Too many right-wingers in this forum?

[CapIV]

I would sincerely hope, however, that the Catholics of which you speak do not espouse the “end justifies the means” philosophy. Of course the Church wants to see the needy cared for, and we go to great efforts to try to accomplish that very thing. But the means by which the needy are given help is not unimportant! It is one thing if they are given aid by way of charity; it is another if they are “given” aid by a government who forcibly “took” aid from its people. I cannot see how this can fall into line with the teachings of the faith. We are commanded to give, yes. But we are not commanded to rob others in order to do it.

I am assuming you are an American, in which case I can understand how you feel this way. However, understand that to many non-American countries, they prefer to give up their wealth to the government in exchange for certain securities such as welfare and social security. American Capitalism is by its nature based on self interest. But many Europeans, do not have the same ideals of government as Americans do. In these cases, I think it is perfectly justifiable for a government to be put in charge of caring for the poor.

I happen to disagree, I am pretty conservative myself, and I think that the American government is so irrecoverably corrupt that I wouldn’t trust them with five dollars to buy me popcorn and a soda at the movies. I also think that since we live in a capitalist society, socialism will be an inherent failure.

But come on, it is not legitimate to somehow accuse liberals of being “against” the faith since they think that the government should be in control of welfare. It is however, wholly legitimate to accuse liberals of being against the faith if they support a candidate in favor of abortion, no matter how they rationalize their views.

 

[pnewton]

John Paul 2 also spoke with the UN and blasted the US for their bloody hands in the case of Pinochet and Contra, and yet, the US leaves the UN.

This is hypocrisy at it s worst.

I normally don’t cotton to you northerners blasting us, but sometimes you are right. The U.S. is slow to acknowledge its own mistakes. I don’t know if it has much to do with this topic, but it would be nice if Catholics who drag their knuckles on the right would stand up against wrongs promoted by other on the right. In addition to being the moral thing, it would lend credibility to more important topics.

 

[SoCalRC]

There are documented meetings between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda operatives. The hijackers were part of a larger organization, which we are now fighting.

I’m sorry, but we have no evidence of an Iraq/9-11 link (or even an Iraq Al Queda link). Two commissions have now concluded this (one setup by the President) and the President himself has acknowleged that we have no evidence of such a link.

Similiarly, we now have three investigations, two overseen by the administration, on the question of weapons of mass destruction. All three agree that there is no evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, or even an operating weapons development program, at the time of the US invasion.

We do have strong evidence that there is a strong Saudi connection to 9/11, aside from Bin Laden and the hijackers nationalities, we have over $70B in funds going to terrorists, and fairly strong evidence of interaction between two of the hijackers and a member of the Saudi government prior to 9/11 (currently we have only the statements of the Congressional and 9/11 commission investigators and a small number of supporting documents, because the 28 related pages of the report have been classified by the Bush administration). Similiarly, we have strong evidence of Saudi assistance to Sunni insurgency in Iraq, and strong evidence that Pakistan is involved in harboring terrorists and in nuclear proliferation with regards to North Korea.

What we should or should not do with all this knowledge is another subject. But we should stop pretending that Iraq was connected to 9/11 or had weapons of mass destruction. It makes it very difficult to viably discuss how to proceed if we insist on holding false perceptions about the reality we have found.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I’ve showed you in your document (#23) where torture “can never be tolerated” and in a Doctrinal Note (prepared by our current pope and signed by the last) that lists torture and abortion both as principles that cannot be compromised (#4).

I’m not sure what else I can do, ‘not permitting abridgement or compromise’ seems crystal clear to me. It also makes very good sense, abortion is not a stand alone teaching, but one of many manifestations of the inalienable right of the human person declared by the Second Vatican Council. In this regard, I have already quoted CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI (#38) in this thread.

EVANGELIUM VITAE makes the same argument, tying abortion, murder, euthanasia, and even the death penalty to the same underlying teaching.

Perhaps we could turn it around. Perhaps you could show me where, in your document (or any other Church document) that asserts that we can comromise on slavery, torture, or stem cell research for the sake of perceived political progress. Another part of your document clearly states that Good ends do not justify Evil means.

Maybe we are talking past each other and saying the same thing. Maybe a question will be illuminating.

Candidate A advocates that women have the right to procure an abortion.

Candidate B says that waterboarding is an acceptable means to gather intelligence from terrorists. (slavery is a non-issue as I know no American politician who advocates slavery in America).

Who do you vote for?

 

[steveandersen]

Maybe we are talking past each other and saying the same thing. Maybe a question will be illuminating.

Candidate A advocates that women have the right to procure an abortion.

Candidate B says that waterboarding is an acceptable means to gather intelligence from terrorists. (slavery is a non-issue as I know no American politician who advocates slavery in America).

Who do you vote for?

Well since the Vatican says that “A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good.” And that both torture and abortion “can never be justified.” the answer would have to be "what other positions do A & B stand for?”

“None of the above" or not participating in the system doesn’t solve either problem, allows others to have a voice in grave moral decisions, and is a is failure of duty to community.

 

[pnewton]

Well since the Vatican says that “A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good.” And that both torture and abortion “can never be justified.” the answer would have to be "what other positions do A & B stand for?”

Other issues should not matter, unless they are on par with abortion, like euthanasia. Voting for A does not exhaust one’s responsibility in other areas, but there are other ways other than voting of adhering to the Church teaching, like not torturing people.

 

[SoCalRC]

Maybe we are talking past each other and saying the same thing. Maybe a question will be illuminating.

Candidate A advocates that women have the right to procure an abortion.

Candidate B says that waterboarding is an acceptable means to gather intelligence from terrorists. (slavery is a non-issue as I know no American politician who advocates slavery in America).

Who do you vote for?

Neither, since both hold beliefs that conflict with teachings that the Church has declared to be of utmost importance in voting (I’m even warned that what is at stake is the “essence of moral law”).

Candidate A may believe in all kinds of good policies that I find in keeping with church teaching, but abortion is an attack on the inalienable right to life of each human person. So nothing else balances it out.

Candidate B may have a belief about abortion that is in keeping with Church teaching, but torture, in of itself, is an attack on the inalienable rights of the human person - the foundation of Catholic beliefs about abortion. Further, torturing suspects has dire consequences. CCC 2309 gives civil authority some leeway in determining the conditions of just war, but CCC 2310, 11, 12, etc. do not.

I believe, as George Weigel does, that torture inherently invalidates an argument of just war. That would make the hundreds of thousands of deaths in the war so far potentially murders, and certainly the targeted pregnant civilians would be forced abortions.

Understand, it is not a matter of ‘downplaying’ abortion, but of striving to fully accept the Church teaching on “right to life”, which is much, much broader.

I’ve been accused o making it “too complicated”, but for me it is very simple. The Vatican lists nine “moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation”, so I strive very hard not to, with any of them.

Similarly, the USCCB advises me that there are seven issues of critical importance to US voters, so I strive to adhere to those as well.

Both the USCCB and the Vatican warn about the perils of attempting to achieve good via evil ends. So I don’t (or at least try very hard not to). Fortunately I live in a country that allows write ins and third parties when it comes to voting.

 

[SoCalRC]

Other issues should not matter, unless they are on par with abortion, like euthanasia. Voting for A does not exhaust one’s responsibility in other areas, but there are other ways other than voting of adhering to the Church teaching, like not torturing people.

But the Church teaches that abortion, euthanasia, torture, modern forms of slavery (not to be confused with a classic interpretation of slavery), and the death penalty are all related to the same core principle.

Compromising any of them, particular ones the Church instructs us not to compromise on, potentially undermines the whole. At some point you are no longer a “pro life” Catholic, but simply an “anti abortion” voter.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Ad hominem is forbidden by the Forum Rules and Banned Topics so please exclude such from your discussion & debate.

Discuss/debate the issues and not each other.
MF

 

[surfinpure]

But come on, it is not legitimate to somehow accuse liberals of being “against” the faith since they think that the government should be in control of welfare. It is however, wholly legitimate to accuse liberals of being against the faith if they support a candidate in favor of abortion, no matter how they rationalize their views.

I agree that the two issues are not of the same importance. However, I was not accusing liberals of going against the Catholic faith for their belief that government ought to be in charge of charity; rather, I was stating that I sincerely hope they do not hold the dangerous belief that “the end justifies the means.” Because that would be departing from the faith.

So on the one hand you have those who simply hold the social belief that governments ought to provide charity by means of taxation. Fine. I disagree, but I don’t see it as a moral issue from their standpoint. But on the other hand you have folks who think that as long as the outcome is desirable or “good,” it’s okay to rob citizens, abort children, pull the plug on the elderly, etc.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Well since the Vatican says that “A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good.” And that both torture and abortion “can never be justified.” the answer would have to be "what other positions do A & B stand for?”

“None of the above" or not participating in the system doesn’t solve either problem, allows others to have a voice in grave moral decisions, and is a is failure of duty to community.

According to the Bishop, we are called to not consider other issues. From its document “Faithful Citizenship,”

1. The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different
   kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of
   innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is
   not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.3

From the Pope himself:
3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia." priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

As abhorrent as torture is, do you really think the Church consideres them morally equivalent?

 

[steveandersen]

Other issues should not matter, unless they are on par with abortion, like euthanasia.

according to the documents cited above there are other issues on the list of things that “can never be justified.”

They are tied to the intrinsic value of life
It is not that some things are more or less wrong… they 're all wrong

Voting for A does not exhaust one’s responsibility in other areas, but there are other ways other than voting of adhering to the Church teaching, like not torturing people.

Would you say:

Voting for B does not exhaust one’s responsibility in other areas, but there are other ways other than voting of adhering to the Church teaching, like not having or performing an abortion. ?

The notion that not personally performing torture kinda allows you to not mind too much when your government does it in your name seems problematic.

I would still have to see what else candidates A & B are advocating and of course the position they were running for. A person can have strong feeling for or against abortion but if they are running for dog catcher there is probably not a thing they can do the affect the system.

 

[pnewton]

But the Church teaches that abortion, euthanasia, torture, modern forms of slavery (not to be confused with a classic interpretation of slavery), and the death penalty are all related to the same core principle.

That does not make the all equal. Yes, I am an anti-abortion voter first and foremost. When other issues arise on par with that, they will be included. “Prolife” is nothing but a label anyway, like “prochoice” and is subject to broad interpretation.

 

[Stratiotes]

As you may recall, the UN was not attacked. The US was.

My point was simply that there is an element in this debate that keeps wanting to justify the war by covering it in the flag of the UN but then, when challenged, they want to rip it off and throw on the flag of the US instead. Just pick one - either be an honest nationalist or an honest globalist but don’t try to play both sides of the fence.

 

[whatevergirl]

I am a Christian, but aside from being pro-life, I would have to say my views lean leftwards. I am against the Iraq War (who would Jesus bomb?) and capital punishment. Remember, Jesus was killed under capital punishment.

Thumbing through some of the threads, I can’t help but notice a good bit of anti-leftism hanging around. There was once a guy who had some pretty radical views who didn’t get much respect from the churches either. I think his name was Jesus.

I vote repub, but I don’t agree with all of the issues. Actually Pope JP2 called for capital punishment to be abolished…I remember signing a petition back in PA–in my local parish–largely based on Pope JP2’s initiative. (except in extremely rare cases) I don’t believe in the ‘war’ either, because I don’t even feel it is a war–anymore. Who are we at war with? Terrorists? There are terrorist cells everywhere in every country, nearly…are we going to go to ‘war’ with all countries, after Iraq? Granted–we shouldn’t pull out–as we need to make sure the work we’ve done, stays done–and that the Iraqi people can take care of themselves…but, I don’t call that a war. I call that stabilizing the Iraqi government. So, I too, don’t agree with all repub issues–however, I stand for conservative moral values, over liberal values. I don’t know if any of us can say we are 100% one way or the other. (at least not with the candidates that are out there to choose from)

 

[pnewton]

The notion that not personally performing torture kinda allows you to not mind too much when your government does it in your name seems problematic.

Yes, but for me its a sacrifice. Seriously, I know that. It is just that not being absolved of responsibility does not mean you must vote for every topic, or as some have insinuated, weigh each topic equally. There are other ways of exercising responsibility. I do see torture as a big issue, though. It’s application in the US is very limited. I think that would further weigh it down to a non-issue.

 

[steveandersen]

According to the Bishop, we are called to not consider other issues. From its document “Faithful Citizenship,”

Then we’re kinda stuck aren’t we?

How can you try to change the system by not participating in it?

As abhorrent as torture is, do you really think the Church consideres them morally equivalent?

Are you trying to say that that the Church says there are things that are just a little bit wrong?

They are both terrible evils
And I’m left with the same dilemma:
If I participate I’m left with a terrible choice
If I opt out of the system I loose my ability to try to change it and the right to complain about it.

what am I to do?

 

[dove51]

I agree with you. If not for the typically Republican stance of pro-life, I am much more inclined to be liberal-minded. I’ll assuredly always vote my Catholic beliefs, but I do sometimes wish there were more pro-life (or just pro-religion in general) Democrats. The ones I meet usually aren’t, although I know there are some out there.

 

[Stratiotes]

An interesting little pamphlet/book:
The Liberal Case Against Abortion

 

[St_Aloysius]

I am a Christian, but aside from being pro-life, I would have to say my views lean leftwards. I am against the Iraq War (who would Jesus bomb?) and capital punishment. Remember, Jesus was killed under capital punishment.

Thumbing through some of the threads, I can’t help but notice a good bit of anti-leftism hanging around. There was once a guy who had some pretty radical views who didn’t get much respect from the churches either. I think his name was Jesus.

I feel you…

I’m something of a leftist, too, and definitely oppose both the Iraq war (most wars, really) and the death penalty (read Dostoevsky).

I oppose the War in Iraq because our crusading for “peace” and “democracy” was based on wanting to get our greedy hands on the East’s resources. If we’re so into “peace” and “lending a hand,” then why don’t we jump into the Dar-Far conflicts already? Simple answer: No gain for the good ol’ U.S. Hardly a “just war.”

I oppose capital punishment because, as you pointed out: It has flaws. Innocent men are tried and put on death row. The most we can boast of our system in this country is that our killing via lethal injections is much more “humane.” Give me a break… We are not God: We have no right to declare someone Hopeless and Beyond Rehabilitation (like a sticker on their forehead) and send them off. The raising of taxes to accomodate inmates held for serious crimes is hardly an excuse for retaining the (unnecessary) trend of capital punishment in this country. Life is not a matter of convenience. It simply is, as the Catechism says, “incompatible with the dignity of the person.”

I’m also against abortion and stem cell research, however. Why is it that we seem to be seeing the end of capital punishment (a good thing in itself) while simultaneously the rise of abortion? Why are we such a firmly established society of contradictions, I wonder?