Voter's Guide

[rwoehmke]

It seems to me after reading this and other, longer threads on the subject, that we will all be safe if we don’t vote at all.

It seems, however, that as faithful Catholics we have a moral obligation to vote. It doesn’t look like it will be easy to negotiate the political “minefield” but we are obliged.

 

[rwoehmke]

I think I’ve asked about 5 times now why those who are so adamant that the church doesn’t require Catholics to be against the death penalty want it that way. I mean surely they want to follow the church don’t they? I don’t recall that Benedict made his approval of the UN statement contingent on anything. He applauded their position. Why would someone want to be in favor of the death penalty I continue to ask…yet strangely no reply. Just more attempts to make 2 popes and a council somehow not say what they said.

Certainly you must understand that the Pope speaks from his safe little nook on the Chair of Peter. What does he know of the real world with its perverts and violent killers? He just doesn’t understand what life is like on the streets for us common people. So yah we kill a few innocent people and proportionately more minority people, but scum is scum and we are all safer in our beds with them six feet under. They shouldn’t require time to think and repent. They deserve anything God dishes out including an eternity in hell. Not?

 

[iamrefreshed]

I think I’ve asked about 5 times now why those who are so adamant that the church doesn’t require Catholics to be against the death penalty want it that way. I mean surely they want to follow the church don’t they? I don’t recall that Benedict made his approval of the UN statement contingent on anything. He applauded their position. Why would someone want to be in favor of the death penalty I continue to ask…yet strangely no reply. Just more attempts to make 2 popes and a council somehow not say what they said.

I KNOW several here have spoken out against the death penalty numerous times. However, if you continue to use this disingenusous method of deflection, I will call you on it.

So you can get it right, I AM opposed to:

death penalty
euthanasia
SSM
Abortion
ABC
Women priests

Will you so readily post your views???

Please post where folks here have been pro-death penalty.

 

[Sheeniac]

Certainly you must understand that the Pope speaks from his safe little nook on the Chair of Peter. What does he know of the real world with its perverts and violent killers? He just doesn’t understand what life is like on the streets for us common people. So yah we kill a few innocent people and proportionately more minority people, but scum is scum and we are all safer in our beds with them six feet under. They shouldn’t require time to think and repent. They deserve anything God dishes out including an eternity in hell. Not?

That is a very insulting and condescending statement. Do you always ridicule your opponents?

SpiritMeadow, you wrote

rwoehmke:

I think I’ve asked about 5 times now why those who are so adamant that the church doesn’t require Catholics to be against the death penalty want it that way. I mean surely they want to follow the church don’t they? I don’t recall that Benedict made his approval of the UN statement contingent on anything. He applauded their position. Why would someone want to be in favor of the death penalty I continue to ask…yet strangely no reply. Just more attempts to make 2 popes and a council somehow not say what they said.

I do not want to take this overly off topic, and there are certainly death penalty threads where I have chimed in.

The death penalty is something that I struggle with. After learning of JP2’s reasoning - mainly that it adds to the ‘culture of death’ and makes life less sacred overall, I have a better understanding.

I don’t want to get into a debate on this thread, but I believe that the Pope’s analysis is faulty on this in terms of actual prison society. Even before the gulags, the prisons have been run by the violent and vicious inmates. Our system is so broken as to allow certain people to get out who should never be released, or who had been previously condemned to death.

Plus, we’re Ameri-centric. I cannot put the execution of someone like Timothy McVeigh as equivalent to the guy in China who was executed because of the food safety issue (was it the pet food issue specifically? I think so). He was executed right after the trial. Is the repeated taking of a bribe (in a government in which bribery is not uncommon) worthy of the death penalty? Certainly not.

We have no similar punishments. Our whole justice system is based on the fact that it is better to let 10 guilty men free than to imprison an innocent man. While it is a hard pill to swallow when you are watching the 10 guilty men get away with it, it is still the best approach.

Indeed, Christ didn’'t tell Pilate that he didn’t have the right (as a representative as a whole) to put him to death.

There is an older book that I was reading in the last couple of months that went into a very detailed look at punishment through a prism of Christianity. I will see if I can find that in the next few months.

While I would love to have a system in which violent people can be safely locked away forever, to never harm an innocent again, we’re not there. Will we ever be? Again, food for another thread.

If you can’t find your answer on a d.p. thread, I think you are not looking hard enough.

While I wish to follow the Church in all things faith and morals related, they are sometimes stepping outside those limits, I am not under an obligation to march in lockstep with all of the Church’s announcements and positions.

 

[Sheeniac]

Here’s a thought…why don’t we work at the life issues from all directions instead of just one?

Do you mean more than just abortion, or more than just the legality of the situation?

 

[Sheeniac]

I think I counted at least 8 issues that the USCCB must be opposed. While I agree there is no definitive statements by the Vatican regarding the DP being 'intrinsically evil" **the clear import of recent documents and statements leaves little doubt I contend that the Church basically no longer feels it can be supported. **Benedict for instance just a few days ago endorsed the UN call for a moratorium on the DP worldwide. JPII in Evangelium Vitae stated that for all intents and purposes there were few of any circumsances that would allow its use. The USCCB has called for his stop they claim for 25 years, and restated their positon again in 2005.

No longer be supported?

Is this evolution of doctrine, or a change? It seems to me to be a change. In that case, I would be suspect of the validity of it.

Re: the 8 issues, the USCCB has no real authority in the Church. It is a subset of the Magisterium, and does not speak for the whole.

There is debate, and sincere disagreement. The Pope will always “error” (so to speak) on the side of compassion. Given the controversy, I think I (and MANY others) would need it to be defined ex cathedra versus a personal opinion of the Pope and most Bishops. And yes, I do feel that there is a big difference between the two.

Assuming that it WAS defined ex cathedra, would I be happy? No. Would I refrain from expressing my persona dissent? Yes. In that case, I would have to do much spiritual work to confirm my conscience to the Church’s teaching.

It always feels like those that have a different opinion choose to think the worst of those of us who are ‘supporters’ of the d.p. No, we’re not all blood thirsty, vengeful savages who are just barely Catholic. Having to battle that presumption is why I don’t often join in on the d.p. threads.

 

[Sheeniac]

Catholics can, and do, disagree, but they should do so begrudgingly - as in a severe crisis on concience. Because in disagreeing they are, at least in part, rejecting both our reasoning on abortion and the apostolic nature of our Church, the foundation of its legitimacy as the one true Christian faith.

I am not rejecting the reasoning on abortion, euthanasia, etc. I would put your statement at the level of personal opinion, not fact.

 

[Sheeniac]

This is getting close to what I call the Couch Potato Catholic approach. We sit on the sofa, drink beer and eat chips and cheer for the team (or government program) of our choice – but we** don’t** do anything to move the ball ourselves.

Do we get merit for an act of charity when someone else pays for it, by forced taxation?

Exactly. Government can be a part of the solution, but for things truly to be changed, the people must change.

It seems to me that the notion of state versus society has completely left the political discussion. (And I will include the Voters Guide in that category of political discussion.) Once that happens, governments only gain more power. Perhaps our own will remain “virtuous”, but it would be a first in all of history, I would think.

 

[marci]

Do we have a big problem in the US with sub-human working conditions? Do we have child labor in our manufacturing plants? Do we even have manufacturing plants anymore?

The majority of “poor” people in this country own a car, home, tv, dvd/cd player, etc., etc.

So when considering all of the “life” issues, the ones that pertain to immenant death seem to be the ones that would logically take the front seat.

Everytime I see a post that speaks of the “difficultly” in navigating church teaching on the subject of abortion in relation to voting I want to SCREAM!!

Does anyone here really not know what to do? For those of you who are on the fence, imagine little limbs being torn from a tiny little body and then tell me what is important. This whole thread has gone to la la land.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Let’s face it, most of us aren’t gay, so rejecting civil unions is relatively easy. But fighting back against the evil of modern divorce, truly embracing and supporting monogamy, and actively supporting family structures is a lot taller order.

All we can do to prevent this is lead by example, and offer good counsel.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Does anyone here really not know what to do? For those of you who are on the fence, imagine little limbs being torn from a tiny little body and then tell me what is important. This whole thread has gone to la la land.

People don’t “know” because they do not “see.” Suggest showing pictures of aborted babies and you will face a storm of criticism – it’s “inappropriate,” you know. “Little children” might see those pictures. And on and on.

If our eyes cannot bear to see what our hands have done, we should have stayed our hands.

 

[SoCalRC]

Do we have a big problem in the US with sub-human working conditions? Do we have child labor in our manufacturing plants? Do we even have manufacturing plants anymore?

Garments made in Saipan can be stamped “Made in USA”, because it is part of a US protectorate.

However, US labor and immigration laws do not match.

Starting around 1994 human rights groups started identifying it as a hot spot for human trafficing and modern slavery.

The USCCB joined the call, specifically identifying Saipain by name.

By 1997, the problem had been reported on in the national news.

There was some bipartisan support for extending US labor laws, but it was consistantly blocked by a number of GOP congressional leaders (ex. Tom Delay).

By 1999, we had documented evidence and testimony of guarded camps, and widespread use of forced abortions (you can’t be as productive if time is ‘wasted’ on pregnancy and a child).

Several more pushes, several more blocks.

Two things happened. First, the Jack Abramof scandal led to multiple convictions, and testimony and evidence collected in those cases let us see the flow of millions of dollars, much of it illegal, from Saipan’s sweat shop and sex trade owners into the Republican party. Second, we had a leadership change.

Saipan may still have problems, but they appear greatly diminished and at least must life in the shadows, much like the US today:

In 2002, the US Department of State repeated an earlier CIA estimate that each year, about 50,000 women and children are brought against their will to the United States for sexual exploitation.

state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2002/

Scream away, but I feel compelled to fight forced abortions and sexual slavery (especially for children) even at the cost of losing cheap garments or causing inflation in the US prostitution industry…

 

[SoCalRC]

Is this evolution of doctrine, or a change? It seems to me to be a change. In that case, I would be suspect of the validity of it.

No, doctrine is unchained. The Pope remains the Vicar of Christ:

“If anyone should say that the Roman Pontiff has merely the function of inspection or direction but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in matters pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the entire world, or that he has only the principal share, but not the full plenitutde of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate over all Churches and over each individual Church, over all shepherds and all the faithful, and over each individual one of these: let him be anathema” Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ, #3

The concept that prudential teachings are automatically optional seems to be a new invention among the laity. Presumably it makes it easier to pick and choose. But this is unwise:

“The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine.” - Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith

For Catholics, abortion and the death penalty are part of the same issue. If we question the Pope’s authority and reasoning on the death penalty, we are also questioning the Pope’s authority and reasoning on abortion, murder, and euthanasia. The death penalty teaching was presented in the same encyclical, using hte same reasoning, that those three other teachings were argued to be infallible (EVANGELIUM VITAE).

The foundation of our belief in all these teachings is what is referred to as the “proper understanding of the human person”. That is why Catholic understanding of pro-life is so much broader that what US politics would have people believe:

“The Church has never yielded in the face of all the violations that the right to life of every human being has received, and continues to receive, both from individuals and from those in authority. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor. The Second Vatican Council openly proclaimed: <<All offences against life itself, such as every kind of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all offences against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where men are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons; all these and the like are certainly criminal: they poison human society; and they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator>>” - CHRISTIFIDELES LAICY, #38

This is the obligation for “the right to life” placed directly on the lay faithful by the Church (see the entire post-synodal apostolic exhortation for more details). Notice that this is not just a Pope’s opinion, but also a quote from the Second Vatican Council, which has ecumenical authority (see Part One of the Catechism of the Catholic Church for more details).

So again, no, Catholic doctrine has not changed, just observance and acknowledgement.

 

[Sheeniac]

Ah, but SoCal, The V2 document did not cite the d.p. It had the very chance there because of the way it was quite specific. The d.p. is a society initiated occurrence, and not an individual one. I am fully Catholic and have my doubts on this issue. Self-defense is legitiamate, as in killing in time of war. Murder <> killing.

I know doctrine doesn’t change. My point is that there are those who, in connecting the d.p. to murder, are attempting to change doctrine. Hence, my issue.

I don’t know if you truly do not understand my statements, or that this medium is not truly conducive to communication, or you are ignoring some of what I say in order to make your points. However, you seem to not reply to my major concerns, or when you do, miss the point completely. There are those who reply, and I think - ‘hmmhhh, good point but I just don’t agree’. I read yours, and think ’ ‘he’s not getting my point at all’.

As I said, I do not want to turn this thread into a d.p. debate.

As such, I disagree with the Voter’s Guide because it places abortion on the same level as “poverty wages”, never taking into account the amount of subsidies that working lower income people and the poor can get, along with special programs. (Which I would argue often causes disincentives to work.)

The slaughter of innocents is a stain on our society. I think that’s the trump card here. As such, I am dismayed at the lack of spine that many of our Bishops show in terms of ‘preaching’ the Church’s beliefs.

After I was done reading the overly long guide, all I could think of was that it was written by a committee. Did you ever hear the phrase ‘MEGO’? My Eyes Glaze Over. I read Catholic and Christian books several times a week and I have an appreciation for the style of writing that the guide embodies. But, it was too long for regular people with shorter attention spans.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Do you mean more than just abortion, or more than just the legality of the situation?

More than just abortion.

 

[SoCalRC]

The slaughter of innocents is a stain on our society. I think that’s the trump card here. As such, I am dismayed at the lack of spine that many of our Bishops show in terms of ‘preaching’ the Church’s beliefs.

I think that there is some confusion. The Church can’t put aside one for the other. Both are reflections of the same basic belief. If each of us is a unique creation of God, who can and does love us infinitely, then propostional comparisons are meaningless.

In other words, you seem to be content to be ‘anti-abortion’, but the Church is compelled to be ‘pro-life’ in accordance with our teachings.

Notice that the Vatican statement, approved by two popes, places economic development that is socially just on par with abortion. All availalbe secular evidence would seem to indicate that the Church is right. For example, the vast majority of procurred abortions in the US are among woman living at or near the poverty level.

But I am compelled as a matter of faith. If I do not treasure life in every form and at all stages, then I am not ‘pro-life’ in a Catholic sense.

For me, ‘pro life’ is non negotiable. I understand that others, like yourself, may choose to compromise on the Church’s scope of this teaching, but I, myself, cannot.

 

[iamrefreshed]

For me, ‘pro life’ is non negotiable. I understand that others, like yourself, may choose to compromise on the Church’s scope of this teaching, but I, myself, cannot.

It’s inflamatory comments like these that really prevent you from getting any respect about your views. Actually, it’s quite arrogant.

I think you are compromising church teaching for your own political agenda. There, you like it?

 

[vern_humphrey]

It’s inflamatory comments like these that really prevent you from getting any respect about your views. Actually, it’s quite arrogant.

I think you are compromising church teaching for your own political agenda. There, you like it?

We must remember that some people who post here are much holier than the rest of us. And quite ready to tell us so.

 

[Ender]

The concept that prudential teachings are automatically optional seems to be a new invention among the laity.

The catechism refers to the types of assent expected of Catholics to teachings of dogma and of doctrine but there is no claim that assent is required on matters of opinion or prudential judgment. This concept may be new to you but doesn’t appear to be new to the Church.

For Catholics, abortion and the death penalty are part of the same issue.

This is much too vague. Cardinal Ratzinger made it perfectly clear that there are fundamental differences between abortion and the death penalty:

*“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. …There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
*

If we question the Pope’s authority and reasoning on the death penalty, we are also questioning the Pope’s authority and reasoning on abortion, murder, and euthanasia.

Not at all. The pope is not the author of moral law, he merely explains it to the best of his ability. When he spoke on abortion, murder, and euthanasia he was echoing the constant teaching of the Church; when he spoke on the death penalty, however, he was presenting his personal interpretation which is in fact not supported by any previous Church document or teaching. The reasoning on abortion was not his own; the reasoning on the death penalty was.

So again, no, Catholic doctrine has not changed

This is true. As Cardinal Dulles wrote: *“The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes.” *

Ender

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Certainly you must understand that the Pope speaks from his safe little nook on the Chair of Peter. What does he know of the real world with its perverts and violent killers? He just doesn’t understand what life is like on the streets for us common people. So yah we kill a few innocent people and proportionately more minority people, but scum is scum and we are all safer in our beds with them six feet under. They shouldn’t require time to think and repent. They deserve anything God dishes out including an eternity in hell. Not?

Yeah…sure seems that way sometimes. But when I look at Evangelium Vitae and the beautiful picture of life and what it entails in its fullest sense, its very hard to figure out how people who call themselves Christian and more especially Catholic can come down on the side of death. It is against the Spirit of JPII, and I suggest against (nefer thought I would say this) Pope Benedict’s deep appreciation and endorsement of JPII’s sentiments.