For all the Dem Bashers!

[Socrates]

[quote name='avemaria40' date='Feb 23 2006, 07:44 PM']I'm leaning towards Dem and I'm prolife and I did not support Kerry, I actually like President Bush and would trust him with our country a lot more than I would trust Kerry with.
[right][snapback]896062[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I wasn't referring to you.

[avemaria40]

OK, never mind then

[Sojourner]

I've never voiced support for Kerry.

Or Bush, for that matter.

[Era Might]

I can see a faithful, pro-life, orthodox Catholic voting for John Kerry, as the application of the Church's doctrine is not evident and clear, and we cannot dictate who people vote for, for obvious reasons. (That said, I wouldn't in general think that someone who votes for Kerry does so because of a calculated, nuanced application of Church doctrine. I think most people just do so because they agree with him. I would like to be wrong on that.)

I could not vote for him, which is why I voted for Bush. But it wouldn't be a sign of apostasy if someone did.

But I'm not a fan of active "support" in general. Even if they did vote for Kerry, I would strongly advise against publicly "supporting" him, for a variety of reasons. Same thing with Bush. I didn't "support" him, although I did vote for him.

Edited February 24, 2006 by Era Might

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Feb 23 2006, 07:48 PM']I've never voiced support for Kerry.

Or Bush, for that matter.
[right][snapback]896069[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I wans't talking about you either, though there are a number on here who did support Kerry. I don't feel I should write a list of names, but those whom I'm talking about will know who they are.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 23 2006, 07:48 PM']I can see a faithful, pro-life, orthodox Catholic voting for John Kerry, as the application of the Church's doctrine is not evident and clear[right][snapback]896070[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The Church has plainly taught that a Catholic cannot in good conscience support a politician who supports abortion.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 23 2006, 08:54 PM']The Church has plainly taught that a Catholic cannot in good conscience support a politician who supports abortion.
[right][snapback]896078[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This would be a good time to mention that this bill is truly prolife as opposed to Bush's views on abortion.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 23 2006, 09:54 PM']The Church has plainly taught that a Catholic cannot in good conscience support a politician who supports abortion.
[right][snapback]896078[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

So are you saying I sinned when I voted for Bush?

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote] I can see a faithful, pro-life, orthodox Catholic voting for John Kerry, as the application of the Church's doctrine is not evident and clear, and we cannot dictate who people vote for, for obvious reasons. [/quote]

Could you please explain this? I've always been under the impression that voting for pro-choice candidates if there is a more viable candidate was a mortal sin. What about the non-negotiables that Catholics are instructed to oppose, i.e. abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage... etc?

I thought that the pope had stated in Evangelium Vitae the grave responsibility of opposing such campaigns.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Feb 23 2006, 10:00 PM']Could you please explain this? I've always been under the impression that voting for pro-choice candidates if there is a more viable candidate was a mortal sin. What about the non-negotiables that Catholics are instructed to oppose, i.e. abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage... etc?

I thought that the pope had stated in Evangelium Vitae the grave responsibility of opposing such campaigns.
[right][snapback]896087[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Both John Kerry and George Bush were pro-choice, although one was more vehemently and extensively pro-choice.

Because we are always dealing with imperfect candidates, the Church says we must vote for the candidate who will do the most for the common good.

Now, abortion is a pre-eminent consideration. HOWEVER, a voter could legitimately discern that, while there is a candidate with milder pro-choice views, he will not realistically be able to do anything of significance in his term to make an impact with those views. Hence, that dimension of consideration (abortion) would be neutralized, and the candidates would have to be evaluated on other considerations. When abortion is neutralized in such a case, it could be legitimately said that the other candidate will have a concrete means to carry out work for the common good (eg, ecomonic matters, war, etc).

Now, whether this is actually the case in a political election is up for debate. I'm just saying that not all Catholics will come out with the same application of moral principles in the situation they find themselves in. We must respect eachother's conscience in applying theory to the business of politics, but trying our best to advance our own opinion.

[Era Might]

Is this what you are thinking about in Evangelium Vitae:

[quote]A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, 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 public 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.[/quote]

The principle of voting for an imperfect law would extend to imperfect candidates as well.

[Era Might]

Then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a letter to Cardinal McCarrick in 2004, noting among other things:

[quote]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.[/quote]

"Proportionate" reasons would be the technical term for what I was getting at above.

[Colleen]

It must be because I live so close to Chicago that I keep reading this thread as "For all [i]Dem[/i] Bashers!" "Dem" meaning "them," that is.

I'm so happy to see that the bill was passed in South Dakota.

[Ash Wednesday]

Era, thanks for that.

I guess in those circumstances, considering the shaping of the Supreme Court and the partial birth abortion ban... I personally couldn't find sufficient proportionate reason, especially considering Kerry supported the war and tried to look "hawkish" like Bush did.

Ugh. What a mess.

[Ash Wednesday]

P.S. Election 2008 smells like rotten eggs.