Being Catholic and Voting

[mapleoak]

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

Whoa, aren’t we a little testy?

Whenever giving suggestions on political issues and such, it is always a good idea to rank the plight of unborn baby at the top of the list. Just a plug for the little ones. Hope you understand.

 

[mapleoak]

It is not easy, and there is no right answer.

Certain candidates can most definitely the wrong answer however. Such would be the case with a candidate who is pro-choice.

 

[drafdog]

You make the common American mistake of voting for a person. The best way to place a vote is to view the platforms of the various parties represented on the ballot and vote for the party whose *overall *platform best represents what you want for government policy. In doing this you must take into account the fact that these policies will apply to all Americans and not just to yourself. Remember, too, that a vote for something less than perfect is better than no vote at all.
On the other hand it has been shown that change is best accomplished from within the power structure than by attempting to impose change from without. Thus it is better that you join a political party and become a member of the committee that establishes the policy platform. This places you in a very powerful position vis a vis your personal beliefs and agendas.
Vote the party, not the person.

Matthew

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

Well, I guess you have a point, most don’t advertise their insanity up front, but I do believe that one this season is rather continuing to rattle the sabre. That is enough for me, given the last 8 years of pure unadulterated misery.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

You make the common American mistake of voting for a person. The best way to place a vote is to view the platforms of the various parties represented on the ballot and vote for the party whose *overall *platform best represents what you want for government policy. In doing this you must take into account the fact that these policies will apply to all Americans and not just to yourself. Remember, too, that a vote for something less than perfect is better than no vote at all.
On the other hand it has been shown that change is best accomplished from within the power structure than by attempting to impose change from without. Thus it is better that you join a political party and become a member of the committee that establishes the policy platform. This places you in a very powerful position vis a vis your personal beliefs and agendas.
Vote the party, not the person.

Matthew

The person represents the party, and the person can go against the party line as some candidates have. So, voting for the party does not always work and you have too look at the person.

 

[drafdog]

The object of the exercise is to put a majority of the party you want in the legislature. Even if an individual member deviates from the ranks, the possibility of legislation matching your attitudes is higher if you vote for the party than if you vote for the person. Single issue voting is self defeating by and large.

Matthew

 

[Verisimilitude]

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.

This will be my seventh.

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

There is an intersection about every 20 feet on the road of life.

1. 
   ]I am a Conservative and a registered Independent*- The current two-Party system is a problem as it excludes people like you. Find a candidate that respects 3rd or Independant groups. I know of one.**
   ]I believe in natural birth and natural death*- there are a couple of candidates that agree with you here. I know of one.**
   ]I think abortion is abominable and reprehensible*- there are a couple of candidates that agree with you here. I know of one.**
   ]I think the government should help support those who need help*- define help. Should the government force money from you to help others? What if you need help? Instead of relying on the government we should rely on Churchs and each other.**
   ]I think that there should be a limit to the help-* It reminds me of being a little bit pregnant when defining that limit. **
   ]I am not sure about the Iraq war*- What is unclear to you? I suggest voting against it.**
   ]I am against big business and factory farms*- there is one candidate that agrees with you here.**
   ]I am pro-family*- All claim it, some live it. I know of one that lives it. **

1. 
   

   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?

   I think we have an obligation to vote. I think that obligation also includes maintaining your convictions and not just voting for the media selected front runners if you find them distatstefull. The concept of having to vote for the lesser of evils is abhorant just to vote. Write in a candidate if you must. Write in your own name if you feel like it.
   
   When people tell me they like someone but that someone is unelectable so they will vote for another person because of no other reason than that person has a better chance of winning or not vote at all is almost funny. It is however sad.
   
   We are fighting two wars right now to give people a chance to vote in free democratic elections in Afghanistan and Iraq. They vote with proud purple fingers many religious leaders into their government to rule them, and some in the West applaud it as a major success. We are barely allowed to discuss political and religious ideology of the candidates here but must not mention them by name if we do. God forbid we apply any specific public religious context and comemnts to our political candidates because of the mythical separation of Church and State ‘law’ has made the reasonable. rational and required subject of religion taboo.
   
   A confussed and hamstrung electorate is to the benefit of all but the electorate. Do your best.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, I guess you have a point, most don’t advertise their insanity up front, but I do believe that one this season is rather continuing to rattle the sabre. That is enough for me, given the last 8 years of pure unadulterated misery.

And that justifies a vote for abortion?

Once again, I ask the simple question, “Given two candidates, one of whom espouses the pro-life position, albeit imperfectly, and the other espouses the pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?”

 

[buffalo]

Life issues trump quality of life issues and war is subject to prudential judgement.

 

[vz71]

Once again, I ask the simple question, “Given two candidates, one of whom espouses the pro-life position, albeit imperfectly, and the other espouses the pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?”

Given only the information you provide here…no.

But they will certainly try to justify otherwise.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Given only the information you provide here…no.

But they will certainly try to justify otherwise.

Indeed they will – if they have to tie themselves in knots to do it.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Whoa, aren’t we a little testy?

Whenever giving suggestions on political issues and such, it is always a good idea to rank the plight of unborn baby at the top of the list. Just a plug for the little ones. Hope you understand.

Simply because I find it absurd for anyone to renumber someone else’s priorities. They are your priorities and do not carry some gifted status simply because you uttered them. People are entitled by their very personhood to reach their own conclusions however much this dismays you.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Certain candidates can most definitely the wrong answer however. Such would be the case with a candidate who is pro-choice.

Again, that of course is your opinion. I do not follow the CAF list because I believe it is incorrect and has not been adopted by the USCCB as accurate either. In fact the USCCB forbids its use by parishes in this country. I do not believe that there are some magical short list of non-negociables. There is a very long list of non-negociables and we are urged to follow them all, not just 5.

Ironically, the Evangelical movement is in the process of attempting to broaden its stance on issues, and get away from this exclusive adherence to only the issues of abortion and gay rights, as the only real issues. That can leave you with only the extreme Hagee types as your bedfellows in this agenda.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

And that justifies a vote for abortion?

Once again, I ask the simple question, “Given two candidates, one of whom espouses the pro-life position, albeit imperfectly, and the other espouses the pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?”

Simple answer: Yep

 

[vern_humphrey]

Simply because I find it absurd for anyone to renumber someone else’s priorities. They are your priorities and do not carry some gifted status simply because you uttered them. People are entitled by their very personhood to reach their own conclusions however much this dismays you.

Sam says, "I think the most important aids to riding are, in order,

1. Bridle.
2. Bit.
3. Stirrups."

And Fred replies, "I think the most important aids to riding are, in order,

1. Bridle.
2. Stirrups.
3. Bit."

And SpiritMeadow, eyes flashing with indignation, says, “I find it absurd for anyone to renumber someone else’s priorities. They are your priorities and do not carry some gifted status simply because you uttered them. People are entitled by their very personhood to reach their own conclusions however much this dismays you”

 

[vern_humphrey]

Simple answer: Yep

Given two candidates, one of whom espouses the anti-lynching position, albeit imperfectly, and the other espouses the pro-lyniching position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

 

[SoCalRC]

What I find interesting is that there is a simple answer, from the mother Church. Written by our current pope and approved by our last:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning…
**

The problem isn’t that it is complex, the problem is that it is broad. The document goes on to list 9 broad principles on which we should not compromise. That is a pretty tough fit in US politics, so we see things like the CAF voting guide. It’s 5 principles fully overlap only 2 of the Vatican’s list, with the remaining 3 just partially touching on 2 more.

But, when you purge, say, our obligations towards a socially just economy, it becomes easier to justify a particular vote. One need only convince themselves that what Jesus said is not important, or at least not as important as something else. It’s not like Gospel is from the Greek for Good News…

But this sort of selective elevation is also touched on in the document:

In this context “limiting the harm”], it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.

This incoherence can be seen in something as fundemental as abortion. When one elevates abortion to special status, to the point where other attacks on the inalienable right to life (which we, as Catholics, cannot be abridged by state or man) are tolerated, then the Catholic teaching on which our stance on abortion is based is, itself, undermined. That is, we believe that human life is infinitely precious at “every stage” and in “every condition”. Elevating a particular stage to special status is a rejection of that belief. Further, the use of moral relativism to justify the elevation (sheer numbers, etc.) is a rejection of another fundemental dogma - that each human life is infinitely valuable because we are each a unique creation by God who can, and does, love us each infinitely.

This leads to the ironic condition of people professing to be ‘more Catholic’ or ‘more Christian’ because they reject different core Catholic/Christian beliefs than others. Perhas that is why Jesus, who spoke for the ages, repeatedly warned us about making relative moral comparisons between ourselves and others…

 

[SoCalRC]

Given two candidates, one of whom espouses the anti-lynching position, albeit imperfectly, and the other espouses the pro-lyniching position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

If the Catholic trusts in God and truly follows his/her faith, then he/she will vote for neither. Attacks on the inalienable rights of the human person are inviolate in our faith. Compromise in any fashion is complicency in evil.

The argument to do so is earthly, we can vote for almost anyone, but we convince ourselves that earthly constructs, like political parties, are the true path to ‘power’. But the Bible is clear, the only true power is God. So any perceived gain in using evil for even laudable aims, is transitory and false. Ultimately, this world is fleeting and we have to answer to God.

Remember, when you compromise with evil, you have already lost. Look at the GOP. By collapsing faith to a miniscule litmus test and compromising with grave evils, it appears that many Christians have squandered their political voice for perhaps a generation - all for zero progress on the issues that they claim concerned them to begin with.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If the Catholic trusts in God and truly follows his/her faith, then he/she will vote for neither. Attacks on the inalienable rights of the human person are inviolate in our faith. Compromise in any fashion is complicency in evil.

So the Church is wrong when it says we have a duty to protect those in danger?

We should just sit back and let the KKK do it’s work?

The argument to do so is earthly, we can vote for almost anyone, but we convince ourselves that earthly constructs, like political parties, are the true path to ‘power’.

Who’s “we?” Do you have someone else other than yourself who seeks the true path to “power?”

But the Bible is clear, the only true power is God. So any perceived gain in using evil for even laudable aims, is transitory and false. Ultimately, this world is fleeting and we have to answer to God.

Voting pro-choice is evil?:whacky:

Remember, when you compromise with evil, you have already lost. Look at the GOP. By collapsing faith to a miniscule litmus test and compromising with grave evils, it appears that many Christians have squandered their political voice for perhaps a generation - all for zero progress on the issues that they claim concerned them to begin with.

You clearly have little understanding of politics.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

CAF issued a voting guide?
How did I miss that?