Who Will You Vote For in 2012?

[estesbob]

Paragraph 29 of the USCCB document Faithful Citizenship speaks in detail of the need to look at all issues and not use a single issue as an excuse to turn a blind eye to a candidates stance on other issues. Paragraph 42 of the same document says it more directly “As Catholics we are not single issue voters.”

The next lines beng:

A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support."

For those looking for the truth tjhe meaning is very clear. we do not have to support somone merely becuase they are pro-life-we can not support them if they are not.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Nah–redo the poll and make it one popular conservative candidate versus Obama, and Obama would lose by a large margin.

Unless its Ron Paul, because as many have said here, he has no chance of winning anything other than his Congressional seat.

 

[irishpatrick]

The next lines beng:

A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support."

For those looking for the truth tjhe meaning is very clear. we do not have to support somone merely becuase they are pro-life-we can not support them if they are not.

In other words, Catholics should use their well formed conscience…which sadly today is sorely lacking, leading to the death of millions through abortion!

This is so simple.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

The next lines beng:

A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support."

For those looking for the truth tjhe meaning is very clear. we do not have to support somone merely becuase they are pro-life-we can not support them if they are not.

Right. What should have happened in the last presidential is, Catholics should have disqualified Obama for their vote. Then, if looking at McCain, they decide for proportional reasons they cannot vote for him either, they should have not voted at all, or written in a candidate they could support. That is how Prudential Judgement and Proportional Reasoning works.

 

[pismopal]

No–there are 92 non-Obama votes…to his 33 pro-Obama votes. That means when the time comes (at least from people here), he would lose.

Exactly correct…Obama is the Democrat …we don’t know yet who his opposition will be so votes will be temporarilly scattered. If Obama’s opposition is Elmer Fudd…well then I will be pulling that handle.

 

[irishpatrick]

Right. What should have happened in the last presidential is, Catholics should have disqualified Obama for their vote. Then, if looking at McCain, they decide for proportional reasons they cannot vote for him either, they should have not voted at all, or written in a candidate they could support. That is how Prudential Judgement and Proportional Reasoning works.

Exactly and well said.

Better to not vote, than to vote for evil.

 

[pismopal]

The roughly third of the people who vote left in this country roughly corresponds to the divisions we had during the revolution. As it was described then…" one third Tory…one third timid and one third true blue." Some things never change:shrug:

 

[_Abyssinia]

No. This is a conservative Forum. It tilts naturally to the right. It is interesting though, that on this Forum, the President is leading. You’d think that he’d be rejected outright.

Less than 100 people voting on poll is not a good indicator, and there are lots of non Catholics are on this forum.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The roughly third of the people who vote left in this country roughly corresponds to the divisions we had during the revolution. As it was described then…" one third Tory…one third timid and one third true blue." Some things never change:shrug:

I’ll buy that. Tories were conservatives, so to me, the liberals represent the true blue Americans.

 

[irishpatrick]

I’ll buy that. To me, the liberals are the true blue Americans.

Liberals today are not far off the mark…but people on the real left are truly dangerous to the nation. I firmly believe that if JFK were alive today he would have no choice but to be a conservative…he believed in faith, in strong defense, in small government, in free speech, in open markets, and lower taxes…if people on the left today were like that, they would rock. But, instead, they are leftists more in-line with Marx than Kennedy.

 

[mary_bobo]

Exactly correct…Obama is the Democrat …we don’t know yet who his opposition will be so votes will be temporarilly scattered. If Obama’s opposition is Elmer Fudd…well then I will be pulling that handle.

That is why I voted “other”. Don’t know who I will be voting for until we know who “other” is. Whoever is running against Obama gets my vote.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I don’t want to be seen as flying a false flag. For the record, I do not think any of these, including the President, as worth my vote, so I will almost certainly not vote for President in '12.

 

[irishpatrick]

I don’t want to be seen as flying a false flag. For the record, I do not think any of these, including the President, as worth my vote, so I will almost certainly not vote for President in '12.

Wow–I took you as an Obama supporter all the way.

 

[_Abyssinia]

No. This is a conservative Forum. It tilts naturally to the right. It is interesting though, that on this Forum, the President is leading. You’d think that he’d be rejected outright.

Less than 100 people voting on poll is not a good indicator, and in terms of who Catholics support this poll is not a good indicator because there are lots of non Catholics on this forum.

 

[TMC]

I posted the text…it does not say what you wrote here.

*As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. **Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support." ***

You justify your anti-life position by focusing only on the first part (sort of like how some Christians conduct proof-texting of the Bible), yet you ignore the second half, which is a critical piece.

Of course, in normal times, Catholics would NOT be single issue voters…that is obvious. Yet, as the text rightly states, when a candidates position on a SINGLE issue involves an intrinsic evil…may legitimately lead to…

I do not have an anti-life position so please stop saying that I do.

I agree that paragraph 42 contains more than one sentence, but it clearly and directly states that Catholics are not single issue voters, which is what you asked me about. Paragraph 29 contains more detail on the same topic.

Sure sounds like direct support for single issue voting to me!

OK, so you are reading “As Catholics we are not single-issue voters.” to “really” mean that Catholics are single-issue voters, but I am the one twisting the bishops’ meaning?

 

[SwordandShield]

Wow! Accusing some of our Catholic hierarchy of being Catholics in Name Only is skating on thin ice with the Forum moderators.

I’ve spoken nothing but the truth, and that is what is so heartbreaking. Bishop Gerald Kicanas is one such bishop. I don’t think that with regards to Catholicism, the truth is “skating on thin ice”. There is a Catholic progressive wing acting adamantly in opposition to the Pope. They are not difficult to find, and if you research it on your own, you will arrive at the same conclusion.

When bishops refuse to enact canon law, that is, in itself, an act against the Church. Why are there very little stories of the following (said by then Cardinal Ratzinger)

“Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist. When these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it.”

Why then, do a few US bishops refuse to follow this? Because they have their liberal agenda to radically change the Catholic church.

It is up to the laity to bring to light such issues, lest we fall like sheep to the wolves in our clothing. If a shepherd leads us to wolves, should we really follow?

The good news is that many faithful Bishops are biting back.

---

Faith as my armor, Hope as my sword; God: give me the means to do Your will.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I don’t want to be seen as flying a false flag. For the record, I do not think any of these, including the President, as worth my vote, so I will almost certainly not vote for President in '12.

I am bending that way, depending on who gets the nod for the GOP. If the Libertarians or Constitution Party put up someone, I may just vote 3rd party. Sean Hannity and his histrionics about this being the most critical race in the history of mankind can go pound sand. I ain’t buying it anymore.

 

[irishpatrick]

I do not have an anti-life position so please stop saying that I do.

I agree that paragraph 42 contains more than one sentence, but it clearly and directly states that Catholics are not single issue voters, which is what you asked me about. Paragraph 29 contains more detail on the same topic.

OK, so you are reading “As Catholics we are not single-issue voters.” to “really” mean that Catholics are single-issue voters, but I am the one twisting the bishops’ meaning?

First, that statement is not an order to Catholics, as I am sure you know. Second, you are once again ignoring the second half of the quote (you don’t happen to be Protestant are you)?

The statement is not a dogmatic or doctrinal or infallible statement that is binding on the faith. The quote is quite obviously stating that in a general sense Catholics are no single issue voters, yet in some cases they can be single issue voters. It is a wishsy-washy statement at best, but it most definitely does not say Catholics cannot be single issue voters–in fact it says in some cases it is legitimate to focus on one issue!

Please, use the entire quote, not just the part that you thinks supports your case.

 

[TMC]

First, that statement is not an order to Catholics, as I am sure you know. Second, you are once again ignoring the second half of the quote (you don’t happen to be Protestant are you)?

The statement is not a dogmatic or doctrinal or infallible statement that is binding on the faith. The quote is quite obviously stating that in a general sense Catholics are no single issue voters, yet in some cases they can be single issue voters. It is a wishsy-washy statement at best, but it most definitely does not say Catholics cannot be single issue voters–in fact it says in some cases it is legitimate to focus on one issue!

Please, use the entire quote, not just the part that you thinks supports your case.

So now the retreat begins to the ever popular position that anything that conservatives disagree with is not binding on the faithful.

 

[SwordandShield]

I have to ask this question, as I am not sure I truly understand the reasoning behind it. Let me be clear: I am not Republican, neither am I Democrat, neither am I Libertarian… I vote for the candidate that is most in line with primarily Pro-life, and then other issues that align themselves with Church Doctrine.

Why do some of you support Libertarians? Is not the view of Libertarianism a more moderate form of Liberalism?