Cardinal Schonborn Criticizes Bishop who Discouraged Votes for Pro-Abortion Presidential Candidate

LifeSite News ^ | 5/30/16 | Micahel Kant

[marshmallow]

May 30, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Should the Church speak out in public – and also in political – debates? This question rushed back into the minds of those who followed the presidential elections in Austria at the end of April and the end of May.

Austrians elect their president directly every six years. The winning candidate must receive more than 50% of the votes in the first round; otherwise a second ballot is held between the two most successful candidates. This term’s candidacy came down to Alexander Van der Bellen of the Green Party (Grünen) and Norbert Hofer of the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ). Van der Bellen won in the second round with roughly 2,250,000 votes, against Hofer who lagged behind by only 30,000 votes. Even given Van der Bellen’s victory, the country is divided.

For the Church, debate centred on statements by Van der Bellen concerning essential issues of life and morality, all of them crucial for the discernment of a Catholic voter.

Regarding gender theory, Van der Bellen responded in an interview with the Austrian Catholic news website “Kath.net” that “equal rights for people, independent of their gender or sexual orientation, have become natural and a given”, while citing article one of the Austrian constitution as his reason. Because the Christian ÖVP lost ground in the political sphere, the red-green government could further push their agenda on life issues. When requested by the woman, abortion is legal in Austria, even without a medical reason, up to the 16th week of pregnancy. As a member of the Green party, Van der Bellen is likely to hold to this course of legislation, or possibly to push for wider use of abortion and state financial support for it.

Against this backdrop, the Church saw itself confronted with a dilemma: should......

[marshmallow]

In his statement Schönborn urged Catholics to “be true to their style when entering public debate” and “not to judge those that think differently.” “A good decision in the election cannot base itself just on the core issues of the Catholic Church like the defense of human life, but must also take into consideration many other components like the attitude of the candidates toward the weakest members of society, among them, immigrants,” says the statement.

Also popular in these parts, where it's known as Bernardin's "seamless garment" doctrine.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Should the Church speak out in public – and also in political – debates?

Hell yeah!

I'm sick to death of these baby-killing "catholic" politicians.

Get em out!

[PTBAA]

The Church should not take a political side.

The Church is obligated, however, to defend life. Since elected officials are literally given the power of life and death, the Church is obligated to point out to its Parishioners which candidates are pro-life and pro-Christian morality and which ones are not, regardless of Party affiliation.

The Church should also point out that voting for a candidate that promotes the murder of the innocent unborn makes them complicit in murder (attempted murder at the least) and that voting for that candidate should be considered a Mortal Sin.

[ebb tide]

Yet it’s Cardinal Schönborn whom Francis refers us to for the “correct” interpretation of his heretical Amoris Laetitia. And that interpretation is: yes, the divorced and remarried can receive Holy Communion.

[marshmallow]

I believe Schonborn’s position regarding anti-life politicians as described above, is also similar if not identical, to Francis’. I base this claim on the frequency with which Francis speaks about abortion compared to the frequency with which he speaks about immigration, refugees (read Islamic invaders), unemployment and poverty.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Cardinal Schonborn? Or Shitteborn?

[ebb tide]

I’m in agreement with you. There are valid reports that Francis was enraged at the prelate who had arranged Francis’ surprise, but still private meeting, with Kim Davis. It was as if his reputation had been sullied.