socialism has a stronger foothold in Europe.

 

[_Abyssinia]

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

Per Archbishop Burke, it is remote material cooperation to vote for a candidate if you don’t vote for them because of their position supporting abortion if there are proportionate reasons, but as he says, “What is a proportionate reason to justify favoring the taking of an innocent, defenseless human life? And I just leave that to you as a question. That’s the question that has to be answered in your conscience. What is the proportionate reason?”

This is what Bishop Kevin W. Vann and Bishop 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:

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.

jeffdodson.com/2008/11/02/catholics-and-voting/

 

[Crossbones]

This is what Bishop Kevin W. Vann and Bishop Kevin J. Farrell say in this letter regarding Faithful Citizenship:

jeffdodson.com/2008/11/02/catholics-and-voting/

Then why wouldn’t the document just say that?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Then why wouldn’t the document just say that?

I can’t answer that question, but Bishop Vasa actually contributed to the Faithful Citizenship document and he said:

“When we were working on the document ‘Faithful Citizenship’, and the issue of whether or not a person’s adamant pro-abortion position was a disqualifying condition, the general sense was ‘yes that is a disqualifying condition’.”

lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-vasa-pro-abortion-candidates-are-disqualified-clarifies-faithful-cit

He discussions proportionate reasons in that article.

He had also said:

“The document does not say, for instance, that it is just fine to vote for a pro-abortion candidate as long as one votes for that candidate only because of his or her stand on other important social issues,” he wrote. “Casting a vote, even for reasons other than the candidate’s pro-abortion position, is still casting a vote for the preservation of ‘a legal system which violates the basic right to life.’”

He compared support for a candidate who supports keeping abortion legal to backing a candidate who vows to institute a program of genocide against a minority group or “an aggressive program of torture to root out crime, violence and terrorism in this country.”
“Just as a vote for a genocidal maniac is a vote for genocide and a vote for the avowed torturer is a vote for torture … so a vote for a promoter of abortion, when there is another less evil alternative, is a vote for abortion,” Bishop Vasa said.

nzcatholic.org.nz/2008/10/31/american-bishops-address-abortion-election-in-columns-statements

 

[Crossbones]

I can’t answer that question, but Bishop Vasa actually contributed to the Faithful Citizenship document and he said:

nzcatholic.org.nz/2008/10/31/american-bishops-address-abortion-election-in-columns-statements

I find it odd that Faithful Citizenship wouldn’t say that then. It seems like it could be much shorter if it said, well, we care about other issues, but there is no proportional reason not to vote for the pro-life candidate, so you should vote for the pro-life candidate. Bishop Kicalas suggests there is more to it than that.

 

[Sy_Noe]

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.

I don’t know but I wonder if you have possibly hit onto something here with your analysis. Maybe those US Catholics whose politics are Republican or lean conservative, such as many on this forum, and who tend to vote for like-minded candidates, have narrowed the view. It’s at least something to ponder.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I find it odd that Faithful Citizenship wouldn’t say that then. It seems like it could be much shorter if it said, well, we care about other issues, but there is no proportional reason not to vote for the pro-life candidate, so you should vote for the pro-life candidate. Bishop Kicalas suggests there is more to it than that.

Much shorter.

 

[Sy_Noe]

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.

 

[Crossbones]

I don’t know but I wonder if you have possibly hit onto something here with your analysis. Maybe those US Catholics whose politics are Republican or lean conservative, such as many on this forum, and who tend to vote for like-minded candidates, have narrowed the view. It’s at least something to ponder.

Two reasons:

1. Abortion is not an issue in Europe. Most European countries do not have politicians that do support the ‘right to choose.’ As such, there is not an issue that challenges Catholics to make a tough decision between two poor choices.
2. The Evangelical community has taken on the Republicans as their adapted political home. As such, you see the skewing of Christ’s teachings to support Republican views on economic policy or waging war instead of challenging them. Clearly, this community in the past has used their religion to support slavery, segregation and racism, so this is not a new phenomena. This has trickled into the Catholic community that refuses to see torture as torture and unjust wars as unjust wars.

 

[Crossbones]

Much shorter.

I know. It’s like some are claiming that the vast majority of the document is a distraction from its clear, underlying purpose that the only issue that matters is to vote for the pro-life politician. It’s like the Wizard of Oz.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

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.

Great post!

Those who are pro-choice usually don’t mind if no one ever has an abortion. They just don’t want to see women being butchered along with their child, or more likely, they feel the choice is the woman’s to make, along with her family, doctor, and faith leader.

I’ve seen many so-called pro-life persons who don’t give a hoot about life once the child is born. I used to call them “pro-birth,” but that seems derogatory, so I stick to pro-choice and anti-abortion now.

I do not personally believe in abortion, however, I do believe, under the US Constitution, it should be legal in the US. I do think the individual states have a right to prohibit abortion, however, but I don’t think that’s going to happen. Like Pope Paul VI, I believe it is contraceptives that ushered in the “culture of death,” a term coined by St. Pope JP II, and I don’t believe contraception is going to lose its hold on people of childbearing age. I know many Catholics who contracept and feel their families are better for it. I know Catholics who say if they did not contracept, they would abort, and these are Catholics who are looked at as “good” Catholics. They are not lapsed Catholics.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Thanks Lily but your posts are most helpful. I honestly just don’t understand what is so difficult about this to grasp.

I don’t see why possible “remote material cooperation with evil, at worst,” is so hard to understand, either, Sy. It’s something we all do on a daily basis. Sometimes we aren’t aware of it, e.g., we might buy a garment from a sweatshop in China, and sometimes we are, e.g., we refuse to give up our trendy Starbucks designer coffees.

I don’t think any president, of any party, in the history of the US, has attempted to force women to abort. Some posters act like Hillary and Bernie and maybe Trump would be pulling pregnant women off the streets and driving them to abortion clinics themselves. They wouldn’t, as you know.

As for Supreme Court justices, we just can’t predict what they’ll do. I don’t think this forum would have guessed a Repub. SC would have upheld Roe v Wade and PP v Casey or that abortions would decline under Obama, but such is the case.

 

[Tomdstone]

I know many Catholics who contracept and feel their families are better for it. I know Catholics who say if they did not contracept, they would abort, and these are Catholics who are looked at as “good” Catholics. They are not lapsed Catholics.

Is it still a mortal sin for a Roman Catholic to contracept, or has that rule been changed? I know that in the Eastern Orthodox Church, a priest might make exceptions under certain conditions, for example, if the married couple already has four children and are experiencing financial difficulties.

 

[Dwyer]

Great post!

Those who are pro-choice usually don’t mind if no one ever has an abortion. They just don’t want to see women being butchered along with their child, or more likely, they feel the choice is the woman’s to make, along with her family, doctor, and faith leader.

I’ve seen many so-called pro-life persons who don’t give a hoot about life once the child is born. I used to call them “pro-birth,” but that seems derogatory, so I stick to pro-choice and anti-abortion now.

I do not personally believe in abortion, however, I do believe, under the US Constitution, it should be legal in the US. I do think the individual states have a right to prohibit abortion, however, but I don’t think that’s going to happen. Like Pope Paul VI, I believe it is contraceptives that ushered in the “culture of death,” a term coined by St. Pope JP II, and I don’t believe contraception is going to lose its hold on people of childbearing age. I know many Catholics who contracept and feel their families are better for it. I know Catholics who say if they did not contracept, they would abort, and these are Catholics who are looked at as “good” Catholics. They are not lapsed Catholics.

Laws which authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia are therefore radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but also to the common good; as such they are completely lacking in authentic juridical validity. Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law.

Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection.

– Pope John Paul II, *Evangelium Vitae *(The Gospel of Life)

Those who are Pro-Death are nobody’s friend.

 

[estesbob]

He would have given a very different answer to the question if you couldn’t.

Where does he say it is licit for a Catholic to vote for pro-abortion candidate when a more pro-life alternative is available ? Again you’re asking us to depend upon your personal opinion of what the bishop "meant " rather than what he actually said .

 

[estesbob]

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

So once again we are asked to ignore the clear concise quotes of numerous members of the magisterium and church documents and rely instead upon individuals Catholics personal interpretation of what a bishop really “meant” when asked about a couple paragraphs in a USCCB documentv Can you single member of the magisterium that explicitly says it is licit for Catholics to vote for pro-abortion candidate if a more pro-life alternative is available ?

And of course no one disagrees that voting for a pro-abortion candidate when his opponent is more pro-abortion than they are is not formal corporation with evil As Archbishop Chaput states such a vote is not voting for the lesser of two evils- it is voting to lessen evil .

 

[stinkcat_14]

Where does he say it is licit for a Catholic to vote for pro-abortion candidate when a more pro-life alternative is available ? Again you’re asking us to depend upon your personal opinion of what the bishop "meant " rather than what he actually said .

What are the proportionate reasons that allowed Catholics to vote for Mitt Romney vs Virgil Goode in the last election? Can you cite some of the hierarchy pointing out these reasons?

 

[estesbob]

I find it odd that Faithful Citizenship wouldn’t say that then. It seems like it could be much shorter if it said, well, we care about other issues, but there is no proportional reason not to vote for the pro-life candidate, so you should vote for the pro-life candidate. Bishop Kicalas suggests there is more to it than that.

It’s odd that that a Catholic will believe that Faithful Citizenship is the sum total of all Catholic teaching . Regardless of how many quotes from members of the magisterium or church documents we provide the reply as always " my personal interpretation of Faithful Citizenship differs with that ." Surely if it was licit for Catholic to vote for pro-abortion candidate when a more pro-life alternative was available somebody in the Magestrium would’ve said so directly. You know something clear and concise like this:

"No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy 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 Burke

 

[Crossbones]

Where does he say it is licit for a Catholic to vote for pro-abortion candidate when a more pro-life alternative is available ? Again you’re asking us to depend upon your personal opinion of what the bishop "meant " rather than what he actually said .

From the article,

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 Kicanas: Yes, and I think that’s what “Faithful Citizenship” is saying.

I would think it would be a slam dunk if Bishop Kicanas held your view.

 

[Crossbones]

It’s odd that that a Catholic will believe that Faithful Citizenship is the sum total of all Catholic teaching . Regardless of how many quotes from members of the magisterium or church documents we provide the reply as always " my personal interpretation of Faithful Citizenship differs with that ." Surely if it was licit for Catholic to vote for pro-abortion candidate when a more pro-life alternative was available somebody in the Magestrium would’ve said so directly. You know something clear and concise like this:

"No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy 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 Burke

It would seem that Bishop Kicanas does not agree with your interpretation of Church teaching or he would have answered the questions in the posted interview differently. He seems to be a strong supporter of the Forming Consciences document.