Are Catholics forced to vote for pro-life candidates who plan to do nothing to stop abortion?

[TheRealJuliane]

Sorry for nitpicking, but I think there should be 6 non-negotiables: religious freedom.

That is guaranteed in our Constitution, no need for duplication. It’s been attacked but is not gone yet.

 

[po18guy]

OP, you may want to check out the other candidates. I feel that many people forget that there are more than two candidates. Do your research, weigh which is the best option and then make your decision.

Yet, we can stand on principle and lose on prudence. A third party vote will almost certainly ensure that the current administration will continue to attack the Church aggressively. Church teaching does not excuse us from exercising the gift of prudential judgment in such situations. After an early adulthood spent in support of third party candidtates, I now see a vote for them as a cop-out. A principled one, but still a cop-out.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

OP, you may want to check out the other candidates. I feel that many people forget that there are more than two candidates. Do your research, weigh which is the best option and then make your decision.

No, if voting for a 3rd party candidate will assist the pro-abortion candidate in getting elected we are NOT TO DO IT.

 

[rfournier103]

I agree that this issue comes up EVERY FREAKIN’ FOUR YEARS, and the ONLY time abortion ever comes up is at election time. The President is usually busy -]ruining/-] running the country after the election, and abortion becomes an afterthought. Pro-Choice/Life is only discussed to get votes and then gets put on the back burner 'till the next election.

Romney has no plans to outlaw it. Obama has no plans to outlaw it. To them, there’s no money in it; so therefore, to them it’s not important. Think of the ‘other’ golden rule: “Whoever has the gold, makes the rules.” Energy (oil, coal), trade, and war (yes, it is an industry and a money-maker) are the big-ticket items. Not abortion.

I have yet to see a “pro-life” candidate lift a finger to chance policy. In my opinion, nobody in Washington cares. They just want your vote. And when they get your vote, you’ll be forgotten.

 

[St_Francis]

I don’t want to discuss politics in here, so let’s set up a purely hypothetical situation:

Two candidates are running for president. One is clearly pro-choice. The other claims repeatedly that he is pro-life, but for whatever reason, you just KNOW he will do absolutely nothing to stop or prevent abortions once elected. His pro-life stance is purely a gimmick to pick up the conservative Christian vote. In this hypothetical situation, all other issues of importance in the church are irrelevant.

Would a Catholic be required by church teaching to vote for the pro-life candidate? Or are we only required to vote for a candidate who we believe will actually do something to reduce the amount of abortions?

Now, yes, I am saying this because of our current election. Abortion is always my #1 priority in elections, but in this upcoming election I honestly believe the republican nominee will do nothing to prevent abortions, and that he is only saying he is pro-life to make fools of us by getting our votes by lying to us. I know some may disagree with my observation, which is why we are discussing a hypothetical situation instead of a real one.

So, if a candidate is clearly lying to us about his stance on abortion, are we still required to vote for him? Or are we still allowed to use out best judgement on the issue?

On this forum, we are not permitted to discyss candidates. There has, however, been a ton of discussion about this issue relating to the views of the candidates on tge World News forum, and I believe there is an archive of the posts about the 08 elections somewhere as well.

WRT your hypothetical issue, the candidate who supports legalized abortion or the candidate who does not, the Pope has made clear that there *must *be a proportionate reason to vote for any politician who supports legalized abortion (regardless of the stance of opponent(s).

IOW, in your scenario the other must be someone who *advocates *something so evil, so heinous, that it would outweigh the first person’s advocacy of legalized abortion.

Tge Pipe’s statement also covers times when perhaps both support abortion, but one is more in favor than the other but the other advocates evil on another issue, altho it is hard to picture a proportionate reason in a western nation.

It’s a tricky issue and the Pope has to speak to all the nations of the world. In the West, it is generally pretty clear-cut.

 

[maryjk]

I don’t want to discuss politics in here, so let’s set up a purely hypothetical situation:

Two candidates are running for president. One is clearly pro-choice. The other claims repeatedly that he is pro-life, but for whatever reason, you just KNOW he will do absolutely nothing to stop or prevent abortions once elected. His pro-life stance is purely a gimmick to pick up the conservative Christian vote. In this hypothetical situation, all other issues of importance in the church are irrelevant.

Would a Catholic be required by church teaching to vote for the pro-life candidate? Or are we only required to vote for a candidate who we believe will actually do something to reduce the amount of abortions?

**
Now, yes, I am saying this because of our current election. **Abortion is always my #1 priority in elections, but in this upcoming election I honestly believe the republican nominee will do nothing to prevent abortions, and that he is only saying he is pro-life to make fools of us by getting our votes by lying to us. I know some may disagree with my observation, which is why we are discussing a hypothetical situation instead of a real one.

So, if a candidate is clearly lying to us about his stance on abortion, are we still required to vote for him? Or are we still allowed to use out best judgement on the issue?

Political discussions should be under World News.

This is clearly NOT a “hypothetical situation.” It is about the election

 

[JRKH]

I don’t want to discuss politics in here, so let’s set up a purely hypothetical situation:

Two candidates are running for president. One is clearly pro-choice. The other claims repeatedly that he is pro-life, but for whatever reason, you just KNOW he will do absolutely nothing to stop or prevent abortions once elected. His pro-life stance is purely a gimmick to pick up the conservative Christian vote. In this hypothetical situation, all other issues of importance in the church are irrelevant.

Would a Catholic be required by church teaching to vote for the pro-life candidate? Or are we only required to vote for a candidate who we believe will actually do something to reduce the amount of abortions?

Now, yes, I am saying this because of our current election. Abortion is always my #1 priority in elections, but in this upcoming election I honestly believe the republican nominee will do nothing to prevent abortions, and that he is only saying he is pro-life to make fools of us by getting our votes by lying to us. I know some may disagree with my observation, which is why we are discussing a hypothetical situation instead of a real one.

So, if a candidate is clearly lying to us about his stance on abortion, are we still required to vote for him? Or are we still allowed to use out best judgement on the issue?

If you “know” this then you have two basic choices…the one who you know will do “nothing” or the one you know will do “something” but it will definitely be the wrong thing…
Of course there is a third choice. you could vote third party, or write someone in.

Peace
James

 

[TrixieMcGee]

Yet, we can stand on principle and lose on prudence. A third party vote will almost certainly ensure that the current administration will continue to attack the Church aggressively. Church teaching does not excuse us from exercising the gift of prudential judgment in such situations. After an early adulthood spent in support of third party candidtates, I now see a vote for them as a cop-out. A principled one, but still a cop-out.

It is not a cop-out. I used to vote for the Republican party, but decided I could no longer do so and have a clean conscience. I would rather support someone who I believe is the best candidate even if they have little chance. It is like the saying, “Stand up for what’s right, even if you are standing alone.” Don’t call someone else’s decision they have thought long and hard about a cop-out. It is uncharitable, untrue, and not fair.

 

[rfournier103]

It is not a cop-out. I used to vote for the Republican party, but decided I could no longer do so and have a clean conscience. I would rather support someone who I believe is the best candidate even if they have little chance. It is like the saying, “Stand up for what’s right, even if you are standing alone.” Don’t call someone else’s decision they have thought long and hard about a cop-out. It is uncharitable, untrue, and not fair.

Love it.

 

[TrixieMcGee]

No, if voting for a 3rd party candidate will assist the pro-abortion candidate in getting elected we are NOT TO DO IT.

Nope. I will vote with my conscience. I will vote for the best candidate. I understand where you are coming from, but I do not agree. If the majority of people keep on voting this way, we will never have real change in our government.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I agree that this issue comes up EVERY FREAKIN’ FOUR YEARS, and the ONLY time abortion ever comes up is at election time. The President is usually busy -]ruining/-] running the country after the election, and abortion becomes an afterthought. Pro-Choice/Life is only discussed to get votes and then gets put on the back burner 'till the next election.

**Romney has no plans to outlaw it. Obama has no plans to outlaw it. To them, there’s no money in it; so therefore, to them it’s not important. ** Think of the ‘other’ golden rule: “Whoever has the gold, makes the rules.” Energy (oil, coal), trade, and war (yes, it is an industry and a money-maker) are the big-ticket items. Not abortion.

I have yet to see a “pro-life” candidate lift a finger to chance policy. In my opinion, nobody in Washington cares. They just want your vote. And when they get your vote, you’ll be forgotten.

This is so UNTRUE. There is little a President can do about Roe v. Wade. However there are other things that a President CAN do, and President Bush did those - cut off funding for PP to kill babies with our tax money in other countries, appointing pro-life judges, signing pro-life legislation. You are IGNORING all of that and saying there is no difference in the parties.

When a Democrat President is elected, there is a cabinet appointed, as well as tens of THOUSANDS of local Democrats swept into office because of down-ballot voting. ALL of those Democrats have some degree of power to affect pro-life issues, especially federal judges. You are ignoring all of that power. Republicans are pro-life. Democrats support a platform that includes ALL 5 NON NEGOTIABLES for Catholics.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Nope. I will vote with my conscience. I will vote for the best candidate. I understand where you are coming from, but I do not agree. If the majority of people keep on voting this way, we will never have real change in our government.

Wrong again. We change our government as I stated above, by ENGAGING our political parties and forcing them in the direction we wish them to go. The GOP is the closest party to being fully pro-life, therefore, that is where I am going to put my support and my votes. Social teachings are second in importance to standing up for the unborn - you have to be born before you can need other help. Ross Perot understands what a 3rd party candidate creates, and he is endorsing Mitt Romney in this election.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

p.s. So you are voting for Randall Terry then?

 

[Samuel63]

Church teaching points to proportionate reason as a guide for our decisions. If applied, the pro-life candidate should be chosen. Voting for the pro-abortion candidate is formal cooperation in intrinsic evil.

Sorry but you just cannot justify voting for a pro-abortion candidate today. Many do, to their peril.

 

[Faithdancer]

OP, you may want to check out the other candidates. I feel that many people forget that there are more than two candidates. Do your research, weigh which is the best option and then make your decision.

This is true. The Constitution Party holds views I don’t agree with- they are clearly isolationist, for example, and pro-death penalty- but they (not the Republican Party) are the strongest on pro-life. They are also completely opposed to same sex “marriage” and prominently mention Jesus Christ in their platform statement.

I don’t think there is any party platform out there that is in agreement with Catholic teachings 100%, or even close to that percentage. However the robotic mind-set that one must vote either Democratic or Republican simply perpetuates the mediocrity in our leadership.

 

[TrixieMcGee]

Wrong again. We change our government as I stated above, by ENGAGING our political parties and forcing them in the direction we wish them to go. The GOP is the closest party to being fully pro-life, therefore, that is where I am going to put my support and my votes. Social teachings are second in importance to standing up for the unborn - you have to be born before you can need other help. Ross Perot understands what a 3rd party candidate creates, and he is endorsing Mitt Romney in this election.

Still don’t agree. I will stand up for who I believe is the best candidate (and who would best defend the life of the unborn and be the best president for the nation) even if I am standing with very few or standing up against great opposition. I am not voting for that candidate and I would rather not share who I am voting for. It really isn’t a statement that I am willing to make on a public forum. There are many issues I have to stand up for that have strong opposition and very few stand up for me. That doesn’t make it the wrong decision.

 

[Robert_Caritas]

I would say that if you are convinced that Romney will do nothing for abortion, you can vote for the other guy if you favor him on other issues.

Nevertheless, if Romney is elected, Paul Ryan will be the vice-President, and he is passionately pro-life. That must count for something.

 

[JimG]

Hypothetical or not, just read the platforms and stated positions of the parties or candidates. Which candidate supports abortion rights? Which candidate favors restrictions on abortion? One ought not to support a candidate who clearly supports an intrinsic evil. Such a candidate can not be trusted to do good.

 

[JRKH]

Nope. I will vote with my conscience. I will vote for the best candidate. I understand where you are coming from, but I do not agree. If the majority of people keep on voting this way, we will never have real change in our government.

Amen…

Do people realize that the largest single voting block in the United States, as far as political party is concerned, is the “I don’t care” vote? They stay home…

Unfortunately I see this voting block as being the one that will continue to grow…

The most effective political voting block is the “gimme” block…This block votes regularly and is highly involved and eventually they will run the country into bankruptcy…

Then look out…

Peace
James

 

[mary_bobo]

I would say that if you are convinced that Romney will do nothing for abortion, you can vote for the other guy if you favor him on other issues.

Nevertheless, if Romney is elected, Paul Ryan will be the vice-President, and he is passionately pro-life. That must count for something.

And don’t forget those appointments to the SC that Romney has talked about. Several justices are ready to retire. Who do you want appointing those judges?