Mitt Romney’s campaign calls gay teen bullying report ‘exaggerated’ - Page 39

Pork Roll · #**571** May 14, '12, 10:33 am

Quote:

. “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia,” he added.

All this quote does is to point out the obvious: Obama is a unacceptable president and we really have little excuse as catholics voting for him. However, Romney isn't exactly pro-life as he follows what his church teaches, that abortion may be permitted under certain circumstances:

Quote:

Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

Allowing abortion for rape and disabled children is evil. He's not pro-life if he supports the elective killing of the unborn.

**rlg94086** · #**572** May 14, '12, 10:39 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pork Roll

Allowing abortion for rape and disabled children is evil. He's not pro-life if he supports the elective killing of the unborn.

So, if legislation were to come up for vote banning all abortions nationwide, with the exception of rape and unborn children "known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth," you would oppose that legislation?

meteoric · #**573** May 14, '12, 11:02 am

"When – concerning areas or ‘realities that involve fundamental ethical duties – legislative or political choices contrary to Christian principles and values are proposed or made, the Magisterium teaches that 'a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals'."

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Notes on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life , 4 (2002).

When you show me a candidate who agrees with the Magisterium on all matters, then I will accept that there is no option but to vote for him.

Most politicians on the ballot will not vote on abortion rights. I feel very little need to be a single issue voter considering how seldom that issue comes into play.

Tom A.

**estesbob** · #**574** May 14, '12, 11:03 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pork Roll

All this quote does is to point out the obvious: Obama is a unacceptable president and we really have little excuse as catholics voting for him. However, Romney isn't exactly pro-life as he follows what his church teaches, that abortion may be permitted under certain circumstances: Allowing abortion for rape and disabled children is evil. He's not pro-life if he supports the elective killing of the unborn.

Church leadeers have NEVER said there were circumstances where abortion was licit. What they have said is that if both canidates support abortion a Catholic could vote for the least pro-abortion of the two.

"You may in some circumstances where you don't have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country,

Cardinal Burke

**estesbob** · #**575** May 14, '12, 11:05 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by meteoric

"When – concerning areas or ‘realities that involve fundamental ethical duties – legislative or political choices contrary to Christian principles and values are proposed or made, the Magisterium teaches that 'a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals'."

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Notes on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life , 4 (2002).

When you show me a candidate who agrees with the Magisterium on all matters, then I will accept that there is no option but to vote for him.

Most politicians on the ballot will not vote on abortion rights. I feel very little need to be a single issue voter considering how seldom that issue comes into play.

Tom A.

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Pope Benedict

**rlg94086** · #**576** May 14, '12, 11:06 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by meteoric

"When – concerning areas or ‘realities that involve fundamental ethical duties – legislative or political choices contrary to Christian principles and values are proposed or made, the Magisterium teaches that 'a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals'."

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Notes on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life , 4 (2002).

When you show me a candidate who agrees with the Magisterium on all matters, then I will accept that there is no option but to vote for him.

Most politicians on the ballot will not vote on abortion rights. I feel very little need to be a single issue voter considering how seldom that issue comes into play.

Tom A.

Quote:

Originally Posted by estesbob

Church leadeers have NEVER said there were circumstances where abortion was licit. What they have said is that if both canidates support abortion a Catholic could vote for the least pro-abortion of the two.

"You may in some circumstances where you don't have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country,

Cardinal Burke

**rlg94086** · #**577** May 14, '12, 11:07 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by estesbob

Church leadeers have NEVER said there were circumstances where abortion was licit. What they have said is that if both canidates support abortion a Catholic could vote for the least pro-abortion of the two.

"You may in some circumstances where you don't have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country,

Cardinal Burke

It is, of course, also licit to vote for a thid party candidate or not vote, but neither of those options make sense to me.

Pork Roll · #**578** May 14, '12, 11:11 am

Quote:

"You may in some circumstances where you don't have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country,

Are you trying to tell us that there are no pro-life candidates running for president? Because if not, then we can't vote for Romney. Romney also supports gay adoption, is that going to limit grave evil?

**rlg94086** · #**579** May 14, '12, 11:13 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pork Roll

Are you trying to tell us that there are no pro-life candidates running for president? Because if not, then we can't vote for Romney. Romney also supports gay adoption, is that going to limit grave evil?

So, if legislation were to come up for vote banning all abortions nationwide, with the exception of rape and unborn children "known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth," you would oppose that legislation?

**estesbob** · #**580** May 14, '12, 11:14 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pork Roll

Are you trying to tell us that there are no pro-life candidates running for president? Because if not, then we can't vote for Romney. Romney also supports gay adoption, is that going to limit grave evil?

Yes-the alternative is to vote for someone who supports Abortion, homosexual marriage and
homosexual adoption. As Archbishop Chaput said such a vote is not voting for the lesser of two evils, it is voting to lessen evil

**rlg94086** · #**581** May 14, '12, 11:17 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by estesbob

Yes-the alternative is to vote for someone who supports Abortion, homosexual marriage and
homosexual adoption. As Archbishop Chaput said such a vote is not voting for the lesser of two evils, it is voting to lessen evil

Voting for someone who you know doesn't have a chance to be elected, or voting for no one, doesn't lessen evil.

**estesbob** · #**582** May 14, '12, 11:18 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlg94086

So, if legislation were to come up for vote banning all abortions nationwide, with the exception of rape and unborn children "known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth," you would oppose that legislation?

We can not let the perfect be the enemy of the possible. I am afraid, however, that in spite of Obamas support of abortion and homosexual marriage we are going to be inundated with "progressive" Catholics telling how republicans and obama are so evil its OK to vote for Obama.

Pork Roll · #**583** May 14, '12, 11:23 am

Quote:

Yes-the alternative is to vote for someone who supports Abortion, homosexual marriage and homosexual adoption. As Archbishop Chaput said such a vote is not voting for the lesser of two evils, it is voting to lessen evil

There are more candidates running than just Romney vs. Obama. Therefore, you can't vote for Romney as long as there is someone more "catholic" out there according to what Chaput said.

meteoric · #**584** May 14, '12, 11:26 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlg94086

It is, of course, also licit to vote for a thid party candidate or not vote, but neither of those options make sense to me.

A couple of elections ago, I made a list of what I considered my most important issues, and looked at all the candidates running for president. The one that most closely matched my views was, iirc the candidate for the Constitution Party. I voted for him, even though on other issues (the total elimination of social security sticks in my mind) made me sick.

While I have voted for third party candidates numerous times since I became eligable to vote, starting with Anderson, I realized that they don't have any chance of winning. Sometimes the vote was to send a message (maybe I'm old and cynical, but the message never seemed to be received), and that last time was to vote my conscious.

Yet it left such a bad taste in my mouth, I wonder about it.

Tom A.
It's not the money. It's the principle. And interest.

**estesbob** · #**585** May 14, '12, 11:28 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pork Roll

There are more candidate than just Romney vs. Obama. Therefore, you can't vote for Romney as long as there is someone more "catholic" out there according to what Chaput said.

No, that is not correct. There is no requirement that you throw. Your vote away on a non viable canidate. If that were true we would in effect cede the political playing field to the culture of death.