Voting non-negotiables

  • Thread starter Thread starter jttierney1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jttierney1

Guest
Suppose you have a candidate, that shows by their actions, that they do not value all human life, but they “say” they are pro-life… more specifically, anti-abortion. They have no political history and therefore no voting record to look at, they make racist comments, praise Saddam Hussein as being an efficient killer, encourage mob justice, and you have found zero reason to believe they are actually pro-life even though they say they are. Do you still trust them and vote for them because they “claim” to be “pro-life”? Is there anything that says, in Catholic teaching, that we should believe someone even though everything else they say or do opposes what they say?
 
You would have to ask yourself how pro abortion the other candidate is.
 
I stopped trusting politicians’ statements when I turned five.
 
jttierney1 said:
zero reason to believe they are actually pro-life even though they say they are. Do you still trust them and vote for them because they “claim” to be “pro-life”?
Click to expand...
I’d like to contribute evidence that Donald Trump is Not prolife. Consider this video: youtube.com/watch?v=MzGrSYWAkxg

Reporter: Abortion even early in a pregnancy is murder to you?

Trump: No. …

Reporter: Say a woman is pregnant and is not in any of [the] exception categories, and she chooses to have an abortion.

Trump: It depends when. It depends when.
Based on these statements, Trump appears to believe that Early abortions should be legal. To be clear, only 1.5% of abortions are late term. His support for early abortions covers 98.5% of abortions. He also supports abortion for “exception cases,” which puts him at close to 100% support for abortion. He calls himself prolife but when he states his policy plans on the subject they are very similar to classic pro-abortion positions.
 
LittleFlower378 said:
You can tell alot about a candidate by their platform. The Republican Platform is highly pro-life and pro-marriage which are top Catholic social concerns.

Read Here some of their platform-
ncregister.com/blog/mbunson/rnc-day-2-a-platform-of-ideas
Click to expand...
The Republican platform may appear to be Pro-life, but the Republican track record is only Pro-birth. They do little to address the health, safety, shelter, educational, or nurturing needs of poor children, because they seemingly have a difficult time separating the children from the parents, and see funding restraints for these needs as a means of disciplining the irresponsible parents instead of looking at the needs of the innocent children.

And, the Republican platform may appear to be pro-marriage, but in reality the Republican Party is, from a theological perspective, steeped in Protestant doctrine, and while the platform appears to be pro-marriage, the Republican (because of its Protestant leanings) is only concerned with the regulation of who should be married…and while that is right and just, it is only part of the marriage equation. The ugly truth is while they are concerned about the sanctity of the wedding ceremony, they see marriage as contractual and not sacramental or a covenant, dissolvable by man for reasons of convenience.
 
This is a topic that can be very well informed by Catholic moral theology.

Catholic teachings are “non-negotiable.” For example, the sanctity of unborn life from the moment of conception must be held by all Catholics. Abortion is always an evil, and evil can never be accepted, even if it is intended to advance a good.

Cooperation with evil is a dicey business, but there are parameters for doing in a morally licit way. Cooperation with evil can be formal or material.

The distinction between formal and material cooperation is important. Formal cooperation with evil, that is, intentionally helping someone else conduct a sinful act, is always wrong. Material cooperation occurs when one’s participation in an act unintentionally helps another person do wrong. Material cooperation may or may not be wrong. It is important whether material cooperation is either proximate or remote.

Proximate material cooperation occurs when one’s actions are extremely closely related to the conduct of evil. For example, the German maintenance worker who was in charge of replacing empty poison gas canisters used in the showers used to kill Jewish people was not himself killing people, but his actions were closely related to the conduct of mass murder.

Remote material cooperation occurs when one’s actions are unintentionally and more distantly related to the conduct of evil. For example, the power company that provides electricity to abortion clinics might be providing a necessary thing to the conduct of abortion, but also provides power for all sorts of other beneficial uses.

Whether a person’s remote material cooperation with evil is morally licit depends on whether the person has a sufficient reason for their cooperation. For example, the power company employees’ provision of electricity for use in hospitals, traffic lights, and refrigeration units is necessary for saving many lives, preventing traffic deaths, and avoiding food wastage.

Voting is a tricky matter. A Catholic may not licitly vote for a candidate to promote abortion. That would be formal cooperation in evil. However, a Catholic may vote for a pro-choice candidate, presuming they disagree (and make clear their disagreement) with that candidate’s views on abortion, if there is a sufficient and serious reason for voting for them based on other factors (or “proportionate reasons” to use the wording of then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s leaked letter on voting from 2004ish).

In the current U.S. presidential election, it’s a big deal. Many pro-life Catholics want to vote for Donald Trump, because they see the open seat on the Supreme Court left by the death of Justice Scalia and desperately want to avoid Hillary Clinton naming a justice that may be as abortion-friendly as she is.

Personally, I am not sure how I’m going to vote. For sure, not for Trump.

I see Donald Trump as a danger to this country. Having disabled family members, his mockery of a disabled reporter was deeply offensive to me, as were his comments about Mexicans and treatment of women. I think his business record of aggressive litigation against rivals and opponents reflect a future trigger-happy commander-in-chief, and his choice of “bizarro” foreign policy advisors during his campaign doesn’t help (to cite the National Review). I am honestly afraid that he is going to pull us into a large-scale senseless war. I think his immigration policies will impoverish many families in Latin America that rely on remittances from the U.S. His economic policies seem a total disaster to me. He seems ready to blame the problems of the coal industry (much of which was brought by the low price of fracked natural gas) on regulations.

Though I do disagree with her on a number of issues (e.g., religious freedom, guns), Hillary Clinton is not as terrifying to me. She is undoubtedly pro-abortion and secular, but she’s riding on a culture of cheap contraception and redefined humanity – that’s something we need to fix through evangelism, not politics.

I have written a piece on how I think the pro-life movement needs to change, from my perspective as a health statistics professional. It’s here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1014345

Though that piece wasn’t particular to this election, I can say that I don’t think overturning Roe v. Wade would make much of a difference in the overall abortion rate. As such, I do not believe that a vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton would make a very big difference in abortion rates. I think Hillary’s desire to overturn the Hyde Amendment is horrible, and that could certainly increase abortion in America, but that’s a single policy battle still to face. Given the evidence I have seen that the government isn’t going to be the way to end abortion, I believe that a vote for Clinton from a truly pro-life Catholic could be considered remote material cooperation in evil, based on the all the other awful things I think Trump could to do this country and the world (i.e., war, poverty in Latin America, suppressing the economy).

I can’t honestly say whether I’ll vote for Clinton, or write in “None of the Above.” The Libertarian and Green Parties are both pro-abortion as well, so they’re right out. However, I just don’t want people to pretend that voting for Trump is a truly life-affirming vote.
 
Groups like Catholic Answers have come up with a list of non-negotiables.

The Pope otoh says, “I have never understood the expression non-negotiable values. Values are values, and that is it. I can’t say that, of the fingers of a hand, there is one less useful than the rest."

vox-nova.com/2014/03/07/no-more-non-negotiables/
 
I would vote for the candidate that you are referring to because they oppose the New World Order agenda. Abortion is a part of the New World Order agenda.
 
Neofight said:
The Republican platform may appear to be Pro-life, but the Republican track record is only Pro-birth. They do little to address the health, safety, shelter, educational, or nurturing needs of poor children, because they seemingly have a difficult time separating the children from the parents, and see funding restraints for these needs as a means of disciplining the irresponsible parents instead of looking at the needs of the innocent children.

And, the Republican platform may appear to be pro-marriage, but in reality the Republican Party is, from a theological perspective, steeped in Protestant doctrine, and while the platform appears to be pro-marriage, the Republican (because of its Protestant leanings) is only concerned with the regulation of who should be married…and while that is right and just, it is only part of the marriage equation. The ugly truth is while they are concerned about the sanctity of the wedding ceremony, they see marriage as contractual and not sacramental or a covenant, dissolvable by man for reasons of convenience.
Click to expand...
Your “pro-birth” only comments are simply not true. Republican do care about health, safety, etc. However, Republicans believe that this is best handled at the LOCAL level and not at the federal level. Also, Republicans believe that this is also best carried out by Churches, non-profits, etc vs. local government when possible. But that it’s still the job of the local community to handle these things (which local government is part of).

Republicans believe that you cannot place a blanket fix at the federal level to properly address all instances because every community is different.

And in regards to your “Protestant leanings” what does that have to do with anything? Both parties are Protestant in their heritage. The Democratic party was very anti-Catholic until after World War II. Catholics and other minority groups started moving over to the Democratic Party after the New Deal with hopes to get good paying jobs, etc. My grandmother (always a conservative) was a registered Democrat for years simply because of the teacher’s union she was forced to be a part of. But then, as the democrats continued to move more left she officially switched parties in the 1990s.

There is no Catholic Party in the United States (which is a different argument).

I will make another post later which details how the Republicans and Democrats line up with Catholic Social teaching.
 
phil19034 said:
Your “pro-birth” only comments are simply not true. Republican do care about health, safety, etc. However, Republicans believe that this is best handled at the LOCAL level and not at the federal level. Also, Republicans believe that this is also best carried out by Churches, non-profits, etc vs. local government when possible. But that it’s still the job of the local community to handle these things (which local government is part of).

Republicans believe that you cannot place a blanket fix at the federal level to properly address all instances because every community is different.

And in regards to your “Protestant leanings” what does that have to do with anything? Both parties are Protestant in their heritage. The Democratic party was very anti-Catholic until after World War II. Catholics and other minority groups started moving over to the Democratic Party after the New Deal with hopes to get good paying jobs, etc. My grandmother (always a conservative) was a registered Democrat for years simply because of the teacher’s union she was forced to be a part of. But then, as the democrats continued to move more left she officially switched parties in the 1990s.

There is no Catholic Party in the United States (which is a different argument).

I will make another post later which details how the Republicans and Democrats line up with Catholic Social teaching.
Click to expand...
There are seven principles to Catholic Social Teaching (catholic.com/magazine/articles/seven-principles-of-catholic-social-teaching)

Democrats traditionally line up with Catholic Teaching in regards to:

-Work for the common good
-Respect work and the worker
-Pursue Peace and Care for the Poor

And Republicans line up with Catholic teaching in regards to:

-Respect the Human Person
-Promote the Family
-Observe principle of Subsidiary

The 7th - Protect Private Property Rights is usually bi-partisan

The current make up of BOTH the Repbulican & Democratic Parties do NOT line up with completely with Catholic Social Teaching.

However, many of us who will only vote Republican strongly believe (as does Catholic Answers and most US Bishops and many US priests) that if the principals of Respect for the Human Person and Promote the Family are not respected then all the others fall out of whack.

For example, without respect for the Human Person, how can you truly pursue peace and care of the poor?

After all, it was the Democrats who dropped two a-bombs on Japan. The Democrats also sent American Citizens who happened to be of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps. Liberal doctors in Germany who felt justified performing medical experiments on the Jews. The liberals believe that abortion is a useful tool to combat poverty and euthanasia is a humane way to avoid unneeded financial stress on families and medical professionals. How can any of this be considered Respect for the Human Person?

And Planned Parenthood obviously believes that abortion will help limit violence in our cities by having less mouths to feed. That was very evident after the seemingly strange remarks from the Planned Parenthood President after the latest anti-police violence.

Also, the positions of the Democrats does not help the principle of “Work for the Common Good” either because euthanasia does NOT support the common good, nor does the constant secularization that social liberals favor.

Not respecting human life and not promoting the family negatively affect and undermine the “Work for the Common Good” and “Pursue Peace and Care for the Poor” which are areas the Democrats are supposed to be good at.

Also, what good does “Respect for the Worker” have if you don’t promote the family? After all, don’t we all pretty much work to support our families and/or future families?

The point is… If you don’t defend the right to life and promote the family, everything else falls apart.

God Bless
 
jttierney1 said:
Suppose you have a candidate, that shows by their actions, that they do not value all human life, but they “say” they are pro-life… more specifically, anti-abortion. They have no political history and therefore no voting record to look at, they make racist comments, praise Saddam Hussein as being an efficient killer, encourage mob justice, and you have found zero reason to believe they are actually pro-life even though they say they are. Do you still trust them and vote for them because they “claim” to be “pro-life”? Is there anything that says, in Catholic teaching, that we should believe someone even though everything else they say or do opposes what they say?
Click to expand...
When we vote, we vote for who we have a profound hope will do the right things.

In the scenario you describe (which sounds like you are referring to Trump), you should also look at other evidence and/or signs.

Parties always have platforms which they constantly update and publish. The platform details what their current mission is and what they all plan to work on together. The Republican Party has just reaffirmed their Pro-Life position and it is now the strongest Pro-Life position ever. While the Democrats have revised their platform to become more pro-abortion. In 2008 or 2012 they removed their “safe and rare” position to abortion. And now in 2016, they have added to their official, public platform that they want to remove the Hyde Amendment so they can spend millions in federal dollars to directly fund abortions.

You also need to look at who is publicly supporting the candidates and what kind of staff they will establish.

When voting for the President of the United States, look at what kind of Cabinet and team of Advisors the President will select. Plus, most importantly, what kind of Judges and Justices they will appoint.

For example, with Trump vs. Hillary: we all KNOW that Hillary will appoint relatively young radical left, radically pro abortion judges and justices to the Supreme Court and other federal courts. She will also appoint legal professionals who believe that the Constitution is an “evolving document,” which it is not.

The damage that Hillary could do to the justice system in just 4 years is staggering.

While it’s true that Trump sometimes says things that are not PC correct and is a flawed candidate (just like Hillary Clinton) people mostly fear the unknown with him. But this is why he is surrounding himself with very respected people. Also, Trump must have done something right because his kids are great people, even with three different mothers.

Also, it’s not unheard of for Pro Choice people to become Pro Life after learning more about abortion, meeting a family who dealt with it, or even meeting an abortion (or near abortion) survivor. Trump claims he became Pro Life after getting to know a child (or children) who were almost aborted by their parents. Imagining a world where a person you love or care about was aborted can make you pro life pretty quickly. Trump claims this was his experience.

Also, let’s look at Trump’s kids. Donald Trump Jr. has FIVE children (all with one wife). This is proof that their family believes in having children. Ivanka Trump has 3 children and is a practicing Orthodox Jew. His son Eric is very well put together and has created his own foundation.

The point is: when you have one candidates that you know is not pro-life and another who says they are pro-life (and has people close to them backing that up) we should vote with profound hope that they will vote as they say. Afterall, that really what we do every election.

BTW - the last presidential election we had both the current President and Vice President reaffirmed that they believed that marriage was between one man and one women. Boy did they lie. And in the 2008 election, Hillary said she believed in marriage between one man and one women too.
 
=Neofight;14053909]The Republican platform may appear to be Pro-life, but the Republican track record is only Pro-birth. They do little to address the health, safety, shelter, educational, or nurturing needs of poor children, because they seemingly have a difficult time separating the children from the parents, and see funding restraints for these needs as a means of disciplining the irresponsible parents instead of looking at the needs of the innocent children.
Click to expand...
Your entire premise here is that “health, safety, shelter, educational, or nurturing needs of poor children” is best done by government. Nothing could be further from the truth. Over the last fifty years, federal programs have failed entirely in lifting people out of poverty. In fact, it has made it worse. One need only look at the city of Detroit as an example. What the Democratic Party/progressive movement has successfully done is put the next few generations into crushing debt, not merely by the the approaching $20 trillion in budget debt, but also by the over $100 trillion in unfunded benefits owed. This kind of massive debt, coupled with multi-generational dependence on federal welfare which has destroyed families and created despair, has been catastrophic for Americans living in inner cities, and in poor rural settings. Trillions of dollars spent, and the situation is worse.
Opposition to these policies is pro-life! And pro-freedom. And pro-children.

If the Republican Party is at fault, it has been in two ways: 1) by not being more vocal about the disaster the Democratic Party / progressive movement has imposed on the American people. The major northern cities have been under Democratic control for half a century. The decline of their neighborhoods, the complete and total failure of their schools, the destruction of their infrastructure and economic base is squarely on the hands of the Democratic Party / progressive movement.
2) Republicans have consistently failed in articulating how the poor ought to be cared for, using the principle of Subsidiarity, the constitutional principle set out in the tenth amendment and the limitations on federal power, and the biblical principles that it is the responsibilities of the Church and her members to care for the least of God’s children. Ceding that responsibility to the federal state is precisely why poverty continues unabated, and America is headed for financial ruin.
And, the Republican platform may appear to be pro-marriage, but in reality the Republican Party is, from a theological perspective, steeped in Protestant doctrine, and while the platform appears to be pro-marriage, the Republican (because of its Protestant leanings) is only concerned with the regulation of who should be married…and while that is right and just, it is only part of the marriage equation. The ugly truth is while they are concerned about the sanctity of the wedding ceremony, they see marriage as contractual and not sacramental or a covenant, dissolvable by man for reasons of convenience.
Click to expand...
The problem with the Republican platform on marriage is similar to that of the Democratic platform: they both assume that government should be in charge of marriage, when there is no constitutional basis for that. Catholics and orthodox non-Catholics alike have defended a federal position of traditional marriage, that being a man and a woman. What we haven’t done since the federal authorities have undermined that truth, is uncouple our sacrament/rite of marriage from government control. That is a pox on both Catholics and orthodox non-Catholics alike.

Jon
 
phil19034 said:
There are seven principles to Catholic Social Teaching (catholic.com/magazine/articles/seven-principles-of-catholic-social-teaching)

Democrats traditionally line up with Catholic Teaching in regards to:

-Work for the common good
-Respect work and the worker
-Pursue Peace and Care for the Poor

And Republicans line up with Catholic teaching in regards to:

-Respect the Human Person
-Promote the Family
-Observe principle of Subsidiary

The 7th - Protect Private Property Rights is usually bi-partisan

The current make up of BOTH the Repbulican & Democratic Parties do NOT line up with completely with Catholic Social Teaching.

However, many of us who will only vote Republican strongly believe (as does Catholic Answers and most US Bishops and many US priests) that if the principals of Respect for the Human Person and Promote the Family are not respected then all the others fall out of whack.

For example, without respect for the Human Person, how can you truly pursue peace and care of the poor?

After all, it was the Democrats who dropped two a-bombs on Japan. The Democrats also sent American Citizens who happened to be of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps. Liberal doctors in Germany who felt justified performing medical experiments on the Jews. The liberals believe that abortion is a useful tool to combat poverty and euthanasia is a humane way to avoid unneeded financial stress on families and medical professionals. How can any of this be considered Respect for the Human Person?

And Planned Parenthood obviously believes that abortion will help limit violence in our cities by having less mouths to feed. That was very evident after the seemingly strange remarks from the Planned Parenthood President after the latest anti-police violence.

Also, the positions of the Democrats does not help the principle of “Work for the Common Good” either because euthanasia does NOT support the common good, nor does the constant secularization that social liberals favor.

Not respecting human life and not promoting the family negatively affect and undermine the “Work for the Common Good” and “Pursue Peace and Care for the Poor” which are areas the Democrats are supposed to be good at.

Also, what good does “Respect for the Worker” have if you don’t promote the family? After all, don’t we all pretty much work to support our families and/or future families?

The point is… If you don’t defend the right to life and promote the family, everything else falls apart.

God Bless
Click to expand...
People can argue the 7 points to death.

It is all about implementation.

And the claim that 7 is bipartisan js inherently simplified.

They each view such implementation differently, the real problem is when either side passes a rule when the otber side is in power they can use that rule to enact their opposite rule. Neither really supports rights in the end. The Dems want to take things, the Repubs want unfettered security. The more security the repubs aquire the easier a dem gov can take things. Tis cyclical and terrible… 😦
 
jttierney1 said:
Suppose you have a candidate, that shows by their actions, that they do not value all human life, but they “say” they are pro-life… more specifically, anti-abortion. They have no political history and therefore no voting record to look at, they make racist comments, praise Saddam Hussein as being an efficient killer, encourage mob justice, and you have found zero reason to believe they are actually pro-life even though they say they are. Do you still trust them and vote for them because they “claim” to be “pro-life”? Is there anything that says, in Catholic teaching, that we should believe someone even though everything else they say or do opposes what they say?
Click to expand...
If you think he’s lying, then don’t vote for him. If you think all his other policies overshadow his claiming to be anti-abortion, don’t vote for him.
 
The party of abortion cheered when when a speaker shouted out her abortion.

womenofgrace.com/blog/?p=52217

Trump listed the judges he would consider for the supreme court. Clinton is certain to nominate pro abortion judges.

Some say there could be as many as 4 supreme court judge nominations for the next president.
 
Please remember that discussions of particular political parties or candidates are not allowed in the Social Justice forum. Thank you for your cooperation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top