What I do is look to see how the candidates stand on intrinsic evils (abortion, euthanasia, etc). Then I go from there. Some filp/flop once they are in and it is frustrating because you voted for someone thinking they were against abortion, etc.I was wondering if it’s ok for Catholics to vote Democrat? I know that the Democrats are more in favor of abortion, but that doesn’t they don’t do other things that help our country. If anyone on here is Catholic and a Democrat what advice do you have?
I’m an Independent, but unfortunately third parties rarely get votes.
There were other choices; a vote for BO was not an option for a Catholic who has a fully and properly formed conscience to make without bringing sin upon Him/herself.My main concern in 2012 was that I agreed with Obama on 98% of issues. On the very few we disagreed with, I felt like Romney was a terrible comparison (such as abortion). So even if Mitt Romney would’ve instituted an extremely minor change in abortion law that barely affected anything, we’d be stuck with a fairly pro-abortion President for 8 years minimum (since 2016 would likely be Mitt Romney vs. a pro-abortion Democrat again). If Obama won, 2016 would not involve Mitt Romney. So we’d have 4 years of ever-so-slightly-worse policies at worst, even policies more likely, and then we’d have a real chance to institute change. I considered it actually more pro-life long-term to vote for someone who would only guarantee pro-abortion policies for 4 years than vote for someone who made us stuck with them for 8.
Um, wut? No, not at all. The political spectrum runs from total govt control/power on the far left, to no govt control/power on the far right. On the far left are communism/socialism/fascism/totalitarianism. On the far right is anarchy. Democracy is on the middle left, and constitutional republic is on the middle right.He said Hitler and Stalin, not two extreme leftists. Totalitarianism is a right-wing ideology.
So even in a fantasy hypothetical, where you know that McCain is still alive and healthy today (i.e. Palin would still be VP, not President), you STILL can’t abide by Church teaching. Sad. Your politics is controlling your faith, not the other way around.Maybe. Probably if he had picked someone other than Palin. I’m not sure I could put aside the risk of our country being attacked by Palin becoming President, as that would be a dire human life issue.
BAAL - the spirit of Queen Jezebel is alive and well.unreal!!
Sacrilege!!
They think they can pray to God to help them with the killing of His own creation.
Which “god” are they praying to? Obviously not the God who created the souls they are so eager to kill.
You said it best, a properly formed conscience should sense it…
To condone murder is the same as murder in the eyes of God.
Morally the choice you make for your body does not allow the choice to end the existence of the body within your body. The choice you make for yourself that ends the choice of the baby growing inside is morally reprehensible.On the differences between Obama and Romney, I agree with NARAL. I am a woman and I want to make choices regarding my body with my doctor. It is my right to decide/choose. I am part of the middle class. The women in Romney’s world are able to make choices about their bodies. When you have the money, you have access to doctors who “abide by your wishes”. That’s why you don’t see PP in Beverly HIlls. They don’t need it.
And finally, the overwhelming majority of Catholic women of child bearing age, use some form of contraception. I personally do not use contraception, but I would never support any man who would try to defund family planning services. I would not support a personhood bill. Women are not are brainless. We are smart, quite capable of making decisions about our own bodies and we vote.
Yes, I voted for Obama. I am one of them.
gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/Opposition to foreign aid (a direct human life issue), support for a very broad usage of the death penalty (a direct human life issue), budgetary policy, monetary policy, economic policy, opposition to AIDS funding in foreign countries (a direct human life issue), broad support for unjust wars, etc.
Pretty much the only parts that aren’t immoral are their views on diplomacy and social issues, but their diplomatic views are just bad. So you’d really be voting for an incompetent Party whose views are almost entirely either immoral or ill-advised merely because on the biggest issue of the day, they are correct.
Only being 2% right, even on such a huge issue, still makes one hesitant to support such a radical Party as the Republican Party.
The information which you have based this on is false. One can say something as many times as one wants but it won’t change reality. The difference between BO & MR were vast where abortion is concerned. To reject this is just wrong. Was MR a perfectly pro-life candidate? NO, however BO was and is the perfect pro-choice candidate; there are no abortion which he opposes.When your two choices are both pro abortion, as in the case of the 2012 Presidential election, it is, however, sufficient to vote your conscience on the other issues of human life that the Republican Party blatantly fails on.
Nobody said the Pope supported the war. he opposed it. What he did say was that a Catholic could support the war BUT NOT ABORTION OR EUTHANASIA. Those of us affirming Church teaching are good at finding quotes. It would be nice if those who dispute us would do the same. Here is the quote(again):Actually, I think it is very relevant. I would love to see the quotes of the Pope supporting the war. You guys are great at finding these quotes, so I look forward to reading them.
Again I refer you to the platform itself with the charge to find these direct supports of the evils you site. The intrinsic evils can be sited from the Democrat platform; they cannot be found in the Republican platform. That is just simple fact.Some Democrats oppose abortion. Some Democrats oppose SSM. Whoop-dee-do. All of the immoral things I listed are still enshrined in the Republican platform. We were talking about the immoralities of platforms, not individual candidates. The Republican platform is hideously immoral. And the death penalty, as discussed in the GOP platform, does violate the conditions under which the death penalty is restricted, and is therefore included in this immoral list.
But Republicans in Congress have attempted to override that authority, and the President appoints the FR Chairman.
Romney = pro-abortion in R & IThe Mormon church is pro-choice (in rape and incest). In order to be a eligible to go into the temple, a Mormon must tithe 10% of his/her income. I thought Romney was able to go into the temple.
I didn’t pay attention to what pro-abortion organizations said. I went by what the Mormon church said.
You are trying to convince yourself you are right, I feel for you quite dearly as my mother says many of the same things you are here.I mean…the Republican Party pretty much is consummate evil. It’s just a question of whether abortion overrides that (which I agree with, to a degree) and whether we have to shut off our intelligence regarding pro-abortion politicians just because they have a R next to their name. That seems to be a Party-line thing, not a Catholic thing. I support true pro-life politicians, not ones who don’t care about it and use it as a political wedge.
A perfect example of a person who follows an ill formed of not fully formed conscience.I completely agree.
If you replace “those who believe that it’s okay to vote for Democrats or Obama” with “many of those who believe that it’s okay to vote for Democrats or Obama”, I agree.
I do believe that many do not even pay attention to the abortion issue or think it’s not a big deal, and thus do not even weigh this issue against other grave moral reasons to vote or not to vote for a party or candidate.
Conversely, I also believe that many who vote Republican do not have a properly formed conscience and do not necessarily vote Republican for the morally right reasons. I am not suggesting that this holds for the majority of CAF posters here who vote Republican.
Have you found any bishops’ statements or interpretations from any of the members of the USCCB that go contrary to the many statements from same to refute our arguments by siting those who have commented/added on the statement of Faithful Citizenship?First, the options are not
A) Al Moritz’s
B) Bishops Farrell and Vann
but
A) the USCCB’s
B) Bishops Farrell and Vann’s particular interpretations that go beyond the text proper of the USCCB guide
I follow in my conscience the USCCB guidelines, but the formation of my conscience and the prudential judgments that I make based on it are only mine and not someone else’s.
Second, let me ask you a counter-question: if the particular interpretations of Bishops Farrell and Vann are binding for every Catholic in the USA, then why are they not explicitly included in the USCCB guide?
Do you think the USCCB guide is less strict and defining in its formulations than these two Bishops just in order to confuse, given that the text allegedly indeed needs further clarification by particular Bishops? Or do you think it is because the USCCB has judged the formulations to be just right for the individual Catholic to form their conscience acordingly, and no further clarifications that define the issues in a more strict manner are deemed to be needed and wanted? I have no reason not to believe the latter.
That Bishop Farrrell’s interpretation may be binding for you because he is your Bishop is a different matter.
And in the opinions of all the members of the magisterium which have been quoted here. You have not presented any quotes from anyone but Chesterton.…in your personal opinion.
Archbishop Chaput has explained that in such a situation were are NOT voting for the lesser of two evils. We are voting to lessen evil.Romney = pro-abortion in R & I
Obama = pro-abortion in R & I and every situation you can think of even his own daughters…“I would not PUNISH my girls by making them carry a baby…”
Do you understand the principle of “lessor of two evils”?
In what way did voting for Bush lessen evil? (hint: Iraq)Archbishop Chaput has explained that in such a situation were are NOT voting for the lesser of two evils. We are voting to lessen evil.
That is not the model generally used in PoliSci. It goes from government of the many on the left to government of the few on right. Anarchy is on the left because each person is their own authority.Um, wut? No, not at all. The political spectrum runs from total govt control/power on the far left, to no govt control/power on the far right. On the far left are communism/socialism/fascism/totalitarianism. On the far right is anarchy. Democracy is on the middle left, and constitutional republic is on the middle right.
I’m not sure where you got the idea that totalitarianism is right wing. It’s the polar opposite of right wing.
Please see post 798In what way did voting for Bush lessen evil? (hint: Iraq)
Ok, hair is split. I can live with that.Archbishop Chaput has explained that in such a situation were are NOT voting for the lesser of two evils. We are voting to lessen evil.
This insistance that anarchism is a right wing philosophy is one of the most bizarre things I’ve seen on here.That is not the model generally used in PoliSci. It goes from government of the many on the left to government of the few on right. Anarchy is on the left because each person is their own authority.