Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

  • Thread starter Thread starter adawgj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dawnia said:
All values are non-negotiable, Pope says in new interview
Click to expand...
The actual assertion was: “Pope Francis has stated that there are not “negotiable” and “non-negotiable” issues.” Your citation is to a comment that there are no non-negotiable values and included this statement:* Benedict XVI and Pope Francis both have underscored that none of the principles of the Church’s social teaching is less important, and that there is not a rank of **values *between life issues and social issues.
That BXVI makes a distinction between values and issues is obvious from this comment he made in 2004:*Not all moral **issues *have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.
holyhillcross.com/WORTHINESS%20TO%20RECEIVE%20COMMUNION.htm
So while the popes may not distinguish between moral values they clearly distinguish between moral issues…which is what is being discussed here.

Ender
 
Ender said:
The actual assertion was: “Pope Francis has stated that there are not “negotiable” and “non-negotiable” issues.” Your citation is to a comment that there are no non-negotiable values and included this statement:* Benedict XVI and Pope Francis both have underscored that none of the principles of the Church’s social teaching is less important, and that there is not a rank of **values ***between life issues and social issues.
That BXVI makes a distinction between values and issues is obvious from this comment he made in 2004:*Not all moral **issues ***have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.
holyhillcross.com/WORTHINESS%20TO%20RECEIVE%20COMMUNION.htm
So while the popes may not distinguish between moral values they clearly distinguish between moral issues…which is what is being discussed here.

Ender
Click to expand...
The article was just one article about the speech referenced. There are many many others that put the liberal spin on it if you’d like to Google it. The speech is still the same, the spin is just different. 🤷

EDIT: Here is the question and answer from the original interview:
In the recent past, it was normal to appeal to the so-called ‘non-negotiable values’, especially in bio-ethics and sexual morality. You have not picked up on this formula. The doctrinal and moral principles have not changed. Does this choice perhaps wish to show a style less preceptive and more respectful of personal conscience?
Click to expand...
I have never understood the expression non-negotiable values. Values are values, and that is it. I can’t say that, of the fingers of a hand, there is one less useful than the rest. Whereby I do not understand in what sense there may be negotiable values. I wrote in the exhortation ‘Evangelii Gaudium’ what I wanted to say on the theme of life.
Click to expand...
 
Dawnia said:
The article was just one article about the speech referenced. There are many many others that put the liberal spin on it if you’d like to Google it. The speech is still the same, the spin is just different. 🤷

:
Click to expand...
Or as Archbishop Chaput put it:

Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics** justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event.** All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.
 
estesbob said:
Or as Archbishop Chaput put it:

Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics** justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event.** All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.
Click to expand...
You did the Chaput and Burke quotes in 2012, and you continue to roll them out as if these quotes should serve as the foundational elements to shape Catholic voting.

Didn’t work then and it isn’t going to work this time or in 2016.
 
ringil said:
You did the Chaput and Burke quotes in 2012, and you continue to roll them out as if these quotes should serve as the foundational elements to shape Catholic voting.

Didn’t work then and it isn’t going to work this time or in 2016.
Click to expand...
Again if you have a quote from any member of the Magisterium to support your personal opinion on Church teaching please post it.
 
estesbob said:
He s affirming the teachings of the Church-if you can find a member of the Magisterium who contradicts him post away.
Click to expand...
That is not the test for deciding what is in the deposit of faith and binding on all Catholics. If Archbishop XYZ said “It sure is cloudy today!” and I could not find a member of the Magisterium to contradict him, nevertheless I would not take it that “It is cloudy today” has become part of the deposit of faith. The real test should be finding the claim stated in a teaching document of the Church. I take that to mean the Cathechism, the published results of Church Councils, and similar documents. I do not consider pastoral advice to be foundational, but rather clarifying. If that advice truly does represent Universal Church teaching, then the advice should point to those foundational sources. Otherwise it is pastoral advice that, while it is to be respected and earnestly considered, especially when the speaker is an Archbishop, is not binding in the same sense that the divinity of Christ is binding.
 
Dawnia said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure about that, Dawnia; it seems to me that virtually every policy maker from the local to the national level can do something about global warming (if it’s real) whereas the only politician who can have an influence on reversing Roe v. Wade is the president by virtue of his power to appoint Supreme Court judges (so even that is at one remove, not by fiat).

I think the idea that one shouldn’t vote for Democrats or pro-abortion Democrats comes more from the principle of the matter - that, to paraphrase Bob, someone who is okay with legalized abortion isn’t morally fit to hold office.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
That is not the test for deciding what is in the deposit of faith and binding on all Catholics. If Archbishop XYZ said “It sure is cloudy today!” and I could not find a member of the Magisterium to contradict him, nevertheless I would not take it that “It is cloudy today” has become part of the deposit of faith. The real test should be finding the claim stated in a teaching document of the Church. I take that to mean the Cathechism, the published results of Church Councils, and similar documents. I do not consider pastoral advice to be foundational, but rather clarifying. If that advice truly does represent Universal Church teaching, then the advice should point to those foundational sources. Otherwise it is pastoral advice that, while it is to be respected and earnestly considered, especially when the speaker is an Archbishop, is not binding in the same sense that the divinity of Christ is binding.
Click to expand...
If you have a quote from any member of the Magisterium to support your personal opinion on Church teaching please post it. I don’t think the Magisterium could be any clearer on this issue-many will ignore it but the Truth is the Truth.
 
estesbob said:
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
Click to expand...
Interesting that you would invoke the Pope Emeritus. The Pope Emeritus actually agrees with me (or rather, I agree with him):

holyhillcross.com/WORTHINESS%20TO%20RECEIVE%20COMMUNION.htm

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in of evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.

Emphases mine.

But we have gone through this many, many times already. Some insist in interpreting the ‘proportionate reasons’ to be abortion-related, yet the Pope Emeritus *) specifically states “but votes for that candidate for other reasons”. The term ‘other’ is unequivocal.
*) then in his function of Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, a high-level function as guardian of the Catholic Faith
 
tomarin said:
But not saving it makes the whole point of opposing abortion a moot one, would it not?

Here I’m not engaging with the five non-negotiables, but my understanding of what the U.S. bishops voting guide says, which is somewhat more nuanced. And my understanding of that document is that it would be sinful to vote for a politician because of his or her pro-abortion stance.
Click to expand...
What good is it to have a world with a clean environment if everyone is going to hell?

How can people convince people that cleaning the environment is good for mankind if they are OK with killing unborn, sick, disabled, and or elderly people?

When the devil has “good ideas,” is it ok to listen to him? No, we should ignore every thing he tells us.

Humans behave the same way with other humans. If you believe that a person is evil or condones evil, you are most likely going to ignore everything that comes out of that person’s mouth.

Voting pro-life gives us a chance to do the moral thing, take the higher road.
Besides, if all prolife Catholics joined the Republican Party, the party would start to become more in line with Catholic social teaching.

The Democratic Party will most likely never be be in line with Catholic Moral teaching.

A person’s social ideas can be changes with education, etc. But moral teaching must not compromised. That’s the difference.

Morality MUST come first. Not ethics or social teaching, because if they are not based on morals, they can be evil.

Read what I wrote in post 381 regarding the US Bishop’s voting guide
 
Al_Moritz said:
Interesting that you would invoke the Pope Emeritus. The Pope Emeritus actually agrees with me:

holyhillcross.com/WORTHINESS%20TO%20RECEIVE%20COMMUNION.htm

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in of evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.
Click to expand...
Emphases mine.

But we have gone through this many, many times already. Some insist in interpreting the ‘proportionate reasons’ to be abortion-related, yet the Pope Emeritus specifically states “but votes for that candidate for other reasons”. The term ‘other’ is unequivocal.

Too bad you didnt post what he said BEFORE that which gives the footnote context:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

And we have posted numerous quotes from Members of the Magisterium stating what "proportionate reasons "are-that is their opponent is equally pro-abortion. Now if you have a member of the magisterium who uses another definition or contradicts the numerous quotes that have already been posted please do so
 
tomarin said:
I’m not sure about that, Dawnia; it seems to me that virtually every policy maker from the local to the national level can do something about global warming (if it’s real) whereas the only politician who can have an influence on reversing Roe v. Wade is the president by virtue of his power to appoint Supreme Court judges (so even that is at one remove, not by fiat).

I think the idea that one shouldn’t vote for Democrats or pro-abortion Democrats comes more from the principle of the matter - that, to paraphrase Bob, someone who is okay with legalized abortion isn’t morally fit to hold office.
Click to expand...
Like I asked before, what do you realistically think an individual US politician can do that would have any affect on global warming? Scientists aren’t even in agreement about how much, if any, is man made. It’d be like someone standing in a crowd of smokers and claiming they are making the air cleaner by not smoking. Does it really matter if everyone else is?

Roe v Wade is not set in stone. It has already been chipped away at. Individual politicians can certainly have an affect on the number of abortions through legislation, funding, education, etc. If 100% of politicians agreed that abortion should be banned, it could be through a Constitutional Amendment. Not so with global warming.
 
Rene Gracida, retired Bishop of Corpus Christi, Texas, wrote a clarifying statement that is helpful:

"There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life. That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not. "Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate A who is completely for abortion-on demand; candidate B, who is in favour of very limited abortion, i.e., in favour of greatly restricting abortion; and candidate C, a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable. "The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate A because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on abortion-on-demand. "The Catholic can vote for candidate C, but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate A. Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate B, since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate A and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate B is elected and introduces legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils, which is morally permissible under these circumstances
 
estesbob said:
And we have posted numerous quotes from Members of the Magisterium stating what "proportionate reasons "are-that is their opponent is equally pro-abortion.
Click to expand...
I have addressed this already, knowing that the counter-argument would come:
Al_Moritz said:
Some insist in interpreting the ‘proportionate reasons’ to be abortion-related, yet the Pope Emeritus specifically states “but votes for that candidate for other reasons”. The term ‘other’ is unequivocal.
Click to expand...
As Ringil said:
ringil said:
You did the Chaput and Burke quotes in 2012, and you continue to roll them out as if these quotes should serve as the foundational elements to shape Catholic voting.

Didn’t work then and it isn’t going to work this time or in 2016.
Click to expand...
 
**Cathleen Cleaver Ruse, Director of Planning and Information for the Pro-life Secretariat of the US Bishops’ Conference, responded, *"***Sure, that’s absolutely true. The church has taught on this issue of abortion and its immorality since the Apostolic Age. It’s one of our longest standing moral public policy issues and it is not like any other issue really. It is, some might say, it’s non-negotiable. There are no instances where it is morally licit or justifiable. That sets is apart from other issues like capital punishment, like just war theory and many other social issues that are very, very important but don’t have that kind of no exceptions policy. So, the way the Church looks at abortion - abortion is one of those fundamental issues. If that right is taken away, if the very right to life is taken away then no other right matters. You don’t have the ability to hold another right or to have another right taken away. So, while health care, the right to a good education, housing all of these issues are very, very important, they are meaningless if the right to life is not first protected."
*“If social issues are like a house then the foundation is the right to life. An abortion takes away or rips out the foundation. The many other social issues can be considered the walls of that house but they can’t be built unless there’s a foundation.”
*
 
Al_Moritz said:
Interesting that you would invoke the Pope Emeritus. The Pope Emeritus actually agrees with me (or rather, I agree with him):

holyhillcross.com/WORTHINESS%20TO%20RECEIVE%20COMMUNION.htm

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in of evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.
Click to expand...
Emphases mine.

But we have gone through this many, many times already. Some insist in interpreting the ‘proportionate reasons’ to be abortion-related, yet the Pope Emeritus *) specifically states “but votes for that candidate for other reasons”. The term ‘other’ is unequivocal.
*) then in his function of Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, a high-level function as guardian of the Catholic Faith

I certainly wouldn’t use that as a means to vote for someone for selfish excuses.

The only thing I’d ever apply that to is voting for a candidate who has a chance to win, that would be not some obscure third-party I know won’t win and if I voted for him/her I’d be helping the person with the most intrinsic evil win by proxy.

One can clearly see where people come from whenever the question “can I vote democrat” is posted on here. What’s interesting is no one has ever asked on here “can I vote republican as a Catholic?”. That alone should be getting people to stop and think.

But I don’t think that’s happening. There’s too much rush to defend oneself for voting democrat and such haste is a red flag, as are the excuses that are posted.

Equating the environment or even helping the poor (progressive policies HURT the poor over the long-term) with abortion or changing marriage, well, I believe Church authorities have spoken at length about that.

If a person cannot fool a person like me with lame, selfish excuses, how do they expect to get past God?

If you’re voting just to be :cool::cool: or for $$$$ does anyone really think God won’t know?

Sometimes, I feel like I’m the only person who actually takes this seriously. :ouch:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top