US Catholic bishops say 2007 voting document was misused [CNA]

[Prodigal_Son1]

I mostly agree. I would only clarify that the document does state that issues are* not* equal. .

From the intro:

So, the issues of “intrinsic evil” don’t “discount” the other issues, but they do carry more weight, since they can “never be justified.” As Catholics, we can disagree on many issues, because they are a matter for prudential judgement. As I explained to another poster, there is nothing wrong with making “intrinsic evil” issues your most important determining factor, since they do carry more weight. What the Bishops are saying is that you can’t then ignore all of the other issues. To me, the document is pretty clear about that. To others, it is unclear.

…some involve the clear obligation to oppose intrinsic evils which can never be justified and that others require action to pursue justice and promote the common good.

It seems one cannot leave out other considerations when we are obligated and required.

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

The ‘single’ issue contains several issues when we see ‘moment of conception until natural death’.

The right to life is defined and further explained to include several issues represented by a ‘single issue’ by the bishops in the introduction, in the part entitled ‘The Right to Life and the Dignity of the Human Person’:

1. Human life is sacred. The dignity of the human person is the foundation of
   a moral vision for society. Direct attacks on innocent persons are never morally
   acceptable, at any stage or in any condition. In our society, human life is especially
   under direct attack from abortion. Other direct threats to the sanctity of human
   life include euthanasia, human cloning, and the destruction of human embryos
   for research.
2. Catholic teaching about the dignity of life calls us to oppose torture,7 unjust
   war, and the use of the death penalty; to prevent genocide and attacks against
   noncombatants; to oppose racism; and to overcome poverty and suffering. Nations
   are called to protect the right to life by seeking effective ways to combat evil and
   terror without resorting to armed conflicts except as a last resort, always seeking
   first to resolve disputes by peaceful means. We revere the lives of children in the
   womb, the lives of persons dying in war and from starvation, and indeed the lives of
   all human beings as children of God.

From conception to natural death is larger than the way the single issue is often represented by some. It is the narrow definition that causes others to suspect misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity.

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
2. The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of
   dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. Racism and
   other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war,
   the use of torture,4 war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering
   from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious
   moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not
   optional concerns which can be dismissed.

The framework of Catholic teaching calls us to weigh other than the issues themselves when we are called to weigh a candidates ‘integrity’, ‘philosophy’, and ‘performance’; and then we’re called on ‘to see beyond party politics’.

1. Catholic voters should use the framework of Catholic teaching to examine
   candidates’ positions on issues affecting human life and dignity as well as issues of
   justice and peace, and they should consider candidates’ integrity, philosophy, and
   performance. It is important for all citizens “to see beyond party politics, to analyze
   campaign rhetoric critically, and to choose their political leaders according to
   principle, not party affiliation or mere self-interest” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 33).

For me the bottom line is to weigh all issues, and candidates, in light of the Gospel teaching from the Church and make the best decision possible with that type of well formed conscience. In this respect, we cannot accuse another of supporting something against the Catholic teaching, as there is no way to guarantee 100% alignment of Church teaching through a political candidate and any vote cast will bring in a candidate that is not fully aligned with the teachings of the Church.

 

[rlg94086]

The ‘single’ issue contains several issues when we see ‘moment of conception until natural death’.

Careful…let’s look closely at what the section is that you quoted:

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

So, where does the “direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life” occur? Abortion, Euthanasia, IVF, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, murder, intentional targeting of innocents during wartime…

Am I missing anything? So, yes, they are multiple issues, but most of the time, the candidates who are opposed to abortion are also opposed to the other evils…and vice versa. Of course, IVF, murder and targeting of innocents are issues that most candidates agree on.

Don’t try to conflate other human dignity issues with those life issues. Poverty, social programs, etc are not involved with the “intentional destruction of innocent life.”

 

[JimG]

Careful…let’s look closely at what the section is that you quoted:

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

So, where does the “direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life” occur? Abortion, Euthanasia, IVF, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, murder, intentional targeting of innocents during wartime…

Am I missing anything? So, yes, they are multiple issues, but most of the time, the candidates who are opposed to abortion are also opposed to the other evils…and vice versa. Of course, IVF, murder and targeting of innocents are issues that most candidates agree on.

Don’t try to conflate other human dignity issues with those life issues. Poverty, social programs, etc are not involved with the “intentional destruction of innocent life.”

I agree with your post. To me, it is more clear than this sentence from the USCCB, referenced above:

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.

For a document that intends to be a guide to forming conscience, it is overly broad. The above sentence refers to the destruction of innocent human life at all stages. Conception till natural death. It covers abortion, infanticide, ESCR, murder, euthanasia. Why not simply list these items as intrinsic evils. It seems like the way a committee would draft something after much internal wrangling, which might be the case. And it has the effect of giving potential cover to a politician who says, “Well, conception to natural death covers those who are in poverty here and abroad; it covers those needing health care and education and housing and food, etc”

In other words, it helps confuse the issues.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Careful…let’s look closely at what the section is that you quoted:

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

So, where does the “direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life” occur? Abortion, Euthanasia, IVF, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, murder, intentional targeting of innocents during wartime…

Am I missing anything? So, yes, they are multiple issues, but most of the time, the candidates who are opposed to abortion are also opposed to the other evils…and vice versa. Of course, IVF, murder and targeting of innocents are issues that most candidates agree on.

Don’t try to conflate other human dignity issues with those life issues. Poverty, social programs, etc are not involved with the “intentional destruction of innocent life.”

I don’t see why careful is advised. I agree with what is written. I am not the one ‘conflating’. I was providing a more extensive definition of the right to life as provided in the document.

Using the conflate argument, in such an accusatory tone, is an example of what I’ve been trying to say about what the document references about a misuse of these necessary moral distinctions . It appears to be for partisan reasons, in my honest opinion. I am for ALL the issues as given through the Catholic view in the document and am not trying to demean any one, or all the issues we are to give thought to. I am not trying to assure a partisan view, one way or the other.

As for the individual candidates, we are to weigh their ‘integrity’, ‘philosophy’, and ‘performance’. Philosophy alone is very tough. For example, Pope Benedict refers to the abolition of the death penalty as showing the world we are fully a right to life faith, I’m summarizing and don’t have time to find the exact wording. When you have a candidate espousing the death penalty, or military might, one wonders if that philosophy truly represents a ‘sincere’ right to life view. That’s just an example, I’m not putting out a view one way or the other.

 

[rlg94086]

I don’t see why careful is advised. I agree with what is written. I am not the one ‘conflating’. I was providing a more extensive definition of the right to life as provided in the document.

Using the conflate argument, in such an accusatory tone, is an example of what I’ve been trying to say about what the document references about a misuse of these necessary moral distinctions . It appears to be for partisan reasons, in my honest opinion. I am for ALL the issues as given through the Catholic view in the document and am not trying to demean any one, or all the issues we are to give thought to. I am not trying to assure a partisan view, one way or the other.

As for the individual candidates, we are to weigh their ‘integrity’, ‘philosophy’, and ‘performance’. Philosophy alone is very tough. For example, Pope Benedict refers to the abolition of the death penalty as showing the world we are fully a right to life faith, I’m summarizing and don’t have time to find the exact wording. When you have a candidate espousing the death penalty, or military might, one wonders if that philosophy truly represents a ‘sincere’ right to life view. That’s just an example, I’m not putting out a view one way or the other.

I’m sorry if I sounded accusatory. Your previous post appeared to claim that the “right to life” issues which constitute “intrinsic evils” was much broader. You are correct that this is typically done for partisan people on the Left who like to equate poverty programs and the death penalty with the intrinsic evils I pointed out in my last thread.

The death penalty, which I oppose, is not the intentional death of innocents, so it does not rise to the same level of abortion, nor does “military might.” They are things that Catholics shouldn’t ignore, but there is a place for prudential reasoning on those issues.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m sorry if I sounded accusatory. Your previous post appeared to claim that the “right to life” issues which constitute “intrinsic evils” was much broader. You are correct that this is typically done for partisan people on the Left who like to equate poverty programs and the death penalty with the intrinsic evils I pointed out in my last thread.

The death penalty, which I oppose, is not the intentional death of innocents, so it does not rise to the same level of abortion, nor does “military might.” They are things that Catholics shouldn’t ignore, but there is a place for prudential reasoning on those issues.

While you say it’s typically done for partisan reasons and then associate it with the ‘left’, you don’t seem to realize that it happens from all sides of partisanship. Just as you recognize that when it’s done by those for certain issues it lessens the importance of another issue, it works both ways. That is if anyone ‘pushes’ any issue over others, it shows a lessening of the importance of all the issues the Church tells us to weigh and shows what appears to be biased views against the other issues.

The primary election would be a good example of weighing ALL the issues. Currently we have a field of candidates all claiming to be pro-life. This is an opportunity to apply ALL the issues in deciding a candidate, as well as weighing the candidate’s ‘integrity’, ‘philosophy’, and ‘performance’. We see many of those candidates being pushed on these forums yet some feel mass deportations are justified, even if it separates families, the death penalty is justified, promising a military might, calling for cuts to social programs designed to help the poverty stricken and sick. This is when those issues, you feel don’t rise to the same level as other issues, needs to be weighed within what the Church teaches us. If the majority chooses a candidate that appears to lack in areas described above, then we’ll have another split between Catholics who cannot reconcile the differences of the candidate chosen and all that the Church is teaching. The document is much more complex to some who see many connections drawn through the moral issues to be weighed, and defined as from conception to natural death.

Some of those ‘other’ issues are included in the document’s definition of the right to life and appears to be broader than the narrowed definition offered by some in political debates. As with the quote you provided, and I’ve already pointed out, some are obligations and the others are required. There is very little room between what’s obligated and what’s required, in my opinion.

 

[rlg94086]

While you say it’s typically done for partisan reasons and then associate it with the ‘left’, you don’t seem to realize that it happens from all sides of partisanship. Just as you recognize that when it’s done by those for certain issues it lessens the importance of another issue, it works both ways. That is if anyone ‘pushes’ any issue over others, it shows a lessening of the importance of all the issues the Church tells us to weigh and shows what appears to be biased views against the other issues.

Yes. I was yanking your chain. People of both sides will spin things for partisan reasons.

That said, the bolded section tells me that you don’t realize that the document clearly states that some issues* are* more important than other issues.

 

[rlg94086]

Ender,

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yes. I was yanking your chain. People of both sides will spin things for partisan reasons.

That said, the bolded section tells me that you don’t realize that the document clearly states that some issues* are* more important than other issues.

The document does state some issues are intrinsic, yet while others are not called intrinsic the document says that they require attention as well and it refers to those issues as ‘moral’ issues. The document does not specifically state that some issues are to be ignored because of a single issue.

1. As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a
   single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.

We can see the document places racism on the same level as the single issue most use as reasons to strictly avoid all other candidates. We can also see that a candidate’s support for an intrinsic evil ‘may’ legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support. The word ‘may’ removes the absolute some say exists. Certainly that could be perceived as ‘may’, or ‘may not’. It is not the same as ‘must’.

Now, on the subject of ‘racism’, just as with the other intrinsic evils, the candidate’s ‘integrity’, ‘philosophy’, and ‘performance’ comes into play.

Also, you seem to be missing my point of how the argument is perceived. If a single issue is being pushed as all that is to be considered, some will view the message as for partisan reasons, whether is actually is or not, and it could place the issues on equal ground, in the eyes of those receiving the message. The difficulty comes with candidates who seemingly only supports a very few of the Church’s principles listed. If we had the ‘perfect’ candidate, who voiced support for all the Church’s principles, it should be easy for all to see and we wouldn’t be having such a discussion, I would guess.

As I said before, the primary is a perfect example for all Catholics to choose the candidate that supports the majority of the Church’s principles. So far it’s evident that there is as much diversity in making that decision as in the general election; which again can be perceived as suspect of partisanship reasons, that the document speaks against.

We are as Catholic in the primary as we are in the general. We cannot tell everyone that they must make sacrifices in the general election if we do not give example of sacrifices in the primary elections.

 

[rlg94086]

The document does state some issues are intrinsic, yet while others are not called intrinsic the document says that they require attention as well and it refers to those issues as ‘moral’ issues. The document does not specifically state that some issues are to be ignored because of a single issue.

Straw man. I never said that “some issues are to be ignored.” In fact, I’ve posted multiple times in the thread that this is one of the key points of the document.

What you said in your last post is "That is if anyone ‘pushes’ any issue over others, it shows a lessening of the importance of all the issues the Church tells us to weigh and shows what appears to be biased views against the other issues."

Some issues are less important than other issues.

---

 

[JimG]

The document does state some issues are intrinsic, yet while others are not called intrinsic the document says that they require attention as well and it refers to those issues as ‘moral’ issues. The document does not specifically state that some issues are to be ignored because of a single issue.

We can see the document places racism on the same level as the single issue most use as reasons to strictly avoid all other candidates. We can also see that a candidate’s support for an intrinsic evil ‘may’ legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support. The word ‘may’ removes the absolute some say exists. Certainly that could be perceived as ‘may’, or ‘may not’. It is not the same as ‘must’.

Now, on the subject of ‘racism’, just as with the other intrinsic evils, the candidate’s ‘integrity’, ‘philosophy’, and ‘performance’ comes into play.

Also, you seem to be missing my point of how the argument is perceived. If a single issue is being pushed as all that is to be considered, some will view the message as for partisan reasons, whether is actually is or not, and it could place the issues on equal ground, in the eyes of those receiving the message. The difficulty comes with candidates who seemingly only supports a very few of the Church’s principles listed. If we had the ‘perfect’ candidate, who voiced support for all the Church’s principles, it should be easy for all to see and we wouldn’t be having such a discussion, I would guess.

As I said before, the primary is a perfect example for all Catholics to choose the candidate that supports the majority of the Church’s principles. So far it’s evident that there is as much diversity in making that decision as in the general election; which again can be perceived as suspect of partisanship reasons, that the document speaks against.

We are as Catholic in the primary as we are in the general. We cannot tell everyone that they must make sacrifices in the general election if we do not give example of sacrifices in the primary elections.

In practice, Catholic politicians who support many ‘social justice’ programs while firmly advocating pro-abortion policies and gay marriage will claim to have the Church’s blessing, as they remind us not to be single issue voters.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Straw man. I never said that “some issues are to be ignored.” In fact, I’ve posted multiple times in the thread that this is one of the key points of the document.

What you said in your last post is "That is if anyone ‘pushes’ any issue over others, it shows a lessening of the importance of all the issues the Church tells us to weigh and shows what appears to be biased views against the other issues."

Some issues are less important than other issues.

---

I’m not trying to argue a point but give insight on how the perception appears to be. I even attempted to elaborate on it more, in my previous post, in hopes of explaining it better. It seems to have been overlooked, like other points I tried to make.

Also, you seem to be missing my point of how the argument is perceived. If a single issue is being pushed as all that is to be considered, some will view the message as for partisan reasons, whether is actually is or not, and it could place the issues on equal ground, in the eyes of those receiving the message. The difficulty comes with candidates who seemingly only supports a very few of the Church’s principles listed. If we had the ‘perfect’ candidate, who voiced support for all the Church’s principles, it should be easy for all to see and we wouldn’t be having such a discussion, I would guess.

While individuals may place less importance on other issues, the document we’re discussing stated they were required to be considered, and referred to them as moral issues. Again, I’m not trying to make an argument one way, or the other. I am trying to provide food for thought to let people know how such arguments are perceived.

I feel very comfortable with my faith formed conscience and how it aligns with the document. I agree with it in it’s entirety and stand in agreement with all issues as listed in the document.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

In practice, Catholic politicians who support many ‘social justice’ programs while firmly advocating pro-abortion policies and gay marriage will claim to have the Church’s blessing, as they remind us not to be single issue voters.

Politicians, like us all, are only human and prone to err. That’s why we have to weigh all issues, as well as the politicians integrity, philosophy, and record. Just as those politicians err, we see some make claims that are suspect because of weighing those things, because it appears when it’s politically expedient they state they are in line with only some of the Church’s teachings. It seems the majority of politicians pander to blocs of voters, for other partisan reasons; which is very similar to what the document tells us as voters not to do.

 

[rlg94086]

I’m not trying to argue a point but give insight on how the perception appears to be. I even attempted to elaborate on it more, in my previous post, in hopes of explaining it better. It seems to have been overlooked, like other points I tried to make.

While individuals may place less importance on other issues, the document we’re discussing stated they were required to be considered, and referred to them as moral issues. Again, I’m not trying to make an argument one way, or the other. I am trying to provide food for thought to let people know how such arguments are perceived.

I feel very comfortable with my faith formed conscience and how it aligns with the document. I agree with it in it’s entirety and stand in agreement with all issues as listed in the document.

I have no problem with the document either, since I fully understand it. Unfortunately, you have further convinced me that it is poorly written and leads to confusion. People are easily able to push issues regarding intrinsic evil aside because they treat prudential matters with the exact same importance as intrinsic evil issues.

I find the whole thing sad, and I realize now how wrong I was to think that others would view the document the way I did.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have no problem with the document either, since I fully understand it. Unfortunately, you have further convinced me that it is poorly written and leads to confusion. People are easily able to push issues regarding intrinsic evil aside because they treat prudential matters with the exact same importance as intrinsic evil issues.

I find the whole thing sad, and I realize now how wrong I was to think that others would view the document the way I did.

It is possible that the document is poorly written, or written as the bishops intended and some can’t find agreement with it. One has to really reflect to find out why they would disagree with it.

It’s not a partisan document. It’s an instruction on forming a conscience, according to the moral issues as taught by the Church. You say ‘people are easily able to push issues regarding intrinsic evil aside because they treat prudential matters with the exact same importance as intrinsic evil issues’. I don’t believe that. I believe people weigh all the moral issues discussed in the document and make the best choices they can.

You’ve stuck with the one important issue, but haven’t addressed the point made about the primaries being the opportunity to weigh all the issues together to make the best possible choice to unify all, since all the current candidates claim to be pro-life. That is their unifying issue. They are very diverse when it comes to the other issues. The choices made in the primaries will have a direct affect on the general election.

 

[rlg94086]

You’ve stuck with the one important issue, but haven’t addressed the point made about the primaries being the opportunity to weigh all the issues together to make the best possible choice to unify all, since all the current candidates claim to be pro-life. That is their unifying issue. They are very diverse when it comes to the other issues. The choices made in the primaries will have a direct affect on the general election.

It was a non-interesting point, which is why I didn’t comment on it. Of course that is what the primaries are for. You are stating the obvious.

Again, I’ve made the point several times in the thread that the document states that we aren’t to ignore any issues. For some reason, you think we disagree on that.

 

[Ender]

It is possible that the document is poorly written, or written as the bishops intended and some can’t find agreement with it. One has to really reflect to find out why they would disagree with it.

It isn’t that people disagree with the document, it is that one can settle pretty much on any position and find support for that position within the document. There is no reason to disagree with it when you can find in it whatever you need to support your inclinations.

It’s not a partisan document. It’s an instruction on forming a conscience, according to the moral issues as taught by the Church.

I don’t think I can agree with this. Since it doesn’t say anything conscience forming it’s not very instructive and its intent seems less about forming consciences than appeasing them. To that extent it could be seen as partisan as those whose choices are in line with Church teaching on the moral issues don’t need to assuage their conscience but it is very useful to those inclined to support politicians who support evil.

You say ‘people are easily able to push issues regarding intrinsic evil aside because they treat prudential matters with the exact same importance as intrinsic evil issues’. I don’t believe that. I believe people weigh all the moral issues discussed in the document and make the best choices they can.

This of course is the question: do the few issues of intrinsic evil override all of the other prudential issues? That really should be a yes or no question but since the document says both yes and no it is as unresolved now as it was during the previous election.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It isn’t that people disagree with the document, it is that one can settle pretty much on any position and find support for that position within the document. There is no reason to disagree with it when you can find in it whatever you need to support your inclinations.

Feeling like you find in it whatever you need to support your inclinations is disagreeing with the intent of the document, if the document is truly an expression of what the bishops want Catholic voters to come away with in forming their consciences according to the moral issues discussed.

I don’t think I can agree with this. Since it doesn’t say anything conscience forming it’s not very instructive and its intent seems less about forming consciences than appeasing them. To that extent it could be seen as partisan as those whose choices are in line with Church teaching on the moral issues don’t need to assuage their conscience but it is very useful to those inclined to support politicians who support evil.

It could also be useful for those who wish to dismiss other serious moral issues, for partisan reasons. In either instance a reader would be using a biased political view of the document, as opposed to a conscience forming document, in my opinion. The document warns of voting with partisan interests over the real considerations of the moral issues they put forth.

1. The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of
   dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. Racism
   and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust
   war, the use of torture,4 war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are
   suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy
   are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act.
   These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed.

I don’t think I can agree with this. Since it doesn’t say anything This of course is the question: do the few issues of intrinsic evil override all of the other prudential issues? That really should be a yes or no question but since the document says both yes and no it is as unresolved now as it was during the previous election.

Ender

I believe it’s not stated merely as a yes or no because it is a guide to consider all the moral issues listed. As I said, it’s not intended to be a partisan document and it is intended to be instruction on forming a faith based conscience.

We cannot form consciences for others.

1795 “Conscience is man’s most secret core, and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths” (GS 16).

We cannot force others to act contrary to their consciences.

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53

With these teachings in mind, what else could the bishops have done?

 

[Ender]

Feeling like you find in it whatever you need to support your inclinations is disagreeing with the intent of the document

I disagree. I think that was the intent of the document.

It could also be useful for those who wish to dismiss other serious moral issues, for partisan reasons.

The document provides a reason for justifying the support of politicians who support abortion: *“Catholics are not single-issue voters.” *

I believe it’s not stated merely as a yes or no because it is a guide to consider all the moral issues listed.

Well there you have it; we are agreed. I don’t have to consider that a candidate’s support of abortion disqualifies him from receiving my vote.

With these teachings in mind, what else could the bishops have done?

They could have addressed the issue squarely instead of equivocating.

Ender

 

[Swiss_Guy]

The document provides a reason for justifying the support of politicians who support abortion: *“Catholics are not single-issue voters.” *

Ender

Correct. Catholics shouldn’t be single issue voters.

But why vote for pro-abortion candidates when there are candidates that are pro-life, support marriage and family, are against euthanasia, etc. In my mind, there are almost no circumstances where you could justify your reason for voting for a pro-abortion candidate.

Just commenting.