Voting

[MC Just]

ok so some are saying that it wouldnt be a sin to vote for John Kerry if we dont support his views on the 5 non-negotiables. But whats the difference? If for example I voted for Kerry and he wins, he ends up legalizing all forms of abortion and gay marriage, and gives human cloning a green light I would be responsible along with all those who voted for him. Responsible for all the live's taken by abortion and the legalization of gay marriage, human cloning, all the evil's. So it is a sin by simply helping him become president. There is no way around it. Whether you support his views on the 5 non-negotiables or not. You are partaking.


NINE WAYS OF BEING ACCESSORY TO ANOTHER'S SIN
BY COUNSEL--BY COMMAND--BY CONSENT--BY PROVOCATION--BY PRAISE OR FLATTTERY--BY CONCEALMENT--BY PARTAKING--BY SILENCE--BY DEFENSE OF THE ILL DONE.

[qfnol31]

I think the reason why that is said is because Ratzinger's statement is taken out of context. I think what he was saying is more along the lines of we can support Bush, though he's not 100% pro-life, because voting for him is the only way to keep Kerry out of office.

Minimize the evil done.

[MC Just]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Oct 3 2004, 02:44 PM'] I think the reason why that is said is because Ratzinger's statement is taken out of context. I think what he was saying is more along the lines of we can support Bush, though he's not 100% pro-life, because voting for him is the only way to keep Kerry out of office.

Minimize the evil done. [/quote]
yeah I knew that....what I was saying was just lingering around in my head.. I've hear people say Kerry is the lesser of two evil's but i dont see how that is so...

[qfnol31]

If you want stuff given to you, maybe so. As a Catholic, Bush is better. As a pro-lifer, Bush is better. Politically (a can of worms that really shouldn't be opened) Bush is still better. As someone who knows where he stands politically, maybe Kerry.

[toledo_jesus]

what are the five non negotiables?

[Good Friday]

[quote name='MC Just']ok so some are saying that it wouldnt be a sin to vote for John Kerry if we dont support his views on the 5 non-negotiables.[/quote]
First of all, the five non-negotiables come from Catholic Answers -- not the Holy See, unless of course the Pope has relocated to the United States and named Jimmy Akin the Prefect of the CDF, but I think I would have noticed that. There are other non-negotiables in Catholic moral and social teaching, and the United States Bishops (not Catholic Answers) have outlined some of those non-negotiables while also including some negotiable, but important, issues to be considered.

Secondly, Cardinal Ratzinger himself has said that a Catholic can vote for a pro-choice candidate despite his pro-choice views as long as they are not voting for him because of his pro-choice views, and as long as there are proportionate reasons.

[quote name='MC Just']If for example I voted for Kerry and he wins, he ends up legalizing all forms of abortion and gay marriage, and gives human cloning a green light I would be responsible along with all those who voted for him.[/quote]
All forms of abortion are already legal in this country, including partial birth abortion, because the Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that there are no grounds for restricting them. The only two ways to ban or even limit abortion in this country are for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, or for the United States to pass a pro-life amendment to the Constitution.

The former cannot and will not happen regardless of who is appointing the justices to the Supreme Court. The reason it cannot happen is because the Supreme Court, in 1973, interpreted the Constitution's right to privacy to include the right to an abortion. Since then, there has been no legal precedent to overturn Roe v. Wade and no change to the Constitution, so even the most conservative justice cannot overturn Roe v. Wade. Perhaps that's why Sandra Day O'Connor, a Reagan appointee, has voted consistently pro-choice and has certainly not overturned Roe v. Wade or made any effort to do so.

The latter is very unlikely to happen, regardless of who is President, because an amendment to the Constitution requires a majority vote in both houses of Congress and also a majority of the United States. Many states favored abortion rights even before Roe v. Wade, so it is highly unlikely that a majority of the states would vote for a constitutional amendment to overturn it, even if it were to pass through both houses of Congress.

Thus, there is nothing the President can do to either limit or expand abortion in this country. It is already expanded to its maximum capacity, and experience has shown that it cannot be limited without being overturned by the courts -- including Republican nominees to the courts.

As for gay marriage, that's up to the Congress or the courts, not the President. However, it's entirely possible that Sen. Kerry would veto any bill that legalized gay marriage throughout the country. He has consistently stated that he believes such a decision should be left to the individual states, and that he does not personally believe in gay marriage.

Human cloning would also be left to the Congress.

[quote name='qfnol31']I think the reason why that is said is because Ratzinger's statement is taken out of context. I think what he was saying is more along the lines of we can support Bush, though he's not 100% pro-life, because voting for him is the only way to keep Kerry out of office.[/quote]
I find that unlikely, considering that Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to the U.S. Bishops to help them address the controversy going on in the church in this country, and there was no controversy over pro-lifers being able to vote for Bush. The controversy was over Catholics being able to vote for Kerry.

[qfnol31]

There is as much controversy over us voting Bush because of his "non-pro-life stance actually."

1. Abortion

The Church teaches that, regarding a law permitting abortions, it is "never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it" (EV 73). Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide.

The unborn child is always an innocent party, and no law may permit the taking of his life. Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest, the fault is not the child's, who should not suffer death for others' sins.

2. Euthanasia

Often disguised by the name "mercy killing," euthanasia also is a form of homicide. No person has a right to take his own life, and no one has the right to take the life of any innocent person.

In euthanasia, the ill or elderly are killed, by action or omission, out of a misplaced sense of compassion, but true compassion cannot include intentionally doing something intrinsically evil to another person (cf. EV 73).

3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Human embryos are human beings. "Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo" (CRF 4b).

Recent scientific advances show that often medical treatments that researchers hope to develop from experimentation on embryonic stem cells can be developed by using adult stem cells instead. Adult stem cells can be obtained without doing harm to the adults from whom they come. Thus there is no valid medical argument in favor of using embryonic stem cells. And even if there were benefits to be had from such experiments, they would not justify destroying innocent embryonic humans.

4. Human Cloning

"Attempts . . . for obtaining a human being without any connection with sexuality through 'twin fission,' cloning, or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union" (RHL I:6).

Human cloning also involves abortion because the "rejected" or "unsuccessful" embryonic clones are destroyed, yet each clone is a human being.

5. Homosexual "Marriage"

True marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recognition of any other union as "marriage" undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement.

"When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral" (UHP 10).

[Good Friday]

[quote name='qfnol31']There is as much controversy over us voting Bush because of his "non-pro-life stance actually."[/quote]
Really? Cite one article from the media. Cite one statement from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on the topic. Prove what you're saying, don't just say it and expect us to believe it's true.

[toledo_jesus]

Regardless, advocating or permitting abortion to go [u]unopposed[/u] is the same as performing or procuring one yourself. Complacency is complicity.

Edited October 4, 2004 by toledo_jesus

[qfnol31]

Actually, my post came from the constant controversy discussed on this board about a month or two ago about why a Catholic has to vote for Peroutka.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='toledo_jesus']Regardless, advocating or permitting abortion to go unopposed is the same as performing or procuring one yourself. Complacency is complicity.[/quote]
Some believe that the best opposition to abortion is a change in social policy in order to diminish or eliminate the social and economic problems that can contribute to the decision to have an abortion. I think it's worth a shot, considering that the legal opposition to abortion hasn't worked for over thirty years now.

[quote name='qfnol31']Actually, my post came from the constant controversy discussed on this board about a month or two ago about why a Catholic has to vote for Peroutka.[/quote]
Well, unless the Bishops and Cardinal Ratzinger are monitoring Phatmass, I don't think they'd have any way of knowing about it. Only a few pro-life leaders, Judie Brown included, have spoken up against voting for Bush in favor of Michael Peroutka, and they have not done so very vocally. It seems far more plausible that Cardinal Ratzinger was addressing the prevailing controversy in this country rather than some questions raised by a not-so-vocal minority of Catholics. I doubt he even knew about the latter.

[aragorn]

Good Friday, you are EXACTLY RIGHT. The President, whether Kerry or Bush, will have zero effect on abortion in this country. I see that my new thread on abortion is redundant, but please have a look anyway!

[Good Friday]

[quote name='aragorn']Good Friday, you are EXACTLY RIGHT. The President, whether Kerry or Bush, will have zero effect on abortion in this country. I see that my new thread on abortion is redundant, but please have a look anyway![/quote]
I saw it. Thank you for speaking up. I'm afraid it is, for the most part, falling on deaf ears. On the other hand, though, we don't know how many lurkers may be reading these posts and finding them helpful. So thanks again.

[Scofizzle]

aragorn and Good Friday...You should read "Voter's Fuide for Serious Catholics" it outlines things very clearly without metioning names. I think that if you truely search your heart you will find the correct answer. To say that the president cannot do anything about abortion is simply ignorance. I don't know you personally so I can't definately say this applies to you but.....everyone needs to:
1. Step out past what their family traditionaly votes.
2. Don't lesten to any media, research the stuff yourself.
3. Step out beyond your personal belief and LIVE what the church teaches. There is a thing called OBJECTIVE truth.
4. Step out of yourself and your political tendencies.......vate your conscience not your heart

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote]"Go f*** yourself."
--Johnsonville brat Cheney
[/quote]

Your signature is not appropriate for phatmass.

*sigh*

I want to get this election over with. Praise the Lord we only have a month left of this. (And hopefully not an extra month counting chads.)

I honestly just don't see how any Catholic can, with a sound mind and correct conscience, vote for Kerry. And I don't want to pass judgment on the man, but I really don't understand how he can claim to practice Catholicism and have a "deep faith", say "life begins at conception" but turn around and be such a proud advocate of abortion rights. I think the Pope is pretty clear in Evangelium Vitae about abortion and euthanasia in the political arena and how it ought to be dealt with -- for one thing for us voters, definitely not with a defeatist attitude. We have a [b]grave responsibility[/b] to oppose these non-negotiables. We need to fight it both politically AND socially. Laws need to oppose and prevent acts that are objectively WRONG.

Even with abortion and other non-negotiable issues aside, Kerry does not have any clear advantages or policies that make him all that much better than Bush. Even some of my liberal friends don't see Kerry as demonstrating much more promise with regards to the economy or bringing the troops out of Iraq any moreso than Bush does. What's more, the next president will select supreme court justices. It's beyond me why people aren't discussing this as much as they ought to be.

Do we really think it's in the best interests of society to elect a president that will elect justices that let all laws that protect life and the building block of society -- the family -- go by the wayside? No way.

If we continue to allow all of the non-negotiables to become legal, then this country will get exactly what she deserves.

If there are people on this board that REALLY don't want to vote for Bush and refuse to do so -- please consider supporting grassroots pro-life, pro-peace, pro-environment political movements (Joe Schriner has a start) and don't vote for Kerry. If you really want change and can't bring yourself to vote Bush, start working for the greater amount of political options that Americans deserve.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Scofizzle']aragorn and Good Friday...You should read "Voter's Fuide for Serious Catholics" it outlines things very clearly without metioning names.[/quote]
I've read (and read) the Voter's Guide for so-called "Serious Catholics," and I've found it lacking -- which is perfectly all right, considering that it's written by a bunch of laypeople who I'm free to disagree with. I find that the [i]Faithful Citizenship[/i] document issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is much more in accord with Catholic teaching, and it is also written by Bishops who have actual authority, instead of laypeople who think they know what they're talking about.

[quote name='Scofizzle']To say that the president cannot do anything about abortion is simply ignorance.[/quote]
What can he do? More importantly, why hasn't he done it?

[quote name='Scofizzle']everyone needs to:
1. Step out past what their family traditionaly votes.[/quote]
I vote based on my understanding of church teaching, especially as outlined in [i]Faithful Citizenship[/i].

[quote name='Scofizzle']2. Don't lesten to any media, research the stuff yourself.[/quote]
I have. I'm a volunteer with the Kerry-Edwards campaign.

[quote name='Scofizzle']3. Step out beyond your personal belief and LIVE what the church teaches. There is a thing called OBJECTIVE truth.[/quote]
Yes, there is such a thing as objective truth. The preferential option for the poor and many other social justice teachings, ignored by President Bush, are also objective truth. It is not we who have chosen to ignore objective truth, but those who claim that there are only five non-negotiables of Catholic moral and social teaching just because those five non-negotiables happen to work for their presidential candidate.

[quote name='Scofizzle']4. Step out of yourself and your political tendencies.......vate your conscience not your heart[/quote]
My conscience tells me that President Bush will cost more lives and do more evil than Sen. Kerry, which is why I'm led to vote for Sen. Kerry.

[quote name='Ash Wednesday']Your signature is not appropriate for phatmass.[/quote]
Well, it's a direct quote from the Vice President of the United States. I guess if you're willing to admit that his/her signature is not appropriate for Phatmass, then it wasn't appropriate for the Senate floor either.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]What can he do? More importantly, why hasn't he done it?[/quote]

The president has power to issue Executive Orders and has done so, cutting foreign funding of abortions.

[quote]I have. I'm a volunteer with the Kerry-Edwards campaign.[/quote]



[quote]It is not we who have chosen to ignore objective truth, but those who claim that there are only five non-negotiables of Catholic moral and social teaching just because those five non-negotiables happen to work for their presidential candidate.[/quote]

There [b]are[/b] only five non-negotiables. Republicans and Democrats all want to help the poor, but have different ideas of how to do it. Republican, however, is the only group which matches the five non-negotiables.

[quote]My conscience tells me that President Bush will cost more lives and do more evil than Sen. Kerry, which is why I'm led to vote for Sen. Kerry.[/quote]

You can only have theories (and very far-fetched theories, at that) that President Bush will kill millions of people. You [b]know[/b] that Kerry will.

[quote]Well, it's a direct quote from the Vice President of the United States. I guess if you're willing to admit that his/her signature is not appropriate for Phatmass, then it wasn't appropriate for the Senate floor either.[/quote]

Darn right. It wasn't appropriate for the Senate floor. But Mr. Cheney isn't in favor of killing in excess of one million people per year.

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote]Well, it's a direct quote from the Vice President of the United States. I guess if you're willing to admit that his/her signature is not appropriate for Phatmass, then it wasn't appropriate for the Senate floor either.[/quote]

Has anyone here ever said it [i]was[/i] appropriate for the Senate floor?

I'd expect this type of argument from the type of person that calls conservatives "Facists" and compares Bush to Hitler.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Raphael']The president has power to issue Executive Orders and has done so, cutting foreign funding of abortions.[/quote]
While that may be commendable, it won't stop a single abortion overseas. Do you really think that just because the United States cut funding to overseas abortion that other countries are now unable to pay for abortion? The abortions are still happening, and the President's gesture was just that: a gesture. It won't do anything to actually end abortion overseas, and certainly not here at home.

[quote name='Raphael']There are only five non-negotiables. Republicans and Democrats all want to help the poor, but have different ideas of how to do it. Republican, however, is the only group which matches the five non-negotiables.[/quote]
Please provide the church document that states that there are only five non-negotiables of Catholic moral and social teaching. I want to see it. The voting guide from a bunch of Republican theologians at Catholic Answers isn't going to do it.

Republicans and Democrats all want to help the poor? The Bush Administration has had four years to help the poor, and their policies have only hurt the poor as well as putting more and more people from the middle class into the working poor and just plain poor classes. Their policies have been demonstrated, time and time again, to hurt the majority of Americans -- while only helping a very wealthy minority. Still, the Bush Administration and the Republicans in Congress will not change their policies in order to help the poor and the middle class. Please explain to me how Republicans want to help the poor.

[quote name='Raphael']You can only have theories (and very far-fetched theories, at that) that President Bush will kill millions of people. You know that Kerry will.[/quote]
President Bush has already killed 16,000 people (and that's a conservative estimate, it could be more) in just a little over a year's time. What will he do with four more years? I don't think it's far-fetched to say that a million people or more could die if President Bush is re-elected. The war in Iraq hasn't been going on for all that long, and already 16,000 are dead (and the number rises every day). What if Bush starts another war with, say, Iran, North Korea or Syria while the war in Iraq is still going on? Obviously, it's not far-fetched that in that scenario, a million people would die.

[quote name='Raphael']Darn right. It wasn't appropriate for the Senate floor. But Mr. Cheney isn't in favor of killing in excess of one million people per year.[/quote]
Right. Just 16,000 in a little over a year's time. But that's just peachy.

[quote name='T-Bone']Has anyone here ever said it was appropriate for the Senate floor?

I'd expect this type of argument from the type of person that calls conservatives "Facists" and compares Bush to Hitler.[/quote]
I don't know if anyone [b]here[/b] has ever said that it was appropriate, but the general consensus among conservatives that I've debated with is that Sen. Leahy had it coming and that it was fine for Cheney to say what he said, even on the Senate floor.

We won't get into the fascist Bush/Hitler discussion. I don't think all conservatives are fascists, but I do think that an Administration that squelches dissent at their campaign rallies (even to the point of arresting protesters for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts) can indeed be called a fascist Administration. I suppose if they're re-elected, and have nothing to lose because they will not be facing another re-election campaign, we'll see exactly how fascist they can be.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]While that may be commendable, it won't stop a single abortion overseas. Do you really think that just because the United States cut funding to overseas abortion that other countries are now unable to pay for abortion? The abortions are still happening, and the President's gesture was just that: a gesture. It won't do anything to actually end abortion overseas, and certainly not here at home.[/quote]

So then I can keep a man from robbing a bank, take his gun, and do it myself, because the same number of crimes will occur? Does that make it moral? Does that mean that the original robber is guilty and I am not?

[quote]President Bush has already killed 16,000 people (and that's a conservative estimate, it could be more) in just a little over a year's time. What will he do with four more years? I don't think it's far-fetched to say that a million people or more could die if President Bush is re-elected. The war in Iraq hasn't been going on for all that long, and already 16,000 are dead (and the number rises every day). What if Bush starts another war with, say, Iran, North Korea or Syria while the war in Iraq is still going on? Obviously, it's not far-fetched that in that scenario, a million people would die.[/quote]

Okay, let's use the one year mark as the basis.

President Bush has killed, by your numbers, 16,000 people. That is less than 1.1% of the number Kerry would kill, in the US alone, if elected. Factor in the fact that the war's nature as just or unjust is still debatable, and you have a serious statistical problem.

[quote]I don't know if anyone here has ever said that it was appropriate, but the general consensus among conservatives that I've debated with is that Sen. Leahy had it coming and that it was fine for Cheney to say what he said, even on the Senate floor.[/quote]

Guess what. We're not the general consensus of conservatives.