Wow, so Catholics aren’t simply people misguided on one particular issue. They are definitionally deranged lunatics and single-issue voters, whose views on that issue demonstrably contradict science.

Sounds like someone got rejected by a cute Catholic girl.

Both parties want to help Americans live well, but have different philosophies on how to get there.

There you go again, ED, attributing good intentions to the democrat party that don’t exist. The democrats are about nothing but power and will oppress to get that power. They are about class envy and hatred and deviding Americans to conquer Americans. They are the direct cousins of those who sent human beings off to concentration camps in germany, the gulags in siberia and the rice fields of cambodia. It’s a load of post modern, moral relativist crap to say the denmocrats are good Americans. They hate our form of government, our economic system and our history. You need to stop talking to these people in the green room. They are clouding your objectivity.

If a political candidate supported abortion, or any other moral evil, such as assisted suicide and euthanasia, for that matter, it would not be morally permissible for you to vote for that person.

But let’s talk about the specifics of this election. Obama is clearly pro-murder of unborn life. McCain isn’t the polar opposite, taking the position that he personally disagrees with abortion, rights of the states, has to work within the framework of the law….etc. In short, McCain is the more pro-life candidate but it isn’t an issue where he has a clear record of voting against the murder of unborn life.

Is it morally justified to vote for a candidate who is simply ambiguous on the issue and not a staunch defender of unborn life? Does “political expediency” trump the tenets of faith?

Obviously, America doesn’t elect politicians solely on the basis of where they stand on abortion or any other issue. It is impossible to simply apply the tenets of faith and arrive at a conclusion in a multi-theistic society. For that reason I would suggest that in places where morality runs into political challenges the answer is not to rely on the politician to do the right thing. One should vote for the least morally reprehensible politician but use the political process to apply pressure to the legislative process in general to act in a morally correct manner.

We can all generalize throughout time that “all” “war/violence” is wrong and loathesome — it usually has been and probably always will be — but sometimes hard work like that is necessary to protect and defend, and that’s what’s important, the distinction that counts. The INTENTION and motivations involved are the primary issues, because the hard work involved is oftentimes gruesome, no doubt about it.

TYPO…I do not believe that “all war…is wrong…” but that the CONCEPT of violence in that extreme is not desirable, is “wrong” as to what anyone would prefer to happen. But that in some circumstances, the war that results is justified and although not necessarily “right” in preferences (we’d all prefer to live and let live), it’s sometimes necessary.

The catechism does explicitly call “indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas” a violation of doctrine

And why would a secular society care what Catholic doctrine says? Unless an individual has the capability to ‘destroy whole cities or vast areas’, methinks the Vatican is severely overstepping its boundaries in the desire to see individual human beings’ souls saved by Christ’s resurrection for our sins….

ThackerAgency on August 7, 2008 at 1:32 PM

Thacker, the key term there is INDISCRIMINATE DESTRUCTION.

Which I again emphasis represents the key distinction between “gratuitious” or “wanton” (sinful, wrong, not supported, condemnable) with protection and defense of life (not condemnable).

God reads our hearts, condemns our behaviors accordingly, the concept of judgement is based upon our individual conditions. IF a person goes to “war” which is in defense and protection of life (not condemnable), but runs around murdering (wanton destruction of life), they’re engaging in murder, condemnable, dreadfully sinful acts.

But the war itself isn’t an act of murder, when and if it’s in defense and protection of life.

The Left ROUTINELY DENIES the issue of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, I emphasis, by deeming “the war in Iraq” as they call it, “illegal” and in the “religion of the Left,” that means, it’s “wrong”. They have their own form of religion and it is their politics, their socio-political needs and ambitions.

Thus, they run roughshod with the most important aspects of Christianity, in my view, by refusing the issue of personal responsibility and behaviors by individuals that are condemnable versus what they “prefer”: Liberal ideology.

We can all generalize throughout time that “all” “war/violence” is wrong and loathesome — it usually has been and probably always will be — but sometimes hard work like that is necessary to protect and defend, and that’s what’s important, the distinction that counts. The INTENTION and motivations involved are the primary issues, because the hard work involved is oftentimes gruesome, no doubt about it.

By comparison, the Left wants “more money” (taken away from defense) to grow more Liberals and bloat. Which, in my experience, rarely actually does anything for “the poor,” but the Left uses “the poor” like it uses microphones.

So the liberals in the Catholic church want to vote for the candidate that most TALKS about the poor, rather than the one that might actually HELP the poor? Makes sense.

doodleduh on August 7, 2008 at 1:30 PM

Exactly.

This year, Mr. Kmiec was denied communion by a priest at a gathering of Catholic business people because of his support for Mr. Obama.

I agree, that’s awesome. More power to those Priests and Bishops among us Catholics who behave likewise. I wonder who it is, exactly, gives Holy Communion to Nancy Pelosi and why they do.

Goes to the Just War doctrines in many many ways. At what point does the evil of going to war become overshadowed by the evil that would be rampant if we did not go to war?

coldwarrior on August 8, 2008 at 5:29 PM

Jesus Christ and God the Father do not condemn self protection and protection of life.

“War” can be a defensive action and it often is provoked by defensive concerns.

If a person goes to “war” because they love and lust for the blood of others, to destruct wantonly for whatever reasons, that’s another story, that’s GRATUITOUS USE OF VIOLENCE OR WAR for profane reasons.

There is nothing sinful or wrong, inherently, in taking up arms to defend and protect others and onesself. In fact, it’s a responsibility before God to protect and defend life.

“Which of the two twins is present the original fertilized egg? It would seem like the single cell is potentially both but actually neither one.”

Answer:
Since the zygote is a whole being (i.e. not a piece of someone like a muscle cell), and is human, it follows that he/she is a human being. Let’s assume the zygote has a pair of X chromosomes so I can stop saying he/she and just say she.

At this age (1 to several days) she is composed of totipotent cells (i.e. they can turn into any specific kind of cell). Originally she is just one cell, which is clearly just one being. After some multiplication and an embryonic collapse/split she may generate another being and it might be hard to tell which one was the original, but the fact remains that a human being existed as soon as a whole being existed.

Ramifications:
That’s the philosophical argument. You might find it unconvincing and that’s fine, but without being certain that the zygote is not a human being one must err on the side of caution and not kill her for convenience.

As I understand it both arguments underpin the position held by the Catholic Church, and given to us as ethical guidance for difficult questions. It’s a tough job but some earthly entity has to be delegated to do it.

All of this affects the ehtics of things like the morning after pill which cause the embryo to die by preventing implantation. However most abortions occur after a couple of months, by which time the baby already has a heart beat, brain waves, toes, etc. At that point it’s fairly obvious just from the outward features that the baby is a baby.

Now I will finally shut up:
Anyway, the post was about Catholics voting according to conscience on matters like abortion versus matters like war. As Morissey correctly pointed out, going to war is not intrinsically wrong; one has to make a judgement on a case by case basis. In this there is room for disagreement in good conscience so good Catholics will go either way. However abortion, being deliberate killing of an innocent person, is intrinsically wrong. No circumstances can justify it, period. This is why Catholics cannot in good conscience vote pro-choice when there is a good alternative. It would be like voting for a pro-rape politician – unjustifiable.

This part is intensely interesting:

3. If I think that a pro-abortion candidate will, on balance, do much more for the culture of life than a pro-life candidate, why may I not vote for the pro-abortion candidate?

(Answer):
If a political candidate supported abortion, or any other moral evil, such as assisted suicide and euthanasia, for that matter, it would not be morally permissible for you to vote for that person. This is because, in voting for such a person, you would become an accomplice in the moral evil at issue. For this reason, moral evils such as abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are examples of a “disqualifying issue.”

Another thing about Obama and that is he was just pumping up the “homosexual agenda” the other day — congratulating homosexuals on getting ‘married’ — and that’s yet another spit in the face of Christ and Christianity and certainly the Catholic Church (the Church does not recognize “marriage” in relationship with homosexuality and speaks demonstratively against it).

SaintOlaf on August 8, 2008 at 1:08 PM

First sign of the apocalypse: SaintOlaf defended me. : )

To those that addressed my issue, two things here: one, that my gandparents took me to a very conservative church, and that the priest was a family member (cousin or something twice removed). Things have changed, both with me and that church. Back then, in a small town, there was only one reason for a young girl (14) to go on the Pill – there were lots of misconceptions floating around. I guess I just wanted to throw that out there to get a third-party opinion. I generally have a lot of respect for Catholics – I agree it’s hard work to be a good one. It’s no longer for me. I’m also glad another misconception has been corrected here… that it’s possible, downright logical, for a Catholic to be Republican.

(1.) “It’s NOT O.K. to use violence/force against a man/woman/other person throwing a giant rock at the heads/persons of others, or otherwise, against anyone who is in the process of attempting mortal threat upon others; but,

(2.) “It’s O.K. to take the life of the most defenseless human beings while in the womb when they’re literally trying merely to survive to independence outside of the womb, if at all possible.”

The Left using their sliding-scale of value-of-life arguement is ongoing, but about “the poor,” it’s the same exploit. Obama wants to render everyone poor, that’s what Obama wants, so he “can be President.”

Egomania of the Left never ceases to surprise me, their need to be right by whatever rationalization they can imagine. Fools always eager to subjugate the most dear for the most profane so they can “feel good.”

By no means am I a Catholic theologian, not even close, but it is my understanding that life begins at the moment of conception.

Was this animation exception based on scientific knowledge at the time? Probably. Poor as “science” was at the time. But unless one has access to data showing the high rate of spontaneous abortions, miscarriages and such, not much to go on in that regard from an historical perspective.

In many many countries then, and qwuite a few even today, having high infant mortality, the rule of thumb in many was (and in a few countries today) to not Christen a child until after the first year of life.

Any educated Catholic theologians out there? I’m not one. Sure could use one about now.

geckomon on August 7, 2008 at 7:37 PM

Ah, I should have known someone else would have replied to Anna. Good job! :-)

If Congress passed a law next November that stated we had to round up and forcibly deport all Moslems simply because they are Moslems, I’d be at the barricades making sure that enforcement did not happen in my neighborhood. It would be an unjust law. Though my Church admonishes me to follow civil law, unjust law is a matter for morality to kick in.
coldwarrior on August 7, 2008 at 5:59 PM

In general I agree with you here but never underestimate how terrible times can change things. I don’t recall the Church taking a stand against Japanese-Americans during WWII being sent to internment camps, nor large numbers of Catholics refusing to go along with FDR’s order. One or two nukes going off in American cities and I wager most Catholics here would ignore such a view like yours – probably you included.

Mr. Kmiec, a Republican who served in the Justice Department under President Ronald Reagan, said he was supporting Mr. Obama because his platform met the standard of justice and concern for the poor the church has always defended.

I have not yet read through the previous comments but I have to post this first (regarding that quote ^^ and those lies by that, well, guy): BLASPHEMY, Baa, crap, garbage.

That quote, right there, is the essence of a person being misled by lies, following “the false light” to their doom and encouraging others to do likewise (in Christian and Judaism, a very grave sin).

Obama “represents” USERY of “the poor,” among, also, the gravest of sins.

I’ve read several “Cafeteria Catholic” opines on behalf of Obama — they all defame me as “not really a Catholic” which is nonsense, but that’s what Cafeteria Catholics do, they defame Catholics who are more closely following what the Vatican requires and not following socio-political persons and trends otherwise — and they all try to USE these same, baseless, misleading positions as does that professor (quoted above).

About “the war,” (War in Iraq, specifically), Pope Benedict declines support for ALL WAR, while not choosing “sides” (not anti-American, not anti-others), but the act of war is the issue. THE GRATUITOUS USE OF VIOLENCE is what the Vatican opposes and well it should (and which I also agree with, which is yet another reason why I am a Catholic and not of the Cafeteria kind). The Pope has made it clear that unnecessary violence needs to end and should not be supported.

Thus, certain Cafeteria Catholics USE THIS supportable position to again EXPLOIT THE CHURCH — that to be “Catholic” is to oppose THE WAR IN IRAQ, which LIBERALS deem “illegal” (their attempt to associate with the goodly Vatican as the Pope speaks in opposition of GRATUITOUS or UNNECESSARY violence — the Left again worms into the concept by again exploiting it toward their anti-American emotional, and most often, non-”spiritual” positions).

There is NOTHING “wrong” or untoward or sinful about defending onesself, about exercising whatever force is necessary to defend and protect onesself and/or others.

The Left AGAIN USES the highest values of the Vatican to exploit them and thus, to defame Christ. This professor SUBJUGATES THE VERY ESSENCE OF HUMAN WORTH to support his baseless (and disgusting) rationalizations about “voting for Obama.”

He places Obama’s pro-abortion positions (and therefore, abortion and the human life involved) as secondary to his human NEED to be poltical, to exercise ego. AND THAT’S WHAT OBAMA IS ALL ABOUT AND WHY HE’S APPEALING TO OTHER EGOISTS. It’s a surge of humanists pressing up their huge egos in defiance of…well…in defiance of God, the Highest Order of thought and value and…reason.

I’m disgusted by these people who parade themselves as (Cafeteria) Catholics and mislead others to equal doom, just disgusted by them.

So in order to receive communion, you have to support laws that force non-Catholics to live in accordance to papal decree.

RightOFLeft on August 7, 2008 at 5:37 PM

Cute. No, you cannot support laws which maliciously violate the Gospel of Life like abortion does.

Pope Gregory XIV brought into play the “animation” of the fetus, based on Aristotle’s and Aquinas’ arguments regarding “when” life began. The general accepted period was not less than 40 days after conception, and remained so until 1869.

In 1869, Pius IX rescinded the animation exception. Thus, next year’s 140th “anniversary” of Pius IX’s Canon Law ruling.
coldwarrior on August 7, 2008 at 5:25 PM

I oppose abortion myself, but I’m genuinely curious: was this decision based on what was known scientifically at the time? If so, could that exception ever be reversed for some reason? Someone posted about zygotes and stuff earlier which sparked my curiosity in reading your post here.