Survey: Your Voting Patterns

[Tsuwano]

Cardinal Bernadin was a disaster as a Catholic leader. Many of the Bishops he reccomended for appointment were among the forefront of the abuse crisis, either as abusers or enablers.

His “seemless garment” theory was also contrary to the teaching of the Magesterium. Life issues (Abortion, Euthanasia, stem cell research, gay marriage) are non-negotiable. No Catholic in good conscience can support these practices.

Other issues that are claimed under the"seemless garment" (death penalty, just war, anti-poverty programs, etc.) are all subject to prudential judgement. Catholic are free to decide these issues for themselves.

If a candidate is actively pro-abortion, we can not vote for them in good conscience, if a more pro-life candidate is available.

God Bless

Cardinal Bernadine was probably a saint and the Church should thank God we had a leader such as him after Cardinal Cody in Chicago. Joseph Bernadine was a healer and very few people who actually met the Cardinal left thinking he was less than a very holy person. I would like to see your documentation proving that “many of the Bishops he recommended for appointment were among the forefront of the abuse crisis, either as abusers or enablers.” In fact, I’m not aware of any American Bishop who has been accused of sexual abuse. Who might you be thinking of? There was the famous incident in which Cardinal Bernadine was accused by a former seminarian of having abused him, but the victim turned out to be the Cardinal himself when the seminarian recanted his accusation publicly and was forgiven by the Cardinal. Besides, much of the abuse that happened in the American Church was happening long before Bernadine became a Bishop or a Cardinal.
The “seamless garment” approach to life issues is most certainly not contrary to the teaching of the Church Magesterium and in fact was widely supported by a great majority, if not all, of the American Bishops when the document was issued. Again, I would like to see your documentation proving that the “seamless garment” approach to life issues is contrary to the teaching of the Church. Just exactly who or what have you been reading?
Life issues such as abortion and euthanasia are indeed non negotiable, which is exactly what Bernadine’s approach entails. As far as stem cell research, I don’t know if Cardinal Bernadine mentions it in his document but it stands to reason, considering his stance on other life issues, that he would certainly be opposed to using stem cells from fertilized human embryos as subjects of any kind of experimentation or research. At present other life issues, such as the death penalty, are indeed subject to prudential judgement and Catholics, to an extent, are free to make up their own judgement concerning their support of these issues, but the seamless garment approach states clearly, and I believe it, that there are connections between all issues where human life and human dignity are at the center. Pope John Paul did say that there may be times when the death penalty could be morally used, but he was at a loss, given the modern legal system in most countries, as to when that might be.
As far as gay marriage is concerned, I do not put that issue on the same level as abortion and the death penalty and do not consider it a “life” issue as such. It seems to be more a “life style” issue to me.

 

[bilop]

Cardinal Bernadine was probably a saint and the Church should thank God we had a leader such as him after Cardinal Cody in Chicago. Joseph Bernadine was a healer and very few people who actually met the Cardinal left thinking he was less than a very holy person. I would like to see your documentation proving that “many of the Bishops he recommended for appointment were among the forefront of the abuse crisis, either as abusers or enablers.” In fact, I’m not aware of any American Bishop who has been accused of sexual abuse. Who might you be thinking of? There was the famous incident in which Cardinal Bernadine was accused by a former seminarian of having abused him, but the victim turned out to be the Cardinal himself when the seminarian recanted his accusation publicly and was forgiven by the Cardinal. Besides, much of the abuse that happened in the American Church was happening long before Bernadine became a Bishop or a Cardinal.
The “seamless garment” approach to life issues is most certainly not contrary to the teaching of the Church Magesterium and in fact was widely supported by a great majority, if not all, of the American Bishops when the document was issued. Again, I would like to see your documentation proving that the “seamless garment” approach to life issues is contrary to the teaching of the Church. Just exactly who or what have you been reading?
Life issues such as abortion and euthanasia are indeed non negotiable, which is exactly what Bernadine’s approach entails. As far as stem cell research, I don’t know if Cardinal Bernadine mentions it in his document but it stands to reason, considering his stance on other life issues, that he would certainly be opposed to using stem cells from fertilized human embryos as subjects of any kind of experimentation or research. At present other life issues, such as the death penalty, are indeed subject to prudential judgement and Catholics, to an extent, are free to make up their own judgement concerning their support of these issues, but the seamless garment approach states clearly, and I believe it, that there are connections between all issues where human life and human dignity are at the center. Pope John Paul did say that there may be times when the death penalty could be morally used, but he was at a loss, given the modern legal system in most countries, as to when that might be.
As far as gay marriage is concerned, I do not put that issue on the same level as abortion and the death penalty and do not consider it a “life” issue as such. It seems to be more a “life style” issue to me.

Read “Good Bye, Good Men” if you want to know about Bernardin. This article gives you a taste.

dads.org/article.asp?artId=263

God Bless

 

[Holly3278]

I vote for the candidate who is the lesser of two evils among the main parties (Democrat and Republican). I consider abortion to be a major thing in my voting since it has killed so many unborn children. And I consider myself to be a practicing Catholic.

 

[Tsuwano]

Read “Good Bye, Good Men” if you want to know about Bernardin. This article gives you a taste.

dads.org/article.asp?artId=263

God Bless

Thank you, bilop. I read the article you pointed out, as well as a few others on the site, but found little but hearsay. I will try to get a copy of Rose’s book “Good Bye, Good Men” and see what he has to say about it all. Returning to the topic of the thread, when I select a candidate to vote for, I examine his or her position on all the life issues to see if that person recognizes a common thread centering on human dignity running through them. As I mentioned before, the issue of abortion weighs the heaviest in my calculation, but it is not the only issue I look at. It is possible I would reluctantly vote for a candidate who supports abortion depending on other factors, such as whether I believe the opposing candidate is sincere in his support of life issues, but it is not likely. One serious question I have is whether it is a moral alternative not to vote at all. What do you think?

 

[wapsi]

Thank you, bilop. I read the article you pointed out, as well as a few others on the site, but found little but hearsay.

That was my impression as well, but I guess I am not so eager to buy another book in order to assess the truth.

It is possible I would reluctantly vote for a candidate who supports abortion depending on other factors, such as whether I believe the opposing candidate is sincere in his support of life issues, but it is not likely. One serious question I have is whether it is a moral alternative not to vote at all.

You ask a very good question - it is one of which I have see-sawed upon for the past few months.

 

[miguel]

Whether a candidate is pro-life or pro-abortion is important to me only because it answers the question about his/her world-view. But it does not give me any hope whatsoever that the killing of babies will be reduced through the political process. We’ve had plenty of supposedly pro-life Presidents… what good did it do?

The Democrats are determined to keep abortion “safe and legal”. We know that. What we don’t know and many are beginning to suspect is the sincerety of the other guys. They think pro-lifers have nowhere else to go. So they tell us what we want to hear to get our vote. (I don’t know about you, but I hate that. In some ways it’s worse than the Dems. At least you know where they stand. Not that I would dream of voting for them.) And, as you say, we elect these “supposedly pro-life Presidents”, and the killing goes on. That sure isn’t why I vote for 'em.

 

[miguel]

One serious question I have is whether it is a moral alternative not to vote at all. What do you think?

I think we have a duty to vote our well-formed Catholic conscience. I don’t think we have a duty to choose between the Democrat or Republican, having in the back of our minds that one or the other is most likely to be elected therefore we have to choose one of them. No we don’t. I’m considering not voting for the Republican this fall, because I’m tired of them taking my pro-life vote for granted. I also disagree with the Iraq War. If I vote for them, they’ll think I’m fine with the status quo on abortion and that I’m fine with 100 more years in Iraq. Why would I want them to think that?

 

[Tsuwano]

The Democrats are determined to keep abortion “safe and legal”. We know that. What we don’t know and many are beginning to suspect is the sincerety of the other guys. They think pro-lifers have nowhere else to go. So they tell us what we want to hear to get our vote. (I don’t know about you, but I hate that. In some ways it’s worse than the Dems. At least you know where they stand. Not that I would dream of voting for them.) And, as you say, we elect these “supposedly pro-life Presidents”, and the killing goes on. That sure isn’t why I vote for 'em.

You mention that the Democrats are determined to keep abortion “safe and legal”, but I’m beginning to suspect that this isn’t the whole truth. I think the leadership of the Democratic Party is indeed pro abortion and determined to keep their party that way, but I think there must be a number of Democrats, both in the House and Senate, who disagree with the leadership’s stance on abortion but don’t feel that they have enough power to change things within the party. I think that Catholics who feel closer to the traditional positions that the Democratic Party has always supported, need to find a way to support those Democrat politicians who are willing to change the Party’s position on abortion. How is it possible to do this without compromising one’s beliefs by unwittingly advancing the pro abortion agenda? I’m not sure, but I do think it is about time we thought about it.

 

[BlaineTog]

where is the…“you couldn’t pay me enough to vote” option?

Seriously. I’d be all over that like brown on a scapular.

 

[miguel]

You mention that the Democrats are determined to keep abortion “safe and legal”, but I’m beginning to suspect that this isn’t the whole truth. I think the leadership of the Democratic Party is indeed pro abortion and determined to keep their party that way, but I think there must be a number of Democrats, both in the House and Senate, who disagree with the leadership’s stance on abortion but don’t feel that they have enough power to change things within the party. I think that Catholics who feel closer to the traditional positions that the Democratic Party has always supported, need to find a way to support those Democrat politicians who are willing to change the Party’s position on abortion. How is it possible to do this without compromising one’s beliefs by unwittingly advancing the pro abortion agenda? I’m not sure, but I do think it is about time we thought about it.

Me too.