Yes, Catholics may vote for Bernie Sanders (COMMENTARY)

Print More
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders raises as fist as he speaks at his caucus night rally Des Moines, Iowa on February 1, 2016, Photo courtesy of REUTERS/Rick Wilking

U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders raises as fist as he speaks at his caucus night rally Des Moines, Iowa on February 1, 2016, Photo courtesy of REUTERS/Rick Wilking

(RNS) U.S. Catholics who identify as traditional or conservative sometimes fail to understand the church’s teachings on social justice and their duty to the poor.

That is why it was so heartening to see the Rev. Dwight Longenecker make this point on his traditional and popular blog:

No economic system is perfect and no single economic system can be said to be “Catholic,” but it would not be inconsistent for a Catholic to vote for a Democratic Socialist. Indeed, the reason so many Catholics voted for the Democratic Party over the years was because they perceived the Democrats to be the party of the poor, the marginalized, the workers and the “little guy.”

So far so good. It is Catholic doctrine that wealth exists to be shared; private property is under a social mortgage for the common good; workers must be paid a living wage; health care is a human right, and we must be on the side of the poor first.

For Catholics, these are non-negotiables.

But then Longenecker, a priest in South Carolina, goes on to say that faithful Catholics may not vote for Bernie Sanders. This has nothing to do with the fact that he’s Jewish (Catholics have been voting for non-Christians for centuries, particularly in majority non-Christian countries), but rather because of his position on abortion.

Citing the views of the Rev. Stephen Torraco, who wrote a voter guide for the popular Catholic television network EWTN, Longenecker says that support of abortion rights is such a grave evil that it disqualifies Sanders (who has a voting record of 100 percent with pro-choice groups) from being considered.

But this is not Catholic teaching.

READ:  Sex abuse victim allegedly sidelined by papal panel

Priests for Life has a helpful explanation of this reasoning from Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, who in his previous role as the church’s doctrinal watchdog, said:

‘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 (with evil), which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

But what does it mean to have “proportionate reasons” to vote for Sanders, a man who flagrantly ignores the dignity of voiceless and helpless prenatal children — and indeed works hard to make sure they do not receive equal protection of the law?

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops explains that we voters face a dilemma when “all candidates hold a position which is intrinsically evil” — as is the case with positions on things like abortion, torture, assisted suicide, and usury.

In such cases, the bishops appeal to voters’ prudential judgement, which includes what they think of “a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue.”

Suppose a voter believed the following:

1. Republican lawmakers rarely sacrifice other concerns in defense of prenatal children.

This is especially true when such protection requires using the federal dollars to give mothers necessary resources. It is just not clear that Republicans are actually committed to protecting prenatal child, and it is therefore not clear we should trust them.

2. Women are structurally pushed toward abortion.

The best way to save the lives of prenatal children, at least in our current political reality, is to provide women in difficult circumstances the resources to keep and support them. Right now, with no paid family leave, hopelessly expensive child care, and a massive disparity in pay, women are put in a difficult spot. Abortion rates tend to be significantly lower in countries with stronger social welfare systems.

3. Catholics must favor the poor first.

Jesus doesn’t talk about hell very often, but when he does it is almost always seen as the result of a failure to be on the side of the poor. Sanders’ commitment to the poor blows away any GOP candidate in this regard.

The U.S. bishops insist a Catholic’s voting choices “may affect the individual’s salvation.” Would a person with these views have proportionate reasons for voting for Bernie Sanders?

Charles C. Camosy is an associate professor of theological and social ethics at Fordham University, focusing on biomedical ethics. Photo courtesy of Charles C. Camosy

Charles C. Camosy is associate professor of Theological and Social Ethics at Fordham University. Photo courtesy of Charles C. Camosy

In voting for Sanders on the basis of the above reasons, such a person is strongly affirming the need to protect prenatal children, while at the same time also giving due reverence to the other serious and non-negotiable values at stake in this election.

Other Catholics may disagree. Some believe the social welfare programs proposed by Sanders actually hurt the poor. I personally won’t be voting for Sanders because I simply can’t make myself check the box of a candidate who so flagrantly denies equal protection of the law for the most vulnerable, thus subjecting them to horrific violence.

But these disagreements are an important sign of a healthy church, one that finds both parties to be foreign territory. Let us engage these debates in the spirit of family, united by having a common brother in Jesus, and let us all bring a healthy dose of skepticism for approaches that make idols out of secular political agendas.

(Charles C. Camosy is associate professor of Theological and Social Ethics at Fordham University)

  • Pingback: Yes, Catholics may vote for Bernie Sanders (COMMENTARY) - mosaicversemosaicverse()

  • drwho13

    I’m Catholic and Bernie has my vote. Remember, JPII was also a Democratic Socialist. I don’t view him as a saint, as he put the RRC’s image before the welfare of sexually abused children, but the three of us are Democratic Socialists, and that’s a good thing!

  • George Kraus

    This is a great article. I’d like to post it on my facebook page . Is that possible? How?

  • Ashley

    This article just shows how much has the US changed for worse and how comfortable we are as Catholics to compromise with evil.

  • Jerry O’Brien

    “Equal protection of the law” is a constitutional question, and Catholics ought to be aware that the constitutionality of abortion bans has been decided by the Supreme Court, not Bernie Sanders or any other presidential candidate or any president, for that matter. There is the hope that the next president might be able to appoint another justice who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, and a Bernie Sanders appointee is unlikely to vote that way. That still leaves a lot of steps and time and people and chance involved in changing the legal status quo, and even overturning Roe v. Wade probably wouldn’t lead to abortion bans in most of the country. Therefore, if voting for Sanders is cooperation with evil, I’d call that remote cooperation indeed.

  • Thomas Hayes

    But Charles Camosy still skips over the fact that a leader schooled in the art of the possible can think that in 21st century America passing laws against any practice is not necessarily the best way (or even an effective way) to stop it. Prohibition, and the failure of our drug laws should have taught us that.
    Obesity and diabetes are killers, but our political leaders do not have an obligation to regulate every bite we take.
    Fr. Longenecker’s repeat of the canard that pro-life is the only non-negotiable stance is the stance of those Republicans who long ago realized that the best way to distract the Catholic bishops from insisting on the uncomfortable gospel of the poor Christ was to convince them to sign on to the an “anti-abortion first, last and always” pledge.

  • C Moreno

    Wrong, a FAITHFUL Catholic can not vote for him. He supports too much that is outside of the faith and in very critical areas. If we support him, we support what our faith deems as evil therefore making our vote sinful as support for evil. Catholics, if you are not well educated in your faith, please do so before you vote. Look up what the church calls ‘The Non-Negotiables.” A true, faithful Catholic who wants to stay in good standing in the Church (and therefore still receive Communion with the church by being IN COMMUNION WITH HER) must vote according to their faith. Otherwise, you put yourself outside…and should not receive communion if you oppose your own faith. Don’t listen to folks outside of the church such as this man to tell you what your church says you shouldn’t do. What’s more important, your desires, or your eternity? If you don’t believe then you aren’t Catholic and free to do whatever. You are never however free of consequences of your choices.

  • C Moreno

    Some, sadly too many. But not all of us. Most or just too lazy selfish or ignorant to bother to learn. I am not comfortable. And I love the faith as I love God. Those Catholics you speak of aren’t faithful Catholics. They just call themselves ones. We can’t comply with evil and say we stand with God. He isn’t stupid. Nor does he conform to our desires. We are called to conform to him. And I’m thinking you’re like me. Saddened by our ‘fellow Catholics’ who betray their own faith either because they don’t care or never bothered to learn. Did you see the guy above that said JPII was a Socialist…putting the word Democratic in front of it doesn’t change it….it’s wrong. He simply loved. Asked us to do for others, not build governments to force us to do it. So very sad. And too many non-Catholics believe the lies.

  • C Moreno

    For those that want to know how the church expects us to vote:

  • ben in oakland

    Intrinsic evil. Just love it. And the evil of calling people evil, who harm no one except in the imagination of anti-gay religious people, doesn’t even register with you.

  • ” Abortion rates tend to be significantly lower in countries with stronger social welfare systems.”


    Abortion rates are lower in countries where women have rights:
    Easy access to sex education, multiple contraception options and family planning.

    The Catholic Church and religion in general are entirely, INEXCUSABLY opposed to the Emancipation of Women.

    Bernie Sanders supports THE EMANCIPATION OF WOMEN.
    That is why he needs our vote. Religion is an obstacle, not a help!

  • “how the church expects us to vote”

    How dare the religious meddle in our politics?
    If they want to meddle in our politics we shall place rules on them
    regarding what they shall teach:

    – Jesus didn’t rise from the dead.
    – And the story is so full of legends and conflations, it may be based on several random individuals instead of only one.
    – Jesus lied about things including what was the smallest seed.

    How dare religion try to put its dirty finger on the scale of our politics!

  • Ben Larson

    If one ignores abortion and homosexuality, two things Jesus never mentioned, and focuses on all the things Jesus did talk about, you have no problem voting democratic socialist.

  • Ashley

    @Ben Larson… Homosexuals activists are fond of arguing that Jesus never spoke a word against homosexuality. They are wrong! So when Jesus condemned “sexual immorality,” and “porneia” is the word used in the biblical text, he was condemning every form of sex outside marriage, including that of the homosexual variety.

  • Tim

    I don’t understand why people vote for the President of the United States based on whether he/she is pro-life or not. The President can certainly be a cheerleader against abortion, and that is good, but the law is the law. The Supreme Court has decided this, and the POTUS has no power to overturn this established decades old law. Please, vote for someone based on what they say they plan to do -based on what they can actually do.

  • The Church also says that private property is a fundamental, though not unlimited, right and the foundation of social justice. Sanders opposes it completely. His positions are the least in accordance with Catholic social teaching.
    The next president will likely appoint at least 4 SCOTUS justices. Sanders the anti-life, anti-family, anti-religious Liberty, anti-property communist would be disastrous.
    St. John Paul said that insisting on a choice between two “popular” options and ignoring a less popular, but more moral, option, is a sin against hope.

  • Ed Billeaud

    Sanders is not an abortionist. He does not “like” abortion. The only way to truly reduce or eliminate abortion is through educational and employment policy. Making it illegal doesn’t work, it just forces women into unsafe abortions. If you want to solve a problem, you have to go to the root cause, which is ignorance, lack of opportunity, and lack of economic security; all of which lead to a breakdown of the family, and an erosion of morality – which causes unwanted pregnancy, which leads to abortions.

  • drwho13

    “In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness” (Pope Benedict XVI).

    Read and learn my friend.

  • Sean M

    So you would allow a dozen poor to starve to death in order to prevent one homosexual from having sex?

    Think about that for a minute, then ask yourself if you really believe Christ would agree.

  • valerie

    Of course, Catholics can vote for whomever they wish. The question is whether or not they will burn in Hell for it.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    I’ve got good news for you. Fortunately, you’re incorrect, Americans have changed for the better. A clear majority of American lay Catholics, for example, refuse to help the bishops in their evil attack LGBT Americans:

    “Our analysis found that this increasingly diverse Catholic community is strongly supportive of acceptance of and rights for gay and lesbian Americans. Generally speaking, Catholics are at least 5 points more supportive than the general population across a range of issues. For example, nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of Catholics favor laws that would protect gay and lesbian people against discrimination in the workplace; 63 percent of Catholics favor allowing gay and lesbian people to serve openly in the military; and 60% favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt children.


  • CarrotCakeMan


    “On the more contentious issue of same-sex marriage, the evidence is also stacking up for solid Catholic support at both the national and state levels. A Washington Post/ABC News Poll recently found that fully 63 percent of Catholics supported making it legal for gay and lesbian couples to marry, compared to 53 [please note that level of support is from 5 years ago] percent of the general population.”

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Please note that not quite one year ago, fully 63% of Americans rejected the evil anti-gay agenda. New polls showing support for LGBT Americans are being taken right about now, and will likely show another 5% annual increase:

    “63% of Americans say that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry and have their marriages recognized by the law as valid. That’s up from 49% in August 2010. Over that time, the share who see marriage as a constitutional right has climbed 15 points among Republicans to 42% and 19 points among Democrats to 75%.

    The CNN/ORC International poll was conducted by telephone February 12-15, 2015, including interviews with 1,027 adult Americans. Results for all adults have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 points.”

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Correct, Ben.

    Sorry, Tracy, no matter how often you spam this board with the lie that it’s something “not evil” to attack LGBT Americans who you do not know and who have never done you any harm whatsoever, we can see such Hate Speech is having the opposite effect of what anti-gays want.

  • George Nixon Shuler

    The argument Sanders’ voting record on abortion is relevant is not supported by any facts, because whether abortion is legal or illegal, the rate of it remains the same with small variation which mirrors economic conditions. Sanders, by advocating for better conditions for the poor, does more to reduce abortion than every attempt at legal prohibition or stigmatization ever combined has ever done.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Please keep telling everyone how politicized the Roman Catholic hierarchy is. Please keep telling everyone they are in the pocket of the GOP, pretending they can “stop” legal, safe abortion and not notice the GOP will never do that, this is all just a ruse to let the GOP take away our retirement savings and more.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    The sad thing is the Roman Catholic bishops have already committed sufficient violations of IRS regulations to justify lifting their 503c3 designation. The federal judge who revoked the 2008 California anti-gay H8te Vote had in his possession an email written by Catholic bishops to Mormon leaders in which they both agreed to violate California campaign finance laws to throw the H8te Vote by making secret, illegal cash and in-kind contributions to the H8te Vote. The email serves as proof positive they knew they were breaking the law; the email itself is an act of criminal collusion. Here is documentation about that email:

    The email was included in the evidence the US Supreme Court reviewed before that Court affirmed the revocation of the 2008 California anti-gay H8te Vote. Clearly, the criminal acts committed by Mormons and RCC bishops failed.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Please note that despite her wild claim, Ashley cannot provide us with any clear quote from the Bible that demonstrates Jesus wanted His followers to attack loving, committed same gender couples. Instead, Ashley desperately tries to associate Jesus with her own nasty feeling that same gender couples partake in “sexual immorality,” suggesting Ashley would be better to follow what Jesus really did and stop fantasizing about what same gender couples do in the privacy of their homes.

    One of the other disingenuous ways anti-gays try to suggest Jesus endorsed homophobia and attacks on same gender couples is quoting Jesus as affirming mixed-sex couples. If we knew Jesus loved dates, why would we assume Jesus hated lemons and limes?

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Referring to LGBT Americans as “an intrinsic evil” is hate speech, nothing more.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Sean M, consider the fact that two candidates for the GOP nomination have endorsed genocide. Carson urged anti-gay bakers to murder not only same gender American couples but also their wedding guests by putting poison in cakes. Cruz’s pal Phil Robertson went even further, demanding not only LGBT Americans but any American who supports equality be “removed from the earth.”

  • Edward Burton

    Roe v. Wade prevents Congress and the President from ending abortion, unless they choose to do so by enacting a Constitutional Amendment that itself requires for effectiveness to be ratified by the States. That is a long way from happening, no matter who the President is. That rather clearly means that Sanders view on the matter is virtually irrelevant. What is further material is that poverty is a major motivator for abortion, as is the fact that pregnancy often is seen to be a major problem with respect to higher education and continued employment.

    Thus a Social Justice candidate may be the best possible news for the abortion situation.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Above, I documented that a strong majority of American lay Catholics reject the anti-gay agenda. We know that majority support extends to American Christians as a whole:

    “More than six in ten (62 percent) white mainline Protestants support same-sex marriage. Among white mainline Protestant denominations, support ranges from 69 percent support among white mainline Presbyterians and 68 percent among both white Episcopalians and white Congregationalists/United Church of Christ members, to lower support among white mainline Baptists (53 percent) and white mainline Church of Christ/Disciples (50 percent).”


  • CarrotCakeMan

    Further evidence that Americans reject and condemn the anti-gay agenda is the denominations that will marry same gender couples: Affirming Pentecostal Church International, Alliance of Christian Churches, Anointed Affirming Independent Ministries, The Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Community of Christ, Conservative Judaism, Ecumenical Catholic Church, Ecumenical Catholic Communion, The Episcopal Church, Evangelical Anglican Church In America, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals, Inclusive Orthodox Church, Moravian Church Northern Province, Metropolitan Community Church, Old Catholic Church, Presbyterian Church USA, Progressive Christian Alliance, Reconciling Pentecostals International, Reconstructionist Judaism, Reform Judaism, Reformed Anglican Catholic Church, Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), Unitarian Universalist Church, United Church of Christ, Unity Church

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Tim, look at how many of the members of the “Gay Obsessed Party” clown car say they will magically negate marriage equality and Equal Protection Under the Law. It’s increasingly evident that GOP voters are not interested in reality.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Valerie, when the TV character Maude said to her husband, “God will get you for that,” America laughed. We no longer laugh at that claim, especially if we think the person threatening “burn in Hell” is not joking. Please take a good look at the result of that vicious threat:

    “[T]he major new survey of more than 35,000 Americans by the Pew Research Center finds that the percentage of adults (ages 18 and older) who describe themselves as Christians has dropped by nearly eight percentage points in just seven years, from 78.4% in an equally massive Pew Research survey in 2007 to 70.6% in 2014. Over the same period, the percentage of Americans who are religiously unaffiliated – describing themselves as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular” – has jumped more than six points, from 16.1% to 22.8%.”

  • @Carrotcakeman,

    You are correct. As usual.
    Nothing about religion is more dangerous than the weakening of Separation between church and state.

    IF Christians and Muslims can’t keep their ridiculous notions
    out of our laws we Atheists (Secularists, Humanists, Nones, Agnostics) non-Christians and regular FREEDOM LOVING Americans will simply have to challenge these religious ideas more broadly, with more vigor and in more places.

    A church must never recommend political candidates!

  • Nancy

    No, Roe v. Wade, by denying that every son or daughter of a human person can only be a human person, and thus denying the personhood of the son or daughter residing in their mother’s womb, denies those sons and daughters whose lives are aborted, their Due Process Right to Life, that is binding in both State and Federal Law. It was the duty of the Court to justify the ruling in Roe v. Wade by demonstrating how it could be possible for a human person to conceive a son or daughter who is not a human person, or how a son or daughter of a human person, could not be a human person, which obviously they could not demonstrate because it is a self-evident truth that every son and daughter of a human person can only be a human person.

  • Nancy

    It is Catholic teaching that The Father Is God, not The State.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Thank you for your kind words, sir. Catholic bosses are not alone in committing criminal acts to throw elections, their Mormon co-conspirators interfered in many of the 32 anti-gay Hate Votes. Their own LDS Church documentation, now in the public record, proves that:

    Other websites carry that same documentation, if someone is uncomfortable with that source.

  • N.D.

    Something to think about when thinking about Faithful Citizenship .

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Oh, please, anti-abortion activists shrieked pretty much the same at the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court ruled life, and citizenship, begin at birth. A fetus is not a child, and any federal or state law that suggests otherwise is in clear violation of the United States Constitution.

    Then there is the Bible you conveniently ignored. The Bible says life begins after birth, at first breath.

    You’re entitled to your opinions, but your opinions are no reason to disregard the United States Constitution and the Bible, both of which reject your opinion, nor to give you a special right to decide what happens to American women’s bodies against their will.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Then why are the bishops trying to interfere in The State? It would seem someone tore “Render Unto Caesar” out of their Bibles.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Why don’t you pay for advertizing instead of seeking free advertizing?

  • Adriaan Van Ginkel

    Agree 100% with you, The line of popes starting from Paul VI up to this one, whose name I won’t mention, is flawed with modernism and humanism, something the Church has been battling for centuries. And the seeds of evil, sown over the last 40 years, are now coming up under the current pope. What can I say of so much heresy, apostasy and mockery of Christ? I am pro-life. And that should be the main thing, and let us not hair-split and argument over things so basic as this. Politics is the true root of all evil.

  • Adriaan Van Ginkel

    True, it’s a slippery slope downhill.

  • Shawnie5

    “How dare religion try to put its dirty finger on the scale of our politics!”

    Sorry to hurt your head, Max, but that is exactly how the founders intended for our liberties to be safeguarded:

    “Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue; and if this cannot be inspired into our people in a greater measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty. They will only exchange tyrants and tyrannies. You cannot, therefore, be more pleasantly or usefully employed than in the way of your profession [ministry], pulling down the strong-holds of Satan. This is not cant, but the real sentiment of my heart.” –John Adams to Zabdiel Adams

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Fortunately, a majority of Americans see Equal Protection Under the Law being extended to more Americans a step uphill to that “more perfect Union.”

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Sorry, but there is NO “virtue” in the churches that committed criminal acts and violated IRS regulations in order to throw elections. Instead of this vague reference that nowhere mentions sectarian religion, can you offer us a John Adams quote where he endorsed churches throwing elections?

  • CarrotCakeMan

    It is precisely this routine misdeed of posting a personal attack in response to facts and documentation that has already defeated the anti-gay political agenda as well as the collapse in religious participation in America:

    “Among those who say they left their childhood religion and now have no religious identity, nearly one in four (24 percent) say their church’s negative teachings or treatment of LGBT people was an important reason they left. That rises to 31 percent of millennials, damaging churches’ ability to bring in — and keep — young adults”

  • G Key

    Other people’s private legal acts are their own business, and anyone who says otherwise is trespassing (emphasis) on other people’s private property.

    Some people believe a fetus is a person. Some don’t.

    But does anybody really believe a woman isn’t a person? Or that she’s less of a person than an unborn fetus?

    Her body is her business, not ours, not some religion’s, and not the government’s. Importantly, so are her beliefs and values.

    Anyone who believes they have a right to override, restrict, faith-fully control, or otherwise man-handle a woman’s right to choose what’s best for her body and her life should look up “psychopath”, “sociopath”, or “antisocial personality disorder”.

    I’m sick of hearing self-exalted, self-righteous tyrants invoke political, spiritual, and cultural traditions that teach Us to subordinate Them.

    The moral is, some moral causes are more moral than others, and one’s own chosen morality binds oneself, not one’s neighbors.

  • Dan


  • Dan

    Right on C Moreno!

  • Shawnie5

    Who needs to talk about “throwing elections?” The founders intended for citizens to absorb virtue from religion, exercised freely and purely without coercion, and thereby to use that wisdom and discernment to elect virtuous leaders and pass moral laws.

    “But neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. Here therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man.” — Samuel Adams

    “Republican governments could be supported only by pure Religion or Austere Morals. Public virtue cannot exist in a Nation without private Virtue, and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics.” –John Adams

    This isn’t for you. Max knows what I’m talking about.

  • Shawnie5

    Caesar of Jesus’ day was Caesar. Here and now, Caesar is all of us, and each of us is as free as anyone else to vote our values and conscience and to heed the counsel of anyone we choose. If you can’t deal with that try North Korea.

  • @Shawnie:

    “How the founders intended”

    Your lack of respect for the power of your own religion is fine with me. But even you cannot be this naive.

    Have you no regard for the power of your blessed pulpit ? Your God-Connected Preacher stands before the Congregation and speaks of eternal Holy life – He summons them to save their souls BY VOTING FOR TED CRUZ! And you see no problem?

    And you think this is not a perversion of your religion? This conflation of your Theology is okay with you?!

    The law forbids Preachers to campaign for that very reason. It is illegal for a priest to tell his congregation that the way to the LORD is through a particular politician!

    Shame on you.

  • Anthony Chiozza

    I have personally heard at least two Priests, and read on EWTN that it is a mortal sin to vote for someone that supports abortion. The voters guide on EWTN by Father Taraco, Ph.D. states, “Except in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates (in which case, as explained in question 8 above, he or she strives to determine which of them would cause the let damage in this regard), a candidate that is pro-abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. This is because being pro-abortion cannot simply be placed alongside the candidate’s other positions on Medicare and unemployment, for example; and this is because abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally.”

  • Shawnie5

    The “law” in question is an unconstitutional impairment of the rights of free exercise and free speech. And “our God-Connected Preacher” is no more God-connected but every bit as much a free citizen as any of us. Anyone can listen or not, as they please.

    As for “conflation of Theology,” Obama himself said it very neatly: “…secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King – indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history — were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their “personal morality” into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.”

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Yes, Shawnie doesn’t want me to post documentation Catholic and Mormon bosses actually have thrown elections. Considering it negates his entire claim that religion and churches invariably demonstrate “virtue,” I can understand why he resents that I’ve proven some religions spread corruption and lawlessness. This latest John Adams quote also fails to establish he supported churches throwing elections.

  • kt

    You Can NOT be Catholic and ProChoice.
    There is no middle ground

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Shawnie, whining here that IRS regulations forbid IRS 503c3 Charitable Corporations from campaigning is “unconstitutional” is demonstrably untrue. While political operatives who pretend to be ministers do have the right not to have government interfere in their private speech, that does not mean they have the special right you seek for them to violate those IRS regulations, or expect taxpayers to subsidize their political operations with no oversight.

    You’re also dead wrong about President Obama’s statement. No one asked religious Americans to leave their religion at the door, but no one has this imagined special right to force their peculiar religious beliefs onto other Americans by misusing the Law, such as the now-revoked laws that sought to deny same gender couples legal marriage. There is NO morality in anti-gays trying to HURT same gender couples who anti-gays do not know and who have never done anti-gays any harm whatsoever.

  • @Shawnie:

    “Many saints awakened from death [zombies] and rose out of their tombs. They walked into the city and visited with the people there.” (Matthew 27:52)

    I fail to see a moral lesson in a zombie story.
    Where is the morality in Jesus?

    “Love thy neighbor…they are your people” – This is a verse Jesus cherry picked from Leviticus 19:18 where it is directly connected to
    Leviticus 19:20: “RAPING SLAVE GIRLS IS OKAY”….
    “If a man has sex with a slave girl whose freedom has never been purchased but who is committed to become another man’s wife, he must pay full compensation to her master. But since she is not a free woman, neither the man nor the woman will be put to death.”

    How does any of this improve the morality of a Politician?
    Or anyone else?

  • Anthony

    What Bible verse is that?

  • CarrotCakeMan

    This constant demand that everyone share the “beliefs” of right-wingers is tiresome at best.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    No one is trying to stop any individual from voting according to his or her conscience. You really must give up that red herring. What’s under discussion here is a church with a history of its leaders committing criminal acts and throwing elections, let alone routinely violating IRS regulations for many years.

  • How many years should a young girl go to prison for getting an Abortion?
    20? 30? Life?

    Those of you who speak so self-righteously of pro-life
    have no clue where this leads should it become law. Meanwhile the religious oppose sex education and contraception – so you ruin young lives in more ways than can be counted.

  • Kyle

    Moreno, I’m not saying whether you are wrong or right, but your lack of argument skills is appalling. Against Drwho’s opinion (which I will also not comment on) you gave absolutely no rebuttal with fact, but merely blasted the person with ad hominems. You may be well catechized, but you lack charity and communication skills. “Instruct the ignorant” (if indeed ignorant)-not insult. Blessings my friend.

  • CarrotCakeMan
  • CarrotCakeMan

    However, all other Americans know where this talk of “pro-life” leads–to murdered medical care providers, bombing medical offices, and if so called “pro-lifers” got their way, the restoration of conditions such as before Roe vs. Wade, meaning botched back room abortions and butchered real, live American women.

  • drwho13

    Adriaan Van Ginkel- C Moreno does not allow me to have an opinion on if JPII is a saint. How can he allow you to have an opinion on which popes are flawed? The popes were selected by the action of the Holy Spirit, right? Is Moreno being logical?

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Kyle, you will find that behavior is typical of those who use religion to try to promote a right-wing political agenda designed to interfere in the lives of others.

  • N.D.
  • N.D.

    “When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit,s”

    Every infant son or daughter of a human person can only be a human person.

  • Shawnie5

    CCM, you’re welcome to post anything you like — it’s just not particularly earth-shattering. Nobody claimed that religion and churches invariably demonstrate virtue, and the existence of corruption within churches has been an old story ever since Constantine. But the founders’ vision of religion as a necessary support of liberty and public virtue — indeed the very source of the fundamental rights we take for granted — is sadly beyond the grasp of far too many in these days of widespread historical ignorance. Reading these threads it’s easy to see why the founders were so pessimistic about our ability to hold on to the gift they were leaving us.

  • Zeb

    That is true, but you can work with pro-choice Americans to achieve a more virtuous society. That’s what Camosy is talking about.

  • Doc Anthony

    Or, just to make things clear, a more perfect Catastrophic Divine Judgment.

  • Zeb

    Abortion rates are much lower where and when it is illegal. I agree with you otherwise, but that is an undeniable fact.

  • Shawnie5

    “Where is the morality in Jesus?”

    I could re-post Jefferson on that subject if you like…but somehow I don’t think you’re interested in an actual answer, since going into your “zombie” act usually signals that you’re at the end of your already limited powers of argumentation wrt the issue at hand.

    BTW, there is no place for “shame” in a completely materialist universe. If you’re going to oppose religion, have the integrity to stop borrowing from it.

  • Shawnie5

    No, that is not what’s under discussion — that is a side road down which you tried to divert discussion. What is being discussed is the author’s post about issues surrounding professing Catholics supporting or rejecting openly pro-choice candidates.

  • Pingback: Yes, Catholics may vote for Bernie Sanders (COMMENTARY) - IKTHUS.NETIKTHUS.NET()

  • Doc Anthony

    Let’s just hope this sorry back-slidden secular nation even lasts long enough for some of the readers to live barely long enough, to collect whatever’s left in the threadbare-and-getting-worse Social Security pantry.

    P.S. A vote for either Sanders OR Clinton, means you really want the nation to simply crash-and-burn NOW, and just get it over with.

  • Doc Anthony

    Oh cmon already. Russian chief Vladimir Putin has more Christianity in him than Bernie Sanders (and I wouldn’t be surprised if Putin had more than Clinton as well !!!).

    So don’t vote for stale cream-puff “Commie-Lite” Democrat candidates anymore. We’ve had eight years of that already, and the Russians are STILL laughing at us.

  • patrick j wells

    “Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.” -Pope Pius XI

  • patrick

    There are sheep, and sheep-dogs, and shepherds, and the pasture owner.

    The “domestication” of the newly born sheep is begun by the sheep’s parents. After some initial domestication, the sheep-dogs assume control of the newly-born sheep, who, under the control of the shepherds, who under the control of the pasture owner, complete the total domestication of the sheep.

    After the total and complete domestication of the sheep, the pasture owner, shepherds and sheepdogs earn their living off the sheep. The sheep know no other way of life except that which they have known since birth. They are totally dependent upon their “masters”.

    The pasture owner is the “Church”. The shepherds are the “hierarchy”. The sheep-dogs are the “clergy”. The sheep are the “faithful”.

    To try to inform the “sheep” that there is any other way of life, will be met with well inculcated fear….

  • patrick

    John C. Hathaway

    ” His positions are the least in accordance with Catholic social teaching. ”

    Jesus said :
    “Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. ”
    Matt 10:34

    Mr Hathaway : How do you reconcile your statement with what Jesus said ?

  • Richard Rush

    Right! . . . Because, if anyone makes the slightest attempt to weaken the sanctity of traditional Church cruelty, their evil must not be tolerated.

  • drwho13


  • patrick

    ” Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain ” Dorothy….

  • Ben in oakland

    And every single one of the people you mention, Shawnie, were in the business of expanding rights, expanding opportunity, and ending prejudice. They were not in the business of imposing their religious beliefs on people who don’t share them, of using their bibles as a weapon against people they don’t like and calling it sincere religious belief.

    That is the difference.

  • Michelle Toste

    I am a Christian drwho13, and your stance thoroughly confuses me. Agree with you, also.C Moreno!

  • CarrotCakeMan
  • CarrotCakeMan

    This particular poster, “Doc,” has a tiresome habit of demanding we all share his political “beliefs” he pretends are religious beliefs, making his beliefs appear quite repulsive and his deity hateful and vengeful. “Catastrohic Divine Judgement” means “My deity will hurt your for refusing to vote for my party.”

    I’ve documented elsewhere in this thread how religious participation in America is collapsing due to such Christianism.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    And yet it is “Doc” who tells us he wants America to “simply crash-and-burn NOW” for refusing to support his “Gay Obsessed Party.”

    Americans have awoken to the fact that Christianists want to destroy America.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    If you were going to deny everything you posted previously, Shawnie, why didn’t you simply refrain from making those wild claims in the first place?

    Face the fact, Shawnie, Americans are onto the abuses of Christianism.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Ben is correct, Shawnie. Your false comparisons have failed. Once again, Americans are finally onto the abuses of Christianism. You’re entitled to your “Gay Obsessed Party,” but you are not fooling anyone with the claim that it’s “God’s Own Party.”

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Vladimir Putin promotes the anti-gay political agenda. Putin hosted the September 2014 meeting of anti-gays from the US, the falsely labelled, “World Congress of Families” in Moscow so the nominally US citizen anti-gays could speak openly of their attempts to subvert the US Constitution. Putin hosts Brian Brown, the boss of the anti-gay NOM, in Moscow; Brown wrote some of the most egregious “Hurt The Gays” new Russian laws. Anti-gays in Russia openly commit vicious, violent Hate Crimes. Anti-gays stalk LGBT Russians and report their “findings” to the LGBT’s employers to try to get them fired.

    This is why anti-gays tell us they love Putin and Russia, their anti-gay political agenda is in full swing there.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    If it’s an “undeniable fact,” where is your documentation?

    Logic suggests that authorities where legal, safe abortion is banned avoid reporting on the number of real, live women butchered in botched back room abortions.

  • George Nixon Shuler

    That’s not a description of a literal event.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    No, it’s Christianists who are trying to derail this conversation and deny the evidence of the Catholic bishops committing Christianist criminal acts to throw elections. The State of New York has sought financial reports from Catholic bishops in that state for over 40 years to determine the extent of their political machinations.

  • George Nixon Shuler

    No True Scotsman argument spotted

  • George Nixon Shuler

    False equivalency spotted. Anti-abortion legislation is a tool to oppress women and enforce a status quo. To be pro-choice is not by any reasonable measure to be pro-abortion. Abortion occurs at the same rate whether legal or illegal. Its legality is merely a matter of policy and in no way makes one for or against the procedure.

  • George Nixon Shuler

    Isn’t he the Pope who supported Adolf Hitler?

  • Ben in oakland

    Far truer:

    You can’t be a religious moralizing busybody, intent on enforcing your beliefs upon the lives of others, and pro-choice.


  • CarrotCakeMan

    This is the verbal equivalent of the gross-out posters those who oppose legal, safe abortion use to hit women trying to enter clinics over the head. Fortunately, most Americans now realize that among all that chatter about “little guys” is the fact that in the absence of legal, safe abortion, America would again experience what we experienced before Roe vs. Wade–botched back room abortions and butchered real, live American citizens. Actually, it’s time anti-abortion activists grew up and recognized we aren’t fooled by their hate speech.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    You’re correct, sir.

    “intent on enforcing your beliefs upon the lives of others” is a good definition of the term “Christianism.”

  • John the Baptist

    Let God be the judge of that.

  • drwho13


  • drwho13

    They have not taken my mind; my childhood indoctrination was not complete.

  • John Carter

    But what does it mean to have “proportionate reasons” to vote for any of the GOP candidates, men who flagrantly ignore the dignity of voiceless and helpless *post*natal children — and indeed work hard to make sure they do not receive equal protection of the law? It means one is a pro-birther rather than pro-life.

  • Shawnie:

    You love dismantling Separation of Church and State so long as your kind of Christians can dominate.
    But when the table turns against the Christians in Danbury Connecticut, Thomas Jefferson scolded them all.

    I won’t quote what Jefferson said to those Christians. Read it yourself.

    Jefferson was scolding people like YOU.
    Someday when Islam is ascendant in the USA you will be glad for Separation of Church and State.

    Religion never understands wisdom. If it did, it wouldn’t exist.

  • God Is The Author of Love, of Life, and of Marriage, which is why our inherent unalienable Right to Life, to Liberty, and to The Pursuit of Happiness Is endowed to us from God, not Caesar, or The State.

  • drwho13

    Many European countries have a form of democratic socialism.

    “But in Europe, in the nineteenth century, the two models were joined by a third, socialism, which quickly split into two different branches, one totalitarian and the other democratic. Democratic socialism managed to fit within the two existing models as a welcome counterweight to the radical liberal positions, which it developed and corrected. It also managed to appeal to various denominations. In England it became the political party of the Catholics, who had never felt at home among either the Protestant conservatives or the liberals. In Wilhelmine Germany, too, Catholic groups felt closer to democratic socialism than to the rigidly Prussian and Protestant conservative forces. In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness” (Pope Benedict XVI).

  • CarrotCakeMan

    It’s easy to demonstrate that’s not true, since atheists have the same “unalienable Right to Life, to Liberty, and to The Pursuit of Happiness” that you have. Please learn to accept your deity has nothing to do with our freedom and equality. Please note this is a website for religious news, not religious proselytizing. Thank you in advance for your future respect for the rights of all Americans regardless of faith or none.

  • shawnie5

    I didn’t deny anything, CCM, nor did I make any wild claims. You simply didn’t understand my original post, or what I was responding to — none of which was directed to you, in any case.

  • shawnie5

    At CCM: “You’re also dead wrong about President Obama’s statement. No one asked religious Americans to leave their religion at the door.” Apparently Mr. Obama thinks believes, correctly, that they have, hence his statement.

    “Shawnie, whining here that IRS regulations forbid IRS 503c3 Charitable Corporations from campaigning is “unconstitutional” is demonstrably untrue.” It’s only “untrue” in that the SCOTUS has never ruled on its constitutionality — in spite of the best efforts of American pastors to get it to the SCOTUS. Ever wonder why the IRS keeps dropping these cases before they get that far?

  • shawnie5

    At Ben: “They were not in the business of imposing their religious beliefs on people who don’t share them, of using their bibles as a weapon against people they don’t like and calling it sincere religious belief.”

    LOL! That would have depended entirely on whom you asked, of course. C’mon, Ben, you can do better than that.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Shawnie claimed “I didn’t deny anything” at 3:15 PM today, but at February 8, 2016 at 9:10 pm he claimed, “Nobody claimed that religion and churches invariably demonstrate virtue” in contradiction to his post on February 8, 2016 at 4:59 pm. Wow!

    Please stick to one story. These constant reversals and denials are just boring, and are not advancing your political agenda. Why not make it easy on yourself and accept the defeat of that political agenda?

  • CarrotCakeMan

    The irony is in that long-ago time when a Catholic education was superior, the good Sisters taught us to think critically and question authority–and now, they are under attack themselves for being “insufficiently homophobic” and refuse to participate in the bishops’ crass political machinations.

    Yes, I’m fully recovered myself, and the good Sisters provided me with the training that made that possible. In other words, they taught me being a moral person is more important than following dogma. I see frequent evidence that special feature of Catholic education has been reversed in favor of full-time indoctrination.

  • shawnie5

    At Max: I happen to LOVE separation of church and state as the founders understood it since religion flourishes under it. We are not talking about the establishment and privileging of sects, however. We are talking about attempts to keep people from speaking and voting their consciences under the guise of “church/state separation.” Those freedoms are fundamental — they aren’t privileges the government “allows” us to exercise within the limits of their oversight. That is a completely abhorrent concept and even the IRS knows it.

    As for Jefferson, he didn’t “scold” anybody. He told the Danbury Baptists that he sympathized with their position but could not interfere because it was not the federal government’s place to meddle in the religious affairs of the states. A concept everyone here would do well to review.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Shawnie, take a look around. You don’t seem to have convinced anyone.

  • shawnie5

    Oh brother. The very thing that makes our fundamental rights “inalienable” is that they are endowed by the Deity, not agreed-upon by flawed human beings and revocable by the same. And every single one of the founders understood that. How can any American reach adulthood with such a complete lack of understanding of the theory upon which our entire political system is built???

    Get out of the propaganda mill and and go study some solid food like the Declaration of Independence, the Virginia Statue for Religous Freedom, the Federalist Papers, Blackstone’s Commentaries, etc.

  • shawnie5

    LOL! Do you routinely gauge the rightness of your position by how many people agree with you?

    If so, it’s time you changed your moniker from Carrot Cake Man to Carrot Cake Middle-Schooler.

  • shawnie5

    Either learn to read, Carrot. Everything is “boring” to the confused.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    So Shawnie’s only response to being shown his own inconsistencies is to post a personal attack. This suggests what he really thinks is my reading ability is quite good. It is. It is too bad that his only contribution to this discussion is an attempt to derail it.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Once again, Shawnie’s only contribution to this discussion is a personal attack meant to derail the conversation. This clearly demonstrates even he knows he has failed to sell his opinions here.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Once again, no, our rights do not originate from your deity, Shawnie. To suggest our Founding Fathers, who fought an actual war with Britain to establish those rights, viewed them as being from pie-in-the-sky is as laughable as the claim they wanted to found a “Christian” nation. Posting yet another personal attack at me will not fool anyone into believing that Christianist propaganda you desperately try to promote here.

  • John Ryan

    How about extending Equal Protection to the Dorito kid…..

  • G Key

    Do our own personally chosen and cherished beliefs and values bind people who don’t even go to our church?

    Are they our equals? Are their rights and freedoms equal to ours?

    Are their lives subject to our toleration? Do we deserve more say-so over their lives than they do over ours?

    Should we express hostility toward them? Should we invade their spiritual peace? Should we disparage what they hold dear? Should we refuse to employ them, and refuse to do business with them? Should we restrict their lives? Should we punish them?

    What happened to our humility? To our compassion? And to their religious freedom?

    Does following the Golden Rule mean that we must respect their personal boundaries, beliefs, belongings, rights, privacy, and equality, as we would have them respect our own personal boundaries, beliefs, belongings, rights, privacy, and equality?

  • Shawnie5

    “Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free; That all attempts to influence it by…civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do…no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion…and do declare that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.”
    –Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

  • Shawnie5

    BTW, Google and read the whole thing.

    The Statute and the Declaration of Independence are two of the three things Jefferson wished memorialized upon his tombstone, and both of which affirm the Creator as the source of all fundamental rights. The other was the founding of the University of Virginia, where Jefferson directed that: In conformity with the principles of our Constitution, which places all sects of religion on an equal footing, with the jealousies of the different sects in guarding that equality from encroachment and surprise, and with the sentiments of the Legislature in favor of freedom of religion, manifested on former occasions, we have proposed no professor of divinity; and the rather as the proofs of the being of a God, the creator, preserver, and supreme ruler of the universe, the author of all the relations of morality, and of the laws and obligations these infer, will be within the province of the professor of ethics.”

  • Shawnie5

    If you possessed any reading ability at all, Carrot, you would have noted that my post you referenced contained exactly two lines written by me, the rest of it being a short quote from Max and a lengthy quote from John Adams, none of which stated that churches invariably demonstrate virtue.

    Of course, if it is your position that John Adams made a wild claim that churches invariably demonstrate virtue, then I’ll let Max take that one. ROFL!

    This gets better all the time!

  • Cynthia

    This has been a horrible decision to make. It seems like no candidate fits who catholics should vote for? What are the top 3 that we should consider. I’m really worried my decision will affect my salvation.

  • Pr chris

    It seems to me that the question of whether or not one can vote for Sen. Sanders or not is over the fear that he is complicit in the issue of abortions. BUT, even if the government decides to make abortion facilities available to every woman, that does not mean that there will be even one abortion. Unless the US has started marching women into abortion facilities and forcing them to undergo that procedure, merely making facilities available is only part of the equation. How much weight do we accuse Sen. Sanders of, compared to the medical people and the women themselves who choose to have an abortion?

    In light of Sen. Sanders’ positions on care for the poor and elderly, the ill and the disabled,, his rejection of war as foreign policy, and the totality of his positions, both foreign and domestic, I believe that there is no another candidate–in either party–who stands higher overall in their faithfulness to the gospel mandate.

    Pr chris
    (USN, ret)

  • Shawnie5

    Nobody is trying to “sell” you anything, Carrot. This is not a serious discussion forum, and you and Max are kittens chasing a string which I’m happy to pull along for you until something more pressing demands my attention. Don’t judge others by your own hunger for approval.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    I hope one day that someone will explain to Shawnie these personal attacks he makes will never advance his political agenda.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    More personal attacks–and, of course, Shawnie posts these many personal attacks precisely because no one is buying what he’s selling.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Shawnie, how many times must we tell you we aren’t buying your Christianist political agenda?

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Cyntia, I will tell you what the priest who heard my father’s confessions said. “Who will do the most good for the most Americans? And don’t listen to the bishops, they’re all Republicans.”

  • patrick

    If Bernie Sanders isn’t the Democrat nominee – I will vote exactly as I have done for the past 50 yrs or so.

    I will vote for the candidate who will do the LEAST DAMAGE….

  • shawnie5

    How many times must “we” tell you that “we” aren’t interested in selling anything to those who live in la-la land?

  • YPoulaki

    This article demonstrates the same relativistic nonsense that has gotten us to this point of actually debating whether it is “OK” for a Catholic to try and elect a person who advocates murder. Check your situational ethics Mr. Camosy, and maybe take the time to learn the Faith of the Magesterium, and not of Modernity.

    The solace of the sinner lies not in self-comfort, it’s time again to call this obfuscation what it is – sin.

  • Ben in oakland

    So if you vote for the wrong person, you are afraid you are damned. And if you don’t vote, you are afraid you are damned.

    It’s likely are always walking on the edge of a cliff called god’s love, never knowing whether the slightest misstep will take you over the edge to eternal damnation. Mortal sin, genial sin– it’s all the same.

    Nice fellow, your God is.

  • James

    Professor Gerard Bradley at Notre Dame lays waste to this type of muddy thinking with only one of several thoughts on the “proportionate” reasons to vote for a pro-choice candidate. This article is extremely misleading, as the Church has made clear that for the reasons to be sufficient, they must be proportionate and it’s hard to envision reasons proportionate to justify the legal killing of millions of innocent children.

    Take this excerpt from Professor Bradley to see in a glance why you are wrong:

    “Argument 2: ‘He’s Better on Other Issues’

    Some people who describe themselves as ‘pro-life’ support ‘pro-choice’ candidates without placing any faith in the reduce-the-incidence-of-abortion idea. These people instead maintain that the ‘pro-choice’ politician’s positions on other issues, such as the environment, taxes, education, are so far superior to those of a ‘pro-life’ alternative, that voting for the ‘pro-choice’ politician—notwithstanding the harm his…

  • James

    the harm his abortion policies would do—is the right thing. These people often say that the virtues of his other positions supply a ‘proportionate’ reason for voting for a ‘pro-choice’ candidate.

    The question which these people must ask themselves is this: Would they vote for a ‘pro-choice’ candidate on the strength of his preference for more government-provided health care than his rival proposes in his comparable plan, if doing so exposed their children to mortal danger? Suppose the candidate’s commitment to a policy of ‘choice’ referred, not to so many tiny and invisible people, but instead to hundreds of thousands of immigrants, or to the same number of prisoners or mentally handicapped or physically infirm people. Would they still support that candidate, even if his policies on energy, taxes, and employment were superior to his rival’s?

    A vote for a candidate who favors ‘pro-choice’ policies on abortion by someone who does not answer the preceding questions…

  • James

    A vote for a candidate who favors ‘pro-choice’ policies on abortion by someone who does not answer the preceding questions ‘yes’ does not, I think, satisfy the Golden Rule.”

    And this, Claire, is precisely why such circumstances are so rare as to be practically non-existent. The real fault is that those people who are thinking of voting for Sanders do not REALLY have the mind of the Church and consider the unborn child the same worth as our own children, as the poor and elderly and immigrant among us whom we can see.

  • yoh

    James, when you are capable of getting pregnant, then your opinions as to how those who are or can become pregnant should or be able to do, will mean something. But as of now, you are just one if many self righteous narcissists who think all women must defer to your decisions on all personal matters.

  • yoh

    There is nothing more relativistic than the anti abortion position.

    Nothing like pretending a fetus is of greater relative worth than the only human being which keeps it alive.

    Nothing like pretending your position entitles you to lie, murder, destroy property to show that great relativism that is inherent to religious notion of morality.

    The Catholic church attitude towards family planning is patronizing infantile nonsense. No wonder all except the most fanatical types ignore it as a,matter of course.

  • shawnie5

    Cut the baloney, Lare. I am capable of becoming pregnant and have been so twice, and statistics show that the same is true of the majority of pro-lifers, and I have not noticed that our views “mean” any more to the pro-choicers by virtue of this. The only thing a female pro-lifer is more likely to get in response is a blast of the usual misogynistic venom and which runs just under the surface of leftist “tolerance.”

  • yoh

    Wow, a self-righteous, narcissistic, dishonest and insulting response after describing the anti-abortion crowd as being self-righteous, narcissistic and insulting.

    You naturally feel that you are entitled to speak for all women in such things. That because you find abortion distasteful that nobody can consider it.

    I have not seen much of the “misogynist venom” you claim from liberals, but the anti-abortion argument depends entirely on it. On attacking women who consider it or are demanding a right to make their own decisions concerning their pregnancies. Naturally you know what is best for all women in all situations. Hence abortion should never be allowed.

  • Shawnie5

    Yes, I can certainly see that James’ opinions would “mean something” if only he were a woman. Sure. Right. And if they were the same as yours, of course. Otherwise they’d be narcissistic, insulting and somehow “dishonest.”

    What was dishonest was your response to James.

  • Jack

    DRW- as a Catholic I didn’t know ‘you’ had a vote on his canonization. Also, to suggest St JPII turned away from child abuse by priests betrays your supreme ignorance which is expanded by declaring your vote for Bernie. One thing you need is prayer – I’m offer same for you. JS

  • MARK

    So teue. JESUS has made it clear that children are innocent and the greatest sin of all comes to those who harm out little ones

  • Pingback: That Was The Week That Was – The Pietist Schoolman()