Voting: Abortion and Contraception
#11
(10-18-2012, 03:41 PM)introibo Wrote: And he went on to say that anybody who votes for a pro-abortion candidate is excommunicated.  I was kind of shocked to hear that and don't know if that's true.  But I don 't think he was implying in any way that a vote for Romney was grounds for excommunication, at least that's what I got out of it...I believe he was speaking of the ardently pro-abortion candidates like Obama/Biden.
Christina

I believe if you read the relevant Canons he's wrong about the excommunication, but if he indeed was implying an exception for the pro-abort pagan cultist he was being disingenuous in my opinion.
Reply
#12
Here is what the Most Rev Robert Morlino, Bp of Madison (my home diocese) recently wrote on the topic:

Quote: However, the formation of conscience regarding particular policy issues is different depending on how fundamental to the ecology of human nature or the Catholic faith a particular issue is. Some of the most fundamental issues for the formation of a Catholic conscience are as follows: sacredness of human life from conception to natural death, marriage, religious freedom and freedom of conscience, and a right to private property.

Violations of the above involve intrinsic evil — that is, an evil which cannot be justified by any circumstances whatsoever. These evils are examples of direct pollution of the ecology of human nature and can be discerned as such by human reason alone. Thus, all people of good will who wish to follow human reason should deplore any and all violations in the above areas, without exception. The violations would be: abortion, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, same-sex marriage, government-coerced secularism, and socialism.

In these most fundamental matters, a well-formed Catholic conscience, or the well-formed conscience of a person of good will, simply follows the conclusions demanded by the ecology of human nature and the reasoning process. A Catholic conscience can never take exception to the prohibition of actions which are intrinsically evil. Nor may a conscience well-formed by reason or the Catholic faith ever choose to vote for someone who clearly, consistently, persistently promotes that which is intrinsically evil.

However, a conscience well-formed according to reason or the Catholic faith, must also make choices where intrinsic evil is not involved. How best to care for the poor is probably the finest current example of this, though another would be how best to create jobs at a time when so many are suffering from the ravages of unemployment. In matters such as these, where intrinsic evil is not involved, the rational principles of solidarity and subsidiarity come into play. The principle of solidarity, simply stated, means that every human being on the face of the earth is my brother and my sister, my “neighbor” in the biblical sense. At the same time, the time-tested best way for assisting our neighbors throughout the world should follow the principle of subsidiarity. That means the problem at hand should be addressed at the lowest level possible — that is, the level closest to the people in need. That again, is simply the law of human reason.

It seems to me that we can never, under any circumstance, vote for a candidate who openly supports abortion, euthanasia, the right to practice the True Faith, same-sex marriage, coerced secularism, or socialism. To think a post-conciliar bishop actually wrote this!!!
Reply
#13
(10-18-2012, 03:16 PM)PeterII Wrote: What is the issue with contraception?  How are the candidates "pro contraception"?  Do they encourage it?

Well, either they're positively for it, or they do not seek to lessen its use, its legality, its distribution, etc. Obviously that cat is out of the bag, but they can still have a strong life policy to convince people to change their ways.
Reply
#14
Even if a candidate were personally opposed to contraception, they would NEVER publically say so, because public opinion is so strongly for it.  That's a huge flaw of the democratic model -- just about anyone (and certainly anyone of faith) has to betray their own values to be elected.
Reply
#15
(10-18-2012, 04:24 PM)OCLittleFlower Wrote: Even if a candidate were personally opposed to contraception, they would NEVER publically say so, because public opinion is so strongly for it.  That's a huge flaw of the democratic model -- just about anyone (and certainly anyone of faith) has to betray their own values to be elected.

Yes, this kind of goes with what I was saying. A true Catholic candidate -- one that we could vote for with no qualms of conscience -- could never even get nominated, let alone elected. Our culture supports contraception and even abortion, and it will take a lot more than electing a different president to change that.
Reply
#16
(10-18-2012, 04:30 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(10-18-2012, 04:24 PM)OCLittleFlower Wrote: Even if a candidate were personally opposed to contraception, they would NEVER publically say so, because public opinion is so strongly for it.  That's a huge flaw of the democratic model -- just about anyone (and certainly anyone of faith) has to betray their own values to be elected.

Yes, this kind of goes with what I was saying. A true Catholic candidate -- one that we could vote for with no qualms of conscience -- could never even get nominated, let alone elected. Our culture supports contraception and even abortion, and it will take a lot more than electing a different president to change that.

But what if laws against abortion actually resulted in more abortion due to the black market providing the services (which seems to be a possibility in South America)?  What would a true Catholic candidate do in that case?
Reply
#17
Quote: What would a true Catholic candidate do in that case?
How would they know this?  If they find out, justice for the perpetrators.
Reply
#18
(10-18-2012, 05:44 PM)PeterII Wrote:
(10-18-2012, 04:30 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(10-18-2012, 04:24 PM)OCLittleFlower Wrote: Even if a candidate were personally opposed to contraception, they would NEVER publically say so, because public opinion is so strongly for it.  That's a huge flaw of the democratic model -- just about anyone (and certainly anyone of faith) has to betray their own values to be elected.

Yes, this kind of goes with what I was saying. A true Catholic candidate -- one that we could vote for with no qualms of conscience -- could never even get nominated, let alone elected. Our culture supports contraception and even abortion, and it will take a lot more than electing a different president to change that.

But what if laws against abortion actually resulted in more abortion due to the black market providing the services (which seems to be a possibility in South America)?  What would a true Catholic candidate do in that case?

I have a friend who argues that abortions will actually increase if Romney wins the election. His reasoning is that Romney's policies will have negative financial effects on middle-class and lower-class people, and people in financial difficulty are more likely to get abortions, because they can't afford to have children. I'm not sure if that reasoning holds up (or if Romney's policies actually would have that effect), but it makes the point that these things are more complicated than they might appear. It's not as simple as electing a pro-life president (assuming that's even possible). Comprehensive societal change is required.
Reply
#19
(10-18-2012, 06:00 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(10-18-2012, 05:44 PM)PeterII Wrote:
(10-18-2012, 04:30 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(10-18-2012, 04:24 PM)OCLittleFlower Wrote: Even if a candidate were personally opposed to contraception, they would NEVER publically say so, because public opinion is so strongly for it.  That's a huge flaw of the democratic model -- just about anyone (and certainly anyone of faith) has to betray their own values to be elected.

Yes, this kind of goes with what I was saying. A true Catholic candidate -- one that we could vote for with no qualms of conscience -- could never even get nominated, let alone elected. Our culture supports contraception and even abortion, and it will take a lot more than electing a different president to change that.

But what if laws against abortion actually resulted in more abortion due to the black market providing the services (which seems to be a possibility in South America)?  What would a true Catholic candidate do in that case?

I have a friend who argues that abortions will actually increase if Romney wins the election. His reasoning is that Romney's policies will have negative financial effects on middle-class and lower-class people, and people in financial difficulty are more likely to get abortions, because they can't afford to have children. I'm not sure if that reasoning holds up (or if Romney's policies actually would have that effect), but it makes the point that these things are more complicated than they might appear. It's not as simple as electing a pro-life president (assuming that's even possible). Comprehensive societal change is required.

Sounds like the sort of logic Democrats used to ensnare Catholics -- help them out of poverty and they won't WANT abortions. Doesn't seem to have done much good.  I don't think Romeney would have that effect -- nor do I think Obama is an economic good thing.  Sure hasn't proven to be this far, that's for sure.
Reply
#20
(10-18-2012, 05:49 PM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: What would a true Catholic candidate do in that case?
How would they know this?  If they find out, justice for the perpetrators.

This! A firing squad or the noose would cut down on abortions very rapidly. Abortion is murder, in case you've forgotten!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)