Dust's Sister Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 [color=#333333][font='lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif][size=3]I know we (as Catholics) are suppose to support the candidate who is Pro-life. But there are so many democrats on my facebook, that I am afraid to say anything about Obama killing millions of babies. What exactly does it mean to be republican, and what exactly does it mean to be democrat? - Help me out here. Some Catholic defense on Pro-Life would be good, but would that be enough to win a political debate? And what does it mean when they say that Romney is going to tax the middle class people MORE? and Richer people less? What does that mean? There is also a person on my facebook commenting on "The poorest people are supporting "This guy" meaning Romney... and they are basically saying I'm retarded for supporting him. I so want to[/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font='lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif][size=3] say.. Well I don't want to support a killer. - But in their defense they will come up with many many many other arguments to help support Obama. I also have a Catholic friend who says they will always vote Democrat because that is who they are. Are they sinning because they are voting against pro-life? - And what if they do not know/or feel like they are sinning? - And what about the argument of.. "Well how can you be pro-life, when you are against abortion, but you are FOR not helping the poor?" They are thinking that Romney will do nothing for the poor... but Obama will.... What does that mean ? - to me it means that he will just make it easier to getting foodstamps and health insurance...... But will it help the poor get off their feet and get a job????? - Just my two cents.[/size][/font][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle_eye222001 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 [quote name='Dust's Sister' timestamp='1349329414' post='2489845'] [color=#333333][font=lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif][size=3]I know we (as Catholics) are suppose to support the candidate who is Pro-life. But there are so many democrats on my facebook, that I am afraid to say anything about Obama killing millions of babies. What exactly does it mean to be republican, and what exactly does it mean to be democrat? - Help me out here. Some Catholic defense on Pro-Life would be good, but would that be enough to win a political debate? And what does it mean when they say that Romney is going to tax the middle class people MORE? and Richer people less? What does that mean? There is also a person on my facebook commenting on "The poorest people are supporting "This guy" meaning Romney... and they are basically saying I'm retarded for supporting him. I so want to[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif][size=3]say.. Well I don't want to support a killer. - But in their defense they will come up with many many many other arguments to help support Obama. I also have a Catholic friend who says they will always vote Democrat because that is who they are. Are they sinning because they are voting against pro-life? - And what if they do not know/or feel like they are sinning? - And what about the argument of.. "Well how can you be pro-life, when you are against abortion, but you are FOR not helping the poor?" They are thinking that Romney will do nothing for the poor... but Obama will.... What does that mean ? - to me it means that he will just make it easier to getting foodstamps and health insurance...... But will it help the poor get off their feet and get a job????? - Just my two cents.[/size][/font][/color] [/quote] I could write pages. But I will simply leave a few thoughts. Theoretically, democrat means you favor bigger government intervention while republican means less government intervention. However, that is not really true as both parties as of late have largely favored big government intervention with slightly different flavors (Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Romney, McCain, W. Bush etc). People who support Obama just don't want to realize that the killing of innocent people and helping the poor are not equivalent issues. They think republicans don't believe in helping the poor. This is a lie. Limited government people believe the most efficient and smartest way to help the poor is to provide jobs and allow private charities to pick up the rest. There is nothing wrong with this strategy. America became a superpower, not through big government intervention and bailing out the failures......but through allowing the markets to do their thing. Many vote for Obama because they believe his good intentions to help people. To these people, I point out that it is morally, fiscally, and financially irresponsible to help people with money you have borrowed and have little to no idea how you are going to pay it back. Does it help America to help people by bankrupting the nation in the process? Everyone wants to help the poor. Only some are being fiscally responsible about it. Personally, I think Romney is a terrible candidate to run against Obama and that is why I am not supporting him this election cycle. If you are looking for a magic sword to defend Romney with, I am sorry to disappoint, but I have not found nor heard it. The guy is an awful candidate who has no principles, a questionable late-comer to the pro-life cause who refused to sign the Susan B Anthony pro-life list, and who actually shares many similarities with Obama despite his rhetoric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 When it comes to accusing you of not wanting to help out the poor, remind them that Bishop Chaput himself said helping the poor does not necessarily mean helping them [u]through government.[/u] He said he believes in supporting the poor, but not through government. The government has a basic use: Defend its people, uphold the law, stay out of the way. Government intervention has only ever proved to be inefficient. Sometimes it needs to intervene, but those times are rare, and the government has been intervening too much for far too long. Never in Catholic social teaching does it say you must support the government helping the poor. That is not and never has been the government's role. That is the role of the people. In fact, helping the poor through the government is not moral. Why? Because that requires forcing people to pay up for the poor. Let's just say you and everyone on your block had two cows. The people on the block next to you have zero cows, so the government mandates that you must give one of your cows to them. It seems reasonable, but it's not charitable in the least bit. It is forcing you to, and in fact, now you [i]resent [/i]the poor people because they have your cow. This is not moral compared to you, in all of your good character and holiness, deciding to give some people in the block over one of your cows. Forcing people to do something they don't want to do is not commendable on either parts, whereas them choosing to is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 [quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1349335141' post='2489862'] I could write pages. [/quote] Please don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 [quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1349335141' post='2489862'] I could write pages. [/quote] Please don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 [quote name='Dust's Sister' timestamp='1349329414' post='2489845'] [color=#333333][font=lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif][size=3]I know we (as Catholics) are suppose to support the candidate who is Pro-life. But there are so many democrats on my facebook, that I am afraid to say anything about Obama killing millions of babies. What exactly does it mean to be republican, and what exactly does it mean to be democrat? - Help me out here. Some Catholic defense on Pro-Life would be good, but would that be enough to win a political debate? And what does it mean when they say that Romney is going to tax the middle class people MORE? and Richer people less? What does that mean? There is also a person on my facebook commenting on "The poorest people are supporting "This guy" meaning Romney... and they are basically saying I'm retarded for supporting him. I so want to[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif][size=3]say.. Well I don't want to support a killer. - But in their defense they will come up with many many many other arguments to help support Obama. I also have a Catholic friend who says they will always vote Democrat because that is who they are. Are they sinning because they are voting against pro-life? - And what if they do not know/or feel like they are sinning? - And what about the argument of.. "Well how can you be pro-life, when you are against abortion, but you are FOR not helping the poor?" They are thinking that Romney will do nothing for the poor... but Obama will.... What does that mean ? - to me it means that he will just make it easier to getting foodstamps and health insurance...... But will it help the poor get off their feet and get a job????? - Just my two cents.[/size][/font][/color] [/quote] A Democrat is a Republican who has a guilty conscience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I stopped trying to pick a team many years ago. I used faith and reason when choosing who I vote for. My family just pulls the ALL lever. But the life issues make me lean a certain way. In recent years, I have not gotten past the life issues when selecting candidates. As far as BHO, I can't vote for him for his life stances, e.g. The Born Alive Act. The fact that your FB friends are calling you names shows they do not reason on their side. Politicians have been saying they want to help the poor for decades and decades. And yet, nothing ever changes with the poor. Saying you are going to help the poor is a plea to the voter's emotions. Now who would not want to help the poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 [quote name='Dust's Sister' timestamp='1349329414' post='2489845'] [color=#333333][font=lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif'][size=3]I know we (as Catholics) are suppose to support the candidate who is Pro-life. But there are so many democrats on my facebook, that I am afraid to say anything about Obama killing millions of babies. [/quote]I don't think Obama has killed a single baby, much less millions, so I don't think you should post that.[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif'][size=3]The Abortion argument boils down to a couple of points:[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif'][size=3]1- When does a fertilized egg become a 'person'? Some would argue it doesn't become a person until it's born or until it can live outside the womb. Pro-Abortionists generally claim not until after birth, but we know in reality that pre-mature babies can and often survive outside the womb. [/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif'][size=3]2-Even if you make a convincing argument that it's a 'person' at conception, the counter argument is that the fetus is parasitic to the mother. Mom can't decide to not keep the fetus and put it up for adoption so she is liable for another person she may not want and this responsibility (at possible risk to her) is being forced on her by others. We don't force people to be foster parents, do we?[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif'][size=3][quote]What exactly does it mean to be republican, and what exactly does it mean to be democrat?[/quote]Neither party has an 'exact' definition, but both partys have a negative definition for the other.[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif'][size=3][quote] - Help me out here. Some Catholic defense on Pro-Life would be good, but would that be enough to win a political debate? [/quote]Debates are never won. Explanation and responses to questions may change minds.[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif'][size=3][quote]And what does it mean when they say that Romney is going to tax the middle class people MORE? and Richer people less? What does that mean? [/quote] Dems & Repubs have varioius tax schemes to finance the Government. The fact is, the Government spends more money than the prior year, every single time. It doesn't matter about the political party. There is some differences on what the money is spent on, but if you go to the Congressional Budget Office's website and download their excel spreadsheet of spending for the last 60 years, the changes are small. When the economy is good and lot's of people are working, they get most, all, or more then they spend. 80% of Gov money comes from payroll taxes on workers.[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif'][size=3][quote]There is also a person on my facebook commenting on "The poorest people are supporting "This guy" meaning Romney... and they are basically saying I'm retarded for supporting him. I so want to[/size][/font][/color] [color=#333333][font=lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif'][size=3]say.. Well I don't want to support a killer. - But in their defense they will come up with many many many other arguments to help support Obama. I also have a Catholic friend who says they will always vote Democrat because that is who they are. Are they sinning because they are voting against pro-life? - And what if they do not know/or feel like they are sinning? - And what about the argument of.. "Well how can you be pro-life, when you are against abortion, but you are FOR not helping the poor?" They are thinking that Romney will do nothing for the poor... but Obama will.... What does that mean ? - to me it means that he will just make it easier to getting foodstamps and health insurance...... But will it help the poor get off their feet and get a job????? - Just my two cents.[/size][/font][/color] [/quote]Those are common opinions and positions. Debates never change minds, but if you can engage in a reasonable conversation and ask why they believe that (and either know if they're talking BS or not) and you are able to explain why you believe something else (and not just talk BS), you both may get somewhere. Most opinion is conjecture on what will happen if others do what we may think they will do. There is no 'Wiki-Truth' you can google. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dominicansoul Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 get off facebook until after the election... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 TBH, I am unsure how one can vote for either of the 2 major candidates and not be complicit in intrinsic moral evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) [quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1349358556' post='2489915'] TBH, I am unsure how one can vote for either of the 2 major candidates and not be complicit in intrinsic moral evil. [/quote]As a possible answer to your question, below is from Fr. Torraco, PHD, posted on EWTN. But you also have Bishop Paprocki's opinion posted on the Debate Phorum, so I understand your confusion. [center][b][font=Arial][size=4]A Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters[/size][/font][/b][/center] [center][font=Arial][b][size=3]Fr. Stephen F. Torraco, PhD[/size][/b][/font][/center] [font=Arial][size=3][b]1. Isn’t conscience the same as my own opinions and feelings? And doesn’t everyone have the right to his or her own conscience?[/b][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=3]Conscience is NOT the same as your opinions or feelings. Conscience cannot be identical with your feelings because conscience is the activity of your intellect in judging the rightness or wrongness of your actions or omissions, past, present, or future, while your feelings come from another part of your soul and should be governed by your intellect and will. Conscience is not identical with your opinions because your intellect bases its judgment upon the natural moral law, which is inherent in your human nature and is identical with the Ten Commandments. Unlike the civil laws made by legislators, or the opinions that you hold, the natural moral law is not anything that you invent, but rather discover within yourself and is the governing norm of your conscience. In short, Conscience is the voice of truth within you, and your opinions need to be in harmony with that truth. As a Catholic, you have the benefit of the Church’s teaching authority or Magisterium endowed upon her by Christ. The Magisterium assists you and all people of good will in understanding the natural moral law as it relates to specific issues. As a Catholic, you have the obligation to be correctly informed and normed by the teaching of the Church’s Magisterium. As for your feelings, they need to be educated by virtue so as to be in harmony with conscience’s voice of truth. In this way, you will have a sound conscience, according to which we you will feel guilty when you are guilty, and feel morally upright when you are morally upright. We should strive to avoid the two opposite extremes of a lax conscience and a scrupulous conscience. Meeting the obligation of continually attending to this formation of conscience will increase the likelihood that, in the actual operation or activity of conscience, you will act with a certain conscience, which clearly perceives that a given concrete action is a good action that was rightly done or should be done. Being correctly informed and certain in the actual operation of conscience is the goal of the continuing formation of conscience. Otherwise put, you should strive to avoid being incorrectly informed and doubtful in the actual judgment of conscience about a particular action or omission. You should never act on a doubtful conscience.[/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=3][b]2. Is it morally permissible to vote for all candidates of a single party?[/b][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=3]This would depend on the positions held by the candidates of a single party. If any one or more of them held positions that were opposed to the natural moral law, then it would not be morally permissible to vote for all candidates of this one party. Your correctly informed conscience transcends the bounds of any one political party.[/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=3][b]3. If I think that a pro-abortion candidate will, on balance, do much more for the culture of life than a pro-life candidate, why may I not vote for the pro-abortion candidate?[/b][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=3]If a political candidate supported abortion, or any other moral evil, such as assisted suicide and euthanasia, for that matter, it would not be morally permissible for you to vote for that person. This is because, in voting for such a person, you would become an accomplice in the moral evil at issue. For this reason, moral evils such as abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are examples of a “disqualifying issue.†A disqualifying issue is one which is of such gravity and importance that it allows for no political maneuvering. It is an issue that strikes at the heart of the human person and is non-negotiable. A disqualifying issue is one of such enormity that by itself renders a candidate for office unacceptable regardless of his position on other matters. You must sacrifice your feelings on other issues because you know that you cannot participate in any way in an approval of a violent and evil violation of basic human rights. A candidate for office who supports abortion rights or any other moral evil has disqualified himself as a person that you can vote for. You do not have to vote for a person because he is pro-life. But you may not vote for any candidate who supports abortion rights. Key to understanding the point above about “disqualifying issues†is the distinction between policy and moral principle. On the one hand, there can be a legitimate variety of approaches to accomplishing a morally acceptable goal. For example, in a society’s effort to distribute the goods of health care to its citizens, there can be legitimate disagreement among citizens and political candidates alike as to whether this or that health care plan would most effectively accomplish society’s goal. In the pursuit of the best possible policy or strategy, technical as distinct (although not separate) from moral reason is operative. Technical reason is the kind of reasoning involved in arriving at the most efficient or effective result. On the other hand, no policy or strategy that is opposed to the moral principles of the natural law is morally acceptable. Thus, technical reason should always be subordinate to and normed by moral reason, the kind of reasoning that is the activity of conscience and that is based on the natural moral law.[/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=3][b]4. If I have strong feelings or opinions in favor of a particular candidate, even if he is pro-abortion, why may I not vote for him?[/b][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=3]As explained in question 1 above, neither your feelings nor your opinions are identical with your conscience. Neither your feelings nor your opinions can take the place of your conscience. Your feelings and opinions should be governed by your conscience. If the candidate about whom you have strong feelings or opinions is pro-abortion, then your feelings and opinions need to be corrected by your correctly informed conscience, which would tell you that it is wrong for you to allow your feelings and opinions to give lesser weight to the fact that the candidate supports a moral evil.[/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=3][b]5. If I may not vote for a pro-abortion candidate, then should it not also be true that I can’t vote for a pro-capital punishment candidate?[/b][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=3]It is not correct to think of abortion and capital punishment as the very same kind of moral issue. On the one hand, direct abortion is an intrinsic evil, and cannot be justified for any purpose or in any circumstances. On the other hand, the Church has always taught that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend and preserve the common good, and more specifically to defend citizens against the aggressor. This defense against the aggressor may resort to the death penalty if no other means of defense is sufficient. The point here is that the death penalty is understood as an act of self-defense on the part of civil society. In more recent times, in his encyclical [i]Evangelium Vitae[/i], Pope John Paul II has taught that the need for such self-defense to resort to the death penalty is “rare, if not virtually nonexistent.†Thus, while the Pope is saying that the burden of proving the need for the death penalty in specific cases should rest on the shoulders of the legitimate temporal authority, it remains true that the legitimate temporal authority alone has the authority to determine if and when a “rare†case arises that warrants the death penalty. Moreover, if such a rare case does arise and requires resorting to capital punishment, this societal act of self-defense would be a *morally good action* even if it does have the unintended and unavoidable evil effect of the death of the aggressor. Thus, unlike the case of abortion, it would be morally irresponsible to rule out all such “rare†possibilities a priori, just as it would be morally irresponsible to apply the death penalty indiscriminately.[/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=3][b]6. If I think that a candidate who is pro-abortion has better ideas to serve the poor, and the pro-life candidate has bad ideas that will hurt the poor, why may I not vote for the candidate that has the better ideas for serving the poor?[/b][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=3]Serving the poor is not only admirable, but also obligatory for Catholics as an exercise of solidarity. Solidarity has to do with the sharing of both spiritual and material goods, and with what the Church calls the preferential option for the poor. This preference means that we have the duty to give priority to helping those most needful, both materially and spiritually. Beginning in the family, solidarity extends to every human association, even to the international moral order. Based on the response to question 3 above, two important points must be made. First, when it comes to the matter of determining how social and economic policy can best serve the poor, there can be a legitimate variety of approaches proposed, and therefore legitimate disagreement among voters and candidates for office. Secondly, solidarity can never be at the price of embracing a “disqualifying issue.†Besides, when it comes to the unborn, abortion is a most grievous offense against solidarity, for the unborn are surely among society’s most needful. The right to life is a paramount issue because as Pope John Paul II says it is “the first right, on which all the others are based, and which cannot be recuperated once it is lost.†If a candidate for office refuses solidarity with the unborn, he has laid the ground for refusing solidarity with anyone.[/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=3][b]7. If a candidate says that he is personally opposed to abortion but feels the need to vote for it under the circumstances, doesn’t this candidate’s personal opposition to abortion make it morally permissible for me to vote for him, especially if I think that his other views are the best for people, especially the poor?[/b][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=3]A candidate for office who says that he is personally opposed to abortion but actually votes in favor of it is either fooling himself or trying to fool you. Outside of the rare case in which a hostage is forced against his will to perform evil actions with his captors, a person who carries out an evil action ¾ such as voting for abortion ¾ performs an immoral act, and his statement of personal opposition to the moral evil of abortion is either self-delusion or a lie. If you vote for such a candidate, you would be an accomplice in advancing the moral evil of abortion. Therefore, it is not morally permissible to vote for such a candidate for office, even, as explained in questions 3 and 6 above, you think that the candidate’s other views are best for the poor.[/size][/font] [color=#0000cd][b][font=Arial][size=3]8. What if none of the candidates are completely pro-life?[/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=3]As Pope John Paul II explains in his encyclical, [i]Evangelium Vitae[/i] (The Gospel of Life), “…when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.†Logically, it follows from these words of the Pope that a voter may likewise vote for that candidate who will most likely limit the evils of abortion or any other moral evil at issue.[/size][/font][/b][/color] [font=Arial][size=3][b]9. What if one leading candidate is anti-abortion except in the cases of rape or incest, another leading candidate is completely pro-abortion, and a trailing candidate, not likely to win, is completely anti-abortion. Would I be obliged to vote for the candidate not likely to win?[/b][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=3]In such a case, the Catholic voter may clearly choose to vote for the candidate not likely to win. In addition, the Catholic voter may assess that voting for that candidate might only benefit the completely pro-abortion candidate, and, precisely for the purpose of curtailing the evil of abortion, decide to vote for the leading candidate that is anti-abortion but not perfectly so. This decision would be in keeping with the words of the Pope quoted in question 8 above.[/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=3][b]10. What if all the candidates from whom I have to choose are pro-abortion? Do I have to abstain from voting at all? What do I do?[/b][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=3]Obviously, one of these candidates is going to win the election. Thus, in this dilemma, you should do your best to judge which candidate would do the least moral harm. However, as explained in question 5 above, you should not place a candidate who is pro-capital punishment (and anti-abortion) in the same moral category as a candidate who is pro-abortion. Faced with such a set of candidates, there would be no moral dilemma, and the clear moral obligation would be to vote for the candidate who is pro-capital punishment, not necessarily because he is pro-capital punishment, but because he is anti-abortion.[/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=3][b]11. Is not the Church’s stand that abortion must be illegal a bit of an exception? Does not the Church generally hold that government should restrict its legislation of morality significantly?[/b][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=3]The Church’s teaching that abortion should be illegal is not an exception. St. Thomas Aquinas put it this way: “Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, [b]but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain[/b]; and [b]chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits [u]murder[/u], theft and such like.[/b]†[ emphasis added]. Abortion qualifies as a grievous vice that hurts others, and the lack of prohibition of this evil by society is something by which human society cannot be maintained. As Pope John Paul II has emphasized, the denial of the right to life, in principle, sets the stage, in principle, for the denial of all other rights.[/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=3][b]12. What about elected officials who happen to be of the same party affiliation? Are they committing a sin by being in the same party, even if they don’t advocate pro-choice views? Are they guilty by association?[/b][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=3]Being of the same political party as those who advocate pro-abortion is indeed a serious evil [b]IF[/b] I belong to this political party IN ORDER TO ASSOCIATE MYSELF with that party’s advocacy of pro-abortion policies. However, it can also be true that being of such a political party has as its purpose to change the policies of the party. Of course, if this is the purpose, one would have to consider whether it is reasonable to think the political party’s policies can be changed. Assuming that it is reasonable to think so, then it would be morally justifiable to remain in that political party. Remaining in that political party cannot be instrumental in the advancing of pro-abortion policies (especially if I am busily striving to change the party’s policies) as can my VOTING for candidates or for a political party with a pro-abortion policy.[/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=3][b]13. What about voting for a pro-abortion person for something like state treasurer, in which case the candidate would have no say on matters of life in the capacity of her duties, it just happens to be her personal position. This would not be a sin, right?[/b][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=3]If someone were running for state treasurer and that candidate made it a point to state publicly that he was in favor of exterminating people over the age of 70, would you vote for him? The fact that the candidate has that evil in his mind tells you that there are easily other evils in his mind; and the fact that he would publicly state it is a danger signal. If personal character matters in a political candidate, and personal character involves the kind of thoughts a person harbors, then such a candidate who publicly states that he is in favor of the evil of exterminating people over the age of 70 - or children who are unborn - has also disqualified himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. I would go further and say that such a candidate, in principle - in the light of the natural law - disqualifies himself from public office.[/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=3][b]14. Is it a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate?[/b][/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=3]Except in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates (in which case, as explained in question 8 above, he or she strives to determine which of them would cause the let damage in this regard), a candidate that is pro-abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. This is because being pro-abortion cannot simply be placed alongside the candidate's other positions on Medicare and unemployment, for example; and this is because abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally.[/size][/font] [center][font=Arial][size=2][b]COPYRIGHT © 2002 Stephen F. Torraco[/b][/size][/font][/center] Edited October 4, 2012 by Anomaly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Yes, perhaps that was a backhanded attempted on my part to comment on the good Bishop's video... Many people think only the left is actively involved in intrinsic moral evils...and the intellectual dishonesty is a bit wearing... Good call, Anomaly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 [quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1349358556' post='2489915'] TBH, I am unsure how one can vote for either of the 2 major candidates and not be complicit in intrinsic moral evil. [/quote] Fistbump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1349338407' post='2489876'] A Democrat is a Republican who has a guilty conscience. [/quote] And attempts to assuage it through government approved violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 So what is the moral choice to make? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now