Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[shockerfan]

I sure hope so. When the Republican Party actually does something about abortion I will potentially change my mind.

One other thing: Voting for Democrat presidents ensures that pro-abortion rights judges get put on the Supreme Court, which make it very difficult for pro-life laws to stand.

 

[Rau]

It would be very interesting to think through what might happen if the law began to incrementally wind back the right to abortion. How would that play out? Would the community lead or follow the changes, or would there be serious civil unrest. Would the backyard abortion shops resurface in numbers…

I’m not so sure that politicians can lead the community away from abortion on demand until they are pretty sure that that is where the community wants to be led…

 

[_Abyssinia]

You may not agree with a candidate’s stance on abortion, but may agree with them on other issues - are those issues proportional enough to vote for them, given the candidate’s stance on abortion?

Bishop Robert J. Carlson:

If one had a properly formed conscience admitting the grave evil of abortion and euthanasia, as the Church teaches, and does not share a candidates stand in favor of abortion and euthanasia, but votes for the candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation which can be permitted, Cardinal Ratzinger states, if proportionate reasons are present, e.g., the candidate would limit abortions.

ewtn.com/library/bishops/informfa.htm

Archbishop John J. Myers:

What are ‘proportionate reasons’? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong . . . .

What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a “proportionate reason” to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation’s labs?

Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

jimmyakin.com/2004/09/archbishop_myer.html

Archbishop Burke:

The archbishop told a reporter that he believes Catholics could vote for a politician who supports abortion rights as long as that’s not the reason they are voting for the candidate, and they believe the politician’s stance on other moral issues outweighs the abortion issue.

“That is called remote material cooperation and if the reasons are really proportionate, and the person remains clear about his or her opposition to abortion, that can be done,” the archbishop told the Post-Dispatch.

“The sticking point is this - and this is the hard part,” Archbishop Burke was quoted as saying. "What is a proportionate reason to justify favoring the taking of an innocent, defenseless human life? And I just leave that to you as a question. That’s the question that has to be answered in your conscience. What is the proportionate reason?

One of the reasons the bishop did not discuss this point in June is because “it is difficult to imagine what that proportionate reason would be,” he said.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/archbishop_burke_to_clarify_stance_on_communion_in_upcoming_pastoral_letter

Fr Stephen F. Torraco:

Fr. Stephen F. Torraco, PhD., explains that “‘Proportionate reasons’ has a very specific meaning in Catholic moral teaching. A proportionate reason [to vote for pro-abortion candidates] would be the desire to avoid supporting an equally grave or graver intrinsic evil, and not just for any reason at all. An intrinsic evil is an evil that cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. So, for example, capital punishment is not a proportionate reason. A candidate’s stand on economic issues is not a proportionate reason.”

patriciabainbridge.blogspot.co.uk/2007/02/politics-of-distortion-and-confusion.html

George Weigel:

But the crucial questions – largely missing from press coverage of the cardinal’s letter – remain: When is this morally justifiable? What are the “proportionate reasons” that would lead a pro-life voter to conclude that a pro-abortion candidate’s unacceptable position on the life issues can, in effect, be bracketed?

I can imagine one such situation: when the choice is between two pro-abortion candidates, and a voter opts for the pro-abortion candidate of a pro-life party in order to keep that pro-life party in control of Congress. That was the case in my own Congressional district for years. But that is not the situation that Catholic voters face in the current presidential contest or in most Congressional races

eppc.org/publications/pubID.2177/pub_detail.asp

Fr Stephen F Torraco:

B]14. Is it a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate?

Except in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates (in which case, as explained in question 8 above, he or she strives to determine which of them would cause the let damage in this regard), a candidate that is pro-abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. This is because being pro-abortion cannot simply be placed alongside the candidate’s other positions on Medicare and unemployment, for example; and this is because abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally.

ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm

Bishop Ricken:

“A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program that contradicts fundamental contents of faith and morals.’ Intrinsicically evil actions are those which have an evil object. In other words, an act is evil by its very nature and to choose an action of this type puts one in grave moral danger. But what does this have to do with the election? Some candidates and one party have even chosen some of these as their party’s or their personal election platform. To vote for someone in favor of these positions means that you could be morally ‘complicit’ with these choices which are intrinsically evil. This could put your own soul in jeopardy”

greenbaypressgazette.com/assets/pdf/U01963741026.PDF

 

[_Abyssinia]

If a candidate is pro-choice, you may not agree with a candidate’s stance on abortion, but may agree with them on other issues - are those issues proportionate enough to vote for them, if they are pro-choice?

Bishop Robert J. Carlson:

If one had a properly formed conscience admitting the grave evil of abortion and euthanasia, as the Church teaches, and does not share a candidates stand in favor of abortion and euthanasia, but votes for the candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation which can be permitted, Cardinal Ratzinger states, if proportionate reasons are present, e.g., the candidate would limit abortions.

ewtn.com/library/bishops/informfa.htm

Archbishop John J. Myers:

What are ‘proportionate reasons’? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong . . . .

What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a “proportionate reason” to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation’s labs?

Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

jimmyakin.com/2004/09/archbishop_myer.html

Archbishop Burke:

The archbishop told a reporter that he believes Catholics could vote for a politician who supports abortion rights as long as that’s not the reason they are voting for the candidate, and they believe the politician’s stance on other moral issues outweighs the abortion issue.

“That is called remote material cooperation and if the reasons are really proportionate, and the person remains clear about his or her opposition to abortion, that can be done,” the archbishop told the Post-Dispatch.

“The sticking point is this - and this is the hard part,” Archbishop Burke was quoted as saying. "What is a proportionate reason to justify favoring the taking of an innocent, defenseless human life? And I just leave that to you as a question. That’s the question that has to be answered in your conscience. What is the proportionate reason?

One of the reasons the bishop did not discuss this point in June is because “it is difficult to imagine what that proportionate reason would be,” he said.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/archbishop_burke_to_clarify_stance_on_communion_in_upcoming_pastoral_letter

Fr Stephen F. Torraco:

Fr. Stephen F. Torraco, PhD., explains that “‘Proportionate reasons’ has a very specific meaning in Catholic moral teaching. A proportionate reason [to vote for pro-abortion candidates] would be the desire to avoid supporting an equally grave or graver intrinsic evil, and not just for any reason at all. An intrinsic evil is an evil that cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. So, for example, capital punishment is not a proportionate reason. A candidate’s stand on economic issues is not a proportionate reason.”

patriciabainbridge.blogspot.co.uk/2007/02/politics-of-distortion-and-confusion.html

George Weigel:

But the crucial questions – largely missing from press coverage of the cardinal’s letter – remain: When is this morally justifiable? What are the “proportionate reasons” that would lead a pro-life voter to conclude that a pro-abortion candidate’s unacceptable position on the life issues can, in effect, be bracketed?

I can imagine one such situation: when the choice is between two pro-abortion candidates, and a voter opts for the pro-abortion candidate of a pro-life party in order to keep that pro-life party in control of Congress. That was the case in my own Congressional district for years. But that is not the situation that Catholic voters face in the current presidential contest or in most Congressional races

eppc.org/publications/pubID.2177/pub_detail.asp

Fr Stephen F Torraco:

14. Is it a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate?

Except in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates (in which case, as explained in question 8 above, he or she strives to determine which of them would cause the let damage in this regard), a candidate that is pro-abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. This is because being pro-abortion cannot simply be placed alongside the candidate’s other positions on Medicare and unemployment, for example; and this is because abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally.

ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm

 

[Mark121359]

If a candidate is pro-choice, you may not agree with a candidate’s stance on abortion, but may agree with them on other issues - are those issues proportionate enough to vote for them, if they are pro-choice?

Bishop Robert J. Carlson:
If one had a properly formed conscience admitting the grave evil of abortion and euthanasia, as the Church teaches, and does not share a candidates stand in favor of abortion and euthanasia, but votes for the candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation which can be permitted, Cardinal Ratzinger states, if proportionate reasons are present, e.g., the candidate would limit abortions.

ewtn.com/library/bishops/informfa.htm

Archbishop John J. Myers:
What are ‘proportionate reasons’? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong . . . .

What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a “proportionate reason” to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation’s labs?

Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

jimmyakin.com/2004/09/archbishop_myer.html

Archbishop Burke:
The archbishop told a reporter that he believes Catholics could vote for a politician who supports abortion rights as long as that’s not the reason they are voting for the candidate, and they believe the politician’s stance on other moral issues outweighs the abortion issue.

“That is called remote material cooperation and if the reasons are really proportionate, and the person remains clear about his or her opposition to abortion, that can be done,” the archbishop told the Post-Dispatch.

“The sticking point is this - and this is the hard part,” Archbishop Burke was quoted as saying. "What is a proportionate reason to justify favoring the taking of an innocent, defenseless human life? And I just leave that to you as a question. That’s the question that has to be answered in your conscience. What is the proportionate reason?

One of the reasons the bishop did not discuss this point in June is because “it is difficult to imagine what that proportionate reason would be,” he said.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/archbishop_burke_to_clarify_stance_on_communion_in_upcoming_pastoral_letter

Fr Stephen F. Torraco:
Fr. Stephen F. Torraco, PhD., explains that “‘Proportionate reasons’ has a very specific meaning in Catholic moral teaching. A proportionate reason [to vote for pro-abortion candidates] would be the desire to avoid supporting an equally grave or graver intrinsic evil, and not just for any reason at all. An intrinsic evil is an evil that cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. So, for example, capital punishment is not a proportionate reason. A candidate’s stand on economic issues is not a proportionate reason.”

patriciabainbridge.blogspot.co.uk/2007/02/politics-of-distortion-and-confusion.html

George Weigel:
But the crucial questions – largely missing from press coverage of the cardinal’s letter – remain: When is this morally justifiable? What are the “proportionate reasons” that would lead a pro-life voter to conclude that a pro-abortion candidate’s unacceptable position on the life issues can, in effect, be bracketed?

I can imagine one such situation: when the choice is between two pro-abortion candidates, and a voter opts for the pro-abortion candidate of a pro-life party in order to keep that pro-life party in control of Congress. That was the case in my own Congressional district for years. But that is not the situation that Catholic voters face in the current presidential contest or in most Congressional races

eppc.org/publications/pubID.2177/pub_detail.asp

Fr Stephen F Torraco:
14. Is it a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate?

Except in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates (in which case, as explained in question 8 above, he or she strives to determine which of them would cause the let damage in this regard), a candidate that is pro-abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. This is because being pro-abortion cannot simply be placed alongside the candidate’s other positions on Medicare and unemployment, for example; and this is because abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally.

ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm

It all seems so perfectly clear doesn’t it?..And yet, time after time Catholics on here trot out the same excuses to defend their reasons to vote for Democrats. It gets to the point to where you have to say; what else can be possibly said to dissuade you from knowingly casting your vote for one of them? It’s beyond my comprehension to say the least.

Peace, Mark

 

[smichhertz]

Hi all,

I absolutely agree that both political parties fail to accurately represent Catholic morality and give a nod to all users who have correctly pointed that out.

However, to put anything on the same scale as something that slaughters 4k innocent lives a day is just, quite frankly, impossible. I do strongly support pro-life Democrats, and would even vote for them if I were given the opportunity. But I cannot, and will not in good conscience vote for a candidate that supports abortion. I would vote third party if the two major candidates were both pro-choice.

That’s not to say I’m in love with the Republican party. I find it very hard at times to vote for their candidate and I have big problems with some of the things going on in the party right now. Sometimes, I find myself much more in agreement with the Democrats than the Republicans. But all it takes is one story about a woman who had an abortion, or one picture of an aborted “product of conception” to remind me why I cannot support pro-choice politicians.

As to those of you who are Catholic and do vote pro-choice - my heart goes out to you. I really don’t mean any judgement, as I can certainly understand how hard it is to stomach voting for some of the things the Republicans stand for, but I urge you to truly open your heart to the possibility and prayerfully discern.

So, in short - Catholics can vote Democrat, but Catholics shouldn’t vote pro-choice. I usually vote Republican because I’ll always support the pro-life candidate.

All the best and God bless!

 

[Sy_Noe]

I voted for Clinton in 92, 96, Nader in 2000, Kerry 2004 Obama 2008 and 2012

Crow, you voted just like me except I had planned on Nader but changed my mind as I was on my way to the polling place because I didn’t want to help Bush by taking away a vote from Gore. But oh well as it turned out Gore still would have won the popular vote if I hadn’t changed my mind.

 

[ishii]

Crow, you voted just like me except I had planned on Nader but changed my mind as I was on my way to the polling place because I didn’t want to help Bush by taking away a vote from Gore. But oh well as it turned out Gore still would have won the popular vote if I hadn’t changed my mind.

If one is pro-life, then they would not vote for pro-abortion candidates. The candidates you listed above are/were all pro-abortion. If the issue is not important to a voter, at least in the interest of clarity and transparency, one ought to state as such instead of masquerading as a pro-life person.

Ishii

 

[dmar198]

Crow, you voted just like me except I had planned on Nader but changed my mind as I was on my way to the polling place because I didn’t want to help Bush by taking away a vote from Gore. But oh well as it turned out Gore still would have won the popular vote if I hadn’t changed my mind.

Don’t you think allowing abortion is a graver evil than all the other issues in America? If it isn’t, which one or what combination is more serious than allowing abortion? And if you agree that abortion is the murder of a million people per year, then how do you justify voting for people who support that? Isn’t that like voting for Nazis?

 

[mary_bobo]

It all seems so perfectly clear doesn’t it?..And yet, time after time Catholics on here trot out the same excuses to defend their reasons to vote for Democrats. It gets to the point to where you have to say; what else can be possibly said to dissuade you from knowingly casting your vote for one of them? It’s beyond my comprehension to say the least.

Peace, Mark

I agree. It really boggles my mind when posters say they can’t support the GOP on anything, but if you ask them specifically what they don’t agree with, they have a hard time coming up with something that is fact. And as far as voting for a pro-life Democrat, it has been my observance that they quickly change when the party leaders get hold of them in DC. They mean well, but that don’t seem to be able to withstand party pressure.

 

[Mark121359]

Don’t you think allowing abortion is a graver evil than all the other issues in America? If it isn’t, which one or what combination is more serious than allowing abortion?

A soon to be Saint seems to agree with this!..

“America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts – a child – as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters”
And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being’s entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign." ~Blessed Mother Teresa~

"But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love, and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even his life to love us. So the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love - that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion. " ~Blessed Mother Teresa~

Peace, Mark

 

[Sy_Noe]

Jesus is not a registered Republican? Thanks for that newsflash… You can vote for anyone you want, just understand the following: if you vote Democrat, you help aggrandize the party which is overwhelmingly in favor of killing the unborn, re-defining marriage, forcing Catholic groups to violate their conscience, and supporting the secular left agenda. If you are okay with that, have at it. But please do not make the mistake that you are in line with Catholic teaching.

Ishii

I don’t make the mistake one way or the other as to whether my voting is in line with your church’s teaching or not. Seems to me Catholics themselves don’t agree on voting. Yes I’m okay overall with my voting choices though or else I wouldn’t cast my ballots as I do. But thank you too for the newsflash that in America, people, secular or persons of faith, are still free to vote for anyone they want.

 

[estesbob]

I don’t make the mistake one way or the other as to whether my voting is in line with your church’s teaching or not. Seems to me Catholics themselves don’t agree on voting. Yes I’m okay overall with my voting choices though or else I wouldn’t cast my ballots as I do. But thank you too for the newsflash that in America, people, secular or persons of faith, are still free to vote for anyone they want.

So what did Obama propose that would mitigate his support of unrestrcited taxpayer funded abortion on demand?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Don’t you think allowing abortion is a graver evil than all the other issues in America? If it isn’t, which one or what combination is more serious than allowing abortion? And if you agree that abortion is the murder of a million people per year, then how do you justify voting for people who support that? Isn’t that like voting for Nazis?

The problem with making every political decision based only on the most serious issue is that no consideration is left for the second, third, and fourth most serious issues, not to mention the 50th, 51st, etc. You don’t run your personal life that way, do you? Do you spend every waking minute working for the pro-life cause? Or do you occasionally cut your lawn or even find time to go to a movie? In the same way, one can spend some of his political capital on issues besides abortion, even if those issues are less serious than abortion.

 

[estesbob]

The problem with making every political decision based only on the most serious problem is that no consideration is left for the second, third, and fourth most serious issues, not to mention the 50th, 51st, etc. You don’t run your personal life that way, do you? Do you spend every waking minute working for the pro-life cause? Or do you occasionally cut your lawn or even find time to go to a movie? In the same way, one can spend some of his political capital on issues besides abortion, even if those issues are less serious than abortion.

The problem is too many people do not realize that without the right to life all other rights are meaningless.

 

[MJE]

Today’s Democrat Party, under the leadership of B. Obama, has a Catholic problem.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

I voted for Clinton in 92, 96, Nader in 2000, Kerry 2004 Obama 2008 and 2012

Curious to know that you voted for Nader in 2000 and not Gore? I remember watching Paul Begala on the CNN show Crossfire at the time and he would always say, “If you’re voting for Ralph Nader, you’re voting for George Bush.”

 

[dmar198]

The problem with making every political decision based only on the most serious issue is that no consideration is left for the second, third, and fourth most serious issues, not to mention the 50th, 51st, etc.

I think you can consider other serious issues while still treating abortion as a litmus test. As an example, consider the Nazis: what would you say if someone told you that you should support the Nazis because if you don’t, you’re only considering the most serious issue about them and not the second through fifty-first issues that they did some good stuff on? I would tell him that anyone who wants to legalize genocide has lost my vote. But that’s exactly what pro-abortion Democrats do, except instead of ethnic killing it’s baby killing.

You don’t run your personal life that way, do you? Do you spend every waking minute working for the pro-life cause?

No, but if I was in Nazi Germany, I would probably not spend every waking moment working for the anti-Nazi cause either (to the point where I wouldn’t even “waste time” mowing my lawn, for example). But I don’t think I would vote for a Nazi. That’s where I think the heart of this voting for Democrats issue is: if people thought that the Democrats were equivalent to the Nazis (except when they are pro-life), then I think they would stop voting for them. Do you think they are not as bad as the Nazis, or do you think you would vote for a Nazi so long as you could bracket off the killing the Jews thing?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I’ve taken the position years ago that it’s dangerous to align your faith with a political party of the left or right. They’ll always let you down.

I look at the individual candidates and try to vote for the one who is the best candidate, while also holding to moral principles.

Unfortunately the past 14 year years, it’s been nearly impossible to find such candidates.

I’ll even choose not to vote for either candidate if need be.

The bottom line is to stay Christ Centered.

Politicians and their pendents will do what they do, and it’s rare that it’s in line with Christian principles.

Jim

 

[ishii]

I don’t make the mistake one way or the other as to whether my voting is in line with your church’s teaching or not. Seems to me Catholics themselves don’t agree on voting. Yes I’m okay overall with my voting choices though or else I wouldn’t cast my ballots as I do. But thank you too for the newsflash that in America, people, secular or persons of faith, are still free to vote for anyone they want.

Oh, I’m sorry. Was my post not clear? I was saying that if one votes for pro-abortion Democrats with impunity, then they will have a hard time calling themselves pro-life. Is it fair to say that if one is okay with voting for pro-abortion candidates then they are okay with abortion? I am just trying to be clear. People come on these forums and post things - I just want others to know where they are coming from and not be fooled into thinking that its okay to vote for pro-abortion candidates. I prefer clarity to agreement. I would rather know where someone is coming from on an issue than be unclear. With that said, perhaps you can state where you are coming from - so there is no confusion.

Ishii