Voting pro-choice always immoral?

[fix]

Notice that the letter is addressed to Bishops, and only used examples where there is no significant guidance from Scripture and Holy Tradition is divided.

There cannot be division among Bishops on Euthanasia or Abortion because the teachings themselves rely on the Ordinary Magisterium for their infallibility.

Notice the section on the Cardinal’s explanation of the concept of Peace intended for the voting of the laity. It acknowledges that the issues are incredibly complex and that there is room for disagreement, but it also lays out some inviolate principles. The principles themselves are not prudential, but part of the Dogmatic Constitution of hte Church. In other words, the principles themselves are not prudential.

Please give us an issue that outweighs abortion in the US election?

 

[SoCalRC]

So it’s Ok to vote for a pro-death pol as long as they help the poor?

If the right to life is lost then why does the quality of life even matter?

You have the right concept, but you are expressing it in reverse. If a politician has no concerns for the poor, then he/she is not truly pro-life in the Catholic sense.

The Church is correct, our teachings are cohesively pro-life and cover conception to natural death. A politician may say the right ‘pro life’ things, and evenly seem to vote ‘pro life’ on abortion. But if he/she votes to allow hospitals to remove nutrition and hydration based on financial ability to pay (as Congress did, and the President signed into law in 2005), they are not pro life in a Catholic context.

It is easy to get caught up in a Roe v. Wade context, but Catholics face the issue of minimizing harm even when confronted with supposedly pro-life choices. For example, most of the GOP caucus and the current GOP platform reportedly accept the ideas of exceptions with regards to abortion. For example, exceptions were raised for “incest and interracial rape” at the conservative conference just a few days ago. This is not our teaching. We do not accept the morality of abortion even to save the life of the mother (though we do a convenient job of rationalizing a fair number of those abortions as being non-“direct”).

Look again at the Church statement:

The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine.

Now look at the reality of abortion and euthanasia. About 60% of the abortions in the US are procurred by the poor. More than half the women involved are already mothers.

16% of our GDP now goes to health care, which has outpaced inflation for years. The mind blower for me is that 30% of that now goes to administration, so a nickel out of every dollar generated in our economy goes to someone moving paper related to health care.

To argue that one can address either abortion or euthanasia without giving regard to Christ’s teachings about social obligation to the poor is, as the Church indicates, “incoherent”. Prohibition without actually addressing underlying causal factors is never particularly effective.

If a society does not fully recognize the Catholic understanding of the human person, it lacks legitimacy, regardless of its actual form of government. And, as the Church notes, willing support of such illegitimacy by Catholics would destroy “witness of the Christian faith in the world, as well as the unity and interior coherence of the faithful”.

 

[buffalo]

You have the right concept, but you are expressing it in reverse. If a politician has no concerns for the poor, then he/she is not truly pro-life in the Catholic sense.

The Church is correct, our teachings are cohesively pro-life and cover conception to natural death. A politician may say the right ‘pro life’ things, and evenly seem to vote ‘pro life’ on abortion. But if he/she votes to allow hospitals to remove nutrition and hydration based on financial ability to pay (as Congress did, and the President signed into law in 2005), they are not pro life in a Catholic context.

It is easy to get caught up in a Roe v. Wade context, but Catholics face the issue of minimizing harm even when confronted with supposedly pro-life choices. For example, most of the GOP caucus and the current GOP platform reportedly accept the ideas of exceptions with regards to abortion. For example, exceptions were raised for “incest and interracial rape” at the conservative conference just a few days ago. This is not our teaching. We do not accept the morality of abortion even to save the life of the mother (though we do a convenient job of rationalizing a fair number of those abortions as being non-“direct”).

Look again at the Church statement:

Now look at the reality of abortion and euthanasia. About 60% of the abortions in the US are procurred by the poor. More than half the women involved are already mothers.

16% of our GDP now goes to health care, which has outpaced inflation for years. The mind blower for me is that 30% of that now goes to administration, so a nickel out of every dollar generated in our economy goes to someone moving paper related to health care.

To argue that one can address either abortion or euthanasia without giving regard to Christ’s teachings about social obligation to the poor is, as the Church indicates, “incoherent”. Prohibition without actually addressing underlying causal factors is never particularly effective.

If a society does not fully recognize the Catholic understanding of the human person, it lacks legitimacy, regardless of its actual form of government. And, as the Church notes, willing support of such illegitimacy by Catholics would destroy “witness of the Christian faith in the world, as well as the unity and interior coherence of the faithful”.

One has to wonder in horror if the elitist politicians who have so cleverly worded the pro-choice argument are content to sit back while the poor and uneducated are victims of systematic legal genocide.

 

[LittleFlower378]

Here is something from John Paul II -

“The common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights–for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture–is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.”

If we don’t defend life then there will be no poor to defend. Yes helping the poor is an important factor but abortion is straight murder and is allowed in America and that is an injustice to everyone including the poor.

I encourage you all to read “The Gospel of Life,” by John Paul II and if you can send it to those that you see fit.

 

[fix]

You have the right concept, but you are expressing it in reverse. If a politician has no concerns for the poor, then he/she is not truly pro-life in the Catholic sense.

Which politician has said the poor do not matter? Which politician has said abortion ought to remain legal? Right there we have a big difference.

The Church is correct, our teachings are cohesively pro-life and cover conception to natural death. A politician may say the right ‘pro life’ things, and evenly seem to vote ‘pro life’ on abortion. But if he/she votes to allow hospitals to remove nutrition and hydration based on financial ability to pay (as Congress did, and the President signed into law in 2005), they are not pro life in a Catholic context.

I do not know anything about that law, but even if it is exactly as you state it is not the same moral magnitude as direct abortion.Not funding some program is one thing. Direct support for abortion is another.

It is easy to get caught up in a Roe v. Wade context, but Catholics face the issue of minimizing harm even when confronted with supposedly pro-life choices. For example, most of the GOP caucus and the current GOP platform reportedly accept the ideas of exceptions with regards to abortion. For example, exceptions were raised for “incest and interracial rape” at the conservative conference just a few days ago. This is not our teaching. We do not accept the morality of abortion even to save the life of the mother (though we do a convenient job of rationalizing a fair number of those abortions as being non-“direct”).

Yes, that is why in the last election it would be moral to support the one candidate that allowed those exeptions, but immoral to support the other candidate that went even further and allowed more abortion.

Look again at the Church statement:

Now look at the reality of abortion and euthanasia. About 60% of the abortions in the US are procurred by the poor. More than half the women involved are already mothers.

16% of our GDP now goes to health care, which has outpaced inflation for years. The mind blower for me is that 30% of that now goes to administration, so a nickel out of every dollar generated in our economy goes to someone moving paper related to health care.

To argue that one can address either abortion or euthanasia without giving regard to Christ’s teachings about social obligation to the poor is, as the Church indicates, “incoherent”. Prohibition without actually addressing underlying causal factors is never particularly effective.

If a society does not fully recognize the Catholic understanding of the human person, it lacks legitimacy, regardless of its actual form of government. And, as the Church notes, willing support of such illegitimacy by Catholics would destroy “witness of the Christian faith in the world, as well as the unity and interior coherence of the faithful”.

Basically, your argument is that more government money will stop abortion. That may be your position, but it is not an issue to bind a Catholic conscience. And others disagree with your private prudential assement.

 

[LittleFlower378]

In one respect the poor need to be educated on the evils of abortion. It may be hard for them to get the proper education. It is up to you and I, if the government cannot do it, to try our best to atleast educate them on the evils of abortion. Abortion may not seem like it hurts someone right away but the effects, years down the line, are hurtfull to all - men and women - rich and poor. Please pray for these little ones and please pray to these little ones that we may have a society that loves and protects life - Just as Jesus held St.Margaret Mary close to his chest we pray that Jesus holds us and all life from the moment of conception to natural death.

 

[SoCalRC]

Basically, your argument is that more government money will stop abortion. That may be your position, but it is not an issue to bind a Catholic conscience. And others disagree with your private prudential assement.

Not at all. Government spending (including discretionary spending) and deficits have exploded to record highs under the current administration and all the numbers we have on abortion are trending the wrong direction. Abortions plummetted under the last administration and we ran surpluses.

My point is that pulling a single teaching out of its theological context and elevating it to the point where you are willing to accept grave evils in their own right (all with the argument that at least it isn’t the ‘big’ evil) is doing exactly what the Church warns against.

Again, it is because problems are connected. If you support a war that you know/suspect is unjust, all because you like what you hear on abortion, you are not being coherently pro-life. Warfare, particularly prolonged urban warfare, serves as a major causal factor in abortions, murders, and euthanasia - all infallible teachings of the Church.

Not to sound dismissive, but why should this surprise anyone? If you truly are Christian, it should be of zero surprise that Christ’s earthly ministry is every bit as relevant and topical today as it was millenia ago.

Early Christians followed the message as wholly as they could, against the might of an oppressive and violent empire. Yet, today we try to convince ourselves that Christ is too altruistic and impractical for a modern two party democracy?

 

[buffalo]

Not at all. Government spending (including discretionary spending) and deficits have exploded to record highs under the current administration and all the numbers we have on abortion are trending the wrong direction. Abortions plummetted under the last administration and we ran surpluses.

My point is that pulling a single teaching out of its theological context and elevating it to the point where you are willing to accept grave evils in their own right (all with the argument that at least it isn’t the ‘big’ evil) is doing exactly what the Church warns against.

Again, it is because problems are connected. If you support a war that you know/suspect is unjust, all because you like what you hear on abortion, you are not being coherently pro-life. Warfare, particularly prolonged urban warfare, serves as a major causal factor in abortions, murders, and euthanasia - all infallible teachings of the Church.

Not to sound dismissive, but why should this surprise anyone? If you truly are Christian, it should be of zero surprise that Christ’s earthly ministry is every bit as relevant and topical today as it was millenia ago.

Early Christians followed the message as wholly as they could, against the might of an oppressive and violent empire. Yet, today we try to convince ourselves that Christ is too altruistic and impractical for a modern two party democracy?

Here we go - relativism again.

 

[fix]

Not at all. Government spending (including discretionary spending) and deficits have exploded to record highs under the current administration and all the numbers we have on abortion are trending the wrong direction. Abortions plummetted under the last administration and we ran surpluses.

Again, you think abortion is about money exclusively?

My point is that pulling a single teaching out of its theological context and elevating it to the point where you are willing to accept grave evils in their own right (all with the argument that at least it isn’t the ‘big’ evil) is doing exactly what the Church warns against.

No, you are claiming the Church is teaching something She does not teach. And not all issues must be addressed in the same way. That is why the Cardinal was saying Catholics may differ in how best to address certain things. You are elevating every political issue to same weight as abortion.

Again, it is because problems are connected. If you support a war that you know/suspect is unjust, all because you like what you hear on abortion, you are not being coherently pro-life.

I believe it is the opposite. If you reject the war and hold that war is more important than the current abortion crisis you being incoherent.

Warfare, particularly prolonged urban warfare, serves as a major causal factor in abortions, murders, and euthanasia - all infallible teachings of the Church.

The war has not been declared unjust nor has our conscience been bound in the matter. It is bound in the abortion matter.

Not to sound dismissive, but why should this surprise anyone? If you truly are Christian, it should be of zero surprise that Christ’s earthly ministry is every bit as relevant and topical today as it was millenia ago.

Yes, but what has this to do with the discussion?

Early Christians followed the message as wholly as they could, against the might of an oppressive and violent empire. Yet, today we try to convince ourselves that Christ is too altruistic and impractical for a modern two party democracy?

No, the Church asks us to apply moral reasoning within the context of this political culture.

 

[Newbie2]

1. If you don’t vote, you lose the right to complain about whoever gets elected.

Quote LCMSnomore:

Nonsense! The First Amendment doesn’t give any qualifications.



I don’t mean “right” in the legal sense. If one doesn’t participate in an election, one doesn’t have any basis for complaining on the results. One would have had a chance to influence the outcome i.e. taking action, voting. Failing to do so, one is certainly free to say what they want, but such in my mind would be hypocrital, and their complaints would fall on deaf ears.

Perhaps I didn’t explain that well.

I can certainly understand not wanting to vote for any pro-choice candidate, but one does have a certain responsibility and duty to vote.

Is there always an opportunity for a write-in vote, meaning can you write in a candidate in every state? We can do that in Michigan. I’d think writing in, say, yourself in a “two evils” situation is better than not voting.

It’s difficult; you never really know where the conservatives positions lie (no pun intended ); I wonder how many times they move to the middle during the elections, thinking that will get them votes.

I still maintain that it’s not immoral to do a reasonable amount of due dilligence on the candidates and vote your conscience, even if you’re deciding on the lesser of two evils.

 

[SoCalRC]

Here we go - relativism again.

What an odd interpretation! I say, you must consistantly vote your faith. The Church says that, although some issues are critically important and non negotiable, it remains important to consistantly vote your faith or your faith loses meaning.

So, I reiterate the Church’s call for consistant and vigilant application of the underlying principle of the human person (the foundation of our teaching on Abortion) and I am a relativist.

But abandoning specific teachings of Christ, all for the sake of policies which are yet to demonstrably reduce abortions, is somehow, magically, not moral relativism.

Odd.

 

[Newbie2]

But abandoning specific teachings of Christ, all for the sake of policies which are yet to demonstrably reduce abortions, is somehow, magically, not moral relativism.

I think I know what you’re saying; could you rephrase?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

1. If you don’t vote, you lose the right to complain about whoever gets elected.

Quote LCMSnomore:

Nonsense! The First Amendment doesn’t give any qualifications.



I don’t mean “right” in the legal sense. If one doesn’t participate in an election, one doesn’t have any basis for complaining on the results. One would have had a chance to influence the outcome i.e. taking action, voting. Failing to do so, one is certainly free to say what they want, but such in my mind would be hypocrital, and their complaints would fall on deaf ears.

Sometimes not voting on a particular issue or office is akin to saying “none of the above.” If we had that option, I bet more would vote for it.

Perhaps I didn’t explain that well.

I can certainly understand not wanting to vote for any pro-choice candidate, but one does have a certain responsibility and duty to vote.

Is there always an opportunity for a write-in vote, meaning can you write in a candidate in every state? We can do that in Michigan. I’d think writing in, say, yourself in a “two evils” situation is better than not voting.

It’s difficult; you never really know where the conservatives positions lie (no pun intended ); I wonder how many times they move to the middle during the elections, thinking that will get them votes.

The “conservative” position is really simple. First, it’s purely economic and relies on a single question: Will this benefit corporations or working people? If corporations, it’s the “conservative” position.

I still maintain that it’s not immoral to do a reasonable amount of due dilligence on the candidates and vote your conscience, even if you’re deciding on the lesser of two evils.

And I prefer to vote for no evils. That means I am politically homeless.

 

[Newbie2]

Sometimes not voting on a particular issue or office is akin to saying “none of the above.” If we had that option, I bet more would vote for it.

Maybe we should have that option on the ballot. Not a bad idea!

The “conservative” position is really simple. First, it’s purely economic and relies on a single question: Will this benefit corporations or working people? If corporations, it’s the “conservative” position.



And I prefer to vote for no evils. That means I am politically homeless.

As long as you don’t complain about the results.

 

[SoCalRC]

Again, you think abortion is about money exclusively?

I hate to be a stickler for reality, but you were the one who invented that point and interjected it into the conversation. Assigning it to me does not make it mine.

I was trying to be kind. The obvious answer would have been that cost is irrelevant to the discussion. Christ calls us to do what is right, not what is cheap. Pointing out that spending has historically proven to have no relationship seemed like a more tactful way to remove it as a red herring from the discussion.

No, you are claiming the Church is teaching something She does not teach. And not all issues must be addressed in the same way. That is why the Cardinal was saying Catholics may differ in how best to address certain things. You are elevating every political issue to same weight as abortion.

Look at the quotes. I am claiming only what the Church teaches (and providing quotes from the Church’s explanation intended for the laity). If you elevate any teaching, no matter how important, to the point where you are willing to compromise on the Catholic understanding of the human person, you are embracing evil at the expense of faith.

Look at it from the other direction - why are abortion and euthanasia absolutes for us? Why can we not place a mother’s life ahead of a fetus - which may only have a 50 or 60% chance of even resulting in a live birth?

Why can we not place the needs of a family ahead of dying invalid, perhaps spending that last of God’s greatest gift in a permanent vegative state?

Evangelium Vitae, JPII’s Gospel of Life, shows us that these teachings are both part of a coherent and cohesive single underlying belief. It is “incoherent” and a “detriment” to simultaneously support one manifistation of the teaching yet attack the underlying belief.

I believe it is the opposite. If you reject the war and hold that war is more important than the current abortion crisis you being incoherent.

Then reframe it solely it solely in the context of the discussion at hand. Bush professes to be pro-life. But he signed a bill making euthanasia (removing hyrdation and nutrition) on the basis of ability to pay easier. So his “pro life” aspects come with the baggage of euthanasia.

Similiarly, he professes to believe in the sanctity of fetal life, but still permits federal funding for stem cell research. In the last (GOP) Congress, a bill restricting the research altogether did not make it out of committee (blocked by a GOP chairman). So the “pro life” aspects come with more baggage still.

The war has not been declared unjust nor has our conscience been bound in the matter. It is bound in the abortion matter.

The war has been declared unjust by two different Vicars of Christ. Our current Pope selected Easter to describe the war as a “grave evil”.

One of the greatest Catholic apologists for the war, George Weigel, has conceded both a) that state approved torture would make a just war defense impossible under Catholic teaching and b) that the Vatican has opposed the war since before it started.

Cardinal Ratzinger noted in a letter that, in of itself, disagreement with the Church on the matter of just war does not inherently make one unworthy of communion. But that does not change the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church:

“If anyone should say that the Roman Pontiff has merely the function of inspection or direction but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in matters pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the entire world, or that he has only the principal share, but not the full plenitutde of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate over all Churches and over each individual Church, over all shepherds and all the faithful, and over each individual one of these: let him be anathema” -Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ, #3

Look at my handle. When the Vicar of Christ selects Easter to decry something as gravely evil, I take it seriously.

No, the Church asks us to apply moral reasoning within the context of this political culture.

No, certain moral principles are non negotiable. You cannot embrace grave evil and you must compromise only very carefully.

Look at our teaching on abortion. You cannot embrace evil for even the most laudable ends.

 

[SoCalRC]

As long as you don’t complain about the results.

If Faith is being sincerely voted, and it is others being ‘pragmatic’ and maintaining the power of a two party system that does not reflect our fundemental beliefs about the human person, I’d say that there is plenty of reason to complain to fellow Catholics.

Political parties have risen and fallen. The current parties bear little resemblance to their manifistations just a few generations ago. Human activity maintains their power. If a Catholic puts the power of a political power over duty to God, then I would have to agree with our Savior, the person’s priorities are wrong.

 

[LittleFlower378]

SoCal,

While all of these moral issues are important and life is to be respected with all issues, abortion hits home right where life starts and is created. You have some very good points and we should look at those points but not all points are equal. Now if the government official were to permit the slaying of the poor then we may have similiar grounds comparing abortion. Remember abortion is a very serious sin - read Catechism below.

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

Now if every day I were to walk by the homeless on the street and give them money, which would be a great thing to do, but one month decide not to would this equal the same as to go procure an abortion? Not at all. What you are talking about is government funding and yes the government is required to help the weakest individuals and that is very important but in relation to abortion it is not equal. Abortion is a grave act that goes against the very existance of life.

What you say is good because it can limit the number of abortions which attacks abortion in an indirect way. This should be looked at, but at the heart of the matter it is abortion itself that is one of the gravest of evils and hopefully society and humanity will see this and then we can have a world that respects life as it once did.

 

[SoCalRC]

What you say is good because it can limit the number of abortions which attacks abortion in an indirect way. This should be looked at, but at the heart of the matter it is abortion itself that is one of the gravest of evils and hopefully society and humanity will see this and then we can have a world that respects life as it once did.

Please look carefully. I think you will find I have zero disagreement with the Church teaching on abortion. It is a grave evil and an absolute in our faith.

However, I would argue that following Christ is the only effective ‘direct’ attack possible. We have tried to be ‘pragmatic’, compromising on many aspects of our faith in pursuit of some ‘Holy Grail’ in the form of changes in secular law. But there is zero evidence, aside from a lot of self congradulation, that such pragmatic means have any effect on abortion at all - either in this country, or around the world (and I happen to see my Christian concept of ‘neighbor’ going beyond my earthly geo-political boundaries).

But on the flip side we are embracing a self declared state of continuous war, looser laws on euthanasia, and ‘compromise’ where the destruction of human beings is still federally funded.

Ultimately, each of us must follow our own concience and answer to God. But it seems to me that all the pragmatism ultimately results in a situation where more faith and allegience is placed in earthly political constructs than in God.

Take abortion. I could give multiple examples, but one that has really troubled me for a number of years is Saipan, a US protectorate. The USCCB has specifically named Saipan as an example of modern slavery. Women are forced into sex trades, but perhaps even more shocking is the situation with garment workers. Chinese ‘guest’ workers live in armed camps and make clothing that is stamped “Made in the USA”. We also have many documented accounts of these workers being subjected to forced abortions.

I already accept that abortion is as close to an absolute evil as we hold in our faith. And it is hard for me to think of a more grievious instance of it than forcible use on people oppressed in unholy bondage. So I will not vote for a candidate that has used his/her political power to perpetuate such an evil situation. Nor will I vote for a candidate that profits from such a system (millions of dollars have flowed into our political system since it is a US protectorate). Last, I will not support a candidate whose political party places other politicians who profit or promote in positions of power.

Other Catholics are willing to overlook a little forced abortion profiteering in the name of “more important pro-life goals”, but I am not. Abortion simply is not negotiable for me. Nor is euthanasia, or the torture of prisoners. That is, the ‘my party is less pro-death than yours’ argument is not acceptable to me. I must vote wholly pro-life. If that means that I must abandon the two parties and seeming making my vote meaningless, so be it. The way I see it, Christians have followed their faith against must greater odds since He walked among us. It is not my place to speak for others, but I can do no different.

 

[Newbie2]

If Faith is being sincerely voted, and it is others being ‘pragmatic’ and maintaining the power of a two party system that does not reflect our fundemental beliefs about the human person, I’d say that there is plenty of reason to complain to fellow Catholics.

And that complaining will accomplish what?

If one is actively doing something to accomplish a change, fine, but complaining for the sake of complaining is…what?..how can I say that nicely?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

And that complaining will accomplish what?

If one is actively doing something to accomplish a change, fine, but complaining for the sake of complaining is…what?..how can I say that nicely?

Actually, sometimes people want to convince others to their point of view. SoCalRC makes some excellent points. I’ve read enough of his posts to know that he’s not a Democrat but he doesn’t buy the Republican claim of being “pro-life.”