Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics

[SoCalRC]

Wow. That’s mighty big of you. YOU accept masturbation is a sin. What an ego!

Yes we choose to vote for the lesser evil and then attack the lesser evil after gaining a foothold. You choose to stand on the sideline with your vote and perform the thought process so well described by estesbob.

Now I know why I had you on ignore. Back you go.

Let’s review. You made a blanket statement about the morality and beliefs of other Catholics. Could you produce a single example of me supporting a position at odds with the Church?

The only ‘sin’ you can point to is that I will not vote for a candidate who supported upholding Roe just a few years ago and who currently holds a position on abortion that is intrinsically evil. Wow, I should be flogged…

But, as far as a"foothold", let’s review history - Roe was decided by a supreme court with a GOP appointee majority. Casey was decided with by a supreme court with a GOP appointee majority. Seems to me that blame for the ‘foothold’ should be placed where it belongs…

 

[fix]

Then prove it. I have just given you Rome’s position on voting and the USCCB’s position on voting (which quotes Rome’s). Both documents are addressed to the lay faithful.

And nothing in the EWTN link contradicts those papers.

Show me where in either document were the viability of a candidate takes precedence over the morality of a candidate when intrinsic evil is involved.

Why would I want to show that? The point is moral theology, endorsed by the Church, gives us the foundation to apply the principles in the documents cited.

We speak of limiting evil, not political viability superior to intrinsic evil.

That is the living Magisterium, it is the Vicar of Christ and Princes of the Church working in a group. Both address you directly, on the subject of voting. If the position is licit, it should be in the documents. Why not just show me where if you are so certain that you are correct?

I have shown you quotes from Bishops. Basically, you assert your private understanding is superior to bishops and theologians who disagree with you.

 

[fix]

The memo is a single page (to read it, click here). While it is not too difficult to understand, it has to be kept in mind that this memo is from a Cardinal to a Cardinal, and therefore the writer presumes that the recipient is already very familiar with the terms and concepts used in the memo. Were the writer sending the letter to a different audience, some of those terms and concepts would be given longer and more explicit explanation (for example, “remote material cooperation” or “obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin.”) These terms, from Catholic moral theology and canon law, are terms that every priest has to study for years in the seminary. Now, the secular media is translating them into headlines of a few words for throngs of unchurched Catholics and people of every other faith and no faith.

All six paragraphs of the letter plus half of the footnote make it clear that Catholics who support abortion by voting for pro-abortion candidates are cooperating in evil and may not receive Communion.

The second half of the footnote addresses cases where a person who opposes abortion could cast a vote for a pro-abortion candidate, in the presence of “proportionate reasons.” The single sentence of the Cardinal simply applies a standard Catholic moral teaching about “remote material cooperation.” Again, this is a brief reference to terms that carry centuries of reflection by Catholic (and other) ethicists…

The Cardinal Ratzinger Letter

 

[SoCalRC]

I have shown you quotes from Bishops. Basically, you assert your private understanding is superior to bishops and theologians who disagree with you.

Again, I’m giving you the Vatican, and Bishops working collegially (the Catechism says the better reflect the infallibility of the Church this way). You are picking support of intrinsic evil over support of candidates who do not hold instrinsic evil positions on the same issues.

Where is this found in the documents that I have provided, or even the two quotes from members of the college ordinary that you have provided? Why is it so objectionable to show me?

This keeps coming up again and again. I’d told that my position is destructive and pro-abortion, but when I try to pin folks down on exactly were understanding diverges, I get generalities, not specifics.

Perhaps you would consider answering the 13 questions I posed to Ridgerunner?

 

[estesbob]

The Ratzinger letter is very difficult for Catholic abortion apologists to rationalize around. It explicitly states that the usual suspects they use to rationalize supporting abortion on demand candidates, Capital Punishment and the Iraq war, do not even come close to rising to the level of Abortion. in fact the future Pope makes it very clear that Catholics of good conscience are free to disagree with the Vatican on these issues. Not so, however, with abortion.

Therefore they have to come up with a way to repudiate this letter. Some of the reasons they give:

The letter was never Published
Ratzinger was not Pope
The Bishops never formally accepted it.

and, the most specious of all, one half of a footnote repudiates the whole letter. It is interesting see that apologists like Frank Adam claim this footnote allows Catholics to support abortion on demand candidates unless the candidate is more Catholic than the Pope while Maple Oak ignores the footnote and claims that no such thing as proportionality exists. the result of both attitudes is the same-abortion continues unabated.

The Church teaching could not be more clear. You can not support a candidate who supports abortion on demand . You can support a candidate who supports abortion in very, very limited circumstances. Those of us in this thread who agree with this have posted numerous quotes, links, etc highlighting the Church’s teaching. Those who oppose it post nothing more than their opinion.

 

[rtconstant]

Someone earlier said that they were voting for a candidate that does not support the intrinsically evil. I’m curious what candidate would that be? I’m really curious because I’ve been really considering (for the first time) not voting since all the major choices are a compromise on the Faith.

 

[frankadams]

It is interesting see that apologists like Frank Adam claim this footnote allows Catholics to support abortion on demand candidates unless the candidate is more Catholic than the Pope while Maple Oak ignores the footnote and claims that no such thing as proportionality exists.

It is amazing how you dismiss supporting the intrinsic evil of abortion for children of rape and incest to a candidate simply not being “more Catholic than the Pope.” Thank Heavens that Mother Church takes this evil much more seriously than you do.

It is interesting see that apologists like Frank Adam claim this footnote allows Catholics to support abortion on demand candidates unless the candidate is more Catholic than the Pope while Maple Oak ignores the footnote and claims that no such thing as proportionality exists.

I cannot speak for Mapleoak and am well aware that he does not share my position. However, he seems to read and adhere to Catholic teaching as it is written, particularly when it calls us to “not vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil.” That is a Catholic position that no Catholic should criticize. His decision should be no more questioned than Jesus’ decision to not respond to the unjust aggression of his captors with violence. In both cases, I would not follow suit, but nor would I say that to refuse to use violence or to refuse to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil is wrong. In fact, those responses may well be the most authentically Christian options available.

the result of both attitudes is the same-abortion continues unabated.

Right. Yeah, if only we had put in the pro-life party into power. After all the “pro-life” party *only *appointed 6 of the 9 justices that gave us Roe and only appointed 8 of the 9 justices that upheld Roe in 1992 (Casey v. Planned Parenthood) and only had the presidency for 24 of the 36 years since Roe. And guess what results the “pro-life” party gave us? To quote you again, “Abortion continues unabated.” Plus, they give us a FREE BONUS of grotesque violations of Catholic teaching in regards to other sanctity of life issues.

The Church teaching could not be more clear. **You can not support a candidate who supports abortion on demand . You can support a candidate who supports abortion in very, very limited circumstances. **

Wow. You have rendered me speechless. Estesbob, kindly show me exactly where the Vatican says this. "Could not be more clear"??? Are you delusional or simply lying?

 

[mapleoak]

You can not support a candidate who supports abortion on demand . You can support a candidate who supports abortion in very, very limited circumstances.

This is absolutely false and contrary to Church teaching.

 

[mapleoak]

You’ll find these very same catholics being OK with opposing church teachings that they don’t like.

Which Catholics are these?
We are required to adhere to ALL Church teachings.

 

[estesbob]

This is absolutely false and contrary to Church teaching.

In your opinion. but if you thread this thread you’ll see that we have posted numerous quotes, links etc from Church sources saying it is OK to support a canidate who supports abortion in very , very limited circumstances. For instance:

"*A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where voting would be decisive for the election of a more restrictive lawmaker who would aim at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more-permissive lawmaker already elected or ready to be elected. Such cases are not infrequent. . . *

.* When it is not possible to prevent the election of even a partially pro-abortion lawmaker, an ordinary voter, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion is well-known, can licitly support the election of lawmakers who aim at limiting the harm done by abortion legislation and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality.** This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects."
*
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0410bt.asp

 

[SoCalRC]

In your opinion. but if you thread this thread you’ll see that we have posted numerous quotes, links etc from Church sources saying it is OK to support a canidate who supports abortion in very , very limited circumstances. For instance:

You’re quoting Jimmy Akin, not the Church. Similiarly, you are dismissive of legitimate arguments about the precise meaning and context of Ratzinger’s letter which Ratzinger himself stated was potentially misleading without the publication of all his writings on the matter.

But, if we are going to examine the letter, let’s examine the letter. Ratzinger alledgedly wrote the following:

“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."

If you vote for one of the major party candidates specifically because of his/her position on abortion, and all the candidates have positions we consider intrinsically evil, isn’t the Cardinal saying that you are unfit to present yourself for Holy Communion?

 

[fix]

Again, I’m giving you the Vatican, and Bishops working collegially (the Catechism says the better reflect the infallibility of the Church this way). You are picking support of intrinsic evil over support of candidates who do not hold instrinsic evil positions on the same issues.

Where is this found in the documents that I have provided, or even the two quotes from members of the college ordinary that you have provided? Why is it so objectionable to show me?

This keeps coming up again and again. I’d told that my position is destructive and pro-abortion, but when I try to pin folks down on exactly were understanding diverges, I get generalities, not specifics.

Perhaps you would consider answering the 13 questions I posed to Ridgerunner?

Again, the Vatican documents are not contrary to anything that has been posted from EWTN, priests for life, or any of the bishops, or cardinal Ratzinger.

You have seen all of them before and have even commented on some of them.

What I would like to know is why you think your interpretation is superior to any of these links I mentioned? When applying the principles in any Church document we look to the authorities above us for guidance. We have posyed some of them. You insist your interpretation is above theirs, why?

Here, again, is more:

** A Voter’s Guide
Pro-choice candidates and church teaching. **

What are “proportionate reasons”? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong. Then we must consider the scope of the evil of abortion today in our country. America suffers 1.3 million abortions each year–a tragedy of epic proportions. Moreover, many supporters of abortion propose making the situation even worse by creating a publicly funded industry in which tens of thousands of human lives are produced each year for the purpose of being “sacrificed” in biomedical research.

Thus for a Catholic citizen to vote for a candidate who supports abortion and embryo-destructive research, one of the following circumstances would have to obtain: either (a) both candidates would have to be in favor of embryo killing on roughly an equal scale or (b) the candidate with the superior position on abortion and embryo-destructive research would have to be a supporter of objective evils of a gravity and magnitude beyond that of 1.3 million yearly abortions plus the killing that would take place if public funds were made available for embryo-destructive research.

Frankly, it is hard to imagine circumstance (b) in a society such as ours. No candidate advocating the removal of legal protection against killing for any vulnerable group of innocent people other than unborn children would have a chance of winning a major office in our country. Even those who support the death penalty for first-degree murderers are not advocating policies that result in more than a million killings annually…

 

[fix]

The Ratzinger letter is very difficult for Catholic abortion apologists to rationalize around. It explicitly states that the usual suspects they use to rationalize supporting abortion on demand candidates, Capital Punishment and the Iraq war, do not even come close to rising to the level of Abortion. in fact the future Pope makes it very clear that Catholics of good conscience are free to disagree with the Vatican on these issues. Not so, however, with abortion.

Therefore they have to come up with a way to repudiate this letter. Some of the reasons they give:

The letter was never Published
Ratzinger was not Pope
The Bishops never formally accepted it.

and, the most specious of all, one half of a footnote repudiates the whole letter. It is interesting see that apologists like Frank Adam claim this footnote allows Catholics to support abortion on demand candidates unless the candidate is more Catholic than the Pope while Maple Oak ignores the footnote and claims that no such thing as proportionality exists. the result of both attitudes is the same-abortion continues unabated.

The Church teaching could not be more clear. You can not support a candidate who supports abortion on demand . You can support a candidate who supports abortion in very, very limited circumstances. Those of us in this thread who agree with this have posted numerous quotes, links, etc highlighting the Church’s teaching. Those who oppose it post nothing more than their opinion.

It is a problem for them. We have authentic interpreters available to us. One was asked. The answer is not liked so they reject it. Why bother asking if we only want the answer we like?

 

[estesbob]

It is a problem for them. We have authentic interpreters available to us. One was asked. The answer is not liked so they reject it. Why bother asking if we only want the answer we like?

Because they are going to vote democrat regardless of where the candidate stands on abortion. To rationalize this they have to distort or ignore Church teachings and vehemently attack anyone who points the teachings out to them.

Again it is sad to see what the distortion brings about. Frank Adams looks at the teachings and says that a politician who supports one abortion is as bad as one who supports 1.2 million abortions therefore you have to judge them on other issues. Maple Oak claims the same as Frank-that supporting even one abortion is as bad as supporting 1.2 million abortions so he rejects both candidates and votes for an unviable candidate-both of their votes accomplish the same thing-the continuation of legal abortion in this country.

 

[dmelosi]

Because they are going to vote democrat regardless of where the candidate stands on abortion. To rationalize this they have to distort or ignore Church teachings and vehemently attack anyone who points the teachings out to them.

Again it is sad to see what the distortion brings about. Frank Adams looks at the teachings and says that a politician who supports one abortion is as bad as one who supports 1.2 million abortions therefore you have to judge them on other issues. Maple Oak claims the same as Frank-that supporting even one abortion is as bad as supporting 1.2 million abortions so he rejects both candidates and votes for an unviable candidate-both of their votes accomplish the same thing-the continuation of legal abortion in this country.

There is much more harm being done than the continuation of legal abortion. What they are doing is contributing to the erosion of people’s belief that abortion is murder. They are making abortion more acceptable in people’s mind.

 

[estesbob]

There is much more harm being done than the continuation of legal abortion. What they are doing is contributing to the erosion of people’s belief that abortion is murder. They are making abortion more acceptable in people’s mind.

Agreed,

 

[SoCalRC]

Again, the Vatican documents are not contrary to anything that has been posted from EWTN, priests for life, or any of the bishops, or cardinal Ratzinger.

You have seen all of them before and have even commented on some of them.

What I would like to know is why you think your interpretation is superior to any of these links I mentioned? When applying the principles in any Church document we look to the authorities above us for guidance. We have posyed some of them. You insist your interpretation is above theirs, why?

Here, again, is more:

A Voter’s Guide
Pro-choice candidates and church teaching.

But your position, voting for a candidate who supports intrinsic evil over candidates who do not, simply because the candidate is a major party candidate with a chance of winning, does not seem to be in Archbishop Myer’s op-ed piece. Perhaps you could point it out to me?

You keep accusing me of arguing interpretation, but you are the one who seems to be giving yourself more moral latitude than is actually written.

 

[SoCalRC]

Because they are going to vote democrat regardless of where the candidate stands on abortion. To rationalize this they have to distort or ignore Church teachings and vehemently attack anyone who points the teachings out to them.

But you are the one advocating voting for a candidate who holds a position on abortion the Catholic Church considers intrinsically evil. Why are you so certain that it is other’s views which are a distortion and rationalization, not your own?

 

[dmelosi]

But you are the one advocating voting for a candidate who holds a position on abortion the Catholic Church considers intrinsically evil. Why are you so certain that it is other’s views which are a distortion and rationalization, not your own?

It is a do the math thing.

 

[fix]

But your position, voting for a candidate who supports intrinsic evil over candidates who do not, simply because the candidate is a major party candidate with a chance of winning, does not seem to be in Archbishop Myer’s op-ed piece. Perhaps you could point it out to me?

You keep accusing me of arguing interpretation, but you are the one who seems to be giving yourself more moral latitude than is actually written.

My position is limiting evil is good. I do not support evil, intrinsic or otherwise.