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

[Sy_Noe]

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.

Since 1973 we have had Republican Presidents 1973-77, 1981-1993, 2001-2009. That’s 24 yrs of the less than 43 since Roe v Wade was settled by the SCOTUS. Over half of the time it’s been Republicans. How’s that worked out for those opposing legal abortion in every instance? Including in cases of rape, incest, and to protect the woman’s own health and life? And for those who apparently won’t stop short of anything less.

A woman’s right to choose in the first trimester remains intact with possible state restrictions after that. So if the Republicans pay lip service, faithful Catholics are still only to consider issues such as abortion at the expense of all the many other issues facing the country and the world today, and just aren’t supposed to vote for either of the 2 major candidates, 1 of which is most likely to become POTUS?

 

[Sy_Noe]

Since 1973 we have had Republican Presidents 1973-77, 1981-1993, 2001-2009. That’s 24 yrs of the less than 43 since Roe v Wade was settled by the SCOTUS. Over half of the time it’s been Republicans. How’s that worked out for those opposing legal abortion in every instance? Including in cases of rape, incest, and to protect the woman’s own health and life? And for those who apparently won’t stop short of anything less? A woman’s right to choose in the first trimester remains intact with possible state restrictions after that. So if the Republicans pay lip service, Catholics just aren’t supposed to vote for either of the 2 major candidates, 1 of which is most likely to become POTUS?

 

[Ender]

You are stretching what the guide says in several directions to make it appear like a useless guide. For example, you** added** the word “outspokenly” to make it look like bishops would approve of someone deciding to support a candidate whose main focus is promoting abortion, and who offers attractive positions on other issues only as a side-show to attract votes.

Well, yes, I said outspoken, but there is no justification for your assumption about what that makes it “look like.” Our current president is an outspoken supporter of abortion. Clearly he has other policies he supports as well; there is nothing in that phrase to suggest…anything other than what it says: he is an outspoken advocate of something the church considers to be intrinsically evil. That is the point being made.

Also, you exaggerated “we are not one issue voters” to mean " there is no candidate, regardless of what he supports, who could be considered disqualified from receiving our support."

In what way is that an invalid conclusion? If the support of grave, intrinsic evil does not disqualify a candidate, what would? Provide an example.

If I were to mount an imaginary attack on the teachings of attending mass using the same technique you just used on Faithful Citizenship, I would say this:
The teaching on attending mass says that we must attend on the Lord’s day, and that we may stay home if we are sick. That is, we may choose to stay home if we have reason to believe we are too sick. If the teaching does not rule out even those who stay home because they are sick and tired of the Chicago Cubs not being in the world series, then what good is this Church teaching?

Your imagination has run away with you. Had you said *“If the teaching does not rule out staying home because you are tired and hung over, then what good is it?” *I would have said you have a good understanding of the nature of the document.

Ender

 

[vz71]

A woman’s right to choose in the first trimester remains intact with possible state restrictions after that. So if the Republicans pay lip service, faithful Catholics are still only to consider issues such as abortion at the expense of all the many other issues facing the country and the world today, and just aren’t supposed to vote for either of the 2 major candidates, 1 of which is most likely to become POTUS?

Lip service?
Then how exactly have such restrictions come about??
Yours sounds like the argument used by those that support death and are straining to justify themselves.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In what way is that an invalid conclusion? If the support of grave, intrinsic evil does not disqualify a candidate, what would?

Just asking that question shows an unnecessary assumption on your part. In your mind, the only value of the document is if it absolutely disqualifies something. But need it do that in order to be a useful teaching document? Going back to my mass attendance example, what level of wellness (not-sick) does it take to disqualify the excuse from mandatory mass attendance? The teaching does not specify. But common sense applied to the teaching would say that your example of being tired and hung over is not a good excuse. Similarly, common sense applied to the Faithful Citizenship document would say that voting for a candidate who is an outspoken advocate of abortion, and whose only position you like is his position on public funding of dog parks (and you have a dog), this candidate should not receive your support. The Faithful Citizenship document does not need to spell this out explicitly, just like the teaching on mass attendance does not need to explicitly spell out that being hung over is not excuse for missing mass.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Lip service?
Then how exactly have such restrictions come about??
Yours sounds like the argument used by those that support death and are straining to justify themselves.

The SCOTUS decision in 1973 allowed for restrictions after the first trimester. That’s nothing new. Abortion has never been “on demand” as those opposed to women’s rights so often state. The poster I was replying to used the term, “lip service”. I was merely indicating that after almost 43 yrs, over half of those yrs under Republican administrations, the SCOTUS decision is still intact. No I do not support death. I support life for the mother whose health or life may be in danger if she so chooses to protect her own life. I support her life’s decision after such a devastating ordeal of rape or incest. Such a terribly personal tragedy that I can’t begin to imagine the effects such an act may have on her life. I support the lives of her family members, including her other children. I support the lives of sick people who do not yet have adequate affordable healthcare, in part because Republican governors refuse to expand Medicaid. I support the lives of the homeless who may freeze to death or who may someday, due to man made climate change, die from extreme heat. The hungry who may starve to death. I support the lives of the innocent killed by dropping bombs in war in the Middle East. I support the lives on death row to be killed by the state. Please refrain from suggesting I support death. The life issue is not black and white to me in every case and certainly is not limited to 1 issue for me. It is not so simple to me. But then I’m not a practicing Catholic partly for that reason. Thanks.

 

[vz71]

The SCOTUS decision in 1973 allowed for restrictions after the first trimester. That’s nothing new. Abortion has never been “on demand” as those opposed to women’s rights so often state. The poster I was replying to used the term, “lip service”. I was merely indicating that after almost 43 yrs, over half of those yrs under Republican administrations, the SCOTUS decision is still intact. No I do not support death. I support life for the mother whose health or life may be in danger if she so chooses to protect her own life. I support her life’s decision after such a devastating ordeal of rape or incest. I support the lives of her family members. I support the lives of sick people who do not yet have adequate affordable healthcare, in part because Republican governors refuse to expand Medicaid. I support the lives of the homeless who may freeze to death or who may someday, due to man made climate change, die from extreme heat. I support the lives of the innocent killed by dropping bombs in war in the Middle East. Please refrain from suggesting I support death. Thanks.

Ok.
I see the laundry list of people and ideals you support.
But there is something I noted missing that you may wish to include.
You do support the life of the unborn?
Don’t you?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I support her life’s decision after such a devastating ordeal of rape or incest. Such a terribly personal tragedy that I can’t begin to imagine the effects such an act may have on her life. I support the lives of her family members, including her other children.

When you say you support these aspects of life, do you see abortion as one of the means to provide this “support for life”? For one thing, it is not clear that having an abortion really is a remedy for the personal tragedy of rape. If anything, abortion is likely to make the rape victim suffer even further, as compared with bearing the child to term, which would at least bring some potential good out of the evil that occurred. And even if you could make the argument that abortion is beneficial for the rape victim, there is still the question of balancing the “pain” of keeping the child vs the total loss of life that the child experiences. The same goes for the other inconveniences you alluded to as consequences of rape.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Ok.
I see the laundry list of people and ideals you support.
But there is something I noted missing that you may wish to include.
You do support the life of the unborn?
Don’t you?

I support all life as important and sacred. I edited my previous post after you had quoted it. It may help. But in a nutshell, life issues are simply not as black and white to me as they are to Catholics and certainly I can’t focus on the unborn to the degree Catholics can. It’s one of many reasons I left the faith. I respect the view of Catholics. I just can’t live up to what is expected. What I don’t find so easy in the real world we live in, with it’s many people of various viewpoints and beliefs, and it’s imperfections, is to come up with solutions to satisfy all concerned. I don’t know how else to explain it but I hope this helps.

 

[Sy_Noe]

When you say you support these aspects of life, do you see abortion as one of the means to provide this “support for life”? For one thing, it is not clear that having an abortion really is a remedy for the personal tragedy of rape. If anything, abortion is likely to make the rape victim suffer even further, as compared with bearing the child to term, which would at least bring some potential good out of the evil that occurred. And even if you could make the argument that abortion is beneficial for the rape victim, there is still the question of balancing the “pain” of keeping the child vs the total loss of life that the child experiences. The same goes for the other inconveniences you alluded to as consequences of rape.

I understand. I don’t take any of this lightly. I spent yrs praying about, contemplating, and considering this issue. For me personally, I can’t imagine I would abort if I were in such a situation. But then who am I to say? For me it eventually came down to I don’t walk in the shoes of a rape victim. Nor in the shoes of a woman whose health or own life is at risk. Or who find themselves in other circumstances that I perhaps can not fathom. So I concluded I don’t know anyone’s heart as God does and I just have to in the end leave these very personal decisions between the woman and God, and to her own decision-making process involving her own prayers, her dr, her pastor, her family members. I don’t really want to continue addressing question after question on this thread. I’ve tried the best I know how to explain. I respect the Catholic viewpoint. I just can not live up to it. So it’s good I left the faith since I can’t represent it and that way I don’t spread confusion.

 

[1crazybusydad]

I understand. I don’t take any of this lightly. I spent yrs praying about, contemplating, and considering this issue. For me personally, I can’t imagine I would abort if I were in such a situation. But then who am I to say? For me it eventually came down to I don’t walk in the shoes of a rape victim. Nor in the shoes of a woman whose health or own life is at risk. Or who find themselves in other circumstances that I perhaps can not fathom. So I concluded I don’t know anyone’s heart as God does and I just have to in the end leave these very personal decisions between the woman and God, and to her own decision-making process involving her own prayers, her dr, her pastor, her family members. I don’t really want to continue addressing question after question on this thread. I’ve tried the best I know how to explain. I respect the Catholic viewpoint. I just can not live up to it. So it’s good I left the faith since I can’t represent it and that way I don’t spread confusion.

I understand where you are coming from. I used to think the same way. When I realized that abortion is no different than slavery or genocide, I saw that I couldn’t look at it in that way. The killing or enslavement of an innocent human being can never be justified, and you can’t just leave it up to the conscience of someone else. God bless you in your discernment. I understand these aren’t easy issues to deal with.

 

[vz71]

I support all life as important and sacred. I edited my previous post after you had quoted it. It may help. But in a nutshell, life issues are simply not as black and white to me as they are to Catholics and certainly I can’t focus on the unborn to the degree Catholics can. It’s one of many reasons I left the faith. I respect the view of Catholics. I just can’t live up to what is expected. What I don’t find so easy in the real world we live in, with it’s many people of various viewpoints and beliefs, and it’s imperfections, is to come up with solutions to satisfy all concerned. I don’t know how else to explain it but I hope this helps.

So you do not support the life of the unborn?

 

[Sy_Noe]

I understand where you are coming from. I used to think the same way. When I realized that abortion is no different than slavery or genocide, I saw that I couldn’t look at it in that way. The killing or enslavement of an innocent human being can never be justified, and you can’t just leave it up to the conscience of someone else. God bless you in your discernment. I understand these aren’t easy issues to deal with.

Thank you for at least some understanding. I don’t encounter that much at all from Catholics. I think it’s beneficial when we at least try to understand where we all are coming from. I certainly understand the POV of Catholics. I’m not some wickedly evil person who supports death, certainly not on a whim, and I pray to God He understands my heart and mind and soul. I trust and have faith as my Creator, that He does. Lord have mercy on us all if we fail to measure up. Based on your screen name you have children. May God bless you and yours and welcome to CAF.

 

[1crazybusydad]

Thank you for at least some understanding. I don’t encounter that much at all from Catholics. I think it’s beneficial when we at least try to understand where we all are coming from. I certainly understand the POV of Catholics. I’m not some wickedly evil person who supports death, certainly not on a whim, and I pray to God He understands my heart and mind and soul. I trust and have faith as my Creator, that He does. Lord have mercy on us all if we fail to measure up. Based on your screen name you have children. May God bless you and yours and welcome to CAF.

Thanks, Sy Noe. Yes. I have 5 kids and 1 grandkid. I am a Catholic convert who went through quite a journey. I always try to keep my previous beliefs/stances in mind when discoursing with others who aren’t of my current viewpoint. (I was, at different times…Atheist, Agnostic, Taoist/Tibetan Buddhist, “Bible” Christian and Presbyterian…and Communist, Democrat and Independent).

My favorite quote: “God works slowly, according to our individual needs. Better than anyone, He knows that doing it all at once would reduce us to shivering panic.”

• Br. Jerome, OSB (St. Mary’s Monastery, Petersham, MA)

 

[Tony_Micelli]

The church teaches ‘intrinsic evil’ is anything that is offensive to human dignity. this broadens the “five non-negotiables” quite a bit.

obsessing exclusively over abortion and gay marriage presents a very narrow view of our faith. how can we be expected to vote for a anti-abortion candidate when they are clearly incompetent?

 

[_Abyssinia]

I understand. I don’t take any of this lightly. I spent yrs praying about, contemplating, and considering this issue. For me personally, I can’t imagine I would abort if I were in such a situation. But then who am I to say? For me it eventually came down to I don’t walk in the shoes of a rape victim. Nor in the shoes of a woman whose health or own life is at risk. Or who find themselves in other circumstances that I perhaps can not fathom. So I concluded I don’t know anyone’s heart as God does and I just have to in the end leave these very personal decisions between the woman and God, and to her own decision-making process involving her own prayers, her dr, her pastor, her family members. I don’t really want to continue addressing question after question on this thread. I’ve tried the best I know how to explain. I respect the Catholic viewpoint. I just can not live up to it. So it’s good I left the faith since I can’t represent it and that way I don’t spread confusion.

If the statistics are accurate, most raped women who become pregnant do not have an abortion. If an unborn baby is a human being, then regardless of the circumstances of how the pregnancy came about, whether it was through the loving relationship between a husband and wife or an attack in the form of rape, that baby is still a human being and worthy of protection. There are probably thousands of people living their lives in the U.S. alone who were conceived through rape and maybe to a lesser degree, incest. They were not any less a human being in the womb because of the way in which they were conceived.

 

[pnewton]

Please refrain from suggesting I support death.

That is a reasonable request, or it would be if you would actual stop justifying the death of the unborn in the first trimester. No one here is so ignorant as to buy that idiotic “choice” argument without also understand that this verb has only one object in this debate: death. No, we have no “right” to choose anything and everything. We can no more claim the right to terminate a life in the womb than we can terminate it outside. It is no coincidence that Democrats are trying to make this lame argument. Democrats also are the ones that kept the blacks in chains for generations claiming the right to own slaves was just a choice.

Even liberal Catholics here do not try to justify what has been so clearly defined as a mortal evil of the first order.

 

[Ender]

Just asking that question shows an unnecessary assumption on your part. In your mind, the only value of the document is if it absolutely disqualifies something.

Well, I’ll admit to being a bit jaded on the subject, probably as a result of seeing arguments like the ones that regularly appear on this forum, and I have seen first hand how this document is used. Unlike, say, the memo from Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal McCarrick, which, without explicitly saying you must do this or you may not do that, is unambiguous. The voter’s guide presents a defense for both sides of the issues and implies: pick the argument you like.

When it first came out in 2007 I was asked to lead a discussion of the document for our adult education class, and in reviewing it I found just how ambivalent it really was. I also discovered during the debate that there was no thought of how to resolve what appeared to be contradictions. In the end it was never about doing this and that but of choosing between this and that; pick one, ignore the other. That isn’t guidance.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The SCOTUS decision in 1973 allowed for restrictions after the first trimester. That’s nothing new. Abortion has never been “on demand” as those opposed to women’s rights so often state.

I believe that even today there are states that have virtually no restrictions on when an abortion can be performed. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the purpose of partial birth abortions and the necessity for born alive infant protection acts. If you live in a blue state, “on demand” is still a reasonable description.

I was merely indicating that after almost 43 yrs, over half of those yrs under Republican administrations, the SCOTUS decision is still intact.

Are you unaware that Congress cannot reverse a Supreme Court decision? How does this argument survive? This is a little like castigating Republicans for not banning hurricanes and droughts.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Are you unaware that Congress cannot reverse a Supreme Court decision? How does this argument survive? This is a little like castigating Republicans for not banning hurricanes and droughts.

Ender

If it is unfair to blame the Republicans for not ending abortion, then why is it fair to blame the Democrats for not ending abortion? Or is it all about giving marks for effort instead of achievement?