Voter's Guide

[SoCalRC]

I’ll stick to what the Cardinal said, thank you.

Then read the whole letter, not a small quote which still has to be distorted to match your interpretation.

Are you accusing me of moral relativism?

I have repeated stated that I believe that every single Catholic is guilty of moral relativism. It is one of the ways we repeatedly fail God.

This should be no surprise, there is no alternate response when the Eucharist is presented. That is, no one pronounces, “Actually, I am worthy to receive you, perhaps I should go first…”

What I am observing here is that relativism is being rationalized instead of accepted and discussed.

Think about it, I have repeatedly recommended following the VATICAN as the best authority and encouraged folks to fully vote the Holy See’s COMPLETE position as closely as they can.

But somehow that is not ‘real Catholicism’?

Once people are arguing that their point of view is more Catholic than the Pope’s, it seems reasonable to point out that theological revisionism must be occuring.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Then read the whole letter, not a small quote which still has to be distorted to match your interpretation.

I recommend you follow your own advice. Who appointed you a bishop, that you demand all others must accept your “interpretations?”

I have repeated stated that I believe that every single Catholic is guilty of moral relativism. It is one of the ways we repeatedly fail God.

But, of course, you consider yourself less guilty than everyone else?

This should be no surprise, there is no alternate response when the Eucharist is presented. That is, no one pronounces, “Actually, I am worthy to receive you, perhaps I should go first…”

What in the world inspired you to come up with that?

What I am observing here is that relativism is being rationalized instead of accepted and discussed.

And who is doing that – other than those who keep finding excuses why things like abortion and euthanasia shouldn’t take first place in our considerations?

Think about it, I have repeatedly recommended following the VATICAN as the best authority and encouraged folks to fully vote the Holy See’s COMPLETE position as closely as they can.

But that wouldn’t mean I couldn’t follow you!

But somehow that is not ‘real Catholicism’?

What gives you the right to claim the rest of us are not “real Catholics?”

Once people are arguing that their point of view is more Catholic than the Pope’s, it seems reasonable to point out that theological revisionism must be occuring.

And you are that person. I let the Holy Father speak for himself, you keep trying to tell me what he **really **meant.

 

[marci]

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…

All I can say is WOW. So exactly which current presidential hopefuls are for sexual slavery, child labor in US manufacturing plants, forced labor, and forced abortions? After all that was the issue, how do certain non-negotiable issues affect catholic voting? Now, which hopefuls are for unristricted abortion?

If candidate A is pro-abortion and candidate B is pro-life? Does is take a rocket scientist to know what the right thing to do is?
“But there are other life issues”, you say. OK, which of the pro-life candidates are for euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloaning? I can think of one who is supposedly pro-life, but probably pro stem cells, based on what I’ve heard him say on the matter. However, that is just one of them. The rest are pretty clear on certain moral issues that are part of church teaching.

The problem for people comes into play when their party’s candidate is pro-abortion. They will try to come up with all sorts of excuses as to why they are permitted to consider “other life issues” exactly what other life issues trump delibrate murder of the most innocent among us? BTW I lump stem cell research, cloaning, and abortion all in the same bag, because they all in effect murder an innocent.

 

[SoCalRC]

All I can say is WOW. So exactly which current presidential hopefuls are for sexual slavery, child labor in US manufacturing plants, forced labor, and forced abortions? After all that was the issue, how do certain non-negotiable issues affect catholic voting? Now, which hopefuls are for unristricted abortion?

By words, or deeds? IE, if you take a million bucks from profits involving forced abortion, is it OK as long as you say you are against it?

I would be happy to answer at length (trying to vote the Vatican’s entire list requires a lot of research), but forum rules prohibit me from answering your question.

If candidate A is pro-abortion and candidate B is pro-life? Does is take a rocket scientist to know what the right thing to do is?

It depends on the definition of “pro-life”, do you mean the one from multiple Popes and an ecumenical council, or, say Rush Limbaugh? The Church’s definition (see the references in the USCCB documents) is dramatically broader.

OK, which of the pro-life candidates are for euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloaning?

Again, I cannot discuss current candidates because of the rules, but I can point out that President Bush is pro stem-cell research (he provides federal funding for it, calling it a compromise - per the Vatican, I cannot compromise on the issue of fetal life), pro euthanasia (he signed a law making it easier for hospitals to remove hydration and nutrition for patients who can’t pay - the Pope has declared such removed “direct euthanasia”, an infallible teaching I cannot compromise on), and seemingly pro cloning (while controlling Congress his party killed a bill which included a ban on cloning and a restriction on the use of fetal origin cells in vaccines).

The problem for people comes into play when their party’s candidate is pro-abortion.

No, the fundemental problem is ‘their party’. Once you start engaging in party ‘loyalty’ (and the GOP is now using Loyalty Oaths in multiple states, as well as at White House events) you are serving two masters.

I figure it is hard enough to try to fully vote my faith without clouding the matter with additional forms of tribalism. That doesn’t mean I am right, but it does free me from having to ‘prove’ that one party is more Godly than another.

 

[SoCalRC]

I recommend you follow your own advice. Who appointed you a bishop, that you demand all others must accept your “interpretations?”

No one, least of all me. Look at my first post ownward, I’m sending people to the Church, not a lay group.

You, however, have frequently stated the moral superiority of your choices.

But, of course, you consider yourself less guilty than everyone else?

I have repeatedly stated otherwise. Are you implying that you can read hearts and minds? If so, that would explain your moral certainty.

What gives you the right to claim the rest of us are not “real Catholics?”

I have no such right, and have never claimed one.

But aren’t you the one defending a lay authored material that declares itself correct for “Serious Catholics?” Similiarly, aren’t you the one who declared that people who do not share your views are “Couch Potatoe Catholics”?

I let the Holy Father speak for himself, you keep trying to tell me what he **really **meant.

I’m sorry, that would seem to defy the lengthy record. I frequently cite Church documents at length and often provide links to the complete original. You are the one who assigns meanings to the Pope’s words without even quoting them or providing context (ex. “didn’t the Pope say…”).

The Pope does speak for himself, very well. But we often don’t listen to the full message, instead focusing on what we want to hear.

 

[marci]

By words, or deeds? IE, if you take a million bucks from profits involving forced abortion, is it OK as long as you say you are against it?

Can you name those that you suggest are accepting campaign donations? Do you have evidence that any of them have supported the sex slave trade or companies that engage in forced abortion? I can name a few that have accepted money from countries that engage in forced abortion.

I would be happy to answer at length (trying to vote the Vatican’s entire list requires a lot of research), but forum rules prohibit me from answering your question.

 

[fix]

Basically, ‘Dudes, look, we can “even” allow disagreement on these important moral principles, but not on these two teachings…’

The reason disagreement is allowed is because they do not bind in the same way. Are you saying the cardinal was allowing the flock to accept and hold error as morally licit?

YES, the Catachism leaves room for the death penalty, but CCC 2267 also states that suitable applications “are rare, if not practically non-existant”. It then uses a Papal Encyclical reference, which, per CCC 882, carries “a power of the whole Church”. It also happens to be the same Encyclical that declares direct abortion infallible…

Yes, so are you claiming the Pope will intervene is each execution case and tell the flock when the state may execute?

I say again the entire teaching must be reconciled and all you, and others, have done is accented part of the teaching and minimized the other part.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The Pope does speak for himself, very well. But we often don’t listen to the full message, instead focusing on what we want to hear.

You have just described your approach to apologetics.

Once again: Given two candidates, one of whom espouses the pro-life position (albeit imperfectly) and the other who espouses the pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

Yes or no?

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

You have just described your approach to apologetics.

Once again: Given two candidates, one of whom espouses the pro-life position (albeit imperfectly) and the other who espouses the pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

Yes or no?

This cannot be answered as “life” in “pro-life” is referring to a single-issue vote. “Life” in Catholic teaching includes abortion but also encompasses so much more. To only base it on a subset of one teaching is shortchanging your decision.

 

[fix]

You have just described your approach to apologetics.

Once again: Given two candidates, one of whom espouses the pro-life position (albeit imperfectly) and the other who espouses the pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

Yes or no?

It seems your question assumes their is some objective standard with which to make a judgment. If there are no objective standards then every single Catholic will come to differing conclusions and all would be objectively correct even when they contradict each other. Is this possible?

 

[vern_humphrey]

It seems your question assumes their is some objective standard with which to make a judgment. If there are no objective standards then every single Catholic will come to differing conclusions and all would be objectively correct even when they contradict each other. Is this possible?

Ah, the Post-modernism argument, “How can we reeeeeealy know?”

You understand your argument will militate against anyone ever voting for any candidate, do you not?

If someone says, “I’ll vote for Smith because he’s for universal healthcare,” the automatic response would be, “It seems your question assumes their is some objective standard with which to make a judgment. If there are no objective standards then every single Catholic will come to differing conclusions and all would be objectively correct even when they contradict each other.”

Ask yourself this – how do people choose the candidate they support? The answer is, by **observing his actions **and listening to what he says.

If candidate A, while serving as Governor of some state** vetoed** a pro-abortion bill, while candidate B as a member of Congress introduced a pro-abortion bill, that would be a clue as to where they stand, no?

 

[fix]

Ah, the Post-modernism argument, “How can we reeeeeealy know?”

You understand your argument will militate against anyone ever voting for any candidate, do you not?

What I was thinking is that posters will say you may vote for the less pro choice person and I will vote for the more pro choice person and we both are observing Catholic teaching just coming to differing conclusions using the same criteria.

If someone says, “I’ll vote for Smith because he’s for universal healthcare,” the automatic response would be, “It seems your question assumes their is some objective standard with which to make a judgment. If there are no objective standards then every single Catholic will come to differing conclusions and all would be objectively correct even when they contradict each other.”

Ask yourself this – how do people choose the candidate they support? The answer is, by **observing his actions **and listening to what he says.

If candidate A, while serving as Governor of some state** vetoed** a pro-abortion bill, while candidate B as a member of Congress introduced a pro-abortion bill, that would be a clue as to where they stand, no?

What if candidate A supports an American company with offices in Brazil that has a sweat shop that means 12 year olds feel the need to have abortions?

Your original questions sums it up nicely.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

It seems your question assumes their is some objective standard with which to make a judgment. If there are no objective standards then every single Catholic will come to differing conclusions and all would be objectively correct even when they contradict each other. Is this possible?

Oooh, a genuine straw man.

 

[SoCalRC]

Can you name those that you suggest are accepting campaign donations? Do you have evidence that any of them have supported the sex slave trade or companies that engage in forced abortion? I can name a few that have accepted money from countries that engage in forced abortion.

Research Saipan, then look at the convictions, evidence, and testimony in the Jack Abramof scandal (which is still resulting in criminal convictions BTW). It is heart wrenching.

How do you manage to vote at all? Personally, I don’t like what either party has become, but until another serious 3rd party comes along we have to continue to choose the lesser of two evils.

With tremendous difficulty. But I don’t view it the same way as you. If I select the lessor of two evils, I am still complicit with evil.

Think about our teaching on abortion. It is absolute. An abortion is not licit even to save the life of the mother. We have no guidance for this in Holy Scripture (or so says John Paul II in EVANGELIUM VITAE). And it actually appears at odds with our Sacred Tradition (Tertullian describes such an abortion in gruesome detail in some of our earliest apologetic writings and one can dispensations and theological support for the exception running through history up to the late 19th century). So why is it right?

Because we believe that life is a gift with infinite value, at every stage and in every form.

Infinity, God’s scale, defies human metrics. If I try to apply simple math to large scale attrocities, I am not being ‘logical’ in a theological sense, I am simply devaluing life. If I can accept 150,000+ violent civilian deaths in Iraq and the sheer misery of millions of refugees, disproportionately Christian, fleeing their homes in terror and struggling to survive in a desert without potable water and electricity, how much can I honestly say I treasure life?

This is not to say that people cannot morally disagree. But I happen to believe that two Popes have been correct, that the Catechism is clear and we are engaging in an unjust war. For the sake of short term violence reduction, we are even creating Sunni ‘strongmen’ and allowing areas to be ethnically clensed, that is, we are intentially creating refugees for perceived strategic interest.

I cannot refuse to acknowledge that. On the same token, I cannot turn my back on 800,000 to 1,200,000 million aborted pregnancies.

So, I don’t. I vote for candidates most poeple have never heard of. I understand that many people consider this a waste. But I disagree. The nation is 25% Catholic and demographics will probably push that to 50% in the next 25 years. Over 75% of the nation professes itself to be Christian - the largest concentration of Christians in one nation in all of history.

With that math, why on earth should you have to say that you don’t like what both parties have become?

I actually think that it is the holding one’s nose and compromising on morals and concience that perpetuates a system that does not recognize what the Second Vatican Council described as the proper understanding of the Human Person.

I know that isn’t easy, I certainly held my nose for a long time, until I just couldn’t stand it anymore. But “God helps those who help themselves” is not in the Bible, Ben Franklin said it. The Bible calls upon us to trust God and obey His will.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What I was thinking is that posters will say you may vote for the less pro choice person and I will vote for the more pro choice person and we both are observing Catholic teaching just coming to differing conclusions using the same criteria.

If we work real hard, we can always rationalize any act, no matter how wrong. Prisons are full of people who are very good at that.

What if candidate A supports an American company with offices in Brazil that has a sweat shop that means 12 year olds feel the need to have abortions?

Then two things:

1. Someone is really scratching to find a reason to vote for a pro-choice candidate, and
2. That persons has bought into the pro-abortion argument that women need to have abortions.

Your original questions sums it up nicely.

And despite post-modernism, it ain’t all that hard to tell the pro-choice side from the pro-life side.

And if we work ahead of time, we can get **better **candidates. And if we vote out pro-choice officials, and defeat pro-choice candidates, the day will come when our task will be to determine which of the candidates is most pro-choice.

 

[SoCalRC]

You have just described your approach to apologetics.

Once again: Given two candidates, one of whom espouses the pro-life position (albeit imperfectly) and the other who espouses the pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

Yes or no?

I have answered this many times. The simple answer is “no”. But the more important question is can a Catholic vote for the former. Taking the Vatican literally at its word, that answer is also seemingly “no”.

“Limiting the Harm” only applies when there is no other choice, not ‘no choice I find practical’.

The simple theological explanation is that evil acts lead to evil ends, regardless of our intentions. That is because good does not, as estesbob is fond of asserting, flow from us and our acts, but from God.

But it also a case where secular logic coincides with trust in God. If you morally compromise to support a party, then the party has no incentive to match your morals. It already got what it wants, your assistance in the pursuit of power. The question then becomes, what do you really want? Complaining is fine, but our acts tend to demonstrate what we treasure most.

 

[SoCalRC]

Oooh, a genuine straw man.

Although I noticed the same thing, I wouldn’t be harsh, we all fall into ruts and patterns. As humans we often feel small and weak, so it is our nature to strive for order and a sense of control.

However, what I find intriguing about this particular argument is that it is actually secular progressive reasoning.

Think about it, they appear to be saying that wholly voting one’s faith is the ‘sort’ of reasoning that propogates abortion. But being pragmatic and investing in practical and effecitive human politics is the obvious path to get things done…

As I just mentioned, “God helps those who help themselves” is a common sentiment. I even see a tendancy for us to blame the poor for the lot in life. But it isn’t in the Bible. The Bible tells us the opposite, that a Man who trusts in himself over God is a “fool”.

 

[fix]

I have answered this many times. The simple answer is “no”. But the more important question is can a Catholic vote for the former. Taking the Vatican literally at its word, that answer is also seemingly “no”.

“Limiting the Harm” only applies when there is no other choice, not ‘no choice I find practical’.

If only one of the two candidates will win then there is no other choice. Limiting the harm is the moral thing to do and theologically correct.

I am not saying it is immoral to vote for a third party person, but it is theologcally incorrect to claim choosing the lesser of two evils in such a case is contrary to Church teaching.

 

[fix]

Oooh, a genuine straw man.

How is it a straw man? I have seen on these fora just that explanation that a Catholic can vote for a pro choice person when the other is less pro choice using their understanding of Church teaching.

It often involves things like minimum wage or health care.

 

[fix]

Think about it, they appear to be saying that wholly voting one’s faith is the ‘sort’ of reasoning that propogates abortion. But being pragmatic and investing in practical and effecitive human politics is the obvious path to get things done…

Moral theology is not based on pragmatism. It does require reason though.

As I just mentioned, “God helps those who help themselves” is a common sentiment. I even see a tendancy for us to blame the poor for the lot in life. But it isn’t in the Bible. The Bible tells us the opposite, that a Man who trusts in himself over God is a “fool”.

Now, this is really a straw man.