Sanders Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter SuperLuigi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ridgerunner said:
Such Catholic might have followed their subjective beliefs about right and wrong, but they didn’t follow the teachings of the Church in supporting abortion politicians.

What’s mysterious about “intrinsic evil”? That means evil every time and of its very nature. The Church does teach that we can’t support, with our votes, intrinsic evil. Abortion, the Church says, is intrinsic evil. We can only vote for an abortion supporter (Clinton) if the opposing candidate supports an equally grave intrinsic evil. None does.

nothing mysterious about that. Only our own wish sometimes make it seem so.
Click to expand...
There’s nothing mysterious about intrinsic evils. What’s mysterious is the insistence that only one intrinsic evil is important enough to outweigh all others.
 
Crossbones said:
He’s speaking right before the 2008 election, so there isn’t a hypothetical here. He is clearly speaking on McCain vs. Obama. Again, I must repeat his words on issues being complex:

“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.”
Click to expand...
Where does he say it is licit to vote for a pro abortion canidatevwhen a pro life alternative is available ? Were MCain and Obama the only people running for office in 2008? Again you ask us to ignore the clear direct teachings of the Church in favor of your personal interpretation of what a single Bishop said
 
gracepoole said:
There’s nothing mysterious about intrinsic evils. What’s mysterious is the insistence that only one intrinsic evil is important enough to outweigh all others.
Click to expand...
What issues are proportionate enough to allow Catholics to allow a Catholic to vote for a pro abortion candidate? And please provide evidence that the CHurch supports these issues as being proportionate
 
estesbob said:
Where does he say it is licit to vote for a pro abortion canidatevwhen a pro life alternative is available ? Were MCain and Obama the only people running for office in 2008? Again you ask us to ignore the clear direct teachings of the Church in favor of your personal interpretation of what a single Bishop said
Click to expand...
The interview was published on October 13, 2008. Let’s look at this exchange:

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. 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.

So, we’re three weeks from the Presidential election and the interviewer just presented the vote as a choice. It seems clear to me that it is a choice between McCain or Obama. Are you thinking he might be wanting to say McCain, but Bob Barr would be ok too?
 
estesbob said:
What issues are proportionate enough to allow Catholics to allow a Catholic to vote for a pro abortion candidate? And please provide evidence that the CHurch supports these issues as being proportionate
Click to expand...
How about just reading this? religionnews.com/2015/11/17/catholic-bishops-revise-voter-guide-debate-pope-francis-agenda/

In the end, we can easily identify bishops who believe in privileging abortion and others who disagree with this approach to voting. Insisting that the murkiness of voting as a Catholic is actually crystal clear is disingenuous.
 
Bernie Sanders takes a private flight to Rome to speak at the Vatican conference - burning gallons of fuel just hours after attacking Hillary Clinton on climate change

A day after Bernie Sanders claimed he ‘introduced the most comprehensive climate change legislation’ and said he would tax carbon use, the Democratic presidential candidate chartered a Delta 767 to fly him to Rome and back for less than 24 hours.

After attacking rival Hillary Clinton for her stance on fossil fuels stepped on Thursday, Sanders stepped off the plane on Friday in Rome for the Vatican conference with his wife, ten family members, a group of campaign staff, Secret Service detail and members of the press.

The total group of what is believed to be below 50, flew in a chartered Delta 767 for their trip, which can seat between 211 and 261 people, depending on the model. It is unclear if Sanders’ aircraft had flatbed seats.

A 767 aircraft carries up to 23,980 gallons of fuel, which is ‘enough to fill 1,200 minivans’, according to Boeing.

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3542360/Bernie-Sanders-takes-private-flight-Rome-speak-Vatican-conference-burning-gallons-fuel-just-hours-attacking-Hillary-Clinton-climate-change.html
 
When powerful, global warming activists, like Sanders, start living their lives like climate change is a big problem, maybe I’ll start listening to them. Until then I can’t hear their words over the sounds of their actions.
 
ucfengr said:
When powerful, global warming activists, like Sanders, start living their lives like climate change is a big problem, maybe I’ll start listening to them. Until then I can’t hear their words over the sounds of their actions.
Click to expand...
https://atomicmonkey.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/carboncredit.jpg

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I post those, in order to illustrate that there are people that are seemingly ALLOWED to be hypocrites.
 
gracepoole said:
How about just reading this? religionnews.com/2015/11/17/catholic-bishops-revise-voter-guide-debate-pope-francis-agenda/

In the end, we can easily identify bishops who believe in privileging abortion and others who disagree with this approach to voting. Insisting that the murkiness of voting as a Catholic is actually crystal clear is disingenuous.
Click to expand...
"After the votes, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kan., told the Register that the bishops saw a clear need to keep their focus on life and marriage issues, while stepping up their advocacy on religious freedom.

“Just because five justices said same-sex marriage was legal, we can’t just accept that. Like our approach to abortion, we need to work to change the consensus,” said Archbishop Naumann."

Read more: ncregister.com/site/article/us-bishops-2016-fall-assembly-voter-guide-prioritized/#ixzz46EiWvBUW
 
estesbob said:
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.
Click to expand...
When he said voters have to weigh issues, consider the character of a candidate and what a voter thinks a candidate will actually be able to do to affect society. And that it’s problematic to vote for a candidate who proposes actions that are intrinsically evil if the voter votes for him or her because of such a position and that you don’t vote for a person simply, or primarily, because of that position. That a voter has to take those positions into consideration, and then make a never easy choice.
 
Crossbones said:
Wow, you’re right. The number of abortions were relatively steady under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, but dropped under Clinton and Obama.

I wonder why that is.
Click to expand...
Crossbones said:
Then why do abortions only go down under Democratic Presidents?
Click to expand...
Abortion statistics may not always take into consideration all states, such as California. So abortion statistics may not always reveal the full picture, but the following looks at abortion rates from George H. W. Bush’s and part of George W. Bush’s presidencies. if you look at abortion under George W. Bush, if you look at the data there is variance, increase, decrease, year by year, but when you look at the data from a different angle over multiple years:
Indeed, between 2000 and 2005, data from Guttmacher indicates that the number of abortions fell by 8.1 percent and data from the CDC indicates that abortions fell by 2.9 percent. Between 1988 and 1992, data from Guttmacher indicate that the number of abortions fell by 3.7 percent and data from the CDC indicates that the number of abortions fell by 0.9 percent.
Click to expand...
Read more at: nationalreview.com/corner/182510/abortion-statistics-101-michael-j-new

This source says:
by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, looks at figures from 43 states and finds that abortions have actually decreased since President Bush took office.
Click to expand...
AGI’s study found abortions decreased nationwide – by 0.8% in 2001 and by another 0.8% in 2002.
Click to expand...
The abortion rate, the number of women having abortions relative to the population as a whole, also decreased 1% in 2001 and 0.9% in 2002.
Click to expand...
archive.lifenews.com/nat1356.html
 
_Abyssinia said:
Abortion statistics may not always take into consideration all states, such as California. So abortion statistics may not always reveal the full picture, but the following looks at abortion rates from George H. W. Bush’s and part of George W. Bush’s presidencies. if you look at abortion under George W. Bush, if you look at the data there is variance, increase, decrease, year by year, but when you look at the data from a different angle over multiple years:

Read more at: nationalreview.com/corner/182510/abortion-statistics-101-michael-j-new

This source says:

archive.lifenews.com/nat1356.html
Click to expand...
Rationalization.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Abortion statistics may not always take into consideration all states, such as California. So abortion statistics may not always reveal the full picture, but the following looks at abortion rates from George H. W. Bush’s and part of George W. Bush’s presidencies. if you look at abortion under George W. Bush, if you look at the data there is variance, increase, decrease, year by year, but when you look at the data from a different angle over multiple years:

Read more at: nationalreview.com/corner/182510/abortion-statistics-101-michael-j-new

This source says:

archive.lifenews.com/nat1356.html
Click to expand...
So, the Guttmacher Institute data is more reliable in your opinion than the CDC data?
 
Sy_Noe said:
When he said voters have to weigh issues, consider the character of a candidate and what a voter thinks a candidate will actually be able to do to affect society. And that it’s problematic to vote for a candidate who proposes actions that are intrinsically evil if the voter votes for him or her because of such a position and that you don’t vote for a person simply, or primarily, because of that position. That a voter has to take those positions into consideration, and then make a never easy choice.
Click to expand...
Where did he say it was limit for Catholic to vote for a pro_abortion candidate when a pro-life alternative is available ? Can you find any member the magistrium that has said this directly or are we gonna continue to be told we have to accept your interpretation of what they “meant”
 
Crossbones said:
The interview was published on October 13, 2008. Let’s look at this exchange:

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. 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.

So, we’re three weeks from the Presidential election and the interviewer just presented the vote as a choice. It seems clear to me that it is a choice between McCain or Obama. Are you thinking he might be wanting to say McCain, but Bob Barr would be ok too?
Click to expand...
Where does he say that it is licit for a Catholic to vote for pro-abortion candidate want a pro-life alternative is available? I have quoted numerous members of the magisterium that says it is not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top