L
- Status
S
SoCalRC
Guest
I would not go quite that far. I would only say that it is not far enough for me and that it is not a strategy that the Vatican recommends, at least based on the Doctrinal Note from the Vatican regarding voting.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Which is tantamount to saying, if you can’t find a perfect candidate, all bets are off, and you can vote for a pro-abortion candidate on any pretext.
F
fix
Guest
Not only that but which candidate, third party or not, is perfect?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
The myth of the perfect candidate is the ideal foil to justify voting for a pro-abortion candidate. “Well, Bzotz really isn’t **completely, totally **pro-life, so I can vote for Schuckenfess, because even though he introduced a bill to make abortion mandatory, he’s also for better inspection of chicken processing plants.”
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
Um…maybe it’s the construction of your sentence, but I’m confused.
You would say that it is not enough for you…but what is not a strategy that the Vatican recommends?
From what you say, a politician flogging their anti-abortion view is not enough for us to vote for them but that there must be more substance on a broader range of life issues, yes?
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
FALSE! Try again.
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
Why do you have to state obvious and intentional untruths like this? No one is saying that they intend to vote pro-choice-on-abortion because there is no perfect pro-life candidate. You know this and still state this untruth. Would that constitute a violation of the Seventh Commandment with full knowledge and consent of the will?
Confession, anyone?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
My, aren’t we holier-than-thou!
Did I name you – or any other poster – in that passage?
Do you deny there are Catholics who vote pro-choice? Do you deny they use that to rationalize their votes?
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
Well, admonishing the sinner is a spiritual act of mercy. If the shoe fits…My, aren’t we holier-than-thou!
Considering your post was generated by a response to one of my posts, it seems reasonable to assume (yes, I know what happens when people do that) that you were referring to the big bad lib, yours truly (of course, that’s not true, either).
Of course not. There are Catholics who are, sadly, pro-choice on abortion and they do use other important social justice issue to justify it. You implied, however that anyone who refuses to vote Republican (pro-“life”) is, therefore, voting Democrat (“pro-abortion”). In my case, and the case of many other people here, this is not so. You should try to differentiate betwixt the two.
After all, I could assume from your posts that if the both parties did a complete 180 on the so-called “non-negotiables,” (i.e., the Republicans take up the cause of pro-choice-on-abortion, gay “marriage,” research on stem cells taken from unborn children (embryonic stem cell research is a misnomer), etc. and the Democrats take up the the issues of life) you’d STILL vote Republican based on ideology alone…but that wouldn’t be right…would it?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
You would better off to look in the mirror when you do that.
In another thread, you virtually gave me license to twist your words any way I want – but I will refrain.
Which is my point, exactly. So why get bent out of shape about it?
When did I do that?
Give me a quote where I said, "anyone who refuses to vote Republican (pro-“life”) is, therefore, voting Democrat (“pro-abortion”). "
Quite the contrary – I have repeatedly asked those who consider themselves Democrats to work to purge their party of pro-abortion officials and candidates.
You could assume anything you like – even that I can fly or teleport.
But you’d be wrong.
You are correct – that would not be right.
I am working very hard to see that certain people do not get the Republican nomination, and if they should, I will not support them.
Can you say the same about Democratic candidates?
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
I do…every evening when I say Compline.
I did? Pray tell…
Because you never qualify your statements to exclude people who don’t agree with you.
Note I used the word imply. To imply means “to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement.” Perhaps insinuate (to impart or suggest in an artful or indirect way) would be a better word?
Really. Pray tell.
Well, unless you have a fear of flying, you can certainly fly. Of course, you know, you can fly…all it takes is faith, trust and pixie dust.
As to teleport, the matter-energy transporter won’t be invented for at least 150 years, so that’s not a possiblity…yet. 
As I said.
Good to hear.
Considering I’m not registered Democrat and California doesn’t have open primaries for national offices…no. Believe it or not, I’m registered Republican because I used to be True Believer™ in Rush Limbaugh and the Republican Party. It was only when I started on my journey towards the Tiber and took a good look around when I decided that Republicanism isn’t good for a working class guy like me and that said party has no real interest in making any real accomplishments relative to the life issues.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
You pray to yourself!?!?
Yup – you came out with your usual twisted mess and claimed it was your interpretation of what I said.
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
Compline involves making an examination of conscience. Hello?You pray to yourself!?!?
hmph. So you say.
Nuts.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
There you go again.
I hope you’re referring to yourself with that comment.
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
Whose the one whining about personal attacks?There you go again.
I hope you’re referring to yourself with that comment.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
My failure in communication.
The Church appears to say a fairly broad range of issues are non negotiable in voting. I have quoted those documents extensively in case my interpretation is in error, but statements like “moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation”, “fundamental and inalienable ethical demands”, and “the essence of the moral law” seem pretty hard to interpret in any fashion except ‘non-negotiable’.
I would encourage all Catholics to try to vote their faith as fully as they can and to strive to obey the Mother Church as best they can. I think It does us little good to have an apostolic Church if we only listen to it when it tells us what we want to hear.
I, myself, try to vote all the non-negotiables laid out by the Vatican. I also give special attention to the items noted for special attention by the USCCB. But I undoubtedly fail in this effort.
So I would be hesitant to make any moral comparison between myself and any other child of God. We are all sinners, we all make moral compromises, so we should focus on our own unworthyness, not our perceived moral relativity to others.
My strongest objection is that we should not lower the bar to rationalize our own compromises. It is human nature, but it makes no sense. Think about it, how does one argue that, say, a document from a lay group is more ‘Catholic’ than the Pope?
I hope that is clearer.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
- Status