Can a Catholic be Democrat?

[MNathaniel]

I’m going to answer this question with a direct, up-to-date quote (spoken this past Saturday February 8th 2020) from the current frontrunner for Democratic candidate for USA president, Bernie Sanders:

“I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat… when we talk about what a Democrat is, being pro-choice is essential to that vision.… If you’re asking me – and I think I may be wrong on this – I think in the Senate, probably 95 percent of the Democrats are pro-choice, the other few are not. In the House, maybe even a higher percentage… so that’s kind of what my view is.”

This was following a ‘Tweet’ Sanders posted the same day, publicly, online, in which he stated his intent if he or another Democrat becomes president:

"We have got to codify Roe v. Wade into law and significantly expand funding for Planned Parenthood."

So, acknowledge what you’re voting for here. And please consider voting for a party that doesn’t actively expand mass-baby-murder; you’re free to then continue working to politically pressure the other party (in this case Republicans) to adjust their views on other things you care about, like unions and high taxes. I think you’ll find it’s easier to talk Republicans into supporting unions and taxes than to talk Democrats into supporting the human right to life. (I’m talking in practice, not rhetoric about “Well I personally wouldn’t kill a baby… so that’s supporting human life, right? What, you want me to criminalize murder? Extremist. Can’t do that.”) Democrats have gone full-blown, calling-evil-good extremist here, to the point of several viable candidates expressing a commitment to change the laws to permit post-birth baby-killing. We might wish we could ignore that (because we also care about other issues), but I don’t think we can, in good conscience.

No joke, please also ask yourself what you’d do if we were back in slave-owning times and one of the parties wanted to abolish slavery (but was anti-union and anti-taxes), while the other wanted to expand slavery (but was pro-union and pro-taxes). Would you really prioritize the union and tax thing over the raw human rights issue of slavery? And directly murdering human children is a similarly raw human rights issue. Yes, we can all keep fighting for other social changes too… But I’m going to start with protecting the human rights to life and freedom, so that the humans even exist and are free in the first place, to start enjoy the hypothetical benefits of unions and redistributed taxes.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I remember what health care costs were before Obamacare.
They were out of control.
Each six months or so, they were asking for more money for health insurance.
Had the GOP voted to appeal Obamacare, we now would have literally nothing. Why? Because the GOP can’t agree on a replacement play, except for nothing.

I am not persuaded. Obamacare was helpful to some, detrimental to others. Any small business person can tell you it became far more difficult or impossible to pay for a good healthcare plan for employees when Obamacare went through. I’m one of them. I used to pay 100% of the premium for my employees under a small business group plan. They’re beyond affordable now, so I quit doing it.

My son makes too much to qualify for subsidies and his insurance is blisteringly high priced. But some people pay nothing at all for silver policies. People are subsidized all the way up to $80,000 annual income for a family of four. But it’s cold comfort when those approaching the top have all kinds of mandated coverages to pay for that they wouldn’t otherwise buy.

Basically, Obamacare is a plan that increased the Medicaid rolls and subsidized one segment of the middle class at the cost of another segment of the middle class. The truly poor and the truly rich were unaffected or nearly so.

 

[PetraG]

So, acknowledge what you’re voting for here.

Just to clarify:
I’m saying that it would be OK for a Catholic (in a “blue area,” for instance, but anywhere, really) to register as a Democrat in order to vote in Democratic primaries AND I noted that Bernie Sanders is beyond-the-pale both in his contention that it is impossible to be both pro-life and a Democrat (not to mention his obnoxious litmus test that openly excludes Christians who could believe and say out loud that someone could be condemned to Hell for rejecting the Gospel).

You can register for any party you like. When it comes to voting for actual candidates or campaigning for actual policies, though, you are duty-bound to vote with the priority that puts serious matters of conscience such as actual protection of life over less-serious matters such as the tax structure.

CCC 2245 The Church, because of her commission and competence, is not to be confused in any way with the political community. She is both the sign and the safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person. “The Church respects and encourages the political freedom and responsibility of the citizen.” (Gaudium et spes 76 § 3)

CCC 2246 It is a part of the Church’s mission “to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it. The means, the only means, she may use are those which are in accord with the Gospel and the welfare of all men according to the diversity of times and circumstances.” (Gaudium et spes 76 § 5)

The Church is not going to say that a Catholic may not be a Democrat. The Church would say, rather, that a Catholic who is registered as a Democrat (or with any other party) is still duty-bound to vote with a conscience that has been correctly formed by Catholic moral teaching to the best of the Catholic voter’s ability. A Catholic may not put the good of some political party or political program ahead of the necessity to use only moral means in the pursuit of just ends.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The abortion rate now is about what it was before Roe v Wade passed. In other words, when abortion was illegal, there weren’t fewer abortions per capita than now:

If it’s true, the aging population alone would explain a significant reduction. You have to remember that in the late sixties and early seventies, the major bulge of the baby boomers were in their most fertile years. Now, they’re all superannuated. People who can’t get pregnant dont get abortions.

 

[PetraG]

I am not persuaded. Obamacare was helpful to some, detrimental to others.

I think it was put in as a not-very-good first try that voters would want to have replaced but wouldn’t allow to have eliminated. I think Barack Obama deliberately made that calculation. After one President after another has tried and failing to do anything substantial to reform health care coverage since at least Nixon, I find it hard to blame him. It really is not a teneable long-term system, though.

I rail about Donald Trump not having a beautiful plan that covers everybody, but honestly, I wish he had. I don’t care who does it, and if he were able to pull it off, good for him. It wouldn’t make it OK that he makes stuff up out of whole cloth, but on the other hand his fondness for exaggeration doesn’t erase any good thing he or his Administration accomplishes, either.

I think if Trump had a plan that covered everybody or even one that covers as many as Obamacare did, McCain would have voted in favor of it. I really do.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Trump’s Food Stamp Cuts Will Be Devastating to Trump Country

Just as doubtful as that the Dems ever do anything for the poor. The Trump changes are simply to go back to the Clinton restrictions; that to qualify as a person who has no dependent children, is not disabled, and is able-bodied, one must work, be seeking work or taking vocational training.
Clinton thought that was reasonable. So does Trump and so do I.

But that’s not to say either party is generous with the truly poor, because they’re not. The last thing done for the truly poor was the Earned Income Credit, and that was Reagan’s.

 

[PetraG]

If it’s true, the aging population alone would explain a significant reduction. You have to remember that in the late sixties and early seventies, the major bulge of the baby boomers were in their most fertile years. Now, they’re all superannuated. People who can’t get pregnant dont get abortions.

The lifetime fertility per woman has gone down. The total fertility rate per woman was 7.0 in 1800, 2.06 in 1940, and 3.58 in 1960. It hit a low of 1.77 in 1980, went as high as 2.06 in 2010, and is back to about 1.78 now.

It does not suprise me that it is lower the higher a couple’s income is, since people who get more education tend to marry later in life, rather than marrying early in their reproductive years. Both married and unmarried people report having sexual relations less often. So yes, having sex less often and at an older age is going to bring down the overall pregnancy rate.

I don’t know about you, but I think that promiscuity generally was somewhat attenuated when AIDS came though, too. If Magic Johnson can get AIDS, well, anybody who watches ESPN notices that.

But that’s not to say either party is generous with the truly poor, because they’re not. The last thing done for the truly poor was the Earned Income Credit, and that was Reagan’s.

I have a lot of sympathy for anyone who argues that the intention of helping the poor is not at all the same as actually helping the poor. It is a complicated problem. The poor require some material generousity, they’re not going to magically "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” as the letter of James puts it, but that does not mean that throwing money in their general direction is necessarily going to improve their lot in a month or a year. This means that it must be moral to object to proposed social programs on the premise that they have been examined and their probable effectiveness is deemed questionable.

 

[Ridgerunner]

One of the problems, I think, with any healthcare plan is that nobody proposes reforming healthcare. It’s always about what entity, other than the patient, pays for it. As one doctor quipped to me, part of the reason healthcare is so expensive and incomprehensible is that everybody works so hard to make somebody else pay for it.

But nobody proposes anything to actually reduce the cost or make delivery more efficient. Well, sometimes at the margin it happens. In my state, for example, the administration came up with a plan to require that all persons utilizing subsidized mental health care must confer with their case manager before going to the ER. The case manager then takes the patient to an NP who is certified in both psych and family medicine. If the NP can deal with the problem (which might be either one) she/he prescribes whatever is needed or makes the appropriate referral. It actually does greatly cut down on ER use.

Such a simple thing, pre-screening by a qualified NP or PA before costing the state a thousand dollars for ER (under Medicaid). People with good health insurance or Medicare should be required to do the same thing. NPs and PAs should be able to have their own practices. I think they can in two or three states, where they deal with most routine care at far lower cost. Yes, physician clinics use them, but the clinics charge as much for them as for the physicians.

Medicare should be means-tested. Why should a millionaire get a drug for $10 when a working person has to pay $60 or more for the same thing?

And self-pay should be greater. There are some Amish around here. They go to the doctor like anybody else, but they pay in greenbacks. They request a discount and get it, because all the clerk has to do is drop it in the drawer and give them a receipt instead of doing the paperwork to bill an insurer or the government.

I could go on, but I won’t.

 

[JSRG]

No joke, please also ask yourself what you’d do if we were back in slave-owning times and one of the parties wanted to abolish slavery (but was anti-union and anti-taxes), while the other wanted to expand slavery (but was pro-union and pro-taxes). Would you really prioritize the union and tax thing over the raw human rights issue of slavery?

Honestly, it doesn’t really matter much if a party wanted to abolish slavery–it wasn’t going to happen, at least not via regular politics. The whole reason they managed to abolish it was because after the war the southern states weren’t really in much of a position to refuse passing the Thirteenth Amendment.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have a lot of sympathy for anyone who argues that the intention of helping the poor is not at all the same as actually helping the poor. It is a complicated problem. The poor require some material generousity, they’re not going to magically "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” as the letter of James puts it, but that does not mean that throwing money in their general direction is necessarily going to improve their lot in a month or a year. This means that it must be moral to object to proposed social programs on the premise that they have been examined and their probable effectiveness is deemed questionable.

I agree with you.

I’ll add this. 20% or more of the people in this country are Catholic. That’s a lot. And Catholics as a group are not the wealthiest, but they’re right next to it. However, Catholics aren’t very charitable when it comes to donating to Catholic entities. I think the leadership crisis in the American Church is largely responsible for that, and for the lack of charitable works that 20% of the population could certainly affect dramatically.

Look around in any city. You’ll see largely abandoned major charitable works of long ago. Buildings that were once orphanages or homes for unwed mothers or adoption agencies or nearly-free schools for working people. Massive undertakings. Hospitals that would treat for free if they couldn’t afford it. They’re all just private businesses now, or government-funded social work enterprises, and the former Catholic hospital CEOs and their CFOs make millions. We’re told the problem is that there’s no more free labor by nuns, brothers or priests due to the lack of vocations. But to me, all of that is of a piece. Where bishops emphasize and support vocations, they don’t lack for them. Where they don’t, no vocations.

But even if vocations did not increase, Catholics have plenty of money. Here where I live, Catholic Charities of Southern Missouri has not a single religious in the whole organization. And yet, it carries on admirable projects and operates a home for women in danger of abortion and is contracting for another. And it’s financed in two ways. First, donations. Second, to aid in that process, our Republican legislature allows a 50% tax credit for donations to “birthing homes”. So, other than the tax credit, no public money is involved.

20% of the population. A tremendous potential. And yet, when we see so many bishops urging “charity” it’s to increase government programs that probably will never happen anyway, precisely because neither political party actually cares for the poor.

 

[MNathaniel]

Agree with what you’ve said here

Sorry if I missed anything that’s already been discussed here. This is an enormous thread and I haven’t read through it all. Just jumped in and gave my own little answer to the initial thread-starting question.

Agree though that it’s so important to avoid conflating the Catholic Church as being inherently ‘for’ or ‘against’ any political party, per se. I just also think sometimes people go way too far down the “Well, it’s nuanced…” path, to the point where they really do talk themselves into voting for people who vocally commit to killing children, when there’s a viable alternative. And privately I do think the Democrat party at this time has gone so deep into the hole on this, that for pragmatic purposes I don’t see how it’s possible to justly vote for almost any of the current Democratic candidates potentially on a ticket. But yes, your CCC citations are important and I agree with them. I just also think that when someone comes out and asks a question like the OP did (and says they’re weighing their agreement with Democrats on unions and taxes against the abortion question), I think it’s important to bring attention back to the reality of what the concrete Democrats approaching concrete political power plan to concretely do with that power, with regards to the abortion question.

 

[MNathaniel]

Actually I agree with you here: it matters whether we’re weighing symbolic gestures or concrete actions.

I think on the abortion question though, both sides agree that concrete action is at stake in both directions. It is possible to cut funding to Planned Parenthood and overturn Roe v. Wade (as the Republicans have done and express desiring to do, and have been appointing judges potentially more inclined to do), and it is also possible to (as Sanders explicitly calls for) “codify Roe v. Wade into law and significantly expand funding for planned parenthood.”

So the question of voting for pro/anti-abortion parties is not as ‘symbolic’ as a slavery hypothetical might have been. Actual outcomes can be shifted, depending on who takes political power and appoints the judges, and I assume that’s why both sides are getting so animated about this.

 

[1cthlctrth]

Another good thing is that we have a Republican President who appears to be good on the environment.

United States Led Entire World In Reducing CO2 Emissions In 2019 | The Daily Wire

…“a fall of 140 Mt, or 2.9%, to 4.8 Gt,” The International Energy Agency (IEA) reported on Tuesday. “US emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period.”
The IEA noted that 80% of the increase in CO2 emissions came from Asia and that China and India both contributed significantly to the increase.

 

[PetraG]

Agree with what you’ve said here

Sorry if I missed anything that’s already been discussed here. This is an enormous thread and I haven’t read through it all. Just jumped in and gave my own little answer to the initial thread-starting question.

Agree though that it’s so important to avoid conflating the Catholic Church as being inherently ‘for’ or ‘against’ any political party, per se. I just also think sometimes people go way too far down the “Well, it’s nuanced…” path, to the point where they really do talk themselves into voting for people who vocally commit to killing children, when there’s a viable alternative. And privately I do think the Democrat party at this time has gone so deep into the hole on this, that for pragmatic purposes I don’t see how it’s possible to justly vote for almost any of the current Democratic candidates potentially on a ticket. But yes, your CCC citations are important and I agree with them. I just also think that when someone comes out and asks a question like the OP did (and says they’re weighing their agreement with Democrats on unions and taxes against the abortion question), I think it’s important to bring attention back to the reality of what the concrete Democrats approaching concrete political power plan to concretely do with that power, with regards to the abortion question.

No matter what party you are in, I think you still have the duty to (a) vote your conscience even if it means voting across party lines and (b) pressuring your party when they are abandoning what you see as basic human morality.

I don’t see it as “imposing morality” when people frankly advocate for their moral code in the public square. I think that Catholics have a moral responsibility to advocate for what they believe is moral (which one hopes comes from a correctly-formed conscience) and I think it is a double-standard to tell others who have what we may see as not correctly-formed conscience that they have to be quiet. I think correct morality is something people who aren’t religious can see and accept. I don’t accept them telling me that my morals are not acceptable in politics because I am religious, and so I think it is only fair to accept that they will vote and speak and reason based on their morals even though they are not religious. Theirs have a different philosophical basis, but that is something we have to accept in a pluralistic society. Of course, it is on me to explain why the morals of the Catholic Church (aka my morals) make sense even from their philosophical standpoint, but I don’t think that is impossible to do. I think this because I don’t think Catholic morals are impossible to understand without the gift of faith, let alone some arbitrary standard placed on us by God that has nothing to do with how we tick as human beings. (Contrast this with ritual obligations or the obligations of Christian communion, for example, whose necessity could understandably require the gift of faith to understand and accept.)

 

[PetraG]

What has President Trump done that could be remotely taken to have resulted in lowering CO2 emissions? (I mean that honestly. All I am aware of is relaxation of rules, but I can’t keep track of everything.)

It isn’t as if a Democratic in office would get credit if they did everything possible to increase access to abortion and yet the abortion rate dropped, right? That does not compute. It really is necessary to use the same yardstick in both cases.

 

[Ridgerunner]

What has President Trump done that could be remotely taken to have resulted in lowering CO2 emissions? (I mean that honestly. All I am aware of is relaxation of rules, but I can’t keep track of everything.)

It isn’t as if a Democratic in office would get credit if they did everything possible to increase access to abortion and yet the abortion rate dropped, right? That does not compute. It really is necessary to use the same yardstick in both cases.

I’m guessing the reduction in emissions is secondary to Trump’s actual purpose, which was to encourage development of petroleum resources, including natural gas. The increase in use of natural gas instead of oil or coal has resulted in emission reduction. There are probably other, minor contributors, but the change to natural gas nationwide has been massive.

It is, therefore, not the same yardstick as with a reduction in abortion, which the Dems have done nothing to achieve, even as a secondary effect.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

You have all the GOP talking points down.
But the fact of the matter is that Americans pay more for prescription drugs, medical procedures, hospital stays, etc. than do people in most of the other major industrialized countries, including England, France, Germany, Japan, etc.
And the quality of care in these countries is second to none.
As for Obamacare, it needs to be tweaked, not eliminated. Why? Because the health care industry wants to keep cost up.
Before Obamacare, the cost for health care was spiraling out of control. Now, at least the costs have stabilized. Is it perfect, no. But rather than through the baby out with the bath water, it would be smarted to fix what is wrong.
The bottom line on this conversation is that the Democrats have tried and are trying to improve health care. The Republicans just want to gripe about what is wrong with it. They have answers for making it better. Back when Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and his highness Donald Trump tried to dump ObamaCare, they had no plan for replacing it. They just wanted to repeal it.

 

[PetraG]

As for Obamacare, it needs to be tweaked, not eliminated. Why? Because the health care industry wants to keep cost up.

This is a reason to use a cobbled-together jerry-rigged system that really doesn’t work that well for anybody? Nothing against the effort, but it is another layer of jerry-rigging, it really is. I don’t think anybody who got it enacting thinks otherwise.

Nobody would ever invent our health care system. In a way, it is barely a system. It is a state of things, but it isn’t a system. There isn’t even really a “health care industry” in some organized sense. No, it is first of all working on people’s health, which isn’t some product outside of them, like a car. It is what people do, what they eat, what they think, how they feel and even how and what they breathe and whether or not some of us will be here tomorrow or not. It is not just personal experience, but epidemiology, reproduction, parental rights, you name it: even identity! Secondly, it is an evolving art in terms of deciding what treatment works to treat a patient who has not only functional issues to deal with but emotional and sociological issues and so on, issues that can be communicable, all of which directly impact health. Thirdly, it is a legal matter, not just in the sense of having to do with malpractice and litigation and insurance, but also with regards to communication of information, personal decision-making, privacy, and so on.

Health care is by its nature is one of the most complex fields in existence, and the way we go about seeing to and paying for the health needs of the populace is just a made-up-as-we-went-along mishmash.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

And what exactly did the GOP do? You remember the first two years of the Trump administration. The Republicans held control of the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate?
Instead of passing any meaningful legislation, they chose to dole out a big tax cut for the millionaire and billionaire class. Because we all know that they were struggling to be able to purchase that next yacht or villa, right?

 

[steve-b]

I respectfully disagree.
Having watched Donald Trump operate for nearly four years, I can say without a doubt that I can vote for a Democrat.

When the opportunity is there, to choose between life and death, blessings and curses, we must choose blessings and life, NOT death and curses…

Trump is the most pro life president we’ve had in the previous 44 presidents in the office. And it’s not just talk, it’s action. His judges he appointed, are ALL pro life. That legacy will be his long after he has left office.