Where did the term "non-negotiable" come from?

[jmcleese]

The Catholic voting guide lists five “non-negotiable” issue: Abortion, Euthanasia, Fetal Stem Cell Research, Human Cloning & Homosexual “Marriage”. My limited research cababilities found the Pope speaking out against these issues but with different language.

Many Catholics are interpreting “non-negotiable” to the extreme, siting party affiliation as sufficient grounds to not vote for a candidate regardless of the individual’s beliefs or votiing record. For example some would state that it is impossible to be a Pro-Life Democrat since the Party platform supports abortion rights and all members of the Party are supporting the Party.

So where did “non-negotiable” come from and how far does it extend?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

The non-negotiable come from natural law, and the phrase non-negotiable extends through all aspects of life.

Non-Negotiable means just that: These issues cannot be refuted morally. There is -never- an instance where these things are acceptable, period. End of discussion. Party affiliation or economic ideology is not sufficient grounds to vote for someone who is in favor of these things.

As to your example of a pro life democratic: You many believe that the democrat’s economic policy is superior to the republicans, but that is not enough reason to vote for the democrat. Since the party has openly professed an affiliation with the “Gay marriage” agenda, have actively expanded the instances in which abortions can be obtained and have fought to make abortions and contraceptives free for those who would seek them (among other things), a person cannot morally vote for a candidate of the Democratic party.

This is not to say that you must vote Republican. What it means is that, in order to make a moral decision, you must vote for the person who most upholds natural law. In the case of this election, that is definitely not anyone on the Democratic party’s ballot.

Always remember, Moral issues take precedent over economic and social ones, because economic and social issues are only related to this life. Moral issues are related to God, and the eternity we will spend either with Him, or away from Him.

 

[Newbie2]

The non-negotiable come from natural law, and the phrase non-negotiable extends through all aspects of life.

Non-Negotiable means just that: These issues cannot be refuted morally. There is -never- an instance where these things are acceptable, period. End of discussion. Party affiliation or economic ideology is not sufficient grounds to vote for someone who is in favor of these things.

As to your example of a pro life democratic: You many believe that the democrat’s economic policy is superior to the republicans, but that is not enough reason to vote for the democrat. Since the party has openly professed an affiliation with the “Gay marriage” agenda, have actively expanded the instances in which abortions can be obtained and have fought to make abortions and contraceptives free for those who would seek them (among other things), a person cannot morally vote for a candidate of the Democratic party.
This is not to say that you must vote Republican. What it means is that, in order to make a moral decision, you must vote for the person who most upholds natural law. In the case of this election, that is definitely not anyone on the Democratic party’s ballot.

Always remember, Moral issues take precedent over economic and social ones, because economic and social issues are only related to this life. Moral issues are related to God, and the eternity we will spend either with Him, or away from Him.

In the case of this election, yep, unless you’re voting for dogcatcher.

 

[jmcleese]

That reasoning suggests that we should all renounce our citizenship since we “pledge allegiance” to the United States which has immoral laws. (of course I am assuming you are a U.S. citizen)

To be a member of a party or a citizen of a country does not mean we personally support every law or policy. I think abortion is wrong yet I live in a country where it is legal. I believ it is our duty to change the laws we deem immoral.

Therefore I think it is morally acceptable to vote for a Pro-Life Democrat just as it is morally acceptable to elect a President from either party who is obligated by Congress to enforce all laws, some of which are immoral.

This is why I am curious who created the term “non-negotiable” and did they intend the “guilt by association” you suggest?

 

[Robert_Sock]

In the case of this election, yep, unless you’re voting for dogcatcher.

If I cannot vote for the ‘Democratic’ Party, I choose not to vote at all.

No matter who wins the elections, the world as a whole will continue to grow and prosper! That is all that concerns me, and I believe God is allowing Satan to torment us as a means of salvation for all the world.

 

[Newbie2]

That reasoning suggests that we should all renounce our citizenship since we “pledge allegiance” to the United States which has immoral laws. (of course I am assuming you are a U.S. citizen)

To be a member of a party or a citizen of a country does not mean we personally support every law or policy. I think abortion is wrong yet I live in a country where it is legal. I believ it is our duty to change the laws we deem immoral.

Therefore I think it is morally acceptable to vote for a Pro-Life Democrat just as it is morally acceptable to elect a President from either party who is obligated by Congress to enforce all laws, some of which are immoral.

This is why I am curious who created the term “non-negotiable” and did they intend the “guilt by association” you suggest?

Methinks the term “non-negotiable” refers more to the sticking to Catholic moral teaching than as a “guilt thing”. It is not a term used by the magisterium to refer to voting issues, as not all countries have elections that are equivalent to the United States, and as we all know the USA is a great place to live, but we have our governmental and societal problems.

It is a herculean task to try to take a politician at his or her word nowadays. Could there be one or more Democrats who only give lip service to the “pro-choice” plank in the Democrat party? Sure.

While the “non-negotiable” list is certainly a helpful guideline to remind Catholic voters of our obligation to be mindful of Catholic teaching when we walk into the polls, methinks it is not a requirement to vote using such a “checklist” if one has really studies the issues, the candidates positions on the issues, the candidate’s believability in their promises and claims, and the relative bottom-line influence that candidate would have if elected into office.

Granted, using the criteria and the aforementioned preparation may very well get you to the same place i.e. that the Democrat party candidate for whatever office does not make the cut when assessing whether or not they would be furthering or hindering God’s kingdom here on earth. That’s why the Almighty gave us a conscience and not just a checklist.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The non-negotiable come from natural law, and the phrase non-negotiable extends through all aspects of life.

Non-Negotiable means just that: These issues cannot be refuted morally. There is -never- an instance where these things are acceptable, period. End of discussion. Party affiliation or economic ideology is not sufficient grounds to vote for someone who is in favor of these things.

As to your example of a pro life democratic: You many believe that the democrat’s economic policy is superior to the republicans, but that is not enough reason to vote for the democrat. Since the party has openly professed an affiliation with the “Gay marriage” agenda, have actively expanded the instances in which abortions can be obtained and have fought to make abortions and contraceptives free for those who would seek them (among other things), a person cannot morally vote for a candidate of the Democratic party.

This is not to say that you must vote Republican. What it means is that, in order to make a moral decision, you must vote for the person who most upholds natural law. In the case of this election, that is definitely not anyone on the Democratic party’s ballot.

Always remember, Moral issues take precedent over economic and social ones, because economic and social issues are only related to this life. Moral issues are related to God, and the eternity we will spend either with Him, or away from Him.

This is an extreme exaggeration of the concept of non-negotiable issues. All this concept really means is that the issues mentioned are such that it would be immoral to accept a breaking of these rules in return for something whose value may be legitimately debated by people of good will. That is, one cannot create an equivalence between a non-negotiable issue and an issue that is negotiable. This certainly has applications to how one forms his conscience with regard to voting, but it is not an absolute prohibition on voting for any particular person. It is still up to the individual to decide how much voting for a particular person or party affects a non-negotiable issue. For example, one might decide after reviewing all the facts that position of a particular candidate will have no effect on a non-negotiable issue, even if that candidate’s nominal position is on the wrong side of that issue. In that case the choice of that candidate is not really a negotiation involving a non-negotiable. The assessment of what the consequences might be of voting of a candidate is one that different people of faith can make differently without being outside the Church. The Church wisely does not even attempt to make these kinds of judgments for us, for the same reason that the Church does not attempt to make pronouncements on what program can best care for the needy.

If the specific conclusions that you have drawn from the general principle of non-negotiable issues were in fact binding without discussion on all faithful Catholics, then you would expect to hear those specific conclusions being stated by the Church. But you will not find such pronouncements. You will only find general principles for our instruction. How those principles apply to specific decisions is up to us, the laity. Now some have said that the reason Church officials are not more specific is that they fear losing tax exempt status in the US. I find that argument hard to believe. The Church fathers did not hesitate to endanger their very lives to proclaim the truth even when it was against the law. Every single pope for the first 300 years of Church history died a martyr’s death. I cannot believe that the leaders of the Church today have any less faith than those early leaders. If they thought specific conclusions were justified I don’t think they would hesitate just to hang on to a tax break.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

To my knowledge, the specific term “non-negotiable” in relation to five specific moral issues to consider when deciding who to vote for, originates from the Catholic Answers Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics, which I first recall coming out around the 2004 election cycle (or maybe it was 2000). I find it a bit dated because nobody really trumpets their position on embryonic stem cells anymore; although some scientists still give lip service to this being necessary and vital and all that, the new frontier is the induced pluripotent or “reprogrammed” adult stem cells which are not morally problematic.

Now what I really want to know is who came up with the term “Serious Catholics”. What exactly does that mean? For some reason I’m imagining the Quaker Oats guy, except without the little smile. Are we to contrast “Serious Catholics” with Frivolous Catholics, or Lackadaisical Catholics? “See that guy over there with the Romney bumper sticker and the rosary hanging from his rear view mirror? Man, that’s one Serious Catholic!”