Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[LeafByNiggle]

I think one would have to ask a series of questions to themselves, and consider the body of teachings relative to your statement:

1. Does one party overwhelmingly opposed childhood vaccinations?

I’m not talking about any party. I am talking about candidates.

1. Is the reason the candidate opposes childhood vaccinations because they truly believe vaccinations are bad for children? Or do they believe that providing vaccinations for a child presents an undue burden on the mother, and its her body so we shouldn’t force her to reach in her wallet and pay for the vaccination?

I was thinking of a foreign aid program that provided vaccinations to the children most at risk and totally without any means of obtaining them.

1. How do the numbers compare? What is the number of children who will die from withholding vaccinations compared to the 1.2 million abortions performed annually?

Well, as I said, apparently everyone here thinks that saving the life of that one girl with insulin that allowed her father to go to work and vote against an abortion restriction bill was worth the risk of the 1.2 million abortions performed annually, so you tell me.

1. What do the bishops say on the subject?

I have not heard any bishops comment on the scenario in my post, but what do you think they would say?

 

[estesbob]

I’m not talking about any party. I am talking about candidates.

I was thinking of a foreign aid program that provided vaccinations to the children most at risk and totally without any means of obtaining them.

Well, as I said, apparently everyone here thinks that saving the life of that one girl with insulin that allowed her father to go to work and vote against an abortion restriction bill was worth the risk of the 1.2 million abortions performed annually, so you tell me.

I have not heard any bishops comment on the scenario in my post, but what do you think they would say?

I have not heard any Bishops comment on what we should do if one Candidate supports abortion and the other has made a pact with the Martians to invade the earth if he is elected. I guess barring a statement from the Vatican that means we can vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

 

[estesbob]

So are you going to be the first one to say that the response given by the man in the story to his neighbor, John, was the morally correct thing to do?

I didn’t read your scenario as I have the clear teachings of our Church to go by and don’t have to rely on the opinions of or stories made up by Catholics looking to rationalize their votes for pro-abortion candidates

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Saving a little girl is a very different issue than legislation.

In both cases, one takes action whose unintended double effect is to enable legislation. If the reason voting for a pro-choice candidate is always wrong is that it enables bad legislation, then it stands to reason that anything else that enables the same bad legislation is also morally wrong.

By the way, John being a politician should know better than to ask another person for prescription drugs (which is illegal and dangerous since there are numerous types of insulin)

When your child’s life is at stake you will not quibble about laws. And suppose he already knew that your insulin was the same kind as his daughter’s.

and should do like every other normal person in the US and call 911.

and that is exactly what he will do after you refuse him. And that will take time, so he will be late to work. So is that what you should tell him when he knocks on your door? “Hey, John, just call 911 and leave me alone.”

Or be a responsible parent and not get to the point of running out in the first place.

Accidents happen. Or maybe John is an irresponsible parent. Is that any reason to let his girl die when you could save her?

 

[Mulligan2]

I didn’t read your scenario as I have the clear teachings of our Church to go by and don’t have to rely on the opinions of or stories made up by Catholics looking to rationalize their votes for pro-abortion candidates

The flip side of your question is more relevant. If the church truly believed that pro-choice v pro-life is the defining criteria of any election, why doesn’t the church endorse specific candidates in all elections, in addition to giving the congregation a “who to vote for” guide prior to every election?

 

[Jeanne_S]

The flip side of your question is more relevant. If the church truly believed that pro-choice v pro-life is the defining criteria of any election, why doesn’t the church endorse specific candidates in all elections, in addition to giving the congregation a “who to vote for” guide prior to every election?

Your suggestion reflects the reason the IRS is initiating a "probe"into Churches preaching politics from the pulpit. This is a no no if they want to maintain tax exempt status
However,our bishops have strongly encouraged voting a certain way with listing non -negotiables within Church teaching.Ultimately,it is up to the indivdidual to vote accordingly

 

[estesbob]

The flip side of your question is more relevant. If the church truly believed that pro-choice v pro-life is the defining criteria of any election, why doesn’t the church endorse specific candidates in all elections, in addition to giving the congregation a “who to vote for” guide prior to every election?

The Church NEVER endorses specific political candidates. Never. Again if you have a quote from a member of the Magisterium stating one can for a pro-abortion candidate please post it. I have posted numerous documents and quotes showing one can not.

To be honest haven been involved in this internet discussion on abortion since 1983 I can tell you if the Pope had said “you cant vote for Barrack Obama” we would have immediately seen a multitude of Democrat Catholics swearing he was talking about a “different Obama”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The Church NEVER endorses specific political candidates. Never. Again if you have a quote from a member of the Magisterium stating one can for a pro-abortion candidate please post it. I have posted numerous documents and quotes showing one can not.

To be honest haven been involved in this internet discussion on abortion since 1983 I can tell you if the Pope had said “you cant vote for Barrack Obama” we would have immediately seen a multitude of Democrat Catholics swearing he was talking about a “different Obama”

You did not answer Mulligan2’s question. We all agree that the Church does not endorse specific candidates. That was not the question. The question, why is this so?

 

[estesbob]

You did not answer Mulligan2’s question. We all agree that the Church does not endorse specific candidates. That was not the question. The question, why is this so?

Because the Church is not a political organization. They lay out the moral foundations which are more than adequate to help us discern who we can not vote for. Note the Church never says we MUST vote for someone who holds certain views-just points out what views a candidate holds that would disqualify a catholic from voting for them

 

[Dawnia]

In both cases, one takes action whose unintended double effect is to enable legislation. If the reason voting for a pro-choice candidate is always wrong is that it enables bad legislation, then it stands to reason that anything else that enables the same bad legislation is also morally wrong.

When your child’s life is at stake you will not quibble about laws. And suppose he already knew that your insulin was the same kind as his daughter’s.

and that is exactly what he will do after you refuse him. And that will take time, so he will be late to work. So is that what you should tell him when he knocks on your door? “Hey, John, just call 911 and leave me alone.”

Accidents happen. Or maybe John is an irresponsible parent. Is that any reason to let his girl die when you could save her?

No, I’d call CPS to report a negligent father who instead of calling qualified medical professionals leaves his daughter alone to run to the neighbor’s house to illegally obtain prescription meds instead of calling 911 so that medical professionals can treat his daughter. Then I’d probably slap him upside the head for being stupid.

 

[SuperLuigi]

So you admit you posted a falsehood about the GOP. You post a falsehood : “the GOP is for the elimination of school lunches” then blame someone else’s post for you making the falsehood. Then accuse me of being defensive for calling you on it.

This is the problem - or one of the problems: we can’t seem to have a rational conversation without the hyperbole (“The GOP wants kids to starve”) and falsehoods. But most telling, Ringil, is that in a thread questioning the morality of voting Democrat, you create a false issue of the GOP wanting to starve children. I understand that it makes Democrat catholics very, very uncomfortable discussing the morality of voting Democrat in light of their support for abortion rights. I would be very uncomfortable too if I was in the same position. But even though I understand the untenable position you are in: I will still call you on it when you speak falsehoods. And I hope that everyone can see just how desperate Democrat catholics become when faced with explaining their support for the party of abortion.

Ishii

Is that going be their response if God asks them? That they voted pro-abortion because the GOP is “mean” and somehow, it’s the job of public schools to feed kids who in many cases could’ve just brought their own lunch?

Man, when pushed with logic the left sure gets desperate.

 

[SuperLuigi]

The flip side of your question is more relevant. If the church truly believed that pro-choice v pro-life is the defining criteria of any election, why doesn’t the church endorse specific candidates in all elections, in addition to giving the congregation a “who to vote for” guide prior to every election?

Actually, the post this comment refers to is VERY relevant.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No, I’d call CPS to report a negligent father who instead of calling qualified medical professionals leaves his daughter alone to run to the neighbor’s house to illegally obtain prescription meds instead of calling 911 so that medical professionals can treat his daughter. Then I’d probably slap him upside the head for being stupid.

I said the father came asking for the insulin, not the daughter. If your daughter were in desperate need of insulin and you knew there was some perfectly good insulin right next door, would you opt to call 911 and wait, hoping they get there in time, or ask your neighbor for a sure thing? And whether you call CPS services after this is beside the point. The main question is, would you give him the insulin for his daughter, knowing that doing so will speed him on his way to work, where he will likely vote for against the abortion bill?

 

[estesbob]

I said the father came asking for the insulin, not the daughter. If your daughter were in desperate need of insulin and you knew there was some perfectly good insulin right next door, would you opt to call 911 and wait, hoping they get there in time, or ask your neighbor for a sure thing? And whether you call CPS services after this is beside the point. The main question is, would you give him the insulin for his daughter, knowing that doing so will speed him on his way to work, where he will likely vote for against the abortion bill?

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608018222324714927&pid=1.7

 

[Dawnia]

I said the father came asking for the insulin, not the daughter. If your daughter were in desperate need of insulin and you knew there was some perfectly good insulin right next door, would you opt to call 911 and wait, hoping they get there in time, or ask your neighbor for a sure thing? And whether you call CPS services after this is beside the point. The main question is, would you give him the insulin for his daughter, knowing that doing so will speed him on his way to work, where he will likely vote for against the abortion bill?

Ummm…I didn’t say the daughter came to get the insulin. And I think my opinion is pretty obvious.

 

[Path_Finder]

Your suggestion reflects the reason the IRS is initiating a "probe"into Churches preaching politics from the pulpit. This is a no no if they want to maintain tax exempt status
However,our bishops have strongly encouraged voting a certain way with listing non -negotiables within Church teaching.Ultimately,it is up to the indivdidual to vote accordingly

The IRS may be initializing a probe however, 2 years ago, Ministers were “daring” the IRS to enforce Tax Code Restrictions as being a violation of the right to Freedom of Speech. I found this article per Huffington Post and other outlets. I will use the Blaze’s for anyone interested.

Some transcripts of sermons were even sent to the IRS by the churches in question. So this issue is not brand new.

Are American pastors free to share their political views from the pulpit? The answer to this question is complex. While some issues can certainly be discussed, there are also government-sanctioned limitations on partisan preaching (especially if churches expect to keep their tax-exempt status).

A regulation added to the IRS code back in 1954 has muddied the waters for pastors, creating a scenario in which some leaders are too fearful of federal consequences to exercise their right to free speech from the pulpit.

With pastors unsure of just how far they can take their partisan comments about specific candidates, some religious leaders find themselves purposefully avoiding the subject — a result that has potentially led to a decline in church education on issues of great social and political importance.

theblaze.com/stories/2011/09/24/pastors-unite-against-irs-tax-code-restrictions-on-political-speech-in-the-pulpit/

But I like it that our Pastors respect not only free-speech but that people should be able to come to their own decisions.

 

[Path_Finder]

Democrats wanted to take God out of their platform, are for such things as same-sex marriage and the right to choose an abortion. I certainly don’t need a “voting guide” over these issues.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Ummm…I didn’t say the daughter came to get the insulin. And I think my opinion is pretty obvious.

Right. I misunderstood “leave his daughter alone to run…”. So am I right in assuming you would not give him the insulin but just do all those other things you mentioned?

 

[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.

If I grant that it might be possible in theory, another question could be is it possible at the national level? Is money going to be used to fund abortions in this country, oversees, etc.? Or conversely, would the other candidate do what they could to limit funding for abortions and increase restrictions on abortions, etc.?

 

[Mulligan2]

Because the Church is not a political organization. They lay out the moral foundations which are more than adequate to help us discern who we can not vote for. Note the Church never says we MUST vote for someone who holds certain views-just points out what views a candidate holds that would disqualify a catholic from voting for them

The church does not endorse political candidates because it would open itself up to legal / IRS issues. If the legal / taxation issues were not a factor, I don’t know if the church would endorse candidates or not. I suspect that certain priests would make endorsements of candidates, while others would refrain from doing so.

As you have said, the church leaves the discernment up to the individual. However, discernment by definition is unique to each individual. Discernment is not collective. Your discernment is yours and yours alone. In the 2008 and 2012 elections, a majority of our fellow Catholics discerned differently than you did.