Being Catholic and Voting

[PatienceAndLove]

I have gone through the threads, and I notice bits and pieces of my quandary in many threads, so I decided to ask them all here.

This will be my second presidential election.

I am at a crossroads with my vote. Please comment on them and help me make an informed decision.

1. 
   *]I am a Conservative and a registered Independent
   *]I believe in natural birth and natural death
   *]I think abortion is abominable and reprehensible
   *]I think the government should help support those who need help
   *]I think that there should be a limit to the help
   *]I am not sure about the Iraq war
   *]I am against big business and factory farms
   *]I am pro-family
   
   I took the “World’s Smallest Political Quiz” and found that I am a centrist. Seriously, right in the middle. And as you can see from my list, I go all over the place.
   So, my quandry is, what party do I support when the time comes? Or do I just not vote at all?

 

[mapleoak]

You can rearrange the list in order of priorities and align your political stance based on that. A suggestion follows:

1. 
   *]I think abortion is abominable and reprehensible
   *]I am pro-family
   *]I believe in natural birth and natural death
   *]I am a Conservative and a registered Independent
   *]I am not sure about the Iraq war
   *]I think the government should help support those who need help
   *]I think that there should be a limit to the help
   *]I am against big business and factory farms

 

[markomalley]

I have gone through the threads, and I notice bits and pieces of my quandary in many threads, so I decided to ask them all here.

This will be my second presidential election.

I am at a crossroads with my vote. Please comment on them and help me make an informed decision.

1. 
   *]I am a Conservative and a registered Independent
   *]I believe in natural birth and natural death
   *]I think abortion is abominable and reprehensible
   *]I think the government should help support those who need help
   *]I think that there should be a limit to the help
   *]I am not sure about the Iraq war
   *]I am against big business and factory farms
   *]I am pro-family
   I took the “World’s Smallest Political Quiz” and found that I am a centrist. Seriously, right in the middle. And as you can see from my list, I go all over the place.
   So, my quandry is, what party do I support when the time comes? Or do I just not vote at all?

1. 
   As a variant from what MapleOak said, what I would suggest is assigning a weighting factor to each issue that you want to consider:
   
   For example, let us say that you are really, intensely pro-life…the only way you would vote for a pro-abortion candidate is if all other candidates were also pro-abortion…give that factor a weighting of “10.” Or if you are less intensely pro-life (i.e., you want a pro-life candidate, but if the candidate is wrong on other issues, you could be persuaded to vote for a candidate who is correct on those issues but, unfortunately, is somewhat pro-abortion), then you could assign a lower weighting to that factor, say a weighting of “5.”
   
   Repeat that line of thinking for each issue you are concerned with.
   
   By doing that, you could assign an equal amount of importance to separate issues…which, in all likelihood, could be the case.
   
   Then, look through the candidates’ past records and past statements on each of those issues. A good source for that is Project Vote Smart. Assign a number from 0-10 for the candidate’s stance on an issue. For the pro-life issue, let’s say that candidate “A” has voted against federal funding for abortion, voted against partial birth abortion, but voted for embryonic stem cell research and voted for medicaid coverage for “Plan B.” You might give that candidate a “6.” Candidate “B” voted for federal funding for abotion, voted against partial birth abortion, voted for ESCR, but voted against medicaid coverage for “Plan B.” (I know, inconsistent, but…) You might give that candidate a “4”
   
   You then multiply the weighting by the candidate’s score and arrive at “60” for candidate “A” and "40 for candidate “B.”
   
   Take the other issues: let’s say that you like allowing unrestricted immigration and believe that anybody in the country should be able to get benefits. But you aren’t as hardcore about it as being pro-life. So you assign a weight of “5” to that issue. Candidate “B” is 100% lined up with your position, so you give him a score of 10. Candidate “A” is only half way with you on that issue, so you give him a score of 4. Multiplying those by the weighting, you get a “20” for candidate “A” and a “50” for candidate “B.”
   
   If you add those two weighted scores up, you have 60+20=80 for “A” and 40+50=90 for “B.” So then, you would, by the issues, vote for “B.”
   
   The weakness of the above is that it is more complicated than other schemes. The strength is that it is very, very objective.
   
   One thing, though. Look at the candidate’s positions and the candidate’s words. Don’t depend upon the media’s reporting of those positions: as you will have to factor in the bias of the reporters and editors in the reporting.
   
   Hope the above helps.

 

[vz71]

Just as an aside to the weighting of these issues…

I know at least one person that aligns with the democratic party on almost all issues, but votes republican.

Their one and only reason - they consider the value of the unborn child of such high importance that it well eclipses other issues.
The person is fond of asking other democrats “What have you placed higher then life?”

I have no idea how they will vote in the coming election though.
I suppose this particular vote will be a testament of their convictions.

 

[grandfather]

Just as an aside to the weighting of these issues…

I know at least one person that aligns with the democratic party on almost all issues, but votes republican.

Their one and only reason - they consider the value of the unborn child of such high importance that it well eclipses other issues.
The person is fond of asking other democrats “What have you placed higher then life?”

I have no idea how they will vote in the coming election though.
I suppose this particular vote will be a testament of their convictions.

If one believes abortion is the murder of an innocent human being and considers that there are well over one million annual such government sanctioned murders in the U.S.A. the only conclusion to come to is that we are in the middle of the biggest holocaust in human history. There are many other issues to consider in choosing lawmakers, tax policy, national defense, education, etc. But what could be more important than a million plus lives per year? If you were in Nazi Germany and millions of people were being exterminated would you be worried about how to find financing for a highway bill, or whether tax money should be spent on building more railroads, or beer gardens?

 

[CradleCathy]

When I have taken these tests it comes out the same - dead center. In discussing this with my Catholic friends it is always the same. Fascinating that we are of so few who see the “pro-life” issue as “life-long” and in a wider sense of the word. I have found I have had to do what everyone else here suggests - weight the issues. For me, the deal breaker is pro-life in the anti-abortion sense. Unfortunately, that eliminates most choices and leaves me very little choice at all.

 

[vz71]

For me, the deal breaker is pro-life in the anti-abortion sense. Unfortunately, that eliminates most choices and leaves me very little choice at all.

I’m confused.

“pro-life in the anti-abortion sense??”

Can you please be more specific? I am unfamiliar with the usage of your terminology here.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You can rearrange the list in order of priorities and align your political stance based on that. A suggestion follows:

1. 
   *]I think abortion is abominable and reprehensible
   *]I am pro-family
   *]I believe in natural birth and natural death
   *]I am a Conservative and a registered Independent
   *]I am not sure about the Iraq war
   *]I think the government should help support those who need help
   *]I think that there should be a limit to the help
   *]I am against big business and factory farms

1. 
   By what right do you substitute this persons person beliefs in favor of your own priorities? Unreal

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I have gone through the threads, and I notice bits and pieces of my quandary in many threads, so I decided to ask them all here.

This will be my second presidential election.

I am at a crossroads with my vote. Please comment on them and help me make an informed decision.

1. 
   *]I am a Conservative and a registered Independent
   *]I believe in natural birth and natural death
   *]I think abortion is abominable and reprehensible
   *]I think the government should help support those who need help
   *]I think that there should be a limit to the help
   *]I am not sure about the Iraq war
   *]I am against big business and factory farms
   *]I am pro-family
   
   I took the “World’s Smallest Political Quiz” and found that I am a centrist. Seriously, right in the middle. And as you can see from my list, I go all over the place.
   So, my quandry is, what party do I support when the time comes? Or do I just not vote at all?

1. 
   I recognize your difficulty. It is hard for anyone to know how to reconcile all the different directions were are pulled. I find the USCCB guidelines helpful in sorting out the issues, but I warn you, it is not going to tell you what to do. No one can or should. I would pray a good deal, learn as much as you can about the candidates and determine which one more clearly fullfills what you deem most important singularly, or collectively. It is not easy, and there is no right answer. One can for instance see that one candidates appears more to your thinking on some things than most, but overall, this person might be more threatening to your fears of war and the tens of thousands who would die or suffer. So you are also in some part trying to guess how this person would act should certain events occur in the future. I wish you luck!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

If one believes abortion is the murder of an innocent human being and considers that there are well over one million annual such government sanctioned murders in the U.S.A. the only conclusion to come to is that we are in the middle of the biggest holocaust in human history. There are many other issues to consider in choosing lawmakers, tax policy, national defense, education, etc. But what could be more important than a million plus lives per year? If you were in Nazi Germany and millions of people were being exterminated would you be worried about how to find financing for a highway bill, or whether tax money should be spent on building more railroads, or beer gardens?

Of course anyone is free to reduce everything to the simplistic one issue, but it would be rather horrid would it not should you vote for the one with the “best” anti-abortion record only to find he or she is also the one most likely to engage in further wars of choice wherein tens of thousands, perhaps more are killed or injured, displaced, made homeless etc. It is difficult to make a fair assessment of which damage is the worst. I know that the one-issue folks like us to believe that this is not true, but cumulatively, the death counts could and probably are quite even.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Just as an aside to the weighting of these issues…

I know at least one person that aligns with the democratic party on almost all issues, but votes republican.

Their one and only reason - they consider the value of the unborn child of such high importance that it well eclipses other issues.
The person is fond of asking other democrats “What have you placed higher then life?”

I have no idea how they will vote in the coming election though.
I suppose this particular vote will be a testament of their convictions.

This comes very close to describing me, or did. I held a Dem party office for years, but left it when the party absolutely wedded itself to the cause of abortion. Since then, of course, the party has embraced gay marriage, cloning for “body parts”, and other things that have pushed me farther away from the party.

Yet I still support enhanced public benefits for those who absolutely cannot help themselves. I’m not against big business per se, but I do favor a stronger regulatory environment, particularly in the financial and transportation sectors. I do favor a higher tax exemption for children and subsidized interest rates for student loans. (as it was in the sixties, for example)

But life comes first. I cannot bring myself to participate in any manner in the killing of the unborn. No matter what anybody else thinks about it, I believe such participation would be at the peril of my soul. That is a moral mountain I will not attempt to climb in order to promote “moderate” positions in other things. Until the Dem party changes, which might not be in my lifetime, I will not vote for any candidate who supports abortion by word or deed, which includes every Democrat I know. Someday, perhaps, industry will be better regulated. Someday, perhaps, the truly disabled will get a better shake. Someday, perhaps, a better deal for families will be formulated. But killing is final and irremediable. I’m not all that good a man, but I refuse to be a killer.

 

[hasikelee]

Hey, I’m a selfish voter. I’m looking out for myself.

If I vote for candidates that say a human can be killed for whatever reason, then I’m just asking for trouble.

I’m gonna stamp that little possibility out as soon as possible. I don’t need a government killing humans for whatever justification. Seems a little bit against my interests, dontcha think?

Abortion debate be darned, a killer government isn’t a healthy option for any citizen!

 

[Ridgerunner]

Of course anyone is free to reduce everything to the simplistic one issue, but it would be rather horrid would it not should you vote for the one with the “best” anti-abortion record only to find he or she is also the one most likely to engage in further wars of choice wherein tens of thousands, perhaps more are killed or injured, displaced, made homeless etc. It is difficult to make a fair assessment of which damage is the worst. I know that the one-issue folks like us to believe that this is not true, but cumulatively, the death counts could and probably are quite even.

I guess it depends on how many wars you include in the count. If the Iraq war, the casualty estimates vary between around 50,000 and 600,000. Likely it’s around 100,000. During the same period, some five million babies were aborted in the U.S. The numbers are not at all comparable.

But the numbers are not really the point. In wars waged by the U.S., there is a serious effort to avoid taking innocent lives in order to achieve another objective. With abortion, taking innocent lives is precisely the objective.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

I’m confused.

“pro-life in the anti-abortion sense??”

Can you please be more specific? I am unfamiliar with the usage of your terminology here.

I can use my understand of the term-
Pro-Life needs to include all lives, not just no abortion.
I am against the death penalty, as it is anti-life.

But that may not be Cathy’s definition.

 

[hasikelee]

I’m confused.

“pro-life in the anti-abortion sense??”

Can you please be more specific? I am unfamiliar with the usage of your terminology here.

I sometimes use that myself. Not to put words in the other poster’s mouth, but I use that to show I am anti-abortion, but I am not necessarily anti-death penalty.

The pro-life movement has come to encompass all forms of protecting human life, and within that movement people use their personal skills and talents for different aspects. Some are able to help those with disabilities, others are concentrated in geriatrics, and still other are focused on war, death penalty, infanticide, etc.

 

[vz71]

I understand.

The difference between truly pro-life and someone that is pro-life but pro-death penalty as well.

 

[vz71]

Of course anyone is free to reduce everything to the simplistic one issue, but it would be rather horrid would it not should you vote for the one with the “best” anti-abortion record only to find he or she is also the one most likely to engage in further wars of choice wherein tens of thousands, perhaps more are killed or injured, displaced, made homeless etc. It is difficult to make a fair assessment of which damage is the worst. I know that the one-issue folks like us to believe that this is not true, but cumulatively, the death counts could and probably are quite even.

Let’s be serious though…
When was the last time a candidate for president ran on a platform of war that will kill thousands?
Making an assessment would be easy, but only if one knows in advance that the candidate is a monster.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I understand.

The difference between truly pro-life and someone that is pro-life but pro-death penalty as well.

My impression is that from the Church’s standpoint, one could be truly prolife and yet support the death penalty. I think the question is whether, in this particular society, others can truly be protected against those who have demonstrated a propensity to kill. I believe that’s a very debateable proposition, as some get released to kill again and some kill while in prison.

I am somewhat inclined to oppose the death penalty because JPII evidently felt it possible to protect society without it, at least in some places. I don’t think he ever specifically applied that judgment to the U.S.

But I really don’t believe incarceration, as it is in the U.S., truly protects society. perhaps someday it will be, and perhaps JPII’s point was that whatever efforts are required should be undertaken.

 

[grandfather]

My impression is that from the Church’s standpoint, one could be truly prolife and yet support the death penalty. I think the question is whether, in this particular society, others can truly be protected against those who have demonstrated a propensity to kill. I believe that’s a very debateable proposition, as some get released to kill again and some kill while in prison.

I am somewhat inclined to oppose the death penalty because JPII evidently felt it possible to protect society without it, at least in some places. I don’t think he ever specifically applied that judgment to the U.S.

But I really don’t believe incarceration, as it is in the U.S., truly protects society. perhaps someday it will be, and perhaps JPII’s point was that whatever efforts are required should be undertaken.

The Church was founded by Christ. He made certain promises to her. He promised that He would be with her through all ages until the end of time, not leave her orphaned, and send the Holy Spirit to guide her into all truth (for all time). He promised that what His apostles bound on earth He would bind in heaven. He commanded His Church to go to all nations and teach them everything He taught His aposstles.

It is by the teaching authority given the Church that we know truth regarding morals. We do not vote on right and wrong, but are told what is moral and immoral, from the time Moses came down from the mountain with the Ten Commandments. The Jews did not figure them out by reason or vote on what is moral or immoral.

Assume that over all the centuries the Church taught somethng or failed to teach something that was widely practiced in Christian society and the thing was grevously immoral. Assume the Church even condoned this evil. If this were true then the promises Christ made to His Church through the apostles are false. We have to know what is right and wrong through all ages or His promises have failed.

Capital punishment is an example of such a practice. John Paul II and his immediate predecessors discouraged it. They can never condemn it is an absolute moral wrong or evil.

The Church must always encourage piece and discourage war. There is a great deal of discussion about when a war is just and unjust. That means there are just wars.

There is never a circumstance that justifies abortion. Since the time that governments around the world have sanctioned this evil it takes more lives worldwide in a single year than were lost in all the wars of the twentieth century put together.

God is patient, but He will not be mocked forever. Innocent blood cries to Him from our blood stained earth. Vote till the cows come home on all the issues you want. Babies are being tortured to death in the birth process in partial birth abortion in the land of government by the people. My priest gave me a penance a few weeks ago to pray for our society that the coming chastisement for all the evil we have embraced will not be too severe. Read the news. It is beginning.

 

[CradleCathy]

I’m confused.

“pro-life in the anti-abortion sense??”

Can you please be more specific? I am unfamiliar with the usage of your terminology here.

Sure, i’d be happy to.

And for those of you helping out before, NO APOLOGIZING! I need all the help I can get explaining myself!!

When I say I am “pro-life”, in MY head it means supporting the sanctity of life from the moment of conception to the moment of death - maybe even beyond. That would be anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-denial of care, anti-anything that would rob a person of dignity of life that is granted by God. But, I do realize that in our world OUTSIDE my head, others split these issues up, especially politians. So in voting dilemas, I often find myself having to “choose” which end of life is more important for me to protect with my vote. To me, I MUST protect the innocent unborn. To do so, if forced, I will compromise the death penalty issue in extreme cases. It isn’t what I believe, it doesn’t make me happy, but as we were discussing, sometimes you have to choose.

Did I make sense yet?