Are there any Faithful Catholics voting for Pro Choice Candidates here?

[lutherlic]

diggerdomer,

I said: Faithful, well catechized, Catholics with properly formed consciences can vote for a pro-abortion candidate only when there are no pro-life candidates.

You replied:

This is not what the U.S. Bishops teach.

I have researched and read what I can find on this and did not find anything contrary. I would honestly appreciate if you could provide a link to an official statement to the contrary and how you interpret it.

Are you saying (per USCCB) that Catholics can vote for a pro-abortion candidate over a pro-life one based on other considerations? Or, are you saying that if only pro-abortion candidates are offered that you must not vote at all?

 

[estesbob]

It is not hard for me to understand why someone would vote for a “pro- choice” candidate. To my way of thinking, the very least you’d want to do for a pregnant woman is to make sure that both she and her unborn baby have medical insurance. Also, if you’re pro- life, I would think you would want elderly people to have something like Social Security so they don’t end up on the street.

So you think a child is better off dead than lack health insurance??. Besides the fact poor children already have health insurance through Medicaid and the CHIPS program. I know that those trying to rationalize supporting pro-abortion candidates like to point to the Republicans blocking of an increase in CHIPS funding but fail to mention they were trying to keep the funding from being increased to cover families with $84,000 a year in income.

So if the “pro-life” candidate is financed by big business and is going to vote against medical insurance for the poor and middle class, I think he is guilty of not putting his money where his mouth is.

Actually a person who votes for increased benefits regardless of the cost is putting “our” money where his mouth is.

If the “pro-life” candidate wants to give Social Security to Wall Street so they can lose all of the money, I can’t imagine what makes him think he is really pro-life.

Can you find a 40 year period in the history the United States where the Social Security trust fund would not have been better off in the stock market than being held by government?

On the other hand, if the “pro-choice” person consisently favors safety nets for the poor, it is possible that abortions will decline if he or she gets elected.

This is not what the Curch teaches. What you’ve listed is a whole slew of issues that there are legitimate political differences on how to resolve. The Church endorses neither party solutions to these issues. What the Church does emphatically say is none of these issues rises to the level of abortion. All rights flow from the right to life. Medical care and safety nets are of no good to one who was denied life. We do not want to decrease the number of abortions-we want to stop them.

Such lists, by the way, always seem to ignore the abject evil of supporting abortion. Why would you want to entrust a osition of to anyone who feels killing children is a solution to any problem more or less a woman sacred right? Such a person is so morally deficient that you could not trust their judgment in other areas.

 

[estesbob]

Thanks. That’s what I thought.

Thanks. But still…it certainly reads as an attack or condemnation on me, personally. Read it for yourself.

Yes, of course, I’m not saying that the Church not defining “x” means "x: is ok. I never said nor suggested such.

Rather, I was responding to someone who said voting for "pro-choice: (e.g. “x”) candidates is not allowed by the Church.

So, I simply asked, and still ask, where does the Church define such?

Note: this is not saying voting for “pro-abortion” candidates!

The Church does not define what a “pro-choice” (whatever that means) candidate is. Yes or no?

The Church clearly defines abortion, but does not clearly define what a so-called “pro-choice candidate” is.

Yes, Catholics can never vote for abortion.

Whether or not Catholics can vote for a so-called “pro-choice” candidate is a much more complex and subjective consideration.

That is beause there is no such thing as pro-choice. You either support the legality of abortion or you don’t. The truth is that we rarely see a candidate for office that does not support abortion in some form. For instance in the last election we were faced with a candidate who supported unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand running against one whosupported abortion in cases of rape and incest. Both supported abortion. However the Church looks at the situation and says that we could not vote for Obama but could vote for McCain because his stance on abortion was far less egregious than Obama’s. In a case like the California governor’s race, where both candidates are equally pro-abortion , the church does not require us to sit out the election the says that we may consider other issues.

What the Church is saying is we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the possible. Because of the hardness of our hearts way too many people have bought into the idea that even though children have a right to life some are conceived in such a manner that makes their life expendable. If abortions were outlawed except for cases of rape and incest it would limit all abortions a year except for approximately 400- far preferable to the 1.2 million being killed now.

 

[Listener]

I’m not arguing that it is “nice” to vote for abortion. Obviously, the best candidate would be anti-abortion and would also support safety nets for the poor. I’m just talking about the reality of what we’ve got out there to vote for. I have lived long enough to know that a “pro-life” Republican candidate isn’t necessarily telling the truth about his or her opinion on abortion. It is also true that a “pro-choice” Democrat could very well not be telling the truth about his or her opinion on abortion, either. They need to make people think that they agree with the party line so that they will get more votes.

I say that actions speak louder than words. In my opinion, a politician has no direct control over whether or not a woman will have an abortion. Even if the politician manages to outlaw abortion, she could still go to Canada or another foreign country and have the abortion.

On the other hand, politicians DO have some control over whether or not all people will have access to such things as food, housing, medical care, aid for the disabled, and Social Security for the elderly. The U.S. bishops would agree with me that these things are very important in a civilized society.

If our government is “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” then the people should expect it to provide somewhat of a “safety net.”

If, on the other hand, it is of “of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation,” we should expect that more people will be homeless and die on the streets.

People should use their heads and their common sense when they vote.

 

[estesbob]

I’m not arguing that it is “nice” to vote for abortion. Obviously, the best candidate would be anti-abortion and would also support safety nets for the poor. I’m just talking about the reality of what we’ve got out there to vote for. I have lived long enough to know that a “pro-life” Republican candidate isn’t necessarily telling the truth about his or her opinion on abortion. It is also true that a “pro-choice” Democrat could very well not be telling the truth about his or her opinion on abortion, either. They need to make people think that they agree with the party line so that they will get more votes.

I say that actions speak louder than words. In my opinion, a politician has no direct control over whether or not a woman will have an abortion. Even if the politician manages to outlaw abortion, she could still go to Canada or another foreign country and have the abortion.

On the other hand, politicians DO have some control over whether or not all people will have access to such things as food, housing, medical care, aid for the disabled, and Social Security for the elderly. The U.S. bishops would agree with me that these things are very important in a civilized society.

If our government is “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” then the people should expect it to provide somewhat of a “safety net.”

If, on the other hand, it is of “of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation,” we should expect that more people will be homeless and die on the streets.

People should use their heads and their common sense when they vote.

Actually people should follow the teachings of the church, if they are Catholic. None other than the Pope himself said that none of the issues you list rise to the level of abortion. You simply cannot rationalize, if you are Catholic, voting for a pro-abortion candidate because you think they would be better on other social issues than their pro-life opponent…

Again the idea that a person is fit to lead in spite of their support of abortion is untenable.

 

[gakroeger]

I’m not arguing that it is “nice” to vote for abortion. Obviously, the best candidate would be anti-abortion and would also support safety nets for the poor. I’m just talking about the reality of what we’ve got out there to vote for. I have lived long enough to know that a “pro-life” Republican candidate isn’t necessarily telling the truth about his or her opinion on abortion. It is also true that a “pro-choice” Democrat could very well not be telling the truth about his or her opinion on abortion, either. They need to make people think that they agree with the party line so that they will get more votes.

I say that actions speak louder than words. In my opinion, a politician has no direct control over whether or not a woman will have an abortion. Even if the politician manages to outlaw abortion, she could still go to Canada or another foreign country and have the abortion.

On the other hand, politicians DO have some control over whether or not all people will have access to such things as food, housing, medical care, aid for the disabled, and Social Security for the elderly. The U.S. bishops would agree with me that these things are very important in a civilized society.

If our government is “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” then the people should expect it to provide somewhat of a “safety net.”

If, on the other hand, it is of “of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation,” we should expect that more people will be homeless and die on the streets.

People should use their heads and their common sense when they vote.

Talk about rationalization… Wow

This is pretty extreme rationalization attempting to promote a political agenda over a Catholic and moral one.

These arguments could also be used on the issues you consider more important like safety net for the poor.

Doesn’t common sense tell you it is wrong to kill the unborn in their mothers’ wombs because their parents don’t want the responsibility? It is only a small step from here to kill the unwanted post born humans. By the time you reach old age, the government will probably have decided that they can no longer afford to keep you alive and break out the needle in the arm.

Rather than pushing my responsibility off on the government, I elect to support the poor through various charitable organizations such as Catholic Charities, SVDP, Interfaith, Knights of Columbus, Priests for Life, Breast Cancer Prevention institute, Our mothers home, etc.

The larger the government, the less the citizenry

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Talk about rationalization… Wow

This is pretty extreme rationalization attempting to promote a political agenda over a Catholic and moral one.

These arguments could also be used on the issues you consider more important like safety net for the poor.

Doesn’t common sense tell you it is wrong to kill the unborn in their mothers’ wombs because their parents don’t want the responsibility? It is only a small step from here to kill the unwanted post born humans. By the time you reach old age, the government will probably have decided that they can no longer afford to keep you alive and break out the needle in the arm.

Rather than pushing my responsibility off on the government, I elect to support the poor through various charitable organizations such as Catholic Charities, SVDP, Interfaith, Knights of Columbus, Priests for Life, Breast Cancer Prevention institute, Our mothers home, etc.

The larger the government, the less the citizenry

As I said on another thread, I have never seen such stubborn and blind Catholics as those who rationalize their political party affiliation and come to terms with voting for a pro-abortion candidate. Same number of Catholics voted for Barack Obama as the rest of the population. No Catholic should have voted for him! And evidently, some still aren’t regretting that vote. Twist and turn and tie themselves into knots, they can’t vote Republican even if it’s obvious that is the right choice according to the Church, and according to God’s Holy Word.

 

[Aquinas62]

I have never voted for a pro choice candidate, ever. The only democrat I ever voted for was Rudy Perpich back in 1988 here in Minnesota, he was a dyed in the wool liberal looney on fiscal and other matters, but he was staunchly pro life. The Republican who won, Arne Carlson was a good administrator, and fiscal moderate but very pro choice.

The “choice” was clear for this Catholic.

Without the Right to Life, other rights are meaningless.

 

[JReducation]

Thanks. That’s what I thought.

Thanks. But still…it certainly reads as an attack or condemnation on me, personally. Read it for yourself.

Yes, of course, I’m not saying that the Church not defining “x” means "x: is ok. I never said nor suggested such.

Rather, I was responding to someone who said voting for "pro-choice: (e.g. “x”) candidates is not allowed by the Church.

So, I simply asked, and still ask, where does the Church define such?

Note: this is not saying voting for “pro-abortion” candidates!

The Church does not define what a “pro-choice” (whatever that means) candidate is. Yes or no?

The Church clearly defines abortion, but does not clearly define what a so-called “pro-choice candidate” is.

Yes, Catholics can never vote for abortion.

Whether or not Catholics can vote for a so-called “pro-choice” candidate is a much more complex and subjective consideration.

It it is not complex at all. The Church does not dignify the term pro-choice, because it only exists in the mind of those who support laws that allow for legal abortions.

If the Church does not dignify the term “pro-choice”, why are faithful Catholics dignifying it? The Church does not dignify it, because such a position is beneath us as Catholics.

Catholics are not the only ones who refuse to dignify it. Muslims, many Protestants, Orthodox Christians, and Orthodox Jews do not dignify it either.

You’re attempt to explain and acknowledge that it is a viable position to take dignifies that which the three great religious traditions have deliberately decided is beneath them to even consider speaking about it, much less that anyone in public office has a right to such a position.

There are only two posiions in this discussion.

1. Abortion is never morally justifiable and always a sin against justice. Therefore, there can never be laws that allow people to choose abortion.
2. Abortion may be be justifiable and may not be a sin against justice. Therefore, there should be laws that allow people to choose.

Those who hold position number two can call themselves pro-choice, if they wish. The Church calls them pro-abortion. To the Catholic who is voting, what matters is what the Church calls it, not what the candidate calls it. The candidate can call it anything he wants. But as Shakespeare said, "A rose by any other name, . . . "

If you want to know what pro-choice means, ask the person who says that he is pro-choice. When he says that he is against abortion, but believes that people have a constitutional right to make this choice for themselves, as far as the Church is concerned, he is pro-abortion. He has the power to vote against such a law and is not going to use it. He’s telling you that he’s not going to use it. Therefore, according to canon law, this person will be excommunicated the moment that he has to vote and he fails to vote to rescind the law. Those who voted for him, made it possible for the law to find another protector.

Yes, the Church wants us to have all of the other good things that we need to live, work and grow, but not at the expense of this moral law. The Church has made it very clear that revoking legal abortions is the number one priority for Catholics, even over feeding the hungry.

I do repeat, do not let the lies of the enemy confuse you or anyone else. A pro-choice candidate may not be the one who procures an abortion. But he defines himself as one who defends another person’s right to get an abortion. That makes him pro-abortion, because he is giving abortion the protection of the law.

What is worse, if the person truly believes that abortion is unjust and immoral, but supports such a law, because he separates his faith from his civil duty, he commits apostasy. He has elevated his civil duties above his moral duty. The highest moral duty of any eleced official is to his faith, not to the voters. He must serve the voters according to the guidance of faith. Pope Benedict has often repeated what St. Augustine said, “faith enlightens reason, not the other way around.”

It is unfaithful to elect someone who is going to give murder the protection of the law, if there is a candidate with greater restraint in this matter.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[RosaryFan]

No need for quotation marks. You have no right to judge anyone’s devotion to God.

And when you are an unemployed person with a family and have a pro-choice candidate who has the policies that will give you a job vs. a pro-life candidate who will do nothing to help you in your situation, you’d vote for the pro-choice candidate. Voters can’t always get exactly what they want unless they run for office themselves.

That’s all well and good until they want to pull your plug. Frankly, I’d rather be unemployed than dead. I don’t vote for pro-choice candidates. Fr. Pavone says “No one who ignores the victims of abortion is worthy to hold public office”.

 

[Pug]

If so, can you explain how you justify such votes?

Yes. There is no one else for whom I may cast a vote. My other choice is to refuse to vote. I’ve been considering that, but I expect I will get over it by tomorrow and go vote for one of them.

(I consider the rape and incest exception to be a pro-abortion position.)

It is very confusing to me when folks express their position by saying one may never vote for a politician who holds a pro-abortion position. That is easily misunderstood to mean that people in my position are not allowed to turn out and vote.

 

[JReducation]

No need for quotation marks. You have no right to judge anyone’s devotion to God.

And when you are an unemployed person with a family and have a pro-choice candidate who has the policies that will give you a job vs. a pro-life candidate who will do nothing to help you in your situation, you’d vote for the pro-choice candidate. Voters can’t always get exactly what they want unless they run for office themselves.

This is a very difficult situation and I understand the agony of a family in this predicament. I have been there. Before I became a religious, I was a married and am the father of three, one decesed and two survivors. I have a son who is unemployed and has to depend on others in order to eat, because unemployment does not cover is expenses and he is not eligible for Medicaid either. I would love to see him in a better financial situation and I know that some of the pro-life politicians will not do much to improve his situation.

However, as good as it is to see my son have a job, steady income, health insurance and a stable living situation, there is a higher good, the right to be born and the right to stay alive until God calls you home. Since there is no single political candidate that is trying to protect both good, one has to go with the candidate that protects the highest good. According to our faith, the highest good is the right to be born.

We can decide what moral laws we choose to obey. We cannot decide what the moral law should be. That has been revealed by Christ himself. When I think of my son’s grim situation I am reminded of Jesus’ statement, “The poor shall always be with you.”

The woman with the rich oil was being reprimanded for “wasting” the oil to annoint Jesus But Jesus points out that there is a moral hierarchy of goods. It is good to care for the poor. We know this, because Jesus reminds us to give to the poor. However, when it came to choosing between him and the poor, he als reminded us that he is the higher good over the poor.

St. John’s Gospel reminds us that all was created for him. Therefore, all things must take a second place to the will of Christ.

One of the most interesting saints for this discussion is St. Giana Molla. Her husban recently died. In speaking about their life, the daughter whom Giana delivered before she died explained how they had suffered a great deal as a result of Giana’s choice. But he added that they would suffer it again, because their mother had left them a legacy of perfect charity.

We are all called to the perfection of charity. Sometimes, it hurts and it hurts a lot. The perfection of charity is not always doing what is best for us and for our family. Sometimes, it is doing what is good for God, because he deserves our charity even more than our family. Giana understood this and chose to leave her children orphans for love of God.

Love sometimes calls for bloodless martyrdom.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[estesbob]

(I consider the rape and incest exception to be a pro-abortion position.)
.

As do I. and more importantly as does the Church. Which is why the Church teaches that in a situation where we have a candidate who supports abortion on demand running against a candidate who supports abortion only in cases of rape and incest we are allowed to vote for the latter candidate but not the former. Quite often you see Catholics distort this position and claim that since both candidates support abortion you are free to vote for either one. That is simply not true.

Some Catholics go to the other extreme and say you can’t vote in such a situation or must throw your vote away on a nonviable third party candidate… But to do that would be to cede the political playing field to the forces of abortion. The Church recognizes, rightly so, that we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good… Archbishop Caput put it in such a situation we are not choosing the lesser of two evils, rather we are choosing to lessen evil.

 

[JReducation]

Yes. There is no one else for whom I may cast a vote. My other choice is to refuse to vote. I’ve been considering that, but I expect I will get over it by tomorrow and go vote for one of them.

(I consider the rape and incest exception to be a pro-abortion position.)

It is very confusing to me when folks express their position by saying one may never vote for a politician who holds a pro-abortion position. That is easily misunderstood to mean that people in my position are not allowed to turn out and vote.

My friend, this is not the teaching of people. This is the teaching of the Church. One may never allow another person to commit murder. To elect a political figure who will either legalize murder or support an existing law that protects the murder of the unborn, euthanasia, the murder of the child in a Petri dish and so forth, is supporting a person whose beliefs are in conflict with Divine Truth.

Why would you or I want to support such a person?

It is true that there is no political candidate who supports everything that God has revealed. Therefore, we must make a choice. We have to choose the one who supports the highest good. The highest good is the protection of the unborn. All other goods are subordinate to the protection of the unborn.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Aquinas62]

My friend, this is not the teaching of people. This is the teaching of the Church. One may never allow another person to commit murder. To elect a political figure who will either legalize murder or support an existing law that protects the murder of the unborn, euthanasia, the murder of the child in a Petri dish and so forth, is supporting a person whose beliefs are in conflict with Divine Truth.

Why would you or I want to support such a person?

It is true that there is no political candidate who supports everything that God has revealed. Therefore, we must make a choice. We have to choose the one who supports the highest good. The highest good is the protection of the unborn. All other goods are subordinate to the protection of the unborn.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Good points, and good counsel. Br JR.

 

[JReducation]

I should have added in my previous posts that we do not support political parties, because political parties have strengths and weaknesses. It would be unfair to say that one is right and the other is wrong. We support moral positions. Given candidate X and Candidate Y, we support the candidate whose position is closest to the highest truth revealed through Jesus Christ.

It is important to remember that there is a hierarchy of truths. There are many truths. No single truth is more truthful than the other. That’s not what the hierarchy of truths means. The hierarchy of truths refers to which one is the most important truth.

If we look at the 10 commandments, they are in order of hierarchy. They are all truth. But the most important truth is the first and so forth. If you have to choose between two truths, because they are represented by different people and you can only pick one, then you pick the one closest to the top.

“I am the Lord your God and you shall have no other gods before me.” Therefore, my family, my job, my schooling, my home, etc cannot be my god. They are gifts that come from God. But God remains at the top of the pyramid of goods. We may not allow anyone to act as if they were God. That’s why we do not support those who support the right to kill the unborn, to euthanize or to destroy embryos. Their actions and beliefs are an affront to God’s authority over life and death.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Pug]

As do I. and more importantly as does the Church. Which is why the Church teaches that in a situation where we have a candidate who supports abortion on demand running against a candidate who supports abortion only in cases of rape and incest we are allowed to vote for the latter candidate but not the former. Quite often you see Catholics distort this position and claim that since both candidates support abortion you are free to vote for either one. That is simply not true.

Some Catholics go to the other extreme and say you can’t vote in such a situation or must throw your vote away on a nonviable third party candidate… But to do that would be to cede the political playing field to the forces of abortion. The Church recognizes, rightly so, that we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good… Archbishop Caput put it in such a situation we are not choosing the lesser of two evils, rather we are choosing to lessen evil.

Yes, I think I understand you here. I am very unhappy with the idea of “supporting” either one of the candidates that I have at hand, yet one of them may well be less supportive of abortion than the other, even if they are both supportive of it in my view. If I could figure out which one is the less supportive of abortion, then it would be possible to vote for that one, choosing to save lives in the future if they should ever happen to vote on a life issue.

Irritatingly, neither has a nice statement of just how supportive they are of abortion on their candidate website. I suppose they don’t really want to be specific about it, lest they lose a vote. Because of that, they tend to weigh out equally bad in my eyes, when considered from the standpoint of abortion.

 

[challam2010]

As I said on another thread, I have never seen such stubborn and blind Catholics as those who rationalize their political party affiliation and come to terms with voting for a pro-abortion candidate. Same number of Catholics voted for Barack Obama as the rest of the population. No Catholic should have voted for him! And evidently, some still aren’t regretting that vote. Twist and turn and tie themselves into knots, they can’t vote Republican even if it’s obvious that is the right choice according to the Church, and according to God’s Holy Word.

Voting “Republican” in the California gubernatorial election is voting for a pro-abortion candidate, as is also the Democratic candidate.

 

[Orleans_Attny]

Wow.

Again, wow.

I’ve never been accused of anything remotely as serious before.

Really?

You know me, and my thoughts and faith so well that you can state such a claim?

Seems dangerous to me.

I respect and admire you from your posts on this Forum, but wow. A claim like that is really offensive.

I don’t think that was offensive at all - I’m surprised that you did.

Nonetheless, we will all stand in judgment for our decisions, which we made with free will and according to our individual faculties.

Personally, I’m more comfortable with the decision to never vote for a candidate who believes that abortion should be legal and who will vote in accordance with that belief or who will vote against appointments or legislation that might negatively affect the ability for a woman to choose and abortion.

And I happen to think that’s what the Church expects of me, in light of the fact that abortion is an intrinsic evil.

I suspect that you’re being intentionally obtuse for either sport or justification of your personal beliefs. That’s fine - it’s not really my business. We all have free will and differing abilities - mine will lead me to stand judgment for a decision that might differ from your decision.

So this discussion really hasn’t been about changing your mind (or mine), but it’s about the other people who read this thread. And I suppose that we’ve fully vetted this topic from that point of view.

Pax,
OA

 

[Orleans_Attny]

. . . .It is very confusing to me when folks express their position by saying one may never vote for a politician who holds a pro-abortion position. That is easily misunderstood to mean that people in my position are not allowed to turn out and vote.

Exactly! That’s exactly right. It would most certainly be better to abstain than to vote in such a circumstance. Don’t you see this? Are you really elevating your personal desire to vote to a position of primacy?

Pax,
OA