A priest’s warning: Christians who vote for pro-abortion politicians...

[Gnarwhal]

A priest’s warning: Christians who vote for pro-abortion politicians could ‘spend all of eternity in hell’

October 11, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Little more than a week before the Canadian federal elections on October 21, a Catholic priest with a large YouTube following has warned Catholics that they might face eternity in hell if they vote for an abortion-supporting politician.​

A priest’s warning: Christians who vote for pro-abortion politicians could ‘spend all of eternity in hell’

 

[Basil the Great]

A priest’s warning: Christians who vote for pro-abortion politicians could ‘spend all of eternity in hell’

October 11, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Little more than a week before the Canadian federal elections on October 21, a Catholic priest with a large YouTube following has warned Catholics that they might face eternity in hell if they vote for an abortion-supporting politician.​

A priest’s warning: Christians who vote for pro-abortion politicians could ‘spend all of eternity in hell’

Noteworthy news it would seem. However, I seriously doubt that any Bishop in the US. or Canada would make such a statement right before a nationwide election.

 

[Silmarien]

So, are you saying it's somehow OK to vote for a politician who advocates for abortions? That's not a very Catholic position and you are in the Catholic forum.

I just came across a very interesting Patheos article and thought it might be relevant to this thread. The author is Catholic, wants to see Roe overturned, and yet will vote for Elizabeth Warren because he thinks it's her economic policies that will actually reduce the number of abortions and save lives, whereas he believes Trump's will have the opposite effect: A Pro-Life Case For Elizabeth Warren

I'm not going to defend it, since I'm not Catholic, but it's probably worth looking at.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I just came across a very interesting Patheos article and thought it might be relevant to this thread. The author is Catholic, wants to see Roe overturned, and yet will vote for Elizabeth Warren because he thinks it's her economic policies that will actually reduce the number of abortions and save lives, whereas he believes Trump's will have the opposite effect: A Pro-Life Case For Elizabeth Warren

I'm not going to defend it, since I'm not Catholic, but it's probably worth looking at.

I would be much more receptive to such an argument if, for example, it would be applied to things like gun violence, where the PC position is to ban guns to save lives. Would those people be sophisticated enough to even entertain that a well armed populace might deter some gun violence? Or could they never entertain such an idea? I think I will continue not to vote for people who support the barbarity of abortion. Not even for dog catcher.

By the way, I don't even own a gun.

 

[Silmarien]

I would be much more receptive to such an argument if, for example, it would be applied to things like gun violence, where the PC position is to ban guns to save lives. Would those people be sophisticated enough to even entertain that a well armed populace might deter some gun violence? Or could they never entertain such an idea? I think I will continue not to vote for people who support the barbarity of abortion. Not even for dog catcher.

By the way, I don't even own a gun.

Oh, I am against a blanket ban on guns also. (I don't buy the well-armed populace argument, but I think victims of domestic abuse ought to be permitted to protect themselves.)

Anyway, I don't think he's arguing that Catholics must vote for Warren, but just that there are "proportionate reasons" that make it acceptable, as long as you are voting for her in spite of her stance on abortion and not because of it.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Oh, I am against a blanket ban on guns also. (I don't buy the well-armed populace argument, but I think victims of domestic abuse ought to be permitted to protect themselves.)

Anyway, I don't think he's arguing that Catholics must vote for Warren, but just that there are "proportionate reasons" that make it acceptable, as long as you are voting for her in spite of her stance on abortion and not because of it.

Well, Hitler made the trains run on time. All sorts of people have all sorts of ideas on what might be proportionate. Color me skeptical that Warren is going to reduce abortions. Abortions are being reduced right now. That makes the argument a bit odd that voting for Warren will reduce abortions.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Oh, I am against a blanket ban on guns also. (I don't buy the well-armed populace argument, but I think victims of domestic abuse ought to be permitted to protect themselves.)

Anyway, I don't think he's arguing that Catholics must vote for Warren, but just that there are "proportionate reasons" that make it acceptable, as long as you are voting for her in spite of her stance on abortion and not because of it.

Having looked at this again, I could say that if given the framework that abortion was illegal AND that the Democrats were not lobbying for it's re-legalization (as I think they actually would be) then it might be acceptable to vote Democratic Party if all other things were equal, if they were not in favor of reducing religious liberty, and the like. BUT, given the legality of abortion at present, AND their stated objective of even enhancing abortion access, ala New York, at present they are just wrong to vote for. Voting for them does put one's soul in peril. That is NOT an argument FOR voting for Trump, just not voting for them.

 

[Silmarien]

Well, Hitler made the trains run on time. All sorts of people have all sorts of ideas on what might be proportionate. Color me skeptical that Warren is going to reduce abortions. Abortions are being reduced right now. That makes the argument a bit odd that voting for Warren will reduce abortions.

One thing he mentions is that the abortion rate in European countries like Germany is lower than in the United States, presumably because adequate social programs exist to support pregnant women. In contrast, the highest abortion rate can be found in Latin American countries, despite the fact that abortion is largely illegal there. Why? Because of serious issues with poverty.

If the choice were between a pro-life candidate who also supported social programs that would aid pregnant women and a pro-choice candidate who supported the same social programs, the obvious answer would be the pro-life candidate. The current situation in this country is not as clear cut as that, however, so if someone thinks that economic policy rather than legality is the deciding factor in determining whether abortions actually take place, I don't see why they should be required to vote against the candidate whose policies they think will make the greatest impact.

Having looked at this again, I could say that if given the framework that abortion was illegal AND that the Democrats were not lobbying for it's re-legalization (as I think they actually would be) then it might be acceptable to vote Democratic Party if all other things were equal, if they were not in favor of reducing religious liberty, and the like. BUT, given the legality of abortion at present, AND their stated objective of even enhancing abortion access, ala New York, at present they are just wrong to vote for. Voting for them does put one's soul in peril. That is NOT an argument FOR voting for Trump, just not voting for them.

Seems like the best option would just be to never vote for anyone, in that case.

 

[charsan]

A priest’s warning: Christians who vote for pro-abortion politicians could ‘spend all of eternity in hell’

October 11, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Little more than a week before the Canadian federal elections on October 21, a Catholic priest with a large YouTube following has warned Catholics that they might face eternity in hell if they vote for an abortion-supporting politician.​

A priest’s warning: Christians who vote for pro-abortion politicians could ‘spend all of eternity in hell’

That Priest hits the nail on the head. I do not understand anyone who can call themselves Christian and support baby murder aka abortion

 

[chevyontheriver]

Seems like the best option would just be to never vote for anyone, in that case.

Oh, it's not that hard to find a candidate to vote for. I just no longer expect to find one in the Democratic Party. There were some decent ones seeking the 2016 Republican Party nomination. I anticipate there will be one or more good options in the upcoming election even as the two big parties fail us again. I'm rather tired of throwing away my vote, like I would have in the last election if I thought the only two options were Hillary or The Donald.

The problem with voting for someone like Elizabeth Warren (or Joe Biden the Catholic) is that these people are deeply compromised. If they can't be trusted to do right for an innocent and helpless human being, how can we trust them in other matters?

 

[Silmarien]

Oh, it's not that hard to find a candidate to vote for.

My point is that if merely voting for someone with problematic policies puts your soul at risk, even if you disagree with those policies and are voting for them for other reasons, the safest option might be to simply never vote at all. Especially in our polarized political culture, where there are predatory policies on both sides.

 

[chevyontheriver]

My point is that if merely voting for someone with problematic policies puts your soul at risk, even if you disagree with those policies and are voting for them for other reasons, the safest option might be to simply never vote at all. Especially in our polarized political culture, where there are predatory policies on both sides.

First off, don't be so binary. Binary thinkers in 1850 were Whigs or Democrats. Where did the Whigs go? Dump your major political party. End the polarization. Let some new flowers bloom.

Secondly, our actions can put our souls at risk by voting or by all sorts of other things. And yet we can't cocoon ourselves but live in the world though not of it.

 

[Silmarien]

First off, don't be so binary. Binary thinkers in 1850 were Whigs or Democrats. Where did the Whigs go? Dump your major political party. End the polarization. Let some new flowers bloom.

Secondly, our actions can put our souls at risk by voting or by all sorts of other things. And yet we can't cocoon ourselves but live in the world though not of it.

Oh, I will still vote. I just think the whole thing is a bit problematic--someone could just as easily say that there's a non-zero chance that Trump will start a nuclear war, and therefore that if you don't seek to stop him by voting for whichever candidate can beat him (i.e., the Democrat), your soul is at risk. That is a card that can be played in many different directions, and at the end of the day, it just looks like a political weapon when used in an unnuanced fashion.

I'm not averse to switching to a third party, though. Not this year, but I am increasingly interested in yours, actually.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Oh, I will still vote. I just think the whole thing is a bit problematic--someone could just as easily say that there's a non-zero chance that Trump will start a nuclear war, and therefore that if you don't seek to stop him by voting for whichever candidate can beat him (i.e., the Democrat), your soul is at risk. That is a card that can be played in many different directions, and at the end of the day, it just looks like a political weapon when used in an unnuanced fashion.

I'm not averse to switching to a third party, though. Not this year, but I am increasingly interested in yours, actually.

I've lived my whole life under the cloud of threat of nuclear war, and it's actually much less of a threat now than it was in the 1960's. Turns out the 'duck and cover' drills from back then reflected some actual threats, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis when we were almost in a nuclear war. And that was under beloved president Kennedy.

There was a non-zero chance Hillary would have brought us to war. She was not exactly a 'peace candidate'. And Obama, for winning the Nobel Peace Prize, killed a lot of people with drone strikes. It's not so clear who would be the better candidate when it comes to war and peace. I was raised to believe the Democrats were the party of peace, But Truman dropped two nuclear weapons on Japan and Johnson gave us Vietnam. Both of them were Democrats. I am NOT saying the Republicans are the party of peace. Just that the common presumptions can mislead.

The American Solidarity Party is a small thing, but this is a historical moment where a small party can grow by leaps and bounds. It's centrist. It has links to the Christian Democratics of Europe. Think Conrad Adenauer and Helmut Kohl of Germany as examples.

 

[chevyontheriver]

My point is that if merely voting for someone with problematic policies puts your soul at risk, even if you disagree with those policies and are voting for them for other reasons, the safest option might be to simply never vote at all. Especially in our polarized political culture, where there are predatory policies on both sides.

A new thought on this. We often vote AGAINST one person who we feel will be bad. In consequence we vote for someone else a little bit less bad who we think can stop them. That was the last election in a nutshell. If we vote FOR a person, looking for the best, we could surprise ourselves and find that we are not stuck with either the worst or the second worst candidate every time. But we have this groupthink thing going on where we think it has to be either Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum.

 

[chevyontheriver]

As for treating obesity ( since it's not an illness per se, but is a matter of personal choice) most doctors leave it up to the patient to manage on their own, and would be more likely to refer them to a nearby gym, or suggest a good brisk daily walk for starters.

Diabetes on the other hand, is well treated and monitored, and is also followed up with the patient charting their own daily monitoring. While it can't be cured yet, monitoring and encouraging medical follow up is the best treatment so far.

Some obesity is genetic and beating it is an uphill battle. Not all obesity is a moral failure. And diabetes, though it does have a genetic component, is related to personal choices. I developed diabetes when I was years older than my father developed his. Maybe if I was more fanatical I could have stayed it off longer. Point is it's hard to say where personal choice meets genetics in both obesity and diabetes. It is not safe to presume it is all moral failure or all genetics.

 

[Silmarien]

I've lived my whole life under the cloud of threat of nuclear war, and it's actually much less of a threat now than it was in the 1960's. Turns out the 'duck and cover' drills from back then reflected some actual threats, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis when we were almost in a nuclear war. And that was under beloved president Kennedy.

There was a non-zero chance Hillary would have brought us to war. She was not exactly a 'peace candidate'. And Obama, for winning the Nobel Peace Prize, killed a lot of people with drone strikes. It's not so clear who would be the better candidate when it comes to war and peace. I was raised to believe the Democrats were the party of peace, But Truman dropped two nuclear weapons on Japan and Johnson gave us Vietnam. Both of them were Democrats. I am NOT saying the Republicans are the party of peace. Just that the common presumptions can mislead.

Oh, I am not necessarily saying that Republicans are war-mongerers and Democrats are peaceful--that is sometimes the case, but I agree with you that Clinton is a warhawk in her own right. I don't think that under normal circumstances there would be significant risk of nuclear war with either party, even with a warhawk in charge, but Trump is a different animal altogether. What he pulled with Iran could have led to an international crisis if Iran had chosen to escalate, so I don't trust him to not do something else potentially disastrous, seems he seems not to understand that actions have consequences.

The American Solidarity Party is a small thing, but this is a historical moment where a small party can grow by leaps and bounds. It's centrist. It has links to the Christian Democratics of Europe. Think Conrad Adenauer and Helmut Kohl of Germany as examples.

Is it centrist? I had heard that it was socially conservative and economically progressive. I'm a socially moderate economic progressive, but modern liberalism is really starting to drive me up the wall with its various blindspots and inconsistencies.

A new thought on this. We often vote AGAINST one person who we feel will be bad. In consequence we vote for someone else a little bit less bad who we think can stop them. That was the last election in a nutshell. If we vote FOR a person, looking for the best, we could surprise ourselves and find that we are not stuck with either the worst or the second worst candidate every time. But we have this groupthink thing going on where we think it has to be either Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum.

I think this is somewhat too optimistic about the chances that third parties have in our country. They can win at the local level and sometimes even at the state level, but I think our system disadvantages them too much for them to win the presidency. I have voted for third parties in presidential elections before, but primarily so that the third party in question is more likely to get government funding. I think a party needs to actually die for another one to genuinely rise, though. (Granted, neither of the main ones are in terribly good shape right now.)

 

[St. Helens]

ADMIN HAT ON​

OBOB Statement of Purpose
OBOB welcomes non-Catholic guests who wish to fellowship or ask respectful questions.
Definition of a Fellowship Post

It is not:
It is not debate.
It is not apologetics.
It is not answering questions related to the beliefs of the group.
It is not teaching in any way on any issue


It is:
Essentially Fellowship is defined as a discussion of topics of association, of companionship - i.e. discussions of things like friends, family, work..... these are fellowship posts. And posts that genuinely offer friendship would certainly be described as fellowship.

ADMIN HAT OFF​