Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[Jeanne_S]

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”. 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.

So basically what you are saying is because abortion is the law of the land,it is a nonissue for you .That you are ok with the Dems going to the extreme in protection abortion ?,.

 

[808Catholic]

I was wondering if it’s ok for Catholics to vote Democrat? I know that the Democrats are more in favor of abortion, but that doesn’t they don’t do other things that help our country. If anyone on here is Catholic and a Democrat what advice do you have?

I’m an Independent, but unfortunately third parties rarely get votes.

Vote who you believe best represents your values; don’t get hung up on political parties. For me personally, I vote based on a simple litmus test: politician who’s against abortion - good. Politician who’s for abortion - not so good. God Bless you and grant you wisdom to vote for the person who will follow Christ the best.

 

[estesbob]

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.

Posts that contained your opinion but not one single quote from a member of the Magisterium you back up your opinion. Backing up opinions with Quotes from Church leaders is not that hard when your opinions comply with church teaching. For instance:

“I believe that Senator Obama, whatever his other talents, is the most committed ‘abortion-rights’ presidential candidate of either major party since the Roe v. Wade abortion decision in 1973…. I do not know any proportionate reason that could outweigh more than 40 million unborn children killed by abortion and the many millions of women deeply wounded by the loss and regret abortion creates. The truth is that for some Catholics, the abortion issue has never been a comfortable cause. It’s embarrassing. It’s not the kind of social justice they like to talk about. It interferes with their natural political alliances…. The cornerstone of Catholic social teaching is protecting human life from conception to natural death…. Every other human right depends on the right to life.” (Oct 17, 2008: zenit.org/article-23965?l=english) - See more at: the-american-catholic.com/2008/11/02/catholics-and-pro-abortion-candidates/#sthash.OWMkZOoW.dpuf

Archbishop Charles Chaput

 

[shockerfan]

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.

That is correct. But don’t you think that there would be less resistance to the “government meeting the needs of the people”, if the politicians cared about being good stewards of the people’s money?

Everyday there are more and more stories of government waste and fraud, yet (primarily) Democrat politicians, including the president, just keep saying they want people to “pay their fair share”. Any efforts to cut waste and to actually balance the budget are demagoged. When you read stories about government employees being bored as a reason they watch porn while on the job, you realize that politicians just really don’t care how they spend other people’s money.

The money to fund more social programs already exists in the government’s current revenues…just cut the waste to get it.

 

[Mark121359]

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.

421 and 457 are what you call answers? Tell me, just give me one Cardinal or Bishop that would refute this voting guide which Cardinal Burke, Archbishop Charles Chaput and others mirror with their quotes. Can you give me just one Bishop or Cardinal that supports your views in voting for someone who is extremely pro-choice, has trashed traditional marriage, forces Catholic employers to offer “health insurance” that supplies contraception, abortifacients, etc?..I’ll even settle for a parish priest!

Peace, Mark

 

[Al_Moritz]

So basically what you are saying is because abortion is the law of the land,it is a nonissue for you.

You must have missed my subsequent statement, and particularly the second sentence thereof.

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).

 

[estesbob]

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.

Yes they do-but govt programs are not of any use to those denied the right to life. Nor does voting for someone who vows to increase taxes to increase social programs qualify as Charity.

 

[freeRadical]

Enjoy your anarchy.

Did I say anything about anarchy? That was a reply about government administration of schools.

 

[MJE]

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.

Is this message from The Brookings Institute being drummed into the minds of the American people, including youth? Is the Obama admin. concerned?
*Let politicians, schoolteachers and administrators, community leaders, ministers and parents drill into children the message that in a free society, they enter adulthood with three major responsibilities: at least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children.

Our research shows that of American adults who followed these three simple rules, only about 2 percent are in poverty and nearly 75 percent have joined the middle class (defined as earning around $55,000 or more per year). There are surely influences other than these principles at play, but following them guides a young adult away from poverty and toward the middle class.*
Ron Haskins
Co-Director, Center on Children and Families,Budgeting for National Priorities
brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/03/13-join-middle-class-haskins

Some examples of irresponsible fed. dollars not helping poor and powerless:
Obama’s $700 billion stimulus was promoted as funding “shovel ready jobs” A few years later the President laughed and joked “shovel ready jobs not as shovel-ready as we expected". No poverty alleviated. But he joked about it.

Video’s proving Planned Parenthood cooperates with sex traffickers. Planned Parenthood’s own website for teens promotes violent-sex. They had a discussion not too long ago re: good to be a slut.
2013 Planned Parenthood received a record amt of federal $500,000,000 +.

Nancy Pelosi, as House Speaker flew private jets between DC and San Francisco. $2.1 million dollars for her travel over 2 years. $101,000 for a well stocked liquor cabinet. It took Judical Watch thru Freedom of Info. Act to get this info. Nancy still talks a good line about concern for the poor.

 

[shockerfan]

Is this message from The Brookings Institute being drummed into the minds of the American people, including youth? Is the Obama admin. concerned?
Let politicians, schoolteachers and administrators, community leaders, ministers and parents drill into children the message that in a free society, they enter adulthood with three major responsibilities: at least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children.

Our research shows that of American adults who followed these three simple rules, only about 2 percent are in poverty and nearly 75 percent have joined the middle class (defined as earning around $55,000 or more per year). There are surely influences other than these principles at play, but following them guides a young adult away from poverty and toward the middle class.
Ron Haskins
Co-Director, Center on Children and Families,Budgeting for National Priorities
brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/03/13-join-middle-class-haskins

Some examples of irresponsible fed. dollars not helping poor and powerless:
Obama’s $700 billion stimulus was promoted as funding “shovel ready jobs” A few years later the President laughed and joked “shovel ready jobs not as shovel-ready as we expected". No poverty alleviated. But he joked about it.

Video’s proving Planned Parenthood cooperates with sex traffickers. Planned Parenthood’s own website for teens promotes violent-sex. They had a discussion not too long ago re: good to be a slut.
2013 Planned Parenthood received a record amt of federal $500,000,000 +.

Nancy Pelosi, as House Speaker flew private jets between DC and San Francisco. $2.1 million dollars for her travel over 2 years. $101,000 for a well stocked liquor cabinet. It took Judical Watch thru Freedom of Info. Act to get this info. Nancy still talks a good line about concern for the poor.

The list goes on and on. Cut Pelosi’s liquor budget and Democrats will shout “Republicans hate the poor!”

 

[MJE]

The list goes on and on. Cut Pelosi’s liquor budget and Democrats will shout “Republicans hate the poor!”

Nancy Pelosi is one of the wealthiest members of Congress and yet she does not hesitate to bill the public for her luxuries. The Democrats are comfortable with this type of abuse of fed $.

 

[markomalley]

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

You are right:

291…The duty of the State does not consist so much in directly guaranteeing the right to work of every citizen, making the whole of economic life very rigid and restricting individual free initiative, as much as in the duty to “sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis”

1. The action of the State and of other public authorities must be consistent with the principle of subsidiarity and create situations favourable to the free exercise of economic activity. It must also be inspired by the principle of solidarity and establish limits for the autonomy of the parties in order to defend those who are weaker.[733] Solidarity without subsidiarity, in fact, can easily degenerate into a “Welfare State”, while subsidiarity without solidarity runs the risk of encouraging forms of self-centred localism. In order to respect both of these fundamental principles, the State’s intervention in the economic environment must be neither invasive nor absent, but commensurate with society’s real needs. “The State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis. The State has the further right to intervene when particular monopolies create delays or obstacles to development. In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development, in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute function”.[734]
2. The fundamental task of the State in economic matters is that of determining an appropriate juridical framework for regulating economic affairs, in order to safeguard “the prerequisites of a free economy, which presumes a certain equality between the parties, such that one party would not be so powerful as practically to reduce the other to subservience”…
3. **The State can encourage citizens and businesses to promote the common good by enacting an economic policy that fosters the participation of all citizens in the activities of production. **Respect of the principle of subsidiarity must prompt public authorities to seek conditions that encourage the development of individual capacities of initiative, autonomy and personal responsibility in citizens, avoiding any interference which would unduly condition business forces.

(all quotes from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church)

There is a definite role for the State. Just not the role that, sadly, too many think is its role.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I have been criticized for not giving quotes by authorities to back up my opinions. I would just like to point out that in most of G. K. Chesterton’s arguments, he did not rely on authoritative quotes either. Rather he appealed to the common sense of the reader. He has been called “the Apostle of Common Sense.” In that spirit I would like to offer the following common sense argument.

It has been said that voting for a pro-choice candidate is equivalent to providing material support to abortions, and is therefore a mortal sin. The idea is presumably that if I vote for such a candidate when a pro-life candidate was available, and the pro-choice candidate is elected, he will not vote for restrictions on abortion that the pro-life candidate would certainly have voted for, and thus without those restrictions, someone will get an abortion who would not have done so otherwise. Let us see if this reasoning stands up to common sense.

You and your neighbor, John, have known each other for years, and despite your difference in politics, you and John are friends. John has a daughter who suffers from diabetes, and it just so happens that you do too. One morning John desperately knocks on your door with a request. It seems that his daughter needs insulin right away, and somehow they ran out. Could you please give him some insulin for his daughter? Since you have plenty of insulin on hand, you willingly share some with him so he can give it to his daughter. End of story. John gives his daughter the insulin, the crisis is averted, and John thanks you profusely and heads off to work.

But that is not quite the end of the story. I forgot to mention that John’s work is as a state congressman. His full name is John Q. McLiberal. And on this particular day, there was a vote scheduled on the floor deciding whether to impose stricter limits on abortion clinics. With this in mind, let’s see how the story plays out. John comes to you begging for some insulin for his daughter. But you say, “Gee, John, I would really like to help you, but you see if I did that I would be committing a mortal sin.” “How is that?” John asks with disbelief. “Well, if I give you the insulin, your daughter will recover very quickly, and you will most likely head off to the state capital and cast your pro-choice vote. But if I do nothing then you will spend so much time trying to get insulin for her elsewhere that you will miss your floor vote. Giving you the insulin would be cooperating with your evil intent to allow abortions, and I am not allowed to do that.” John pleads, “But the life of my daughter hangs in the balance!” “Sorry, John” you say “but I cannot consider the one life of your daughter as a proportionate reason to ignore the deaths of so many babies. So no, I still cannot give you the insulin to save your daughter’s life. I hope you understand.”

Is there anyone who thinks this response to your neighbor stands up to common sense?

 

[Jeanne_S]

No,I didn’t miss your statement.What I got from it is that ,since in your opinion,the Republican Party hasn’t really done anything to change the abortion laws,it is perfectly fine to then support the Dems ,who have been shown to be virulently pro abortion.

 

[Milasol]

I have been criticized for not giving quotes by authorities to back up my opinions. I would just like to point out that in most of G. K. Chesterton’s arguments, he did not rely on authoritative quotes either. Rather he appealed to the common sense of the reader. He has been called “the Apostle of Common Sense.” In that spirit I would like to offer the following common sense argument.

It has been said that voting for a pro-choice candidate is equivalent to providing material support to abortions, and is therefore a mortal sin. The idea is presumably that if I vote for such a candidate when a pro-life candidate was available, and the pro-choice candidate is elected, he will not vote for restrictions on abortion that the pro-life candidate would certainly have voted for, and thus without those restrictions, someone will get an abortion who would not have done so otherwise. Let us see if this reasoning stands up to common sense.

You and your neighbor, John, have known each other for years, and despite your difference in politics, you and John are friends. John has a daughter who suffers from diabetes, and it just so happens that you do too. One morning John desperately knocks on your door with a request. It seems that his daughter needs insulin right away, and somehow they ran out. Could you please give him some insulin for his daughter? Since you have plenty of insulin on hand, you willingly share some with him so he can give it to his daughter. End of story. John gives his daughter the insulin, the crisis is averted, and John thanks you profusely and heads off to work.

But that is not quite the end of the story. I forgot to mention that John’s work is as a state congressman. His full name is John Q. McLiberal. And on this particular day, there was a vote scheduled on the floor deciding whether to impose stricter limits on abortion clinics. With this in mind, let’s see how the story plays out. John comes to you begging for some insulin for his daughter. But you say, “Gee, John, I would really like to help you, but you see if I did that I would be committing a mortal sin.” “How is that?” John asks with disbelief. “Well, if I give you the insulin, your daughter will recover very quickly, and you will most likely head off to the state capital and cast your pro-choice vote. But if I do nothing then you will spend so much time trying to get insulin for her elsewhere that you will miss your floor vote. Giving you the insulin would be cooperating with your evil intent to allow abortions, and I am not allowed to do that.” John pleads, “But the life of my daughter hangs in the balance!” “Sorry, John” you say “but I cannot consider the one life of your daughter as a proportionate reason to ignore the deaths of so many babies. So no, I still cannot give you the insulin to save your daughter’s life. I hope you understand.”

Is there anyone who thinks this response to your neighbor stands up to common sense?

Someone who values life as most pro-lifers do would help the little girl and tell that politician that as he cares for his little girl, there are millions of other children who will die most likely a horrible death because of his stance on abortion.

On that note here is what the Apostle of Common sense, G.K. Chesterton said about abortion.

“The most unfathomable schools and sages have never attained to the gravity which dwells in the eyes of a baby” [1].

This quote captures the essence of the pro-life movement, which is the future as seen in the eyes of a child.

Our young are so full of innocence and capabilities that are not yet known.

Why would anyone want to destroy that through abortion?

One of the most absurd pro-choice claims is that those who are pro-life do not like or care for the baby after he or she is born. In fact, pro-lifers find equal importance of life inside and outside of the womb.

The gravity in a baby’s eyes, showing such extreme happiness for life, is one of the most beautiful things in the world.

[1] G.K. Chesterton. (1903). “Babies.” from the essay “In Defence of Baby Worship” from The Defendant 1903

Also, who can someone truly care for a little girl and not care for the thousands of other babies? Are they different in the eyes of God?

 

[Jeanne_S]

You must have missed my subsequent statement, and particularly the second sentence thereof.

No,I didn’t miss your statement.What I got from it is that,in your opinion,since the Republicans have done little to abolish abortion,then it is perfectly ok to support the Dems,who have proven to be virulently pro abortion.

 

[pnewton]

There are GOP members who don’t advocate reducing social supports? I haven’t heard of these as wouldn’t this stance, kind of violate the GOP stance?

Social justice is not just about supports. The love of money is still the root of all evil and what is charity and what is bribery can be legitimately debated. Also, social justice embraces many issues, including at this time, immigration. Two of the last three Republican presidents favored immigration reform, as do some Republicans today.

 

[Suudy]

I have been criticized for not giving quotes by authorities to back up my opinions. I would just like to point out that in most of G. K. Chesterton’s arguments, he did not rely on authoritative quotes either. Rather he appealed to the common sense of the reader. He has been called “the Apostle of Common Sense.” In that spirit I would like to offer the following common sense argument.

It has been said that voting for a pro-choice candidate is equivalent to providing material support to abortions, and is therefore a mortal sin. The idea is presumably that if I vote for such a candidate when a pro-life candidate was available, and the pro-choice candidate is elected, he will not vote for restrictions on abortion that the pro-life candidate would certainly have voted for, and thus without those restrictions, someone will get an abortion who would not have done so otherwise. Let us see if this reasoning stands up to common sense.

You and your neighbor, John, have known each other for years, and despite your difference in politics, you and John are friends. John has a daughter who suffers from diabetes, and it just so happens that you do too. One morning John desperately knocks on your door with a request. It seems that his daughter needs insulin right away, and somehow they ran out. Could you please give him some insulin for his daughter? Since you have plenty of insulin on hand, you willingly share some with him so he can give it to his daughter. End of story. John gives his daughter the insulin, the crisis is averted, and John thanks you profusely and heads off to work.

But that is not quite the end of the story. I forgot to mention that John’s work is as a state congressman. His full name is John Q. McLiberal. And on this particular day, there was a vote scheduled on the floor deciding whether to impose stricter limits on abortion clinics. With this in mind, let’s see how the story plays out. John comes to you begging for some insulin for his daughter. But you say, “Gee, John, I would really like to help you, but you see if I did that I would be committing a mortal sin.” “How is that?” John asks with disbelief. “Well, if I give you the insulin, your daughter will recover very quickly, and you will most likely head off to the state capital and cast your pro-choice vote. But if I do nothing then you will spend so much time trying to get insulin for her elsewhere that you will miss your floor vote. Giving you the insulin would be cooperating with your evil intent to allow abortions, and I am not allowed to do that.” John pleads, “But the life of my daughter hangs in the balance!” “Sorry, John” you say “but I cannot consider the one life of your daughter as a proportionate reason to ignore the deaths of so many babies. So no, I still cannot give you the insulin to save your daughter’s life. I hope you understand.”

Is there anyone who thinks this response to your neighbor stands up to common sense?

Of course not, since cannot do evil even to achieve a good. Intentionally denying the girl needed medicine is not a morally neutral act. Read up on the doctrine of double effect and you see why your scenario is not one that exemplifies how any pro-life person should act.

 

[pnewton]

uch: :stretcher:

Sorry, but that comment screams overconfidence. :imsorry:

Do folks have any idea what it takes to have an enlightened conscience?

To paraphrase Pope Francis, who are we to judge? We can discuss issues, but the discussion of conscience and guilt of sin as another poster implied, crosses a line we should respect.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Someone who values life as most pro-lifers do would help the little girl and tell that politician that as he cares for his little girl, there are millions of other children who will die most likely a horrible death because of his stance on abortion.

That would be like voting for a pro-choice candidate, and then sending him a letter imploring him to turn away from his evil ways. Is that OK too?

On that note here is what the Apostle of Common sense, G.K. Chesterton said about abortion…

I do not dispute any of that. Nor does my posting that you quoted.