Why is voting for Biden a mortal sin?

[Sarcelle]

Okay, I was mistaken about your stance on legal immigrants. I apologize for that, but I am no progressive. We actually agree on illegal immigrants.

I think of myself as Catholic first.

 

[BornInMarch]

It’s not a sin, and certainly not a mortal one. The priests who say it is are just stating their own theological opinions - they don’t speak for the church. There’s no Papal Bull against voting democrat, nor has Pope Francis advised against doing so.

Practically if voting for someone makes one an accomplice to all the evil they do then voting at all would be a sin, because by it’s nature political offices force leaders to work within a fallen world. You think some of Biden’s policies are evil? I can say that Trump has evil policies too, as do all the third party candidates (not that they have any chance of winning). If abortion is the chief issue for you, I’ll point out that Trump seems to have no real interest in protecting the unborn.

 

[Shakuhachi]

But getting to your question, yes , yes it is still a mortal sin to vote for Biden even if he fails to be elected

Well, I am glad you are not the authority on this issue. Because you answer totally disregards intention. Do you know the requirements of mortal?

Anyway, Donald Trump and our current nation situations take us into a different ball game. Everything is turned on its head. If we try to put things in perspective we can see that there is a great deal more imminent damage Mr Trump does on a daily basis than there is in the in the many “ifs” of a Biden presidency. Not that I am voting for him. I will write in a candidate before I vote for either of these two.

 

[1cthlctrth]

Pope John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae 73 states that it is “never licit to obey, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it.” This is because abortion is homicide: the intentional and direct killing of a human being.

Joe Biden on abortion and religious liberty:

• from 2001 to 2008, Biden’s voting record on pro-life issues was close to zero, according to the National Right to Life Committee.
• Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
• Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
• Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
• Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
• Voted NO on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
• supports The current Policy of abortion On demand
• voted for The Harkin Amendment to endorse Roe v. Wade, permits abortion for any reason.
• supports using tax dollars to pay for abortion and says he will overturn The Hyde Amendment
• voted for Taxpayer funding of overseas pro-abortion organizations, and will repel the Mexico City Policy
• insisted that abortion was “essential” during the pandemic at the same time that churches were closed
• supported China’s one-child per family policy
• said “Transgender issues are the most important civil rights issue of our time”, and wants to pass the “Equality Act” in his first 100 days
• officiated a gay wedding in 2016 inside the vice president’s residence, located at the U.S. Naval Observatory.
• selected pro-abortion extremist Kamala Harris, the most liberal Senator, as his Vice President candidate
• Joe Biden says he would rescind exemption for little sisters-of-poor and other Catholic organizations

What a contrast pro-choice extremist Joe Biden is compared to perhaps the most actively pro-life (and pro-religious liberty) President in American history, Donald Trump.

 

[Shakuhachi]

At this point we are way beyond any single issue. Threatening with “mortal sin” is an abuse of religion.

 

[1cthlctrth]

Joe Biden is worse than President Trump on most of the other issues, too. The following will occur if Joe Biden/Kamala Harris become President:

• the elimination of pro-life doctors and other pro-life businesses, as doctors and their assistants will be forced to participate in abortion, and Christian bakers will be forced to participate in un-Christian-like activity
• Federal Judges who suppress the right for Christians to live our faith and who invent their own laws from the bench
• forcing Catholic organizations to hire those who publicly live lives in contradiction of the faith
• reduction in charter school, and eventually homeschooling
• eliminate your Blue Cross, Independent Health, and other private health insurance
• making Middle America irrelevant in Presidential Elections, as the Electoral College is eliminated. Campaigning and policy-setting would then mostly occur for NY, LA, Chicago, and other big cities.
• an increase in poverty with unnecessary business regulations
• crushing regulations forcing rationing of heat/air conditioning and water, reduction in airplanes and farm animals.
• increased taxes, as the Biden/AOC/Harris “Green New Deal” has been estimated to cost $94 trillion over the next 10 years, which would be $60,000 per year per household, including adjustments you’d have to make to your house, office buildings, etc.

 

[Shakuhachi]

Those are exaggerated talking points.

Btw judges “who invent their own laws from the bench” Isn’t that exactly what we are expecting our SCOTUS nominee to do?

 

[1cthlctrth]

judges “who invent their own laws from the bench” Isn’t that exactly what we are expecting our SCOTUS nominee to do?

No.

The reason conservatives love Amy Coney Barrett is because we see her in the mold of the great Antonin Scalia: an originalist who INTERPRETS the law. A Constitutionalist.

Barrett believes that it’s the Legislature’s job to make the laws. It’s not the Judges role to make Law.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Btw judges “who invent their own laws from the bench” Isn’t that exactly what we are expecting our SCOTUS nominee to do?

She’s a devoted follower of Scalia, and that is the LAST thing he would have done. He and the other textualists currently on the Supreme Court bench (Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Thomas) favor a narrow reading of the Constitution precisely to PREVENT such “judicial activism”. Many of the Supreme Court decisions in the 1960s and 1970s, including but hardly limited to Roe, were based on expansive readings of the Constitution, which often resulted in opinions upholding so-called rights that were arguably not present in the Constitution and not anticipated by its authors. Textualism is in large part a reaction against the Court perceivedly overstepping its bounds.

Judge Barrett is highly unlikely to be “inventing her own law from the bench”. Justice Ginsburg was in fact the one who did that, frequently, as she was strongly opposed to textualism and originalism (which must have made for some interesting discussions between her and her pal Scalia).

I appreciate that many non-lawyers are not all that familiar with the S Ct other than the (often poorly written or just plain wrong) stuff printed in the MSM, but for you to suggest Judge Barrett would invent law from the bench is a howler on the level of calling President Reagan a liberal.

 

[JSRG]

Joe Biden is worse than President Trump on most of the other issues, too. The following will occur if Joe Biden/Kamala Harris become President:

Most of the thins you list there are just vague talking points that don’t mean much. But this one in particular is absolutely absurd:

• making Middle America irrelevant in Presidential Elections, as the Electoral College is eliminated. Campaigning and policy-setting would then mostly occur for NY, LA, Chicago, and other big cities.

There are two possible ways to eliminate the electoral college.

The first is to formally eliminate it via Constitutional amendment. The president plays no actual role in this process.

The second is to effectively eliminate it by having enough states give their electors to the nationwide winner rather than the state winner–if a majority of electors are picked this way, then the vote effectively becomes a popular one. But this is accomplished via the legislatures/governors of those states; the president has no actual role in this process.

So how exactly would the election of Biden/Harris result in the elimination of the electoral college when the the president has no actual role in the process?

Also, the argument that under a popular vote, presidential candidates would only campaign in big cities seems to be a weak argument when one considers that under the electoral college, presidential candidates only campaign in swing states. It’s just swapping out one narrow focus for campaigning for another.

I’m not a Biden supporter here (I voted for Brian Carroll), but the claim that Biden/Harris being elected would lead to the abolishing of the electoral college is blatantly silly. If the electoral college stays or goes, it won’t be the result of whether Biden wins or not.

 

[AlNg]

Also see https://www.ewtn.com/vote/moral-cooperation-in-evil.asp

It says that mediate material cooperation in sin is generally a sin. I get an alumni magazine from a Roman Catholic college. It has a page where it congratulates couples who just got married. It has pictures of SS couples - MM and FF. Is it a sin to contribute to this Roman Catholic college?

 

[AlNg]

There are two possible ways to eliminate the electoral college.

There is another possibility and that is - instead of all or nothing - to divide the electors of a state in proportion to the popular vote.

 

[JSRG]

Not true, Trump came to my state and it isn’t a swing state.
[/quote]
And which state would that be?

 

[JSRG]

JSRG:

There are two possible ways to eliminate the electoral college.

There is another possibility and that is - instead of all or nothing - to divide the electors of a state in proportion to the popular vote.

That would still be the electoral college, the votes would just be chosen differently. It’d be a different electoral college than we have now, but still the electoral college.

 

[Shakuhachi]

hardly limited to Roe, were based on expansive readings of the Constitution, which often resulted in opinions upholding so-called rights that were arguably not present in the Constitution and not anticipated by its authors

But now such rulings are settled law and have been for decades.

 

[Shakuhachi]

By revisited you mean overturned.

 

[Shakuhachi]

Would you agree that these other examples of Judi iCal activism are in fact that?

The following rulings have been characterized as judicial activism.

Brown v. Board of Education – 1954 Supreme Court ruling ordering the desegregation of public schools.[16]
Roe v. Wade – 1973 Supreme Court ruling creating the constitutional right to an abortion.[17]
Bush v. Gore – The United States Supreme Court case between the major-party candidates in the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush and Al Gore. The justices voted 5–4 to halt the recount of ballots in Florida and, as a result, George Bush was chosen as president.[18]
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – 2010 Supreme Court decision declaring Congressionally enacted limitations on corporate political spending and transparency as unconstitutional restrictions on free speech.[19][20]

Judicial activism - Wikipedia

 

[ThomasMT]

Voting for Biden is NOT a mortal sin unless a voter were to choose Biden, with full knowledge and full consent of the will, for the main purpose of opposing the Church teaching on abortion or otherwise undermining the Church.

There is also the issue of same sex marriage.

 

[ThomasMT]

Any priest endorsing or opposing a particular political candidate or party is violating the explicit mandates of the USCCB.

From their website :

Do not endorse or oppose candidates, political parties, or groups of candidates , or take any action that reasonably could be construed as endorsement or opposition.

Apparently unless it’s a liberal candidate, especially if done in a tactful between-the-lines manner, such as with the interestingly timed encyclical.

It is my understanding that if a mandate defies reason, faith, and morals, it is not necessarily binding… correct me if I’m wrong. Nothing defies morality more than open support for mass murder of innocent babies, or the full support of an unrestrained Sodom and Gemorrah society.

Also interestingly enough, among the range of present day atrocities listed in the encyclical, abortion was not one of them. It is interesting because it seems to be an otherwise definitive list.

 

[BarbTh]

Thank you yet again for a post supporting sound Catholic Teaching.

As an aside but still on topic of this thread: What I have found among Catholics is a confusion between grave matter and mortal sin. Grave Matter is not always mortal sin. Serious moral wrongs are grave matter, but not necessarily mortal sin; it must be said however that serious moral wrongs are very much in danger of mortal sin as all grave matter can be.

There are three conditions necessary for mortal sin

1. Grave Matter
2. Full Knowledge
3. Full Consent
   As T_B posted: "we do not have full insight into the knowledge and consent of others, so we’re not in a position to tell someone else they committed a “mortal sin”.