Why Would A Catholic Vote For A ProChoice Canidate?

[SoCalRC]

And do not kid yourself. If the Dem presidential candidate wins, your tax dollars WILL be funding abortion. And it will be done in a way that will make it almost impossible to reverse. Remember you heard it here first.

Your tax dollars fund abortions now. And stem cell research. And the government has made it easier for health care providers to remove nutrition and hydration (direct euthanasia) in response to an inability to pay.

Medicare and Medicaid spending is greater than defense spending. Do you then believe the medical industry has more control over the country than do all those defense contractors you love to hate? Social Security trumps all. Does the AARP, then, have more control than anyone else? The federal budget, taken by itself, does not tell you anything.

Well, Medicare spending exploded when the GOP and Bush added Plan D. What a nice twist, making it illegal to use buying power as part of the legislation. Hugely expensive, of virtually no measurable benefit to seniors as a group, and massively profitable to drug companies, who happen to be huge GOP donors…

Social security is hugely successful and solvent - it was necessary to make projections to INFINITY using dismal growth numbers to even create a shortfall. God forbid that we maintain a system that keeps age from equating to poverty and help a middle class exist by not having the crushing debt of senior care…

 

[BamaRider]

The RidgeRunner bus will be available for all those who need a ride for schooling beginning next hour.

 

[BamaRider]

Social security is hugely successful and solvent - it was necessary to make projections to INFINITY using dismal growth numbers to even create a shortfall. God forbid that we maintain a system that keeps age from equating to poverty and help a middle class exist by not having the crushing debt of senior care…

You want the govt to supplement middle class folks with nursing home care for aged parents?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m sorry, that is kind of misleading and kind of false. Direct abortion is, infallibly, always held to be a grave moral disorder. However, secular voting on legality is several steps removed. It is currently held to be a sin, at least for Catholic politicians, by Pope Benedict, but the bishops are quite divided.** Please name the bishops who say that directly supporting abortion is NOT sinful. **

It is incorrect to assert that voting for a pro-choice politician incurs an automatic sentence of ex-communication. I didn’t say that. I said that directly promoting it, even politically, does. Read up on it and you’ll find that I’m right. Did you not wonder why Apb. Burke refused communion to John Kerry? Because John Kerry is self-excommunicated, that’s why. The bishops all know it, but only some are courageous enough to act on it. What I really said was that I consider it sinful to vote for an abortion politician. I-me. I frankly fail to see the difference between a John Kerry who uses his considerable political power to promote abortion and my doing so with the only political power I have…my own vote. Which is a good thing for GOP voters as well. The GOP caucus generally supports exceptions for abortion, like rape and incest. ** Where is that in the platform? Show it to me. I’ll save you the trouble. It isn’t there.** So voting for them would also be ‘illicit’ if we equate voting with the allowed acts of others.**You’re wrong in your premise, so no answer is required. **

Further, the Vatcan provides a list of NINE moral principles on which we are not supposed to compromise. The Church contends that what is at stake is the “essense of moral law”. As far as I can tell, both major political parties in the have some serious problems in representing the list in its entirety.** I agree. But can you seriously maintain that the others are as seriously evil as killing unborn children? Would it be more clear to you if the Supreme Court legalized killing children up to two years of age? Would you get it then?**

No one said inherently racist - just that the party relies heavily on white male anger for part of its ‘base’. ** White male anger? Anger at what? This is just left wing cant, one of the two remaining permissible prejudices.**

Similiarly, my disdain for Rice and Sowell have nothing to do with their melatonin levels, and everything to do with seeming incompetence in their chosen fields.Oh? I suspect their accomplishments might compare favorably with yours. But that was not the issue. The issue was that they evidently have no problem being Republicans. Are you actually saying they’re so stupid they somehow got gulled into supporting a party that hates them? Do you not see just the slightest bit of racism in that suggestion?

No disagreement there. Tragicly few Catholics seem willing to actually study and follow their faith, even in something as fundemental as voting:

vatican.va/roman_curia//congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

 

[SoCalRC]

You want the govt to supplement middle class folks with nursing home care for aged parents?

The middle class does not exist accept when it is directly fostered. This was true with land grants during westward expansion, this was true with the massive GI bill after WW-II, and it remains true with Social Security and things like pell grants today.

The natural outcome of pure capitalism is what we are seeing now, a vanishing middle class, more pvoerty, and a concentration of weath.

As a Catholic, I am compelled to support socially just economic development (in fact, it is identified as a non-negotiable by Rome). However, I would support it anyway, simply by virtue of being a citizen and a ‘have’ in society. In the long term, I’d rather have economic mobility in society than, say, a tad more wealth for me and mine. Perhaps that is because I grew up in a house with no indoor plumbing, and have served my country in war, so I don’t feel disconnected from my fellow citizens, or a false sense of entitlement about my current standard of living.

 

[SoCalRC]

‘blah blah’

If you’d like answers, don’t be lazy and embed your notes directly in quotes.

In any event, you’ve wholly missed the point. No Bishops support compromising on abortion. The Church does not support compromising on abortion. I don’t support compromising on abortion.

However, when you vote GOP, you are still compromising on abortion, euthanasia, and other “non-negotiable” Church teachings. Since you are making moral compromises on fundemental principles yourself, perhaps you should be a little slower to play Pharisee to the perceived Publicans around you.

Note that simply in making that observation, I too, am playing Pharisee. But we are all sinners and we all make moral compromises. And, in this instance, from the perspective of a person who wholly supports voting Catholic and who embraces a more rigorous adherence to the CHURCH’S definition of “right to life”, all this banter about ‘my sleezy corrupt political party is more Godly than your sleezy corrupt politcal party…’ is just tiring.

If you want to be a devoted Republican, fine. Just drop the pretense that it is a synomym for Catholicism. The Church has already told us that dedication to a single teaching is an “incoherent” way to vote the Catholic faith (read the link I already gave you).

 

[IvanKaramozov]

First of all, do vote - even if it is for an aging martial artist turned actor.

Second, I personally, do not agree that wholly voting one’s faith is a ‘waste’. Compromising on non-neogtiable princples just means that there is no incentive for either major party to change.

However, I still understand that people have a hard time trusting in God against seemingly insurmountable odds. Also, I understand a desire to ‘do’ something against perceived grave evil.

The best you can do is follow your Christian conceince. If that leads you to vote a straight party ticket - either way, fine. What I keep stressing in these sorts of threads is that virtually everyone is compromising on the Church’s stated position:

vatican.va/roman_curia//congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

So it seems a tad counter productive and hypocritical to loudly profess that one’s own compromises are more inhernently Catholic or Christian than another.

yes, no worries, I doubt I will vote in the primaries(I beleive my state has closed primaries, and I am registered as unaffiliated), however I will vote in the General Election.

I am a bit swamped with school work, however I will certainly look through the link you provided and other Vatican documents before voteing.

 

[Aramis]

I am curious, why would a Catholic vote for a prochoice canidate? Do they not see abortion as evil?

The problem is that, at times, all the candidates in a given race are pro-choice (happens often enough in Alaskan races).

Further, there are some people who are evil enough that voting for a pro-abortion candidate is still the lesser evil.

 

[Ridgerunner]

If you’d like answers, don’t be lazy and embed your notes directly in quotes.**It is not your function to tell me how to post. And while you’re thinking about that, NEVER invent a post using my name again. I did not say “blah blah” and it’s wrong of you to suggest that I did. **

In any event, you’ve wholly missed the point. No Bishops support compromising on abortion. The Church does not support compromising on abortion. I don’t support compromising on abortion.Good to hear you say it. It was not clear before…

However, when you vote GOP, you are still compromising on abortion, euthanasia, and other “non-negotiable” Church teachings. Since you are making moral compromises on fundemental principles yourself, perhaps you should be a little slower to play Pharisee to the perceived Publicans around you.** Well, then, go ahead and point out to me where the Repub party has endorsed abortion or euthanasia. And when you’re unable to do it, perhaps you would be so kind as to take back “Pharisee”. I don’t call you names, and would appreciate your not doing it to me.**

Note that simply in making that observation, I too, am playing Pharisee. But we are all sinners and we all make moral compromises. And, in this instance, from the perspective of a person who wholly supports voting Catholic and who embraces a more rigorous adherence to the CHURCH’S definition of “right to life”, all this banter about ‘my sleezy corrupt political party is more Godly than your sleezy corrupt politcal party…’ is just tiring. ** Perhaps it would be if I had actually said it. Both are secular human institutions. **

If you want to be a devoted Republican, fine. ** I’m not a Republican at all, as I made clear many times. ** Just drop the pretense that it is a synomym for Catholicism. ** Never did I say that. Nor do I think it. ** The Church has already told us that dedication to a single teaching is an “incoherent” way to vote the Catholic faith (read the link I already gave you). ** Well, of course. But that does not mean voting based on the single important issue upon which the leading candidates do not agree, is “incoherent”. Further, do you really think a person or party that endorses the right to kill unborn children is going to truly respect life in any other way? At present only one party fully endorses abortion on demand. **

 

[SoCalRC]

‘blah blah’

First, I’m only pointing out good manners. Rather you feel they apply to you is not my calls.

Second, the majority of the Republican caucus in Congress state that they believe in exceptions for abortion, including rape, incest, and protection of a mother’s life. Our ban is absolute, so exceptions are, well, “compromises” rather you want to accept that or not.

Along the same lines, although the GOP made a circus out of poor Terri S., the legislation was crafted to apply to solely her. But in three different bills, bankruptcy reform, medicare plan D, and health reauthorization, the GOP made it easier to deny life sustaining care - including hydration and nutrition, from patients who are unable to pay. This would appear to most assuredly be compromise on euthanasia.

And, a majority of the GOP caucus support the President’s ‘compromise’ on stem cell research - that is, it can occur, and it can even receive Federal Funds. So, again, a core principle is clearly being compromised.

Last, but not least, the Abromof convictions (plural) gave us some insight into some very nasty connections between the GOP leadership (including the White House) and a situation of human trafficing, modern forms of slavery, and widespread forced abortions that was specifically identified by the USCCB committee on human rights.

Listening to hour after hour of Fox News or Rush L. may give one the sense that they are morally superior and that anyone who is not in lock step agreement hates God and America, but that is not particularly Christian or Catholic thinking.

Millions of devout Catholics around the world view the current US government as an agent of evil, are you so certain that you are a better Christian than them? Two Popes have had serious problems with the actions of our current GOP led nation, are you that certain that you are more Catholic than them?

We ask for unity and peace at every Mass. I simply don’t see how labelling other Catholics, who are following the same basic ‘I compromise to minimize what I see as the greatest harm’ philosophy, as ‘evil’ or ‘bad’ accomplishes anything other than clouding or own objectivity with regards to our own inadaquacies when it comes to properly answering Christ’s call.

 

[vinessa]

Vinessa:This is all very interesting, but I’ll see what the people who are really in politics say about it.

Well, the people who are actually in politics will say anything, isn’t that so? You say the McGovernites re-ordered the delegate system to advance a leftist agenda. As if the Reaganites and Bushites a la Rove did not? I will listen to politicians, but I prefer to also corroborate what they are saying, and especially to “follow the money.”

The McGovernites did not suddenly re-staff the Supreme Court either. The justices who heard and ruled on Roe v Wade were selected by *previous presidents *(good “Old Party Democrats” and a reasonably progressive Republican), and confirmed by a Congress we elected.

But please don’t try to say the abortionists care for the poor, because they don’t.

I don’t see anywhere in my postings where I say that. It would be interesting to hear a response to what I actually am saying.

…as does the appointment by the former president of Ruth Bader Ginzburg, who would lower the legal age of consent to hetero or homosexual sex to age 12.

I would appreciate seeing your source on this.

And why do you think the military budget will be less if the abortion party wins the white house? You surely don’t think your leading candidate is going to cut and run from Iraq, do you? If you do, you should listen more closely to what she says; perhaps more to what she doesn’t say.

You are drawing conclusions from thin air. I haven’t said who I am going to vote for. The question on the table is “Why Would A Catholic Vote For A ProChoice Candidate?” I think you will find, if you read my postings, that I have tried to answer that. There are reasons, and they have to do with a larger picture that involves the question of trying to legislate morality, the truth that just because something is legal and available does not require anybody to participate in it, the fact that in isolation criminalizing sterile abortion does nothing to address the underlying problem of why women seek abortion, and the fact that we are stuck with all bad choices.

Do you (or I) stay in the Democratic Party, or do we jump ship and go to the other side, fantasizing that “pro-life” somehow mixes just fine with the National Rifle Association, the oil company lobbies, and the GIANT weapons manufacturing lobbies? If anti-abortionists can no longer influence the Democratic Party, what makes you think they will be able to influence the war-minded, corporation-protecting, environmentally degrading policies of the Republican Party?

Both parties have a forked tongue.

And yet, as I was reading on UCCB last night, Catholics are called to vote – not just sit out elections and leave the choices to others.

So here we are, with our unfortunate two party system (as opposed to parliamentary), and the modern reality that money talks, people lie, and power sees huge numbers of people as disposable – whether unborn infants, or “darkies” of a different religion halfway around the world. Because the main goal, as always, is to NOT have to live a different way. We like our comfortable houses, our strawberries in January, our over-abundance of cheap Chinese goods, our techno toys, and our comfy, expensive cars running on relatively inexpensive gas (compared to the rest of the world). What me, live different? You mean actually open my personal life and coffers up to a hurting, pregnant woman who would rather keep her child, but who needs many years of involvement and support to do so?

Your pie in the sky guess is wrong on its face. Emily’s List alone contributed a million in 2008.

I would appreciate it if you would show your source. As I said, I went through the reports last night and I tallied up Emily’s List contributions at roughly $158,000 total.

For abortion on demand to be forced into the Constitution of the United States by one man, which it was

Which one man is that? Amending the Constitution requires a 2/3 majority vote. The Supreme Court also consists of nine judges, meaning at least five together create a ruling. What “one man” forced something into the Constitution?

And do not kid yourself. If the Dem presidential candidate wins, your tax dollars WILL be funding abortion. And it will be done in a way that will make it almost impossible to reverse.

Nothing is impossible to reverse. This is fear-mongering and grandstanding, for what purpose?

 

[SoCalRC]

And yet, as I was reading on UCCB last night, Catholics are called to vote – not just sit out elections and leave the choices to others.

So here we are, with our unfortunate two party system (as opposed to parliamentary), and the modern reality that money talks, people lie, and power sees huge numbers of people as disposable – whether unborn infants, or “darkies” of a different religion halfway around the world.

Just to be accurate. We are not, structurally, a two party system. There is nothing to stop most Catholics from voting for a small third party, or even write in votes.

This is what I do. I simply try to wholly vote my faith. ‘Winning’ is not up to me, but up to God.

That said, I understand the strong motivation people feel to act ‘pragmatically’. I certainly can understand those emotions and almost undoubtedly still fall prey to them to some degree. So I would not be comfortable saying that my choice is more morally correct.

In fact, my only comment is that Catholics voting GOP and Dem are largely using the same logic - compromise for the sake of constraining evil for the common good. If both sides are compromising on issues that the Church has specifically identified as non-negotiable, it seems illogical for either to profess that it is the true keeper of the Faith.

The Church seems to go farther in condemning such thinking:

“The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.”

vatican.va/roman_curia//congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

 

[Ridgerunner]

The McGovernites did not suddenly re-staff the Supreme Court either. ** Abortion on demand did not come as the result of a constitutional amendment, but a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court, which “found” the right in the Constitution. That 5-4 vote is what I meant by “one man”. But for one man, it would have been different. So, the law of the United States presently is that abortion on demand is a “right” guaranteed by the Constitution. **

I would appreciate seeing your source on this. ** Re Ruth Bader Ginzburg? I am astounded you don’t know this. Google it, and you’ll see.**

You are drawing conclusions from thin air. I haven’t said who I am going to vote for. ** By saying the parties stand for and support all sorts of things that they really don’t, and particularly when you describe the Repub party as the party of war and killing and that kind of thing, it certainly appears you are just putting out Dem propaganda in support of a decision to support the abortion candidate.

So, maybe you can clear it up. Do you intend to vote for the pro-abortion candidate, and if so, why? **

Do you (or I) stay in the Democratic Party, or do we jump ship and go to the other side, fantasizing that “pro-life” somehow mixes just fine with the National Rifle Association, the oil company lobbies, and the GIANT weapons manufacturing lobbies? This is a false choice. Removing oneself from one party does not necessarily mean joining another. In any event, gun control, economics and defense are matters upon which Catholics may exercise prudential judgment. Abortion isn’t.

And yet, as I was reading on UCCB last night, Catholics are called to vote – not just sit out elections and leave the choices to others. I agree with this statement.

So here we are, with our unfortunate two party system (as opposed to parliamentary), and the modern reality that money talks, people lie, and power sees huge numbers of people as disposable – whether unborn infants, or “darkies” of a different religion halfway around the world. Because the main goal, as always, is to NOT have to live a different way. We like our comfortable houses, our strawberries in January, our over-abundance of cheap Chinese goods, our techno toys, and our comfy, expensive cars running on relatively inexpensive gas (compared to the rest of the world). What me, live different? You mean actually open my personal life and coffers up to a hurting, pregnant woman who would rather keep her child, but who needs many years of involvement and support to do so? ** Yes, we have always been told that this is a “Vale of Tears”, and sometimes we tend to forget that, temporarily, anyway. But you know, it doesn’t really sound right to say, e.g., that a prototypical pregnant woman wants to keep her child but doesn’t have the societal support to do it and thus opts for abortion. I know lots of single women who brought their children to term and are raising them. They’ll all tell you it’s not easy. Few now offer a child for adoption. But to kill rather than risk poverty and hardship when it’s not an “either/or” anyway, just seems corrupt to me, particularly when the cause of the pregnancy is almost always a voluntary act. When a society offers profoundly immoral “easy ways out”, that society encourages moral corruption in its members.**

I would appreciate it if you would show your source. As I said, I went through the reports last night and I tallied up Emily’s List contributions at roughly $158,000 total. I googled it and it jumped up. I have no independent source of knowledge on this.

Which one man is that? Amending the Constitution requires a 2/3 majority vote. The Supreme Court also consists of nine judges, meaning at least five together create a ruling. What “one man” forced something into the Constitution? Answered previously above.

Nothing is impossible to reverse. This is fear-mongering and grandstanding, for what purpose? ** No, nothing is “impossible” to reverse. Pardon the hyperbole. But things can be made extremely difficult to reverse; so difficult that, as a practical matter, they are impossible. The SS system’s structure is a good example of that. No politician can touch it because it’s so entrenched and because such a vast number of people (some of whom need it and some of whom don’t) receive it. In all likelihood, the Dem party will control both Congress and the White House next year. As long as it controls either of them, anything they pass while controlling both, will be impossible to reverse. **

 

[Ridgerunner]

First, I’m only pointing out good manners. Rather you feel they apply to you is not my calls.

Second, the majority of the Republican caucus in Congress state that they believe in exceptions for abortion, including rape, incest, and protection of a mother’s life. Our ban is absolute, so exceptions are, well, “compromises” rather you want to accept that or not.

Along the same lines, although the GOP made a circus out of poor Terri S., the legislation was crafted to apply to solely her. But in three different bills, bankruptcy reform, medicare plan D, and health reauthorization, the GOP made it easier to deny life sustaining care - including hydration and nutrition, from patients who are unable to pay. This would appear to most assuredly be compromise on euthanasia.

And, a majority of the GOP caucus support the President’s ‘compromise’ on stem cell research - that is, it can occur, and it can even receive Federal Funds. So, again, a core principle is clearly being compromised.

Last, but not least, the Abromof convictions (plural) gave us some insight into some very nasty connections between the GOP leadership (including the White House) and a situation of human trafficing, modern forms of slavery, and widespread forced abortions that was specifically identified by the USCCB committee on human rights.

Listening to hour after hour of Fox News or Rush L. may give one the sense that they are morally superior and that anyone who is not in lock step agreement hates God and America, but that is not particularly Christian or Catholic thinking.

Millions of devout Catholics around the world view the current US government as an agent of evil, are you so certain that you are a better Christian than them? Two Popes have had serious problems with the actions of our current GOP led nation, are you that certain that you are more Catholic than them?

We ask for unity and peace at every Mass. I simply don’t see how labelling other Catholics, who are following the same basic ‘I compromise to minimize what I see as the greatest harm’ philosophy, as ‘evil’ or ‘bad’ accomplishes anything other than clouding or own objectivity with regards to our own inadaquacies when it comes to properly answering Christ’s call.

As you persist in attributing to me something I did not say, I will not respond to you. Rather, I will let the readers consider the likelihood of learning the truth from a source that does it. Do it again or call me a name again, and I will file a complaint. Perhaps your manners will improve then.

 

[vinessa]

If both sides are compromising on issues that the Church has specifically identified as non-negotiable, it seems illogical for either to profess that it is the true keeper of the Faith.

So true. And your point is taken about our being able to vote for a 3rd party candidate, or even to write someone in. Perhaps it’s even the best alternative. We can participate by voting for who we believe would support the ENTIRE Catholic agenda, without compromise.

By the way, if anyone is following the financials, I answered my own question above.

For the upcoming elections to date, pro-choice contributions (from PACs such as Emily’s List and NARAL, corporations such as Planned Parenthood, and individuals associated with the choice issue) for ALL races (not only presidential) total $259,255. $226,098 has been given to Democrats, and $33,157 has been given to Republicans. (note groups like “Republican Majority for Choice”)
opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=Q15

Compare this to $20,215 pro-life contributions, all of which have been given to Republicans. It’s interesting to note that pro-life contributions were also given to Democrats in previous years, just not so far in this cycle.
opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=Q14

In both cases, the rankings also show how the “abortion industry” or the “pro-life industry” compare to more than 80 other industries in terms of campaign giving.

Pro choice is 78th out of 80, and pro life is 79th out of 80. Both sides of the issue are at the bottom of the heap and clearly not major concerns to campaign financiers of EITHER party.

Compare this to the following industries – aggregated (as above) to include all PACs, all “soft money”, all corporate contributions, and all individual contributions tagged as relating to that sector.

Oil and gas (as an industry) ranks 16th out of 80 in the amount of campaign contributions. $9.3 million total contributed to date – $2.6 million to Democrats, and $6.7 million to Republicans.
opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=E01

(Evil) Hollywood is higher, ranking 9th out of 80, with total contributions to date of $15.4 million – $11.9 million to Democrats and $3.5 million to Republicans.
opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=B02

Lawyers and Law Firms are #1 out of 80, having contributed to date $82.1 million – $63.5 million to Democrats and $18.6 million to Republicans. I guess that means that whatever happens, lawyers will be controlling the show!
opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=K01

And by the way, the “retired people” sector ranks #2, with total contributions to date of $67.1 million, about evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.

See: opensecrets.org/industries/index.asp to research further!

Thanks!

 

[SoCalRC]

“Abortion on demand did not come as the result of a constitutional amendment, but a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court, which “found” the right in the Constitution. That 5-4 vote is what I meant by “one man”. But for one man, it would have been different. So, the law of the United States presently is that abortion on demand is a “right” guaranteed by the Constitution.”

Actually, that is not quite correct. 15 states had liberalized their abortion laws before Roe v. Wade. The CDC Abortion Survellience Project put legal abortions at 600,000+ the year prior to Roe.

Roe asserts a right to privacy, from which abortion rights are inferred. However, the ‘right’ is constrainable. This was laid out by Casey. 40 states prohibit 3rd trimester abortions and those laws have held up in court.

Collapsing pro-life not just down to the single issue of abortion (the Catholic Church sees it as an issue of conception to natural death), but to the single secular decision of Roe seems more like good politics than good theology or effective strategy.

Case in point, there was much rejoicing and self congradulation when a report was recently released showing that abortion rates have hit 30 year lows. But that would seem to be a superficial reading of the data at best. Rates fell faster during a supposedly ‘abortion friendly’ party national rule, and state by state the results are equally illuminating. For example, California outperformed the national average in reducing abortion rates, despite its reputation as ‘liberal’. Oregon’s reduction was second highest in the nation - despite just being labeled the most ‘pro abortion’ state in the union by Americans United for Life.

Further, much of the data used came from a WHO funded study which concluded that the impact of secular law on abortion rates is nominal at best.

So screaming about Roe as the ultimate litmus test may make sense in rationalizing a certain type of voting, there is little to suggest that it is a particularly effective strategy in actually reducing abortions.

 

[rpp]

This retired bishop makes some interesting comments about how Catholics should vote.

Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate A who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate B who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate C, a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.

The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate A because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.

The Catholic can vote for candidate C but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate A.

Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate B since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate A and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate B is elected and votes for legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils which is morally permissible under these circumstances.

Of course, the Catholic voter could choose not to vote. But that would be a serious abdication of the Catholic voter’s civic and moral obligation to participate in the election. By not voting the Catholic voter could well be assisting in the election of candidate A and while that would not carry the same guilt as formal participation in candidate A support of abortion-on-demand it would still be sinful, even if only a sin of omission.

(Please note that I editted this quote to remove the names of candidates.)

Full article here.

 

[SoCalRC]

As you persist in attributing to me something I did not say, I will not respond to you. Rather, I will let the readers consider the likelihood of learning the truth from a source that does it. Do it again or call me a name again, and I will file a complaint. Perhaps your manners will improve then.

I can only respond to what you say and profess. Since I consistantly steer forum readers to the Mother Church, I am quite comfortable with my sources.

So far, you have made a demonstrably false assertion about Catholic Doctrine - namely, professing that a particular vote incurs the automatic sentence of excommunication, seperation from the Body of the Faithful. If you do not like being pointed to actual Church doctrine, or forced to face the logical consequences of your own reasoning, I am sorry. But complaining will change nothing. Twisting Church teachings for political purposes would be a violation of the US laws regarding tax exempt non profits, so it seems doubtful to me that CAF would indirectly endorse your doing so.

 

[rpp]

As you persist in attributing to me something I did not say, I will not respond to you. Rather, I will let the readers consider the likelihood of learning the truth from a source that does it. Do it again or call me a name again, and I will file a complaint. Perhaps your manners will improve then.

RR, Don’t take it personally. SoCalRC, like his archbishop and cardinal like to that with everything, even Church documents. I think that is where he learned it from. He demonstrates that it is possible to lie by making truthful comments. It is an amazing thing to watch how an intellectually dishonest person operates. It is also very sad.

Personally, I would suggest doing what I do, never respond to his comments or engage in dialog with him/her/it.

 

[SoCalRC]

This retired bishop makes some interesting comments about how Catholics should vote.

(Please note that I editted this quote to remove the names of candidates.)

Full article here.

From the article:

It is never permissible for a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate because the candidate is pro-abortion. Such a vote would be formal cooperation in the serious sin of the candidate who, upon being elected, would vote for legislation making possible the taking of innocent human life through procured abortion.

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 strictly defined.

However, this is the opinion of a retired Bishop. The stance of the Church is slightly different:

"In this context “limiting the harm”], it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.

When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning…"

vatican.va/roman_curia//congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

So, in explaining the proper application of Church Doctrine in a Doctrinal Note, the Church holds compromise on a series of principles is, in of itself, a detriment (an attack on the essence of moral law). Further, it warns that focus on a single teaching is a potential detriment to the faith as a whole. So, should “proportional reasons” be applied, it should be applied to at least all nine examples given by the Mother Church regarding “moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation”.

To do otherwise would be double dissent. First on compromising on what the Church deems non-compromisable, then on the elevation of a single teaching to the potential detriment of others.