M
MikeWM
Guest
Hmm. Don’t you believe that Cardinal Ratziner said the quote I quoted? Or the documents from the USCCB or the England and Wales Bishops’ Conference, both mentioned throughout this thread?
Mike
- Status
Mike
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
The Vatican does not permit what you claim it does, as I said above, you read into what the Pope said.Odd. I didn’t think something the Vatican ‘permitted’ (as in the quote from the Pope given above) required me to go to confession. And say what? ‘Bless me Father, I have sinned, I followed the instructions of the Pope’?
Mike
P
Philip_P
Guest
The part I bolded is, I believe, the source of our differences, for we do both agree that reducing (and ultimately ending) abortion is a good thing and a goal we should work toward. I think we “know” very little, we can only guess. It is an informed guess (hopefully, if we are taking our voting seriously), but it is still a guess.
For instance, suppose one had voted against Clinton because they “knew” he would advance abortion. Yet in fact, abortion went down (and by the highest rate ever since stats have been kept post Roe v. Wade) during his tenure. What the voter thought he or she knew turned out to be wrong.
Does this mean one could not have voted for George H or for Dole? No, but it does suggest that voting is far more complicated, and takes more thought and discernment, than any simple 5-part test.
M
MikeWM
Guest
There aren’t many issues that are equal, agreed. But abortion is one issue, and there are many, many other issues, which added together in my opinion can be equally as important or more important.
Maybe I have read heavily into that quote. It seems the USCCB and the England and Wales Bishops’ Conference have too, so I’m happy with the company I’m keeping
Mike
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
Philip,
Let us simplify this.
Say a candidate for the office of President was a supporter of legalizing slavery. Say that candidate planned to support and try to have laws written that would bring slavery back.
Should ANY Catholic support such a person for any office?
Let us simplify this.
Say a candidate for the office of President was a supporter of legalizing slavery. Say that candidate planned to support and try to have laws written that would bring slavery back.
Should ANY Catholic support such a person for any office?
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
Mike,
Name the grouping of issues that equals 45,000,000 murdered babies?
Tell me, if a candidate supported a second holocaust, would you support that person just because he/she was correct on 50 other issues?
Name the grouping of issues that equals 45,000,000 murdered babies?
Tell me, if a candidate supported a second holocaust, would you support that person just because he/she was correct on 50 other issues?
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
Mike,
You left out critical portions of Cardinal Ratzingers statement and you have ignored the posts that I and others have made. You seem to want to justify murder no matter how hard it is to justify.
You left out critical portions of Cardinal Ratzingers statement and you have ignored the posts that I and others have made. You seem to want to justify murder no matter how hard it is to justify.
M
MikeWM
Guest
Please let me know which portions of the Cardinal’s statement I have left out, I would be interested to know.
Also please let me know what I have ignored of both your posts and others.
Then please tell me how I have misread the USCCB and England and Wales Bishops’ Conference voting leaflets.
Finally, please tell me where I am justifying murder. I am completely against abortion, and always have been.
Mike
P
Philip_P
Guest
For that to be an apt comparison, we’d also have to hypothetically put ourselves in pre-Civil War America, and ignore all we know about history since then (as voters at that time could not know the future). Let’s say the choice was between Lincoln and the other guy (who was it? Can’t remember). Could a candidate vote for the other guy? Yes. What if the Catholic was concerned about the possibility of Civl War, with all the horrors that entailed (Even today, it ranks as the bloodiest war in American history).
Now, who would have been the right choice? Personally, I hope I would have voted Lincoln, and that I would have urged other to vote for him, too. Had I suggested that it was a sin to vote for the other candidate, though, I would have been out of line.
P
Philip_P
Guest
BTW, some think that the desire of some conservative politicians to weaken or circumvent American labor laws amounts to modern slavery… probably a discussion for another time, though, or at least another, more relevant thread.
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
Philip,
In it is 2005, please answer the question for today.
Say a candidate for the office of President was a supporter of legalizing slavery. Say that candidate planned to support and try to have laws written that would bring slavery back.
Should ANY Catholic support such a person for any office?
In it is 2005, please answer the question for today.
Say a candidate for the office of President was a supporter of legalizing slavery. Say that candidate planned to support and try to have laws written that would bring slavery back.
Should ANY Catholic support such a person for any office?
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
Mike,
*"…those faithful who receive communion and still support abortion rights are behaving scandalously."
“Some receive communion while denying the teachings of the Church or publicly supporting immoral choices in life, such as abortion, without thinking that they are committing an act of grave personal dishonesty and causing scandal.”
“Some Catholics do not understand why it might be a sin to support a political candidate who is openly in favor of abortion or other serious acts against life, justice and peace”.
“But the Church, which teaches that life begins at the moment of conception and that abortion is murder, says Catholics cannot have it both ways.”
Basically, it is all about the serious decline in reverence for the Eucharist and receiving in a worthy state. Obviously, the Holy Father thinks that supporting abortion, even through who you vote for, is a mortal sin. Case closed. That’s good enough for me. I will not let some politician cause me to sin!*
*4. The complex array of today’s problems branches out from here, including some never faced by past generations. Scientific progress has resulted in advances that are unsettling for the consciences of men and women and call for solutions that respect ethical principles in a coherent and fundamental way. At the same time, legislative proposals are put forward which, heedless of the consequences for the existence and future of human beings with regard to the formation of culture and social behaviour, attack the very inviolability of human life. Catholics, in this difficult situation, have the right and the duty to recall society to a deeper understanding of human life and to the responsibility of everyone in this regard. John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a «grave and clear obligation to oppose» any law that attacks human life. **For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them.***19] As John Paul II has taught in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae regarding the situation in which it is not possible to overturn or completely repeal a law allowing abortion which is already in force or coming up for a vote, «an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality».[20]
You have ignored the challenges to site exactly what is proportionate reasons for voting for a pro-death candidate.
You have ignored the above quotes that clearly define where Catholics should fall regarding the issue of abortion.
You say you are against abortion, yet you think it is okay to support abortion?
*"…those faithful who receive communion and still support abortion rights are behaving scandalously."
“Some receive communion while denying the teachings of the Church or publicly supporting immoral choices in life, such as abortion, without thinking that they are committing an act of grave personal dishonesty and causing scandal.”
“Some Catholics do not understand why it might be a sin to support a political candidate who is openly in favor of abortion or other serious acts against life, justice and peace”.
“But the Church, which teaches that life begins at the moment of conception and that abortion is murder, says Catholics cannot have it both ways.”
Basically, it is all about the serious decline in reverence for the Eucharist and receiving in a worthy state. Obviously, the Holy Father thinks that supporting abortion, even through who you vote for, is a mortal sin. Case closed. That’s good enough for me. I will not let some politician cause me to sin!*
*4. The complex array of today’s problems branches out from here, including some never faced by past generations. Scientific progress has resulted in advances that are unsettling for the consciences of men and women and call for solutions that respect ethical principles in a coherent and fundamental way. At the same time, legislative proposals are put forward which, heedless of the consequences for the existence and future of human beings with regard to the formation of culture and social behaviour, attack the very inviolability of human life. Catholics, in this difficult situation, have the right and the duty to recall society to a deeper understanding of human life and to the responsibility of everyone in this regard. John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a «grave and clear obligation to oppose» any law that attacks human life. **For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them.***19] As John Paul II has taught in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae regarding the situation in which it is not possible to overturn or completely repeal a law allowing abortion which is already in force or coming up for a vote, «an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality».[20]
You have ignored the challenges to site exactly what is proportionate reasons for voting for a pro-death candidate.
You have ignored the above quotes that clearly define where Catholics should fall regarding the issue of abortion.
You say you are against abortion, yet you think it is okay to support abortion?
P
Philip_P
Guest
I can’t answer the question as if it were the case today, because it is not a valid comparison. Slavery has been illegal nationwide for almost a century and half. Abortion has never been illegal nationwide. If a hypothetical is going to help illuminate an actual situation, it needs to be relevant to the situation we’re looking at. I think slavery is a good example to look at, but we have to compare like to like - that is, pre-Emancipation America to pre-Non Abortion America.
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
Philip,
Discussions go nowhere if a person refuses to engage from fear of being proved wrong. You have shutdown our conversation because you refuse to answer a simple exploratory question. It was/is a perfectly valid question/challenge that can be applied to any era.
Thanks for chat, talk to ya around the board.
Discussions go nowhere if a person refuses to engage from fear of being proved wrong. You have shutdown our conversation because you refuse to answer a simple exploratory question. It was/is a perfectly valid question/challenge that can be applied to any era.
Thanks for chat, talk to ya around the board.
P
Philip_P
Guest
I realize you were asking the question in good faith, but it really is a trick question. Not quite the “when did you stop beating your wife” variety (which I have seen on these boards), but a bad question nonethless.Philip,
Discussions go nowhere if a person refuses to engage from fear of being proved wrong. You have shutdown our conversation because you refuse to answer a simple exploratory question. It was/is a perfectly valid question/challenge that can be applied to any era.
Thanks for chat, talk to ya around the board.
Still, I suppose I could answer your question as is: it depends on who is running against the candidate. I have a hard time imagining a realistic scenario where an explictly pro-slavery candidate is running, but hey, let’s say that a few nukes have gone off and civilization’s collapsed and now we’re facing a vote between a states-rights pro-slavery traditionalist and a fascist military dictator. You’d have to vote for one or the other, so I guess you could make an argument for either. God forbid it ever comes down to that.
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
Philip,
It was not a trick question, and I do not ask trick questions. It was simply a question I made in order to help me make a point.
I think too many people on these threads want to win debates far more than actyally discuss issues. It tends to make people paranoid and afraid to just put their opinions out there and to answer honest questions.
Alas, nothing I can do…
It was not a trick question, and I do not ask trick questions. It was simply a question I made in order to help me make a point.
I think too many people on these threads want to win debates far more than actyally discuss issues. It tends to make people paranoid and afraid to just put their opinions out there and to answer honest questions.
Alas, nothing I can do…
M
MikeWM
Guest
Your first set of quotes I have already answered (from a document not yet even published, it appears). I have no idea what the second document even is, and your quote in bold is evidently in response to the previous sentence regarding ‘those directly involved in lawmaking bodies’, which strongly implies the politicians, not the voters.
I say again, when I vote for a candidate I don’t automatically support every single thing that candidate stands for, no political party will ever offer that.
If there were a political party to vote for that would magically eradicate abortion tomorrow, then you may have a point. But there is no such party. And there won’t be - making things illegal doesn’t stop them, it drives them underground. Dealing with the reasons these things happen is the best method of prevention.
And there most certainly are other issues to consider. The fact that 10 million people die every year from avoidable poverty. The fact that we take no care of our environment. The fact that we go to war senselessly. You yourself mentioned the issue of slavery, if a party were to suggest the return of that, but be anti-abortion, what then?
Again, I ask if a communist or fascist party were to propose outlawing abortion on day 1 of their government, would you vote for them? I also ask again for how I am reading the documents of the USCCB and the England and Wales Bishops’ Council incorrectly. (I must admit I’m wondering if anyone is going to answer these questions, I’m trying to answer all points yet I’m the one accused of ignoring things. Oh well
Mike
P
Philip_P
Guest
I know you did not mean it as a trick question, but it was a bad question nonetheless because it sets up a faulty premise. Once the premise is accepted, what follows is also faulty.Philip,
It was not a trick question, and I do not ask trick questions. It was simply a question I made in order to help me make a point.
I think too many people on these threads want to win debates far more than actyally discuss issues. It tends to make people paranoid and afraid to just put their opinions out there and to answer honest questions.
Alas, nothing I can do…
Your question implicitly suggests that the debate about abortion today is equivalent to if a candidate today were to propose bringing back slavery. This is not the case. Where we are with abortion today is more like where we were with slavery prior to the Emancipation Proclamation and the amendments following the end of the Civil War. I am NOT suggesting we are on the point of civil war. Rather, my point is that currently, with abortion, we do not have currently have a national consensus on abortion, just as prior to 1865 or so there was no national consensus on slavery.
BTW, a better example I think is the British, not American, experience with slavery, since they did it without civil war.
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
Philip,
Frankly, abortion is a fairly well settled legal precedent in the land today. So, if we use your logic, then the pro-abort people would be able to look at changing those laws similarily to how you have viewed my slavery example. Since abortion being legal is settled, there is not point in discussing it–right? After all, since slavery has been banned, we cannot use it as an example, right?
You are focusing on the Lincoln era of slavery, rather then trying to apply the example of slavery to this culture. We would both agree that slvery is not going to come back in our current environment…correct?
The point I am trying to make centers on which candidates are valid for Catholics to vote for. It makes no difference if slavery is settled, the point is “if a person was trying to bring back slavery,” should any Catholic vote for that person? It is not about trying to compare 2005 to 1860…it is about trying to discuss which candidates are valid for Catholics to vote for.
Frankly, abortion is a fairly well settled legal precedent in the land today. So, if we use your logic, then the pro-abort people would be able to look at changing those laws similarily to how you have viewed my slavery example. Since abortion being legal is settled, there is not point in discussing it–right? After all, since slavery has been banned, we cannot use it as an example, right?
You are focusing on the Lincoln era of slavery, rather then trying to apply the example of slavery to this culture. We would both agree that slvery is not going to come back in our current environment…correct?
The point I am trying to make centers on which candidates are valid for Catholics to vote for. It makes no difference if slavery is settled, the point is “if a person was trying to bring back slavery,” should any Catholic vote for that person? It is not about trying to compare 2005 to 1860…it is about trying to discuss which candidates are valid for Catholics to vote for.
P
Philip_P
Guest
Well then I stand by what I basically said 5 posts ago - it depends on who is running against this candidate. If times have become so bad that a pro-slavery candidate is a serious possibility, then the odds are good that the alternative isn’t all that great either.
Without knowing the full context and choices in your hypothetical election, it’s impossible to make an adequate moral evaluation.
- Status