J
JoeyWarren
Guest
There are a lot of things we are called to do as Catholics. But does anyone actually do ALL of them?
- Status
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
Well, HELLO!, that was the situation I was addressing - the governor’s race in IL with two pro-choice candidates.
My point was, in the U.S. the majority of us Catholics will be asked to vote in elections which only offer pro-choice candidates. There are a few noble states who have been blessed to get pro-lifers on their ballots and whatever they did to get that to happen, we need to put it to use in our own states, but for the most part the rest of us are going to be challenged at the polls in November.
I take issue with the author’s take on the Cardinal’s footnote:
When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.Take careful note of those last two words: “proportionate reasons.” Cardinal Ratzinger, a careful moral theologian, is telling us that a faithful Catholic might vote for a candidate who supported abortion if there were another moral issue as grave and as clear as the abortion issue. But keep in mind that in the text above this footnote, the cardinal made it quite clear that there is no such commensurate issue.
Now the author is correct that the Cardinal does not consider any other moral issue as grave as the abortion issue.
However, where in the Cardinal’s text does he say ‘proportionate reasons’ = a moral issue as grave as abortion. **THAT **is the author’s opinion/interpretation. It is clear in the voter guides, the USCCB’s guide and the CCC that ‘proportionate’ applies to considering all the other moral issues on the table for any particular candidate.
As JoeyWarren states, we are called to consider all 11 moral issues (from his example)…however, where he is incorrect is the ranking of those issues. What Cardinal Ratzinger clearly states is abortion is #1 after which the other 10 are to take their place.
Where JoeyWarren feels it’s ok to toss out abortion because it’s impossible, and therefore allow the other 10 to move to the top of the list, Cardinal Ratzinger is saying NOPE.
However…when both candidates favor abortion…then we are to apply ‘proportion’ to the remaining 10 issues to help us determine for whom to cast our vote. That is what Cardinal Ratzinger is addressing in his footnote. He is stating that while we would still be giving “remote material cooperation” for abortion, our vote for that candidate based on those ‘other reasons’ can be permitted.
And actually, my own interpretation/analysis of that footnote is narrower that the footnote itself since Cardinal Ratzinger says proportion could be applied if a candidate does not share the voter’s position on abortion. To me, that appears to give wiggle room when there is one pro-choice and one pro-life candidate, and that’s probably why JoeyWarren, and others like him, find confidence in looking at all issues proportionate.
As I noted, however, abortion (and euthanasia, according to Cardinal Ratzinger in that footnote) is always #1 behind which people can begin prioritizing the other matters. We CANNOT move abortion/euthanasion to #10 and #11 just because we find the matter to be a losing battle.
Does that make sense or am I off-track?
E
estesbob
Guest
We should try. And LIFE should always come first. All rights flow from the right to life…
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
What everybody else does isn’t the measure by which you or I should base our decisions.
If you are Catholic, and you know the teachings of the Church, then it’s your call to follow those teachings or not - regardless of what all the other Catholics are doing. I would pray that you find the courage to follow the teachings, even when you don’t agree with them.
D
detrockcity3
Guest
What, like Plessy v. Ferguson?
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
E
estesbob
Guest
On track BUT there is not any wiggle room at all when one candidate is pro-abortion and one is pro-life. The Church has made it clear that NO ISSUE (or issues combined) supercedes Abortion. Heres how then Cardianal Ratzinger explained it:
“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment.”
The proportinate rule can ONLY come into play where both candidates are pro-abortion in which case you can decide to vote for the one you consider best in other areas. When I stated that I would not vote for either candidate I was staing my preference-nor church teaching.
B
Brendan
Guest
Suppose there was a candidate who said that the first office act of his Presidency would be to nuke Australia.
Would the correct Catholic response be to then enquire what his health care policy would be?
M
mlchance
Guest
Cognitive dissonance and denial can be treated. Seek proper spiritual counseling.
– Mark L. Chance.
E
estesbob
Guest
Pleasy vs Ferguson was a 1892 Supreme Court decision that said separate but equal facilities for Blacks were Constitutional. It legalized segregation. It took 60 years for it to be overturned by Brown vs the Topeka Board of Education(1952). Note it was the “law of the land” 26 years more than Roe V wade has been in effect.
Roe V Wade will be turned over , as was pleasy Vs Ferguson , and as was Dred Scott . The only question is when. The more people of goodwill who vote for pro-abortion candidates the longer it will take.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Then I would not vote for him. Plain and simple. I would have to opt for B.
As for your other asinine comment, it would become null and void based on this intention of A.
Anymore wise butt comments?
E
estesbob
Guest
Many of those who’s politics compel them to vote for pro-abortion candidates will end up like Lady Macbeth muttering “Out Damn Spot” as the compulsively wash there hands over and over again. If one supports the slaughter of the innocents by claiming nothing can be done about it how can they not be a modern day Lady Macbeth when abortion is eliminated?
E
estesbob
Guest
Yet you vote for candidates complicit in the slaughter of far more people than a single nuke would kill. Go figure…
B
buffalo
Guest
They will only start thinking of that if his first action would be to nuke ourselves. And then of course the next question, is our health care system capapble of handling this scenario, and why not? :banghead: Could more have been done to treat those affected. Why weren’t our hospitals nuclear hardened? Always a bandaid approach.
The root is the culture of death. Abandon it now!
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
Thank you. I remember reading more upon the subject and getting that distinction from somewhere.
This is one of those matters I struggled with in my journey from pro-choice to pro-life. It is easy to be at peace with a pro-choice position when the only information one allows into the brain and consciousness comes from the secular media. Thanks to the good posters here providing links to Catholic writings on the matter I was able to add more information to my consciousness and that’s when the Holy Spirit was able to finally flip that switch for me. I’m still not that good at conveying the teachings to others but I’m getting better. I rely on you posters to keep me on track.
B
buffalo
Guest
Yingyang - way to go. I remember we tangled on this in the past.
I always say - just search for the truth. Always keep searching.
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
Well, believe me, I considered not voting for governor in November but the Church makes it clear that would not be acceptable. I can’t pick and choose which teachings to follow, especially based on my own personal preferences.
I have to vote pro-life if there is a candidate on the ballot running against a pro-choicer even if the pro-lifer is a crook in all other ways. I won’t like casting that vote, but the Church doesn’t ask me to like it, just to obey.
I have to vote for one of the two major candidates in November and I just dread analyzing them on the other 10 issues, because so far they both have lousy records…still, I gotta read up on them and then pray about it. I can’t sit out this or any election.
E
estesbob
Guest
it is something i have struggled with too. Although I walked away from the Democrat party 25 years ago over this my Mother and all my sibling are still hard core democrats. They think nothing of voting for a pro-abortion candidate as long as they are democrat. No matter how much I try I can not can convince them of the terrbile thing they are supporting. I would ask all those reading this to pray that God will do what I have not been able to do.
E
estesbob
Guest
I am not aware that the Church requires us to vote and/or make a choice between two pro-abortion canidtaes. They give us guidance if we do vote in such a situaiton but there is no teaching that says we have to vote at all.
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
I don’t mind giving credit where credit is due. I’m sure it pleases you to see your efforts in defense of the faith pay off, especially when it seems no one’s listening.Yingyang - way to go. I remember we tangled on this in the past.
I always say - just search for the truth. Always keep searching.
What I like about this forum is even when one isn’t searching for the truth, people like you (and now me) will place a link to Truth in a post - just in case.
I may not have read the links right away, but you can be certain once my mind did start wrestling with what I was reading here and what was already in my brain, I sought those posts out and took the time to access the links…from there my eyes were opened.
So thanks for posting good links in a charitable manner, and thanks to CA for keeping the links available on this forum.
- Status