Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[shockerfan]

My conscience, thoroughly informed by the Magisterium, is clean before God regarding this matter.

When I discuss certain topics of theology with my non-Catholic friends, one of the areas they run into trouble is that they have a few pet verses to support their position, but they seem to gloss over the rest of the verses dealing with the same subject that provide context, and thus a different meaning. The also ignore the early Church Father’s writings that help to understand how they understood the interpretation of Christ and the Apostles to be.

The parallel here is that you have picked the word “other”, and have hung your hat on it, seemingly to ignore all of other magisterial writings that provide additional insight and context.

Just comparing the evidence provided to justify your position vs. the evidence provided by others to support their position, there is no comparison.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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.

They certainly could be clearer, and they would be, if what you claim is binding really is binding. If it so clear, tell me which paragraph in the Cathechism I should look at, or which Council proceedings, or which Encyclical. Anything at all from Rome.

 

[CrossofChrist]

So I should take Jim Akin’s interpretation of Ratzinger over Ratzinger himself? Interesting.

I’m curious: in your opinion, what reasons are proportionate for voting for a candidate who supports abortion? It’s a genuine question.

 

[estesbob]

When I discuss certain topics of theology with my non-Catholic friends, one of the areas they run into trouble is that they have a few pet verses to support their position, but they seem to gloss over the rest of the verses dealing with the same subject that provide context, and thus a different meaning. The also ignore the early Church Father’s writings that help to understand how they understood the interpretation of Christ and the Apostles to be.

The parallel here is that you have picked the word “other”, and have hung your hat on it, seemingly to ignore all of other magisterial writings that provide additional insight and context.

Just comparing the evidence provided to justify your position vs. the evidence provided by others to support their position, there is no comparison.

I am often derided, wrongly, as being a “single issue” voter. But as you have pointed out what we often run into Catholics who are “single word” voters.

 

[shockerfan]

I am often derided, wrongly, as being a “single issue” voter. But as you have pointed out what we often run into Catholics who are “single word” voters.

I’m sure there are people “on the fence” with these issues who just come to forums to read and not participate. There is no question in my mind that a person who is honestly open to learning the truth would be more persuaded by your arguments and evidence. Keep up the good work!

 

[estesbob]

They certainly could be clearer, and they would be, if what you claim is binding really is binding. If it so clear, tell me which paragraph in the Cathechism I should look at, or which Council proceedings, or which Encyclical. Anything at all from Rome.

I quoted two Popes. Are they not in Rome? If it is not clear you should have no problem finding a quote to back up your opinion.

 

[estesbob]

I’m sure there are people “on the fence” with these issues who just come to forums to read and not participate. There is no question in my mind that a person who is honestly open to learning the truth would be more persuaded by your arguments and evidence. Keep up the good work!

Thx!

 

[CrossofChrist]

Here’s what a Bishop Emeritus had to say about this using the 2004 election: catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6159

Also this might be a good read, courtesy of Abyssinia:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9645449&postcount=150

I don’t know if this has been quoted in this thread, but here’s something Archbishop Chaput has to say:

What is a “proportionate” reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life—which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.

 

[ringil]

While I am not a “black and white” thinker, what I cannot stomach on here are lame, selfish excuses.

Selfish,

Like wanting to keep my “hard earned money”, from being confiscated to give to others?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I’m curious: in your opinion, what reasons are proportionate for voting for a candidate who supports abortion? It’s a genuine question.

I’ll take a run at that. Some have said that “proportionate reasons” mean that the other candidate is even worse on pro-choice. But I don’t think that interpretation makes sense. If Cardinal Ratzinger had meant that, he could have said so in much clearer, directly language. Cardinal Ratzinger is very intelligent and a good writer. I’m sure he chose his words to mean exactly what they say. The most straightforward interpretation, then, is that the voter takes into account other reasons, that he feels are proportionate to the reason for voting for the pro-life (or lesser pro-choice) candidate. At this point many say that without the right to life, no other right means anything, and that there can be no defensible reason for valuing some other good higher than preventing abortion. To this I say again that Cardinal Ratzinger had considered his words very carefully. He knew full well that the right to life is foundational. And if he thought there could be no circumstance under which a faithful Catholic could apply his exception clause, then he would not have risked confusion by putting in an exception clause that could never be used. All this is preliminary to establish that in Cardinal Ratzinger’s mind, it must be possible for proportional reasons to exist.

As to what they might be, here is just one example: Suppose that in a particular race, the pro-life candidate in question has a very low chance of being able to make any change in abortion law. All things being equal, we would still be required to vote for him. But suppose not all things are equal, and there is another issue at stake in which the holder of this office has a much better chance of making a difference. And suppose the candidate with the preferred position on that issue also happens to be pro-choice. Voting for him will likely achieve the lesser goal, while voting for the pro-life candidate would sacrifice the lesser goal and still may not achieve the greater goal of preventing abortion. Faced with this choice, it is conceivable that a voter may decide that more good can be done by voting for the candidate who happens to be pro-choice. Such a decision would not be taken lightly, but I can see (and I think so could Cardinal Ratzinger) that such a choice might be possible.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I quoted two Popes. Are they not in Rome? .

Yes, but only the quote from Archbishop Burke said exactly what you wanted to say.

 

[Suudy]

Selfish,

Like wanting to keep my “hard earned money”, from being confiscated to give to others?

Taking–through force–and giving to another is not charity. So, let’s not pretend the tax-and-spend social programs administered through Washington DC are charity.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Selfish,

Like wanting to keep my “hard earned money”, from being confiscated by to give to others?

This remark reminds me of an incident back when Bill Clinton was president.
My oldest daughter,dating a college teaching assistant at that time.She told me a comment he made when he saw a bumper sticker on the back of an Audi.
It read"Bill and Hillary…dual airbags"
His comment"Oh they probably want to keep all their $$$$ for themselves,that is the reason for the bumper sticker"

 

[ringil]

Taking–through force–and giving to another is not charity. So, let’s not pretend the tax-and-spend social programs administered through Washington DC are charity.

The Government has a legitimate role in meeting the needs of the people. Church teaching echoes this.

Churches and donations don’t cover the need.

 

[Mark121359]

I am often derided, wrongly, as being a “single issue” voter. But as you have pointed out what we often run into Catholics who are “single word” voters.

I’m sure there are people “on the fence” with these issues who just come to forums to read and not participate. There is no question in my mind that a person who is honestly open to learning the truth would be more persuaded by your arguments and evidence. Keep up the good work!

Absolutely! That’s because his arguments are grounded in truth, Catholic truth! And the replies back at him are strictly defensive, because deep down they have no answers. When estesbob posted this;

Again if you have a quote from any member of the Magisterium to support your personal opinion on Church teaching please post it.

I made the response; “I think I’m hearing the sound of crickets.” The reason was because I knew it would be brushed aside and ignored because there is no response possible. The truth has a way of silencing opinion. Just like I’ll get no response to post # 455. The truth contained in that guide would cripple them.

Peace, Mark

 

[CrossofChrist]

As to what they might be, here is just one example: Suppose that in a particular race, the pro-life candidate in question has a very low chance of being able to make any change in abortion law. All things being equal, we would still be required to vote for him. But suppose not all things are equal, and there is another issue at stake in which the holder of this office has a much better chance of making a difference. And suppose the candidate with the preferred position on that issue also happens to be pro-choice. Voting for him will likely achieve the lesser goal, while voting for the pro-life candidate would sacrifice the lesser goal and still may not achieve the greater goal of preventing abortion. Faced with this choice, it is conceivable that a voter may decide that more good can be done by voting for the candidate who happens to be pro-choice. Such a decision would not be taken lightly, but I can see (and I think so could Cardinal Ratzinger) that such a choice might be possible.

Thanks for your response.

 

[estesbob]

Yes, but only the quote from Archbishop Burke said exactly what you wanted to say.

Heres some more for you:

Can a Catholic vote, in good conscience, for a candidate who supports abortion?… A candidate who asks us to add our weight to such a destructive momentum in our society, asks us to be participants in their own gravely immoral act. This is something which, in good conscience, we can never justify. Despite hardship, beyond partisanship, for the sake of our eternal salvation: This we should never do.”

Bishop Robert Finn

Being “right” on taxes, education, health care, immigration, and the economy fails to make up for the error of disregarding the value of a human life…. Abortion is the issue this year and every year in every campaign. Catholics may not turn away from the moral challenge that abortion poses for those who seek to obey God’s commands. They are wrong when they assert that abortion does not concern them, or that it is only one of a multitude of issues of equal importance. No, the taking of innocent human life is so heinous, so horribly evil, and so absolutely opposite to the law of Almighty God that abortion must take precedence over every other issue. I repeat. It is the single most important issue confronting not only Catholics, but the entire electorate -
Bishop Martino

 

[Al_Moritz]

I’ll take a run at that. Some have said that “proportionate reasons” mean that the other candidate is even worse on pro-choice. But I don’t think that interpretation makes sense. If Cardinal Ratzinger had meant that, he could have said so in much clearer, directly language. Cardinal Ratzinger is very intelligent and a good writer. I’m sure he chose his words to mean exactly what they say. The most straightforward interpretation, then, is that the voter takes into account other reasons, that he feels are proportionate to the reason for voting for the pro-life (or lesser pro-choice) candidate. At this point many say that without the right to life, no other right means anything, and that there can be no defensible reason for valuing some other good higher than preventing abortion. To this I say again that Cardinal Ratzinger had considered his words very carefully. He knew full well that the right to life is foundational. And if he thought there could be no circumstance under which a faithful Catholic could apply his exception clause, then he would not have risked confusion by putting in an exception clause that could never be used. All this is preliminary to establish that in Cardinal Ratzinger’s mind, it must be possible for proportional reasons to exist.

As to what they might be, here is just one example: Suppose that in a particular race, the pro-life candidate in question has a very low chance of being able to make any change in abortion law. All things being equal, we would still be required to vote for him. But suppose not all things are equal, and there is another issue at stake in which the holder of this office has a much better chance of making a difference. And suppose the candidate with the preferred position on that issue also happens to be pro-choice. Voting for him will likely achieve the lesser goal, while voting for the pro-life candidate would sacrifice the lesser goal and still may not achieve the greater goal of preventing abortion. Faced with this choice, it is conceivable that a voter may decide that more good can be done by voting for the candidate who happens to be pro-choice. Such a decision would not be taken lightly, but I can see (and I think so could Cardinal Ratzinger) that such a choice might be possible.

By the way, Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts (Republican-appointed) has already settled the issue in his Senate conformation hearing, where he indicated that he perceives Roe v. Wade as the “law of the land”. There simply is no will on the national level to do anything about Roe v. Wade. Any Republicans who state otherwise are simply not believable, in my view (and there are reasons of national political power why they would not really want to).

In some states Republicans do work on the state level on restricting abortion. Were I to live in such a state, I might in my conscience feel bound to vote for the Republican state candidates (depending on judging things the way I could only do if I lived there). On the national level I do not see any compelling reason not to vote Democrat – and I myself do see compelling reasons to do just that.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I made the response; “I think I’m hearing the sound of crickets.” The reason was because I knew it would be brushed aside and ignored because there is no response possible. The truth has a way of silencing opinion. Just like I’ll get no response to post # 455. The truth contained in that guide would cripple them.

Peace, Mark

Posts 421 and 457 did address estesbob’s posting, despite what the crickets say. And as for your reference to the voting guide by Fr. Torraco, it is also not binding in the same way as the Catechism is. If we were to take the opinion of every priest as binding Catholic doctrine, we would have contradictory doctrines.

 

[estesbob]

By the way, Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts has already settled the issue in his Senate conformation hearing, where he indicated that he perceives Roe v. Wade as the “law of the land”. .

So was slavery, so was separate but equal, so was prohibition, so was the male only electorate.

It really comes down to this -“Abortion will remain legal in this country until Democrat Catholics come to love the unborn more than they hate the GOP.”

All Catholics need to ask themselves a simple question “Does my Faith form my politics or does my politics form my faith?”