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

[Pug]

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

I don’t want to support them, as I am sure you don’t either. Actually, I don’t support them or their ideas or their plans. They only thing I support is that one is somewhat less likely to cast a vote leading to the deaths of many children than the other. Or, if they are equally bad on the baby issue, I support the one who is less likely to cast a vote leading to the deaths of many elderly by euthanasia.

I’m not sure yet that I understand you. Are you saying that if Candidate A and Candidate B are both equally pro-choice that I must refuse to vote in that race if there are only two candidates? That I cannot pick between them based on euthanasia then, or some other important issue if they are also tied on euthanasia?

 

[gakroeger]

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

I was disappointed suprised to read this about Meg Whitman. I have not followed the California gubernatorial race. I am glad I do not have to make that choice. It is too bad that she is deviating from the party platfrom on this issue. California is a mess. I lived out there for three years back in the 90’s. The politicians have that state so screwed up they may never straighten it out. Unfortunately, the country is going the same way and California will probably drag us down quicker.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t want to support them, as I am sure you don’t either. Actually, I don’t support them or their ideas or their plans. They only thing I support is that one is somewhat less likely to cast a vote leading to the deaths of many children than the other. Or, if they are equally bad on the baby issue, I support the one who is less likely to cast a vote leading to the deaths of many elderly by euthanasia.

I’m not sure yet that I understand you. Are you saying that if Candidate A and Candidate B are both equally pro-choice that I must refuse to vote in that race if there are only two candidates? That I cannot pick between them based on euthanasia then, or some other important issue if they are also tied on euthanasia?

First of all, my condolescences are in order to you and to other people of justice who are faced with two candidates who are pro-choice. It creates an almost dead-end situation. As a Fraciscan Brother of Life my mission is to help people choose God’s will.

As another Franciscan has said, Archbishop Charles Chaput, OFM, Cap, if one cannot vote for a pro-life candidate, then one should vote for the candidate that will do less harm. In other words, we must choose to lessen evil.

Let’s say that Candidate A is pro-choice, but he also defends the rights of the immigrant poor, which is a big moral issue right now. And Candidate B is pro-choice but wants to pass legislation that treats all immigrants as criminals based on their not having proper papers, which is not a moral crime at all. Then Candidate A has at least one redeeming quality. He is willing to look at the circumstances of the immigrant poor rather than use a broad brush approach that Candidate B would use. This is an example of choosing the higher good.

On this issue, there are pro-choice candidates who believe in greater retraint, such as parental consent, a limit on when an abortion may be performed, or are unwilling to use tax monies to pay for abortions, etc. If we flip this around we can say that there is a good here. The good would be that less children would be aborted if you vote for this candidate than if you vote for the other one who wants to use tax money to fund abortions and embryonic stem-cell research.

If you have two pro-choice candidates is to find out what good do they support and vote for the one who supporst the greatest good. The rest you have to leave to God’s mercy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[gakroeger]

Link - Here is some food for thought

 

[jtorczon]

Cardinal-designate Burke’s words can be taken to mean that I should not vote for Whitman and instead should vote for an obscure Tea Party candidate named Chelene Nightingale, who is unquestionably anti-abortion. However, all indications point to me being able to in good conscience vote for Whitman as I believe she would do more to limit the harm from abortion than Brown.

Since Nightingale has no chance whatsoever of winning, it wouldn’t make sense to waste my vote on her, which would only help Brown to win. Furthermore, unlike Brown, Whitman favors notification of parents of minors seeking abortion, is against physician-assisted suicide and would defend traditional marriage between one man and one woman.

Not only that, but she would name judges that would be more receptive of pro-lifers’ concerns and advance the GOP’s anti-abortion platform. I mean, we hear all the time how the Democratic Catholic politicians say they are personally against abortion but have no problem with siding with the pro-abortion Democrats. So we could have a case of Whitman saying while she’s personally for abortion rights, she could very well catch a lot of grief from the party if she doesn’t toe the party line.

 

[hxcCatholic413]

I put Catholic in quotes because any Catholic who understands that life begins at conception, and that millions of human beings are being slaughtered every year, is not truly Catholic if they vote for a pro-choice candidate.

Amen

 

[Pug]

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

I don’t have a personal desire to vote, not as I think you mean. I don’t like to take the trouble to vote. It is a lot of work to properly research candidates and get to the polls. The only reason I go out to vote is to fulfill my duty to the common good of man. My conscience would complain if I shirked this duty. So would my family, if my conscience failed me.

I can see, however, that if a process has become so corrupt that participating in it legitimizes what cannot be legitimized, then maybe one ought to stay away from the process. I don’t think this has happened in my locale, yet. I’m not sure I can make a determination like that all by myself, either.

 

[JReducation]

Cardinal-designate Burke’s words can be taken to mean that I should not vote for Whitman and instead should vote for an obscure Tea Party candidate named Chelene Nightingale, who is unquestionably anti-abortion. However, all indications point to me being able to in good conscience vote for Whitman as I believe she would do more to limit the harm from abortion than Brown.

Since Nightingale has no chance whatsoever of winning, it wouldn’t make sense to waste my vote on her, which would only help Brown to win. Furthermore, unlike Brown, Whitman favors notification of parents of minors seeking abortion, is against physician-assisted suicide and would defend traditional marriage between one man and one woman.

Not only that, but she would name judges that would be more receptive of pro-lifers’ concerns and advance the GOP’s anti-abortion platform. I mean, we hear all the time how the Democratic Catholic politicians say they are personally against abortion but have no problem with siding with the pro-abortion Democrats. So we could have a case of Whitman saying while she’s personally for abortion rights, she could very well catch a lot of grief from the party if she doesn’t toe the party line.

Look at the two candidates who have a chance of winning. Which one will do more good for the culture of life?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Pug]

The rest you have to leave to God’s mercy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I hope you don’t mind that I shortened your post to this line. YES! That may well be what I find hard. I know, what a silly thing to say I find hard, since that is what we are supposed to do all the time!. That is probably how I ended up reading this thread, since I am finding it harder and harder to find a satisfying candidate for whom to vote each year. It would be fine if I did my best, voted, and let it go. I do let it go after each election, but beforehand, I get rather bothered by the process of reading about the candidates that are up for election. It all seems dim and murky. I’m starting to look around, wondering if there is a pit before me.

Of course there is no pit. Just trust and do my best. We are but worthless slaves, who have only done as we ought. ( It is probably a pride thing, that is why I say that.)

 

[JReducation]

I don’t have a personal desire to vote, not as I think you mean. I don’t like to take the trouble to vote. It is a lot of work to properly research candidates and get to the polls. The only reason I go out to vote is to fulfill my duty to the common good of man. My conscience would complain if I shirked this duty. So would my family, if my conscience failed me.

I can see, however, that if a process has become so corrupt that participating in it legitimizes what cannot be legitimized, then maybe one ought to stay away from the process. I don’t think this has happened in my locale, yet. I’m not sure I can make a determination like that all by myself, either.

This takes us into the whole are of the duties of the secular man and woman. The secular man and woman has a duty to point his elected officials in the right direction. In this country, we do this through the electoral process. We vote for the person who will do the greater good or who will lessen the evil being done.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Honestly, I don’t see how your quote conflicts with my statement - other than your own conclusion.

Your statement could be easily misunderstood, so I was just trying to clarify what the voter guide was saying. Your post made it sound like it’s okay to vote for any pro-abortion candidate whenever. I was only clearing things up. Thanks for the link, though.

For those who wanted to listen to Tim Staples, Catholic Answers Apologist, on this topic, here is the link I had in my signature:

youtube.com/watch?v=fN6ArsK17WY

God bless

 

[Orleans_Attny]

I don’t have a personal desire to vote, not as I think you mean. I don’t like to take the trouble to vote. It is a lot of work to properly research candidates and get to the polls. The only reason I go out to vote is to fulfill my duty to the common good of man. My conscience would complain if I shirked this duty. So would my family, if my conscience failed me.

I can see, however, that if a process has become so corrupt that participating in it legitimizes what cannot be legitimized, then maybe one ought to stay away from the process. I don’t think this has happened in my locale, yet. I’m not sure I can make a determination like that all by myself, either.

And that certainly presents a difficult analysis. I don’t envy those who must make it - and I’ve certainly struggled with it before; and I’ve certainly cast votes that I wish I could take back.

The voting-to-lessen-the-evil theory is an option. But once one is on that slipperly slope, it becomes very difficult to get off. And it seems to me that one’s tolerance for evil will continue to grow.

Fortunately, this will all pass away. And it will pass away shortly. Our place is not here, and we must not act as if it is.

Pax,
OA

 

[jtorczon]

Look at the two candidates who have a chance of winning. Which one will do more good for the culture of life?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks for the advice, Br. Jr.

 

[Rence]

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.

You’re right Marian. I think most people vote with issues in mind that directly affect them or those they know (healthcare, war, jobs, taxes, etc.). Not too many people are going to throw their vote away for some obscure party, and not too many people I know would knowingly vote for someone whose policies would make things worse for themselves and/or those close to them.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

You’re right Marian. I think most people vote with issues in mind that directly affect them or those they know (healthcare, war, jobs, taxes, etc.). Not too many people are going to throw their vote away for some obscure party, and not too many people I know would knowingly vote for someone whose policies would make things worse for themselves and/or those close to them.

Voting in pro-abortion officials make things worse for us and those around us. Some may not think abortion hits “home”, but it certainly has been affecting this country. Once people don’t have a good grip on what defines “life”, things begin to go downhill, I’ve noticed.

 

[JReducation]

Let’s not forget that the pro-choice politicians that we put in office are the ones who appoint and approve pro-choice justices. They are also the same folks who make laws that allow someone to take away your food and water, because it’s medical treatment instead of a natural right. They are the same people who appropriate your tax dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research, which has not yielded any fruits. These folks also use your tax dollars to support contraception and abortions while the nation reaches double digit unemployment rates. The pro-choice people do a lot of direct damage to the average American, especially the working class and the poor.

Finally, to vote for what is good for me is not a responsible way of voting. What makes Catholics different from other people of faith is our universality. We are not only inclusive of people of all cultures and heritages, but we are also concerned about the good beyond our home and our borders. Charity begins at home is a cliche, not Catholic spiritualiy. Look at our great saints. They always looked at the big picture.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Rence]

Voting in pro-abortion officials make things worse for us and those around us. Some may not think abortion hits “home”, but it certainly has been affecting this country. Once people don’t have a good grip on what defines “life”, things begin to go downhill, I’ve noticed.

There are many things that would make things worse for us, and affects many different people of all kinds. Abortion does hit home, but so does limiting funding for education, raising taxes, creating new taxes, limiting healthcare, and other actions or inactions that affect whole groups of people.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

There are many things that would make things worse for us, and affects many different people of all kinds. Abortion does hit home, but so does limiting funding for education, raising taxes, creating new taxes, limiting healthcare, and other actions or inactions that affect whole groups of people.

So stopping the murder of innocent children is at the same level of importance as those other things you mentioned? Education. Taxes. C’mon, Rence.

I also agree with brother JR. In the words of Mother Teresa, “If abortion is not wrong, than nothing is wrong.” That means the issue of abortion surpasses all other issues in an election. Bishops have said it. The pope has said it. It makes sense. We need to stop supporting people who are going to make pro-death choices in this country. It just needs to stop.

 

[Rence]

So stopping the murder of innocent children is at the same level of importance as those other things you mentioned? Education. Taxes. C’mon, Rence.

I also agree with brother JR. In the words of Mother Teresa, “If abortion is not wrong, than nothing is wrong.” That means the issue of abortion surpasses all other issues in an election. Bishops have said it. The pope has said it. It makes sense. We need to stop supporting people who are going to make pro-death choices in this country. It just needs to stop.

The simple and obvious solution to the problem is to have good pro-life candidates run for office so that we can vote for them without worrying about such insignificant things, such as, oh I don’t know… maybe, our taxes going up so high that we have to sell our home. When I lived in another state, the taxes on our family home went from $6000 to $9000 a year. We have since sold our home and moved to another state, where the cost of living is more affordable. Yes, education and taxes are important too. I’m voting for the guy who is voting for ‘no state taxes’, and who is voting for increased funding for healthcare, and I don’t care what his position on abortion is. In fact, I don’t know what it is. Why? Because those who want to have an abortion will do so, whether I can pay my taxes or not. They will have their abortions whether or not the poor in my community are able to get healthcare or not. I have great insurance. However, those in my community who don’t are important too. I will vote for those I believe who can address the concerns of the people, which covers many areas, not just one area.

 

[gakroeger]

You’re right Marian. I think most people vote with issues in mind that directly affect them or those they know (healthcare, war, jobs, taxes, etc.). Not too many people are going to throw their vote away for some obscure party, and not too many people I know would knowingly vote for someone whose policies would make things worse for themselves and/or those close to them.

Selfishness, this is what is wrong with our country.