Sanders Thread

[_Abyssinia]

Let’s read this again.

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, unless an interviewer asks the specific question that you seek a direct quote on, I don’t think you’re going to get that answer. People can reasonably understand the Bishop’s views. Personally, I would like very much for some bishops to explain how we can ignore unjust wars and torture and why we’re not using the Faithful Citizenship guide when they say that the only issue to vote on abortion. I’ll guess we’ll both be waiting.

Again, I will cite Bishop Vasa’s comments:

“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 has 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

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Again? But I give you credit for your patience.

It does no good here, Sy. I just don’t post about it myself or answer the same question for the 20th time anymore! I’m voting Democratic, and I make no apologies.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Let’s read this again.

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, unless an interviewer asks the specific question that you seek a direct quote on, I don’t think you’re going to get that answer. People can reasonably understand the Bishop’s views. Personally, I would like very much for some bishops to explain how we can ignore unjust wars and torture and why we’re not using the Faithful Citizenship guide when they say that the only issue to vote on abortion. I’ll guess we’ll both be waiting.

With all due respect to Bishop Kicanas, my interpretation of what he is saying here is that he’s saying based on his interpretation of Faithful Citizenship, that a person weighs different issues up, etc. and comes to a decision who to vote for. He doesn’t say there is an increased weight given to an issue like abortion. But time and time again from various statements from Bishops on the issue of voting, abortion is given more weight over other issues, it’s not just an issue among many. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding him? I can find other statements from Bishops that appear to draw different conclusions on the document than he does, which is another reason that the document should be started anew. It needs to be clearer on the issue of voting, so there is hopefully a unified response from the Bishops when asked about voting.

Bishop Kicanas has called Faithful Citizenship “unhelpful” and wanted the document to be started anew: americamagazine.org/issue/updated-faithful-citizenship-challenged-usccb-meeting

In a joint statement, in paragraph 5 regarding Faithful Citizenship and voting, Bishop Kevin Farrell and Bishop Kevin Vann say, “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, morally impermissible.”

 

[Lily_Bernans]

“The archbishop agreed with Bishop McElroy that “the issues of global poverty and the degradation of the environment now need to be put into the first tier of issues” of concern to Catholics alongside abortion, assisted suicide, and others that have long been a focus of the conference.”

So obviously there is a “tier” of issues, not one overriding issue.

Global poverty does bother me. I agree with the archbishop. You can’t just care that a child is born then not care if it has food or has to drink muddy water.

 

[estesbob]

“The archbishop agreed with Bishop McElroy that “the issues of global poverty and the degradation of the environment now need to be put into the first tier of issues” of concern to Catholics alongside abortion, assisted suicide, and others that have long been a focus of the conference.”

So obviously there is a “tier” of issues, not one overriding issue.

Global poverty does bother me. I agree with the archbishop. You can’t just care that a child is born then not care if it has food or has to drink muddy water.

I dont know of any candidate who supports degradation of the environment or global poverty. And as been shown repeatedly the Church teaches that all rights flow from the right go life. We have yet to see any Bishop state that Catholics can licitly vote for a pro-abortion candidate if a pro-life alternative is available. Once again we are asked to accept ones “opinion” of what the Bishop “meant”. There is no ambiguity at all about the quotes i posted. If you cna find a bishoop who contradicts them please post their direct quote.
By unambigous I mena somehting 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

OR:

There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life. That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not.

"Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.

"The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.

“The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry). Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and introduces legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils, which is morally permissible under these circumstances.”

Bishop Rene Gracida

 

[lynnvinc]

I dont know of any candidate who supports degradation of the environment or global poverty…

Cruz and Trump ??

 

[estesbob]

With all due respect to Bishop Kicanas, my interpretation of what he is saying here is that he’s saying based on his interpretation of Faithful Citizenship, that a person weighs different issues up, etc. and comes to a decision who to vote for. He doesn’t say there is an increased weight given to an issue like abortion. But time and time again from various statements from Bishops on the issue of voting, abortion is given more weight over other issues, it’s not just an issue among many. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding him? I can find other statements from Bishops that appear to draw different conclusions on the document than he does, which is another reason that the document should be started anew. It needs to be clearer on the issue of voting, so there is hopefully a unified response from the Bishops when asked about voting.

Bishop Kicanas has called Faithful Citizenship “unhelpful” and wanted the document to be started anew: americamagazine.org/issue/updated-faithful-citizenship-challenged-usccb-meeting

In a joint statement, in paragraph 5 regarding Faithful Citizenship and voting, Bishop Kevin Farrell and Bishop Kevin Vann say, "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, morally impermissible."

From reading the rationalizations in this thread one would think their personal interpretation of Faithful Citizenship is the inspired word of God and statements by members of the Magestrium that disagree with this are heresy

 

[estesbob]

Cruz and Trump ??

And where have they called for it? You are aware that Pope Francis has rejected the solutions offered by Global Warming Alarmists?

 

[Crossbones]

You don’t need to wait for a bishop on something as easy as that. Some wars can be just. Some can be unjust, and it’s generally left to individual judgment to make the distinction, understanding that the state is usually the proper decision maker on that. And the Church doesn’t have a definition of “torture” at all.

Whereas, abortion is always abortion. It’s always unjust of its nature. It’s easily defined as the deliberate killing of an unborn child, and it’s always intrinsically evil.

Hard to imagine anything more clear.

Pope John Paul II was against the Iraq War.

 

[estesbob]

Let’s read this again.

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, unless an interviewer asks the specific question that you seek a direct quote on, I don’t think you’re going to get that answer. People can reasonably understand the Bishop’s views. Personally, I would like very much for some bishops to explain how we can ignore unjust wars and torture and why we’re not using the Faithful Citizenship guide when they say that the only issue to vote on abortion. I’ll guess we’ll both be waiting.

So you can’t provide a quote from any member of the Magestrium stateing a Cathoilc can licitly vote for a pro abortion candidate when a pro life alternative is available No surprise there because there aren’t any

 

[Crossbones]

With all due respect to Bishop Kicanas, my interpretation of what he is saying here is that he’s saying based on his interpretation of Faithful Citizenship, that a person weighs different issues up, etc. and comes to a decision who to vote for. He doesn’t say there is an increased weight given to an issue like abortion. But time and time again from various statements from Bishops on the issue of voting, abortion is given more weight over other issues, it’s not just an issue among many. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding him? I can find other statements from Bishops that appear to draw different conclusions on the document than he does, which is another reason that the document should be started anew. It needs to be clearer on the issue of voting, so there is hopefully a unified response from the Bishops when asked about voting.

Bishop Kicanas has called Faithful Citizenship “unhelpful” and wanted the document to be started anew: americamagazine.org/issue/updated-faithful-citizenship-challenged-usccb-meeting

In a joint statement, in paragraph 5 regarding Faithful Citizenship and voting, Bishop Kevin Farrell and Bishop Kevin Vann say, “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, morally impermissible.”

If you read Faithful Citizenship, it puts great emphasis on abortion. To me, it’s a question of great weight vs. infinite weight. Some here claim it trumps all other issues. I do not get that from the guide itself or from Bishop Vicanas’ statements.

As far as it being unhelpful, I understand that many bishops didn’t feel the guide did not place the proper emphasis on issues like poverty that Pope Francis is concerned with. On the other hand, I think Bishop Vicanas’ complaint was it was complex and hence defeats the purpose of a voter’s guide that is easy to comprehend. I do find it terse. That said, the vote to support it was 231-21, I believe.

Now, Bishop Farrell and Vann seem to be adding to the guide. The guide doesn’t say what they are saying, so I would take their comments in additional to the guide, not an interpretation of what the guide means.

 

[zz912]

My concern over a consumption tax is it could hurt those of lower income who still must consume. While those at the upper income levels can well afford to pay tax on all that they consume. They can also afford to pay more income tax though as far as I’m concerned.

We’ve had the income tax for a century, and everyone claims that the rich don’t pay their fair share. So which is it? Do they pay more, or do they not? And if you ended the payroll taxes and income taxes, those at the lower income levels would be about the same.

LOL and I suppose stop letting the government snoop into people’s lives includes in areas such as abortion and gay marriage. Conservatives are all for not snooping into lives when it comes to taxes. Not so much in other areas.

You don’t have a right to violently assault and kill someone and claim you have a right to privately kill them. And you are well within your rights to privately have a mock “wedding” ceremony, but have no right to force society and the public to pretend it is the same as marriage.

That runs into so many other issues. What is considered consumption. Do you tax services. How do you collect it? do you tax out of country products/parts more than in country products/parts? Do you tax any transfer of money, what about bartering, interest earned, etc. What is a ‘sale’.

This can be (and has been) discussed ad nauseum. We won’t even be able to agree on what will and won’t be taxed.

My state, and many others, have sales taxes right now. And they work smoothly, beautifully, and with extremely low compliance and enforcement costs, especially compared to income taxes. Why couldn’t a national sales tax work like they do?

I like to make a point with those I talk about this issue with. I ask them the name of the entity that collects income taxes. They ALL know who the IRS is. And then I ask them which entity collects state sales taxes. NONE of them (except business owners) know the name of the entity. And why the difference? Because they don’t have to have interaction with them, the government office doesn’t collect information on them, and the government agency has little to no impact on their lives. Compare that to the IRS.

 

[Crossbones]

So you can’t provide a quote from any member of the Magestrium stateing a Cathoilc can licitly vote for a pro abortion candidate when a pro life alternative is available No surprise there because there aren’t any

Again, I believe that Catholics can interpret the words of Bishop Kicanas and understand his meaning. Let’s review what he says again:

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.

 

[sallybutler]

We’ve had the income tax for a century, and everyone claims that the rich don’t pay their fair share. So which is it? Do they pay more, or do they not? And if you ended the payroll taxes and income taxes, those at the lower income levels would be about the same.

You don’t have a right to violently assault and kill someone and claim you have a right to privately kill them. And you are well within your rights to privately have a mock “wedding” ceremony, but have no right to force society and the public to pretend it is the same as marriage.

My state, and many others, have sales taxes right now. And they work smoothly, beautifully, and with extremely low compliance and enforcement costs, especially compared to income taxes. Why couldn’t a national sales tax work like they do?

I like to make a point with those I talk about this issue with. I ask them the name of the entity that collects income taxes. They ALL know who the IRS is. And then I ask them which entity collects state sales taxes. NONE of them (except business owners) know the name of the entity. And why the difference? Because they don’t have to have interaction with them, the government office doesn’t collect information on them, and the government agency has little to no impact on their lives. Compare that to the IRS.

Trust me, those businesses that have to pay sales tax hate their local Franchise Tax Board or Department of Revenue as much as they hate the IRS. Often more, because (at least in my experience), the state organizations are more intrusive and harder to get around than the IRS.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I dont know of any candidate who supports degradation of the environment or global poverty.

There are some who don’t care much about it.

 

[anon67074017]

PIUS XI (1922-1939)

Socialism Cannot Be Reconciled with Catholic Doctrine

“We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth.”
(Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931, n. 117)

Catholic Socialism is a Contradiction

“[Socialism] is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.” (Ibid. n. 120)

Pius-XII

PIUS XII (1939-1958)

The Church Will Fight Socialism to the End

“[The Church undertook] the protection of the individual and the family against a current threatening to bring about a total socialization which in the end would make the specter of the ‘Leviathan’ become a shocking reality. The Church will fight this battle to the end, for it is a question of supreme values: the dignity of man and the salvation of souls." (“Radio message to the Katholikentag of Vienna,” September 14, 1952 in Discorsi e Radiomessaggi, vol. XIV, p. 314)

The All-Powerful State Harms True Prosperity

“To consider the State as something ultimate to which everything else should be subordinated and directed, cannot fail to harm the true and lasting prosperity of nations.” (Encyclical Summi Pontificatus, October 20, 1939, n. 60)

John-XXIII

JOHN XXIII (1958-1963)

“No Catholic could subscribe even to moderate socialism”

“Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production; it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority.” (Encyclical Mater et Magistra, May 15, 1961, n. 34)

Paul-VI

PAUL VI (1963-1978)

Christians Tend to Idealize Socialism

“Too often Christians attracted by socialism tend to idealize it in terms which, apart from anything else, are very general: a will for justice, solidarity and equality. They refuse to recognize the limitations of the historical socialist movements, which remain conditioned by the ideologies from which they originated.” (Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens, May 14, 1971, n. 31)

I agree with you here. Socialism is not a Christian value. It is a materialistic ideology that goes against God. The Church in America should take a strong stance against the Sanders campaign. We will fight it to the end.

 

[sallybutler]

I agree with you here. Socialism is not a Christian value. It is a materialistic ideology that goes against God. The Church in America should take a strong stance against the Sanders campaign. We will fight it to the end.

Capitalism isn’t a Christian value either, especially as practiced in the U.S.

I will say this for Sanders, he does want to see people able to better themselves through education without destroying their future (and the country due to debt) or their parents. He thinks that one should not have to make a choice between going to a doctor and bankruptcy. He doesn’t think that money should equal absolute power. He seems to think those who are given more are expected to give even more (I know, a really old fashioned idea.

While I don’t agree with everything he espouses, I believe he is just as patriotic and caring about the U.S. as Republicans. He just has a different way of getting there.

 

[CatholicKnight3]

I agree with you here. Socialism is not a Christian value. It is a materialistic ideology that goes against God. The Church in America should take a strong stance against the Sanders campaign. We will fight it to the end.

That is not the biggest concern for me. It is the direction the church is going.

The approval of the world can be and is often anti-Christ.

It certainly seems that Pope Francis is embracing this liberation theology, which is socialism or even worse.

With the endless quotes and the enemy that communism has been to Christ and stifling of the Holy Spirit through out the Years is well documented.

The cliches of using heart strIngs to convince us the socialism is the answer for the poor are lies. As stated by the church all throughout history.

Now, all of a sudden this obvious direction…

I still find it strange that there are still two Popes. First time in how long?

This is my biggest concern.

 

[gracepoole]

I still find it strange that there are still two Popes.

There aren’t. Problem solved.

 

[sallybutler]

That is not the biggest concern for me. It is the direction the church is going.

The approval of the world can be and is often anti-Christ.

It certainly seems that Pope Francis is embracing this liberation theology, which is socialism or even worse.

With the endless quotes and the enemy that communism has been to Christ and stifling of the Holy Spirit through out the Years is well documented.

The cliches of using heart strIngs to convince us the socialism is the answer for the poor are lies. As stated by the church all throughout history.

Now, all of a sudden this obvious direction…

I still find it strange that there are still two Popes. First time in how long?

This is my biggest concern.

Please, there are not two popes .
catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2016/01/14/are-there-really-two-popes/

In addition to being a conspiracy theory that the Church does not support, it is off topic.