Voter's Guide

  • Thread starter Thread starter AUSTINCATHOLIC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is not contrary to Church teaching, it goes beyond it. If the Church believed that these issues were more important than the other great issues involved in the election, like the potential for future war, terrorism etc, I think she would have said so plainly. But instead the Church teaches in the CCC that it falls to the laity to “engage in temporal affairs and direct them to God’s will” (898). She has deliberately chosen to leave this decision in the hands of the American people.

What things like this Voter’s Guide do is cause confusion among the faithful by acting as if it were an official outlet of the Church, declaring “non-negotiable” issues as if it had any authority to do so. In fact someone earlier in this thread more or less suggested that not following the Voter’s Guide exactly is a reason, in and of itself, to go to confession. I completely agree that the issues in the Voter’s Guide are issues which should be at the forefront of all Catholic minds, but I do wish people would calm down and recognize that the Voter’s Guide is not a papal decree.

In fact, I bet you if the Republican party started to see that they need to do more to satisfy the Christian vote than just stick to anti-abortion, we might start to see candidates appear who accurately reflect Christian values more completely, who are both anti-pre-emptive war and anti-abortion. But right now they have no reason to change because they realize that they will always control the Christian vote with one issue. With that one issue they have the Christian vote, and they are free to pander to Lord knows who with all of the others. Heck that’s just smart politics on their part, and it works because we Christians aren’t looking at the larger picture. In fact we are starting to convince ourselves that it would sinful to do so.
 
Who did design that Voter’s Guide? Aren’t Catholics allowed to think for themselves?

It always did seem like an underhanded way of endorsing Republicans.
 
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
There are sins that are intrinsically evil.St.Paul differentiates mortal and venial sins.We are supposed to pray for our leaders to make decisions that please God.I saw a Maryknoll voters guide that looked like an endorsement for Kerry.The gravity of the sins they promote are what you are suppose to base your vote on if they don’t line up perfectly with the law of God.The murder of the innocents cries to heaven for vegeance,Bush has made alot of prolife moves and tried to put a pro-life judge in last term,the dems shot him down.It is always amazing to me that concernfor slaughtered unborn children seems to be outwieghed by social issues or fear.More praying for Pres.Bush will do more good than worrying.God Bless
Click to expand...
Thank you for the information about the Maryknoll voter’s guide. I have great admiration for the Maryknoll priests whom I have occasionally heard speak during the homily. I always feel spiritually renewed when I hear them. Since these men work all over the planet, I believe that they have a different perspective. To them, the United States is not the only country in the world. They have seen the suffering in other countries. I believe that if George Bush died, he would be made to see the suffering of the unborn children in Iraq, who died along with their mothers when our bombs were dropped on them. On the other hand, I don’t think he will have to answer for the abortions done in the United States. If a woman here has an abortion, she will have to answer to God on judgment day, along with the doctor, her husband/boyfriend and anyone else who encourgaed her to have it. John Kerry, George Bush, and Edward Kennedy will have to answer for their own sins. Our president, no matter who he is, is not directly responsible if a woman has an abortion. If voting for George Bush qualified as a vote against Hitler, then why are unborn babies still dying? After all, the man has been president for four years. I would like to thank Jeremy for his articulate opinion. He couldn’t have said it better. I would like to add that if you repeat something often enough, people may be brainwashed into thinking it is true. If we disagree on the morality of war, we are OBLIGED to follow our conscience, since the Pope doesn’t rule on individual wars.
 
Great points. Now I’m more convinced than ever I won’t vote for won’t vote for Saddam.
 
40.png
Jeremy:
It is not contrary to Church teaching, it goes beyond it. If the Church believed that these issues were more important than the other great issues involved in the election, like the potential for future war, terrorism etc, I think she would have said so plainly. But instead the Church teaches in the CCC that it falls to the laity to “engage in temporal affairs and direct them to God’s will” (898). She has deliberately chosen to leave this decision in the hands of the American people.

What things like this Voter’s Guide do is cause confusion among the faithful by acting as if it were an official outlet of the Church, declaring “non-negotiable” issues as if it had any authority to do so. In fact someone earlier in this thread more or less suggested that not following the Voter’s Guide exactly is a reason, in and of itself, to go to confession. I completely agree that the issues in the Voter’s Guide are issues which should be at the forefront of all Catholic minds, but I do wish people would calm down and recognize that the Voter’s Guide is not a papal decree.

In fact, I bet you if the Republican party started to see that they need to do more to satisfy the Christian vote than just stick to anti-abortion, we might start to see candidates appear who accurately reflect Christian values more completely, who are both anti-pre-emptive war and anti-abortion. But right now they have no reason to change because they realize that they will always control the Christian vote with one issue. With that one issue they have the Christian vote, and they are free to pander to Lord knows who with all of the others. Heck that’s just smart politics on their part, and it works because we Christians aren’t looking at the larger picture. In fact we are starting to convince ourselves that it would sinful to do so.
Click to expand...
Why must we always hear the single-issue retort? No US political figure is advocating unjust war. Plenty of politiciansare advocating abortion. It is the difference between supporting someone making controversial decisions, perhaps even making grave errors in judgement, and supporting someone who out of the gate has openly allied himself with the enemies of Life.

Scott
 
Scott Waddell:
Why must we always hear the single-issue retort? No US political figure is advocating unjust war. Plenty of politiciansare advocating abortion. It is the difference between supporting someone making controversial decisions, perhaps even making grave errors in judgement, and supporting someone who out of the gate has openly allied himself with the enemies of Life.

Scott
Click to expand...
Let me be moderate inmy response and also to try to write in the abstract. You might rightfully observe that in a particular situation the Church (or the leaders of the Church) are not able to make a determination that a particular action is a just or unjust war. But the Church does not claim that no one can make that discernement. If a particular person is convinced that a particular military action is unjust they are not only free but must follow their conscience just as if the Church had infallibily ruled a war was unjust.

You may not believe that any US leader is advocating an unjust war, but others might well and then have every right to act based on that belief.
 
and supporting someone who out of the gate has openly allied himself with the enemies of Life.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately what abortion is and is not is confused in the minds of most people, including politicians. I think most people who are pro-abortion do not believe that fetuses are human beings in the first place. In order to say that someone has knowingly “allied himself with the enemies of life” – as opposed to simply making a grave error in judgment – you would have to consider whether they would support the killing of millions of innocent people in other contexts. If someone says they would not slaughter 2 million one year old babies but they would pass legislation that legalizes 2 million abortions, then they are not murdering monsters but people who are making a terrible mistake in judgment.

To put it another way, the general criteria for mortal sin is that one knowingly do wrong. Many people who are pro-abortion do not think that what they are doing is wrong, because they just do not see abortion as murder. Of course some of these people do know better, but I really think most people don’t, including politicans.

I am not condoning this or anything but to say that pro-abortion people are necessarily “allying themselves with the enemies of Life” is misleadingly harsh when what these people really need most of the time is education.
 
40.png
sbcoral:
Who did design that Voter’s Guide? Aren’t Catholics allowed to think for themselves?

It always did seem like an underhanded way of endorsing Republicans.
Click to expand...
The design? >>A group of Catholic laymen and includes some non-Catholic Republican Party operatives*<<
Catholics allowed to think for themselves? >>**Absolutely not, information and well formed conscience can be a dangerous thing in the hands of the laity<<
An underhanded way of endorsing the Republicans? >>***The Voter’s Guide seemed to be thinly veiled propaganda to vote for George Bush<<

If it sounds like, smells like, feels like, seems like a conspiracy, then it must be a conspiracy by those overzealous conservative Christian Catholics. (give me a break! :whistle: )

Credits for their contribution: *katherine2, **myself, ***Listener
 
I had no problem with the voters guide. The five non-negotiables where there because they were the issues dealing with this election. Was the war justified or not? To me, it looked very much up in the air. Decent cases on both sides. But the problem with war is that violence tends to beget mor violence. On the other hand, Saddam’s track record of having had a WMD program in the past further along than we thought had occured, he has gassed his own people, he has tortured his own people. One here talks about supporting a candidate who says he will openly shoot 1,000 people. It seems Saddam executed many of his rivals in his rise to power.

The issues on the voter guide though, strike at the heart of society and people itself. It will further break down marriage. We’ve done a good job of making it a simple contract than the sacrament that it really is, and who hurts our children and ourselves. Now we are going from just abortion, to making our medical system diabolic. At the rate we are going, the medical system is going to rely on the harm of others inorder to care for others. Instead of caring for the widows, we are going to change to killing them because we don’t want to support them. You don’t want to support them, you lose all the graces that you could have otherwise gotten. Instead of your brother Able’s blood going down into the soil, his blood is going to put a stain on yourself as his murder is supporting your medical health.
 
Im about tired of the complaing about the iraq war. I heard in whining and sniveling when we went to afganistan or kosovo, for similer reasons. its a war people are going to be killed, many more were killed every day under saddam. as for not finding the weapans of mass destruction, everyone knows they were hidden in syria. to put the iraq war in the same class as abortion is silly. abortion is murder of the incocent for selfish reasons. abortion is never good, and cant be argued as such. any war is open to debate. the fact is abortion is the mostimportant issue bar none. yes bush isnt the ideal right to life candidate, but with all the laws he would support he is effectively prolife. the most important thing in the right to life agenda is the human life amendment, when he does support. so all these cheezy arguements to support kerry, a radical proabortionist, because bush isnt as prolife as we would like dont fly. the fact is he does support to full right to life agenda, which effectively prolife and worthy of support over any and all proabortionists.
 
I would like to make one more comment about the trouble I have with the Voter’s Guide and one-issue voting. Suppose that two people were running for president. One was Laura Bush (the first lady) and the other was the Green River Killer. Now, suppose that the Green River Killer was running on an anti-abortion platform. Maybe he even believes that all women who have an abortion should get the death penalty.

If I followed the logic in the Voter’s guide, I would have to vote for the Green River killer. Why? Well, Laura Bush describes herself as “pro-choice.” If I voted for her, I would be voting for a “pro-abortion” person. It would be said that I would have to go to confession before receiving Communion. After all, millions of people have died by abortion, and the Green River killer hasn’t killed nearly that many people.

I guess the same thing would be true if a child molester was running against Laura Bush. After all, child molesting is not one of the five “non-negotiables.”

I think we need to remember that the Catholic Church has stated that the four cardinal virtues are PRUDENCE, justice, temperance, and fortitude.
 
40.png
Listener:
I would like to make one more comment about the trouble I have with the Voter’s Guide and one-issue voting. Suppose that two people were running for president. One was Laura Bush (the first lady) and the other was the Green River Killer. Now, suppose that the Green River Killer was running on an anti-abortion platform. Maybe he even believes that all women who have an abortion should get the death penalty.

If I followed the logic in the Voter’s guide, I would have to vote for the Green River killer. Why? Well, Laura Bush describes herself as “pro-choice.” If I voted for her, I would be voting for a “pro-abortion” person. It would be said that I would have to go to confession before receiving Communion. After all, millions of people have died by abortion, and the Green River killer hasn’t killed nearly that many people.

I guess the same thing would be true if a child molester was running against Laura Bush. After all, child molesting is not one of the five “non-negotiables.”
.
Click to expand...
The voter’s guide was compiled based on policies of the candidates we had to chose form. Murder and child molestation weren’t an issue in the race. Well actually they were DNC planks, weren’t they? Kill the babies and let the sodomites marry and adopt children.
 
40.png
Listener:
I would like to make one more comment about the trouble I have with the Voter’s Guide and one-issue voting. Suppose that two people were running for president. One was Laura Bush (the first lady) and the other was the Green River Killer. Now, suppose that the Green River Killer was running on an anti-abortion platform. Maybe he even believes that all women who have an abortion should get the death penalty.

If I followed the logic in the Voter’s guide, I would have to vote for the Green River killer. Why? Well, Laura Bush describes herself as “pro-choice.” If I voted for her, I would be voting for a “pro-abortion” person. It would be said that I would have to go to confession before receiving Communion. After all, millions of people have died by abortion, and the Green River killer hasn’t killed nearly that many people.

I guess the same thing would be true if a child molester was running against Laura Bush. After all, child molesting is not one of the five “non-negotiables.”

I think we need to remember that the Catholic Church has stated that the four cardinal virtues are PRUDENCE, justice, temperance, and fortitude.
Click to expand...
Prudence is the exercise of intellect to determine choice (Prudence: “it is that virtue which directs on in the choice of means most apt, under existing circumstances, for the attainment of a due end”; Catholic Encyclopedia) based on a heirarchy of goods (intrinsic good/intrinsic evil) and the moral principle that “one must not do evil that good may come of it” and the choice of the lesser of two evils.

Prudence would dictate that having the choice to vote between a more “pro-life” and a more “pro-abortion” candidate, one must choose the former. Why? 1) Because denying a child the breath of life through intended abortion is obviously first order (an aborted child is deprived of the very opportunity to grow up to become a murderer, child molester … (priest or nun or saint); 2) Given the political realities, child molestation, death penalty for those having had an abortion (cutting off feet for repeated purse snatchers …) will never become the law of the land, while the continue slaughter of the innocent children in the womb *can *be changed.

To me it is a no-brainer that prudence would determine that I vote along the CA voter’s guide until those “non-negotiables” are off the plate, then I am presented with the secondary tier of candidate voting issues.
 
felra, so you would vote for a serial killer running on an anti-abortion platform if the only other viable candidate was pro-abortion? You didn’t actually say that but that seems to be the logical conclusion, given your response.
 
I find it interesting that the CA Voter’s Guide says nothing about some things that I think are non-negotiable according to church teaching, e.g. public support for contraception, which would invalidate a lot of Republicans.

I think it’s also interesting that, based on the 5 non-negotiables in the Voter’s Guide, Mullah Omar of the Taliban would be a better candidate than George W. Bush - no exceptions for abortion or stem cell research or support for civil unions there. Fortunately, he wasn’t on the ballot, or millions of Catholics would have been obligated to vote for him under pain of mortal sin.
 
THe CA voters guide had to deal with the issues that where on the table in this years election. It would be nice to have added contraception to that list, since that is a huge part of the whole problem, but that issue was not on the table.
 
40.png
Jeremy:
felra, so you would vote for a serial killer running on an anti-abortion platform if the only other viable candidate was pro-abortion? You didn’t actually say that but that seems to be the logical conclusion, given your response.
Click to expand...
You set befor her or another person set before her a rediculous scenerio:mad: Goerge W has helped the Life cause,mabe if you looked at the news a little more you would know that.He also has enacted a freedom of concience law recently which will protect Catholic or Christian clinics or hospitals from being forced to offer abortions.He toook a stand on embryonic stem cells,cloning,made it a crime to attack and harm unborn child when attacking the mother Laci’s law:thumbsup: Partial birth abortion ban. People get mad about the voter’s guide because it doesn’t fluff over those issues as if they didn’t exist,they might feel bad and be convicted in conscience about it.God Bless
 
40.png
Jeremy:
felra, so you would vote for a serial killer running on an anti-abortion platform if the only other viable candidate was pro-abortion? You didn’t actually say that but that seems to be the logical conclusion, given your response.
Click to expand...
Your choice of “anti-abortion” and “pro-abortion” gives transparency to your mind-set/value frame of reference. See post #43 for my choice of terms for transparency on my mind-set/frame of reference.

To answer your question, reread my post #43.
 
Bobby Jim:
I find it interesting that the CA Voter’s Guide says nothing about some things that I think are non-negotiable according to church teaching, e.g. public support for contraception, which would invalidate a lot of Republicans.

I think it’s also interesting that, based on the 5 non-negotiables in the Voter’s Guide, Mullah Omar of the Taliban would be a better candidate than George W. Bush - no exceptions for abortion or stem cell research or support for civil unions there. Fortunately, he wasn’t on the ballot, or millions of Catholics would have been obligated to vote for him under pain of mortal sin.
Click to expand...
In all due respect, but what rhetorical, academia, idealogical, philosophical, conceptual, political …universe do you live in? We are talking about the bloody slaughter of millions of innocents here …have those “conscientious objectors” to the CA voter’s guide sat quietly with this reality? I commend the CA voter’s guide for taking the gloves off by pointing out the obvious and being part of the political reality solution, rather than a sideline pundit critquing *what they didn’t include–*which I find interesting if not amusing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top