Who will you be supporting in the U.S. presidential election with our Catholic values in mind?

Status
Not open for further replies.
dvdjs said:
Do you mind provided supporting evidence?
Click to expand...
I don’t expect it to convince you but here goes

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7T.HTM

Civil authorities should acknowledge the true nature of marriage. I think we can agree that the Church does not see same sex marriage as within the true nature of marriage.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6D.HTM

Officiating at a gay marriage implies approval. It was not his job. Do you have evidence of him officiating at a hetrrosexual marriage?

His support for abortion falls under not hindering it. Unless you can explain how it being illegal would not hinder it.
dvdjs said:
Do any?
Click to expand...
Again I don’t care as much if you don’t claim to ve Catholic. It adds scandal on top of the support.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
Please specify that “support” in the moral theological language of formal/materials remote/proximate cooperation.
Click to expand...
Would this qualify as support?


Biden reversed course, citing the recent wave of abortion bans in conservative states and saying that "circumstances have changed” and Hyde should be repealed.

He has also switched positions on the so-called Mexico City policy, imposed by Republican presidents since Ronald Reagan and expanded by Donald Trump, that bans U.S. aid to groups that provide or promote abortion in other countries. He long supported that prohibition but now says he would strike it down.

Biden’s campaign won’t say whether he would sign a ban on abortions after the first 20 weeks of pregnancy, which Republican lawmakers have tried unsuccessfully to enact.
 
humbleseeker said:
Would this qualify as support?
Click to expand...
I am aware of Biden’s action and positions.
I am looking for a sound theological/church teaching position on:
  1. Mandatory opposition to civil marriages for homosexuals.
  2. Formal proximate cooperation in sin though voting.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
  • Mandatory opposition to civil marriages for homosexuals.
  • Formal proximate cooperation in sin though voting.
Click to expand...
See my edit
40.png
Who will you be supporting in the U.S. presidential election with our Catholic values in mind? World News
Do you mind provided supporting evidence? Do any? Again, can you provide a support for this position?
Click to expand...
 
dvdjs said:
Are you unaware that Catholic moral thinking allows for killing with limited moral culpability under many circumstances?
Click to expand...
Does this include the deliberate killing of children in the womb?
 
Elf01 said:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7T.HTM
Click to expand...
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6D.HTM

I think that this passage from the catechism are strong one. But in the context of family and marriage, the grave responsibilities of civil authorities entail more than gay marriage and the sins that cry to heaven for vengeance also entail more than the sin of the Sodomites. Should the gravity of sins and the duties of civil authorities be understood in a manner similar to the way we understand all of the other responsibilities and sins noted in these passages from the catechism.
 
humbleseeker said:
Does this include the deliberate killing of children in the womb?
Click to expand...
I ma not an expert on this matters. But I think that the answer to your question as phrased is an unqualified, no. The principle of double effect would apply, so the killing could not be deliberate. But a procedure may not be absolutely prohibited even if the collateral effect of death were inevitable. This is a scholastic theology that probably does not have much traction outside of the Catholic church even among other sincerely religious people, who would allow deliberate killing if, for example, the life of the mother were at risk.

Many states allow killing of fully fledged humans by people who feel that their lives, or in some states, their property is threatened by another person. I don’t recall hearing about the grave responsibility of civil authorities in the context of these laws.
 
dvdjs said:
Should the gravity of sins and the duties of civil authorities be understood in a manner similar to the way we understand all of the other responsibilities and sins noted in these passages from the catechism.
Click to expand...
You’ll have to be more specific about what you’re trying to get at, especially since you quote one link and link the other

I believe that God gave life and no body has the right to take it
I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman
I believe that refugees should be offered asylum and that economic migrants should be allowed as far as possible. I am against racism and laws that segrate
I believe a worker deserves a living wage
 
Elf01 said:
I believe that God gave life and no body has the right to take it
I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman
I believe that refugees should be offered asylum and that economic migrants should be allowed as far as possible. I am against racism and laws that segrate
I believe a worker deserves a living wage
Click to expand...
I am with you on these items. But I also recognize that even among Catholics there is considerable discussion about what each of these ideas means both in affirmative practice and in what must be avoided. That is why I think when moving beyond political questions themselves to the moral assessments associated with them, one should be cautious and proceed only with an abundance of charity.
 
dvdjs said:
the answer to your question as phrased is an unqualified, no
Click to expand...
So, in the context of a thread asking who will you support in the election with Catholic values in mind, how can I support a candidate who will release funds to perform abortions, directly killing children?
 
humbleseeker said:
So, in the context of a thread asking who will you support in the election with Catholic values in mind, how can I support a candidate who will release funds to perform abortions, directly killing children?
Click to expand...
As pointed out by others, your vote will not change that situation. Your vote will not gay marriage.
Your votes may, however, make a difference on issues involving treatment of asylum seekers, economic migrants, or support for living wages.
 
dvdjs said:
As pointed out by others, your vote will not change that situation. Your vote will not gay marriage.
Your votes may, however, make a difference on issues involving treatment of asylum seekers, economic migrants, or support for living wages.
Click to expand...
No, but it may help to restrict funding for abortion

Anyway, that was not my original point. My point was, given two candidates with the same positions, both opposing Catholic values, one who claims to be Catholic, and the other who doesn’t I’m going to hold the one whom claims to be Catholic more culpable and the other is more likely to get my vote, assuming they were the best available candidates.
 
Last edited:
Elf01 said:
No, but it may help to restrict funding for abortion
Click to expand...
Yes, I think that we can rely on republicans to oppose these and the bulk of health care expenditures.
Elf01 said:
Anyway, that was not my original point. …
Click to expand...
I would vote the opposite way. I think that there is nuance in the what and why of political posture. But, all other things being equal, I have a comfort level bout the moral formation of Catholics that would tip the balance in their favor. It is a bit parochial on my part, but this is an “all other things being equal” hypothetical.
 
Sure, yet, it doesn’t allow for, an act of killing that is,
committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.
 
dvdjs said:
I am not sure how you think that that advances a discussion.
Click to expand...
One thing I have noticed is the majority here do not want to advance discussion or do anything constructive. I not think most here understand the minority view, just like most abortion rights advocates never take the effort to understand the pro-life view. The majority of American voters, on both sides, would rather embrace simply platitudes, along with the ignorance that goes with them, than struggle with real issues. This may be the downfall of the United States as we abandon our tradition of compromise in favor of more and more violent polarization… again.
 
farronwolf said:
If so, I guess the answer is because all those things aren’t as bad as abortion. But can a candidate actually stop abortions? NO. Can a candidate control the things they do personally which go against the Church’s teachings. YES.
Click to expand...
A candidate can do a lot. But you’re okay with killing millions because it’s probably not possible to save them all?

The multiple Dem media slanders against Trump are well known, and it’s also well known that the Dems try to fool Catholics into rejecting a prolife candidate because he has committed sins of other sorts, most of which he didn’t actually commit.

Dems really do think Catholics are moral idiots and are banking on that to persuade them to vote for killing children.
 
pnewton said:
One thing I have noticed is the majority here do not want to advance discussion or do anything constructive. I not think most here understand the minority view, just like most abortion rights advocates never take the effort to understand the pro-life view. The majority of American voters, on both sides, would rather embrace simply platitudes, along with the ignorance that goes with them, than struggle with real issues. This may be the downfall of the United States as we abandon our tradition of compromise in favor of more and more violent polarization… again.
Click to expand...
Killing innocent children or not is a binary choice, though, isn’t it? Those who oppose it are not likely to vote for anyone who supports it. Nor should they be expected to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top