A Hypothetical Question on Voting

[nsm]

Before I even start,this question DOES NOT allude to any modern day races, parties or elections. I respect Catholic Answers stance on this, understand the need for it, and want to reiterate to responders that this is a general question whose answers I hope will help form the process of my decisions on the non-negotiables for as long as I can exercise the vote.

If a Catholic must vote with a fully formed conscience, and thus can not vote for candidates who hold’s a stance against the non-negotiables could this ultimately pose a quandry for the voter?

Hypothetically, lets say that there are three candidates running.

Candidate One supports abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and eugenics but has a great economic policy, a plan for racial wage, housing and educational equality and anti poverty plan.

Candidate Two supports the continuance of racial discrimination in hiring and the continuance of discriminatory police policies, as well as race and ethnic based wage inequality. But, this candidate is staunchly against abortion, embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia.

Candidate Three supports early abortion but is against embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia. This candidate also has a respectable economic and foreign policy as well as an anti poverty plan.

Is it true that as a Catholic I would be bound to vote for Candidate Two even though the other two candidates definitely have better platforms all around but horrible stances on key life issues?

 

[JenDid]

Before I even start,this question DOES NOT allude to any modern day races, parties or elections. I respect Catholic Answers stance on this, understand the need for it, and want to reiterate to responders that this is a general question whose answers I hope will help form the process of my decisions on the non-negotiables for as long as I can exercise the vote.

If a Catholic must vote with a fully formed conscience, and thus can not vote for candidates who hold’s a stance against the non-negotiables could this ultimately pose a quandry for the voter?

Hypothetically, lets say that there are three candidates running.

Candidate One supports abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and eugenics but has a great economic policy, a plan for racial wage, housing and educational equality and anti poverty plan.

Candidate Two supports the continuance of racial discrimination in hiring and the continuance of discriminatory police policies, as well as race and ethnic based wage inequality. But, this candidate is staunchly against abortion, embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia.

Candidate Three supports early abortion but is against embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia. This candidate also has a respectable economic and foreign policy as well as an anti poverty plan.

Is it true that as a Catholic I would be bound to vote for Candidate Two even though the other two candidates definitely have better platforms all around but horrible stances on key life issues?

nsm-
You are very brave. I will be interested to see what sort of conversation this sparks.
In Christ,
Jennifer

 

[vitaevitae]

How valuable is a human life? Is a non-life issue, or the sum of non-life issues, worth more? NO!

Catholic teaching begins with the respect for the human life and the soul which it incorporates. When determining who to vote for, a person must begin with the non-negotiables which start with protecting human life. The other goods that you mention, while admirable, could not justify the taking of even a single human life.

God bless you and our little brothers and sisters yet unborn

 

[nsm]

I totally agree and I am staunchly pro-life. What has been worrying me a bit is the fear that in some instance a candidate who has evil intentions will get elected by manipulating the vote of people of faith. That their entire platform will be something that is repugnant but they will cloak themselves in anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, and anti-stem cell research and then I will elect a tyrant who strips people of their civil rights and makes life not only dangerous but dreadful.

 

[pentecostbaby]

I totally agree and I am staunchly pro-life. What has been worrying me a bit is the fear that in some instance a candidate who has evil intentions will get elected by manipulating the vote of people of faith. That their entire platform will be something that is repugnant but they will cloak themselves in anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, and anti-stem cell research and then I will elect a tyrant who strips people of their civil rights and makes life not only dangerous but dreadful.

I agree … this is a great question, BTW, and I’m really glad we’re talking about the nuances of this issue. These are the serious conversations that need to happen.

 

[vitaevitae]

I totally agree and I am staunchly pro-life. What has been worrying me a bit is the fear that in some instance a candidate who has evil intentions will get elected by manipulating the vote of people of faith. That their entire platform will be something that is repugnant but they will cloak themselves in anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, and anti-stem cell research and then I will elect a tyrant who strips people of their civil rights and makes life not only dangerous but dreadful.

Typically, a politician who is running for an office, which has power to influence the political landscape of the non-negotiables, will have previously been required to vote, one way or the other, on the same or related issue. It usually isn’t too hard to determine where a candidate really stands on the pro-life issue. This is especially true in the more powerful positions such as US President, US Senator, and US Representative. Granted, there are times when a clear vote may not have been previously forced but usually birds of a feather flock together. Look to see who their supporters are and that will certainly help.

Also, in our form of government (in the USA at least), a single politician can’t wield power by himself. There is almost always a “check and balance” that would require many other like-minded politicians to accomplish evil goals.

So, I’m not too worried about a single politician sneaking in as a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

 

[nsm]

a single politician can’t wield power by himself. There is almost always a “check and balance” that would require many other like-minded politicians to accomplish evil goals.

This does make me feel better, but not completely secure when casting the ballot. I keep thinking about the election of 1860 (and its aftermath) and the fact that Lincoln assumed very vast war powers, very quickly, even suspending habeas corpus for a time when it was clear that southern states were seceding one by one. Personally, I think Lincoln was the greatest president that we ever had, but I can imagine in the face of another catastrophic future national disaster a person far more capricious declaring “emergency war powers,” and then suspending habeas corpus and starting right in on stripping civil rights. I just don’t want to have a sinking regret of, well, I voted for this candidate because they were anti abortion, anti euthanasia, and anti - embryonic stem cell research, as I run towards a fall out shelter, or am carted off to an internment camp.

 

[vocatio]

This is a good question to ask. I’m having issues about voting altogether. My conscience won’t allow me to vote either of the 2 main parties right now and I"m so frustrated with the entire system that I’d like to write in a vote for someone that doesn’t support my 2 big issues…abortion or war [assuming unjust]. My wife is in the same boat. And after being released from the military after a stop loss situation where I was left behind, I have to admit I may not even vote because I believe everyone has been given ample time to change the laws on the books. Maybe I’m missing something. But it will take time ot figure this out again. Our anxiety levels climbed so high that we both had to stop watching news. So now we’re in the dark… I’ve taken the position not to trust anyone.

 

[nsm]

Thank you guys for the answers that you have given. I am really struggling with how to form my conscience here, and I really thought that this question would spark even more discussion. I just can’t seem to shake the feeling that all a party would have to do in order to completely nail down the faith vote is just make sure to get behind all of the life issues, and if the other competing parties do not do so, then observant Catholics really can only ever support the party that is in line with life issues. If this party really has another agenda which is nefarious or oriented towards war even to the danger of causing a genocide (which all of us in the modern world must take into account because of the existence of such vast nuclear armaments), then I could be bound to cast my vote for unmitigated bloodshed. This is not something that only affects the U.S. form of government because unrest in non-nuclear states can definitely be the spark that causes a terrible nuclear world war.

I HATE abortion, it is MURDER plain and simple and murder of the most innocent in the place that they should be the most safe. The Old Testament peoples who were sacrificing their children in the fire have absolutely nothing on the modern so-called developed states. There is no sugar coating what supporting abortion is, and by supporting a candidate with a culture of death platform, you are supporting death on a enormous scale, a holocaust of epic proportions. But couldn’t supporting a candidate or party with an apparent culture of life platform still mean the death and suffering of (potentially) even more people?

Please, please, please, if anyone has any ideas or words of wisdom in this they would be very much appreciated!!!

 

[JenDid]

Thank you guys for the answers that you have given. I am really struggling with how to form my conscience here, and I really thought that this question would spark even more discussion. I just can’t seem to shake the feeling that all a party would have to do in order to completely nail down the faith vote is just make sure to get behind all of the life issues, and if the other competing parties do not do so, then observant Catholics really can only ever support the party that is in line with life issues. If this party really has another agenda which is nefarious or oriented towards war even to the danger of causing a genocide (which all of us in the modern world must take into account because of the existence of such vast nuclear armaments), then I could be bound to cast my vote for unmitigated bloodshed. This is not something that only affects the U.S. form of government because unrest in non-nuclear states can definitely be the spark that causes a terrible nuclear world war.

I HATE abortion, it is MURDER plain and simple and murder of the most innocent in the place that they should be the most safe. The Old Testament peoples who were sacrificing their children in the fire have absolutely nothing on the modern so-called developed states. There is no sugar coating what supporting abortion is, and by supporting a candidate with a culture of death platform, you are supporting death on a enormous scale, a holocaust of epic proportions. But couldn’t supporting a candidate or party with an apparent culture of life platform still mean the death and suffering of (potentially) even more people?

Please, please, please, if anyone has any ideas or words of wisdom in this they would be very much appreciated!!!

I am in the same boat as you, and I also agree with the former military person who said both parties have had ample time to effect the changes we hoped to see. The present administration had six years with a Congress of the same party in power. Yes, the partial-birth abortion ban was passed, but Roe V Wade is still on the books, the number of children living in poverty is on the rise, our civil rights have been eroded and our moral stature in the world, due to torture, secret jails, etc, is in shreds. Believing, as JP the Great did, that life is a seamless garment, and that all stages of it are sacred, I have come to believe that the so-called “pro-life” party is only as pro-life as it takes to get elected.
To take ourselves out of the electoral process because we don’t like either party works against us, because then we have no voice. So here is what I suggest all serious Catholics do: Go to a neutral source for information about both parties and the candidates. By all means look at their stance on abortion, but look at what other issues they stand for as well. Who has benefited the most when each has been in power? ( “By their fruits you will know them.”) Then compare the results of their job performance with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you still aren’t happy with voting for either of the major parties, look for another one that more closely follows your beliefs. Perhaps it will take large numbers of people voting for a “no chance” party to wake the two major ones up.

Finally, pray, pray, pray.

Mary, Seat of Wisdom, pray for us!
Jennifer

 

[rlg94086]

Before I even start,this question DOES NOT allude to any modern day races, parties or elections. I respect Catholic Answers stance on this, understand the need for it, and want to reiterate to responders that this is a general question whose answers I hope will help form the process of my decisions on the non-negotiables for as long as I can exercise the vote.

If a Catholic must vote with a fully formed conscience, and thus can not vote for candidates who hold’s a stance against the non-negotiables could this ultimately pose a quandry for the voter?

Hypothetically, lets say that there are three candidates running.

Candidate One supports abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and eugenics but has a great economic policy, a plan for racial wage, housing and educational equality and anti poverty plan.

Candidate Two supports the** continuance of racial discrimination in hiring and the continuance of discriminatory police policies**,** as well as race and ethnic based wage inequality**. But, this candidate is staunchly against abortion, embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia.

Candidate Three supports early abortion but is against embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia. This candidate also has a respectable economic and foreign policy as well as an anti poverty plan.

Is it true that as a Catholic I would be bound to vote for Candidate Two even though the other two candidates definitely have better platforms all around but horrible stances on key life issues?

Hi nsm,

It is difficult to give a solid affirmative, because we don’t have such a situation today. Clearly, candidates one and three would be non-starters. Candidate two is definitely problematic! Assuming that in this fictional situation discriminatory practices are allowed/tolerated by law and abortion is also 100% legal, then the candidate would still be the lesser of the three evils you present.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I am in the same boat as you, and I also agree with the former military person who said both parties have had ample time to effect the changes we hoped to see. The present administration had six years with a Congress of the same party in power. Yes, the partial-birth abortion ban was passed, but Roe V Wade is still on the books, the number of children living in poverty is on the rise, our civil rights have been eroded and our moral stature in the world, due to torture, secret jails, etc, is in shreds. Believing, as JP the Great did, that life is a seamless garment, and that all stages of it are sacred, I have come to believe that the so-called “pro-life” party is only as pro-life as it takes to get elected.
To take ourselves out of the electoral process because we don’t like either party works against us, because then we have no voice. So here is what I suggest all serious Catholics do: Go to a neutral source for information about both parties and the candidates. By all means look at their stance on abortion, but look at what other issues they stand for as well. Who has benefited the most when each has been in power? ( “By their fruits you will know them.”) Then compare the results of their job performance with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you still aren’t happy with voting for either of the major parties, look for another one that more closely follows your beliefs. Perhaps it will take large numbers of people voting for a “no chance” party to wake the two major ones up.

Finally, pray, pray, pray.

Mary, Seat of Wisdom, pray for us!
Jennifer

There’s not very much a president can do to change Roe except to change the composition of the Supreme Court.

Two Catholic justices were appointed in the last eight years, both of whom appear prolife and both of whom voted to support the partial birth abortion ban. One more justice of similar mind is all it takes to overrule Roe vs Wade. Which candidate is more likely to appoint such a justice, and which is least likely to do so? One candidate has voiced support for the “Freedom of Choice Act”, which would make it impossible for states to ban partial birth abortion, even thought the Supreme Court has declared that a state may do that. One opposes the Act.

Because of those things, one major candidate is endorsed by the National Abortion Rights Action League. One is opposed by that group and was, by them, called a “serious threat” to abortion rights.

When it comes to abortion, that’s about what it amounts to right now.

 

[rlg94086]

I HATE abortion, it is MURDER plain and simple and murder of the most innocent in the place that they should be the most safe. The Old Testament peoples who were sacrificing their children in the fire have absolutely nothing on the modern so-called developed states. There is no sugar coating what supporting abortion is, and by supporting a candidate with a culture of death platform, you are supporting death on a enormous scale, a holocaust of epic proportions. But couldn’t supporting a candidate or party with an apparent culture of life platform still mean the death and suffering of (potentially) even more people?

Please, please, please, if anyone has any ideas or words of wisdom in this they would be very much appreciated!!!

Well, that would be an incredibly murderous candidate, considering thre are 1.37 Million abortions per year in the United States. (abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html )

Neither of our major parties is 100% pro-war, nor is either party 100% anti-war. Both will use our military in the best interest and defense of the United States.

Also, you seem concerned about a great conspiracy whereby a party presents a pro-life party as a guise to advance evil. That seems a little paranoid to me. A party is made up of millions and has thousands in leadership roles throughout the country. To think that people in those kind of numbers could all conspire in such away is pretty silly.

 

[mary_bobo]

I am in the same boat as you, and I also agree with the former military person who said both parties have had ample time to effect the changes we hoped to see. The present administration had six years with a Congress of the same party in power. Yes, the partial-birth abortion ban was passed, but Roe V Wade is still on the books,

RvW will stay on the books until such time as a case comes before the Supreme Court that will allow for it’s removal. A president alone cannot take that ruling away by himself.

the number of children living in poverty is on the rise, our civil rights have been eroded which of your civil rights have been eroded? I have not noticed that in my own life.

and our moral stature in the world, due to torture, secret jails, etc, is in shreds. Believing, as JP the Great did, that life is a seamless garment, and that all stages of it are sacred, I have come to believe that the so-called “pro-life” party is only as pro-life as it takes to get elected. If you believe this, then tell us what the other party has done in this regard.

To take ourselves out of the electoral process because we don’t like either party works against us, because then we have no voice. So here is what I suggest all serious Catholics do: Go to a neutral source for information about both parties and the candidates. By all means look at their stance on abortion, but look at what other issues they stand for as well. Who has benefited the most when each has been in power? ( “By their fruits you will know them.”) Then compare the results of their job performance with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you still aren’t happy with voting for either of the major parties, look for another one that more closely follows your beliefs. Perhaps it will take large numbers of people voting for a “no chance” party to wake the two major ones up. Looking at a “neutral” party does not allow for the perspective of the Catholic Church. And after all, is that not the important thing?

Finally, pray, pray, pray.

Mary, Seat of Wisdom, pray for us!
Jennifer

 

[mary_bobo]

Thank you guys for the answers that you have given. I am really struggling with how to form my conscience here, and I really thought that this question would spark even more discussion. I just can’t seem to shake the feeling that all a party would have to do in order to completely nail down the faith vote is just make sure to get behind all of the life issues, and if the other competing parties do not do so, then observant Catholics really can only ever support the party that is in line with life issues. If this party really has another agenda which is nefarious or oriented towards war even to the danger of causing a genocide (which all of us in the modern world must take into account because of the existence of such vast nuclear armaments), then I could be bound to cast my vote for unmitigated bloodshed. This is not something that only affects the U.S. form of government because unrest in non-nuclear states can definitely be the spark that causes a terrible nuclear world war. I don’t think any party has a nefarious agenda. They may look at solutions differently, but I just can’t buy that any party is going to cause a nuclear war. Sometimes people say things like this to stress their own agenda and not reality.

I HATE abortion, it is MURDER plain and simple and murder of the most innocent in the place that they should be the most safe. The Old Testament peoples who were sacrificing their children in the fire have absolutely nothing on the modern so-called developed states. There is no sugar coating what supporting abortion is, and by supporting a candidate with a culture of death platform, you are supporting death on a enormous scale, a holocaust of epic proportions. But couldn’t supporting a candidate or party with an apparent culture of life platform still mean the death and suffering of (potentially) even more people?

Please, please, please, if anyone has any ideas or words of wisdom in this they would be very much appreciated!!!

 

[nsm]

A party is made up of millions and has thousands in leadership roles throughout the country. To think that people in those kind of numbers could all conspire in such away is pretty silly.

I don’t necessarily think that it is silly to think that a party could look at the way that voting demographics pan out and then organize their platform based not on morality but on what issue will give them the most votes. I have seen it quoted numerous places that if every Catholic voted for life issues these pro death policies would be dead in the water. Even without every Catholic vote, there are large numbers of Protestants and people of other faiths that would find certain life issues deal breakers. That is a large part of the electorate, and it is feasible to think that when shaping the platform of a party, it would be rationale to aim your message at that voting block. This does not mean that, once elected, this party is going to focus on life issues.

Look, I am staunchly pro-life, completely, totally, utterly one with the Church’s view on it. However, it is not out of the realm of the reasonable to wonder if a candidate giving lip service to life issues will be the right person for the job that they are being elected for. One wrong decision on another front - like foreign policy - could mean the loss of several major metropolitan areas (or worse) to nuclear devastation. We live in very perilous times now, and voting poorly could have devastating consequences.

This is not silly at all, this is the world that we live in right now.

 

[mary_bobo]

This is a good question to ask. I’m having issues about voting altogether. My conscience won’t allow me to vote either of the 2 main parties right now and I"m so frustrated with the entire system that I’d like to write in a vote for someone that doesn’t support my 2 big issues…abortion or war [assuming unjust]. My wife is in the same boat. And after being released from the military after a stop loss situation where I was left behind, I have to admit I may not even vote because I believe everyone has been given ample time to change the laws on the books. Maybe I’m missing something. But it will take time ot figure this out again. Our anxiety levels climbed so high that we both had to stop watching news. So now we’re in the dark… I’ve taken the position not to trust anyone.

I understand what you are saying, but you are ignoring the fact that there are laws in place that have to be changed and no one president, regardless of how strong he/she may be, can just wish a change. As I have said numberous times, RvW will be overturned when the right case comes before the court. That would also assume that the judges nominated were constitutionalists and not of the ilk that found a “right” in the constitution that was not there. As far as trusting politicians, I don’t any of us have much confidence in any of them. But we keep reelecting the same ones, don’t we?

 

[rlg94086]

marybobo:

RvW will stay on the books until such time as a case comes before the Supreme Court that will allow for it’s removal. A president alone cannot take that ruling away by himself.

Correct, or if a Constitutional Amendment were to be passed.

I’m always dismayed at statements like “the Republicans had both houses and the presidency for six years, and Roe v Wade is still law,” as it shows a complete ignorance of the situation at hand.

1. Not all Republicans are pro-life, even though it is a much, much higher percentage than the Democrats and it is part of the party platform.
2. As you said, the Supreme Court has to hear a case that would allow for removal of Roe v Wade
3. A Constitutional Amendment would require a super-majority in Congress and the states who are pro-life. We sadly don’t have that right now.

Pouting about the Republicans inability to fix things in a six-year timeframe is fruitless. We need to elect more pro-lifers! Creating and/or voting for a “no chance” party/candidate won’t accomplish that goal.

 

[rlg94086]

I don’t necessarily think that it is silly to think that a party could look at the way that voting demographics pan out and then organize their platform based not on morality but on what issue will give them the most votes. I have seen it quoted numerous places that if every Catholic voted for life issues these pro death policies would be dead in the water. Even without every Catholic vote, there are large numbers of Protestants and people of other faiths that would find certain life issues deal breakers. That is a large part of the electorate, and** it is feasible to think that when shaping the platform of a party, it would be rationale to aim your message** at that voting block. This does not mean that, once elected, this party is going to focus on life issues.

Look, I am staunchly pro-life, completely, totally, utterly one with the Church’s view on it. However, it is not out of the realm of the reasonable to wonder if a candidate giving lip service to life issues will be the right person for the job that they are being elected for. One wrong decision on another front - like foreign policy - could mean the loss of several major metropolitan areas (or worse) to nuclear devastation. We live in very perilous times now, and voting poorly could have devastating consequences.

This is not silly at all, this is the world that we live in right now.

I’m sorry but it is not a rational or feasible assumption to make. A party platform is voted on by members of the party. You would have to assume that a majority of those approving that platform are not genuinely pro-life, but rather are conspiring together to fool the pro-lifers. That is silly.

The reason it is on the platform is that the majority of Republicans are pro-life and the platform reflects the majority. This is equally true of the Democrats - the majority of them are pro-choice, and the platform reflects that. …or do you think the Democrats are *really *pro-life, but they only say they are pro-choice to fool the pro-choicers into voting for them to support environmental issues.

 

[nsm]

I don’t think any party has a nefarious agenda. They may look at solutions differently, but I just can’t buy that any party is going to cause a nuclear war. Sometimes people say things like this to stress their own agenda and not reality.

I disagree. I think that history has show that certain political parties can have terrible agendas, that appear benign at first. Look at the National Socialist German Workers’ Party in Germany. They were anti semitic from the beginning to be sure, but I don’t think your average run of the mill German had any conception of the Final Solution, when they first came to power. They promised a way out of poverty and a return to “national” values - which just turned out to be smoke screens for death on a large scale.

I am not trying to push through a pro-abortion agenda, by bringing up nuclear war. Nuclear war is something that can happen and it is worth taking into account. I hate abortion, I want to see it ended. Period. I hate euthanasia, and I think that embryonic stem cell research is so evil it almost seems as if someone writing about an horrific apocalyptic future came up with it. I honestly am just wrestling with the fear of choosing the wrong person, or being locked into choosing the wrong person and then being partially responsible for large scale death anyways.