Saint John Paul on voting for maniac pro-abort politicians

I’m going a million miles an hour. Can anyone find where JPII said that voting for politicians who are out to murder the preborn, the just born and the elderly when there is an extremely viable prolife and pro free exercise of religion candidate is a crime against humanity and a mortal sin?

Also, I need a link to Trump’s executive order on politics and religion.

Urgent. Yikes!

By the way… So far today besides Mass…

5 Comments

Filed under Free exercise of religion, Politics

5 responses to “Saint John Paul on voting for maniac pro-abort politicians

  1. nancyv

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html
    http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html (parag 59)
    don’t know if this is what you are specifically looking for, but it’s something. I know friends who cannot stand Pres. Trump and don’t want to vote for him, so I just tell them that as a Catholic you CANNOT vote for Biden, and hope they figure it out. sigh…

  2. James W. Anderson

    The closest I could find was:
    EVANGELIUM VITAE The last paragraph in item 20:
    To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: “Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin” (Jn 8:34).

  3. THIS GUIDE MAY BE FREELY REPRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED NON-COMMERCIALLY.
    Guide to Moral Duties
    Concerning Voting
    We encourage all citizens, particularly Catholics, to embrace their
    citizenship not merely as a duty and privilege, but as an
    opportunity meaningfully to participate in building the culture of
    life. . . . Every act of responsible citizenship is an exercise of
    significant individual power. We must exercise that power in ways
    that defend human life, especially those of God’s children who are
    unborn, disabled or otherwise vulnerable. We get the public
    officials we deserve. Their virtue–or lack thereof–is a judgment not
    only on them, but on us. Because of this we urge our fellow citizens
    to see beyond party politics, to analyze campaign rhetoric critically
    and to choose their political leaders according to principle, not
    party affiliation or mere self-interest.
    [Living the Gospel of Life: A
    Challenge to American Catholics 34,
    National Conference of Catholic
    Bishops, November 1998]
    The Role of Common Teaching in Catholic Moral Theology
    The public discussion regarding voting suggests that most Catholics think there is little
    Church teaching on the subject. Besides a comment here and there regarding
    abortion, same-sex unions, or more recently, gender ideology, some important
    principles in the Catechism and encyclicals, and Pope Benedict’s teaching on non-
    negotiable and negotiable common goods, we are otherwise left to make the hard
    choices on our own.
    This is not really the case, however. Magisterial statements express with authority
    what is already believed, occasionally with some clarification or even development, but
    they are to be understood in continuity with the Tradition, including the common
    theology of the Church. This is the meaning of Pope Benedict’s interpretative principle
    “hermeneutic of continuity.” Such is the case with the Church’s moral theology.
    That Which is Taught Always, Everywhere and by All
    St. Irenaeus of Lyon (died 150 A.D.) wrote of the universality and consistency of the
    Church’s teaching as one of the gifts enabling Christians to tend to salvation. Writing
    in the first systematic theological treatise, he stated,

  4. Pope St. John Paul II wrote about what is wrongly sometimes called the “lesser of two
    evils” in his encyclical The Gospel of Life, in the context of abortion legislation.
    A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative
    vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed
    at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more
    permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. … In a case like
    the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely
    abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal
    opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support
    proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at
    lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and
    public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its
    evil aspects. (Gospel of Life 73)
    This is the only exception for such voting which can be found in the tradition, as
    it is the only case where there is a proportion between the goods being weighed—bad
    on the non-negotiables versus less bad. Both are applications of standard moral
    principles of the natural law and of Catholic moral theology, the principle of double
    effect and moral culpability due to an action with foreseeable consequences.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.