Trump v. Clinton matchup has Catholic leaders scrambling

[LeafByNiggle]

If Hillary Clinton came out tomorrow and said she supported a woman’s right to kill her child until they reached the age of five would you still vote for her?

OK, I will answer your hypothetical, in the hopes that maybe you will answer mine. Actually, my answer to both hypotheticals is the same.

In the case of the County Drain Commissioner candidate who happens to be pro-choice, his position on abortion can have no bearing on his job, because the job of Drain Commissioner does not involve abortion at all. So I would say that a Catholic is free to vote for the competent one, regardless of his position on abortion.

In the case of Hillary adopting the view that five year olds could legally be killed by their parents, as unlikely as it is for her to adopt that position, it is even less likely that anyone would listen to her and put such a policy into effect. Therefore just as in the case of the competent Drain Commissioner, her view on that extension of abortion would not have any effect on the law, and therefore could be ignored when considering her as a candidate.

Do you agree with both of these analyses? Or just one of them? Or neither of them?

 

[estesbob]

Instead of mightily trying so hard to get me to agree to something that is nothing like what I said, how about directly addressing what I did write?

There is nothing wrong with your holding that belief.

But I do find it interesting that you mention “taxpayer-funded”. It would seem that if your main concern is abortion and its consequences, the fact of some of your tax money being paid to doctors who do this would rank pretty low. To paraphrase a comment of yours “would the children be any less dead if they were aborted by doctors who were paid in some other way besides your tax dollars?”

What is the difference between supporting someone who supports the killing of the unborn and supporting someone who supports the killing of six-year-olds ? Why would one think it’s okay to vote for the former but not the latter ?

I oppose taxpayer funding of killing the unborn just like our Church does. I’m surprised anyone who is pro-life would not understand the desire of those who respect life not to be forced to pay for the killing of the unborn .

Please note that Hillary Clinton wants us not only to be forced to fund the killing of the unborn but also wants to continue to force businesses to pay for contraception and abortificants. We even have the spectacle of the Little Sisters of the Poor ,with the full support of Hillary Clinton , being drug into court and threatened with being fined out of existence because they won’t provide contraception for the members of their order and their employees . What possible "proportionate " reasons are there that would allow Catholics to vote for a candidate who supports this and abortion?

I think we need to keep in mind that supporting abortion does not happen in a vacuum. Generally candidates who support abortion also vigorously embrace all facets of the culture of death .

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Getting back to the subject Trump, it seems that many other groups are “scrambling”:

Many Evangelicals Are In ‘An Awkward Place’ With Trump Atop GOP

America’s evangelicals feel ‘abandonded’ by Trump

 

[estesbob]

OK, I will answer your hypothetical, in the hopes that maybe you will answer mine. Actually, my answer to both hypotheticals is the same.

In the case of the County Drain Commissioner candidate who happens to be pro-choice, his position on abortion can have no bearing on his job, because the job of Drain Commissioner does not involve abortion at all. So I would say that a Catholic is free to vote for the competent one, regardless of his position on abortion.

In the case of Hillary adopting the view that five year olds could legally be killed by their parents, as unlikely as it is for her to adopt that position, it is even less likely that anyone would listen to her and put such a policy into effect. Therefore just as in the case of the competent Drain Commissioner, her view on that extension of abortion would not have any effect on the law, and therefore could be ignored when considering her as a candidate.

Do you agree with both of these analyses? Or just one of them? Or neither of them?

I wouldn’t vote for either. One who supports unrestricted taxpayer-funded on abortion on demand is so morally flawed they should not be entrusted with any position of leadership at any level of government . Again I do not understand how one can rationalize voting for those who support killing the unborn but not for a candidate who supports the killing of seven year olds .

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What is the difference between supporting someone who supports the killing of the unborn and supporting someone who supports the killing of six-year-olds ? Why would one think it’s okay to vote for the former but not the latter ?

Actually, supporting some who favors abortion is more problematic than supporting someone who supports legalizing the killing of six-year-olds, because the former policy has some chance of being enacted, while the later one has almost no chance of catching on. So as a practical matter, the impact of that more extreme view would be nil, and therefore could be discounted, in the presence of other serious issues, except to the extent that anyone who held such a view would likely not hold favorable views on any other serious issues either. OK, I have answered your hypothetical twice. How about answering mine?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I wouldn’t vote for either. One who supports unrestricted taxpayer-funded on abortion on demand is so morally flawed they should not be entrusted with any position of leadership at any level of government.

I should have been more clear. Rather than telling me how you would vote in such an election (County Drain Commissioner), I really wanted to know what the binding Catholic doctrine says about voting for the competent, but pro-choice Drain Commissioner.

 

[GaryTaylor]

What constitutes “support”?

Being an accomplice, consent by participation of vote of the abortion agenda is formal cooperation. The consent of accomplice can be either formal or material. If I hand you a gun and you kill with it then its also material and the magnitude increases. If I vote for abortion candidates I’m a formal accomplice, if I then perform the abortions I am also a material accomplice.

Drain Commissioner does not involve abortion at all.

Being an accomplice of pro-choice-[abortion] does!!!

 

[estesbob]

Actually, supporting some who favors abortion is more problematic than supporting someone who supports legalizing the killing of six-year-olds, because the former policy has some chance of being enacted, while the later one has almost no chance of catching on. So as a practical matter, the impact of that more extreme view would be nil, and therefore could be discounted, in the presence of other serious issues, except to the extent that anyone who held such a view would likely not hold favorable views on any other serious issues either. OK, I have answered your hypothetical twice. How about answering mine?

Dismissing the killing of Seven year olds as an extreme view doesnt answer it So let’s try again. If the Supreme Court ruled that a mother had the right to pay someone to kill their child up to the age of seven could a Catholic vote for a candidate who supports this And how is this any different than voting for one who supports the killing of the unborn?

I guess in fairness I should also answer these questions. No I would not vote for candidate supports the killing of children up to the age of seven even if our Govt allowed it. There is absolutely no difference between voting for one who supports the the killing of seven year olds and supporting one who supports the killing of the unborn. Trying to make a distinction between the two is another example of the mental gymnastics a Archbishop Chaput refers to

 

[estesbob]

I should have been more clear. Rather than telling me how you would vote in such an election (County Drain Commissioner), I really wanted to know what the binding Catholic doctrine says about voting for the competent, but pro-choice Drain Commissioner.

The Church makes no distinction between the level of office being sought, nor do I if you can post a link where the Church says it’s okay to support a candidate who supports abortion depending up on the position they are seeking please post it

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Being an accomplice, consent by participation of vote of the abortion agenda is formal cooperation.

According to this on EWTN, formal cooperation requires that the voter actually intend the evil act - in this case, abortion. Voting for someone while not intending that evil act is not formal cooperation. Until you get that right, there is no sense going further with the classification.

 

[GaryTaylor]

According to this on EWTN, formal cooperation requires that the voter actually intend the evil act - in this case, abortion. Voting for someone while not intending that evil act is not formal cooperation. Until you get that right, there is no sense going further with the classification.

1st of all lets get something straight, either EWTN is authoritative teaching or it is not. We seem to have some confusion on this thread and in particular about EWTN in documentation coinciding with abortion and the USCCB.

So your point is rejected until those who hold YOUR position clarify. Let me know I’ll respond.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The Church makes no distinction between the level of office being sought…

Are you honestly telling me that the Church forbids me to vote for a County Drain Commisioner just because I happen know he is pro-choice? I wonder how far that “no distinction” thing goes? What about a stockholder voting for an executive in a corporation? Same injunction from the Church? What about hiring a store manager for a Walmart? Same injunction from the Church? What about hiring a cashier for a Walmart? What about selling groceries to a politician? Even though in every one of these cases, it could be argued that acquiescing to the pro-choice person helps them advance their pro-choice agenda, I am certain the Church would not forbid me to sell groceries to a pro-choice person. So at some point in this continuum, a distinction must be made, and “cooperation” is allowed by the Church. Unless you want to maintain the ridiculous position that the Church requires that we starve anyone who is pro-choice.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

1st of all lets get something straight, either EWTN is authoritative teaching or it is not. We seem to have some confusion on this thread and in particular about EWTN in documentation coinciding with abortion and the USCCB.

So your point is rejected until those who hold YOUR position clarify. Let me know I’ll respond.

I am quite willing to be corrected on my definition of formal cooperation. If you have a link to an authoritative teaching (or even a non-authoritative one) that defines formal cooperation in line with your stated definition, then please post it.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I am quite willing to be corrected on my definition of formal cooperation. If you have a link to an authoritative teaching (or even a non-authoritative one) that defines formal cooperation in line with your stated definition, then please post it.

Oh your point is quite easy to refute but clarification is needed for EWTN as both Bob and I posted coinciding information from EWTN to the great dismay of those holding your position and on this thread. So either EWTN is rejected period or you’ll have to amend your position. I stopped using it out of charity and the simple fact that in truth I don’t need it. However, if its NOW permitted then the prior points stand and I’ll address your point. Until then you eliminated the very place you consult as a non authority.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Oh you point is quite easy to refute but clarification is needed for EWTN as both Bob and I posted coinciding information from EWTN to the great dismay of those holding your position and on this thread. So either EWTN is rejected period or you’ll have to amend your position. I stop using it out of charity and the somple fact that in truth I don’t need it. However, its its NOW permitted then the prior points stand and I’ll address your point. Until then you eliminated the very place you consult.

EWTN is not the subject of this discussion. I used it because it was the very first hit on Google when I searched for “formal cooperation”. You used the term “formal cooperation” incorrectly. Now you refuse to acknowledge that you used it incorrectly until I make some kind of universal judgment on the validity of everything that comes through EWTN. This is a ridiculous distraction from your misstatement. I don’t care if you think EWTN is authoritative or not. I can find other sources to confirm that your usage of “formal cooperation” is incorrect, if that is a sticking point.

 

[chero23]

Some people vote for HRC because she is a woman. That means that they value a woman being in office more than they value someone who shares their views on the horror of the massacre of the unborn.

Some people support HRC because of her experience. that means that they value her role in Benghazi more than they value someone who share their views on the horror of the massacre of the unborn.

Some people support HRC because of her association with the very popular president, her husband Bill. That means that they value Bill more than they value someone who shares their views on the horror of the massacre of the unborn…

There are a thousand reasons, I suppose, that people might support HRC. That means that they value any or all of those thousands of reasons more that they value someone who shares their views on the horror of the massacre of the unborn.

So you just mentioned 3 things why someone might vote for Hillary. Yet, on each one you gave a negative.

Trump is not really sure about his position on abortion. He has said, only in cases of rape or incest. Yet, when Kerry said the same thing in 2004, the Church condemned that, but here people praise Trump. Hmmmmm I wonder if it’s bc Trump is a republican the excuses come up.

People want Teump bc of his business experience to help with the economy. This coming from the man who bankrupt, who started a university and stole millions of dollars from people on a fake not accredited university. So they share his values of not knowing what his position is on abortion, someone who is racist, someone who attacks women.

Boy what a consolation price!!!

Some people vote for Trump bc he’s out of the establishment and is not politically correct. I wonder how long that attitude is going to keep us out of war? That means that those people that vote for Trump will vote for a man who is still undecided on abortion, a man who racist, and attacks women, plus more.

Boy, what a consolation price.

 

[Crossbones]

Oh your point is quite easy to refute but clarification is needed for EWTN as both Bob and I posted coinciding information from EWTN to the great dismay of those holding your position and on this thread. So either EWTN is rejected period or you’ll have to amend your position. I stopped using it out of charity and the simple fact that in truth I don’t need it. However, if its NOW permitted then the prior points stand and I’ll address your point. Until then you eliminated the very place you consult as a non authority.

I don’t like using the EWTN’s voter’s guide (or any other “Catholic” voter’s guide for that matter) because Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship specifically says to use the USCCB resources or those provided by your bishop. That’s where all this is coming from. Whatever you and Leaf want to use is between you two.

 

[estesbob]

Are you honestly telling me that the Church forbids me to vote for a County Drain Commisioner just because I happen know he is pro-choice? I wonder how far that “no distinction” thing goes? What about a stockholder voting for an executive in a corporation? Same injunction from the Church? What about hiring a store manager for a Walmart? Same injunction from the Church? What about hiring a cashier for a Walmart? What about selling groceries to a politician? Even though in every one of these cases, it could be argued that acquiescing to the pro-choice person helps them advance their pro-choice agenda, I am certain the Church would not forbid me to sell groceries to a pro-choice person. So at some point in this continuum, a distinction must be made, and “cooperation” is allowed by the Church. Unless you want to maintain the ridiculous position that the Church requires that we starve anyone who is pro-choice.

The Church says you cannot vote for somebody who supports abortion . It says nothing about selling them groceries

From a Personal standpoint I refuse to prepare tax returns for anyone who has income from an abortion provider . But that is a personal choice and is not mandated by the church

 

[Darryl1958]

So you just mentioned 3 things why someone might vote for Hillary. Yet, on each one you gave a negative
…
.

I am not sure what you mean.
I certainly did not give a negative on the fact that she was a woman.
Negative or not, Benghazi is a very much what she will be remembered for as her record as Secretary of State, which in turn is as high as she has risen politically.
And I never said anything negative about Bill Clinton whatsoever.

As for Trump, that wasn’t really part of anything that i said anyway. I don’t know how that is related.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a politician who has a clear record of supporting abortion? Or is it a sin.

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/SINTOVOT.HTM

abortion is a gravely serious evil, and as such is never to be supported. In the Vatican’s “Declaration on Procured Abortion” (Cardinal Seper, Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1974) there is a discussion of “Morality and Law” (#19-23). “Man may never obey a law which is in itself, immoral and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle, the liceity of abortion. Nor can he take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law or vote for it. Moreover, he may not collaborate in its application. It is, for instance, inadmissible that doctors or nurses should find themselves obligated to cooperate closely in abortions and have to choose between the law of God and their professional situation.” (22)

“Evangelium Vitae” states “I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. … No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself and proclaimed by the Church” (EV 62C).

“Code of Canon Law punished abortion with excommunication. The revised canonical legislation continues this tradition when it decrees that a person who actually procures an abortion incurs automatic (Latae sententiae) excommunication” (Canon 1398) " The excommunication affects all those who commit this crime with knowledge of the penalty attached and thus includes those accomplices without whose help the crime would not have been committed" (Canon 1329).

“the Church makes clear that abortion is a most serious and dangerous crime, thereby encouraging those who commit it to seek without delay the path of conversion. In the Church the purpose of the penalty of excommunication is to make an individual fully aware of the gravity of a certain sin and then to foster genuine conversion and repentance”(EV 62B).

The argument can be made that voting is a very remote form of cooperation in abortion. But is it all that remote? The legislator who votes for abortion is clearly a formal accomplice, giving formal cooperation with abortion.

S/he shares both in the intention of the act, and in supplying material support for the act. If I vote for such a candidate, knowing full well that he will help make available public monies for abortion, or continue it decriminalization, then I am aiding him/her.

It is a hard fact that when funding dries up for budgets of abortuaries, the abortion provider lays off staff, making fewer abortions possible. Unlike the pro-life movement, the abortion industry is not staffed with volunteers, who stand to gain no commercial advantage. If budgets are cut, the staff is reduced. If the abortuary is unprofitable, it closes its doors.

It is not sufficient to think that, since candidate X takes the ‘right position’ on other issues such as the economy, foreign relations, defense, etc. but only goes wrong on abortion, one can in good conscience, vote for him/her. Abortion deals with the first and most basic human right, without which there is nothing left to talk about.

Consider this question in light of another issue. Would voters be understanding and nuanced in their toleration of a known racist? Or would that be sufficient reason for everyone to consider him/her unfit for public office? Why should we understand intolerance in the case of racism, but not in the case of murdering unborn babies? Abortion is not just another “issue” - it is a matter of life and death, the great civil rights issue of our time.

In his homily delivered at the National Shrine on 21 January, Bernard Cardinal Law said: “We who are here are challenged by the words of the Holy Father who calls us to be aware that we are facing an enormous and dramatic clash between good and evil, death and life, the culture of death and the culture of life. We find ourselves not only face with, but necessarily in the midst of this conflict; we are all involved and we all share in it, with the inescapable responsibility of choosing to be unconditionally pro-life.”

“That is what Catholics are called to: to be unconditionally pro-life. There is no ambiguity in the words of Peter’s successor. To be Catholic is to be unconditionally pro-life. To support abortion, to advocate the right to choose an abortion can in no way be considered a catholic option. …”

“All too many of us, however, have hidden the Gospel of Life under the bushel basket of political expediency. How scandalous it is to see the evidence of Catholic votes supporting those who deny the Gospel of Life! It is easy to criticize Catholic elected representatives who have rejected life. Do we not need to be even more concerned with the far greater number of Catholic voters who fail to challenge those politicians?”

“Our task within the household of faith is clear and daunting, my brothers and sisters. It must be made abundantly clear in pulpits, in classrooms, in the lecture halls of our colleges and universities, in the Catholic press, in the way we vote, that to be catholic is to be unconditionally pro-life.”

It is a scandal that Catholic politicians vote for bills which fund or otherwise advance abortion. They should be named, publicly shamed and admonished so that they can cease their evil and return to God.

To vote for such a candidate is to willfully participate in that candidate’s choices and deeds. It is a sin, and must be repented.

You severe communion with the Church…

vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/p2s2c2a4_lt.htm