Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[ishii]

To the OP - the short answer is YES.

Theoretically yes, if certain conditions are met - such as the candidate is pro-life. I don’t know if any worthy Democrat candidates at the national level. And the ones at the local level who don’t take a position on the issue generally fall in line with the Democrat pro-abortion orthodoxy once they compete for national office or for congress. Therefore I would conclude its not right to vote for even local Democrats until the party itself renounces abortion and becomes pro-life. They do not deserve the votes of any Catholic interested in the sanctity of life.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

That isn’t an accurate comparison. When you need to put someone in charge of your children, are you focused on whether they are good with kids or a sexual preditor? When you put someone in charge of your money, are you focused on whether that person is good at math or that they are a convicted embezzeler?

Some issues are just more important than others when picking people in charge.

Well said. Some issues are so morally grave that they pre-empt the other issues. Democrat catholics love to use the “I’m not a single issue voter” excuse for voting for pro-abortion Democrats all the time. It is their favorite excuse. But what if the candidate was a white supremacist but “good on all the other issues” ? ? You can bet that the liberal Democrat would never support the racists candidate - because it would disqualify them. Not so with abortion - because deep down, they don’t really care about it. Its just another issue, along side the pet issues: environmental policy, school lunches for needy kids, unemployment benefits and free contraceptives for needy law school students attending elite schools.

Ishii

 

[Miss_Felicity]

Well said. Some issues are so morally grave that they pre-empt the other issues. Democrat catholics love to use the “I’m not a single issue voter” excuse for voting for pro-abortion Democrats all the time. It is their favorite excuse. But what if the candidate was a white supremacist but “good on all the other issues” ? ? You can bet that the liberal Democrat would never support the racists candidate - because it would disqualify them. Not so with abortion - because deep down, they don’t really care about it. Its just another issue, along side the pet issues: environmental policy, school lunches for needy kids, unemployment benefits and free contraceptives for needy law school students attending elite schools.

Ishii

I don’t think thats necessarily fair. I’ve voted along the spectrum in local and national elections and when I say I’m not a single issue voter, I truly mean that. I am one of those people who care deeply about pro life causes but I also care deeply about a lot of causes and I weigh those when I go to the polls. Also as a moderate I get my share of animosity from left and right.

 

[estesbob]

I don’t think thats necessarily fair. I’ve voted along the spectrum in local and national elections and when I say I’m not a single issue voter, I truly mean that. I am one of those people who care deeply about pro life causes but I also care deeply about a lot of causes and I weigh those when I go to the polls. Also as a moderate I get my share of animosity from left and right.

So what issues or combination of issues can mitigate a candidate’s support of abortion?

 

[Morwenna]

Well said. Some issues are so morally grave that they pre-empt the other issues. Democrat catholics love to use the “I’m not a single issue voter” excuse for voting for pro-abortion Democrats all the time. It is their favorite excuse. But what if the candidate was a white supremacist but “good on all the other issues” ? ? You can bet that the liberal Democrat would never support the racists candidate - because it would disqualify them.

Ishii

Bingo!

:clapping:

 

[JimG]

Casting a vote may not take much time, but it does use up some of your voting capital. Why is it wrong to spend some of your voting capital on a less-important end but OK to spend some your personal time capital on less-important pursuits?

Because, for pretty much the same reasons outlined by Ridgerunner in post #66, I can’t spend any voting capital on a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil. My view is that doing so will do harm to society. As we have seen over the past several decades, it has already done so.

 

[Rau]

So what issues or combination of issues can mitigate a candidate’s support of abortion?

Realistically, I don’t think any issues can.

But I imagine there are many US voters who take the (admittedly/potentially self-defeating) view that:

• The dems won’t/can’t make the matter worse;
• The Repubs won’t/can’t make the matter better.

So the issue is rendered moot, and they vote on the basis of other factors.

 

[estesbob]

Realistically, I don’t think any issues can.

But I imagine there are many US voters who take the (admittedly/potentially self-defeating) view that:

• The dems won’t/can’t make the matter worse;
• The Repubs won’t/can’t make the matter better.

So the issue is rendered moot, and they vote on the basis of other factors.

Supporting abortion does not happen in a vacuum.A person who supports abortion is so morally flawed they should not be trusted in any position of leadership.

 

[shockerfan]

So the issue is rendered moot, and they vote on the basis of other factors.

Thus the challenge…we must continue to impress upon the democrat Catholics that because the president chooses the Supreme Court justices, their vote for a pro-abortion rights presidential candidate is a defacto vote for abortion themselves.

 

[Miss_Felicity]

So what issues or combination of issues can mitigate a candidate’s support of abortion?

ah ah ah, not mitigate, no. I weigh a candidates voting record on a number of issues, Education is important to me, social programs, job creation, a lot of factors go into who gets my vote.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I honestly don’t see how a Catholic or any Christian can support either political party, given how evil and corrupt they have become. I think that for a lot of Christians, their political party IS their religion, and that is unfortunate. If we, as Christians, demanded that our representatives acted justly and according to the Truth we profess, this country would be a very different place. That being said, it is certainly reasonable for a Catholic to select an individual candidate if he or she feels that person is the best possible (or the least horrible) choice available.

Yes, this is it exactly. I personally feel that voting Republican this fall is really important for a variety of reasons but I am not wed to the party. It would be a tough argument to defend voting Democrat right now. I believe it’s in the best interest of the country to have a Republican controlled Senate and House. But to be honest, I am kind of holding my nose to do it.

 

[adawgj]

Yes, this is it exactly. I personally feel that voting Republican this fall is really important for a variety of reasons but I am not wed to the party. It would be a tough argument to defend voting Democrat right now. I believe it’s in the best interest of the country to have a Republican controlled Senate and House. But to be honest, I am kind of holding my nose to do it.

Agree with you there. I might caucus with the Republicans this election. I just wish there wasn’t a big partisanship.

 

[ishii]

ah ah ah, not mitigate, no. I weigh a candidates voting record on a number of issues, Education is important to me, social programs, job creation, a lot of factors go into who gets my vote.

So if a candidate was pro-abortion but great on “education” social programs, etc. - all those issues that are important to you - then you’d overlook their pro-abortion stance? Can you give a specific example in which you’d vote for a pro-abortion candidate because you like their stands on other issues?

Ishii

 

[ManOnFire]

I think it’s more of a conservative vs. liberal issue. Republicans are generally more conservative and Democrats more liberal. Which one is more in line with Church teaching from a Preventative standpoint?

The victims of liberal behaviors are more likely to be drug addicts, single mothers from the inner city, gang violence due to not growing up with a loving father at home, etc. Democrat voters feel good by thinking that “more money” is somehow going to cure the above issues, but “more money” Fails to prevent the Root Causes for these victims of liberal behaviors. Only conservative biblical behaviors a la “the lily white suburbs” can keep kids and families innocent long enough to preserve the type of true love that serves as a role model to last from generation to generation. .

The “problem” is that the agnostic illuminati who run the unelected media culture, academics, and politics are tired of people believing and behaving according to the apparent will of a god for which there is no proof of existence that lead to more world overpopulation. Their remedy is to promote a hedonistic Nietske-esque “love of self” which causes more materialism, more self-interest, less marriage, and less nuclear families. Unmarried women who don’t use foolproof birth control or abortion will be “punished with a baby” to quote our Chief. It’s natural for Dems to feel they are helping, but they are actually neglecting to address the Root Causes of the issues. I don’t think they realize they are voting to expand these issues by putting more liberals in power. It’s great if you agree that the world is becoming overpopulated and you don’t believe in God, but the topic of the thread is the issue here. The promotion of Materialism has been most effective because it’s easy to see that single moms need financial aid, but few want to blame all the selfish hedonism and lack of true romance in the music, movies, and TV for guiding us in this direction. Research has shown that people become what they experience. Even Huffington Post recently criticized Facebook for experimenting with altering behaviors of users. Understanding these issues will help to end the bickering and misunderstanding, just don’t expect the illuminati to admit it. See things for what they really are. We are being divided in to Believers and Non-Believers.

 

[Suudy]

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.

I suggest reading C.S. Lewis’s “First and Second Things.” From it:
You can’t get second things by putting them first. You get second things only by putting first things first.

 

[estesbob]

ah ah ah, not mitigate, no. I weigh a candidates voting record on a number of issues, Education is important to me, social programs, job creation, a lot of factors go into who gets my vote.

What good do these programs do for those denied the right to life? Would you really vote for a pro abortion candidate because he was for increased spending on education and other social programs??

 

[freeRadical]

What good do these programs do for those denied the right to life? Would you really vote for a pro abortion candidate because he was for increased spending on education and other social programs??

I don’t understand why the federal government spends any money on education. I don’t think most people realize that the federal government spends very little money on education, compared to the rest of the things they spend money on. Most education is funded locally by property taxes. Why should federal taxes go toward education? It makes no sense for somewhere in California to pay taxes to educate someone in New York.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

That’s a very good point by estesbob: I’ll phrase just a bit differently:

Those denied the right to life are denied the right to participate in our society.

The right to life is fundamental as is the corollary right to defend that life. All other rights and privileges we have begin with this one.

Hence what good are our programs when there are many who will never have the opportunity to be a beneficiary? When one votes Democratic, one votes for the party that is in favor of taking away everything that unborn child ever will have. It’s really that simple. Them that vote Democratic will salve their consciences by offering to help the underclass. On the one hand, let the unborn be killed. On the other hand, try to blot that stain by helping the underclass. No one can wash that blood off their hands completely.

 

[Rau]

… It makes no sense for somewhere in California to pay taxes to educate someone in New York.

And so, by extension, the county with the poorest community ought to expect to have the poorest hospitals and the poorest schools? Does it not seem reasonable that the wider community shares wealth with the less well-off?

 

[estesbob]

I don’t understand why the federal government spends any money on education. I don’t think most people realize that the federal government spends very little money on education, compared to the rest of the things they spend money on. Most education is funded locally by property taxes. Why should federal taxes go toward education? It makes no sense for somewhere in California to pay taxes to educate someone in New York.

Could not agree more