Sanders Thread

[Peccavi]

Sorry but when I listen to US Americans talk about “Socialism” I hear more prejudice than facts. Democratic Socialism is never “imposed” but chosen by the people in the ballot box. Secondly it is democratic. On this Forum there is a muddled view of “socialism” which stems from Cold War attitudes to communism Soviet style. Soviet Communism and Democratic Socialism are not two peas from the same pod but often in this and other US forums conflated into an unreality.
As for Catholics being unable to support socialists ideas, well Robert Frederick Drinan, Jesuit Priest and an elected Member of Congress did. Was he defrocked ? No. In South America Father Gustavo Gutierrez has preached the Gospel of Liberation to the Poor and is held in high esteem by Pope Francis. Just two examples of many Catholic priests who favour a socialist approach to creating the Kingdom of God on Earth. The Catholic faithful are a much broader spectrum of humanity than the narrow visions of the conservative thinkers. There is a tradition in the UK of Christian Socialism linked to Catholic and Anglo-Catholic clergy.
I find disturbing some of the distortions on this Forum that frankly stem from ignorance and prejudice and from the ethics of the Cold War.

 

[Sy_Noe]

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 .

I have quoted the precise words of a member of the magisterium numerous times.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Sorry but when I listen to US Americans talk about “Socialism” I hear more prejudice than facts. Democratic Socialism is never “imposed” but chosen by the people in the ballot box. Secondly it is democratic. On this Forum there is a muddled view of “socialism” which stems from Cold War attitudes to communism Soviet style. Soviet Communism and Democratic Socialism are not two peas from the same pod but often in this and other US forums conflated into an unreality.
As for Catholics being unable to support socialists ideas, well Robert Frederick Drinan, Jesuit Priest and an elected Member of Congress did. Was he defrocked ? No. In South America Father Gustavo Gutierrez has preached the Gospel of Liberation to the Poor and is held in high esteem by Pope Francis. Just two examples of many Catholic priests who favour a socialist approach to creating the Kingdom of God on Earth. The Catholic faithful are a much broader spectrum of humanity than the narrow visions of the conservative thinkers. There is a tradition in the UK of Christian Socialism linked to Catholic and Anglo-Catholic clergy.
I find disturbing some of the distortions on this Forum that frankly stem from ignorance and prejudice and from the ethics of the Cold War.

Touting socialism is like touting the tooth fairy. Real “socialism” doesn’t exist anywhere, and never did. European “socialist” countries have plenty of wealth privilege. Ordinary people are taxed heavily to pay for social programs. As a result, they have inadequate funds for family formation and don’t have children to speak of anymore.

Never mind the Nordic countries that have oil wealth and tiny populations to divide it among or the “hidden banking” nations. Most of the high taxation states don’t have it all that good.

Look at France where taxes are much higher than here and average income is quite a bit lower. Are short work weeks really worth it?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I often wonder about how much money is needed, too. I think that once they make a tremendous amount of money the thrill is gone. The next thrill comes from power. They use all that money to gain power. Nothing is ever going to make them completely happy.

True for some, but not for all. How about billionaire Tom Monaghan who vowed to “die penniless”. He really is keeping his promise.

Remember the probably wealthiest Catholic who ever lived in the U.S. (taking inflation into account) was St. Katherine Drexel.

 

[estesbob]

I have quoted the precise words of a member of the magisterium numerous times.

Who did not say it was licit for a Catholic to vote for a pro abortion candidate when a more pro life alternative was available.

 

[oliver927]

… Democratic Socialism is never “imposed” but chosen by the people in the ballot box. Secondly it is democratic…

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) should be a great place to live then, after all it is “democratic” and maybe not even “imposed” upon the people.

 

[grotto]

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) should be a great place to live then, after all it is “democratic” and maybe not even “imposed” upon the people.

---

Yes - the Bernie Sanders crowds haven’t got a clue about much - they probably DO
think that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (north Korea) means they are a country of freedoms. They only have ONE super delegate - wonder why that is? asks a burner!

 

[Tomdstone]

---

Yes - the Bernie Sanders crowds haven’t got a clue about much - they probably DO
think that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (north Korea) means they are a country of freedoms. They only have ONE super delegate - wonder why that is? asks a burner!

There is a difference between Stalinist communism and a democratic welfare state with a mixed economy.

 

[didymus]

Bernie Sanders’ Campaign Lawyers Do Not Appreciate Your “Bernie is My Comrade” T-Shirt

https://d1jn4vzj53eli5.cloudfront.net/mc/afisher/2016_04/berniecomrade.png?h=346&w=350

 

[Crossbones]

Who did not say it was licit for a Catholic to vote for a pro abortion candidate when a more pro life alternative was available.

Bishop Kicanas speaks on a ‘vast array of issues’ that a Catholic must consider when choosing who to vote.

“Then, preachers can help people to understand the complexity of the moral issues that face our culture and our society. The idea, obviously, is not to support any particular candidate, but helping people to see that the church teaches the dignity of human life from conception to natural death, which involves a vast array of issues important in the community in which we live. It’s important to be able to speak knowledgably about those issues, and then to try to weigh the character of the person who is running for office – looking at the issues they propose, as well as their ability to put those issues into action, into legislation that will make a difference. It’s one thing to hold positions, it’s another thing to be able to get results. I think sometimes that’s discouraging, because people may propose positions that are along the lines of what we hold as a church, in terms of the dignity of human life, but they’re totally ineffective in being able to accomplish anything.”

Why would he speak on a vast array of issues, when it really just is one issue?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Bishop Kicanas speaks on a ‘vast array of issues’ that a Catholic must consider when choosing who to vote.

“Then, preachers can help people to understand the complexity of the moral issues that face our culture and our society. The idea, obviously, is not to support any particular candidate, but helping people to see that the church teaches the dignity of human life from conception to natural death, which involves a vast array of issues important in the community in which we live. It’s important to be able to speak knowledgably about those issues, and then to try to weigh the character of the person who is running for office – looking at the issues they propose, as well as their ability to put those issues into action, into legislation that will make a difference. It’s one thing to hold positions, it’s another thing to be able to get results. I think sometimes that’s discouraging, because people may propose positions that are along the lines of what we hold as a church, in terms of the dignity of human life, but they’re totally ineffective in being able to accomplish anything.”

Why would he speak on a vast array of issues, when it really just is one issue?

When one candidate who supports intrinsic evil and his/her opponent does not, then one cannot vote for the one who does.

 

[Crossbones]

When one candidate who supports intrinsic evil and his/her opponent does not, then one cannot vote for the one who does.

So, if the Republican supports torture and the Democrat does not, then one cannot vote for the Republican?

 

[zz912]

So, if the Republican supports torture and the Democrat does not, then one cannot vote for the Republican?

If the Democrat does not support an intrinsic evil, then yes.

Now, if both support such intrinsic evils, then a Christian must look to limit the evil as best possible. If a Democrat supports abortion rights, then a million babies being killed obviously outweighs the support of torture of your mythical GOP candidate.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

If the Democrat does not support an intrinsic evil, then yes.

Now, if both support such intrinsic evils, then a Christian must look to limit the evil as best possible. If a Democrat supports abortion rights, then a million babies being killed obviously outweighs the support of torture of your mythical GOP candidate.

Can you show us a Church document that specifically states that? Specifically.

ncronline.org/news/politics/yes-catholics-may-vote-bernie-sanders

 

[Crossbones]

If the Democrat does not support an intrinsic evil, then yes.

Now, if both support such intrinsic evils, then a Christian must look to limit the evil as best possible. If a Democrat supports abortion rights, then a million babies being killed obviously outweighs the support of torture of your mythical GOP candidate.

So we’re trading intrinsic evils?

Your analysis is only correct if the Republican will actually do something. Not so much during the second Bush term. We did get unjust wars and torture though.

 

[zz912]

Can you show us a Church document that specifically states that? Specifically.

ncronline.org/news/politics/yes-catholics-may-vote-bernie-sanders

You’ll get little traction by linking to a heterodox “catholic” website that promotes disobedience to Church teaching.

And would you take the word of your relative, Fr. Pavone?

priestsforlife.org/vote/votingwithclearconscience.htm

1. Distinguish “choosing evil” from “limiting evil.”

What happens if two opposing candidates both support abortion?

First of all, refrain from putting any labels or endorsements on anyone. Don’t call them anything. Or, if you prefer, call them both pro-abortion. Then just ask a simple question: Which of the two candidates will do less harm to unborn children if elected?

For example, is either of the candidates willing at least to ban late-term abortion? Is either of them willing to put up some roadblocks to free and easy abortion? Will either support parental notification, or parental consent, or waiting periods? Has either of them expressed a desire to support pregnancy assistance centers? How about stricter regulation of abortion facilities? Has either candidate expressed support for that idea? Nobody is saying that’s the final goal. But ask these questions just to see whether you can see any benefit of one of the candidates above the other.

One of the two of them will be elected; there is no question about that. So you are not free right now, in this race, to really choose the candidate you want. Forces beyond your control have already limited your choices. Whichever way the election goes, the one elected will not have the position we want elected officials to have on abortion.

In this case, it is morally acceptable to vote for the candidate who will do less harm. This is not “choosing the lesser of two evils.” We may never choose evil. But in the case described above, you would not be choosing evil. Why? Because in choosing to limit an evil, you are choosing a good.

You oppose the evil of abortion, in every circumstance, no matter what. You know that no law can legitimize even a single abortion, ever. If the candidate thinks some abortion is OK, you don’t agree.

But by your vote, you can keep the worse person out. And trying to do that is not only legitimate, but good. Some may think it’s not the best strategy. But if your question is whether it is morally permissible to vote for the better of two bad candidates, the answer – in the case described above – is yes.

 

[zz912]

So we’re trading intrinsic evils?

Your analysis is only correct if the Republican will actually do something. Not so much during the second Bush term. We did get unjust wars and torture though.

It’s not trading evils. It is limiting evil. Do you understand the concept of limiting evil?

It’s very easy to see which evil is worse, the killing of 1 million babies a year, or the mythical torture of possibly a couple terrorists. Neither should be done, but if you had a mythical GOP candidate that was in favor of torture, you would still pick them over a pro-abortion politician.

This isn’t hard. It only becomes a tedious question because so many wish to look for justification to ignore Church teaching.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

You’ll get little traction by linking to a heterodox “catholic” website that promotes disobedience to Church teaching.

And would you take the word of your relative, Fr. Pavone?

priestsforlife.org/vote/votingwithclearconscience.htm

1. Distinguish “choosing evil” from “limiting evil.”

What happens if two opposing candidates both support abortion?

First of all, refrain from putting any labels or endorsements on anyone. Don’t call them anything. Or, if you prefer, call them both pro-abortion. Then just ask a simple question: Which of the two candidates will do less harm to unborn children if elected?

For example, is either of the candidates willing at least to ban late-term abortion? Is either of them willing to put up some roadblocks to free and easy abortion? Will either support parental notification, or parental consent, or waiting periods? Has either of them expressed a desire to support pregnancy assistance centers? How about stricter regulation of abortion facilities? Has either candidate expressed support for that idea? Nobody is saying that’s the final goal. But ask these questions just to see whether you can see any benefit of one of the candidates above the other.

One of the two of them will be elected; there is no question about that. So you are not free right now, in this race, to really choose the candidate you want. Forces beyond your control have already limited your choices. Whichever way the election goes, the one elected will not have the position we want elected officials to have on abortion.

In this case, it is morally acceptable to vote for the candidate who will do less harm. This is not “choosing the lesser of two evils.” We may never choose evil. But in the case described above, you would not be choosing evil. Why? Because in choosing to limit an evil, you are choosing a good.

You oppose the evil of abortion, in every circumstance, no matter what. You know that no law can legitimize even a single abortion, ever. If the candidate thinks some abortion is OK, you don’t agree.

But by your vote, you can keep the worse person out. And trying to do that is not only legitimate, but good. Some may think it’s not the best strategy. But if your question is whether it is morally permissible to vote for the better of two bad candidates, the answer – in the case described above – is yes.

No, an official Church document.

However, I don’t see where any of the candidates are going to do any harm to unborn children. What precisely do you expect them to do? They can’t make abortion illegal.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

It’s not trading evils. It is limiting evil. Do you understand the concept of limiting evil?

It’s very easy to see which evil is worse, the killing of 1 million babies a year, or the mythical torture of possibly a couple terrorists. Neither should be done, but if you had a mythical GOP candidate that was in favor of torture, you would still pick them over a pro-abortion politician.

This isn’t hard. It only becomes a tedious question because so many wish to look for justification to ignore Church teaching.

Bombing, whether true carpet bombing or not and killing many pregnant women, babies, children, and adults. To me, that’s worse. No president has ever performed an abortion or run on an “abortion only” ticket.

 

[Crossbones]

It’s not trading evils. It is limiting evil. Do you understand the concept of limiting evil?

It’s very easy to see which evil is worse, the killing of 1 million babies a year, or the mythical torture of possibly a couple terrorists. Neither should be done, but if you had a mythical GOP candidate that was in favor of torture, you would still pick them over a pro-abortion politician.

This isn’t hard. It only becomes a tedious question because so many wish to look for justification to ignore Church teaching.

Abortion rates do not seem to depend on who is President. So, the 1 million a year is a mythical figure. It’s not like if a Democrat is elected, 1 million babies a year are kills and if a Republican is elected, 0 are.