Roman Catholic Priest Says Catholics Should Not Be Single-Issue Voters, Cites Church Teachings, Memos

I also do not believe the assertion the writer is a priest. If he were he would know there are FIVE non-negotiables: Abortion, Embryonic Stem Cell research, Human Cloning, Euthanasia, and Homosexual Marriage. Based on Church teachings, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Encyclicals of the Pope, and issue papers from the Office of the Doctrine of the Faith, these five issues concern actions that are intrinsically evil and must never be promoted by the law. To do is sinful. To not compromise on these positions is not, contrary to what some may assert, to engage in “single issue” politics. Rather, it is to judge all other important issues through a lens of truth and a genuine concern for the “common good” of all. Catholics are free to disagree on war and the death penalty.

It's not at all surprising to read how Catholic conscience has been formed since Vatican II.  Just read the comments posted here.  Is the Catholic Church against the death penalty?  Give me a citation where it says so.

Achison is gravely mislead.  He says, " Abortion should be available for a woman who is raped and to protect the health of the woman.  I say that as a Catholic."  The child conceived in rape may be killed?  What's the difference between this child and the child conceived normally?  And you are Catholic?

Again he says:  "Contraceptives and sterilization procedures allow families to plan when to have children and how many to have so that they can be responsible about bringing into the world those children they can truly care for.  Contraceptives allow us to act like adults.  I say that as a Catholic."   Huh??

I have heard enough.  

The remark by George Kadlec applies in this case.

This priest is either stupid, ignorant or a fraud. If he does not understand Catholic doctrine or is incapable of rational thinking he should quit. He would be doing the Catholic Church and himself a favor.

There is no anonymous Christian, let alone Catholic.  This priest needs to use his real name if he is to be believed.

God gave us brains to think and hearts to feel love and compassion.  He gave us the Holy Spirit to help us find a path through life that Jesus demonstrated.

 Abortion should be available for a woman who is raped and to protect the health of the woman.  I say that as a Catholic. 

Contraceptives and sterilization procedures allow families to plan when to have children and how many to have so that they can be responsible about bringing into the world those children they can truly care for.  Contraceptives allow us to act like adults.  I say that as a Catholic.

There is a difference between what needs to be within the practices of a faith and the practices of a democratis government founded on the ideals of freedom and equality.  I say that as both a Catholic and a citizen.

There was a time when John Kennedy had to defend to the world his ability to be both a citizen and a Catholic.   Is it possible today? 

Our Church is not perfect, as history has shown repeatedly.  It makes mistakes, sometimes horrendous mistakes, that kill people, destroy cultures.  The Church needs the voices of those who speak up in the face of Church mistakes.  There are millions of us who are doing that.  The Church is wrong on a flat denial of abortion in all cases, wrong on gay marriage, wrong on forbidding contraceptives and sterilizations. 

Be careful.  The Catholic Church hierarchy has made an idol out of the Church itself.  Do not worship the Church, but God.   

The anonymous Arizona priest was being disingenous in quoting form the Cdl Ratzinger CDF memo to Cdl McCarrick.  The correct interpretation below is provided by Bishop Rene Henry Gracida of Corpus Christi:

It is never permissible for a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate     because the candidate is pro-abortion. Such a vote would be formal cooperation     in the serious sin of the candidate who, upon being elected, would vote for     legislation making possible the taking of innocent human life through procured     abortion.  

When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion     and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered     remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate     reasons strictly defined.  

Since abortion and euthanasia have been defined by the Church as the most serious     sins prevalent in our society, what kind of reasons could possibly be considered     proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known     to be pro-abortion? None of the reasons commonly suggested could even begin     to be proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for such a candidate.     Reasons such as the candidate’s position on war, or taxes, or the death     penalty, or immigration, or a national health plan, or social security, or aids,     or homosexuality, or marriage, or any similar burning societal issues of our     time are simply lacking in proportionality.  

There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify     a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that     is the protection of innocent human life. That may seem to be contradictory,     but it is not.  

Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates:     candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B,     Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting     abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against     abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.  

The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would     be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected     and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.    

The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only     help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry).  

Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate     (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry)     and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush)     is elected and votes for legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such     a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils which is     morally permissible under these circumstances.  

Of course, the Catholic voter could choose not to vote. But that would be a     serious abdication of the Catholic voter’s civic and moral obligation     to participate in the election. By not voting the Catholic voter could well     be assisting in the election of candidate (A, Kerry) and while that would not     carry the same guilt as formal participation in candidate (A, Kerry’s)     support of abortion-on-demand it would still be sinful, even if only a sin of     omission.  

Those Catholic voters who love moral absolutes would have no choice but to     vote for candidate (C, Peroutka), but those Catholics who recognize that in     the real world it is sometimes necessary to choose the lesser of two evils in     order to prevent greater harm – in this case harm to innocent unborn children     would vote for candidate (B, Bush).  

+Rene Henry Gracida     Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi 

This is a good example of faith without reason.  You need both to make a morally correct decision.  Quoting a few of the church's teachings without taking into consideration the severity of the sin, and the Fr Spitzer's ten universal principles leads one to falsely conclude that supporting an abortion candidate is ok if that candidate is for social justice (i.e. help for the poor).  The point being missed is that abortion and the homosexual lifestyle are mortal sins, and violate the natural laws of social justice. We, in good conscience, cannot support any mortal sin.  So to support Obama because he wants to improve the quality of life of the poor (which he hasn't done because he hasn't taught the poor "how to fish") while supporting abortion and gay marriage which harms the unborn and children is not reasonable.

No wonder Obama gets elected because of misguided cafeteria Catholics like Atchison are there to vote him in.  There are nine ways to be an accessory to sin and voting for Obama one can commit not one but several (go check it out).  If you vote for Obama, go ahead and listen to this priest but refrain from going to holy Communion.  You are desecrating the Body and Blood of Christ.

Good heavens.  The rare priest I really do agree with.

I am a Catholic who believes that Obama's policies will help more poor people, will actually save lives with food stamps and welfare payments, will provide health care to milliions who not otherwise have it.  I do not like abortion, but the way to reduce abortions is to make contraceptives widely available, to promote real sex education, and to promote equality for women, so that young girls learn how to say NO. 

Romney/Ryan, on the other hand, will cut taxes that will do no better on job creation than it has in the past (Bush tax cuts are still in effect, where are the jobs????)  And, other than tax cuts, what will they do but cut swathes through the progress that has been made in womens health care, womens equality in the work place, and women's equality before the law.  Republicans are dismanteling 50 years of progress that women have made in laws that created real opportunity for them . 

The bishops insistence on Catholics not using their minds and hearts, their conscience, is a great wrong.  So be it.  Bishops are also humans who make mistakes.  This return to authoritarianism in the Church is not a good idea, because it encourages people to act like sheet instead of adults.. 

@RomanCatholic36 we shouldn't be BUMPS IN THE ROAD EITHER!