Vatican Cardinal: Catholic Voters Can Never Be Justified in Voting for Pro-Abortion P

  • Thread starter Thread starter KathleenElsie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KathleenElsie

Guest
**
Vatican Cardinal: Catholic Voters Can Never Be Justified in Voting for Pro-Abortion Politicians
lifesite.net/ldn/2005/oct/05100602.html
**

ROME, October 6, 2005 (CWNews.com/LifeSiteNews.com) - The president of the Pontifical Council for Health Care has stated flatly that Catholics cannot, in conscience, support a politician who favors legal abortion.

Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan made his remarks in an interview with the Italian daily La Repubblica. He was responding indirectly to an intervention by Archbishop William Levada during the discussions of the Synod of Bishop. Archbishop Levada-- the American prelate recently chosen by Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) to be prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith-- had asked other prelates to reflect on the question that had divided the US hierarchy during the 2004 election year: How bishops should respond to Catholic politicians who support abortion.

“A Catholic cannot support a politician who presents abortion as a general norm,” said Cardinal Lozano. The Mexican prelate added that “a son of the Church cannot consider himself to be in full communion if he supports what the Church condemns.”…

**
 
That’s his opinion - just as Cardinal Kasper has his opinions, and Cardinal Danneels, and Cardinal Mahoney; as well as the former Cardinal Ratzinger.

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=21012

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/may/04052606.html

http://217.19.224.165/frameset.htm

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/clifford.longley/main96.html

http://www.catholicchurch.org.uk/resource/cg/cgtext.doc
  • see sections 62 to 69 in particular:
…65 These are matters to be explored within an election campaign, examining both the policies advanced by the candidates and the reasoning behind those policies. And it is an important part of British constitutional doctrine that even after an election, MPs have a duty to represent all their constituents, not just those who voted for them. There are many ways that argument, persuasion and legitimate pressure can be brought to bear on an MP by constituents who object to that MP’s performance in a particular respect, yet a general election must never be confused with a single-issue referendum. It is legitimate for an individual elector to say to a candidate: "I disagree with you totally on this one issue, but I may vote for you, and in return I shall want to come and talk to you further about the issue over which we disagree." It is most unlikely a candidate would decline a voter’s offer of support on that basis.

The right to life

66 Taking into account all these considerations, we would nevertheless remind Catholic electors of the alarming extent to which Britain has become a particular example of what the present Pope called a “culture of death”. In the three decades since the passage of the Abortion Act, human life has been devalued to the extent where abortion is widely regarded as a remedy for any social or personal difficulties. We have to raise our voices in protest against all destruction of human life in the womb, and to the widespread blunting of consciences that has taken place since the Act was passed…
 
I think the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops previously issued the opinion that it is acceptable to vote for a politician who supports legalized abortion
  1. if that politician is otherwise pro-life (against the death penalty, promotes increased access to health care, etc)
    and
  2. if the desire of voting for the politician is not based upon the abortion stance.
It will be interesting if the Synod issues an opinion on the topic.
 
Gottle of Geer:
http://www.catholicchurch.org.uk/resource/cg/cgtext.doc
  • see sections 62 to 69 in particular:
…65 These are matters to be explored within an election campaign, examining both the policies advanced by the candidates and the reasoning behind those policies. And it is an important part of British constitutional doctrine that even after an election, MPs have a duty to represent all their constituents, not just those who voted for them. There are many ways that argument, persuasion and legitimate pressure can be brought to bear on an MP by constituents who object to that MP’s performance in a particular respect, yet a general election must never be confused with a single-issue referendum. It is legitimate for an individual elector to say to a candidate: "I disagree with you totally on this one issue, but I may vote for you, and in return I shall want to come and talk to you further about the issue over which we disagree." It is most unlikely a candidate would decline a voter’s offer of support on that basis.

The right to life

66 Taking into account all these considerations, we would nevertheless remind Catholic electors of the alarming extent to which Britain has become a particular example of what the present Pope called a “culture of death”. In the three decades since the passage of the Abortion Act, human life has been devalued to the extent where abortion is widely regarded as a remedy for any social or personal difficulties. We have to raise our voices in protest against all destruction of human life in the womb, and to the widespread blunting of consciences that has taken place since the Act was passed…
Click to expand...
Section 64 was interesting too…
64 This consideration will discourage the making of a choice solely on the basis of one policy issue alone, even where the attitudes of a candidate on such an issue are at variance with Catholic teaching. **On the other hand, the attitude of a candidate on that one issue may indicate a general philosophy or personal bias, for instance contempt for those who uphold the sacredness of human life, which Catholics will find deeply objectionable. **
Click to expand...
I will no longer vote for politicians who support the Culture of Death (abortion, embryonic stem cell research, ethanasia, gay marriage).
 
Guar Fan:
I think the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops previously issued the opinion that it is acceptable to vote for a politician who supports legalized abortion
  1. if that politician is otherwise pro-life (against the death penalty, promotes increased access to health care, etc)
    and
  2. if the desire of voting for the politician is not based upon the abortion stance.
It will be interesting if the Synod issues an opinion on the topic.
Click to expand...
One of the problems is that you can support the death penalty and still be Catholic. So that portion is out.
 
Ooohh that’s gonna leave a mark!

All the libs on here should love this. Not!
 
Guar Fan:
I think the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops previously issued the opinion that it is acceptable to vote for a politician who supports legalized abortion
  1. if that politician is otherwise pro-life (against the death penalty, promotes increased access to health care, etc)
    and
  2. if the desire of voting for the politician is not based upon the abortion stance.
It will be interesting if the Synod issues an opinion on the topic.
Click to expand...
Are there some people who actually OPPOSE access to health care?
 
Michael's Sword:
Are there some people who actually OPPOSE access to health care?
Click to expand...
No, the bishops were stating that that could be a quality of a candidate who happens to support abortion and a reason to vote for him.

Sorry, but I don’t think the items are on the same playing filed.
 
Michael's Sword:
Are there some people who actually OPPOSE access to health care?
Click to expand...
Surprisingly yes. Medicaid in particular but also the Veterans Administration has been a target of funding caps and even funding cuts.

But what is relevant is that a politician promote an ethic of human development and well-being.
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
One of the problems is that you can support the death penalty and still be Catholic.
Click to expand...
“in cases of absolute necessity, in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today, however, as a result of steady improvement in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” (Pope John Paul II)

You can support it in cases of absolute necessity - but certainly not to the extent the American right does.

Mike
 
Guar Fan:
I think the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops previously issued the opinion that it is acceptable to vote for a politician who supports legalized abortion
  1. if that politician is otherwise pro-life (against the death penalty, promotes increased access to health care, etc)
    and
  2. if the desire of voting for the politician is not based upon the abortion stance.
Click to expand...
Yes. Cardinal Ratzinger said the same last year:
A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.
Click to expand...
The question then depends on what you think proportionate reasons are. For example, I would consider the fact that while Republicans make the right noises on abortion when election time comes around, they do precious little about it when in power. God judges us on our actions, not our words.

Mike
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
No, the bishops were stating that that could be a quality of a candidate who happens to support abortion and a reason to vote for him.

Sorry, but I don’t think the items are on the same playing filed.
Click to expand...
Sort of like, “After we abort 'em, we’ll put bandaids on 'em.”
 
I voted for Kerry. I wasn’t sure it was the right decision. What it came down to was basically this: I highly doubted a vote for Bush meant a vote to end abortion.

And, I was unhappy with how Bush was running our country. I was terrified we would end up in more wars with this president, more debt etc. I felt like abortion was going to be here anyways, so I might as well vote for the person I thought would do a better job of running this country. I had been a single issue voter last election and voted for bush because of abortion, I was unhappy enough where I wasn’t going to do it again.

I think though that I probably made a mistake.
 
I love this line:

"a son of the Church cannot consider himself to be in full communion if he supports what the Church condemns."
 
40.png
bekalc:
I voted for Kerry. I wasn’t sure it was the right decision. What it came down to was basically this: I highly doubted a vote for Bush meant a vote to end abortion.
Click to expand...
Considering Senator Kerry promised several times to make access to abortion easier and more widespread, to include using federal monies to directly pay for abortions as well as appointing only pro-abortion justices…

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
mlchance:
Considering Senator Kerry promised several times to make access to abortion easier and more widespread, to include using federal monies to directly pay for abortions as well as appointing only pro-abortion justices…

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
On a different Catholic forum someone once told me, “It is intellectually dishonest to say that being pro-choice is being pro-abortion.”

My response was, “It is intellectually dishonest to say that being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion.”
 
Guar Fan:
Surprisingly yes. Medicaid in particular but also the Veterans Administration has been a target of funding caps and even funding cuts.

But what is relevant is that a politician promote an ethic of human development and well-being.
Click to expand...
I think you are confusing paying someone’s bills with denying them access.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top