“We need to end the political manipulation of Catholic voters by abortion advocates,” he said. “It is time to end the entanglement of Catholic people with abortion killing. It is time to stop creating excuses for voting for pro-abortion politicians.”
Fine with me.
I wish it would be taken one step further and declared to be mortally sinful to vote for such politicians.
I completely agree. I believe it to be a mortal sin and should be proclaimed as such.
I cringe when people vote based on physical attractiveness or personality and not the crucial issues.
In the first place, most Catholics don’t even understand morality. Don’t know what it is, what it’s sources are. What it means to have a well formed conscience. What human dignity is and what it is based on.
This is not very fertile ground for a responsible vote. Until Catholics understand their faith and come to really know Jesus Christ, exhortations to vote properly will not bear fruit.
We are all responsible for Christian formation, but our pastors are especially responsible, on this feast of St John Vianney. Our pastors are passing down the Christian faith as they received it from their pastors. Etc…
Voting responsibly is a huge step down the road for American Catholics.
I mean people are allowed to vote for who they want in the USA if I am not mistaken there is a right to do that and freedom.
The military, jobs, economics etc are very important along with things having to do with abortion. Everything needs to be looked at not just one or two subjects.
Exactly! There are so many issues to be considered, many that have to do with improving lives. I am not saying abortions are acceptable, but we should not focus on government to fix the problem. We need to continue reaching out to those women that choose to visit abortion clinics. Perhaps being legal, it actually makes it easier to find the women that want an abortion so that we can talk/pray with them to not do it. Being illegal, they will be much harder to find, because we wouldn’t know where they’re going to get the abortion, and wouldn’t be able to talk/pray with them. These are not excuses, just trying to think of positive outcomes for our current problems.
We’re not supposed to be one-issue voters. We’re supposed to look at the gravity of each issue, what’s going on at the time, and prudentially make a decision.
Having said that, there are a million babies killed every year in the USA, and the issue is a grave one. At this point in time, in our geography, IMHO, abortion is a #1 issue. I can’t see a scenario where abortion falls down the list of importance beneath economics, general welfare of the people, healthcare systems, etc. I don’t see a scenario where you can vote for a pro-abortion candidate unless the scenario is only a selection of pro abortion candidates with no pro life candidate available.
This is my prudential assessment, not canon law.
What you are saying makes sense. At the same time, the views of the president on abortion are almost moot. Yes, they may pick a supreme court justice – but there is no guarantee that the one they pick will be pro-life. A conservative candidate may pick a pro-choice or neutral justice that is conservative in other areas, for example.
We do have to look at all the issues, but certain issues have little to do with the officials we elect. Abortion is more grave than foreign relations, or perhaps even more grave than war – however a president will have much more influence on foreign relations and warfare than abortion policy.
Just something to consider. For the record I don’t like any of the presidential candidates, so that does not color my views on this.
I agree with you. Only one tiny little itsy-bitsy clarification. The next President will choose at least one Supreme Court justice that has the chance to upset the balance. We’re on the verge of losing religious liberty as well.
As far as more prudence and looking down the road - the Congress isn’t likely to flip to Democrat any time in the next 4 years. Congress will fight tooth & nail to stop Trump (check & balance) but we have seen in the last 6 years that the Republican Congress will roll over and play dead any time a Democrat wants something (no check & balance). Nothing radical will happen under Trump but under Hildabeast we might see a cowering Congress that lets her have free reign.
There are certain non-negotiable issues for us Catholics–abortion and euthanasia top the list of these. Economic systems come and go, educational ideas come and go, etc, but what constitutes a living human being doesn’t. It’s immutable that every person is a human being, and so worthy of the dignity of any other human being no matter his age. This goes for killing off the elderly, disabled, and infirm in the name of “mercy,” as well as abortion. All human life is sacrosanct since we are created in the image of God. No one has the right to take innocent human life (see the Catechism: ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=abortion&xsubmit=Search&s=SS and ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=euthanasia&xsubmit=Search&s=SS). Certainly not for selfish motivations, or over and above who gets a bigger paycheck, or who can use the restroom: usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/.
I agree with goout that far too many Catholics are clueless about their civil responsibilities as Catholics. They need to be educated, and they need to converted from thinking they are free to vote for whomever they please without violating their own Church’s laws. They need to be converted from being cultural Catholics to real ones. How culpable they are of sin by voting against Church teaching is between them and their confessors, but they need to be told the truth instead of lulled into thinking it doesn’t matter to God who they vote for or why.
Well then there’s only one of the 4 candidates for president you can vote for if you’re a Knight of Columbus I guess…
For the highest office in the country, yes. We are often challenged to be counter-cultural, especially in a culture that denies we can discriminate between one thing and another–as if every opinion that comes into anyone’s head is as true as anyone else’s. Such indifferentism is at the heart of our civil problems, although most aren’t aware of it or would deny it if they were told because they are so sold on the idea that everyone is perfectly equal in every way–even in virtue, which is just plain ridiculous.
CCC 2237 Political authorities are** obliged to respect the fundamental rights of the human person. **They will dispense justice humanely by respecting the rights of everyone, especially of families and the disadvantaged.
The political rights attached to citizenship can and should be granted according to the requirements of the common good. They cannot be suspended by public authorities without legitimate and proportionate reasons. Political rights are meant to be exercised for the common good of the nation and the human community.
2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s."48 “We must obey God rather than men”:49
When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.50
I doubt the Knights favor empty gestures. At present there are only two candidates who have a ghost of a chance of winning. One is partly prolife and has expressed no desire to promote abortion or public funding of it, and does not insist we must “change our religion”. The other is totally pro-abortion, wants public funding for it and wants us to “change our religion” to accommodate it. The choice is clear.
There are moral issues and issues of prudential judgement. All moral issues are non-negotiable. Abortion is not unique in that sense.
Here is an example. We want to attend mass when we are physically able. Mass attendance is never listed as one of the non-negotiables. Yet it is non-negotiable too. Can you imagine negotiating away your right to attend mass in return from some favor or another? Or can you imagine negotiating away any other truly moral issue?
Curious how you can consider either of the two major candidates pro life.
Particularly given they’ve both made pro-choice statements in the past. And the candidate I suspect you think is pro life won’t even answer a simple question about whether he’s had a partner have an abortion or not.
You’re putting your politics before your religion.
I’d say no. The issues Padres1969 cited were all relevant to religion. There wasn’t any mention of a strictly political issue.
Not really, no. My church doesn’t endorse or support abortion except in grave circumstances such as rape, incest, mother’s life in danger, but it also doesn’t endorse an outright ban either like the RCC. That said, even if it did support the RCC position of an outright ban, how would it be putting politics before religion to not vote for a pro-choice candidate, which both of the major candidates are?
It seems to me voting for either major candidate despite their position, which is pro-choice (one a little more than the other, but lets not fool ourselves, both are pro-choice), when there is a true pro-life candidate (which there is though not the D or R), would be putting politics before religion.