Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[LeafByNiggle]

Promoting the common good is a socialistic concept. The correct role of government is to protect individual rights. Protecting individual rights, by very definition, benefits society as a whole.

Your first two sentences are in direct conflict with paragraph 1898 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I will leave it to you to look it up. It is easy. Just google** Cathechism 1898 **and it will pop right up.

Also, you have a strange idea of what “by definition” means. There is a fundamental difference between a definition and a corollary, which is what you are claiming.

 

[Mulligan2]

So if in the future society passed a law legalizing rape or perhaps stoning of women “adulterers” then you would say, “we must not conflate Church teaching with a pluralistic society” and would not work to change the law?

Ishii

I’m not interested in tangential “what if” games. I’ll kindly refer you back to my previous post # 1369, which will answer your question.

 

[ishii]

I’m not interested in tangential “what if” games. I’ll kindly refer you back to my previous post # 1369, which will answer your question.

Okay. But isn’t abortion the violation of an individual’s rights? The unborn individual?

Ishii

 

[pnewton]

Republicans are mean and evil, and oppose charity (as defined as govt handouts) so naturally we can’t support them either, so he uses this logic as the excuse to vote for the rabidly pro abortion party. (that’s my best guess what it means)

Assume much? I probably do not vote for a Democrat more that one time out of fifty. I cannot remember the last time I voted for a Democrat for national office, though I do not always vote for the Republican.

It is begging the question to equate Democrats and abortion and then argue that one cannot vote for a Democrat because it is equated to abortion. That is the use of the phrase I meant.

 

[pnewton]

With all due respect, your above analogy is absurd, and is purely designed to distort.

In today’s GOP, microscopic cells are people, and corporations are people, yet women are not treated as rational people who are capable of making their own decisions.

This is not a GOP position. This position is the Catholic position. If it is hard to see the right to rape as an analogy, then consider the analogy of slavery. If some people consider black people to be less than a person, then it is a moral position that slavery should be legal, even if one is personally opposed to slavery, because people should have the right to choose if they want to own a slave? Pro-choice is logically pro-slavery, if one does not define what can and cannot be chosen. That is why it is clearer to call the plank in the Democratic Platform pro-abortion.

The primary role of government is protecting individual rights. Theft, rape, etc. are violations of one’s individual rights. Those laws are wholly appropriate. However, to use the coercive force of government to prevent women from determining their own reproductive freedom is a violation of their individual rights. That’s why the analogy the other poster used is absurd.

One person’s rights have always ended where another’s begin. No right is absolute to the point that one can do anything they want to another person.

 

[Path_Finder]

Okay. But isn’t abortion the violation of an individual’s rights? The unborn individual?

Ishii

Again, Abraham Lincoln had to deal with such a dilemma.

 

[Mulligan2]

This is not a GOP position. This position is the Catholic position. If it is hard to see the right to rape as an analogy, then consider the analogy of slavery. If some people consider black people to be less than a person, then it is a moral position that slavery should be legal, even if one is personally opposed to slavery, because people should have the right to choose if they want to own a slave? Pro-choice is logically pro-slavery, if one does not define what can and cannot be chosen. That is why it is clearer to call the plank in the Democratic Platform pro-abortion.

What??? Are you saying the Church was in favor of the Citizens United ruling?

One person’s rights have always ended where another’s begin. No right is absolute to the point that one can do anything they want to another person.

That is exactly my point.

 

[pnewton]

What??? Are you saying the Church was in favor of the Citizens United ruling?

Boy, that was a jump in topic. Of course I did not say that. Where in my post did you read that? I had to look up that ruling to even see what you mean. I see no connection with them to the definition of life, or when conception begins.

 

[Lapey]

With all due respect, your above analogy is absurd, and is purely designed to distort.

In today’s GOP, microscopic cells are people, and corporations are people, yet women are not treated as rational people who are capable of making their own decisions.

They are not making their own decisions, they are making decisions for other living beings created by God; they are called babies.

As far as the analogy being absurd? Is killing another human being illegal? Yes, it is called murder. The case you are making is the absurd case; allowing a woman to choose to kill another human being, to commit murder. It’s just that simple.

 

[Lapey]

What??? Are you saying the Church was in favor of the Citizens United ruling?

I got whip-lash on this one…??? You need to switch off of MSNBC for a little while.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

So otherwise, are you saying you would vote for the Democratic Party and for abortion?

No I am saying that no sincere Catholic can say that they love the unborn and vote for a baby murderer (i.e. Pro-Abortion) Republican candidate over a Pro-Life Democrat.

Now I would agree that there aren’t too many Pro-Life Democrats but that doesn’t remove the obligation to vote for life.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Here is part of the problem: the Democrat party is not worthy of the votes of Catholics.

In general I agree. I think there was a quote from Archbishop Chaput earlier in the thread that covered what he thought on voting for pro-choice candidates that sums it up well.

But not all Democrats are pro-choice.

There’s also another situation I came across on another website: the person–who lived in Massachusetts if I remember correctly–justified being a Democrat because at the local level often there weren’t any options but Democrats, and with Democrats being significantly more likely to be elected even if there were Republicans, they wanted to make a difference (however slight).

 

[BarbG]

I certainly haven’t read all of the responses to the question of whether or not Catholics can vote Democrat – for a LONG, LONG time I haven’t been able to figure out why Democrats are pro-choice (that is, killing a baby) – that is one of the main reason I’m a Republican and will remain a Republican unless the Democrats change their view on this subject – I always think this is killing a baby – and if a similar situation was about animals the Democrats would probably change their viewpoint!!!

 

[ishii]

In general I agree. I think there was a quote from Archbishop Chaput earlier in the thread that covered what he thought on voting for pro-choice candidates that sums it up well.

But not all Democrats are pro-choice.

There’s also another situation I came across on another website: the person–who lived in Massachusetts if I remember correctly–justified being a Democrat because at the local level often there weren’t any options but Democrats, and with Democrats being significantly more likely to be elected even if there were Republicans, they wanted to make a difference (however slight).

I don’t know. I live in a Democrat dominated area. There might be a few Republicans in the legislature (in fact the senate is controlled by the GOP). But even if there were “no other options” I would not vote for the Democrat. Perhaps the only way I could justify it is if there was a local cadre of pro-life (real pro-life) Democrats whose goal was to take over the state Democrat party or something. Then I might give them support. If the only candidates running were Democrats then I guess I’d pick the one that would do the least damage.

Ishii

 

[SuperLuigi]

I certainly haven’t read all of the responses to the question of whether or not Catholics can vote Democrat – for a LONG, LONG time I haven’t been able to figure out why Democrats are pro-choice (that is, killing a baby) – that is one of the main reason I’m a Republican and will remain a Republican unless the Democrats change their view on this subject – I always think this is killing a baby – and if a similar situation was about animals the Democrats would probably change their viewpoint!!!

The other issues we also have to consider are euthanasia, human cloning, embryonic stem cell research and I’ve even heard religious freedom.

 

[SuperLuigi]

But not all Democrats are pro-choice.

If it’s an even draw, I vote republican because democrats have been prone to having their arms twisted to vote for legislation they don’t seem to agree with.

 

[ishii]

If it’s an even draw, I vote republican because democrats have been prone to having their arms twisted to vote for legislation they don’t seem to agree with.

I would obviously like to see the Democrat party abandon its social liberalism. I don’t know if that is possible as the social liberalism (support for abortion rights/gay rights, etc) is kind of the logical extension of the secular left agenda which is naturally opposed to traditional religious values, religious authority, etc. (religious authority is a challenge to the authority of the state so naturally those who want the state to be the ultimate authority would hate the religious authority). The only religions that they would tolerate would be the ones which don’t challenge what the government does - such as the more liberal mainline protestant sects.

So unfortunately unless the Democrat party abandons its ties to secular leftism it probably won’t become pro-life or listen and consider the views of traditional religion. I do understand that old habits and old prejudices can be a huge factor in keeping many Catholics loyal to the Democrat party. It goes back to FDR and the New Deal. That loyalty and the views toward the GOP remind me of the joke about the Democrat who picked up the hitchhiker. (which you will have to look up on your own if you don’t know it).

Ishii

 

[Ridgerunner]

I do understand that old habits and old prejudices can be a huge factor in keeping many Catholics loyal to the Democrat party. It goes back to FDR and the New Deal.
Ishii

Longer ago than that. When my Irish ancestors came here, they were recruited by the Dem party by the political machines then running lots of the cities in the U.S.

What I don’t think people understand is that whatever gratitude one’s ancestors had for the Dem party of old should not determine their view of it presently. Right now, the party does nothing for the native poor. Illegal immigrants, yes, but only to whatever degree it takes to get them here and onto the various public support measures. But for the poor that were born here? No.

One of the biggest benefits the Democrat party of old conferred, was a job. If you got out the vote for Tom Pendergast, for example, you might get a job on the street crew in KC. Otherwise, you didn’t. But today, the party is a job killer and evidently satisfied to be one.

As to the disabled and to veterans? Well, I think we know about that so well it hardly requires mention.

 

[zz912]

I think what pnewton is saying is that a priori assuming that any vote for a Democrat is a vote for abortion is wrong (since that precludes any possibility of discussing “Can Catholics Vote Democrat?”), since there can be a pro-life Democrat. For instance, I think that Collin Peterson from Minnesota is a pro-life Democrat.

Are they pro-life when they vote into power the pro-abortion party? Of course not.

It is one thing to belong to and vote into power a party that is neutral on the issue, or does not take any measureable steps to promote abortion. It is entirely another to vote into power the party which promotes and pushes abortion at every opportunity. Mr. Peterson has done so. So his claim to be pro-life is false.

 

[CrossofChrist]

If it’s an even draw, I vote republican because democrats have been prone to having their arms twisted to vote for legislation they don’t seem to agree with.

Fair enough. But you don’t need to hold others to that standard (not saying you are) if the Democrat is also proven to stay true to their standards.