Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[estesbob]

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.

The fact that many Catholics reject Church teaching is irrelevant when discerning:

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions,** assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience,** rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

 

[Path_Finder]

Did Catholics voted as the Bishops instructed? It’s a bit tiresome to bring in some argument, that the majority, if so even, voted against Catholic Teachings. I’m not even sure if this is so for 2012.

This same line has been repeated so often. I do not believe such Catholics followed the teachings of the Church.

Also, before we call it discernment, that’s a tricky word as well to just foist that on the voting public. Union members, etc. may influence the way a vote is cast.

 

[Path_Finder]

No blood on my hands, no way am I voting for a Democrat that would okay a baby being killed seconds before birth even if that baby may be one of color. That some would vote for a Democrat being against the born alive infant protection act likewise is repugnant.

 

[Milasol]

It amazes me the lengths some “Catholics” would go to justify the murdering of human beings.

I wonder if they thought about what they will say to God in judgment. Sorry God I didn’t think those souls were worthy. You shouldn’t have created them.

I really hope they reflect on it. Because they will see God face to face.

 

[Ender]

Well, from the responses I’ve gotten to this post, apparently everyone thinks saving the life of one little girl with insulin is a sufficient reason to risk not passing a restrictive law on abortion as an unintended double effect. So why wouldn’t saving a whole bunch of kids from childhood diseases with a vaccination program be sufficient reason to risk the same thing as an unintended double-effect? Because that is just what someone who votes for a pro-choice candidate for some other reason might do.

We are never faced with the moral choice of whether or not to save children from diseases. That is simply a false dilemma. What we face is a prudential choice between opposing options meant to achieve a common good. You may believe that a particular law is necessary and would achieve great things, but that position is no more moral than the opposing position taken by those who believe it would be harmful. There is no moral aspect to that choice. There is, however, a moral choice to be made between someone who supports and someone who opposes abortion, just not one who supports and someone who opposes any particular vaccination program.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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.

I think this is too cynical view of the Church leadership. Remember this is the same Church that did not hesitate to speak the truth to the early Romans when Christianity was an outlawed religion, and speaking the truth meant death. Thankfully we are we not in quite the same position in most places on earth as we were then, but I like to think that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church today just as He was then, and if it is appropriate to speak out, the leadership of the Church who in times past sacrificed their very lives to do so, would not hesitate now because of some minor tax issue.

 

[ringil]

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

Pope Francis has stated that there are not “negotiable” and “non-negotiable” issues.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

We are never faced with the moral choice of whether or not to save children from diseases. That is simply a false dilemma. What we face is a prudential choice between opposing options meant to achieve a common good. You may believe that a particular law is necessary and would achieve great things, but that position is no more moral than the opposing position taken by those who believe it would be harmful. There is no moral aspect to that choice. There is, however, a moral choice to be made between someone who supports and someone who opposes abortion, just not one who supports and someone who opposes any particular vaccination program.

Ender

Thank you, Ender, for taking my question seriously, and not posting some silly train wreck picture.

I understand what you mean about disagreements over prudential judgements. But isn’t that also involved in my father-needs-insulin story? You (in the story) and John both think, based on your prudential judgement, that the insulin will help John’s daughter. You may be wrong. But at the time you are justifiably confident - as confident as anyone can expect to be about a prudential judgement - that giving her the insulin will save her. On the other side of the equation you have the absolute assurance that abortion is wrong, and that enabling abortion is wrong. So what are you to do? Act on your reasonably certain prudential judgement and give John the insulin for his daughter? Or deny him the insulin because it is opposed to the absolute prohibition against actively enabling abortions, even as a side effect? This is the question I asked, and so far no one has ventured to say that in this case the absolute prohibition against enabling abortions is to be followed. (Recall that John is a pro-choice congressman who is late for an important floor vote on abortion, and giving him the insulin will enable him to get to work in time to cast his vote.)

 

[JimG]

You have tried out a scenario in which it is posited that saving a girl’s life will enable an abortion vote. It’s a ridiculous scenario. Anyone faced with a child in immediate danger will take action to save the child. Legislative votes on abortion and on abortion restrictions take place all the time. It would also seem that the father of a child in danger would not be keen on getting to the legislature but rather in taking care of his child, the immediate priority at hand.

Archbishop Chaput was quote earlier in the thread with saying “for 35 years I’ve watched prominent pro-choice Catholics justify themselves with this kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event.”

For me it’s a no-brainer. One party cherishes abortion. One party cherishes sexual license and an end to traditional marriage. One party pursues limits to religious liberty. One party wishes to sexualize our children from the earliest age possible. Such things can do nothing good for the nation.

 

[Mulligan2]

It amazes me the lengths some “Catholics” would go to justify the murdering of human beings.

I wonder if they thought about what they will say to God in judgment. Sorry God I didn’t think those souls were worthy. You shouldn’t have created them.

I really hope they reflect on it. Because they will see God face to face.

Early in the George W Bush presidency, the Republicans had a majority in both houses of Congress. They could have done something on this issue if they wanted to. They didn’t. So either Republicans didn’t view this issue as being important, or they feared the political backlash it would generate. And considering the Republicans failed foreign policy, as well as their economic policies that caused the Great Recession, I would consider it a defilement of my ballot if I were to cast a vote for this lot.

 

[Ender]

Pope Francis has stated that there are not “negotiable” and “non-negotiable” issues.

No, he stated that there are no negotiable “values”. Cardinal Ratzinger addressed the question of issues and said there is a hierarchy among them.Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.
Ender

 

[Mulligan2]

The fact that many Catholics reject Church teaching is irrelevant when discerning:

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions,** assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience,** rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

estesbob, what do want to see happen? Assuming that Catholics who vote Democratic are not going to change their party affiliation and/or vote for other candidates, now what? Do you want Democratic voters to cease identifying as Catholics? Do you want them to cease attending mass? Do you want their local priest to preach about their poor discernment during his homily?

 

[estesbob]

estesbob, what do want to see happen? Assuming that Catholics who vote Democratic are not going to change their party affiliation and/or vote for other candidates, now what? Do you want Democratic voters to cease identifying as Catholics? Do you want them to cease attending mass? Do you want their local priest to preach about their poor discernment during his homily?

I want Catholics to be aware of the teachings of the Church and adhere to them when they vote. One way to accomlish this is to correct the distortions, rationalizations and untruths posted to these forums by disident Catholics. I find it best to use actual Church Documents and direct quotes from members of the Magestrium to do this

 

[Al_Moritz]

Early in the George W Bush presidency, the Republicans had a majority in both houses of Congress. They could have done something on this issue if they wanted to. They didn’t. So either Republicans didn’t view this issue as being important, or they feared the political backlash it would generate. And considering the Republicans failed foreign policy, as well as their economic policies that caused the Great Recession, I would consider it a defilement of my ballot if I were to cast a vote for this lot.

‘Or they feared the political backlash it would generate’: that hits the nail on the head. Republicans are about power first, morals second. They know full well that they would lose power were they to tackle the abortion issue nationally. They would keep the ‘social conservative’ votes, but lose a lot of others. They only tackle abortion on the state level in states where they have nothing to fear power-wise.

To vote for Republicans nationally just because of abortion is gullible. But that is precisely the vote that Republicans cynically count on. They desperately need the ‘social conservative’ vote, that’s why they always talk about wanting to do something about abortion on the national level. But they will never actually do anything about it for the reason stated above, because they don’t want to lose the other votes.

Nothing in Church teaching says that I am morally obliged to vote in false hope for a party that in my judgment only pays lip service to an issue, morally grave as that issue may be.

As I said before:

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, gubernatorial, state senate etc. (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.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Early in the George W Bush presidency, the Republicans had a majority in both houses of Congress. They could have done something on this issue if they wanted to. They didn’t. So either Republicans didn’t view this issue as being important, or they feared the political backlash it would generate. And considering the Republicans failed foreign policy, as well as their economic policies that caused the Great Recession, I would consider it a defilement of my ballot if I were to cast a vote for this lot.

S. 3 (108th): Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003

H.R. 1997 (108th): Laci and Conner’s Law

Following bills were introduced after 2005:

Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act

H.R. 6099 (109th): Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2006

H.R. 6169 (109th): Post-Abortion Depression Research and Care Act

S. 3939 (109th): RU-486 Patient Health and Safety Protection Act

S. 1983 (109th): Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2005

H.R. 2971 (109th): Parental Notification and Intervention Act of 2005

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You have tried out a scenario in which it is posited that saving a girl’s life will enable an abortion vote. It’s a ridiculous scenario.

The reason for my scenario was to explore the seemingly unique role that voting plays in this issue. We always talk about who we may or may not vote for. And the reason given for prohibiting a vote for a pro-choice candidate has always been that doing so is active cooperation in enabling abortion, an intrinsic evil.

Well, that reason would apply to other acts besides voting. Because there are many ways in which one might enable abortion besides voting. One could donate to Planned Parenthood for example. But most of those other ways in which a person might enable abortion do not share the key characteristic of voting that has been the subject of so much debate. That is the fact that in voting for a candidate, you get all of him - the good and the bad. If you judge him to be good on one issue, you cannot have that good without also accepting the bad.

So my purpose was to come up with some other choice that is like voting in this respect but is not voting. If you don’t like my scenario, then suggest another, less outlandish one. It just needs to be a case where a person is faced with a choice of cooperating with the enabling of abortion or failing to do some other very specific and highly desirable good work, like saving the girl with insulin.

 

[Ender]

Thank you, Ender, for taking my question seriously, and not posting some silly train wreck picture.

Well I do think the example is extreme (which points to the extreme lengths one has to go to craft a defense to support supporting pro-abortion politicians) but I think it can be a useful exercise. Besides, while we never seem to agree on anything I find your comments interesting and challenging.

I understand what you mean about disagreements over prudential judgements. But isn’t that also involved in my father-needs-insulin story? You (in the story) and John both think, based on your prudential judgement, that the insulin will help John’s daughter. You may be wrong.

This isn’t actually how you framed the story. Earlier you said:“John gives his daughter the insulin, the crisis is averted”.
You really shouldn’t change the conditions now from “insulin will save her life” to “insulin may save her life”, but since it’s not really material to the question you’re asking here, we’ll go with it. I am obliged to do what I think is right and if I believe the girl will die unless I give her my insulin then I have a moral obligation to do so, and the fact that mine is a prudential judgment doesn’t change that duty. If I believe she will die unless I act then I am morally bound to act.

But at the time you are justifiably confident - as confident as anyone can expect to be about a prudential judgement - that giving her the insulin will save her. On the other side of the equation you have the absolute assurance that abortion is wrong, and that enabling abortion is wrong.

This is unacceptably vague. If by “enabling” you mean cooperating with then we have already addressed when cooperation is acceptable. If you mean something else then you need to be more specific. In any event, I cannot do evil that good may come of it so regardless of what the father does I cannot ignore my moral obligation to his child. My sin would be letting her die; I am not responsible for his sin even if saving his daughter allows him to commit it.

This is the question I asked, and so far no one has ventured to say that in this case the absolute prohibition against enabling abortions is to be followed.

This is where the vagueness of “enabling” matters. There is no absolute prohibition against the remote, material cooperation with evil.

Ender

 

[Milasol]

Early in the George W Bush presidency, the Republicans had a majority in both houses of Congress. They could have done something on this issue if they wanted to. They didn’t. So either Republicans didn’t view this issue as being important, or they feared the political backlash it would generate. And considering the Republicans failed foreign policy, as well as their economic policies that caused the Great Recession, I would consider it a defilement of my ballot if I were to cast a vote for this lot.

You are talking about someone who according to you doesn’t do anything against abortion versus a party that is in bed with PP.

Also, you can’t seriously claim that foreign policy under this administration is nothing other than disastrous. And dangerous. Don’t get me started. After 20 years of international relations the state of this country has never been worse. Failed arab spring, failed russia, failed Muslim brotherhood containment, promoting Muslim brotherhood agenda worldwide, etc etc. The list is endless. I worked in this administration and I know what is going on inside and the real agendas and who is who inside. And if the average American knew they would literally weeping and gnashing their teeths.

And finally, as I stated before I would not want to stand in front of God after condoning abortion.

PS. If it was up to democrats we would still have partial birth abortion. Oh I remember when Clinton vetoed that. Inhumane!

 

[Al_Moritz]

And finally, as I stated before I would not want to stand in front of God after condoning abortion.

Nobody here condones abortion. If you say that voting Democrat does that, I would counter that in my judgement voting Republican does nothing less, since that party only pays lip service to the issue (for reasons to do so see my post above), at least when it comes to the big one, making all abortion illegal on the national level.

 

[Ender]

Early in the George W Bush presidency, the Republicans had a majority in both houses of Congress. They could have done something on this issue if they wanted to. They didn’t. So either Republicans didn’t view this issue as being important, or they feared the political backlash it would generate.

You are apparently unfamiliar with the way the Congress works. A simple majority in the House is sufficient to pass any bill the majority proposes, but this is not how things work in the Senate. There, unless there is a super-majority of 60 votes, no bill can be brought to the Senate for a vote because the minority can filibuster it. The Republicans under Bush did not have such a majority and no bill restricting abortion was possible. The President could (and Bush did) issue executive orders putting some limits on abortions (e.g. the Mexico City policy) but those had effect only overseas and not in the US.

Your objection to the Republicans in this case amounts to a complaint that they did not accomplish the impossible.

Ender