Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics

[frankadams]

IYou have completely ignored the statements and articles I have posted to wave your personal interpretation of one line as if was the Sword of Excalibur vanquishing all arguments to the contrary,

Lets cut to the chase-do you think it would have been acceptable using proportionality to vote for John Kerry over George Bush?

Absolutely. Having answered quickly and decisively, I would humbly request that you now reply in kind to my question (we posted around the same time) in regards to being pragmatic.

 

[estesbob]

Absolutely. Having answered quickly and decisively, I would humbly request that you now reply in kind to my question (we posted around the same time) in regards to being pragmatic.

It is now clear why you have used such convoluted reasoning to dispute the clear teachings of the Church. Your politics have trumped your faith. You believe that Kerry’ social views trump his support of 1,999,500 more dead children per year than his opponent. There is absolutely no way you can justify this based any coherent reading of the Church’s teachings on this.

I hope when you meet our maker you can explain to him why Kerry’s desire for higher taxes and more welfare trumped his support of the killing of 50 million children and counting. I know it’s a case I couldn’t make.

 

[frankadams]

It is now clear why you have used such convoluted reasoning to dispute the clear teachings of the Church. Your politics have trumped your faith. You believe that Kerry’ social views trump his support of 1,999,500 more dead children per year than his opponent. There is absolutely no way you can justify this based any coherent reading of the Church’s teachings on this.

I hope when you meet our maker you can explain to him why Kerry’s desire for higher taxes and more welfare trumped his support of the killing of 50 million children and counting. I know it’s a case I couldn’t make.

I mentioned nothing of “social views.” I mentioned nothing about “higher taxes” and “more welfare” as being my reasons for answering your question that way. That is your own unfair, ungrounded assumption.

I answered your question quickly and decisively. I patiently await your answer in regards to my “pragmatic” question.

 

[Andy_K]

Estesbob, your exchange with frankadams highlights the precariousness of your position and gives frankadams (who is, by the way, completely unjustified in voting for John Kerry in 2004, as you said) the perfect “cover” for his position.

First off, to Frankadams: Please give the reasons that Kerry was “proportionately” better than GWB in 2004. Just because they both supported some intrinsic evil in some form does not make the choice of one over the other instantly acceptable.

Kerry supported more instrinsic evils than Bush, and the ones that both supported were supported by Kerry by a far greater magnitude.

The “lesser of two evils” firmly goes against Kerry by virtue that he espoused far more views anathema to the faith than Bush. “Proportionate reasons” are only allowed when the alternative to the candidate that supported grave evils supports even greater ones. It is simply a fact that some issues (including non-negotiable issues) have a greater weight than others, and to say that you could vote for Kerry because both candidates support “intrinsic evils” is a misapplication of both Faithful Citizenship and the Ratzinger’s 2004 letter, “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion.” They both supported intrinsic evils, but not the same amount of evils or to the same degree. That is precisely why the choice is always called “the lesser of the two evils” - the candidates are all bad, but one is better than the other. There is no question that in terms of intrinsic evils (yes, all of them), GWB was better than Kerry in 2004.

Alas, Frankadams, you are correct in demonstrating the problem with Estesbob’s position. GWB is only supportable, as a candidate who supported grave evil, for the same reason that Kerry potentially could be: by demonstrating that no other candidate was a better choice (i.e., not supporting as many evils). I ask again: was that the case in 2004, and is that the case this year in 2008?

 

[SoCalRC]

I hope when you meet our maker you can explain to him why Kerry’s desire for higher taxes and more welfare trumped his support of the killing of 50 million children and counting. I know it’s a case I couldn’t make.

Don’t you? If abortion is truly important to you, why do you set the bar for yourself so low?

For three presidential elections you have accepted a politician who has/had a recent history of supporting upholding Roe, and a stated position on abortion that we consider instrinsically evil!

When you stand before our maker, and the 50 million children are still dead, what are you going to say, “at least I didn’t support Kerry”? What if the pregnant women gunned down for sport by Blackwater are the one’s doing the questioning?

I think that if people care about abortion, they should accept more than token lip service from flip flopping politicians, but that is just me.

 

[Andy_K]

Don’t you? If abortion is truly important to you, why do you set the bar for yourself so low?

For three presidential elections you have accepted a politician who has/had a recent history of supporting upholding Roe, and a stated position on abortion that we consider instrinsically evil!

When you stand before our maker, and the 50 million children are still dead, what are you going to say, “at least I didn’t support Kerry”? What if the pregnant women gunned down for sport by Blackwater are the one’s doing the questioning?

I think that if people care about abortion, they should accept more than token lip service from flip flopping politicians, but that is just me.

AMEN!

 

[SoCalRC]

“Proportionate reasons” are only allowed when the alternative to the candidate that supported grave evils supports even greater ones.

Using that argument, why would it be licit to vote for Bush, who had publicly supported upholding Roe in 2000, had made pro-abortion judicial appointments in Texas, and whose stated position is still at odds with the Church on abortion, when multiple 3rd party candidates held views on abortion much closer to the Church?

In other words, where does it goe from the ‘lesser of evils’ to ‘the lesser of evils I still think can win’? The latter seems to get dangerously close to idolatry, a grave sin in its own right.

 

[Andy_K]

Using that argument, why would it be licit to vote for Bush, who had publicly supported upholding Roe in 2000, had made pro-abortion judicial appointments in Texas, and whose stated position is still at odds with the Church on abortion, when multiple 3rd party candidates held views on abortion much closer to the Church?

In other words, where does it goe from the ‘lesser of evils’ to ‘the lesser of evils I still think can win’? The latter seems to get dangerously close to idolatry, a grave sin in its own right.

Exactly my point! There was no good reason to vote for Kerry OR GWB in 2004, nor for the candidates from the mainstream parties today. There are already third-party candidates who support less intrinsic evils, and the one that supports the least should get our vote.

 

[estesbob]

I mentioned nothing of “social views.” I mentioned nothing about “higher taxes” and “more welfare” as being my reasons for answering your question that way. That is your own unfair, ungrounded assumption.

I answered your question quickly and decisively. I patiently await your answer in regards to my “pragmatic” question.

What issue or combination of issues trumps his support of taxpayer funded abortions up unitl the childs head fully exits the womb.?

Scroll l though the thread-I have answered all your questions numerous times

 

[estesbob]

Estesbob, your exchange with frankadams highlights the precariousness of your position and gives frankadams (who is, by the way, completely unjustified in voting for John Kerry in 2004, as you said) the perfect “cover” for his position.

Actually my exchange with Frank shows the flaw in your position. There are way to many Catholics like Frank, desperate to rationalize being Catholic and supporting abortion on demand candidates . So he says “even pro–life advocates say both candidates support evil therefore I can ignore abortion as an issue when making my decision."

 

[estesbob]

Exactly my point! There was no good reason to vote for Kerry OR GWB in 2004, nor for the candidates from the mainstream parties today. There are already third-party candidates who support less intrinsic evils, and the one that supports the least should get our vote.

Which would cede both houses of congress and the Presdidency to Pro-abortion politicians.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Those who accept 1,200,000 dead babies per year to further their political agenda over Blackwater better start their speeches to God now.

There is no greater offense to God happening on earth today than mankind murdering their own offspring!

 

[Andy_K]

Which would cede both houses of congress and the Presdidency to Pro-abortion politicians.

We only cede to evil if we ourselves allow it.

If every Catholic in the nation were to vote for the “lesser of two evils” (as our faith demands) we would no longer have this partisan bickering, anyway.

Everytime we compromise by electing candidates that support evil when we have alternatives, we are saying that that particular evil is a-ok. That is exactly why we have so many pro-abortion politicians in congress. That is why Catholics have so little political influence and why we remain so divided. We are willing to compromise because of partisan political differences rather than realize that everytime we do that, we allow the evil to take over.

We go directly against the warnings of Pope Leo XIII and Pope Benedict XVI, who consistently warn against the “toning down” of church teaching and the desensitizing towards evil.

I realize that neither “side” of the usual “voting divide” is going to be too pleased with this position. That’s fine by me.

Estesbob, pro-abortion politicians exist - in all of their forms - because we allow them in their. The Catholic population in the U.S. could easily stop this from happening if we actually bothered to try.

Everytime we vote for a more “electable” candidate who still supports evil, we are proliferating the evil, not containing it.

 

[fix]

When you stand before our maker, and the 50 million children are still dead, what are you going to say, “at least I didn’t support Kerry”?

You would say I stood with Your Church and opted to stop more murder. I submitted to the Church’s authority and acted with trust.

What if the pregnant women gunned down for sport by Blackwater are the one’s doing the questioning?

If she is saved she would also respect the authority of the Church as that is God’s will.

I think that if people care about abortion, they should accept more than token lip service from flip flopping politicians, but that is just me.

It is not about canonizing pro abort pols. The work ought to start before election day.

 

[frankadams]

Actually my exchange with Frank shows the flaw in your position. There are way to many Catholics like Frank, desperate to rationalize being Catholic and supporting abortion on demand candidates . So he says “even pro–life advocates say both candidates support evil therefore I can ignore abortion as an issue when making my decision."

I do not “ignore abortion as an issue when making my decision.” You are telling an ignorant, hurtful lie.

It is now clear why you have used such convoluted reasoning to dispute the clear teachings of the Church. Your politics have trumped your faith. You believe that Kerry’ social views trump his support of 1,999,500 more dead children per year than his opponent. There is absolutely no way you can justify this based any coherent reading of the Church’s teachings on this.

I do not “believe that Kerry’s social views trump his support of 1,999,500 more dead children than his opponent.” You saying I do does not make it true. This is yet another lie.

I do not believe that Kerry’s “social views trump his support of 1,999,500 more dead children per year than his opponent.” You saying that I do does not make it true. It is a lie.

I hope when you meet our maker you can explain to him why Kerry’s desire for higher taxes and more welfare trumped his support of the killing of 50 million children and counting. I know it’s a case I couldn’t make.

I do not believe that “Kerry’s desire for higher taxes and more welfare trumped his support of the killing of 50 million children and counting.” Here, you do you only create such a lie, but you attach it to my own judgment day! You lie and assert that you know what will be in the deepest recesses of my soul when I face my Creator in the most private moment man will ever have with his God. I find this disrespectful and un-Christian.

So besides your lies about me, what do we have? Well, you asked me a question about the 2004 election. I answered it directly and decisively within minutes.

Shortly before that, I asked you a question. I had hoped that you might reciprocate that courtesy. You wrote…

The Church says that it would have been permissible to vote for Giuliani. I ,in good conscience should not do so. Like I said I draw the line at rape and incest. You are more restrictive. God bless you for it. I may be more pragmatic , you more idealistic, the fight against abortion needs both.

And I responded with…

Herein lies the rub. Why do you get to be “pragmatic” and not allow anyone else to reach a different “pragmatic” conclusion?

You wrote “The Church says that it would have been permissible to vote for Giuliani” as though that were a direct quote from Rome. It wasn’t! It was a pragmatic conclusion YOU reached about which pro-choice candidate to vote for.

Catholics in good conscience facing the dilemma of two pro-choice candidates may arrive at a different conclusion than you in the course of being “pragmatic.” Why do you insist they may not morally vote for that different candidate, but state categorically that your own vote for a pro-choice candidate is morally licit?

Your only response thus far has been…

Scroll l though the thread-I have answered all your questions numerous times

I don’t think I have lied about any of the above. I have simply asked that you respond to my question as I did yours. You have addressed many issues on this thread, but I have yet to see your rationale for applying “pragmatic” considerations to justify a vote for pro-choice candidate while categorically stating that another Catholic also applying “pragmatic” considerations may not arrive at a different conclusion. I would like to know your answer.

 

[estesbob]

I
I don’t think I have lied about any of the above. I have simply asked that you respond to my question as I did yours. You have addressed many issues on this thread, but I have yet to see your rationale for applying “pragmatic” considerations to justify a vote for pro-choice candidate while categorically stating that another Catholic also applying “pragmatic” considerations may not arrive at a different conclusion. I would like to know your answer.

I’m sorry you think I’m a liar. I asked you a simple question. What issue or combination of issues trumps Kerry’s support of taxpayer funded abortion on demand up until the moment the head fully exits the womb.

On being pragmatic-I am following the teaching of the Church-I reluctantly support a candidate who allows 500 abortions over one who supports killing 1.2 million children a year. Again what issue or combination of issues trumps 1.2 million dead children?

You might want to read Bishop Garcia’s and Jimmy Akins articles again to understand Catholic Teaching on this.

 

[frankadams]

I’m sorry you think I’m a liar. I asked you a simple question. What issue or combination of issues trumps Kerry’s support of taxpayer funded abortion on demand up until the moment the head fully exits the womb.

On being pragmatic-I am following the teaching of the Church-I reluctantly support a candidate who allows 500 abortions over one who supports killing 1.2 million children a year. Again what issue or combination of issues trumps 1.2 million dead children?

You might want to read Bishop Garcia’s and Jimmy Akins articles again to understand Catholic Teaching on this.

Again, you have failed to answer the question. I answered your first question immediately and decisively. I will answer your next question as soon as your respond in kind.

Perhaps I have not been clear. I am not asking for how YOU reached YOUR individual conclusion. I am asking why YOU are permitted to be “pragmatic” in order to reach the conclusion that one may vote for a pro-abortion candidate but that YOUR version of a “pragmatic” conclusion is the only one that a Catholic may morally hold?

Kindly explain.

 

[estesbob]

Again, you have failed to answer the question. I answered your first question immediately and decisively. I will answer your next question as soon as your respond in kind.

Perhaps I have not been clear. I am not asking for how YOU reached YOUR individual conclusion. I am asking why YOU are permitted to be “pragmatic” in order to reach the conclusion that one may vote for a pro-abortion candidate but that YOUR version of a “pragmatic” conclusion is the only one that a Catholic may morally hold?

Kindly explain.

What issue or combination of issues trumps John Kerrys support of 1.2 million abortions a year?

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Frankadams,

I eagerly await the answer to my question. The reason that either Kerry or Bush could feasibly be acceptable in 2004, depsite their pro-choice positions, was that one was more evil than the other.

In terms of unnegotiable evils, that made the decision very obvious - Bush was clearly the lesser of the two evils in 2004.

How could a Catholic come to the conclusion the Kerry was the “lesser of the two evils”, as you claim?

 

[frankadams]

You asked this…

Lets cut to the chase-do you think it would have been acceptable using proportionality to vote for John Kerry over George Bush?

about the same time I asked you this…

Herein lies the rub. Why do you get to be “pragmatic” and not allow anyone else to reach a different “pragmatic” conclusion?

You wrote “The Church says that it would have been permissible to vote for Giuliani” as though that were a direct quote from Rome. It wasn’t! It was a pragmatic conclusion YOU reached about which pro-choice candidate to vote for.

Catholics in good conscience facing the dilemma of two pro-choice candidates may arrive at a different conclusion than you in the course of being “pragmatic.” Why do you insist they may not morally vote for that different candidate, but state categorically that your own vote for a pro-choice candidate is morally licit?

I answered your question five minutes later.

Absolutely. Having answered quickly and decisively, I would humbly request that you now reply in kind to my question (we posted around the same time) in regards to being pragmatic.

You responded with an additional question (and some lies)…

What issue or combination of issues trumps John Kerrys support of 1.2 million abortions a year?

While continuing to avoid my question, which I have now repeated…

Again, you have failed to answer the question. I answered your first question immediately and decisively. I will answer your next question as soon as your respond in kind.

Perhaps I have not been clear. I am not asking for how YOU reached YOUR individual conclusion. I am asking why YOU are permitted to be “pragmatic” in order to reach the conclusion that one may vote for a pro-abortion candidate but that YOUR version of a “pragmatic” conclusion is the only one that a Catholic may morally hold?

Kindly explain.

I don’t feel it is unfair or unreasonable to extend me that same courtesy I showed you when I responded to your question immediately and decisively. Again: will you kindly respond to my question?