US bishops approve new issue of voters' guide, 'Faithful Citizenship' [CC]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Crossbones said:
Well, it’s not like voting for the pro-life Presidential candidate resulted in abortion being outlawed in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004. Maybe the Bishops realize that just because a certain issue is important for a Catholic voter, it might not be of sufficient importance to the politician to make a legislative difference, and that voters have to reflect over a wide array of issues. Or maybe it’ll be quite clear that abortion is the only issue that Catholics should consider. I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
Click to expand...
Those are excuses #5, 6, 7, and 8.

EXCUSES FOR VOTING FOR PRO-ABORTION POLITICIANS
  1. National Republicans aren’t “really” pro-life, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
  2. Specific candidate isn’t “really” pro-life, or I don’t believe his supposed change of belief, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
  3. My deacon/priest/bishop/cardinal told me or wrote me a letter telling me it was okay to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  4. I’m not a one-issue voter, so I can ignore the Church’s teaching and vote for the virulently pro-abortion politician.
  5. Republicans (at any level) have not passed enough pro-life laws (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
  6. Republicans (at any level) have not had enough success on pro-life issues (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
  7. Roe vs. Wade is still the law of the land even though most Supreme Court justices were appointed by the Republicans, therefore Republicans aren’t serious about abortion, so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
  8. I found a Church document that mentioned proportionate reasons in voting, so I personally judged support for a higher minimum wage (or other social justice cause) was on equal footing with abortion, and I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
  9. I personally believe that Democratic policies will reduce abortions, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  10. We can’t do anything about abortion until we change the hearts and minds of the people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  11. You can’t legislate morality, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  12. People will still have abortions even if you make them illegal, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  13. We can’t end abortion until we address the root causes, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  14. I can’t impose my beliefs on other people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  15. There isn’t any difference between the parties, so it is okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
  16. The Pro-Life movement is in the tank for the Republican party (even though all pro-life legislation has had the overwhelming support of Republicans and overwhelming opposition from Democrats), so it’s okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
  17. All people sin, so we’re all really “Cafeteria Catholics”, so it’s okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
  18. Dominionists attend GOP rallies so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician
  19. The Pope believes in Global warming, the Pro-life candidate does not so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician
 
zz912 said:
Those are excuses #5, 6, 7, and 8.

EXCUSES FOR VOTING FOR PRO-ABORTION POLITICIANS
  1. National Republicans aren’t “really” pro-life, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
  2. Specific candidate isn’t “really” pro-life, or I don’t believe his supposed change of belief, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
  3. My deacon/priest/bishop/cardinal told me or wrote me a letter telling me it was okay to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  4. I’m not a one-issue voter, so I can ignore the Church’s teaching and vote for the virulently pro-abortion politician.
  5. Republicans (at any level) have not passed enough pro-life laws (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
  6. Republicans (at any level) have not had enough success on pro-life issues (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
  7. Roe vs. Wade is still the law of the land even though most Supreme Court justices were appointed by the Republicans, therefore Republicans aren’t serious about abortion, so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
  8. I found a Church document that mentioned proportionate reasons in voting, so I personally judged support for a higher minimum wage (or other social justice cause) was on equal footing with abortion, and I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
  9. I personally believe that Democratic policies will reduce abortions, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  10. We can’t do anything about abortion until we change the hearts and minds of the people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  11. You can’t legislate morality, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  12. People will still have abortions even if you make them illegal, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  13. We can’t end abortion until we address the root causes, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  14. I can’t impose my beliefs on other people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  15. There isn’t any difference between the parties, so it is okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
  16. The Pro-Life movement is in the tank for the Republican party (even though all pro-life legislation has had the overwhelming support of Republicans and overwhelming opposition from Democrats), so it’s okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
  17. All people sin, so we’re all really “Cafeteria Catholics”, so it’s okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
  18. Dominionists attend GOP rallies so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician
  19. The Pope believes in Global warming, the Pro-life candidate does not so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician
Click to expand...
Bob?
 
You label each of these reasons as excuses but some of them are also simple facts.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You could also say that voting for a candidate just because he says he is against abortion is an excuse to ignore poverty, the environment, social justice, etc.
Click to expand...
The environment, poverty and social justice do not rise to the level of importance of abortion. End of story.

If a politician says they are prolife, but only pays lip service to the issue, then you vote for another prolife politician. It doesn’t justify voting for a proabortion politician.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You could also say that voting for a candidate just because he says he is against abortion is an excuse to ignore poverty, the environment, social justice, etc.
Click to expand...
The majority of these forums will vote for the republicans anyway, unfortunately. The few Church documents being pro-capitalist seem to be used by many on these boards to just support libertarian policies, or Laissez-faire economics, which they’ll use as an excuse to dismiss other criticisms of republican policy.
Catholic1954 said:
Here in the US, in order to keep the tax exempt status, religious figures (like bishops) are not allowed to recommend a particular candidate.
Click to expand...
Really? Here in the UK they wouldn’t be able to publicly endorse a party or candidate as a whole organization, but both the Church of England and Catholic Church regularly have their clergy recommend and support The Labour Party.
 
zz912 said:
The environment, poverty and social justice do not rise to the level of importance of abortion. End of story.
Click to expand...
No, that’s not the end of the story. A statement like “The environment, poverty and social justice do not rise to the level of importance of abortion.” is too simplistic to cover all possible decisions involving these issues. Specific decisions involve weighing probabilities of outcomes. Those judgements cannot be made by a canned formula. The specifics of an particular case can be considered by the faithful voter before blindly applying this formula. Otherwise the document on “Faithful Citizenship” could be one page long.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
No, that’s not the end of the story. A statement like “The environment, poverty and social justice do not rise to the level of importance of abortion.” is too simplistic to cover all possible decisions involving these issues. Specific decisions involve weighing probabilities of outcomes. Those judgements cannot be made by a canned formula. The specifics of an particular case can be considered by the faithful voter before blindly applying this formula. Otherwise the document on “Faithful Citizenship” could be one page long.
Click to expand...
I don’t find the claim that the argument is too nuanced or complex to be particularly compelling. One could spend the rest of eternity considering all possible outcomes, and humans don’t operate that way. Besides, each person is allowed to vote his conscience. But I do like the notion that the document could be one page long, and perhaps one paragraph is more than enough.
 
sps49 said:
I don’t find the claim that the argument is too nuanced or complex to be particularly compelling. One could spend the rest of eternity considering all possible outcomes, and humans don’t operate that way. Besides, each person is allowed to vote his conscience. But I do like the notion that the document could be one page long, and perhaps one paragraph is more than enough.
Click to expand...
Apparently the US Bishops disagree with you.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Apparently the US Bishops disagree with you.
Click to expand...
As always, mastering the obvious, but not so obvious. Perhaps the more accurate way to describe it is that some U.S. bishops disagree with me. Or did you mean that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops disagrees with me? Hmmm. I think it’s safe to say that some bishops agree, and some disagree, which is business as usual. No matter, my already well formed conscience will be my guide as usual. Which makes me wonder, what was the point of your murky statement, that someone else has an opinion, and that if they are a bishop, that should matter to me in a preferential way? As I said, already well formed and waiting.
 
sps49 said:
As always, mastering the obvious, but not so obvious. Perhaps the more accurate way to describe it is that some U.S. bishops disagree with me. Or did you mean that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops disagrees with me? Hmmm. I think it’s safe to say that some bishops agree, and some disagree, which is business as usual. No matter, my already well formed conscience will be my guide as usual. Which makes me wonder, what was the point of your murky statement, that someone else has an opinion, and that if they are a bishop, that should matter to me in a preferential way? As I said, already well formed and waiting.
Click to expand...
The point of my “murky” statement was directed more at the statements preceding yours - the recent ones between me and zz912, in which zz912 was apparently trying to “prove” that there is no room for a conscientious decision that weighed abortion with any other issues, since “The environment, poverty and social justice do not rise to the level of importance of abortion”. If you do not take that view, then I apologize for assuming that you did.

As for “some bishops agree, and some disagree”, let’s be clear on what this refers to. Obviously some bishops disagree with the exact content of “Faithful Citizenship”, but I am not aware of any bishops who think that this guide should be only one paragraph long. And that was the only thing I was referring to when I said “apparently the bishops disagree with you”. They obviously** all** feel that the issue is complex enough to allow some prudential judgement in making voting decisions.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
No, that’s not the end of the story. A statement like “The environment, poverty and social justice do not rise to the level of importance of abortion.” is too simplistic to cover all possible decisions involving these issues. Specific decisions involve weighing probabilities of outcomes. Those judgements cannot be made by a canned formula. The specifics of an particular case can be considered by the faithful voter before blindly applying this formula. Otherwise the document on “Faithful Citizenship” could be one page long.
Click to expand...
That’s simply excuse making to allow justification for voting for a pro-abortion politician. It doesn’t matter how many social justice programs a politician favors, if they support abortion, a faithful Catholic cannot vote for him/her, unless their opponent is equally or more pro-abortion.

And yes, the Faithful Citizenship document could be one page long. It would undoubtedly be more effective that way, as more people would read it and hopefully it would inform their consciences. Taking 84 pages to write out the reasoning for voting principles is fine, but you need clarity and conciseness when dealing with mass audiences. And Church teaching is not so difficult to proclaim on this topic. It’s quite simple.
 
QuidVeritasEst said:
The majority of these forums will vote for the republicans anyway, unfortunately. The few Church documents being pro-capitalist seem to be used by many on these boards to just support libertarian policies, or Laissez-faire economics, which they’ll use as an excuse to dismiss other criticisms of republican policy.
Click to expand...
Why unfortunately? Is there something contrary to the Catholic faith in the GOP party platform? Hopefully you are not suggesting Catholics should support a political party that promotes and supports intrinsic evils in direct contravention to Church teaching, right? In charity I’m assuming I misunderstood your response so please give some more detail.
Really? Here in the UK they wouldn’t be able to publicly endorse a party or candidate as a whole organization, but both the Church of England and Catholic Church regularly have their clergy recommend and support The Labour Party.
Click to expand...
How has that worked out for them? Has the UK become more or less friendly to the Catholic faith over the last few decades?

And here in the US, you aren’t supposed to endorse a particular candidate, but that rule is only applied to the GOP. Democratic candidates are routinely promoted from churches and the IRS ignores it. It’s only an issue if a GOP candidate is promoted. It’s a laughable double standard, if it weren’t so pernicious.
 
zz912 said:
That’s simply excuse making to allow justification for voting for a pro-abortion politician.
Click to expand...
Every time this “excuse” argument is brought up, remember that it also applies in the other direction, as I point out in this post.
It doesn’t matter how many social justice programs a politician favors, if they support abortion, a faithful Catholic cannot vote for him/her, unless their opponent is equally or more pro-abortion.
Click to expand...
This maybe your private rule, but it is not a rule that is taught by the Church.
And yes, the Faithful Citizenship document could be one page long. It would undoubtedly be more effective that way, as more people would read it and hopefully it would inform their consciences. Taking 84 pages to write out the reasoning for voting principles is fine, but you need clarity and conciseness when dealing with mass audiences. And Church teaching is not so difficult to proclaim on this topic. It’s quite simple.
Click to expand...
As I said to sps49, the bishops seem to disagree with you, since they found it necessary to issue a much longer document. But I guess you know better than they.
 
a close friend of mine confided she had never voted republican. she is in her 50’s. I don’t think many Catholics will read an 84 page voter guide. they will vote as they see fit like my friend who cannot imagine voting for anyone, but a democrat!
 
Bell(name removed by moderator) said:
You label each of these reasons as excuses but some of them are also simple facts.
Click to expand...
That is the nature of rhetoric, as opposed to reason.

I note that no one has linked the actual guide yet, if it is available. I will read it when it comes out, though as noted, many will vote one way as they always have voted, Democrat, Republican and Independent, instead of listening to what the Church is saying.
 
zz912 said:
And yes, the Faithful Citizenship document could be one page long. … It’s quite simple.
Click to expand...
If could be one page long, though it would not teach as much. It is not a simple issue. I am sure if it was one page long, or a thousand, it would not contain any inane rhetoric such as that list that keeps popping up. It was a great post, when it was first posted; not so great a guide.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
As for “some bishops agree, and some disagree”, let’s be clear on what this refers to. Obviously some bishops disagree with the exact content of “Faithful Citizenship”, but I am not aware of any bishops who think that this guide should be only one paragraph long. And that was the only thing I was referring to when I said “apparently the bishops disagree with you”. They obviously** all** feel that the issue is complex enough to allow some prudential judgement in making voting decisions.
Click to expand...
You may not be aware that some bishops believe it should be scrapped altogether, for different reasons. That would seem to be much less than a paragraph. It is a contentious issue, and the document, guide, whatever, at this point only serves the bishops and not the faithful who may not need an additional faith decoder ring.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top