Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[SuperLuigi]

Allowing the murder of babies and elderly to save the environment is selfish. In this situation, you are condoning evil in a attempt to save the world.

If anyone believes that government can save the environment, they ought to take a good, hard look at what Third-World dictatorships and socialist/communist wannabes have done.

It’s not pretty.

 

[SuperLuigi]

You stated this far better than this former Democrat could. Thanks!

Post 394 should be framed.

:yeah_me:

 

[Dawnia]

But not saving it makes the whole point of opposing abortion a moot one, would it not?

What do you realistically think an individual US politician could do about global warming? It is a global issue, not something that can be controlled within our borders. You have to be realistic about what powers politicans actually have when making decisions who to vote for.

 

[MJE]

thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/25/470967/gop-school-lunch-cuts/

House Republicans recently proposed cuts to nutrition assistance that will kick 280,000 low-income children off automatic enrollment in the Free School Lunch and Breakfast Program. Those same kids and 1.5 million other people will also lose their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly food stamp benefits) that help them afford food at home.

Well, limiting the ability of some kids to eat school lunches.

I answered a bombastic and silly post with one.

Very defensive of the GOP eh?

The myth of food stamp spending cuts
By Mike Rosen
. . . . . .
Here are the facts.
You decide whether glibly throwing around terms like “slash,” “mean-spirited” or “morally monstrous” is anything less than partisan, theatrical hyperbole.
Just 14 years ago, in 2000, the food stamp program covered 17 million Americans at an annual cost of around $18 billion. Today, there are 48 million recipients at a cost of $78 billion.
In the 10-year-period from 2003 to 2012, food stamp spending was $462 billion. The initial GOP bill in the House would have spent $725 billion for food stamps over the 10 years from 2014 to 2023. Senate Democrats wanted to spend $764 billion over that period.
The difference between both of these increases since the preceding decade, $39 billion, is what Democrats and their liberal-media-echo-chamber round up to a "$40 million cut." (This is baseline budgeting deceit / lie promoted by the Democrats and their friends in the press. )
Contributing to the recent surge in food stamp spending were relaxed eligibility requirements and the increase in maximum monthly benefits in President Obama’s 2009 unbudgeted $800 billion “stimulus” program.
The Congressional Budget Office, assuming modest economic growth, projects the population of food stamp recipients to decline from 48 million today to 34 million by 2023, which is precisely why food stamp spending should follow that downward trend.
In the final version of the farm bill agreed upon by Senate Democrats and House Republicans, that $39 billion GOP “cut” (in fact, a reduction in the increase) is now only $8 billion out of $764 billion over 10 years, which is a mere 1 percent less than the Democrats’ opening bid.
Speaking of left-wing demagogues, Democrat Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York — described by the National Journal as the House’s most liberal member — had this to say about that paltry “cut” of $8 billion: “Republicans just want people to starve and it’s disgusting.”
denverpost.com/opinion/ci_25235239/myth-food-stamp-spending-cuts

Never believe a liberal when discussing cuts in federal spending, particularly when it pertains to starving the poor and other cruelties.

 

[ringil]

*“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,” *

*“You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone,” *

Cardinal Burke

Pope Francis has stated that there are not “negotiable” and “non-negotiable” issues.

Burke does not speak for the Church.

The USCCB document on voting would be a more appropriate reference for those Catholics seeking to form their consciences regarding voting.

 

[tomarin]

What do you realistically think an individual US politician could do about global warming? It is a global issue, not something that can be controlled within our borders. You have to be realistic about what powers politicans actually have when making decisions who to vote for.

Couldn’t someone say the same thing about abortion though?

 

[tomarin]

*“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,” *

*“You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone,” *

Cardinal Burke

Even if you believed (however mistakenly) that the pro-life party embraced policies that threatened the future of human civilization?

 

[Suudy]

Even if you believed (however mistakenly) that the pro-life party embraced policies that threatened the future of human civilization?

There is a distinction I think.

Are those policies embraced with the intent of threatening the future of human civilization? I don’t know of a single politician opposed to environmental regulations that specifically desire that pollution, global warning, etc be the intended end. But pro-“choice” politicians certainly support abortion precisely with the intent of women being able to kill their unborn children.

 

[Dawnia]

Couldn’t someone say the same thing about abortion though?

Abortion is completely within the power of our government to control within our borders. Depending on the position of the politician, the amount of power they have changes, but they still have the power to affect an outcome. The more politicians that agree increases that power.

Even 100% agreement of all US politicians at all levels would not be enough to have any real impact on global warming, because we cannot control what other countries do. We can control our water quality, our air quality, etc., which is completely different than trying to control something so abstract as global warming.

Better to get involved in politics long before you get to the point of choosing the lesser of two evils and vote in candidates who will protect life and the environment. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. The Repubs have been doing this for the past few years in regards to abortion. If you want people who will actually make efforts to fix things and not just play lip service, you have to get involved early on.

 

[estesbob]

Pope Francis has stated that there are not “negotiable” and “non-negotiable” issues.

Burke does not speak for the Church.

The USCCB document on voting would be a more appropriate reference for those Catholics seeking to form their consciences regarding voting.

If you can find a member of the magisterium who supports your personal interpretation of the CC or the USCCB document please post it.

 

[Ender]

Pope Francis has stated that there are not “negotiable” and “non-negotiable” issues.

Can you provide a citation here?

Burke does not speak for the Church.

The USCCB document on voting would be a more appropriate reference for those Catholics seeking to form their consciences regarding voting.

If Cardinal Burke, who is Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura (which is the highest judicial authority in the church), does not “speak for the Church” it is surely true that the USCCB does not. The USCCB has no official teaching office; their pronouncements are nothing more than the opinions of those in the departments that create them. In fact, regarding their “Faithful Citizenship” document which purportedly addressed this very issue, they wrote it in such a way as to confirm everyone who reads it that it supports their personal inclinations no matter what they are.

Ender

 

[Al_Moritz]

Pope Francis has stated that there are not “negotiable” and “non-negotiable” issues.

Burke does not speak for the Church.

The USCCB document on voting would be a more appropriate reference for those Catholics seeking to form their consciences regarding voting.

But I guess some black-and-white thinkers cannot stomach the deliberate and necessary nuance of the USCCB document.

 

[ringil]

Can you provide a citation here?
If Cardinal Burke, who is Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura (which is the highest judicial authority in the church), does not “speak for the Church” it is surely true that the USCCB does not. The USCCB has no official teaching office; their pronouncements are nothing more than the opinions of departments that create them. In fact, regarding their “Faithful Citizenship” document which purportedly addressed this very issue, they wrote it in such a way as to confirm everyone who reads it that it supports their personal inclinations no matter what they are.

Ender

In other words you prefer the phrasing of Burke to that of the USCCB and so would advocate that folks look to his paragraph to form their voting choices.

 

[mary_bobo]

The name for the type of budgeting used by federal gov’t is Baseline Budgeting. Some people call it a scam. It started in the 1970’s. The Democrats love it because they can accuse their political opponents of starving poor people and hating the marginalized. Many Democrats on CAF repeat the lie and justify their voting to help the poor and marginalized.
Baseline Budgeting example: (this example is all over the internet)
A fed. agency is spending $250 billion per year and using baseline budgeting is slated for an automatic increase to $275 billion for the next year. The Republicans in Congress counter with an increase to $262 billion for this program. $275 billion minus $262 billion
equals $13 billion. Now there will be a $13 billion increase in this program.The Democrats call press conferences and town hall meetings telling everyone, including the non-questioning press, that the nasty Republicans want to cut the
XXX program for the poor by billions. There is no cut in the spending either way. In reality the program will grow by $12 billion with the Republican proposal.
THERE IS NEVER A CUT IN ACTUAL SPENDING ONLY A CUT IN THE PROJECTED RATE OF GROWTH.
Informed voters know this but the Democrats, w/ their cooperative press repeating the lie,
get another low-information-voter to cast their ballot for them.

You have explained it well. But many of our liberal friends will continue to parrot this nonsense to justify their pro-abortion votes. They will twist what the GOP stands for to further their own cause and this given example is just one of the ways they do it. There are low-information voters and then there are those who willfully accept whatever they hear that allows them to live as they wish.

 

[estesbob]

But I guess some black-and-white thinkers cannot stomach the deliberate and necessary nuance of the USCCB document.

If your personal interpretation of the document is correct you should have no problem finding a member of the Magisterium who agrees with you. I have posted direct quotes from A Bishop, a Cardinal and the Pope Emeritus. All I have received in reply is opinions

 

[Dawnia]

Can you provide a citation here?
If Cardinal Burke, who is Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura (which is the highest judicial authority in the church), does not “speak for the Church” it is surely true that the USCCB does not. The USCCB has no official teaching office; their pronouncements are nothing more than the opinions of those in the departments that create them. In fact, regarding their “Faithful Citizenship” document which purportedly addressed this very issue, they wrote it in such a way as to confirm everyone who reads it that it supports their personal inclinations no matter what they are.

Ender

All values are non-negotiable, Pope says in new interview

 

[Ender]

In other words you prefer the phrasing of Burke to that of the USCCB and so would advocate that folks look to his paragraph to form their voting choices.

I questioned your assertion that Burke does not speak for the church, which actually may be true, but pointed out that he has a better claim on that point than does the USCCB…which has none at all. I also asserted that the Faithful Citizenship document which addresses this question is in my opinion an abdication of the responsibility of the bishops to actually provide guidance.

Ender

 

[_Abyssinia]

Pope Francis has stated that there are not “negotiable” and “non-negotiable” issues.

Burke does not speak for the Church.

The USCCB document on voting would be a more appropriate reference for those Catholics seeking to form their consciences regarding voting.

Joint Statement from Bishop Kevin Farrell and Bishop Kevin Vann

1. Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, in paragraphs 34-37, addresses the question of whether it is morally permissible for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil — even when the voter does not agree with the candidate’s position on that evil. The only moral possibilities for a Catholic to be able to vote in good conscience for a candidate who supports this intrinsic evil are the following:

a. If both candidates running for office support abortion or “abortion rights,” a Catholic would be forced to then look at the other important issues and through their vote try to limit the evil done; or,

b. If another intrinsic evil outweighs the evil of abortion. While this is sound moral reasoning, there are no “truly grave moral” or `proportionate " reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year.

To vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion or “abortion rights” when there is a morally acceptable alternative would be to cooperate in the evil — and, therefore, morally impermissible.

 

[estesbob]

I do not see how a Catholic could, in conscience, vote for an individual expressing him or herself as favoring abortion.” (John Cardinal O’Connor)

What could ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the direct murder of the innocent? This is precisely what we are dealing with here. Whether inflicted upon the mother or upon the child, it is against the precept of God and the law of nature: ‘Thou shalt not kill*.’ *" Pope Pius XI commenting on abortion in his encyclical on Christian Marriage 1930-DEC-31. 1

---

It is not licit, even for the gravest reasons to do evil so that good may follow there from, that is, to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disordered, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well being…directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons [is] to be absolutely excluded." 8

Pope Paul VI

 

[_Abyssinia]

Pope Francis has stated that there are not “negotiable” and “non-negotiable” issues.

Burke does not speak for the Church.

The USCCB document on voting would be a more appropriate reference for those Catholics seeking to form their consciences regarding voting.

Joint Statement from Bishop Kevin Farrell and Bishop Kevin Vann

1. Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, in paragraphs 34-37, addresses the question of whether it is morally permissible for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil — even when the voter does not agree with the candidate’s position on that evil. The only moral possibilities for a Catholic to be able to vote in good conscience for a candidate who supports this intrinsic evil are the following:

a. If both candidates running for office support abortion or “abortion rights,” a Catholic would be forced to then look at the other important issues and through their vote try to limit the evil done; or,

b. If another intrinsic evil outweighs the evil of abortion. While this is sound moral reasoning, there are no “truly grave moral” or `proportionate " reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year.

To vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion or “abortion rights” when there is a morally acceptable alternative would be to cooperate in the evil — and, therefore, morally impermissible.

Bishop Robert F. Vasa of Baker, Ore., in a column for the Oct. 21 issue of the Catholic Sentinel diocesan newspaper, warned against what he said were mistaken interpretations of the U.S. bishops’ 2007 document, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.”

“The document does not say, for instance, that it is just fine to vote for a pro-abortion candidate as long as one votes for that candidate only because of his or her stand on other important social issues,” he wrote. “Casting a vote, even for reasons other than the candidate’s pro-abortion position, is still casting a vote for the preservation of ‘a legal system which violates the basic right to life.’”

He compared support for a candidate who supports keeping abortion legal to backing a candidate who vows to institute a program of genocide against a minority group or “an aggressive program of torture to root out crime, violence and terrorism in this country.”
“Just as a vote for a genocidal maniac is a vote for genocide and a vote for the avowed torturer is a vote for torture … so a vote for a promoter of abortion, when there is another less evil alternative, is a vote for abortion,” Bishop Vasa said.

nzcatholic.org.nz/2008/10/31/american-bishops-address-abortion-election-in-columns-statements