Catholic? Pro choice? Guess what? You can’t be both…
This Youtube video is based on the "Voters Guide for Serious Catholics." I have seen this in print in several places, including newspapers like USA Today. I wonder how many of my fellow "Catholics" will choose to somehow forget the list of "non-negotiables" and instead go straight for other "human rights" issues as some sort of trade off.
From the Guide:
On most issues that come before voters or legislators, the task is selecting the most effective strategy among several morally good options. A Catholic can take one side or the other and not act contrary to the faith. Most matters do not have a "Catholic position."
But some issues concern "non-negotiable" moral principles that do not admit of exception or compromise. One’s position either accords with those principles or does not. No one endorsing the wrong side of these issues can be said to act in accord with the Church’s moral norms.
This voter’s guide identifies five issues involving "non-negotiable" moral values in current politics and helps you narrow down the list of acceptable candidates, whether they are running for national, state, or local offices.
You should avoid to the greatest extent possible voting for candidates who endorse or promote intrinsically evil policies. As far as possible, you should vote for those who promote policies in line with the moral law.
Here are the 5 NON-NEGOTIABLE issues:
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.
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 often medical treatments that researchers hope to develop from experimentation on embryonic stem cells can 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 I: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 in a 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).
As for those that will vote for politicians committed to "protecting a woman’s right to choose" because they excel in other "human rights" and/or "social justice" areas in exchange for the 5 "NON-NEGOTIABLES," consider this, from the Guide:
Some issues allow for a diversity of opinion, and Catholics are permitted leeway in endorsing or opposing particular policies. This is the case with the questions of when to go to war and when to apply the death penalty. Though the Church urges caution regarding both of these issues, it acknowledges that the state has the right to emply them in some circumstances.
And, irregardless, they cannot simply be "traded." Said Pope Benedict XVI when he was a Cardinal:
Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.
It is no secret that prominent Democrats at the national, state, and local levels have all pledged to PROTECT A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE (have an abortion, thus killing a baby). Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever. Jeanne Shaheen rails on John E Sununu over his pro-life stances. Judge "Bud" Martin claims to be in favor of helping the needy at the local level in his run for state senate, yet rails on his Republican opponent for supporting a parental notification bill in emails to his supporters. My question is this:
How can anyone claim to be a "serious Catholic" and even THINK about voting for any of the current crop of Democrats Tuesday? Will you try to negotiate the "NON-NEGOTIABLES" when you meet your maker?
