|
1 members (San Nicolas),
397
guests, and
45
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,392
Posts416,747
Members5,991
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,990 Likes: 10
Moderator Member
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,990 Likes: 10 |
I have tried to avoid this thread, but I'll now give in to temptation. I respect those who choose third party candidates who stand no real chance of winning but they support them anyway because their consciences would be offended by voting for either major party candidate. On the other hand, I also respect those who choose whichever major party candidate they believe to be the least flawed.
In my opinion, voting has become a rather unpleasant duty for Christians. Any choice is problematic in some way or another. I believe that the current state of affairs calls for us to be understanding and charitable with each other with respect to voting, realizing that different Christians will reach different conclusions. However, we all ought to be able to agree to pray for the following: for God to guide all of us as we vote, for God to guide all who hold office that they might act in accordance with God's will, for God to convert our culture, and especially, for the coming of God's kingdom and the fulfillment of God's will.
In the peace of Christ,
Ryan Nicely worded post, dear Ryan.... Alice
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,156 Likes: 67
Moderator Member
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,156 Likes: 67 |
Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!
We did have a post in this section that suggested that we should all commit to praying for our country and her needs each evening at 9 p.m. Somehow it was "unstuck" and is lost.
It might be well at this time to begin that again, at least for the next couple nights.
In Christ,
BOB
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
Here is a worthwhile address by Abp. Chaput of Denver entitled, ""The Homicides Involved in Abortion Are 'Little Murders'.” http://www.zenit.org/article-23964?l=englishHere is an excerpt: ...We need to remember that tolerance is not a Christian virtue, and it’s never an end in itself. In fact, tolerating grave evil within a society is itself a form of evil. Likewise, democratic pluralism does not mean that Catholics should be quiet in public about serious moral issues because of some misguided sense of good manners. A healthy democracy requires vigorous moral debate to survive. Real pluralism demands that people of strong beliefs will advance their convictions in the public square -- peacefully, legally and respectfully, but energetically and without embarrassment. Anything less is bad citizenship and a form of theft from the public conversation.
Here’s the fourth point. When Jesus tells the Pharisees and Herodians in the Gospel of Matthew (22:21) to “render unto the Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s,” he sets the framework for how we should think about religion and the state even today. Caesar does have rights. We owe civil authority our respect and appropriate obedience. But that obedience is limited by what belongs to God. Caesar is not God. Only God is God, and the state is subordinate and accountable to God for its treatment of human persons, all of whom were created by God. Our job as believers is to figure out what things belong to Caesar, and what things belong to God -- and then to put those things in right order in our own lives, and in our relations with others.
Last edited by lm; 11/01/08 06:15 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 91
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 91 |
Oh, just to clarify, I've voted third party in the past, but I'm not necessarily advocating voting third party--just that it's not outside the realm of possibility. Many Catholics, when discussing this issue, emphasize "you have to vote for someone likely to win", which is not part of Church teaching.
My original point in bringing up _Evangelium Vitae_ is that that should have settled the question of "proportionate reasons."
John Paul says that you vote for the candidate who is going to do the *most* to outlaw abortion and/or contraception.
If you have a candidate who is 100% "pro-choice" and one who is 50% pro-choice, you vote for the one who's 50% pro-choice. But if you have one who's 100% pro-life, you vote for him, even if he's unpopular.
Then there are the nuances . Like, I'm a strict constructionist in principle. I'm an Aristotelian, and believe that the written law is what protects us from human corruption. However, I also believe, as a Catholic, that Natural Law should take precedence. So, if I'm forced to choose between two very similar candidates on "issues," then I'll look more at their philosophy. In the primary, I was torn between Huckabee and Paul (Brownback had already pulled out). I voted for Huckabee because he seemed to have the understanding of Natural Law. He also had a strong pro-homeschooling position. He also supported reasonable health care reform, but emphasized that it should be done at the state, not federal, level.
So I found Huckabee to balance the three philosophical principles the Church appeals to in politics: Natural Law, subsidiarity and solidarity.
Of Obama, McCain, Barr and Baldwin, none particularly jumps out at me as someone I want to vote for. OBama and McCain both disgust me, and, without Sarah Palin, I'd vote for Barr.
But Sarah Palin's my dream candidate. . . .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
John Paul says that you vote for the candidate who is going to do the *most* to outlaw abortion and/or contraception. Is it the Church's position that non-abortifacient contraception should be outlawed as well? Does the Church, for example, want to see condoms outlawed? Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
Father Deacon Diak,
This seems to me to be a subtle form of relativism.
Most likely I'm misinterpreting what you wrote, but it struck me as a relative statement.
In Christ,
Aaron If it is a "subtle form of relativism" than the same would have to be applied to the position of the Church. Yes, I believe you are misinterpreting my post, as it is not much more than a condensing of what the Magiesterium maintains (see the references the Admin posted above). Condoning a candidate (any candidate) who stands for an intrinsic evil by somehow justifying his position as acceptable is rather the position of a relativist.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
To answer the Admin's previous question about a source for the McCain statements I quoted, they were originally included in an interview he did with the San Francisco Chronicle on August 19, 1999 and later picked up by other news (including that which I quoted). McCain has never rebutted any of the statements, so it appears he has no great issue with the record of his own statements. On another note, the son of William F. Buckley has made an unusual revelation: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama/2/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,729 Likes: 23
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,729 Likes: 23 |
I thank FDDiak for the reference. I searched and found the article. In it he does say that he was not working to overturn Roe v Wade because he felt that first we needed to change hearts. I can agree that hearts need to be changed but since many people take their morality from the law it is very important to overturn Roe immediately. To his credit he has moved in the right direction on life issues (though he is still very far from perfect). And McCain personally insisted that the call for a human life amendment remain in the Republican platform (something he did not have enthusiastic support for a decade ago): Maintaining The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life
Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life.
We have made progress. The Supreme Court has upheld prohibitions against the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. States are now permitted to extend health-care coverage to children before birth. And the Born Alive Infants Protection Act has become law; this law ensures that infants who are born alive during an abortion receive all treatment and care that is provided to all newborn infants and are not neglected and left to die. We must protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape through a parental notification requirement. We all have a moral obligation to assist, not to penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy. At its core, abortion is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life. Women deserve better than abortion. Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose life. We salute those who provide them alternatives, including pregnancy care centers, and we take pride in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.
Respect for life requires efforts to include persons with disabilities in education, employment, the justice system, and civic participation. In keeping with that commitment, we oppose the non-consensual withholding of care or treatment from people with disabilities, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide, which endanger especially those on the margins of society. Because government should set a positive standard in hiring and contracting for the services of persons with disabilities, we need to update the statutory authority for the AbilityOne program, the main avenue by which those productive members of our society can offer high quality services at the best possible value. Also, that Priests-for-Life, National Right to Life and other pro-life groups believe find him to be the most acceptable candidate among the viable choices and that the pro-abortion groups find him to be unacceptable all weighs in his favor. As to Christopher Buckley I am aware that he has views that are far different than his late father.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
To his credit he has moved in the right direction on life issues (though he is still very far from perfect). We will have to disagree - his past record on stem cell research, judicial nominees, past statements, and an apparent eleventh hour "come to Jesus" position switch to garner votes from people he himself has declared his disdain for in the past does not in my mind move him in the right direction on life issues. May God protect us all and have mercy on us.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
Endorsements are fickle - some of us remember the vehemently anti-McCain ads that were posted by some of the same pro-life organizations during the primary season. There is the National Right-to-Life funded ad that ran in South Carolina that states directly "If you want a strongly pro-life president ... don't support John McCain."
Funny how things can change.
|
|
|
|
|
