Voting pro-choice always immoral?

[Ender]

I would recommend that all Catholics read the Pope’s Easter remarks in their entirety.

OK, he prayed for peace in Iraq … don’t we all? Not exactly a statement that this war was unjustified.

But, I’m happy to get you started with coverage of an Interview of Ratzinger from before the war. From the Italian Press:

You can’t just give me the link? You included this in the lengthy quote: *“In light of these criteria, Ratzinger refuses to grant the moral status of just war to the military operation against Saddam Hussein.” *This is no surprise at all and is what I would expect. I’ll point out that even as he refused to say that Iraq was a just war he apparently also “refused” to say it was unjust. That is, he issued no judgment at all as to whether the war was just or unjust.

… best do a little searching of your own. When asked about Weigel’s use of the Catechism in some of his just war arguments, Ratzinger went so far as to suggest that the Catechism might well need to be changed to make it “immune” to twisted logic.

If you are unwilling to provide a link to your source I am unwilling to assume you understood what was said.

Not to be dismissive, but like the Pope’s intrinsic ability to teach and provide moral guidance to the Church in it’s entirety, this is Catholicism 101.

Then you should have no trouble at all finding an unequivocal statement from BXVI or JPII condemning the war in Iraq as failing to meet the just war criteria. They may have stated that they don’t agree that it met the criteria but they recognize that this is only their opinion, which is why you will not find either of stating flatly that the war did not meet the criteria.

Think of it as a family values thing. If you spoon feed someone, they have no appreciation for what they are receiving and easily treat it with disrespect.

I think of it more as a shuck and jive thing where you dance from one point to another without staying around long enough defend your allegations.

Ender

 

[mozart-250]

That is what we are talking about here. If you legitimately believe that preemptive war in Iraq meets just war tradition, fine, that is a disagreement. But what I have said is that should someone not believe that Iraq was a just war, yet voted to support it for other reasons, then that person has participated in a “grave moral disorder”. Per the reasoning in Pope Benedict’s “Sacramentum Caritatis”, such a person should not present him/herself for communion.

One question from a non-Catholic here…

Say we are in a two-party system:

Candidate A opposes Catholic teaching on issue X.
Candidate B opposes Catholic teaching on issue Y.

Opposing Catholic teaching on both issues X and issues Y constitute a “grave moral disorder”

A Catholic votes for candidate A under proportional reasoning justification, believing issue X trunps issue Y.

Has such a Catholic just committed a mortal sin and should not present him/herself for communion until going to confession (and presumably goes directly to hell if he/she does not go to confession)?

That is what this reasoning implies.

 

[buffalo]

One question from a non-Catholic here…

Say we are in a two-party system:

Candidate A opposes Catholic teaching on issue X.
Candidate B opposes Catholic teaching on issue Y.

Opposing Catholic teaching on both issues X and issues Y constitute a “grave moral disorder”

A Catholic votes for candidate A under proportional reasoning justification, believing issue X trunps issue Y.

Has such a Catholic just committed a mortal sin and should not present him/herself for communion until going to confession (and presumably goes directly to hell if he/she does not go to confession)?

That is what this reasoning implies.

It depends whether or not he has a correctly formed conscience and understands the choice he makes is wrong.

In real life “proportionate reasoning” comes down to who is the lesser evil in this case.

 

[Ender]

The Pope, speaking as Pope, on the proper interpretation of Church teaching, is an “opinion” not a “teaching”!!!

The popes were not speaking on the interpretation of a Church teaching, they were expressing their opinion as to whether a specific action met specific criteria. There is no Church teaching that the Iraq war is immoral.

I’m sorry, but you appear to be confusing Roman Catholicism with the Protestant Reformation. Your statement is precisely the same fallacy that the First Vatican Council was called to address.

It really isn’t that hard to understand what fix said; all it takes is the willingness to try. It would help if you would try a little harder.

Ender

 

[mozart-250]

It depends whether or not he has a correctly formed conscience and understands the choice he makes is wrong.

In real life “proportionate reasoning” comes down to who is the lesser evil in this case.

OK…

Then say in this hypothetical issue X is the war in Iraq while issue Y is abortion. Both Catholics have come to the (very justifiable) position that this is not a just war.

One Catholic support candidate A on the grounds that nothing trumps abortion and he will vote pro life come “hell or high water”.

A second Catholic supports candidate B reasoning a different way. Perhaps he believes that on the Presidential level there is very little a President can do either way on abortion while there is certainly a whole lot a President can do concerning wars that lack a moral justification.

Have either of these Catholics committed a mortal sin according to objective church standards. I am not asking whether you agree/disagree here, but objectively are either of these Catholics in danger (according to Catholicism) of burning in hell for eternity because of how they voted.

(note I find these discussions fascinating because it really sounds like the church deciding for God who burns in hell for eternity and who gets a pass…but this is more apologetics I suppose)

 

[buffalo]

OK…

Then say in this hypothetical issue X is the war in Iraq while issue Y is abortion. Both Catholics have come to the (very justifiable) position that this is not a just war.

One Catholic support candidate A on the grounds that nothing trumps abortion and he will vote pro life come “hell or high water”.

A second Catholic supports candidate B reasoning a different way. Perhaps he believes that on the Presidential level there is very little a President can do either way on abortion while there is certainly a whole lot a President can do concerning wars that lack a moral justification.

Have either of these Catholics committed a mortal sin according to objective church standards. I am not asking whether you agree/disagree here, but objectively are either of these Catholics in danger (according to Catholicism) of burning in hell for eternity because of how they voted.

(note I find these discussions fascinating because it really sounds like the church deciding for God who burns in hell for eternity and who gets a pass…but this is more apologetics I suppose)

Life issues will always trump quality of life issues.

Now the President has more powers regarding foreign affairs than he does about domestic affairs. But he can veto pro-death legislation.

But, in the last cycle the President nominated pro-life judges to the supreme court.

But he used prudential judgement in the war. However, Congress authorized the war and could defund it at any time.

As you see these issues are not so clear cut as to who is the lesser evil.

Clearly voting for a candidate that claims he will increase abortions is a mortal sin. Voting for a president that claims he will start an unjust war is a mortal sin.

As far as burning in hell - mortal sin is the willful act of turning away from God. If your attitude and actions do this then you put yourself in hell. To be reconciled one must confess and repent.

And yes the Church gives us moral guidelines that come from Jesus.

 

[Ender]

A second Catholic supports candidate B reasoning a different way. Perhaps he believes that on the Presidential level there is very little a President can do either way on abortion while there is certainly a whole lot a President can do concerning wars that lack a moral justification.

Have either of these Catholics committed a mortal sin according to objective church standards.

Let’s start with this: it is generally not a sin, mortal or otherwise, to be mistaken. There are some things we are expected to understand, where no pass is given for choosing incorrectly, but if someone tries his best to find the correct moral position, but fails nonetheless, then even if his choice is in fact sinful he is not held accountable.

Ender

 

[buffalo]

Let’s start with this: it is generally not a sin, mortal or otherwise, to be mistaken. There are some things we are expected to understand, where no pass is given for choosing incorrectly, but if someone tries his best to find the correct moral position, but fails nonetheless, then even if his choice is in fact sinful he is not held accountable.

Ender

Yes, and that is where a properly formed conscience comes into play and the work it takes to research the facts to make the best judgement.

 

[mozart-250]

Life issues will always trump quality of life issues.

Yup…but is not war a life issue. Innocent human life dies from both abortion and war.

Now the President has more powers regarding foreign affairs than he does about domestic affairs. But he can veto pro-death legislation.

Yup, there are certain things he can do as far as regulating abortion. But he can not sign legislation that will outlaw abortion.

But, in the last cycle the President nominated pro-life judges to the supreme court.

Let’s not get the cart before the horse. He nominated judges that we hope are pro-life (or that we don’t know for sure are pro abortion). The only issues they have voted for are those that regulate abortion to some extent. We do not know how they will vote in any Roe or Casey 3.0.

Although there are good reason’s for optimism, I have been let down too much by KennedySouterO’Connor.

But he used prudential judgement in the war. However, Congress authorized the war and could defund it at any time.

Well some of us question how prudent his judgement was here.

As you see these issues are not so clear cut as to who is the lesser evil.

And that is my point. Now I make it simple myself by just not voting for a pro-abortion candidate, but I can easily construct arguments against myself here.

Clearly voting for a candidate that claims he will increase abortions is a mortal sin. Voting for a president that claims he will start an unjust war is a mortal sin.

So my question is if you have two opposing each other, what do you do? Stay home for fear that voting for either of them will condemn you to hell for eternity.

 

[mozart-250]

Let’s start with this: it is generally not a sin, mortal or otherwise, to be mistaken. There are some things we are expected to understand, where no pass is given for choosing incorrectly, but if someone tries his best to find the correct moral position, but fails nonetheless, then even if his choice is in fact sinful he is not held accountable.

Finally a voice of reason here.

The problem here is applying an absolute standard in a realm that just reeks of relativism (what is choosing the lesser of two evils if not an exercise in relativism).

And I will 'fess up to having made mistakes in the past in will make them in the future. Live and learn.

So the upshot here is that voting pro-choice is not always immoral, specifically if you are voting pro-choice as a lesser of two evils.

 

[buffalo]

Yup…but is not war a life issue. Innocent human life dies from both abortion and war.

Yup, there are certain things he can do as far as regulating abortion. But he can not sign legislation that will outlaw abortion.

Let’s not get the cart before the horse. He nominated judges that we hope are pro-life (or that we don’t know for sure are pro abortion). The only issues they have voted for are those that regulate abortion to some extent. We do not know how they will vote in any Roe or Casey 3.0.

Although there are good reason’s for optimism, I have been let down too much by KennedySouterO’Connor.

Well some of us question how prudent his judgement was here.

And that is my point. Now I make it simple myself by just not voting for a pro-abortion candidate, but I can easily construct arguments against myself here.

So my question is if you have two opposing each other, what do you do? Stay home for fear that voting for either of them will condemn you to hell for eternity.

You take your best shot as to the lesser evil. It is your duty to vote. From the Catechism - **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:

 

[estesbob]

So the upshot here is that voting pro-choice is not always immoral, specifically if you are voting pro-choice as a lesser of two evils.

Not accoring to the Church. Per the Church the only time you can vote for a pro-abortion canidate is if his opponent is also pro-abortion and the canidate you vote for would be less pro-abortion than his opponent. As we will see as we run up to the election you will see Democrat Catholics trying to use the lesser of two evils approach to justify voting for a pro-abortion canidate becuase they like his stand on lead paint regulations or any other number of issue they feel trump abortion

Personally I will bever vote for one who supports abortion at any level of office. i am not about to vote to a person in any leadership postion who beleives that there are circumastance when its ok to kill our children. Such an amoral/immoral person is unfit to serve and their mindset in dangerous to all.

 

[mary_bobo]

Not accoring to the Church. Per the Church the only time you can vote for a pro-abortion canidate is if his opponent is also pro-abortion and the canidate you vote for would be less pro-abortion than his opponent. As we will see as we run up to the election you will see Democrat Catholics trying to use the lesser of two evils approach to justify voting for a pro-abortion canidate becuase they like his stand on lead paint regulations or any other number of issue they feel trump abortion

Personally I will bever vote for one who supports abortion at any level of office. i am not about to vote to a person in any leadership postion who beleives that there are circumastance when its ok to kill our children. Such an amoral/immoral person is unfit to serve and their mindset in dangerous to all.

Why is it that every time we talk about abortion and politics we go thru this merry-go-round of trying to justify voting for those who support abortion? We all know, or at least we should know, that there are five issues on which we cannot, as Catholics, compromise. All the mental gyrations that come forth trying to get around these principles is just fascinating.

 

[estesbob]

Why is it that every time we talk about abortion and politics we go thru this merry-go-round of trying to justify voting for those who support abortion? We all know, or at least we should know, that there are five issues on which we cannot, as Catholics, compromise. All the mental gyrations that come forth trying to get around these principles is just fascinating.

Agreed. I mean the Church’s teachnig coudlnt be clearer. What is really amazing is the people who ignore these teachings and vote for pro-anbortion canidates are also the first ones to take various Church officials personal comments about Iraq or the Death Penalty as ex cathedra statemets binding all Catholics

 

[mozart-250]

Not accoring to the Church. Per the Church the only time you can vote for a pro-abortion canidate is if his opponent is also pro-abortion and the canidate you vote for would be less pro-abortion than his opponent. As we will see as we run up to the election you will see Democrat Catholics trying to use the lesser of two evils approach to justify voting for a pro-abortion canidate becuase they like his stand on lead paint regulations or any other number of issue they feel trump abortion

OK.

So according to the Church in the following hypothetical you always vote for the pro-life candidate

A. Generic pro-choice democrat
B. Pro-life Idi Amin

You say that is ridiculous?

The good people of Louisiana in the recent past had the option of voting for a pro life Republican candidate for either the Senate or House who was a grand wizard of the Klu Klux Klan. I don’t know whether his opponent was pro-choice or not, but in this real life case it wouldn’t have mattered at least to me.

Furthermore, what seems to be an extreme case in the good old USA might be more common in other parts of the planet.

But I guess according to Catholicism it would be a mortal sin leading to eternal damnation in the fires of hell to vote for the pro choice Democrat out of the motive of stopping the Klu Klux Klan.

Got it.

 

[SoCalRC]

But I guess according to Catholicism it would be a mortal sin leading to eternal damnation in the fires of hell to vote for the pro choice Democrat out of the motive of stopping the Klu Klux Klan.

Got it.

The sin is idolatry. We are not a two party system. There is nothing to stop you from voting for a person whom you truly find exemplary.

The argument for not doing this is that it is not ‘practical’, voting for a non two party candidate throws away one’s ‘power’. But what, exactly, does this pursuit of earthly power get us?

From a results perspective, there is no discernable difference between which party is in power and actual abortions in the US. Yet, balancing our belief in earthly power with faith requires absurd contortions.

Of course I can vote for torture, of course I can vote for racism, of course I can reward voter suppression, of course I can ignore sexual predators, of course I can ignore criminal profiteering from abortion - all because prohibition is God’s new Holy Grail…

Don’t bother pointing out prostitution, drugs, alchohol, firearms, or any other time it has been attempted. Of course it will work, anything else is a waste of time…

And I’ll scream if you point out that huge numbers of disabled, or just non-lily-whilte infants, can’t get adopted now - of course another million children a year would be no problem. In fact, I’ll bait there is a waiting list to get impregnated with those hundreds of thousands of zygotes waiting to be incinerated in fertility clinics right now…

Just look at the conversation here. Heads are exploding just because I claim that voting for a wars that we are now told will cost $2.4 trillion dollars (that should be no surprise, BTW, the total cost of rebuilding in CA from our fires is about 3-4 days of occupation costs in Iraq), have claimed over 100,000 lives, have displaced hundreds of thousands of Christians and has millions living without basic sanitation and potable water - is quite likely a sin if you know it is unjust.

Of course, they’ll quote Tertullian on abortion, but war? Not likely…

My big crime here is that I have suggested that trusting in God’s power and forsaking the seemingly fruitless pursuit of earthly power will lead to results. Christians have triumphed over incredible odds all through history, but only when they stayed true to their faith. Does that mean individual triumph? No, if you stand up against, say, Nazi’s, there is a good chance you get martyred for your faith - but the point was you resisted evil with every fiber of your being. But we are called to do what is right, not what is easy.

The funny thing is that history is full of plenty of examples, both of following Church values punishing political parties (Republicans for Ol’ Abe freeing slaves, Democrats for LBJ pushing through civil rights). Similiarly, it has plenty of examples of grass movements effecting real change in governance. But it is easier to keep villifying those who differ from you and staying on the same hamster wheel.

 

[estesbob]

OK.

So according to the Church in the following hypothetical you always vote for the pro-life candidate

A. Generic pro-choice democrat
B. Pro-life Idi Amin

You say that is ridiculous?

The good people of Louisiana in the recent past had the option of voting for a pro life Republican candidate for either the Senate or House who was a grand wizard of the Klu Klux Klan. I don’t know whether his opponent was pro-choice or not, but in this real life case it wouldn’t have mattered at least to me.

Furthermore, what seems to be an extreme case in the good old USA might be more common in other parts of the planet.

But I guess according to Catholicism it would be a mortal sin leading to eternal damnation in the fires of hell to vote for the pro choice Democrat out of the motive of stopping the Klu Klux Klan.

Got it.

The only way people can dispute the Church teachings in this area is to come up with completely absurd scenarios A I have said many times the mental mastrubation required to claim to be pro-life yet support those who aid and abette the slaughter of our children is a terrbile thing to behold

 

[SoCalRC]

If you are unwilling to provide a link to your source I am unwilling to assume you understood what was said.

I think of it more as a shuck and jive thing where you dance from one point to another without staying around long enough defend your allegations.

Two observations. First, in addition to my controversial “vote with God as wholly as you can”, “treat your faith as a coherent whole”, and “respect the dogmatic authority of the Church”, my “read, think, study for yourself” seems to be making your head explode.

What a concept, think for yourself and collect as much information as you can. Clearly you hold the culture of spoon feeding in intellectual isolation in very high regard.

Which brings me to my second observation. You are so upset with the idea of thinking and studying, that you are abandoning any pretense of Christian charity and kindness with regards to me.

This would seem to match my hypothesis, that once one elevates one’s earthly activities to the status of religious faith, priorities can become confused and it is frequently faith that suffers.

As far as I can tell, we have only two real differences. Your candidates are not true enough to Catholic teachings for me and I do not think that prohibition ever works unless people’s belief structures fundementally change. That’s it. I’m to the right of most people here on abortion (I think that most the abortions in Catholic hospitals are direct), I’ve actually enlisted and served in a time of war, and I am seemingly to the right of many people here on the primacy of the Church. Yet, look at how you and others describe my character!

If our differences are not faith, and you feel them so strongly that you cannot resist certain tempations, shouldn’t that suggest something?

 

[estesbob]

I think of it more as a shuck and jive thing where you dance from one point to another without staying around long enough defend your allegations.

Ender

Which is why most dont bother responding to him. Its always a one sided conversation. No matter what you say he will cut n paste in a whle variety of rants ranging from Republicans support forced abortion and slavery to Bush is killing millions of iraqis.

 

[KathleenElsie]

If I have the choice of two persons that are both pro-choice and a third party that has no reasonable chance of winning the election then the choice I make is do I do a protest vote that can not stop abortion (empty protest) or choose the person that will at the least limit the availability of abortions and death?

Another decisive situation to me is who will the new president and the advisor’s place in critical judicial posts? What is the likelihood of them overturning the “death” laws and regulations on the books now? How will these appointees rule for the next 20 or 30 years on life & death issues?

A president gets a possible 8 years (well unless you are Clinton and that is another story) and no more. But, judges get to serve for life and it might not be proper, but, they also legislate from those benches. So IMHO they might just be the most important thing any president ever does. This next election could mean three or four critical judicial appointments and I refuse to just allow them to be given away without a fight. So the candidate that is most likely to appoint moral and origionalist justices is the person I will look to as my choice if there is no one that is truly pro-life.