Tax Cuts

[M.SIGGA]

I think the Tax Cut title to this thread was misleading.

[PhatPhred]

Phred, I assume you meant my comments.

Your comment was the straw that broke the camel's back, but I was referring to several other comments as well.

I'm not trying to put words in the bishops' mouths. But, still, even if the bishops don't say outright "Voting for Kerry is a sin" doesn't mean that its not. Kerry is on the abortion bandwagon.

I agree that my statement about the bishops was not a rigorous, logical deduction. But the bishops are very vocal and very active in politics, testifying before legislatures on abortion bills and so on, so their failure to endorse or oppose a particular candidate should be a strong clue that reasonable, faithful Catholics can disagree on the issue of who to vote for.

I will not apologize for saying that voting for a man who you know is pro-abortion is sinful because I speak the truth.

This proposition is incorrect as stated. Fr. Torraco's statement is technically correct, because it included the qualification "if the person knows that voting for a pro-abortion candidate makes him, the voter, an accomplice in evil", which makes the vote a sin against one's conscience.

In your quote from the Catechism, "formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave sin," the key word is formal. The Catholic Encyclopedia (with Imprimatur) article on Accomplice (this is an HTML link!!!) provides the actual teaching of the Church on this matter:

To formally cooperate in the sin of another is to be associated with him in the performance of a bad deed in so far forth as it is bad, that is, to share in the perverse frame of mind of that other.

On the contrary, to materially cooperate in another's crime is to participate in the action so far as its physical entity is concerned, but not in so far as it is motived by the malice of the principal in the case.

Thus, someone who votes for Kerry because he is pro-choice is a formal accomplice in Kerry's sin; however someone who votes for Kerry despite the fact that he is pro-choice is only a material accomplice in Kerry's sin.

The Catholic Encyclopedia then goes on to say:

The teaching with regard to this subject-matter is very plain, and may be stated in this wise:

Formal co-operation is never lawful, since it presupposes a manifestly sinful attitude on the part of the will of the accomplice.

Material complicity is held to be justified when it is brought about by an action which is in itself either morally good or at any rate indifferent, and when there is a sufficient reason for permitting on the part of another the sin which is a consequence of the action. The reason for this assertion is patent; for the action of the accomplice is assumed to be unexceptionable, his intention is already bespoken to be proper, and he cannot be burdened with the sin of the principal agent, since there is supposed to be a commensurately weighty reason for not preventing it.

Thus, if there is a commensurately weighty reason for voting for Kerry despite his pro-choice stance, then the vote can be morally justified. This is the actual teaching of the Church on material complicity, despite what many people seem to be claiming. In my personal opinion, preventing Bush (whose initiation and formal, proximate cooperation in the unjust Iraqi war makes him a mass murderer) from remaining as President is a commensurately weighty reason. Others may disagree on whether this is in fact a commensurately weighty reason; ultimately, this is a very complex prudential value judgement that the Church has not already made for us (i.e., by the endorsement of a particular candidate). The fact that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' website lists dozens of issues besides the issue of abortion to consider in our voting should be another clue that these issues can legitimately be taken into account in making this judgement.

[IcePrincessKRS]

What is weighty enough to deter one from voting for a person who will only further aid in the deaths of millions of babies? Tax cuts? Kicking Bush out of office? I think not. I maintain my previous opinions and beliefs on this matter. The degree of the sin may be lessened but its still a sin.

I'm going to try and stay out of this thread as its getting hefty, and since I'm a moderator on this board its not a good idea for me (for my own sanity etc.) to get too involved in the deabtes.

[PhatPhred]

What is weighty enough to deter one from voting for a person who will only further aid in the deaths of millions of babies?

This is the key question that faithful Catholics should be asking themselves before they go out and vote.

The kinds of things that I consider are: How many unborn lives has Bush saved so far since he took office? How many U.S. military and Iraqi citizens are dead as a direct result of the unjust Iraqi war that he started?

My personal take is that although Kerry is preferable to Bush, both are so awful that I will likely vote third-party.

Kicking Bush out of office?

Lets see. Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer who started an unjust war on Kuwait, so all the deaths of that aggression are directly attributable to Saddam as murder. He was a dangerous war-monger, and the world would not be safe as long as he was in power. According to Bush, this justified using military force to remove Saddam from power.

George W. Bush is a mass murderer who started an unjust war on Iraq, so all the deaths of that aggression are directly attributable to Bush as murder. He is a dangerous war-monger, and the world is not safe as long as he is in power.

If I apply "Bush-logic" to Bush himself, I only see one conclusion that can be reached.

[Carrie]

This argument gets old after awhile...we've been arguing this forever it seems. I can't wait til the election is over and we can move on with our lives.

[ironmonk]

read this

i thought this was interesting but i am not going to comment on this. i'd rather let the more eloquent experts do the talking for me.

Great link... something to remember for those who would use confession without a plan to change, we can't just say "I'll vote for kerry and then go to confession and everything will be ok"... because it won't be ok, this would be abusing confession... We must be submissive to what God wants. In confession we must truly seek to change our ways. We are not to use confession for a 'get out of jail' card and plan to go back to our sinful ways.

Sirach 5:5

Of forgiveness be not overconfident, adding sin upon sin.

6 Say not: "Great is his mercy; my many sins he will forgive."

7 For mercy and anger alike are with him; upon the wicked alights his wrath.

8 Delay not your conversion to the LORD, put it not off from day to day;

God Bless, Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

[ironmonk]

This is the key question that faithful Catholics should be asking themselves before they go out and vote.

The kinds of things that I consider are: How many unborn lives has Bush saved so far since he took office? How many U.S. military and Iraqi citizens are dead as a direct result of the unjust Iraqi war that he started?

My personal take is that although Kerry is preferable to Bush, both are so awful that I will likely vote third-party.

Why do so many people have a problem with math?

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

1,300,000 PER YEAR dead babies....

less than 3000 dead people because of a war.

Lets see.  Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer who started an unjust war on Kuwait, so all the deaths of that aggression are directly attributable to Saddam as murder.  He was a dangerous war-monger, and the world would not be safe as long as he was in power.  According to Bush, this justified using military force to remove Saddam from power.

George W. Bush is a mass murderer who started an unjust war on Iraq, so all the deaths of that aggression are directly attributable to Bush as murder.  He is a dangerous war-monger, and the world is not safe as long as he is in power.

If I apply "Bush-logic" to Bush himself, I only see one conclusion that can be reached.

Wrong.

Saddam tried to wipe the Kurds out. Saddam tortured people. Saddam was supporting terrorism by giving suicide bombers families $25,000 when their kid killed a few dozen innocent jews or americans. Saddam killed MILLIONS of people.

2,000,000 > 2500

The war was not totally unjust, and being that he is a protestant and is his own pope - I can understand why he thought it was justified.

But let's look at some facts... more people died per year while he was in power, now that he is out, less people are dying... and less every day because once all the saddamites are found, then there will be even less deaths.

Calling Bush a murder shows that you have been listening to one sided information from the bias media. Kerry supported the war, along with a bunch of other senators.

The people of Iraq are better off that Saddam is gone. This is a fact.

For Christ and the unborn,

ironmonk

[smeagol]

catholicandfanatical, Bush has said that outsourcing (which is shipping American jobs overseas or to other countries) is good for the economy. Kerry wants to keep jobs in America because obviously we need jobs to have a good economy. and btw, the real evidence says that millions of jobs have been lost while bush was in office.

word up, phred:

they must be on guard, in questions of opinion, against proposing their own view as the teaching of the Church.

[smeagol]

This argument gets old after awhile...we've been arguing this forever it seems. I can't wait til the election is over and we can move on with our lives.

you cannot simply wish these issues away. they are ultra-important and will not vanish come November. please do not mock the issues or those who deliberate them.