Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics

[Dolorian]

Taken from the Catholic Answers' "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics" - "The Five Non-Negotiables"

Five items that no Catholic can vote in favor of:

1. Abortion: The Church teaches that, regarding a law permitting abortions, it is "never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it" (EV 73). Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide. The unborn child is always an innocent party, and no law may permit the taking of his life. Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest, the fault is not the child's, who should not suffer death for others' sins. Another sub-set issue within this subject area that is non-negotiable pertains to Human Reproductive Technologies, which includes the Church’s position against Contraception, In-Vitro Fertilization and Sterilization.

2. Euthanasia: Often disguised by the name "mercy killing;' euthanasia is also a form of homicide. No person has a right to take his own life, and no one has the right to take the life of any innocent person. In euthanasia, the ill or elderly are killed, by action or omission, out of a misplaced sense of compassion, but true compassion cannot include intentionally doing something intrinsically evil to another person (cf. EV 73).

3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Human embryos are human beings. "Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo" (CRF 4b). Recent scientific advances show that medical treatments that researchers hope to develop from experimentation on embryonic stem cells can often be developed by using adult stem cells instead. Adult stem cells can be obtained without doing harm to the adults from whom they come. Thus there is no valid medical argument in favor of using embryonic stem cells. And even if there were benefits to be had from such experiments, they would not justify destroying innocent embryonic humans.

4. Human Cloning: "Attempts ... for obtaining a human being without any connection with sexuality through ‘twin fission,’ cloning, or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union" (RHL 1:6). Human cloning also involves abortion because the "rejected" or "unsuccessful" embryonic clones are destroyed, yet each clone is a human being.

5. Homosexual "Marriage": True marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recognition of any other union as "marriage" undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement. "When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time ina legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral" (UHP 10).

Source

...

Back as a Catholic I never paid much attention to the opposing view on these issues (particularly on points 2, 3 and 4; I did with respect to 1 and 5), as I was more interested in theology proper as opposed to moral theology. So, I would be interested to hear your reasons for being against all or any of these points (if you are).

I may (or may not!) try and play a devil's advocate role in this thread; just to keep the discussion going and see if we can have a good back and forth on these subjects while trying to give the Catholic view a fair hearing as well.

[Dystopia]

How about this - The principles of secularism and separation church/state are fundamental constitutional pillars - Applying them both, a good catholic, as any other religious person, would say I'm against all those things, but since my religion shouldn't interfere with what's legal or not, I will vote impartially (putting my religion aside), I will continue to oppose it morally, I have the right to not do it - Abortions, marrying same sex people, euthanising someone - But I don't have the right to impose my views on everyone else - If all theists thought like this, I would be so happy.

[FatAndFaithless]

That whole excerpt is literally Catholics sticking their fingers in their ears and ignoring science, philosophy, and technology. My father (who is Catholic) does the exact same thing, and its just pointing to their doctrine and cutting off all discussion or debate.

[Dolorian]

How about this - The principles of secularism and separation church/state are fundamental constitutional pillars - Applying them both, a good catholic, as any other religious person, would say I'm against all those things, but since my religion shouldn't interfere with what's legal or not, I will vote impartially (putting my religion aside), I will continue to oppose it morally, I have the right to not do it - Abortions, marrying same sex people, euthanising someone - But I don't have the right to impose my views on everyone else - If all theists thought like this, I would be so happy.

Well, I was actually looking more for reasons why people are in favor of the five things Catholics can't vote for, was interested in hearing the other side. Are these things right? Are they benefitial to society? Why? What are the problems with the opposing view?

Focusing things on the priciples of secularism doesn't really answers why these things should be voted for. The problem I see with what you are saying is that in this view voting "impartially" seems to be equated with supporting those things and it is also assumed that opposing and legistating against it means a violation of secular principles. But this really need not be the case.

[vorlon13]

I see the church hierarchy isn't confusing the flock with anything about child molesting.

[Dolorian]

That whole excerpt is literally Catholics sticking their fingers in their ears and ignoring science, philosophy, and technology. My father (who is Catholic) does the exact same thing, and its just pointing to their doctrine and cutting off all discussion or debate.

Ok, what science, philosophy and technology are they ignoring? Take something like Embryonic Stem Cell Research, for example. They oppose it for the reasons given in the OP and also claim that there are better and less "inhumane" (as they would call this process) methods of achieving the same things. They'd point to something like this, for example:

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/20...ut-embryo/

What is wrong with their view?

[Minimalist]

Hey, where's the section on butt-fucking altar boys?

Surely they have a guide for that, too?

[Dystopia]

How about this - The principles of secularism and separation church/state are fundamental constitutional pillars - Applying them both, a good catholic, as any other religious person, would say I'm against all those things, but since my religion shouldn't interfere with what's legal or not, I will vote impartially (putting my religion aside), I will continue to oppose it morally, I have the right to not do it - Abortions, marrying same sex people, euthanising someone - But I don't have the right to impose my views on everyone else - If all theists thought like this, I would be so happy.

Well, I was actually looking more for reasons why people are in favor of the five things Catholics can't vote for, was interested in hearing the other side. Are these things right? Are they benefitial to society? Why? What are the problems with the opposing view?

Focusing things on the priciples of secularism doesn't really answers why these things should be voted for. The problem I see with what you are saying is that in this view voting "impartially" seems to be equated with supporting those things and it is also assumed that opposing and legistating against it means a violation of secular principles. But this really need not be the case.

Dolorian, simply opposing these things doesn't violate the principle of secularism, of course not... But opposing any of these things because of your religion and wanting to legislate against them with your religion as a legal paradigm violates clearly the principle of secularism - Since the church is regulating public decisions indirectly.

As for being against or in favour of any of those five matters, I think it's mostly a question of choice - If you're not a Catholic you have a much greater freedom to support those things, but it doesn't mean you have to. Many people think all atheists are nice liberal people but there's lot of prejudiced atheists out there who dislike gays as much as Christians - And most pro-choice people I know are atheists or at least non religious, but then again I don't know a lot of devout Christians in real life. Human cloning is always a controversial issue, I have mixed views on it, there are pros and cons, the same can be said for euthanasia, I support it, but I wouldn't do it nor would I euthanize anyone. As for stem cell research involving embryos, I haven't made enough research on it so I cannot comment the problem.

I don't think being a non believer per se makes you automatically socially liberal, but it does make you more likely, you won't find many atheists against gay marriage, and even those who are against abortion morally/ethically will be pro-choice to not impose their personal morality on others. Even when it comes to euthanasia, you may not be capable of doing it, but most atheists would say I wouldn't do it, but other people can do as they wish.

[vodkafan]

Well , Dolorian I can only give my own opinion on what I have reasoned to feel is right. I personally strongly disagree with points 1 and 5, which I will go into more detail about; I strongly agree with point 2 about Euthenasia, but not for any religious reason; it's just wrong to rub out an old person just because they have outlived their usefulness. I have misgivings about human cloning because the law doesn't cover what status a clone would have among other things. The jury is still out on embryonic stem cell research for me; adult stem cells are not totipotent so embryo stem cells may be needed for some things.
Going back to 1 and 5: About abortion I think it should be strictly the choice of the mother.
About gay marriage this statement riles me up : "True marriage is the union of one man and one woman". Who decided that? That would negate most forms of bibical marriage in any case. Marriage throughout history has always been a form of social contract. Homosexual marriage is a good thing because it allows people to be included in society (who were excluded) and hurts nobody. It normalises and encompasses and circumvents difference. It doesn't hurt or diminish traditional marriage.

[Minimalist]

"True marriage is the union of one man and one woman". Who decided that?

Some dickhead.... and he has a funny hat to back him up.