Why is voting for Biden a mortal sin?

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

The reason we’ve never had a president quite like Trump is because we’ve never had the lunacy in society that we have today.

That is one sentence I agree with 100%.

It isn’t clear to me how this position is any different from moral relativism because moral questions are fundamentally inscrutable.

The difference is that moral relativism denies absolute morals. Voting is one of those situations where there are many moral issues. It is the only situation. Life is full of morally complex issues. One can proceed guided by conscience because there is a recognition of absolute morals.

Not when the implicit subtext in the “guided by conscience” claim is that there isn’t a final true moral position on “complex” questions and therefore one’s individual conscience is the final arbiter.

There is one moral solution to the voting question that can be worked out in diligence. To claim “my conscience is set and I am not open to any other consideration” is willful ignorance.

A well-formed conscience is one that seeks the best available answer using reason, evidence and sound moral thinking, including an honest assessment as to when one’s current resources are lacking, along with a steadfast commitment to seeking and knowing the moral truth on any critical matter.

 

[pnewton]

There is one moral solution to the voting question that can be worked out in diligence.

Do you mean one that fits all, because I am almost positive the Church has said otherwise. If there is one, I would bet the answer I get from a thousand people would correlate fairly close to political orientation.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

There is one moral solution to the voting question that can be worked out in diligence.

Do you mean one that fits all, because I am almost positive the Church has said otherwise. If there is one, I would bet the answer I get from a thousand people would correlate fairly close to political orientation.

There is one, although political orientations are themselves based upon sound or unsound moral thinking. To assume politics is determinate of moral answers is thinking backwards by using the subsequent to arrive at the prior rather than arriving at the conclusion from sound principles.

You appear to be excusing a failure to view the subordinate place of politics vis a vis morality as a reason for thinking the moral questions are insoluble.

It is because moral principles and sound moral thinking have been undermined and usurped by political activism or allegiance that the argument has devolved to one of political intrenchment.

 

[pnewton]

There is one,

Then show where the Church has ever said this.

The Church said

" Decisions about political life are complex and require the exercise of a well-formed conscience aided by prudence. "

One’s conscience is unique to each person. While the moral principles that all use are the same, the prudence one applies may vary based on experiences each has. At the end, every must follow their own unique conscience, not yours, and not anyone else’s.

If you think otherwise, darned if I know why. I know what the Church teaches, and it is not what keeps getting represented here.

In a way, this place is a very dangerous place to look for Catholic teaching because of all the misrepresentation. It would help if every opinion would be backed up by Church teaching.

You appear to be excusing a failure to view the subordinate place of politics vis a vis morality as a reason for thinking the moral questions are insoluble.

Excuse it? I do not even see it. It looks more like most of the people here subordinate their morality to their politics. There is no excuse for that.

 

[HarryStotle]

Excuse it? I do not even see it. It looks more like most of the people here subordinate their morality to their politics. There is no excuse for that.

Who are included in that “most” category? I would assume most people on these forums keep their deeply held moral beliefs to themselves because they do not want to be exposed to ridicule, humiliation or intimidation for expressing their most cherished beliefs inadequately.

The one crystal clear characteristic about the current state of this culture is the ferocious abuse and intimidation that awaits anyone expressing thoughts or beliefs which do not fit the progressive and everchanging social justice values being enforced by the mob.

Moral discussions are difficult to be had precisely because people do not want to expose themselves to scrutiny. Politics is a somewhat safe proxy because it is possible to find a modicum of support and security in expressing a political viewpoint.

In case you’ve missed it, the intimidation is almost always originated by the left. The mobs and violence are funded by the left.

This is why it appears that people are subordinating their morality to politics.

On the left politics is their morality and on the right moral discussion has been cloaked and hidden from the town square by the neverending accusations and taunts of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, intolerance, etc., etc.; i.e., for anything resembling traditional morality and the values of western civilization/Christianity

Politics provides some safe cover. Although HRC attempted to drive morality completely out of the townsquare by exposing those attempting to find some shelter by calling them Bible clutchers and deplorables. You can hide but you can’t run.

I think this is why Trump has the following he has - because those with decent hearts and profound hearts do not find a home in the utopian land of progressive social justice. They intuitively get it, that the utopia the mob is demanding is CHAZ writ large, and nothing more.

 

[pnewton]

You think people speak of politics as a proxy for morality? That is a new thought, for me anyway. I will have to think about it. It’s possible, I might have seen this wrong.

 

[HarryStotle]

You think people speak of politics as a proxy for morality? That is a new thought, for me anyway. I will have to think about it. It’s possible, I might have seen this wrong.

That is all that can be asked.

 

[HarryStotle]

Yeah that’s because for the Democrats, politics is their religion. They don’t believe in God and if they do, their religion has to conform to their politics. There are many Catholics (some even on this forum) where their political beliefs the leftist mobs dictate are ABOVE what the church teaches. This is why they hate religion and want it abolished. For them, the State is their religion.

The human spirit is a very tenuous thing, especially when fear and doubt take hold. Conformity seems to be a priority these days despite the mantra that “diversity is our strength.” Diversity in the superficials apparently, but on important things everyone must conform. Conformity is the new diversity.

 

[christofirst]

I appreciate this priest’s advice, which is in accord with the guidance from the USCCB.

At election time, clergy need to stay pastoral rather than political | Crux

 

[HarryStotle]

You think people speak of politics as a proxy for morality? That is a new thought, for me anyway. I will have to think about it. It’s possible, I might have seen this wrong.

You may be interested in this video by Bishop Barron which thoughtfully lays out the distinction between human acts (actus hominus) and human moral acts (actus humanus) [~6:20 timestamp]. The former are human in the sense of acts done by humans as beings who happen to be human by nature. The latter are distinctive acts done by individual human moral agents that distinctively demonstrate the moral quality of the individual as a moral being or individual.

The point I was making by depicting politics as a proxy for morality in the current political and moral climate is that, morally speaking, individuals as human moral agents are in jeopardy of subordinating qualitative moral decisions, that are the domain of the individual, to the determinations of the masses. Going along to get along. Which is why many who are intimidated by the mob aren’t speaking their real and deeply held moral position, but are using political language and perspective as a proxy.

The references Bishop Barron makes to the attempts to sway Thomas Moore to capitulate to those around him are germane today.

Each individual will be judged as an individual by God. There is a false sense that going with the crowd, the opinion of the masses will shield individuals from judgement for their own failure to stand for what they know in their hearts is right. The “I am personally opposed but…” trope will not stand up to moral scrutiny nor God’s judgement.

Every individual who participates in or procures an abortion will not be given a pass because the masses support abortion. That is a false security because morality isn’t grounded in the opinion of the masses but in moral personhood and the nature of what it means to be an individual moral agent.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

What the liberal mob did to another Catholic church is very sad.

 

[1cthlctrth]

Truth be told, Trump is for abortion

VonDerTann:

Trump is pro-life. You can keep saying he’s not. You can keep saying day is night and 2+2=3. I’ll keep correcting you.

Comparing math to opinion is not logical.

President Trump is possibly the most actively pro-life President in American history:

• Executive Order to protect a baby who survives an abortion
• almost 300 federal Judges appointed, most who support life and freedom, and who oppose abortion
• established “Right to Try”, where those with terminal illness have right to attempt experimental drugs in hope of cure
• gave veterans right to avoid long wait times in VA by granting right to choose another health care provider
• Trump Administration strengthens enforcement of federal laws protecting conscience rights of health care workers who do not want to participate in abortion.
• stopped President Obama’s fornication-promoting $100 million per year sex-education program
• PRO-LIFE women’s health centers now receive funds previously earmarked for Planned Parenthood ($60 million) in Title X.
• urged Congress to pass Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (to stop abortions after 20 weeks, when babies feel pain) but Democrat Senators voted 42-2 against it (Republican Senators voted 51 to 2 in favor of voting to prevent abortions after 20 weeks)
• eliminated tax dollars given to abortion providers throughout world by reinstating & expanding Mexico City Policy
• stopped Obamacare’s abortifacient coverage forced upon churches & other Christian businesses
• withdrew U.S. funding from abortion-promoting UN Population Fund
• defunded Pro-Abortion UNFPA which has been complicit in China’s forced birth control and abortion

 

[Sarcelle]

Each person bears responsibility for their own well-being and the well-being of those around them.

Ideally yes.

However we are living in an increasingly transient society where people move around all the time.

We barely know our neighbors.

How then can there be strong community support if we are isolated from each other?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Each person bears responsibility for their own well-being and the well-being of those around them.

Ideally yes.

However we are living in an increasingly transient society where people move around all the time.

We barely know our neighbors.

How then can there be strong community support if we are isolated from each other?

Right. So the solution to that vexing problem is throw the borders wide open so we can “barely know” an increasingly endless parade of strangers from a wider assortment of nations and cultures from around the world to make everyone feel more isolated as a result of having zero familiarity or connection to their “increasingly transient” social reality?

Perhaps we need to rethink the fundamentals of our “progressive” society.

 

[Sarcelle]

Right. So the solution to that vexing problem is throw the borders wide open so we can “barely know” an increasingly endless parade of strangers from a wider assortment of nations and cultures from around the world to make everyone feel more isolated as a result of having zero familiarity or connection to their “increasingly transient” social reality?

Perhaps we need to rethink the fundamentals of our “progressive” society.

I never proposed that as a solution. Where in my post did I propose this?

I get that you are against immigration even the legal kind.

Well, you must hate me. I’m a legal immigrant.

You must be descended from immigrants yourself.Why didn’t your ancestors stay put? They too were ruining society by moving.

Truth is, people have been moving around for centuries. Do you think people stayed put and quietly minded their own business? Tell that to the European explorers who went around the world claiming other lands as their own.

Now, all of a sudden, it’s my sort that’s the down fall of society.

The increasingly transient society is brought about by employment insecurity, where people have to move around for jobs.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Right. So the solution to that vexing problem is throw the borders wide open so we can “barely know” an increasingly endless parade of strangers from a wider assortment of nations and cultures from around the world to make everyone feel more isolated as a result of having zero familiarity or connection to their “increasingly transient” social reality?

Perhaps we need to rethink the fundamentals of our “progressive” society.

I never proposed that as a solution. Where in my post did I propose this?

I never claimed that you “proposed” this. I claimed that supporting open borders is antithetical to having the kind of stable community that supports familiarity and a spirit of trust. Things you apparently value.

A person cannot lament an “increasingly transient society” as the cause of the loss of community (as you did) then go on to defend the kind of wide open transiency that open borders causes. Apparently you feel you are able to sit on both sides of that fence.

I get that you are against immigration even the legal kind.

It becomes more clear why you feel compelled to sit on both sides of the fence. You think (quite irrationally) that anyone who.opposes illegal immigration must, ipso facto, be opposed to legal immigration.

Unfortunately, that is YOUR illogic that leads you to conclude on my behalf what DOES NOT follow.

You don’t “get” that I am against legal immigration because I am not against it. In fact, controlling the numbers of people moving in and out of any country is precisely the way that stability in the community is promoted and achieved.

Well, you must hate me. I’m a legal immigrant.

You must be descended from immigrants yourself.Why didn’t your ancestors stay put? They too were ruining society by moving.

Truth is, people have been moving around for centuries.

…

The truth is that successful integration into communities is the product of control over “people moving around.” When too many move in a short period of time communities are destabilized.

Go on, though, and keep denying the truth for the sake of being politically correct.

As to my own immigration status: my parents were immigrants, but they came legally after abiding by all the rules of the receiving country. They did not assume that they just had some natural right to move wherever just because they had a mind to, in spite of laws. They followed the laws of the land.

I assume you did, as well.

Do you really believe you have a right to move to any country on earth just because you want to, irrespective of the rules on immigration the people of that nation have put into place?

Do you really believe unrestricted immigration will result in stable communities where neighbors will come to know and trust each other?

 

[Sarcelle]

Right. So the solution to that vexing problem is throw the borders wide open so we can “barely know” an increasingly endless parade of strangers from a wider assortment of nations and cultures from around the world to make everyone feel more isolated as a result of having zero familiarity or connection to their “increasingly transient” social reality?

Perhaps we need to rethink the fundamentals of our “progressive” society.

The scenario you described above could also be realized with legal immigrants. The endless parade of strangers is the same be they legal or illegal. I had no way of knowing that you were for legal immigrants because the scenario you described would be the same, legal or illegal.

If you have seen my posting history, you will know for sure that I am against illegal immigrants. I am under no illusion that I have a right to immigrate anywhere I like without following the law. If you think that I do, I wouldn’t have followed the law, but I did.

 

[HarryStotle]

The increasingly transient society is brought about by employment insecurity, where people have to move around for jobs.

And the increase in employment insecurity is being caused by the economic scale and financial power of multinational corporations and global oligarchs who have no commitment to their home countries or communuties but will uproot infrastructure and facilities at the drop of a dime to move where labour is cheapest.

Supporting further globalization and open borders will not help the cause of community stability but will continue to erode it. The global oligarchs do not want to have strong communities, local governments or nations standing in their way of open and unfettered access to the labour pools and markets of the world. They just want the cheapest labour whereever to improve profits.

Open borders will simply flood any stable labour pools with cheap (and increasingly transient) labour to satisfy the corporate elites.

Do keep promoting the very thing that is against the interests of human beings as individuals for the sake of ‘progressive’ thinking.

 

[Sarcelle]

I agree with you here.

Again, I am not promoting this progressive agenda. Why do you think I do?

Where did I say I was for illegal immigration? I have never said anything that I was for this agenda.

Can you point out to me a post where I said it?

 

[HarryStotle]

I agree with you here.

Again, I am not promoting this progressive agenda. Why do you think I do?

Because you jumped from my point criticizing illegal immigration to assuming I am against legal immigration.

I get that you are against immigration even the legal kind.

That is a progressive talking point.