Voter's Guides

[Pug]

It didn’t include the statement by Pope Benedict XVI that a voter could vote for a prochoice candidate for “proportionate reasons”

I don’t know of any such statement by Pope Benedict XVI. Could someone post a link to it? I could easily be wrong. BUT…

I’m worried that there is a confusion here. There was an internal memo that was leaked. This memo was not an official document or teaching, and it was written by Cardinal Ratzinger while he was Cardinal Ratzinger, not after he became pope. In this memo, the phrase “proportionate reasons” supposedly shows up. Are we talking about something the pope said, or are we talking about a memo here? Or have I gotten confused? Can someone help?

 

[DaughterSorrow]

Coming from the pro-choice, anti-war position I held for a long, long time (though I’m still anti-Iraq war) I can only state that for me, **after **reading what the Church teaches on the matter, I came to the conclusion that my limited mind cannot begin to comprehend the complexity of the matter to such a degree that I could - with confidence - second guess the magesterium. Who am I to declare - through my actions - the Church’s wisdom on these matters to be wrong?

For me, they don’t need to be ex-cathedra, or infallable. It is enough that they were written for the faithful by the Pope after much prayer and with the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit. No, the voting statements aren’t doctrine, but they are supported by magesterial teaching which is infallible (faith and morals) and if you follow all the footnote references it’s evident that the teachings are based on Scripture and Tradition.

My husband likes to ask at random points in time “Who could beat up whom? Batman or Superman… the Aflack duck or the Geico gecko…” With that take, “Who could beat up whom - the sources behind Chruch teaching on voting, or the sources behind Secular teaching on voting…?” There is no argument - The Church sources whoop secular ones with the first punch. So even though I may not understand completely why I should vote pro-life over pro-choice when given the opportunity I can at least do so in good conscience because I trust the sources of the teaching which guides me to do so.

I agree with what you’re saying. My point was, how do Catholics find it easy then, to not only disregard the Pope’s stance on the Iraq war, but vociferously so. Such folks to me have politics trumping their faith.

Just to give you my background, I am pro-life (anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-Iraq war, and anti-stem cell research). You’d be hard-pressed to find candidates that match the “catholic platform.” Voting for me everytime is very difficult.

I appreciate your reasoned and well-informed comments. It all comes down to obedience and trust in the the Church and God, doesn’t it?

In Peace,
DS

 

[estesbob]

Estesbob:

Ok, it’s not my complete list but for the sake of this discussion these are the bits and pieces which helped me reach the conclusion that not voting is not being morally responsible:

From the CCC #2240
Submission to authority and **co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory **to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country.

I do exercise my right to vote-i also exercise my right not vote for candidates who are repugnant to me. The idea that my refusal to vote for a pro-abortion candidate goes against Catholic teaching is ridiculous.

 

[estesbob]

The voters guide that I was handed in 2004, which I believe is the same as this one, stated that the only reason a voter could vote for a pro-choice candidate was if both candidates were prochoice. It didn’t include the statement by Pope Benedict XVI that a voter could vote for a prochoice candidate for “proportionate reasons” or the decision put forth by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops that is was not a sin to vote for a prochoice candidate if you voted for that candidate for reasons other than their stance on abortion. It is obvious that both the Pope and the Bishops are stateing that the voter can vote for a prochoice candidate if they believe they have justification for voting for the prochoice candidate for reasons other than that candidates stand on abortion. The statement that the only reason a Catholic voter can vote for a prochoice candidate is if both candidates are prochoice is close, but not the same as what the Pope or Bishops have stated. There is a difference in the two positions. There are any number of “proportionate reasons” a voter can have for voting for a prochoice candidate. Suppose the voter doesn’t believe a prolife candidate is really prolife, if the candidate has no credibility on the issue, then that would be a proportionate reason for voting for a prochoice opponent. If the candidate has no credibility with the voter, then there would be no reason for the voter to vote for that candidate at all. Suppose the voter believes abortion is a constitutional issue and not a legislative issue, then there would be no reason for the voter to vote for a legislative candidate specifically because of the candidates stand on the abortion issue. There are an infinate number of “proportionate reasons” why a voter can vote for a prochoice candidate over a prolife candidate and it is the voters right and obligation to vote how he believes is best for his country and in line with the teaching of the Catholic Church. Catholic voters should be free to judge the candidates for themselves without being intimidated by political activists in the Catholic Church who are USING the Catholic Church to promote their own politically partisan agendas by distributing pamphlets that are not wholy representative of the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

If you check this thread you will see that the term “proportionate” has been grossly misunderstood and used by many to vote for pro-abortion candidates. Then cardinal Ratzinger made it clear that no issue or combined issues could be trump abortion and euthanasia. You simply can not vote for a pro-abortion candidate unless they are running against another pro-abortion candidate. and contrary t what others have said a Catholic is NEVER obligated to vote for a pro-abortion candidate even if their opponent is likewise pro-abortion

 

[estesbob]

I agree with what you’re saying. My point was, how do Catholics find it easy then, to not only disregard the Pope’s stance on the Iraq war, but vociferously so. Such folks to me have politics trumping their faith.

Just to give you my background, I am pro-life (anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-Iraq war, and anti-stem cell research). You’d be hard-pressed to find candidates that match the “catholic platform.” Voting for me everytime is very difficult.

I appreciate your reasoned and well-informed comments. It all comes down to obedience and trust in the the Church and God, doesn’t it?

In Peace,
DS

There is absolutely no moral equivalence between supportng the Iraq war and supporting abortion. Catholics of good conscience can disagree on the war they can NOT disagree on abortion. Heres how then Cardinal Ratzinger put 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.”.

 

[estesbob]

You bring up good points. These statements that the pope has made - obviously after 2004 and the other statements made by the previous pontiff on voting: would those statements be considered infalliable? Are they ex-cathedra? Are they in themselves part of the doctrine of the church.

I had an argument with another poster on the Iraq War. I quoted both the popes condemning the US invasion, but a politically conservative pro-Iraq war poster just said the statements of the pope were not doctrine so he didn’t have to agree with them. Could the same be said for all these points regarding “how to vote?”

Just curious.

In Peace,
DS

Neither Pope declared the Iraq war to be unjust-had either done so a Catholic could not support it and Catholic fighting in it would be commiting a Mortal sin. There is a huge difference between the Pope saying “I disagree with the Ira war” and the" Iraq war is unjust"

I have posted then cCrdinal Ratzingers comments on this many times and will do so one more tme:

“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.”

 

[buffalo]

The voters guide that I was handed in 2004, which I believe is the same as this one, stated that the only reason a voter could vote for a pro-choice candidate was if both candidates were prochoice. It didn’t include the statement by Pope Benedict XVI that a voter could vote for a prochoice candidate for “proportionate reasons” or the decision put forth by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops that is was not a sin to vote for a prochoice candidate if you voted for that candidate for reasons other than their stance on abortion. It is obvious that both the Pope and the Bishops are stateing that the voter can vote for a prochoice candidate if they believe they have justification for voting for the prochoice candidate for reasons other than that candidates stand on abortion. The statement that the only reason a Catholic voter can vote for a prochoice candidate is if both candidates are prochoice is close, but not the same as what the Pope or Bishops have stated. There is a difference in the two positions. There are any number of “proportionate reasons” a voter can have for voting for a prochoice candidate. Suppose the voter doesn’t believe a prolife candidate is really prolife, if the candidate has no credibility on the issue, then that would be a proportionate reason for voting for a prochoice opponent. If the candidate has no credibility with the voter, then there would be no reason for the voter to vote for that candidate at all. Suppose the voter believes abortion is a constitutional issue and not a legislative issue, then there would be no reason for the voter to vote for a legislative candidate specifically because of the candidates stand on the abortion issue. There are an infinate number of “proportionate reasons” why a voter can vote for a prochoice candidate over a prolife candidate and it is the voters right and obligation to vote how he believes is best for his country and in line with the teaching of the Catholic Church. Catholic voters should be free to judge the candidates for themselves without being intimidated by political activists in the Catholic Church who are USING the Catholic Church to promote their own politically partisan agendas by distributing pamphlets that are not wholy representative of the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

Nope. The Bishops and the Pope state that pro-life issues trump all the rest.

 

[buffalo]

Neither Pope declared the Iraq war to be unjust-had either done so a Catholic could not support it and Catholic fighting in it would be commiting a Mortal sin. There is a huge difference between the Pope saying “I disagree with the Ira war” and the" Iraq war is unjust"

I have posted then cCrdinal Ratzingers comments on this many times and will do so one more tme:
“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.”

In the case of war, prudential judgment enters in.

Even though the Pope voiced he was against the war, deference can be made to the prudential judgement of the leader of a country.

 

[DaughterSorrow]

There is absolutely no moral equivalence between supportng the Iraq war and supporting abortion.

I never said there was. I was referring to a comment made by someone who follows not just Catholic doctrine and the pope’s infallible statements, but those who also follow ALL the pope says. I was contrasting her comments with those Catholics that don’t follow the pope that strictly.

My ideal candidate would be against abortion in ALL cases (none of these exceptions for rape, etc.), against the death penalty, against stem-cell research, against euthanasia, against cloning, and against the war (which I believe is wrong). Unfortunately, there aren’t any candidates like that. At least not in my state. Therefore, I must choose one who is against abortion in ALL cases (as this is the greater evil), but misses the mark on some of the other teachings, but again, not a lot of those either. Many pay lip service to pro-life causes, but few stand with the Church.

The bottom line is it’s hard to find good candidates.

In Peace,
DS

 

[DaughterSorrow]

Neither Pope declared the Iraq war to be unjust-had either done so a Catholic could not support it and Catholic fighting in it would be commiting a Mortal sin. There is a huge difference between the Pope saying “I disagree with the Ira war” and the" Iraq war is unjust"

True. But who would you rather stand with? Our Holy Fathers or the US government? They both have come out against the war and in harsher terms that “I disagree with it.” I stand with our pontiffs!

In Peace,
DS

 

[estesbob]

True. But who would you rather stand with? Our Holy Fathers or the US government? They both have come out against the war and in harsher terms that “I disagree with it.” I stand with our pontiffs!

In Peace,
DS

You can stand wth the Pontiff all you want. However what you cant do justifty voting for a pro-abortion canidate because they stand with the Pontiff on the Iraq war.

 

[DaughterSorrow]

You can stand wth the Pontiff all you want. However what you cant do justifty voting for a pro-abortion canidate because they stand with the Pontiff on the Iraq war.

Apparently you didn’t read my earlier post…

 

[Brendan]

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?

But I thought that you held that we must evaluate the position of a canidate on ALL the Catholic issues.

Or do you agree that there are certain moral issues that override any other issues.

 

[YinYangMom]

I do exercise my right to vote-i also exercise my right not vote for candidates who are repugnant to me. The idea that my refusal to vote for a pro-abortion candidate goes against Catholic teaching is ridiculous.

Well certainly it isn’t ‘ridiculous’.
I gave specific quotations from Church documents, gave my understanding of them and then asked if perhaps I missed something.

For you to dismiss those writings as ridiculous doesn’t help me figure out how you reached that conclusion from Church documents so that I might correct my understanding (if indeed it is wrong).

Do you think you can put aside the repugnancy of even considering voting for one of two bad candidates long enough to point out, from those Church documents, where it can be construed to be ok to not vote in such a situation?

I mean, obviously the CA authors reached the same conclusion you did and we’re reading the same source documents so it would really be helpful to see where the ‘no vote is ok’ conclusion comes from.

I showed how I came to the conclusion we are obliged to vote and why I did not find a release from that obligation. What did I miss?

 

[estesbob]

Well certainly it isn’t ‘ridiculous’.
I gave specific quotations from Church documents, gave my understanding of them and then asked if perhaps I missed something.

For you to dismiss those writings as ridiculous doesn’t help me figure out how you reached that conclusion from Church documents so that I might correct my understanding (if indeed it is wrong).

Do you think you can put aside the repugnancy of even considering voting for one of two bad candidates long enough to point out, from those Church documents, where it can be construed to be ok to not vote in such a situation?

I mean, obviously the CA authors reached the same conclusion you did and we’re reading the same source documents so it would really be helpful to see where the ‘no vote is ok’ conclusion comes from.

I showed how I came to the conclusion we are obliged to vote and why I did not find a release from that obligation. What did I miss?

I apologize for using the term ridiculous. I respect you opinion that one should vote for the lesser of two evils if faced with two pro-abortion candidates. what i disagree with is your assertion that that is church teaching. it is not.

 

[YinYangMom]

I apologize for using the term ridiculous. I respect you opinion that one should vote for the lesser of two evils if faced with two pro-abortion candidates. what i disagree with is your assertion that that is church teaching. it is not.

I understand the quickness of the first response, thanks for the apology.

As for disagreeing with my assertion, that’s good, too, but please, point out to me where my assertion is wrong. I don’t want to continue misinterpreting church documents.

I’ve shared with you how I reached my conclusion, feel free to start there to point out where I went off base.

 

[estesbob]

I understand the quickness of the first response, thanks for the apology.

As for disagreeing with my assertion, that’s good, too, but please, point out to me where my assertion is wrong. I don’t want to continue misinterpreting church documents.

I’ve shared with you how I reached my conclusion, feel free to start there to point out where I went off base.

The Church merely says that we should participate in the election process it doesn’t say we have to vote in every race. The Council of Bishops Voters guide makes it clear that not voting in a particular race an option. I will not under any circumstance vote for a pro-abortion candidate nor a candidate of a pro-abortion party regardless of his views on abortion.

 

[YinYangMom]

The Church merely says that we should particpate in the election process it soent say we have to vote in every race. The Council of Bishops Voters guide makes it clear that not voting in a particualr race an option. I will not under any circustance vote for a pro-abortion canidate nor a canidate of a pro-abortion party regardless of his views on abortion.

I cited passages from the USCCB’s Faithful Citizenship document…is the Council of Bishops Voters guide different? If so, where can I find it, and would you mind pointing out where I’d find the part about not voting being an option?

Thank you!

Please note, I am not, in any way trying to get you to change your position, don’t vote if you can’t vote, that does not matter to me, but I’m sitting here telling myself I have to choose between one of these lousy governors based on what I’m reading in church documents. If there really is a document from the church which says I can sit this one out, it would be really, really good to know about it!

 

[estesbob]

I cited passages from the USCCB’s Faithful Citizenship document…is the Council of Bishops Voters guide different? If so, where can I find it, and would you mind pointing out where I’d find the part about not voting being an option?

Thank you!

Please note, I am not, in any way trying to get you to change your position, don’t vote if you can’t vote, that does not matter to me, but I’m sitting here telling myself I have to choose between one of these lousy governors based on what I’m reading in church documents. If there really is a document from the church which says I can sit this one out, it would be really, really good to know about it!

I was refering to documents you posted earlier. Why dont you just write in my name?

 

[YinYangMom]

I was refering to documents you posted earlier. Why dont you just write in my name?

I think you’d have to live in IL…

besides, writing in a name or voting for a third party who has no chance of winning is not helping to protect the common good.

Please, since you were referring to the same documents I cited, help me find the passages which let me off the hook from voting. Apparently I missed them.

Why won’t you share? M - O - M !!! …