15 responses to “Great Job, Ryan!”

  1. Michael Schumacher
    0
    And yet, Mr. Ryan also indicated that a Romney/Ryan administration will be open to continuing to allow abortions in certain circumstances, which also violates Divine and Ecclesiastical Law.

    CCC 2273: “The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation.”

    Instruction “Donum vitae” (CDF, 1987): “However, the inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the State: they pertain to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his of her origin.”

    Clearly Romney/Ryan represents a lesser evil, but supporting murder of infants is still supporting murder of infants. I will not be voting for either major party in this election.
  2. Michael Schumacher
    0
    I realize that Mitt Romney is the problem, not Paul Ryan. I read Bishop Morlino’s column regarding Mr. Ryan, and I trust and respect His Excellency’s judgement and authority as our Ordinary. However, the ballot offers the opportunity to vote for Romney for president, not Paul Ryan. Were I in Mr. Ryan’s Congressional district, I would be voting for him in his congressional race.

    Must we vote for the lesser of two evils? According to whom? The Catechism says:

    1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
  3. Michael Schumacher
    0
    That is false logic.

    “A” is intrinsically evil.
    “B” is also intrinsically evil (though to a lesser extent).
    “C” is NOT intrinsically evil.

    A vote for “C” cannot be said to be a vote for “A” or “B” any more than a vote for “A” can be said to be a vote for “B”. Each option is entirely separate. In his congressional race, Paul Ryan fits into the “C” category, however, the Romney/Ryan presidential ticket fits into the “B” category.

    CCC 2240 asserts that it is morally obligatory for a Catholic to exercise his right to vote, but certainly does not bind us to vote for a candidate who openly supports that which is intrinsically evil (in this case abortion) merely because he “has a viable chance of winning.” A vote for evil is a vote for evil, however you wish to re-brand it (“A rose by any other name…”).


    “If you want Obama elected instead of Romney, vote for Obama. If you would rather see Romney elected than Obama, you should vote for Romney, even if he’s not ideal.”

    And, what if I would rather see neither of them elected? There is nothing in the US Constitution mandating that only a Democrat or Republican may become president. If we wish to have elected officials who work for the common good, we should start voting for candidates who do not support evil, rather than continuously cooperating with the perceived “lesser evil.”
  4. Michael Schumacher
    0
    Your light-switch simile is simply inaccurate. Either a Republican or a Democratic vote in this presidential election represents the light-switch in the “off” position, as both Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney are well described by the Evangelist: “et lux in tenebris lucet, et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt” (Jn 1, 5).


    Perhaps you should re-read Bishop Morlino’s column which you had referenced above. His Excellency succinctly states:

    “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.



    “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.”
    1. JP
      0
      If I may comment, Tim Staples points out in his “Five Non-Negotiables” that we can vote for one of two candidates who are both for abortion. If one will make late term abortions illegal, we can vote for that candidate etc. But if their is a third candidate available? I don’t think this is brought up.
  5. Michael Schumacher
    0
    “[D]o you honestly think there is any reasonable chance that the next president will not be Romney or Obama?”

    Again, this is utterly irrelevant. There is at least one candidate on the ballot who is wholly pro-life. I cannot, therefore, in good conscience, vote for murder when the option to vote for life exists, regardless of how hopeless the prospects may seem.

    Your reasoning is no different from the (il)logical formulations that lead to “safe-sex” education in the public schools: Many teens will not abstain, therefore we should at least teach them to wear a condom to minimize STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Nonsense. Fornication is fornication. Abortion is abortion.

    If voting for someone whom I “know will lose” is a sin of omission, and the ever-adored “poll numbers” indicate Obama has a fifteen percentage point lead on November 5, by that logic I would be committing a sin of omission by not voting for Obama!

    I would contend the far greater omission has been that of the pro-life movement in refusing to demand that candidates stand up for ALL lives, without any exception. Twenty years ago it would have been absurd to even think a Republican presidential candidate could be pro-abortion. The pro-life movement kept making concessions and cooperating with intrinsic evil. Now it is nearly impossible to find a Republican politician who is actually pro-life.

    If every Catholic, and every man of good will, heeded Bishop Morlino’s instruction, “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,” we would not be in a position of despair.
  6. Debra Yates
    0
    Okay, I am coming out of left field with this…. once upon a time there was a Democratic Catholic President named, John F. Kennedy. He is who I have patterned my Political belief’s from. I myself wasn’t born while he was in office, but I have been a big admirer of his.

    Fast forward 49 years later, and “democrat” is a dirty word now within the Catholic faith. Of course “abortion” wasn’t legal during the Kennedy administration.

    Anyhow… here we have Biden and Ryan, “both Catholic”. I saw “some” of their debate and it is “my understanding”, Biden accepts Catholic teachings, but refuses to “impose” those teaching into his politics.

    Former Congressman, Patrick Kennedy (Google this): Patrick Kennedy Denied Communion because of Pro-Choice-Zimbo.

    Does anyone know to what extent Biden is being sanctioned by the Church? I’m just curious?

    Thanks,

    Debra

    So, does anyone know if Biden has been denied Communion?
    1. Michael Schumacher
      0
      “So, does anyone know if Biden has been denied Communion?”

      Yes. And no. Unless and until an individual is publicly excommunicated, it is up to each individual bishop.

      In 2008 Bishop Martino of Scranton (Biden’s hometown) said Biden would be refused Communion in his diocese.

      Also in 2008 Archbishop Chaput (then of Denver, now Abp of Philadelphia and a Cardinal) said Biden should voluntarily refrain from receiving.

      Just this week Bishop Sheridan of Colorado Springs said Biden will be refused Communion within his diocese.

      Cardinal Burke, the highest ranking American Cardinal, has repeatedly stated (at times specifically responding to questions about Biden) that pro-abortion politicians should be denied Communion until they publicly change their views.
  7. Debra Yates
    0
    Michael:

    Thanks for the response.

    Debra

For your information

I get lots of comment spam, so if you post something that gets caught in the moderation cue and don't see it appear within a day or two, please send me an email at the contact page with the email address from which you posted the comment, and I will manually pull it out for you. Sorry for any trouble this may have caused for you!

Leave a Reply