Catholicism and Voting

[Ben Kenobi]

Maybe in some location in USA. But not in Canada. And anyway, if you vote for an independent or a minor party you lose your votes.

Depends on your riding. Quebec is a wasteland. I feel your pain.

All the candidates in my riding were pro choice so I voted for the one least likely to get in.

Some times this is the reason why I would support a different representation system. Like in Germany, which are having proportional representation.

I don't think PR is going to change much if anything.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


There are very few things that are non-negotiable in Catholicism. One is the death penalty, and another is abortion. Another would be gay marriage.

So all you'd have to find is a candidate who was prolife and supports traditional marriage.

They aren't that hard to find. There are lots of them!

Oh well, if the Catholic Church suffers from losing more people by forcing out all dissidents, I won't weep any losses incurred by the Catholic Church.

Heaven forbid if people should have different political opinions from one another. Oh, you disagree with me on this issue? You are now banned from my church.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh well, if the Catholic Church suffers from losing more people by forcing out all dissidents, I won't weep any losses incurred by the Catholic Church.

No, we've been theiving your best and brightest for a long time now.

Everyone who wants to be a part of a modern church that changes with the times, is free to be Episcopalian.

Heaven forbid if people should have different political opinions from one another. Oh, you disagree with me on this issue? You are now banned from my church.

Heaven forbid the Church actually stand for something.

Oh, and why are you saying that not being allowed to take communion is the same as excommunication? There is a huge difference between the two.

[snoopy369]

Let me be the first to state that neither the Rev. Jay Scott Newman, nor Ben Kenobi, speak for Catholicism as a whole, or really very many Catholics at all. Voting for a politician that does not fully support the Church is not a sin - of ANY sort. It is ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

For that matter, suggesting that abortion, the death penalty, and gay marriage are the three things non-negotiable in the Catholic Church is further idiocy. None of those are particularly high on the list of absolute musts, though abortion has headed up that list certainly. Catholicism (as a whole) is, for a Christian religion, relatively calm about gay marriage; it does not support it, but compared to most Fundamentalist Christian Churches, the Catholic Church really doesn't care much. The Church also supports being accepting of others generally, regardless of what garbage Ben might spew.

The Catholic Church does not consider anything non-negotiable except accepting Jesus Christ as your savior. Most of the priests I knew were extremely accepting of other viewpoints, and while they taught the official viewpoint of course, they did not threaten to take away Communion (for any reason) or attempt to force churchgoers to their viewpoint.

[SlowwHand]

Methodists, ditto. What snoopster said.
I guess the main difference is that Catlolics drink themselves ****faced and the Methodist have to pick up the tab and drive them home.

[Ben Kenobi]

Let me be the first to state that neither the Rev. Jay Scott Newman, nor Ben Kenobi, speak for Catholicism as a whole, or really very many Catholics at all.

Don't listen to me, listen to Papa Benedict.

Voting for a politician that does not fully support the Church is not a sin - of ANY sort. It is ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

Not the issue. All I am arguing is voting for a politician who supports abortion is a sin.

For that matter, suggesting that abortion, the death penalty, and gay marriage are the three things non-negotiable in the Catholic Church is further idiocy. None of those are particularly high on the list of absolute musts, though abortion has headed up that list certainly.

Oh. You are a Catholic snoopy? Yes or no?

The pope has explicitly said that abortion is a non-negotiable. I can quote him if you'd like.

Catholicism (as a whole) is, for a Christian religion, relatively calm about gay marriage; it does not support it, but compared to most Fundamentalist Christian Churches, the Catholic Church really doesn't care much. The Church also supports being accepting of others generally, regardless of what garbage Ben might spew.

May I quote Papa Benedict again? Don't listen to me. Listen to him.

The Catholic Church does not consider anything non-negotiable except accepting Jesus Christ as your savior.

"accepting him as your saviour?" You sound like a Protestant Snoopy.

Most of the priests I knew were extremely accepting of other viewpoints, and while they taught the official viewpoint of course, they did not threaten to take away Communion (for any reason) or attempt to force churchgoers to their viewpoint.

It's about adhering to the teachings of Christ. Abortion is wrong, period, and voting for politicians who support abortion is a sin.

[snoopy369]

That's only Irish catholics, Sloww.

[snoopy369]

Ben, you may believe whatever you wish. However, the VAST majority of the catholic church does not agree with you. I was raised a Catholic, though I don't consider myself one anymore; but I learned a lot about my faith during my youth, and I certainly would have left much, much sooner if the Church were anything close to what you consider it. You're the one sounding like a protestant - or rather, Fundamentalist. The Catholic Church is not a Fundamentalist religion, and does not behave as you believe it does. Every one of the priests I knew would have laughed this guy out of their rectory if they read this story, and would tell you to be more accepting of others.

[SlowwHand]

Baptist.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, you may believe whatever you wish. However, the VAST majority of the catholic church does not agree with you.

What gave you the impression that the Church was a democracy?

Truth isn't determined by what the majority think or believe in any age, but only by what is right. If what is right does not change, then the truth is timeless and public opinion matters about as much as a flea's tooth.

I was raised a Catholic, though I don't consider myself one anymore;

So why are you arguing that what you believe is what the Catholic church teaches? I already said, if you don't want to support the teachings of the Catholic church, then you should leave and stop lecturing those who want to stay.

but I learned a lot about my faith during my youth, and I certainly would have left much, much sooner if the Church were anything close to what you consider it.

Sounds like we didn't lose much.

You're the one sounding like a protestant - or rather, Fundamentalist. The Catholic Church is not a Fundamentalist religion, and does not behave as you believe it does. Every one of the priests I knew would have laughed this guy out of their rectory if they read this story, and would tell you to be more accepting of others.

Why a lapsed Catholic would be attacking the faith of a convert I don't understand. You had every advantage that I did not and chose to walk away from the Catholic church. You would be very welcome to come back, but that would mean that accepting what the church teaches as right.

You see, what happens when you leave the church means you don't get to say that you speak for the Catholic church. Neither do I. The only one who does is the Vicar of Christ, and he's spoken very clearly.

[Tuberski]

Did your "Vicar of Christ" say voting for Obama was a sin?

ACK!

[Zevico]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Depends on your riding. Quebec is a wasteland. I feel your pain.

All the candidates in my riding were pro choice so I voted for the one least likely to get in.



I don't think PR is going to change much if anything.

What? How does that even make sense? If all the candidates support an issue you disagree with, you're meant to vote for the one that otherwise agrees with your views. Voting for the one least likely to get in won't actually change the pro-choice (or lack thereof) views of the other candidates. Either way you get pro-choice--voting would then be a question not of abortion but a question of all the other issues that you feel strongly about.

[Ben Kenobi]

http://www.tldm.org/news7/Ratzinger.htm

Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles

by Joseph Ratzinger


1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgement regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?” The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” nos. 81, 83).

2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

4. Apart from an individuals’s judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

[Ben Kenobi]

What? How does that even make sense? If all the candidates support an issue you disagree with, you're meant to vote for the one that otherwise agrees with your views.

In Canada, politicians get money if they win more then 10 percent of the vote in a riding. If I vote for the person who is guaranteed to get less then 10 percent, then I am not contributing to them.

Parties also get money for each vote, so if I vote for an independent, then none of the parties get money.

[Deity Dude]

I was raised Catholic too and Ben is technically correct.

"To receive Communion worthily, you must be in a state of grace, have made a good confession since your last mortal sin, believe in transubstantiation, observe the Eucharistic fast, and, finally, not be under an ecclesiastical censure such as excommunication."

To support abortion or gay marriage would be a mortal sin to Roman Catholics because the Pope says so and to true Roman Catholics that's all it takes. It is probably the single most defining difference between Roman Catholics and other Christians. The Pope's word is the word of God on matters of faith. Many people out here will say that that view is not in the mainstream of Catholicism. Even if that statement is true it still doesn't mean the majority/mainstream is correct.

But, if someone were to make a confession for their support of such a candidate and the confession was genuine and they were absolved as part of that confession then they would be in a state of grace and could receive Holy Communion. (assuming they met the other standards for receiving Holy Communion).

"A person who is conscious of a grave sin is not to . . . receive the body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession unless a grave reason is present and there is no opportunity of confessing; in this case the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible" (CIC 916).