Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #134

Subject: ""The voter's guide for serious catholics"" This topic is locked.
Previous topic | Next topic
love2000
Charter member
2905 posts
Mon Oct-11-04 03:51 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
""The voter's guide for serious catholics""


  

          


I was at a wedding this weekend and found this in the church. I never realized how Republican the Catholic church was until now. The pamphlet does everything but say, 'vote for Bush'.

I'll quote most, but will not type out the full explanation for all..
---

The five non-negotitable issues

These five issues are called non-negotiable because they concern actions that are always morally wrong and must never be promoted by the law. It is a serious sin to endorse or promote any of these actions and no candidate who really wants to advance the common good will support any of the five non-negotiables.

1. Abortion
2. Euthanasia
3. Fetal Stem Cell Research
4. Human Cloning
5. Homosexual "Marriage"

How NOT to Vote:

1. Do not base your vote on your political party affiliation, your earlier voting habits, or your family's voting tradition
2. Do not cast your vote bsed on candidates' appearance, personality, or media savvy.
3. Do not vote for candidates simply because they declare themselves to be Catholic.
4. Do not choose among candidates based on 'what's in it for me?'
5. Do not reward with your vote candidates who are right on lesser issues but who are wrong on key moral issues.

How to vote:

1. Determine how each candidate stands on the five non-negotiable issues.
2. Eliminate candidates who are wrong on any of the non-negotiable issues.
3. Choose from among the remaining candidates based on your assessment of each candidate's views on other, lesser issues.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top


Topic Outline
Subject Author Message Date ID
very disappointing
Oct 11th 2004
1
RE: very disappointing
Oct 11th 2004
4
think deeper n/m
Oct 12th 2004
9
      RE: think deeper n/m
Oct 13th 2004
14
           why don't you...
Oct 13th 2004
16
                why don't you...
Oct 13th 2004
17
                     how 'bout this...
Oct 13th 2004
18
                          RE: how 'bout this...
Oct 13th 2004
19
                               this is the point right here...
Oct 13th 2004
20
                               thank you
Oct 13th 2004
21
RE: "The voter's guide for serious catholics"
Oct 11th 2004
2
RE: "The voter's guide for serious catholics"
Oct 11th 2004
6
yea, i heard about that.
Oct 11th 2004
3
Here's the full text:
Oct 11th 2004
5
thank you..
Oct 12th 2004
7
damn .... thats messed up ....
Oct 12th 2004
8
      think deeper n/m
Oct 12th 2004
10
           think deeper??
Oct 12th 2004
11
                why don't you...
Oct 13th 2004
15
RE: Man, did anyone see Frank Rich on Real Time?
Oct 12th 2004
12
yeh, heard of it ......
Oct 13th 2004
13

colonelk
Member since Dec 10th 2002
5056 posts
Mon Oct-11-04 07:01 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
1. "very disappointing"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

This is obviously slanted toward the GOP.

How is the death penalty not one of the "non-negotiables"!? Oh, because that's the one "sanctity of life" issue that Republicans are consistently on the wrong side of.

What kind of Catholic is really more concerned with gay marriage than the death penalty?


--------

hell-below.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Mon Oct-11-04 08:10 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
4. "RE: very disappointing"
In response to Reply # 1


          

Very good point.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Tue Oct-12-04 01:04 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
9. "think deeper n/m"
In response to Reply # 1


  

          

.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Wed Oct-13-04 04:05 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
14. "RE: think deeper n/m"
In response to Reply # 9


          


No, I don't think we "n" what you "/m."

Why don't you let us know why the banning of gay marriage is more important than the abolition of the death penalty.

Preach, brother! Preach.

At least give us some "Adam and Steve" BS so we can tell how deeply you've thought about the issues.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed Oct-13-04 04:20 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
16. "why don't you..."
In response to Reply # 14


  

          


>Why don't you let us know why the banning of gay marriage is
>more important than the abolition of the death penalty.


explain to us how repealing the death penalty supports a value called "sanctity of life".







--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Wed Oct-13-04 04:32 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
17. "why don't you..."
In response to Reply # 16
Wed Oct-13-04 04:33 AM

          

>
>>Why don't you let us know why the banning of gay marriage is
>>more important than the abolition of the death penalty.
>
>
>explain to us how repealing the death penalty supports a
>value called "sanctity of life".

Why don't *you* explain to *us* how banning gay marriage "supports a value called 'sanctity of life.'"

Then you can let us know how it supports this "sanctity of life" to kill anybody who can't convince a jury of his innocence.

I think you're the one who needs to think a little deeper here. And until you convince me otherwise, the burden of argument is on you.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed Oct-13-04 04:50 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
18. "how 'bout this..."
In response to Reply # 17
Wed Oct-13-04 04:52 AM

  

          

>Why don't *you* explain to *us* how banning gay marriage
>"supports a value called 'sanctity of life.'"

Are you joking? It doesn't. How could it? To my knowledge, no one is being executed at gay weddings, correct? What are you talking about?

>Then you can let us know how it supports this "sanctity of
>life" to kill anybody who can't convince a jury of his
>innocence.

Tell me, if life truly has "sanctity", how do you communicate this value in the form of a punishment for taking of lives?

See, both sides agree about the "sanctity of life". But only one side's opinion about punishment reflects that sanctity.

By the way.. by "can't prove they're innocent", do you mean those that are "actually guilty"? Or do you just mean those that are "unable to prove that they're innocent"?

There's a difference you know.

You seem to ascribe the latter as the reasoning of "pro death penalty" people. That seems like a mistake on your part.

If you KNEW.. if it was PROVEN to you that "this man" killed your brother, would you believe in the necessity of his execution?

If not, then you can hardly argue that you believe in "sanctity of life".

You're upset cause the legal system is imperfect and innocent people die as a result of that imperfection. But how you jump from that to "no one should ever die for killing anyone" is BEYOND me.

It completely negates your claim that life has sanctity.

peace.


>I think you're the one who needs to think a little deeper
>here. And until you convince me otherwise, the burden of
>argument is on you.

is it?




--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
12403 posts
Wed Oct-13-04 05:41 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
19. "RE: how 'bout this..."
In response to Reply # 18


          

>>Why don't *you* explain to *us* how banning gay marriage
>>"supports a value called 'sanctity of life.'"
>
>Are you joking? It doesn't. How could it? To my
>knowledge, no one is being executed at gay weddings,
>correct? What are you talking about?

Scroll up a little if you've forgotten. Gay Marriage is a "non-negotiable" issue. The death penalty (also condemned by the Catholic church, by the way) is not. Contraception (also condemned by the Catholic church) is not. The concept of pre-emptive war (also condemned by the Catholic church) is not. We are questioning the "catholicism" of these non-negotiable issues by noting the coincidence that the non-negotiables happen to fall so neatly into the Republican platform, yet they leave such big holes in the Catholic platform.

>>Then you can let us know how it supports this "sanctity of
>>life" to kill anybody who can't convince a jury of his
>>innocence.
>
>Tell me, if life truly has "sanctity", how do you
>communicate this value in the form of a punishment for
>taking of lives?

Maybe by holding people behind bars, where they can't commit further crimes, yet can still be freed if later evidence warrants it.

>See, both sides agree about the "sanctity of life". But
>only one side's opinion about punishment reflects that
>sanctity.

Oh really. So you admit that the justice system is imperfect, yet you'd rather trust it enough to cut people down out of revenge, rather than hold out enough compassion to let them come to terms with their own sins, or enough hope that they might later be exonerated.

And by the way, there aren't just two "sides" here. The Catholic church is solidly and openly opposed to the death penalty, so our little argument here is completely beside the point.

>By the way.. by "can't prove they're innocent", do you mean
>those that are "actually guilty"? Or do you just mean those
>that are "unable to prove that they're innocent"?
>
>There's a difference you know.

Exactly! That is my point! There is a difference, but unfortunately it doesn't always come out in the courtroom. I'd rather err on the side of caution.

>You seem to ascribe the latter as the reasoning of "pro
>death penalty" people. That seems like a mistake on your
>part.
>
>If you KNEW.. if it was PROVEN to you that "this man" killed
>your brother, would you believe in the necessity of his
>execution?

No, I would not. *I* would attempt turn the other cheek. My society would hopefully lock the guy up out of concern for their own safety. But an "eye for an eye" leaves both parties blind.

And by the way, there is no absolute standard of "proof." There is always experimental uncertainty. So nothing is ever "PROVEN", certainly not in all caps.

>If not, then you can hardly argue that you believe in
>"sanctity of life".

Oh really! I disrespect the sanctity of life if I have a distaste for killing my fellow man, even if he's done me harm. Huh...

>You're upset cause the legal system is imperfect and
>innocent people die as a result of that imperfection. But
>how you jump from that to "no one should ever die for
>killing anyone" is BEYOND me.

I don't jump from that. I jump from ordinary human decency. The manner in which you allow your culture to cloud your own inherent decency is beyond ME.

>It completely negates your claim that life has sanctity.

Tell that to the Pope.


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
love2000
Charter member
2905 posts
Wed Oct-13-04 06:06 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
20. "this is the point right here..."
In response to Reply # 19


  

          


>Scroll up a little if you've forgotten. Gay Marriage is a
>"non-negotiable" issue. The death penalty (also condemned
>by the Catholic church, by the way) is not. Contraception
>(also condemned by the Catholic church) is not. The concept
>of pre-emptive war (also condemned by the Catholic church)
>is not. We are questioning the "catholicism" of these
>non-negotiable issues by noting the coincidence that the
>non-negotiables happen to fall so neatly into the Republican
>platform, yet they leave such big holes in the Catholic
>platform.
>

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed Oct-13-04 06:44 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
21. "thank you"
In response to Reply # 19


  

          


>Scroll up a little if you've forgotten. Gay Marriage is a
>"non-negotiable" issue. The death penalty (also condemned
>by the Catholic church, by the way) is not.

Interesting, had no idea that the death penalty was condemned by Catholics.


>Contraception
>(also condemned by the Catholic church) is not.


Ok, but that could hardly make a list of "non-negotiables" could it?


>The concept
>of pre-emptive war (also condemned by the Catholic church)
>is not. We are questioning the "catholicism" of these
>non-negotiable issues by noting the coincidence that the
>non-negotiables happen to fall so neatly into the Republican
>platform, yet they leave such big holes in the Catholic
>platform.


Ok, I see that.



>Maybe by holding people behind bars, where they can't commit
>further crimes, yet can still be freed if later evidence
>warrants it.


Works for me.



>>See, both sides agree about the "sanctity of life". But
>>only one side's opinion about punishment reflects that
>>sanctity.
>
>Oh really. So you admit that the justice system is
>imperfect, yet you'd rather trust it enough to cut people
>down out of revenge, rather than hold out enough compassion
>to let them come to terms with their own sins, or enough
>hope that they might later be exonerated.

I believe that people who are "pro death penalty" fear that their belief in the "sanctity of life" would be questionable if they didn't think that people "guilty" of murder should die.
I think they fear backing off the issue because they fear that they're comprimising (sp?) that value.

How they maintain that view in light of the point you raised, I don't know.


>And by the way, there aren't just two "sides" here. The
>Catholic church is solidly and openly opposed to the death
>penalty, so our little argument here is completely beside
>the point.


Again, this is news to me. Seems in line with their view on abortion though. Doesn't it?



>Oh really! I disrespect the sanctity of life if I have a
>distaste for killing my fellow man, even if he's done me
>harm. Huh...


Huh.. =)

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Irabus Ghost
Member since Oct 25th 2004
7 posts
Mon Oct-11-04 07:34 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
2. "RE: "The voter's guide for serious catholics""
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Are you sure this was put out by the church? I know there are some groups out there, like Catholics for Bush who are saying stuff like this.

Also, it surprises me that the death penalty isn't one of these issues on here, given what's on the rest of the list.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
notnac
Charter member
1607 posts
Mon Oct-11-04 11:02 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
6. "RE: "The voter's guide for serious catholics""
In response to Reply # 2


          

>Are you sure this was put out by the church?

It wasn't. It was put out by a group called "Catholic Answers" and not sanctioned by the church itself. You can see the bishop's official statements on political involvement at http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/index.htm.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

shamus
Member since Oct 18th 2004
4457 posts
Mon Oct-11-04 08:04 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
3. "yea, i heard about that."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

a woman at the Philadelphia Weekly paper wrote an article on it.

-----------
Bad Religion?

Local Catholic churches are playing politics with their parishioners.

by Kate Kilpatrick


In 1960 the first Catholic president of the United States, John F. Kennedy, was elected with overwhelming support from Catholics. (Three-fourths of Catholics voted for Kennedy, while three-fourths of white Protestants supported Nixon.) Since then the Catholic vote has often been Democratic, the two groups converging on issues of social justice and social welfare.
Now, more than four decades later, another Catholic (Kerry) is challenging an incumbent WASP (George W. Bush). But unlike in 1960, this time the Catholic vote is up for grabs, with George Bush wooing (and winning) this constituency in great numbers.

At 64 million, Catholics make up a quarter of the U.S. population, and are heavily concentrated in key states with high numbers of Electoral College votes. Already a major force for its swing-state status in the upcoming election, Pennsylvania is roughly one-third Catholic. In 2000 the commonwealth's Catholics supported Gore over Bush 53 to 46 percent. Had the Catholic vote been reversed, Bush would have won the state.

While Bush bows down to the religious right, Catholic groups are mobilizing on their own to distribute voter information to their congregations. Yet some of the handouts found in area Catholic churches almost seem to have been preapproved by the Republican National Committee.

In church pews and vestibules at institutions like St. Patrick's at 20th and Locust streets, practicing Catholics can find a glossy pink-and-blue booklet titled the "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics."

Catholic Answers, one of the nation's largest lay-run Catholic groups, published the booklet. It has distributed 2 million copies so far, and intends to double that number by November. The group also ran a full-page ad outlining its five key moral issues in the Aug. 31 issue of USA Today. It plans to run a similar ad later this month.

According to the "Voter's Guide," Catholics are free to support or oppose any candidate or ballot measure on issues such as jobs, trade, taxes or the war in Iraq. Yet Catholics may not in good conscience vote for any candidate in any political race who supports or condones any one of the five "nonnegotiables": abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning or euthanasia.

"Candidates who are wrong on any of the five issues should be eliminated from consideration," the booklet instructs.

And that would, of course, eliminate Kerry.

When no candidate would qualify for Catholic support, the guide advises voters to choose whoever supports the fewest number of nonnegotiables, or not to vote at all.

That would mean those voting at all should support Bush.

The Church's position on these issues is well known, but what's striking is the exclusion of other nonnegotiables--specifically the death penalty--that would encourage Catholic voters to support Kerry over Bush.

Karl Keating, the founder and president of Catholic Answers, says the five nonnegotiables were chosen because each represents a moral issue that's been in the news in the past five years. "We could have had, for example, the Church's position on rape--which is it's always wrong," he says, "but nobody's proposing to have a pro-rape statute passed."

But capital punishment is a current and polarizing issue, with the presidential candidates representing opposite sides of the divide. President Bush strongly supports the death penalty. (Texas executes far more death row inmates than any other state.)

Kerry, on the other hand, had the Democratic Party platform rewritten to remove the section endorsing the death penalty, making him the first major-party candidate in more than 15 years to take such a strong stand against it.

While most Americans support the death penalty, Kerry doesn't--and neither does the Catholic Church, which declares capital punishment theoretically permissible only in "very rare if practically nonexistent" situations given the modern ability for governments to restrain criminals. Pope John Paul II has called the death penalty "both cruel and unnecessary," and expressed his hopes that it not be used ever again--even against Saddam Hussein.

Keating, though, maintains, "The Catholic Church allows a range of opinions on . The Church teaches that the state has the right to inflict capital punishment, but it must be done under a regime of prudence. The catechism suggests it would be an unusual application, but nonetheless the Church doesn't forbid capital punishment. A Catholic can endorse this limited issue and still be a good Catholic."

Spokesperson Matthew Gambino says the Archdiocese of Philadelphia is "pretty neutral" about the "Voter's Guide." "We don't find anything objectionable in it," he says. "But we do have a couple caveats."

Gambino says the guide doesn't speak to local candidates or issues. He also questions the number of nonnegotiables. "Why five? Why not two? Why not 10, for that matter?" he says.

In the Oct. 7 issue of The Catholic Standard & Times, the archdiocese will distribute its own voter education material (as it does for every general and primary election) in the form of a 12-page guide that highlights 10 campaign issues and includes a candidates' questionnaire. Information from the guide will be sent to each parish to be included in the Sunday bulletins.

The 10 issues include the death penalty as well as same-sex marriage, human cloning, healthcare for the elderly, school choice, welfare reform legislation, embryonic stem cell research and legislation that could require Catholic hospital workers to deliver services contrary to their faith.

Stuffed into some parish bulletins this past week was a flier from the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation addressing the candidates' positions on "life issues." Yet abortion is the only life issue addressed, with Kerry failing miserably on each abortion topic and Bush passing with flying colors.

Perhaps more disturbing than the narrowing of life issues to one are the photos chosen to represent the candidates. A smooth-looking Bush smiles with an American flag behind him and another pinned to his lapel. John Kerry, meanwhile, is pictured looking away from the camera with a blurry background.

And again the major issue for both presidential candidates as they campaign across the country--the war in Iraq--is completely absent from any of these voter education materials.

Keating says the war wasn't mentioned in Catholic Answers' guide because "Very often in war situations you can't go so far to say that this or that position is actually contrary to the Catholic faith." Yet the Vatican has taken a strong stand against the war.

Pope John Paul II spoke out against the U.S. invasion of Iraq, adding that a preemptive strike would raise serious ethical and legal questions. During a June visit with the president, the pope reminded Bush of the Vatican's opposition to the war and the need to cooperate with the U.N. and the international community as part of a combined effort to normalize the situation in Iraq.

The Catholic Church's Just War Theory is a set of conditions that determines whether entering into a particular conflict can be morally justified. Among these restrictions are the tests of just cause, right intention, last resort, declaration by a competent authority and probability of success. The war in Iraq fails all of these tests.

Less than six months before his assassination, John F. Kennedy gave his famous "Strategy of Peace" speech in which he said, "The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war ... But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just."

If in pursuing world peace the voters chose to make arms control, diplomacy and international collaboration their nonnegotiables, they'd have a pretty easy choice to make Nov. 2.


--
the untold want by life and land ne'er granted
now voyager sail thou forth to seek and find

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

MiQL
Member since Sep 03rd 2002
7208 posts
Mon Oct-11-04 08:14 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
5. "Here's the full text:"
In response to Reply # 0
Mon Oct-11-04 08:15 PM

  

          



HOW THIS VOTER'S GUIDE HELPS YOU

This voter's guide helps you cast your vote in an informed manner consistent with Catholic moral teaching. It helps you avoid choosing candidates who endorse policies that cannot be reconciled with moral norms that used to be held by all Christians.

On most issues that come before voters or legislators, the task is selecting the most effective strategy among several morally good options. A Catholic can take one side or the other and not act contrary to the faith. Most matters do not have a "Catholic position."

But some issues concern “non-negotiable” moral principles that do not admit of exception or compromise. One’s position either accords with those principles or does not. No one endorsing the wrong side of these issues can be said to act in accord with the Church's moral norms.

This voter's guide identifies five issues involving “non-negotiable” moral values in current politics, and helps you narrow down the list of acceptable candidates, whether they are running for national, state, or local offices.

You should avoid to the greatest extent possible voting for candidates who endorse or promote intrinsically evil policies. As far as possible, you should vote for those who promote policies in line with the moral law.

In many elections there are situations where all of the available candidates take morally unacceptable positions on one or more of the ‘non-negotiable’ issues.

In such situations, a citizen will be called upon to make tough choices. In those cases, citizens must vote in the way that will most limit the harm that would be done by the available candidates.

In this guide we will look first at the principles that should be applied in clear-cut races, where there is an unambiguously good moral choice. These same principles help lay the groundwork for what to do in situations that are more difficult.

Knowing the principles that are applied in ideal situations is useful when facing problematic ones, so as you review the principles you should keep in mind that they often must be applied in situations where the choice is more difficult. At the end of the guide we will offer practical advice about how to decide to cast your vote in those cases.

YOUR ROLE AS A CATHOLIC VOTER

Catholics have a moral obligation to promote the common good through the exercise of their voting privileges (cf. CCC 2240). It is not just civil authorities who have responsibility for a country. "Service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community" (CCC 2239). This means citizens should participate in the political process at the ballot box.

But voting cannot be arbitrary. "A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law that contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals" (CPL 4). A citizen’s vote most often means voting for a candidate who will be the one directly voting on laws or programs. But being one step removed from law-making doesn’t let citizens off the hook, since morality requires that we avoid doing evil to the greatest extent possible, even indirectly.

Some things always are wrong, and no one may deliberately vote in favor of them. Legislators, who have a direct vote, may not support these evils in legislation or programs. Citizens support these evils indirectly if they vote in favor of candidates who propose to advance them. Thus, to the greatest extent possible, Catholics must avoid voting for any candidate who intends to support programs or laws that are intrinsically evil. When all of the candidates endorse morally harmful policies, citizens must vote in a way that will limit the harm likely to be done.

THE FIVE NON-NEGOTIABLE ISSUES

These five current issues concern actions that are intrinsically evil and must never be promoted by the law. Intrinsically evil actions are those which fundamentally conflict with the moral law and can never be deliberately performed under any circumstances. It is a serious sin to deliberately endorse or promote any of these actions, and no candidate who really wants to advance the common good will support any action contrary to the non-negotiable principles involved in these issues.

1. Abortion

The Church teaches that, regarding a law permitting abortions, it is "never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it" (EV 73). Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide.

The unborn child is always an innocent party, and no law may permit the taking of his life. Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest, the fault is not the child's, who should not suffer death for others' sins.

2. Euthanasia

Often disguised by the name "mercy killing," euthanasia also is a form of homicide. No person has a right to take his own life, and no one has the right to take the life of any innocent person.

In euthanasia, the ill or elderly are killed, by action or omission, out of a misplaced sense of compassion, but true compassion cannot include intentionally doing something intrinsically evil to another person (cf. EV 73).

3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Human embryos are human beings. "Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo" (CRF 4b).

Recent scientific advances show that often medical treatments that researchers hope to develop from experimentation on embryonic stem cells can be developed by using adult stem cells instead. Adult stem cells can be obtained without doing harm to the adults from whom they come. Thus there is no valid medical argument in favor of using embryonic stem cells. And even if there were benefits to be had from such experiments, they would not justify destroying innocent embryonic humans.

4. Human Cloning

"Attempts . . . for obtaining a human being without any connection with sexuality through 'twin fission,' cloning, or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union" (RHL I:6).

Human cloning also involves abortion because the "rejected" or "unsuccessful" embryonic clones are destroyed, yet each clone is a human being.

5. Homosexual "Marriage"

True marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recognition of any other union as "marriage" undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement.

"When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral" (UHP 10).

WHICH POLITICAL OFFICES SHOULD I WORRY ABOUT?

Laws are passed by the legislature, enforced by the executive branch, and interpreted by the judiciary. This means you should scrutinize any candidate for the legislature, anyone running for an executive office, and anyone nominated for the bench. This is true not only at the national level but also at the state and local levels.

True, the lesser the office, the less likely the office holder will take up certain issues. Your city council, for example, perhaps never will take up the issue of human cloning but may take up issues connected with abortion clinics. It is important that you evaluate candidates in light of each non-negotiable moral issue that will come before them in the offices they are seeking.

Few people achieve high office without first holding a lower office. Some people become congressional representatives, senators, or presidents without having been elected to a lesser office. But most representatives, senators, and presidents started their political careers at the local level. The same is true for state lawmakers. Most of them began on city councils and school boards and worked their way up the political ladder.

Tomorrow's candidates for higher offices will come mainly from today's candidates for lower offices. It is therefore prudent to apply comparable standards to local candidates. One should seek to elect to lower offices candidates who support Christian morality so that they will have a greater ability to be elected to higher offices where their moral stances may come directly into play.

HOW TO DETERMINE A CANDIDATE'S POSITION

1. The higher the office, the easier this will be. Congressional representatives and senators, for example, repeatedly have seen these issues come before them and so have taken positions on them. Often the same can be said at the state level. In either case, learning a candidate's position can be as easy as reading newspaper or magazine articles, looking up his views on the Internet, or studying one of the many printed candidate surveys that are distributed at election time.

2. It often is more difficult to learn the views of candidates for local offices because few of them have an opportunity to consider legislation on such things as abortion, cloning, and the sanctity of marriage. But these candidates, being local, often can be contacted directly or have local campaign offices that will explain their positions.

3. If you cannot determine a candidate's views by other means, do not hesitate to write directly to the candidate, asking for his position on the issues covered above.

HOW NOT TO VOTE

1. Do not just vote based on your political party affiliation, your earlier voting habits, or your family's voting tradition. Years ago, these may have been trustworthy ways to determine whom to vote for, but today they are often not reliable. You need to look at the stands each candidate takes. This means that you may end up casting votes for candidates from more than one party.

2. Do not cast your vote based on candidates' appearance, personality, or "media savvy." Some attractive, engaging, and "sound-bite-capable" candidates endorse intrinsic evils, while other candidates, who may be plain-looking, uninspiring, and ill at ease in front of cameras, endorse legislation in accord with basic Christian principles.

3. Do not vote for candidates simply because they declare themselves to be Catholic. Unfortunately, many self-described Catholic candidates reject basic Catholic moral teaching.

4. Do not choose among candidates based on "What's in it for me?" Make your decision based on which candidates seem most likely to promote the common good, even if you will not benefit directly or immediately from the legislation they propose.

5. Do not vote for candidates who are right on lesser issues but who will vote wrongly on key moral issues. One candidate may have a record of voting in line with Catholic values except, say, for euthanasia. Such a voting record is a clear signal that the candidate should not be chosen by a Catholic voter, unless the other candidates have voting records even less in accord with these moral norms.

HOW TO VOTE

1. For each office, first determine how each candidate stands on each of the issues that will come before him and involve non-negotiable principles.

2. Rank the candidates according to how well their positions align with these non-negotiable moral principles.

3. Give preference to candidates who do not propose positions that contradict these principles.

4. Where ever candidate endorses positions contrary to non-negotiable principles, choose the candidate likely to do the least harm. If several are equal, evaluate them based on their views on other, lesser issues.

5. Remember that your vote today may affect the offices a candidate later achieves.

WHEN THERE IS NO "ACCEPTABLE" CANDIDATE

In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more issues involving non-negotiable moral principles. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.

A vote cast in such a situation is not morally the same as a positive endorsement for candidates, laws, or programs that promote intrinsic evils: It is only tolerating a lesser evil to avoid an even greater evil. As Pope John Paul II indicated regarding a situation where it is not possible to overturn or completely defeat a law allowing abortion, “an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality’.”(EV, 73; also CPL, n.4)

Catholics must strive to put in place candidates, laws, and political programs that are in full accord with non-negotiable moral values. Where a perfect candidate, law, or program is not on the table, we are to choose the best option, the one that promotes the greatest good and entails the least evil. Not voting may sometimes be the only moral course of action, but we must consider whether not voting actually promotes good and limits evil in a specific instance. The role of citizens and elected officials is to promote intrinsic moral values as much as possible today, while continuing to work toward better candidates, laws, and programs in the future.

THE ROLE OF YOUR CONSCIENCE

Conscience is like an alarm. It warns you when you are about to do something that you know is wrong. It does not itself determine what is right or wrong. For your conscience to work properly, it must be properly informed-that is, you must inform yourself about what is right and what is wrong. Only then will your conscience be a trusted guide.

Unfortunately, today many Catholics have not formed their consciences adequately regarding key moral issues. The result is that their consciences do not "sound off" at appropriate times, including on election day.

A well-formed conscience never will contradict Catholic moral teaching. For that reason, if you are unsure where your conscience is leading you when at the ballot box, place your trust in the unwavering moral teachings of the Church. (The Catechism of the Catholic Church is an excellent source of authentic moral teaching.)

WHEN YOU ARE DONE WITH THIS VOTER'S GUIDE

Please do not keep this voter's guide to yourself. Read it, learn from it, and prepare your selection of candidates based on it. Then give this voter's guide to a friend, and ask your friend to read it and pass it on to others. The more people who vote in accord with basic moral principles, the better off our country will be.

"a little air restriction ain't hurt nobody." - BSR

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
love2000
Charter member
2905 posts
Tue Oct-12-04 02:41 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
7. "thank you.."
In response to Reply # 5


  

          


I wasn't going to type the whole thing out.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Deepster
Charter member
1823 posts
Tue Oct-12-04 10:09 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
8. "damn .... thats messed up ...."
In response to Reply # 5


  

          

i cant believe people are politicizing religion like this ..... than again, christianity as well as every other religion on the planet has a history of thinking linking up religion and politics ..

> Sig Starts HEre <

http://www.singleparentconnection.net

OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT 2008!!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Tue Oct-12-04 01:08 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
10. "think deeper n/m"
In response to Reply # 8


  

          

.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Deepster
Charter member
1823 posts
Tue Oct-12-04 03:17 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
11. "think deeper??"
In response to Reply # 10


  

          

why dont you just make a real post for the idea you are trying to get accross rather then respond to every post with "think deeper" ......

> Sig Starts HEre <

http://www.singleparentconnection.net

OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT 2008!!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed Oct-13-04 04:17 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
15. "why don't you..."
In response to Reply # 11


  

          


explain to me how they're can be politics without God.





--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

ConcreteCharlie
Member since Nov 21st 2002
71344 posts
Tue Oct-12-04 06:30 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
12. "RE: Man, did anyone see Frank Rich on Real Time?"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

He was talking about this video they are distributing to various denominational churches, oh man is it rich! It has all types of ill shit including a split screen with Bush and Jesus, I wanna get this shit and watch it blunted some night.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Deepster
Charter member
1823 posts
Wed Oct-13-04 03:49 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
13. "yeh, heard of it ......"
In response to Reply # 12


  

          

its some documentary that compares bush to jesus ..... and basically tries to prove that if you dont vote for bush that you are the devil and the anti-christ ......

> Sig Starts HEre <

http://www.singleparentconnection.net

OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT 2008!!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #134 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.25
Copyright © DCScripts.com