D
detrockcity3
Guest
The difference being, of course, that just war is decided by state governments and the death penalty is allowed for under church doctrine. As the CA guide points out, abortion is a non-negotiable issue.
- Status
E
estesbob
Guest
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 !!!…
OK-from your post:
No where does say we have to vote on every race.
In fact the CA Voters guide interprets this as i do-we have a right right NOT to vote. in a particular race.
P
phantom
Guest
He was a Cardinal at the time, Corki. And he was the leader of the congregation of the doctrine of the faith. And the US conference of Bishops had already made their decision that it was not a sin to vote for a prochoice candidate if you voted for that candidate for reasons other than their postition on abortion. That made the pamphlets FALSE. They were a misrepresentation of the teachings of the Catholic Church and they were printed by political activists who sought to intimidate Catholic voters into voting toward their political bias .
J
Julianna
Guest
this thread clearly makes one think, to keep who they vote for…to themselves…
B
buffalo
Guest
Nope. The use of the word proportionate reasons needed to be read in context with Church teachings.
E
estesbob
Guest
But you cant keep it from God…this thread clearly makes one think, to keep who they vote for…to themselves…
P
phantom
Guest
Yes, the use of the words proportionate reasons did need to be put in the context of Church teachings, that is why the US Bishops came out with their decision that voting for a prochoice candidate was a sin ONLY if you voted for that candidate specifically because the candidate was prochoice. There are potentially many proportionate reasons why a voter may decide to vote for a prochoice candidate, and that is the voters decision not yours.
P
phantom
Guest
And God is our judge, not you.
C
Corki
Guest
I think you are putting the ONLY in the wrong place. The USCCB said it would be a sin to vote for a candidate just because he/she is pro-choice. They did not say that this was the only way to vote sinfully. They couldn’t possibly list all of the possibilities.
This is not in any way proportionate to the death of 4000 per year.
The USCCB guide that circulated last election cycle made no attempt whatsoever to help voters put weight behind the various issues facing Catholic voters. (They may have a newer version just as there is a newer version of the CA Guide) According to those docs, raising the minimum wage was an issue equal in importance and gravity as abortion and fetal stem cell reseach was just another issue along with increased spending on education. Gag.
My own bishop had this to say:
Archbishop Daniel N. DiNardo September 22, 2006
E
estesbob
Guest
phantom;1563448.:
"Responding to requests to clarify the obligations of Catholics on this matter, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, under its prefect, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, released a statement called “On Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion.” Although it dealt primarily with the obligations of bishops to deny communion to Catholic politicians in certain circumstances, it included a short note at the end addressing whether Catholics could, in good conscience, vote for candidates who supported the taking of nascent human life in the womb or lab.
Cardinal Ratzinger stated that a “Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of a candidate’s permissive stand on abortion.” But the question of the moment is whether a Catholic may vote for a pro-abortion candidate for other reasons. The cardinal’s next sentence answered that question: A Catholic may vote for a pro-abortion Catholic politician only “in the presence of proportionate reasons.”
What are “proportionate reasons”? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong. Then we must consider the scope of the evil of abortion today in our country. America suffers 1.3 million abortions each year–a tragedy of epic proportions. Moreover, many supporters of abortion propose making the situation even worse by creating a publicly funded industry in which tens of thousands of human lives are produced each year for the purpose of being “sacrificed” in biomedical research.
Thus for a Catholic citizen to vote for a candidate who supports abortion and embryo-destructive research, one of the following circumstances would have to obtain: either (a) both candidates would have to be in favor of embryo killing on roughly an equal scale or (b) the candidate with the superior position on abortion and embryo-destructive research would have to be a supporter of objective evils of a gravity and magnitude beyond that of 1.3 million yearly abortions plus the killing that would take place if public funds were made available for embryo-destructive research.
No candidate advocating the removal of legal protection against killing for any vulnerable group of innocent people other than unborn children would have a chance of winning a major office in our country. Even those who support the death penalty for first-degree murderers are not advocating policies that result in more than a million killings annually.
Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.
Consider, for example, the war in Iraq. Although Pope John Paul II pleaded for an alternative to the use of military force to meet the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, he did not bind the conscience of Catholics to agree with his judgment on the matter, nor did he say that it would be morally wrong for Catholic soldiers to participate in the war. In line with the teaching of the catechism on “just war,” he recognized that a final judgment of prudence as to the necessity of military force rests with statesmen, not with ecclesiastical leaders. Catholics may, in good conscience, support the use of force in Iraq or oppose it.
Abortion and embryo-destructive research are different. They are intrinsic and grave evils; no Catholic may legitimately support them. In the context of contemporary American social life, abortion and embryo-destructive research are disproportionate evils. They are the gravest human rights abuses of our domestic politics and what slavery was to the time of Lincoln. Catholics are called by the Gospel of Life to protect the victims of these human rights abuses. They may not legitimately abandon the victims by supporting those who would further their victimization. "
Archbishop Myers heads the archdiocese of Newark.
You could not be more wrong:
"Responding to requests to clarify the obligations of Catholics on this matter, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, under its prefect, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, released a statement called “On Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion.” Although it dealt primarily with the obligations of bishops to deny communion to Catholic politicians in certain circumstances, it included a short note at the end addressing whether Catholics could, in good conscience, vote for candidates who supported the taking of nascent human life in the womb or lab.
Cardinal Ratzinger stated that a “Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of a candidate’s permissive stand on abortion.” But the question of the moment is whether a Catholic may vote for a pro-abortion candidate for other reasons. The cardinal’s next sentence answered that question: A Catholic may vote for a pro-abortion Catholic politician only “in the presence of proportionate reasons.”
What are “proportionate reasons”? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong. Then we must consider the scope of the evil of abortion today in our country. America suffers 1.3 million abortions each year–a tragedy of epic proportions. Moreover, many supporters of abortion propose making the situation even worse by creating a publicly funded industry in which tens of thousands of human lives are produced each year for the purpose of being “sacrificed” in biomedical research.
Thus for a Catholic citizen to vote for a candidate who supports abortion and embryo-destructive research, one of the following circumstances would have to obtain: either (a) both candidates would have to be in favor of embryo killing on roughly an equal scale or (b) the candidate with the superior position on abortion and embryo-destructive research would have to be a supporter of objective evils of a gravity and magnitude beyond that of 1.3 million yearly abortions plus the killing that would take place if public funds were made available for embryo-destructive research.
No candidate advocating the removal of legal protection against killing for any vulnerable group of innocent people other than unborn children would have a chance of winning a major office in our country. Even those who support the death penalty for first-degree murderers are not advocating policies that result in more than a million killings annually.
Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.
Consider, for example, the war in Iraq. Although Pope John Paul II pleaded for an alternative to the use of military force to meet the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, he did not bind the conscience of Catholics to agree with his judgment on the matter, nor did he say that it would be morally wrong for Catholic soldiers to participate in the war. In line with the teaching of the catechism on “just war,” he recognized that a final judgment of prudence as to the necessity of military force rests with statesmen, not with ecclesiastical leaders. Catholics may, in good conscience, support the use of force in Iraq or oppose it.
Abortion and embryo-destructive research are different. They are intrinsic and grave evils; no Catholic may legitimately support them. In the context of contemporary American social life, abortion and embryo-destructive research are disproportionate evils. They are the gravest human rights abuses of our domestic politics and what slavery was to the time of Lincoln. Catholics are called by the Gospel of Life to protect the victims of these human rights abuses. They may not legitimately abandon the victims by supporting those who would further their victimization. "
Archbishop Myers heads the archdiocese of Newark.
E
estesbob
Guest
But fortunatley Christ founded a Church to guide us in making these tough moral decisions. And our Church’s teaching on voting for pro-abortion canidates is very clear. See post #110
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
And I gave my proportionate reasons in post #32.
I will reiterate thru them again:
First of all, it’s some ignorant opinion that I support abject evil because I would throw my vote toward a pro-lifer.
Second it’s your opinion that Roe vs Wade will be overturned. You are entitled to that opinion. I believe otherwise.
Third the powers that be will say that Abortion is an acceptable form of Contraception. Contraception is only a sin and morally wrong to Catholics. The remaining 5/6 of the worlds says we are idiots in this respect.
Fourth, when I vote I have to look at the issues concerning those actually living and how the candidate’s stand on current and prevailing issues will afftect:
the poor
the thirsty
the hungry
the sick
the imprisoned
the naked
the homeless
the enslaved
the unemployed
the uninsured
the unborn
the unborn is only 1 out of 11 issues.
The unborn we can’t do anything about, so it’s a dead issue.
So I have two candidates:
A. One that does not care about the unborn but cares about the welfare of the remaining 10 living person issues.
B. One that does care about the unborn but does not give a rats a_s_s about those living with the first 10 problems.
I have to go with A.
10 issues I can do something about.
1 issue I can not
And if there is blood on my hands because of my voting decsion then that is strictly between God and me.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
I’ll play a Protestant Devil’s Advocate for a minute or two.
But fortunately Christ founded a Church to guide us in making these tough immoral (according ot 20/20 hindsight ) decisions such as The Crusades, Galileo, Statements of Anathema, etc.
E
estesbob
Guest
There will be and it will be. But of concern here that everyone understand that what you are calling proportinate is you own personal defintion-a defnition you made up to justify supporting abortion. Since we are in a Catholic forum we MUST note that the Church has made it very clear what proportinate is and your personal definition contradicts it. There is no wiggle room whatsoever in the Churchs teachings-proportinality applies only when faced with two pro-abortion candiates
D
detrockcity3
Guest
Ok, so in response:
- You are complicit in abortion and committing a sin if you vote for a pro-choicer over a pro-lifer. You are well aware of that.
- Stupid comment, you know we’re 1 supreme court justice away. It’s ignorant to think the Dems are gonna get a veto-override majority, so Bush will veto all 10 of your big issues. SO DON’T VOTE, CAUSE YOU WILL THROW IT AWAY!
- Ok, (a.) it doesn’t matter if 99% of the world doesn’t agree with the truth, it is still the truth, and (b.) Terrible linear thought…I don’t who the powers that be are (possibly they will be in power when you vote for them because the uninsured trump the unborn for you), but whoever they are, I’m sure they don’t dictate thought for the rest of the world. Even if these powers that be did exist, it doesn’t make sense to think that 5/6ths of the world is pro-abortion. You know Islam isn’t, and you know most Protestantism isn’t either. Nevermind the fact that abortion would not be contraception, in that conception has already occurred. Abortion isn’t the prevention of conception; it’s the termination of it.
- (a.) This clearly means that these trump abortion for you. You can spin it anyway you want, but you are voting for pro-choice people because you want to, not because you feel morally obligated to. (b.) You’re ten issues for America are very debateable, much like your scenario…
the thirsty…
the hungry - can’t you consolidate these two?
the sick - socialist medicine is excellent in Canada, right?
the imprisoned - true that dems are big fans of criminals
the naked…
the homeless - easily consolidated…
the enslaved - in America?
the unemployed - right this is a Dem winner
the uninsured - because you shouldn’t have to pay for some services
the unborn - way down at the bottom (for you, and for those you vote for…)
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
Well what does ‘morally obligatory’ mean then, if not an order, so to speak, to vote?
Miriam Webster says:
Main Entry: oblig·a·to·ry [m-w.com/images/audio.gif](javascript
opWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?obliga04.wav=obligatory’))Function: adjective
1 : binding in law or conscience
2 : relating to or enforcing an obligation <a writ obligatory>
3 : MANDATORY, REQUIRED <obligatory military service>; also : so commonplace as to be a convention, fashion, or cliché <the obligatory death scene in opera>
I don’t see ‘optional’ in that definition.
Still, the good news is my position is correct.
And the other good news is your position is correct.
As Providence would have it, I had to leave work this afternoon for a last minute appointment which would leave me with a good hour or two to catch up on reading while I waited…
I decided to take my portable radio instead of a book…
Tuning into Relevant radio, Drew Mariani was discussing **just this issue!
**Bottom line from the show is that both positions are in accordance with Church teaching. Apparently Fr. Pavlone is of the camp which says we should limit the amount of evil which would result from one candidate over the other. Drew agrees with him as did about 5 bishops of Kansas…they cited that very passage from JPII to support their position.
The priest Drew was hosting as his guest was from the camp which says we should never vote for candidate with reprehensible positions** but we should write in **a name instead. He cites JPII as well, from the same passage you rely on, about never supporting death.
Both positions call us to vote, **not **to sit out an election, though they both agreed doing so would not be against Church teaching either (go figure). Drew’s guest, however, was saying much what I said in a different thread earlier…that by at least writing in a name we communicate to our respective parties our refusal to play their game anymore. That they’d best start bringing better candidates to us if they want our ‘real’ votes back. Callers called in to talk about how that approach is a wasted vote, to which the guest responded it is not wasted if we get the attention of the parties through writing in a candidate.
He also added that if we sit out an election, or find ourselves having to write in somebody at every corner then we should seriously consider running for those seats ourselves of go out and find someone to run for office with our backing. He made a good point about stating our obligation does not stop with casting a vote…sometimes we’re called to do more.
It was a really interesting show. You might be able to hear it online in the archives, I’m not sure how soon those get put up on the site.
P
phantom
Guest
Once again, you are replacing Catholic teaching with your own definition of the term “proportionate reasons”…Church teaching does not say that proportionality applies only when faced with two pro-abortion candidates…you are just flat out making that up. You are trying to take away peoples right to decide to vote how they choose to vote, no doubt to serve your own politically partisan ends. I did not vote for Bush in 2004, because I do not believe a word the man says…that was my proportionate reason for voteing for his opponent who called himself prochoice. Neither Bush nor Kerry promised to end abortion, both said they were personally opposed to abortion. That is proportionate reasoning…even though Bush called himself prolife, he had no credibility with this voter so I voted for a candidate who called himself prochoice but at least had some credibility with me. I am a democrat, but of all the candidates talked about for the 2008 election I would most align myself with Hagel or McCain…both are Catholic and the Republicans have never nominated a Catholic for president yet so it is very unlikely either of them will get the nomination. Unfortunately I will probably end up haveing to vote for some prochoice democrat over a “pseudo”-prolife republican. But if I am still around in 2008, I will vote for the man or woman I JUDGE as best for the country and most in line with Catholic teaching.
P
phantom
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
That’s not how it is to be read. It is not a sin for proportionate reasons to vote pro-choice when given no other choice. In that situation you are not voting because the pro-choice position.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
There are more issues as well. Should I list them all?
- Status