Who Will You Vote For in 2012?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
estesbob said:
To claim a Catholic can vote for pro-abortion candidate when a pro-life alternative is available take such an absolute suspension of belief and/or total ignorance of the teachings of the church I am amazed every time somebody advances the argument.

Hopefully you are not going to advance the argument we see others advance in these forms that it’s okay to support abortion because Jesus never explicitly mentioned it.
Click to expand...
It would certainly make it easier if the Holy Father spoke on the subject, explaining ‘proportionate reasons’ and what not. It certainly wouldn’t endanger the Church’s tax status, as long as support was not being thrown to a single candidate. It leaves me to question why? Is it because he wants everyone for form that faith based conscience, pray and take action according to their consciences? If so, I’d reconsider trying to ‘force’ or ‘coerce’ others against their consciences.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
It would certainly make it easier if the Holy Father spoke on the subject, explaining ‘proportionate reasons’ and what not. It certainly wouldn’t endanger the Church’s tax status, as long as support was not being thrown to a single candidate. It leaves me to question why? Is it because he wants everyone for form that faith based conscience, pray and take action according to their consciences? If so, I’d reconsider trying to ‘force’ or ‘coerce’ others against their consciences.
Click to expand...
He has. But he is ignored by those who put politics ahead of faith
 
estesbob said:
Been posted ad nauseum.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe a definitive explanation has been posted, but if it’s too much trouble thanks anyways, I had thought the issue was more important than that to you. 🤷
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I don’t believe a definitive explanation has been posted, but if it’s too much trouble thanks anyways, I had thought the issue was more important than that to you. 🤷
Click to expand...
Here is the definitive explanation. IN terms of politics, Life trumps everything else. Clear enough?
 
a candidate that would never defend the disgusting procedure of any type of abortion OR want to fund overseas abortions or Planned Parenthood. That is OUR tax money going to fund child murder in China and elsewhere.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Bob, seriously, you should just create a thread of all of your references and then you can link to it. I know what they are, just trying to save you some work.
Click to expand...
It would not matter. If the Pope had said a Catholic could not vote for Barack Obama we would’ve been inundated with posts telling us he was referring to a different Barack Obama than the one who ran for president. The truth is a Catholic who had done even a minimal amount of research would’ve realized they could not vote for Barack Obama in the last election. Yet 54% of those Catholics who voted did.

Of course I always come back to another thing that should be evident to all-why should a Catholic even need for the Church to tell them they cannot support pro-abortion candidate.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Then why doesn’t the Holy Father state it that simply?
Click to expand...
He has.As hads a multitude of bishops, as has been explained in a multitude of Vatican documents and USCCB documents. no matter what we post
, no matter what they say we will be told they weren’t specific enough.

I personally do not need the Holy Father to tell me that I cannot support somebody that believes it is acceptable for a women to kill her child, and most certainly not for someone who not only believes this but believes the taxpayers should pay for it. But for those who insist on putting politics before faith any excuse will do
 
estesbob said:
It would not matter. If the Pope had said a Catholic could not vote for Barack Obama we would’ve been inundated with posts telling us he was referring to a different Barack Obama than the one who ran for president. The truth is a Catholic who had done even a minimal amount of research would’ve realized they could not vote for Barack Obama in the last election. Yet 54% of those Catholics who voted did.

Of course I always come back to another thing that should be evident to all-why should a Catholic even need for the Church to tell them they cannot support pro-abortion candidate.
Click to expand...
I think they would have said that the Pope cannot usurp their personal right of conscience.
 
estesbob said:
It would not matter. If the Pope had said a Catholic could not vote for Barack Obama we would’ve been inundated with posts telling us he was referring to a different Barack Obama than the one who ran for president. The truth is a Catholic who had done even a minimal amount of research would’ve realized they could not vote for Barack Obama in the last election. Yet 54% of those Catholics who voted did.

Of course I always come back to another thing that should be evident to all-why should a Catholic even need for the Church to tell them they cannot support pro-abortion candidate.
Click to expand...
Can’t we have an honest discussion, as opposed to more ‘spin’?

As for your ‘minimal’ amount of research, I did A LOT of research and could not find the definitive explanation you say there was. I cannot blame people for how they voted, for several reasons including the fact that I cannot see what was in their hearts when they cast that vote.

Simply honor my request to show where Ratzinger clearly defined what he meant by ‘proportionate’ reasons.

It’s starting to appear evident that a well formed faith based conscience is left between each individual and God, by the Holy Father. His statement plainly stated that no Catholic could vote for a pro-abortion candidate precisely to support abortion.
“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”
Click to expand...
 
irishpatrick said:
I think they would have said that the Pope cannot usurp their personal right of conscience.
Click to expand...
I suspect you’re right. We have not yet had the “primacy of conscience” canard tossed out in this thread but I am sure there will not be long.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Can’t we have an honest discussion, as opposed to more ‘spin’?

As for your ‘minimal’ amount of research, I did A LOT of research and could not find the definitive explanation you say there was. I cannot blame people for how they voted, for several reasons including the fact that I cannot see what was in their hearts when they cast that vote.

Simply honor my request to show where Ratzinger clearly defined what he meant by ‘proportionate’ reasons.

It’s starting to appear evident that a well formed faith based conscience is left between each individual and God, by the Holy Father. His statement plainly stated that no Catholic could vote for a pro-abortion candidate precisely to support abortion.
Click to expand...
You posted a footnote to long discourse by the Pope where he made it clear a Catholic coluld not support a pro-abortion canidate.(priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm) In his footnote he sumrised there MIGHT be occassions where there would be a proportionate reason but his letter made it clear that was not currently the case As for proportionality let Archbishop Chaput adress it:

But [Catholics who support ‘pro-choice’ candidates] also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it. What is a ‘proportionate’ reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life–which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.”

And for the catholics who continue to claim that Obamas policies make him truly pro-life:

.*To suggest - as some Catholics do - that Senator Obama is this year’s ‘‘real’’ prolife candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse. To portray the 2008 Democratic Party presidential ticket as the preferred ‘‘prolife’’ option is to subvert what the word ‘‘prolife’’ means. Anyone interested in Senator Obama’s record on abortion and related issues should simply read Prof. Robert P. George’s Public Discourse essay from earlier this week, ‘‘Obama’s Abortion Extremism,’’ and his follow-up article, ‘‘Obama and Infanticide.’’ They say everything that needs to be said. *
 
estesbob said:
He has.As hads a multitude of bishops, as has been explained in a multitude of Vatican documents and USCCB documents. no matter what we post
, no matter what they say we will be told they weren’t specific enough.

I personally do not need the Holy Father to tell me that I cannot support somebody that believes it is acceptable for a women to kill her child, and most certainly not for someone who not only believes this but believes the taxpayers should pay for it. But for those who insist on putting politics before faith any excuse will do
Click to expand...
The bishops were not unified prior to the last election. Of course I saw the judgements cast against bishops that did not fully support one view, or the other and found it shameful to see so many willing to divide the Church, over politics!!! We are supposed to be Christian first, above ALL things.

Good for you! You voted according to your faith form conscience, as I assume all Catholics did. Some required more information. And again, your ad hominems are getting old and not worth responding too anymore. The same can be said for everyone who voted. Voting is secular and it appears some want people to go against their calling according to their faith formed consciences. That definitely seems to be putting politics before faith.

I am still interested in seeing that definitive explanation that you said the Holy Father gave and was posted ‘ad nauseum’. As I said, I did a great amount of research prior to the last election and I never saw it from the Holy Father. Nor did I see any admonitions towards the flock after the election.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
The bishops were not unified prior to the last election. Of course I saw the judgements cast against bishops that did not fully support one view, or the other and found it shameful to see so many willing to divide the Church, over politics!!! We are supposed to be Christian first, above ALL things.

Good for you! You voted according to your faith form conscience, as I assume all Catholics did. Some required more information. And again, your ad hominems are getting old and not worth responding too anymore. The same can be said for everyone who voted. Voting is secular and it appears some want people to go against their calling according to their faith formed consciences. That definitely seems to be putting politics before faith.

I am still interested in seeing that definitive explanation that you said the Holy Father gave and was posted ‘ad nauseum’. As I said, I did a great amount of research prior to the last election and I never saw it from the Holy Father. Nor did I see any admonitions towards the flock after the election.
Click to expand...
Can you point to a single Bishop who said their proportionate reasons that would’ve allowed for a Catholic to vote for Barack Obama? There is no explanation, no church document, that anyone can post a that you will accept. The documents the quotes have been posted ad nauseam and all we get in return is either they are not specific enough or one can ignore them if their conscience tells him otherwise. I know I’m not going to convince you t for the lurker’s in CAF please bear in mind that those who tell you that you canlicitly to vote for pro-abortion candidate are misleading you and trying to put you in conflict with your Church
 
estesbob said:
You posted a footnote to long discourse by the Pope where he made it clear a Catholic coluld not support a pro-abortion canidate.(priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm) In his footnote he sumrised there MIGHT be occassions where there would be a proportionate reason but his letter made it clear that was not currently the case As for proportionality let Archbishop Chaput adress it:

But [Catholics who support ‘pro-choice’ candidates] also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it. What is a ‘proportionate’ reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life–which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.”

And for the catholics who continue to claim that Obamas policies make him truly pro-life:

.*To suggest - as some Catholics do - that Senator Obama is this year’s ‘‘real’’ prolife candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse. To portray the 2008 Democratic Party presidential ticket as the preferred ‘‘prolife’’ option is to subvert what the word ‘‘prolife’’ means. Anyone interested in Senator Obama’s record on abortion and related issues should simply read Prof. Robert P. George’s Public Discourse essay from earlier this week, ‘‘Obama’s Abortion Extremism,’’ and his follow-up article, ‘‘Obama and Infanticide.’’ They say everything that needs to be said. *
Click to expand...
He definitely speaks against ‘formal cooperation’. But does not ‘forbid’ voting for a candidate for other reasons.

I have not, and have not seen anyone else, argue that Obama as ‘real’ pro-life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top