For Catholic BTrs on election day (Page 2)

Ok, so what? I am no fan of the Catholic Church but I do think they should stick to their guns and if people (like me) walk, they walk. The whole Vatican I, Vatican II crap really baffled me. How can they change what is or isn't a sin? Do people in hell (if you believe in hell) get a Get Out of Hell Free card if their sins gets changed from Mortal to Venial? If the Catholic church is, as they claim, they only true church how can they change things mid stream? Is one Pope more or less inafflible than the rest. What about the Popes who made up the rules to begin with? I am not being faceatious; I really am baffled by this stuff.

As to the 1st italiaced section, the term for that definition is "pro-choice."

As to the 2nd, no, see above. I think the term pro abortion is used by some in the political arena to stir up voters and get them to think of the other side as baby killers.

If it matters:

At first I though you were misinterpreting Dostoyevsky: "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons"

But then I found this quote from Hubert Humphrey, Johnson's VP: "The moral test of a government is how it treats those who are at the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadow of life, the sick and the needy, and the handicapped."

And then I found the most quoted: "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." Which is usually attributed to Ghandi, but Aristotle, Churchill, and many others have said similar things and have also given credit for that quote. Ghandi's quote actually had more to say....

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man"

My point was, that there are lots of wasy to be a moral person, even following the Catholic Church's beliefs.  The Catholic church considers the birth control bill an abortifactent (not sure about spelling) so should those be illegal also?  I am obviously being sarcastic but when do we as a society decide that our churches will not make our laws. 

Infallibility  applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching. 
 

Rachel, as you know as Catholics we are bound by the defined teachings of the Church. We're free to leave the Church, but not free to pick and choose which defined teachings we want to believe in.

It is a defined teaching of the Church that abortion is intrinsically evil. We are bound to oppose intrinsic evils. We may not formally support abortion laws. That's an objective truth.

There are only two cases that I'm aware of in which a Catholic could vote for a candidate who supports abortion laws.

The first is if there are two or more candidates who support such laws. In that case, a Catholic could vote for the candidate who's support of such laws is the weakest, for example a candidate who supports abortion in the case of rape and incest but in no other situations, vs a cadidate who supports unlimited abortion on demand.

That's not the case in this election.

The second case is one in which there is proportionate reasoning. For example if one candidate is opposed to abortion laws but also believes that all green eyed people ought to be exterminated, then there is proportionate reasoning to support voting for the candidate who supports abortion laws.

Again, I fail to see proportionate reasoning that could lead one to justify voting for the candidate in this election who supports abortion laws.

The Church won't be hurt by holding fast to the truth of these teachings. Just the opposite in the long run.

While I respect everyone's right to their own beliefs and opinions, it is worth noting that the founding fathers of our country used explicit language to keep church and state seperate. I think this is a prime example of where that line is being crossed.

If your religion mandates that you don't support abortion, then don't support abortion. That is your right. If you don't agree with abortions, don't have one!

This religious platform should not be influencing the law. Worry about your own body, don't try to impose laws on other people's bodies because of your religious beliefs. (do you see Jehovah's Witnesses trying to ban blood transfusions for the rest of society?)

What you state here was not the intent of the Founders. Their intent was to not establish a state religion. Nothing I've written here suggests that the Church wants to establish a state religion.

Citizens have every right to bring political opinions, religiously formed or otherwise, to the public square, and every right to have those opinions enacted into law.

Citizens have every right to bring political opinions, religiously formed or otherwise, to the public square, and every right to have those opinions enacted into law.

That is where I respectfully disagree with you. I think the very nature of your original post, to paraphrase: "the Catholic bishops... in accord with the church's moral teaching..." makes it abundantly clear that it is a religious opinion and not a political one.

I know you will not change your stance on a woman's right to choose, nor will I change mine. But we are free to disagree! I just wanted to put my two cents in about why I view this as religious beliefs and law-making getting tangled up.

But I also love the Catholic Church, it's a conundrum I know.

I just want to add one more thing.  I can use the Catholic Church's teachings to guide my life but that is my choice.  I do not have the right to push my religious choices on anyone.   The keyword here for me is choices.  Just like I wouldn't want anyone to get into office and tell me I couldn't celebrate Christmas b/c that particular person doesn't believe Jesus was the son of God or that I all of a sudden had to start following the teachings of Buddha.

Fair enough.

And FWIW, I did change my mind on this issue. I use to be pro-choice. And it was mix of religious and secular arguments that caused me to change.

It was the secular argument that convinced me that this is not strictly a religious question and that it is legitimate to bring it to the public square and work to enact laws about it.

Exactly. But instead of a double edge sword, maybe it's Blind Justice's balance.

On the one side of the balance is the right to privacy, on the other side is the right to life.

Which weighs heavier in the balance? 

What about when it's the life of the mother vs. the life of the fetus?  I'm just saying it's not so cut and dry as implied.