Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: wideawake
"When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor 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."

This is pretty much what the Democrats are trying to do. I remember some Democrat saying basically "We agree with the Church on many issues, possibly more than the Republicans do." If Ratzinger says it "can be permitted," what does that tell you?

19 posted on 08/10/2004 8:39:33 AM PDT by Pyro7480 (Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, sancta Dei Genitrix.... sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: Pyro7480

HOWEVER!!!! Let's look at that nice neat word "PROPORTIONATE". The Church has done everything it can do lately to make Catholics understand that the death penalty, social justice, and the socio-economic safety net are not proportionate issues to abortion. Abortion and euthanasia stand atop the ladder because of the fact that they are GRAVE SINS that cannot be allowed for any purpose. The Church grants that States have the right to capital punishment (even though the Church is clear that it doesn't think that there is adequate reason in today's Western Culture). But, they do acknowledge the right. There is a right to defend yourself in war. But there is never an allowance for the murder of the unborn and elderly. Ratzinger is not saying it can be permitted!! We have to understand that abortion would never be an equal issue; therefore, a Catholic can NEVER vote for a pro-death, baby killing candidate.


29 posted on 08/10/2004 8:49:54 AM PDT by lnbchip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: Pyro7480
It tells me that there are Catholics in more places than just the US.

In Europe, say the Cardinal's native Germany, there is no such thing as a prolife candidate.

There are candidates who support only first trimester abortions and there are candidates who support third trimester abortions.

Who do you vote for? By the idea of "proportionate reason" you vote for the former since fewer abortions will likely occur if they are legally restricted to the first trimester.

41 posted on 08/10/2004 9:00:54 AM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson