Hmm. More political advertising. You can’t escape it.
Sorry Jennifer (the author) but is is not your conscience Catholics vote.
Voting for Baal, voting for Mammon, voting for third party, or maybe not at all. Crumby year for moral voting.
Her second to last paragraph:
"I’ve asked myself lately, “If they just built 3-story high statues of Baal in every city and had the babies killed there on the steps instead of behind closed clinic doors, would Catholics still be so inclined to vote for the politicians who love Baal?”
Bishop Mark Seitz of El Paso argues that single-issue voting has “corrupted Christian political witness” by effectively ignoring or approving of government policies which undermine the social safety net, weaken workers and voters rights, and threaten the wellbeing of our fellow human beings who are also most in need, namely the sick, refugees, immigrants and the destitute, not to mention policies which threaten the environment, our common home.
The OP’s article focuses on three important issues: abortion, same-sex marriage and gender identity, but much more than these three is at stake in this election, and these other “equally sacred” issues must also be considered. So says the bishop, and I agree. Where the above issues are concerned, I do see a stronger Catholic case for Biden.
The whole Baal thing is appropriate imagery, but I doubt those who use it would like it used against them. I could equally accuse Republicans of worshipping Huitzilopochtli, the Aztec god for who enemies were slain. Now, since no one likes being hoisted on their own petard, there will be the call that this is different because of numbers or ages. But the post above from Bishop Seitz focuses on abortion in its Catholic pro-life setting. He did not say other issues were equal, he says they are equally sacred. There is a human quality that we all hold equally, from the thief, to the innocent baby.
What I hate most about politicians and elections is the plethora of people that come out to fix the sins of others. Our Pope has given us a lot to think about this week. Instead of attacking others, at least some time should be spent in self-examination from the light of that encyclical.
I like how the deflection is accusing us of being single issue voters, and not preeminent issue voters.
Shows where his priorities are, though.
If you can call it that.
So much about it is wrong, or wishful thinking.
The Pope is the one that calls it an encyclical. It is, factually, an encyclical. It is Church teaching. If you think it is wrong, then it is odd to judge right and wrong based on one’s own opinion, when it is contrary to Church teaching. Isn’t this thread about one such man who has done that?
What? I didn’t say it isn’t an encyclical, I said, “if you can call it that” in reference to something to think about.
I don’t disagree with Church teaching, which is perennial and cannot be changed. I disagree with him, who is wrong on multiple things such as: Death Penalty,
Just War, . . .
Ah, No more comment at this time, except maybe to be careful with using pronouns without antecedents.
While I agree that we cannot be single issue voters, I and my prior bishop disagree that all issues are equal.
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, in paragraphs 34-37, addresses the question of whether it is morally permissible for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil – even when the voter does not agree with the candidate’s position on that evil. The only moral possibilities for a Catholic to be able to vote in good conscience for a candidate who supports this intrinsic evil are the following:
a. If both candidates running for office support abortion or “abortion rights,” a Catholic would be forced to then look at the other important issues and through their vote try to limit the evil done; or,
b. If another intrinsic evil outweighs the evil of abortion. While this is sound moral reasoning, there are no “truly grave moral” or “proportionate” reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year.
Given the fact that the last reports show 862,000 abortions in the US in 2017 and that an estimated 40-50 million abortions occur worldwide I don’t think the bishops would agree with you. What other issue produce 40-50 million murders every year?
For myself, I think there is a better chance of reducing abortions if rabidly pro-abortion advocates are not elected.
when it comes to what laws are constitutionally rational to enforce, when it comes to abortion, better to make a law to cause for abortion to be not necessary, than to make a law that deals with what to do after the non-desirable situation has occurred. I think it would be much more unanimous and practical to say that we have a problem with the idea of abortion in general and being in situations like one where someone would want an abortion. I believe that we have to change or better refine the social practices such that people can better live their lives. I think the lack of fulfillment of basic constitutive needs and pursuits, leads to anxiousness for the people to do the things they do have a part in…as if we were currently drones with the next thing we have to do on our mind, whether it be love, fun or interests in general, without pursuits of happiness of our own, we just look to child, love…wife and those things are not so well educated, the fulfillment of such and people often come to where they need abortions, well as society, we have to recognize where this happens, look at the circumstances and alter or adjust the environment to cause that such things should not reasonably occur, I guarantee that if we look at these abortions from the perspective of those involved, we will find things in common, that a court / country by the application of policy could alter or circumvent to produce the desired abortion not needed state of being.
Abortions will continue unabated so long as they are defended as a “moral good”, which pro-aborts do.
Abortions WILL DECLINE if they are deemed illegal, because even those with little to no moral compass know that if something is illegal it is wrong. “The law is a (moral) teacher.”
The proof of this is that abortion numbers SOARED in the years after Roe v. Wade. Adoptions, which were readily available before Roe, became nearly non-existent afterwards.
On this specific point, I do not believe Joe Biden ever called abortions a moral good. If so, that would actually cross the line into heresy.
interesting read on when abortion is not so black and white on a personal level.
I was in the pro-life movement. But then, widowed with 6 kids, I prepared for an abortion.
Even when women face the most devastating circumstances, abortion still takes the life of a defenseless human being unjustly. Abortion is psychologically complex but ethically simple.
No, he didn’t. But I still see no Catholic case for Biden. The man is currently accused of rape - RAPE!! - and the media is like . . .
Alas, this is my year to vote third party.
accused - ACCUSED!!!
There is no problem with a Catholic case for avoiding rash judgement. As for a Catholic case for Biden. There have been several made here over the last few months, so they exist. Whether they are valid is a circular question.
Yea, thanks. I said accused, but I’m sure you caught that. It is not rash judgment to expect a deeper investigation into these allegations.