LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
If you believe that the Church is deliberately distorting the truth to avoid taxation, then how can you trust anything that the Church says? I give our bishops more credit than that.
- Status
G
GEddie
Guest
There is no " truth" in the situation that must be distorted. Voting is a matter of citizen conscience. It is not the Church’s mission to override or act as anybody’s conscience, only to try to inform it.
ICXC NIKA
R
reclaimed
Guest
The President chooses the Supreme Court nominees, and let’s face it… when it comes down to a controversial matter, they write the laws in this country. This first presidential term has seen the appointments of 2 judges. Scalia, Ginsburg, and Kennedy are getting up there in age. If we elect a pro-life president who will give us pro-life judges then we may be able to solidify the court with 2 or 3 justices for a long time to come, God willing. We cannot risk another appointment by the current president. We’re barely holding on to the court as it is.
C
Carlan
Guest
So what are you really saying here, the Bishops are speaking out of both sides of their mouth? If the Bishops do, in your opinion, surely Politicians of both partys do also.
Carlan
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
My own personal opinion on why the bishops were not more definitive on voting decisions has to do with the complexity of candidates’ positions on a whole variety of social and moral issues, including those same candidates’ often wavering, changing, or tentative views on abortion specifically. Then one has to consider the value of one’s vote in the larger calculus – and I don’t mean in the earlier stages of electioneering, but when it comes down to final decisions between/among a limited field of candidates, who remain viable after others have been eliminated.
Candidate A favors constitutional amendment banning all abortion, permanently, throughout the U.S., regardless of circumstance. Also favors massive military build-up, privatization of all social services and agencies, flat tax regardless of circumstances, no path to citizenship (or other assimilation) for illegal residents, and prayer in public schools.
Viable support among the electorate is 2%. Candidate A, with such narrow public support, is eliminated as a serious contender in the general election, stabilizing at 2%.
Candidate B favors support for Roe v. Wade, distribution of contraceptives in public middle schools, institutionalizing of gay “marriage,” no parental consent relative to teenage abortion, open borders with Mexico and Canada, expanded funding for embryonic stem cell research, and federal protections for physician-assisted euthanasia. Candidate B unfortunately enjoys wide support among the general public, ranging from 45% to 60%.
Candidate C favors limitations on Roe v. Wade, but not prohibition of abortion altogether. Opposes DOMA, supports DADT, but does not support federal intervention or pressure on the several states regarding their own marriage regulations. Does not commit to federal funds for embryonic stem cell research, but in the past has been quite supportive of it, and of contraception availability in public schools. Is neck-and-neck with Candidate B.
Candidate D has a similar position to Candidate C on abortion, going further than that with parental consent laws regarding not only abortion but also contraception. Other positions are similarly more in line with Catholic moral positions than Candidate C. However, Candidate D is unlikely, even with every Catholic voting for him, to win more than 15% of the general electorate, and every theoretical contest pitting him against the above candidates, show him taking votes from Candidate C, nearly ensuring a victory for Candidate B.
…and there are a whole host of permutations and combinations when it comes to issues and electability. That’s why, i.m.o., the bishops worded it that way. There are several issues that are “black-and-white.” However, the reality of final contests, the electoral college, etc., make it important for Catholic voters to use their votes wisely.
Candidate A favors constitutional amendment banning all abortion, permanently, throughout the U.S., regardless of circumstance. Also favors massive military build-up, privatization of all social services and agencies, flat tax regardless of circumstances, no path to citizenship (or other assimilation) for illegal residents, and prayer in public schools.
Viable support among the electorate is 2%. Candidate A, with such narrow public support, is eliminated as a serious contender in the general election, stabilizing at 2%.
Candidate B favors support for Roe v. Wade, distribution of contraceptives in public middle schools, institutionalizing of gay “marriage,” no parental consent relative to teenage abortion, open borders with Mexico and Canada, expanded funding for embryonic stem cell research, and federal protections for physician-assisted euthanasia. Candidate B unfortunately enjoys wide support among the general public, ranging from 45% to 60%.
Candidate C favors limitations on Roe v. Wade, but not prohibition of abortion altogether. Opposes DOMA, supports DADT, but does not support federal intervention or pressure on the several states regarding their own marriage regulations. Does not commit to federal funds for embryonic stem cell research, but in the past has been quite supportive of it, and of contraception availability in public schools. Is neck-and-neck with Candidate B.
Candidate D has a similar position to Candidate C on abortion, going further than that with parental consent laws regarding not only abortion but also contraception. Other positions are similarly more in line with Catholic moral positions than Candidate C. However, Candidate D is unlikely, even with every Catholic voting for him, to win more than 15% of the general electorate, and every theoretical contest pitting him against the above candidates, show him taking votes from Candidate C, nearly ensuring a victory for Candidate B.
…and there are a whole host of permutations and combinations when it comes to issues and electability. That’s why, i.m.o., the bishops worded it that way. There are several issues that are “black-and-white.” However, the reality of final contests, the electoral college, etc., make it important for Catholic voters to use their votes wisely.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
I have never heard of one, I am sure something so rare would be publicized. Unfortunately, the Democrat party establishment would never allow a pro life candidate to become President because of the platform of the party which is for unrestricted access to abortion, and the fact that the abortion lobby funds the Democrat party. I have a hard time believing if there is a Democrat the local level who is pro life, does not support the re election of Obama, even though is pro abortion, over a pro life Republican nominee.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
No I’m not.So what are you really saying here, the Bishops are speaking out of both sides of their mouth? If the Bishops do, in your opinion, surely Politicians of both partys do also.
Carlan
First of all, and what I said at the very beginning is that I don’t equate the USCCB with “the bishops”. USCCB is a largely lay organization which is more or less governed by the majority of bishops, either by direct intent or by default. I think we know at least a good number of bishops that don’t see eye to eye with the USCCB bureaucrats in many things. My own bishop is among them.
Second, you really aren’t going to find churchmen (or the USCCB) saying “Catholic can’t conscientiously vote for Obama because he’s an abortion promoter and supporter.” We have seen instances where churchmen have been under IRS threat for saying less than that. Their tax exempt status is now under threat if they directly promote or oppose particular candidates.
Personally, I would like to see the Catholic Church and its organizations abandon tax-exempt status. The Mormons, for example, don’t have it, and so they can say what they want to say.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
I didn’t ask for five Democrats to be named, I asked for one to be named. You have named one Republican, I have not heard one name of a truly pro life Democrat? What I know about the Republicans, is that in 2011 an estimated 600 pro life bills were proposed, they had very little Democrat support or Democrats trying to stop those bills from passing.
M
Matilda_Bennett
Guest
Please remember that the only forum where political discussion is allowed is the World News Forum.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Thank you for your cooperation.
M
manualman
Guest
Almost. Yes, both abortion and racism and intrinsic evils. But the “Faithful Citizenship” document goes ON to clearly say that it is the duty of catholics to prioritize such issues of intrinsic evils according to their proportionate impacts.
Given that the legal system in this country already labors mightily to fight racism while simultaneously enshrines abortion (50 million dead and counting) it shouldn’t take a double digit IQ to tell which one has the greater proportionate impact.
As to the allegedly pro-life Democrats: (edited by author to stay apolitical per mods)
Given that the legal system in this country already labors mightily to fight racism while simultaneously enshrines abortion (50 million dead and counting) it shouldn’t take a double digit IQ to tell which one has the greater proportionate impact.
As to the allegedly pro-life Democrats: (edited by author to stay apolitical per mods)
- Status