Abortion vs. War: How Should I Vote?

[LittleSoldier]

There have been some heated discussions on CAF about the voting responsibilities of Catholics. It is my understanding that when a pro-life candidate is running against a pro-abortion candidate, as Catholics we are to vote for the pro-life candidate.

I have no problem with that teaching. My problem is that I don’t know how to vote when one candidate is pro-life but also supports an unjust war in which our country is involved, and the other candidate is pro-abortion but doesn’t support the same unjust war.

People are going to be murdered, no matter which candidate is elected. I am adamantly pro-life and I take this issue very seriously. To me, being pro-life means believing in the sanctity and protection of all human life from birth to death. I honestly do not know what to do if faced with candidates as described above. And I haven’t been able to find out what the Church teaches about this.

Does anyone have any information about Church teaching in a case like this??

I am honestly confused.

 

[Sir_Knight]

According to Catholic Church teaching, [1] embryonic stem cell research, [2] same-sex marriages, [3] euthanasia, [4] human cloning and [5] ABORTION are Non-Negotiable voting issues. War is not.

And there is a difference of opinion whether the war is unjust. Speak to soldiers who have been over there and who have seen what they were doing to their own people and how that was stopped by the war and then you will be qualified to speak about whether or not the war is unjust.

 

[agstockstill]

According to Catholic Church teaching, [1] embryonic stem cell research, [2] same-sex marriages, [3] euthanasia, [4] human cloning and [5] ABORTION are Non-Negotiable voting issues. War is not.

And there is a difference of opinion whether the war is unjust. Speak to soldiers who have been over there and who have seen what they were doing to their own people and how that was stopped by the war and then you will be qualified to speak about whether or not the war is unjust.

Sir Knight, thank you for your succinct answer. No matter what else is posted beyond your comment it is truly that black-and-white.

As a former soldier who has been to Kuwait, Iraq and Bosnia, I echo you’re your sentiments 100%. As a fellow Knight, I thank you for your clarity.

 

[PeterMuz]

Abortion is intrinsically evil. War is not. If you have to choose between a pro-life candidate that is endorsing a war or a pro-abortion candidate that is against war, you are morally obligated to choose the candidate that is endorsing the lessor of the two evils.

 

[someone82]

Abortion is a non-negotiable while war is not; however, there are other candidates who are against both. You don’t have to limit your vote to the Republican or Democratic parties. I got tired of, in my opinion, wasting my vote on the “lesser of two evils”, so, I started voting for candidiates who I believe would truly be a good leader for this country. While I understand the candidate would most likely lose, I am able to rest peacefully at night knowing I voted for all the right reasons, not just 1 or 2.

 

[SpaceNeedle]

According to Catholic Church teaching, [1] embryonic stem cell research, [2] same-sex marriages, [3] euthanasia, [4] human cloning and [5] ABORTION are Non-Negotiable voting issues. War is not.

*And there is a difference of opinion *whether the war is unjust. Speak to soldiers who have been over there and who have seen what they were doing to their own people and how that was stopped by the war and then you will be qualified to speak about whether or not the war is unjust.

I am not trying to be contrarian, here, but there are many “opinions” of Catholics. I think we know where we should be taking our cues from. This is particularly difficult for me, having already lost one family member who served in Iraq, but I accept it as I accept all the Church and her teachings, as well as I accept Papal authority. I appreciate that many believe this authority should or does only apply to spiritual matters, but I can’t help but think Christ’s Vicar on Earth understands better than I (or anyone else).

 

[chris_molter]

As others have pointed out, Abortion is an intrinsic evil, while War is not. That must figure into your voting decisions. Another thing that I’ve seen argued is the “numbers”. If we take all combined death figures from both Iraq and Afghanistan, does it add up to the number of aborted children in the US?

Also, what are the things that elected official will do to end each? Can they actually effect change (end the war, reduce abortions, etc)?

One more thing. We’re not required to vote for one of the major party candidates. If both candidates are pro-intrinsic evil, we should not feel obligated to vote for the “lesser evil” if it is against our conscience.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

There have been some heated discussions on CAF about the voting responsibilities of Catholics. It is my understanding that when a pro-life candidate is running against a pro-abortion candidate, as Catholics we are to vote for the pro-life candidate.

No.

There are some who say that there is not ever a “proportionate reason” to vote for a candidate with an inferior position vis à vis the abortion issue, but there are others who say that there can be such a “proportionate reason.” I count many priests and bishops in that latter category, including several of the famous “labor priests” who fight for the rights of workers.

And thank God for them, otherwise an unscrupulous politician (perish the very thought!) might just get the idea that he could grab a sizeable portion of the electorate just by saying the “magic words”, even if the particular seat at issue gives him as much power to change abortion laws as the county dog catcher.

I have no problem with that teaching. My problem is that I don’t know how to vote when one candidate is pro-life but also supports an unjust war in which our country is involved, and the other candidate is pro-abortion but doesn’t support the same unjust war.

Which candidate do you think will best serve the people? Which candidate will be more of a force for good and positive change in the world? You may have already found your “proportionate reason”.

People are going to be murdered, no matter which candidate is elected. I am adamantly pro-life and I take this issue very seriously. To me, being pro-life means believing in the sanctity and protection of all human life from birth to death. I honestly do not know what to do if faced with candidates as described above. And I haven’t been able to find out what the Church teaches about this.

Does anyone have any information about Church teaching in a case like this??

I am honestly confused.

Church sez: voting for a politician who supports abortion is “remote material cooperation” in the sin of abortion, unless justified by a “proportionate reason.” Some say there is no such thing as a “proportionate reason.” I happen to disagree, for why coin a phrase that doesn’t mean anything? Talking to priests and theologians, I am told that being a Catholic does not mean throwing away your entire moral compass in the service of demagoguery.

Turning the planet into a smoking hole is kinda proprotionate to abortion IMHO.

 

[JimG]

A couple of points.

War is not killing one million Americans each year. Abortion is. So I don’t see a proportionality, even numerically.

Also, abortion is an intrinsic evil. War is not.

The determination of whether particular wars are necessary or justified is a prudential judgement. Abortion is not.

Finally, to tie the two issues together, Mother Teresa said “The fruit of abortion is nuclear war.” I hope she was not prescient. I hope she was using hyperbole, but I really don’t think she intended hyperbole.

 

[agstockstill]

Nyarlathotep,

One must guard against moral relativism. Please do not work from the fringes to try to imply some luke warm stance from the Church. Abortion IS NEVER ACCEPTABLE.

 

[Holly3278]

The abortion issue trumps the war issue every single time! The Catholic Church has declared abortion to be an intrinsic evil but war does not have this same designation.

 

[royal_archer]

There have been some heated discussions on CAF about the voting responsibilities of Catholics. It is my understanding that when a pro-life candidate is running against a pro-abortion candidate, as Catholics we are to vote for the pro-life candidate.

I have no problem with that teaching. My problem is that I don’t know how to vote when one candidate is pro-life but also supports an unjust war in which our country is involved, and the other candidate is pro-abortion but doesn’t support the same unjust war.

People are going to be murdered, no matter which candidate is elected. I am adamantly pro-life and I take this issue very seriously. To me, being pro-life means believing in the sanctity and protection of all human life from birth to death. I honestly do not know what to do if faced with candidates as described above. And I haven’t been able to find out what the Church teaches about this.

Does anyone have any information about Church teaching in a case like this??

I am honestly confused.

What is your deffinition of an unjust war? I contend that the efforts in the efforts in the middle east are a waste of our limmited resouces but we are not in a “war” we are not trying to defeat anyone and we are not going out of our way to thin out the numbers of our enemy. In fact we are putting American lives in peril to do just the opposite. The only reason these security efforts have drug on so long is because we are not taking a military wary style approach and are using more police (swat) style tactics. Forinstance capturing insurgents holding them awhile and then releasing them again. We have also spent excessive amounts of money converting our weapons in to less lethal variants.

military.com/news/article/new-us-air-strategy-in-afghanistan.html

Unfortunately you won’t hear about this in the left wing news and those directly involved are forbidden from discussing many of the details, allowing the left wing media to go unchecked. You also won’t hear that the Obama administration is increasing the troops in the middle east instead of pulling out as was prommissed in the campaign.

So if you look at the facts you have one side promoting the killing of millions of innocent babies and is supportive of these military actions (as long as they are in charge of them) and on the other side you have people trying to bring security to a troubled part of the world but doing in less than efficiently.

Choosing to save babies as well as enemy combatants seems like the obvious choice.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No.

There are some who say that there is not ever a “proportionate reason” to vote for a candidate with an inferior position vis à vis the abortion issue, but there are others who say that there can be such a “proportionate reason.” I count many priests and bishops in that latter category, including several of the famous “labor priests” who fight for the rights of workers.
.

Gee, I wonder who those people are. I’m not sure what a famous labor priest is, and I have never heard of a bishop who says there is a proportionate reason among current U.S. political issues to vote for an abortion-supporting candidate. If one exists, I wonder why he would dissent from the Pope’s statement regarding proportionality.

It’s hard to find a cause proportionate to the murder of millions of innocents. Hard to imagine anything short of advocating a nuclear world war coming even close.

Regarding the opinion of the poster who felt it virtuous to vote for a third party candidate who had no chance of winning. I strongly disagree with such an opinion. We also have a moral duty to oppose evil. In throwing away one’s vote, one fails to do that.

 

[Jermosh]

Its much more deep then just black and white. The issue really revolves around who is the best person to meet the moral goals. Having a “pro-life” president has shown to have little to no effect on abortions, 5 of the 7 judges who voted for Roe in RvsW were Republican nominated. In fact one of the ones for Wade was from a Democrat. We also have the fact that abortion rates hit both apexes in Reagan and Bush Jr terms. Did Bush put in some pro-life stuff? Sure, but most of it did not have any impact other then stopping a few rare cases and it got caught up in the courts anyways because it was written improperly. He has no capability to stop abortion, he really just added to the death in the end.

But then on the other side you have the Dems putting in stronger social infrastructure to help mothers in need and to actually stop abortions through educational programs.
Its a curse to be an independent. But I am scared of some of the points especially around abortion, but so far am pleased.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Its much more deep then just black and white. The issue really revolves around who is the best person to meet the moral goals…

Not according to Church teaching. The five issues that I mentioned previously ([1] embryonic stem cell research, [2] same-sex marriages, [3] euthanasia, [4] human cloning and [5] ABORTION) are Non-Negotiable for Catholic voters.

 

[Jermosh]

Not according to Church teaching. The five issues that I mentioned previously ([1] embryonic stem cell research, [2] same-sex marriages, [3] euthanasia, [4] human cloning and [5] ABORTION) are Non-Negotiable for Catholic voters.

But in reality there are no politicians who follow those in actions. So do we not vote at all?

 

[agstockstill]

Most in this thread are on track. If however you disagree with the Magestarium, then you are wrong. It is truly that simple.

Have you ever noticed how much longer a post has to be to rationalize a position?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Its much more deep then just black and white. The issue really revolves around who is the best person to meet the moral goals. Having a “pro-life” president has shown to have little to no effect on abortions, 5 of the 7 judges who voted for Roe in RvsW were Republican nominated. In fact one of the ones for Wade was from a Democrat. We also have the fact that abortion rates hit both apexes in Reagan and Bush Jr terms. Did Bush put in some pro-life stuff? Sure, but most of it did not have any impact other then stopping a few rare cases and it got caught up in the courts anyways because it was written improperly. He has no capability to stop abortion, he really just added to the death in the end.

But then on the other side you have the Dems putting in stronger social infrastructure to help mothers in need and to actually stop abortions through educational programs.
Its a curse to be an independent. But I am scared of some of the points especially around abortion, but so far am pleased.

I remember the first time I ever heard Catholics saying moral issues are not “black and white”. What followed was a lot more black than white.

The above is the same stuff we heard before the election from the DNC “Catholic operatives”. (They actually had an organization to mislead prolife Catholics) Bush actually did reverse a lot of the “march toward abortion” path this country was on. But it was like turning the Queen Mary around through a sand dune, so pervasive was the abortion mindset. Had a prolife president been elected in 2008, there would now be a prolife majority on the Court. But Obama was elected, so we now still have a pro-abortion majority on the Court. I’m not sure how more clear that could be, realizing as I do that Democrats like to argue that, e.g., Alito or Roberts or Scalia is “not reallyl prolife”, and twist and turn to make it seem plausible.

I’m not a Republican. Been a Democrat all my life, but I’m not going to self-induce moral blindness for partisan reasons. Nor am I going to pretend the Democrat party of my youth is the same as the Democrat party now. It isn’t even close. The Democrat party is “living off its patrimony” of having crafted social and economic policies that were pragmatic and actually made some difference years ago. The Democrat party now does nothing for “the poor” (Where is the Democrat bill to raise SSI benefits; the miserable $600/month the disabled needy have to try to live on? Nowhere. Not even in Obama’s speeches.) Oh yes, there is that healthcare debacle whose end product no one knows; an attempt at a middle class welfare program. (and not even for all of them) The Democrat party of today stands for nothing but wealth transfers (chiefly to the government) and abortion. I’ll grant, some few like Blanche Lincoln, are now starting to rebel rather timorously from the first, and that’s a good thing. But they aren’t retreating from the second.

So, the Republicans have come tardily to a realization that the voters want at least some curbs on abortion-on-demand? Well then, condemn them for not having the right policy in 1973. Condemn the Democrat party for not having the right policy in 2010.

Yes, yes, we all know the DNC mantra that the Repubs are “using” the faithful Catholics and fundamentalists (though some argue it’s the other way around, interestingly enough) but are cynical about abortion themselves. But we also know the Democrat party is utterly wedded to abortion on demand. It’s in the party platform, and their leader is totally supportive of abortion-on-demand. Totally.

It may be taken as instructive that NARAL gives high marks to Democrats, including to Obama, and gives low marks to Republicans in general. Abortion is NARAL’s business; it’s their bread and butter, and they spend all their time figuring out who supports abortion and who opposes it. It’s difficult to imagine better evidence than that.

When it comes to “black and white”, it’s time for prolife people to ignore those who argue that black is white and white is black. Illusory talk about 'helping the poor" is a poor whitewash for the blackness of heart that favors abortion on demand and embryonic stem cell research.

 

[LittleSoldier]

According to Catholic Church teaching, [1] embryonic stem cell research, [2] same-sex marriages, [3] euthanasia, [4] human cloning and [5] ABORTION are Non-Negotiable voting issues. War is not.

And there is a difference of opinion whether the war is unjust. Speak to soldiers who have been over there and who have seen what they were doing to their own people and how that was stopped by the war and then you will be qualified to speak about whether or not the war is unjust.

Thank you for your response. I appreciate the first part. Would you please provide a reference for this teaching? Thank you.

I’m not speaking of the war this country is engaged in now, although I can see that I worded that part of my OP poorly. What I mean is any unjust war.

Also, speaking to soldiers who have been in any particular war (which I have believed to be unjust) does not give me all the information I need. No soldier can explain to my satisfaction whether or not a war is just and that is because no soldier has all the information that is required.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Abortion is intrinsically evil. War is not. If you have to choose between a pro-life candidate that is endorsing a war or a pro-abortion candidate that is against war, you are morally obligated to choose the candidate that is endorsing the lessor of the two evils.

Thank you. Would you please provide a reference which shows this is Church teaching?