E
elts1956
Guest
You left out the fourth font:
- Ignorance - but in this day and age, is there an excuse for one to not be well informed?
- Status
E
elts1956
Guest
To Vince1022 Can’t seem to get a connection straight to you so will go through Conte’s post. Excuse me Conte, please.
Vince you wanted references to Archbishop Raymond Burke. Go to the following links. Also if you subscribe to www.priestsforlife, or www.lifesitenews, you will find out what is going on in the Church.
[youtube.com/watch?v=OK514UNkvfU&feature=player_embeddedet](
)
wf-f.org/Burke-ITV.html
lifenews.com/int886.html
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jul/10070912.html
.
.
Vince you wanted references to Archbishop Raymond Burke. Go to the following links. Also if you subscribe to www.priestsforlife, or www.lifesitenews, you will find out what is going on in the Church.
[youtube.com/watch?v=OK514UNkvfU&feature=player_embeddedet](
wf-f.org/Burke-ITV.html
lifenews.com/int886.html
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jul/10070912.html
.
.
S
Sonny1954
Guest
When it comes to the civic exercise of my secular duties, such as voting, I consider all of the issue-positions of both (or all) of the candidates. I’ve been voting for nearly 40 years and I don’t recall coming across one with whom I agree on everything.
I believe that our local archbishop would have me vote for the anti-abortion candidate NO MATTER his/her positions on any other issue. I, for myself, in good conscience, cannot vote in what I consider an irresponsbile way. Some of the candidates I vote for are anti-abortion, some are not.
I would hope that all Americans of any faith or no faith would take a more holistic view of a candidate’s record before casting a ballot.
I believe that our local archbishop would have me vote for the anti-abortion candidate NO MATTER his/her positions on any other issue. I, for myself, in good conscience, cannot vote in what I consider an irresponsbile way. Some of the candidates I vote for are anti-abortion, some are not.
I would hope that all Americans of any faith or no faith would take a more holistic view of a candidate’s record before casting a ballot.
V
Vince1022
Guest
Nice response.
V
Vince1022
Guest
I don’t think ignorance is a source (or font) for Catholic moral teaching, is it? I think the prior post was accurate.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I was a “cradle Democrat” and held office in the party. Worked in many an election and supported many a Democrat candidate. I did that until the party became the party of abortion to the exclusion of almost any other single issue. Yes, there were fiscal conservative pro-abortion Democrats and left wing pro-abortion candidates. Interventionist pro-abortion Democrats and near-pacifist pro-abortion Democrats. But always pro-abortion.
Since the Democrats on my ballot are always pro-abortion, I never vote for them. Now, maybe Joe Manchin really is prolife. I hope he is. We’ll see. Maybe someday, then, I will get to vote for a Democrat again.
But I’ll also say this. Democrats haven’t done a thing for the neediest of all for ages, and don’t propose to do it now. I’m talking about the ones who can’t help themselves, those on SSI who are somehow expected to live on $600/month. In that, they join hands with the Republicans who don’t do anything for them either.
Lots of myths out there, and people vote based on mythologies all the time. But abortion is a stone-cold reality, and I don’t vote for pro-abortion people, period.
Now, when it comes to formation of conscience, I guess I could find a way to support some pro-abortion candidate or other based on something else; support of those on SSI, for example. But in doing so, I really would be voting for abortion. Vote for the man, you vote for the deed. So, am I going to gamble my soul on it? Am I going to tell God that, well, I supported the slaughter of millions of innocents but I did help those on SSI? I have my doubts that God’s scale is going to favor a choice like that. Looking at it, it doesn’t even convince me.
C
Canto
Guest
Obama’s health care plan, would it not have helped lots of poor people? And yet the Bishop’s of the US opposed it. Why? Abortion.
Abp Chaput: “Obviously, we have other important issues facing us this fall: the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration justice,” he said. “But we can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children.”
lifenews.com/2010/11/12/nat-6847/
Abp Chaput: “Obviously, we have other important issues facing us this fall: the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration justice,” he said. “But we can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children.”
lifenews.com/2010/11/12/nat-6847/
V
Vince1022
Guest
Thanks for replying. My question was about where (as was claimed) Archbishop Burke referenced the natural moral law.To Vince1022 Can’t seem to get a connection straight to you so will go through Conte’s post. Excuse me Conte, please.
Vince you wanted references to Archbishop Raymond Burke. Go to the following links. Also if you subscribe to www.priestsforlife, or www.lifesitenews, you will find out what is going on in the Church.
Did not mention natural law, which was the question I asked.
Mentions natural law, but in the context of John Courtney Murray, whom Burke admits he does not know much about, and not directly relevant to the issue of voting and abortion.
No mention of natural law.
No mention of natural law.
V
Vince1022
Guest
Thanks for sharing.
Still the point is that the Catholic Church does not teach that one or another candidate must be voted for.
E
elts1956
Guest
I was being facetious, but it has a great bearing on moral decisions. Most Catholics simply DO NOT know their Faith. Or MAYBE, they ignore it?
E
elts1956
Guest
Candidate no, platform yes. Abortion is not a religious issue, but a moral and spiritual one. There is a difference.
K
karoleck
Guest
I believe that your are correct on all points:thumbsup:What is the use of all the “trappings” and good social policies IF a candidate votes in favour of killing babies in the womb of a mother?
My system of government is the English model with preferencial voting–in other words one gives their first choice,second,until all are voted for in order of preference.There is a non religious organization here in Australia called The Right to Life–it is supported by a large portion of Catholics and Christians of good faith,Orthodox Jews and persons in the public who follow the natural law.
Here is an advertisment in a free local newspaper on how to vote in a fortnights time–they do not promote any particular party BUT target those who voted for abortion–in other words they point the finger on a candidate to make them accountable.By this approach this organization firstly puts Abortion as THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE and hopes to unseat a person who supports abortion;they hope to give a clear warning to future candidates not to do the same.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
scenarios
- Candidate A and Candidate B are both pro-abortion, but A favors an unjust war, which B does not favor. A Catholic may morally vote for B, despite his position on abortion.
- A is pro-abortion and B is pro-life, but B is a member of a party that is generally pro-abortion, whereas A is a member of a party that is generally pro-life. If the voter judges that a vote for A may give the pro-life party control of a house in the legislature, thereby blocking any laws that would broaden abortion, the voter may morally vote for A over B.
- In the parliamentary system, a voter can vote for any of several parties. Suppose party A and B are both pro-abortion. But A is more likely to make a coalition with party C, a pro-life party, in order to form a ruling majority. Party C cannot obtain enough votes on its own to take control of the legislature. But a coalition will result in the pro-life party having influence over legislation, sufficient to prevent any broadening of abortion in the law. A voter may morally vote for A, over B and C, in order to make that coalition more likely.
- Candidate A and B are both generally pro-abortion, but A favors some few additional restrictions on abortion, whereas B favors broadening access to abortion. A Catholic voter may morally vote for A, even though he is pro-abortion.
- In an election for lesser offices or local offices, often the position on abortion of the candidate is unknown, because the office has no influence on that issue. The voter may morally vote for a candidate in that situation without knowing his position on abortion.
K
Koheleth
Guest
So, what you’re saying is, you can vote for a pro-abortion candidate as long as he’s a Republican. I’m glad somebody finally came out and said it.
That may certainly be a convenient cognative dissonance-reducing heuristic, but it’s not consistent with Church teaching, which specificaly directs that one may vote for any candidate from any party as long as the reason for doing so is not because of that candidate’s pro-abortion stance. Abortion is not the only “morally grave reason”, and Catholics are not to be hamstrung by shrewd politicians who have the right words at hand to win votes.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Of course it doesn’t. But it’s pretty plain that the Church teachings preclude voting for or otherwise supporting a pro-abortion candidate unless there is an equally grave or greater evil to be thwarted in doing so. That is not the situation we have here, or have ever had here to my knowledge. One might vote for a pro-abortion candidate against Stalin. But not against, say, McCain or (one hopes) Manchin.
C
Canto
Guest
While they may fit the cenario better, as the Dems more support the literal butchering of children, Ron mentioned nothing about the Republicans.
This should not cause surprise: to kill a human being, in whom the image of God is present, is a particularly serious sin. - EV #55 JPII
Is the US bishop’s doc Church teaching? Did they ever vote on it, or is it from some committe?
What other moral evil comes even close to abortion (and euthanasia)?
So you can vote for somone compilcit in murder, provided you don’t support that murder? Though if one were on their murder list, I don’t think they’d go “well I don’t support you murdering me, but your other policies are just so great.”
It is true that the decision to have an abortion is often tragic and painful for the mother, insofar as the decision to rid herself of the fruit of conception is not made for purely selfish reasons or out of convenience, but out of a desire to protect certain important values such as her own health or a decent standard of living for the other members of the family. Sometimes it is feared that the child to be born would live in such conditions that it would be better if the birth did not take place. Nevertheless, these reasons and others like them, however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. - EV #68 JPII
No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church. EV #62 JPII
E
elts1956
Guest
Why does this always happen. One is Dem. another is Pub. If the platforms of either parties were to change, ie. Pubs. becoming more pro abortion, Dems. becoming more pro life, the issues would still be the same. Abortion is wrong, no matter who supports it. Please get out of the political mind zone and start thinking pro life, morality, justice. :banghead::banghead:
Oh and it didn’t take the “name” per se of the political party for you to possibly recognize the party did it? Interesting.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
In some nations, they have a political system where you vote for the party, not the candidate. Some parties are pro-life and others are pro-abortion. When a party is generally pro-life, this must be taken into account in such a system.
In the U.S. system, party matters less, but it still has an influence. In so far as the Republican party is generally pro-life and the Democratic party is generally pro-abortion, this difference should have an effect on the voting of Catholics.
How can anyone say, both that we should only vote for candidates with a pro-life position, and that the pro-life position of the party is of no account? But I don’t think that moral voting is based only on the candidate or party’s position on abortion. So the position of the party on abortion is only one factor, not the sole determinant.
V
Vince1022
Guest
Candidate no and platform no (unless you can point to any Catholic teaching that a given “platform” is required?). I am not sure I would agree with you that abortion is not a religious issue…I think for Catholics it definitely is, and at least here in the U.S. it seems a religious issue for many denominations.
Issues, yes.
Unless you can point to any Catholic teaching that a given “platform” is required?
V
Vince1022
Guest
Unfortunately, I agree. Very sad.
- Status