Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[ishii]

]Rather than come of with increasingly complex and bizarre scenarios (mental gymnastics as Archbishop Chaput would say)it would be helpful if you post a quote from a single member of the Magisterium that agrees with your opinions. Opinions that conflict with the teachings of the Church

Well said estesbob. It never ceases to amaze me, the mental gymnastics that Democrat Catholics will engage in to rationalize voting for proportion candidates. They come up with all sorts of bizarre scenarios to justify voting for candidates who are pro-abortion rights. As if voting for a pro abortion candidate means denying a girl her insulin - now I’ve heard everything. I believe this thread is making them very uncomfortable as witnessed by the numerous efforts to derail the thread into a conversation about Republicans and the bizarre scenarios.

Indeed, abortion will remain equal until Democrat Catholics learn to hate abortion more than they hate Republicans.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

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 will tell you what I would like to see happen: I would like to see Democrat Catholics think about the sanctity of life before voting. If they think about the sanctity of life and act on that they would probably not be voting Democrat. Democrat Catholics the ball is in your court. I hope you make the right decision next election

Ishii

 

[ishii]

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.

Abortion will remain legal until Democrat Catholics learn to hate abortion more than they hate the Republican Party. Or to put it another way, abortion will remain legal until Democrat Catholics learn to love the unborn more than they love the Democrat party and their deeply ingrained partisan views.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

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.

You could have fooled me Al. Voting Democrat certainly condones abortion. You may wish otherwise but that is the truth. It has been explained to you why it is so difficult to make abortion illegal on the national level with the stroke of a pen. Yet you continue to use that as a rationale for voting for pro abortion Democrats.

Catholic Democrats: think about what you’re doing. The unborn do not benefit from your partisan rationalizations. Indeed, the wages of your votes are abortions.

Ishii

 

[zz912]

Abortion will remain legal until Democrat Catholics learn to hate abortion more than they hate the Republican Party. Or to put it another way, abortion will remain legal until Democrat Catholics learn to love the unborn more than they love the Democrat party and their deeply ingrained partisan views.

Ishii

Sadly, true.

 

[zz912]

‘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.

Excuse #1.

REASONS FOR VOTING FOR PRO-ABORTION POLITICIANS

1. National Republicans aren’t “really” pro-life, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
2. Specific candidate isn’t “really” pro-life, or I don’t believe his supposed change of belief, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
3. My deacon/priest/bishop/cardinal told me or wrote me a letter telling me it was okay to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
4. I’m not a one-issue voter, so I can ignore the Church’s teaching and vote for the virulently pro-abortion politician.
5. Republicans (at any level) have not passed enough pro-life laws (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
6. Republicans (at any level) have not had enough success on pro-life issues (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
7. Roe vs. Wade is still the law of the land even though most Supreme Court justices were appointed by the Republicans, therefore Republicans aren’t serious about abortion, so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
8. I found a Church document that mentioned proportionate reasons in voting, so I personally judged support for a higher minimum wage (or other social justice cause) was on equal footing with abortion, and I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
9. I personally believe that Democratic policies will reduce abortions, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
10. We can’t do anything about abortion until we change the hearts and minds of the people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
11. You can’t legislate morality, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
12. People will still have abortions even if you make them illegal, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
13. We can’t end abortion until we address the root causes, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
14. I can’t impose my beliefs on other people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
15. There isn’t any difference between the parties, so it is okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.

 

[Al_Moritz]

No. Roberts said it was “settled law”.

Even more to my point!! Thank you.

It gets even more obvious:

ontheissues.org/Archive/Alito_Hearings_John_Roberts.htm

This means that Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. Dream on.

---

But hardcore conservatives like on this forum will always deny obvious reality, because they need the abortion issue and their peculiar interpretation of political reality around it as an all too convenient excuse to keep voting for the Republican party, despite its positions on issues that fly in the face of Catholic social teaching. And do I need to mention that Pope Francis condemned ‘trickle down’ economy? But the conservatives on this board will keep going through any bizarre mental gymnastics to justify voting Republican – that includes fanaticallly clinging to their particular black-and-white interpretations of Church documents that are deliberately more ambiguous on the issue of voting than they can tolerate.

 

[Al_Moritz]

By the way, for ‘stare decisis’ mentioned by Republican-appointed Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts in above link, see:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent

 

[Path_Finder]

‘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.

Rationalize the Democratic Party’s support of murder if you must but let’s not be hypocrites and so accusatory towards others who actually have lowered abortion and closed clinics.

 

[Path_Finder]

No. Roberts said it was “settled law”. It is…until a subsequent court overturns it. If a person wanted to know the truth, one could look at the partial birth abortion ban passed by the (I think it was) Nebraska legislature. It went to the Supreme Court. The Justices who upheld the ban were Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas, joined (perhaps surprisingly) by Kennedy. Every one was a Repub appointee. Those who voted to allow unrestricted partial birth abortions were the four Democrat appointees.

Case closed.

I remember the “settled law” part. The Supreme Court also often apparently acts with what is public opinion.

Also, in this, let’s not forget the nomination of Bork was blocked by Democrats, those such as Ted Kennedy clearly stated they were against the nomination because Democrats such as Ted Kennedy was for abortion rights.

 

[markomalley]

This means that Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. Dream on…

Plessy vs Ferguson was also settled law and never supposed to be overturned.

There are three ways in which Roe v Wade could be overturned.

First, the basis of Roe v Wade was that there was no legal basis to assert the rights of personhood on an unborn child. As more and more states assert rights associated with “personhood” to an unborn child, the situation is changing. For example, there are a number of states, including rabidly pro-abortion states like California, that have embraced the idea of fetal homicide (remember the Scott Peterson case?)

If such a case went to the SCOTUS challenging the constitutionality of such a law on the basis of the fact that a fetus is not a person and is therefore incapable of being a victim of homicide and SCOTUS does not overturn the law, then there becomes a precedent for a state to defend an abortion law and directly challenge Roe v Wade, because SCOTUS would have, in effect, changed the fundamental premise upon which Roe v Wade was based.

Secondly, if a pro-life party (GOP or something else or a combination of GOP and so-called pro-life Democrats) was able to get a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress, along with control of sufficient state legislatures, they could get a “personhood” amendment to the Constitution. That, too, would have the effect of nullifying Roe v Wade, as its fundamental premise would be gone.

Third, as SCOTUS justices are replaced, SCOTUS could simply decide to reverse itself. This, of course, would require a pro-life President who would nominate pro-life justices who, in turn, would have to be confirmed by a pro-life Senate (with well more than 60 votes).

Difficult, but not impossible, I admit. Until that time, all they can do is try to eat away at the edges of abortion.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Even more to my point!! Thank you.

It gets even more obvious:

ontheissues.org/Archive/Alito_Hearings_John_Roberts.htm

This means that Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. Dream on.

---

But hardcore conservatives like on this forum will always deny obvious reality, because they need the abortion issue and their peculiar interpretation of political reality around it as an all too convenient excuse to keep voting for the Republican party, despite its positions on issues that fly in the face of Catholic social teaching. And do I need to mention that Pope Francis condemned ‘trickle down’ economy? But the conservatives on this board will keep going through any bizarre mental gymnastics to justify voting Republican – that includes fanaticallly clinging to their particular black-and-white interpretations of Church documents that are deliberately more ambiguous on the issue of voting than they can tolerate.

There have been multiple Supreme court cases which were overturned.

Don’t you think the view on abortion a president has will impact their choice of Supreme court judges? Barack Obama has nominated one supreme court judge, Sonia Sotomayer, and what do you think the chance would be for her voting to overturn Roe v Wade? A president nominates not only supreme court judges, but judges to other courts and a president appoints people to other positions in administration that if supportive of abortion, can advocate for abortion internationally, at the United Nations for example.

A president can sign or refuse to sign abortion related legislation. For example, some Senate Democrats announced the ‘Women’s Health Protection Act’ which would wipe out many abortion regulations in the states. Do you think a pro-life president would sign such a bill into law? Because of the position many Democrats have on abortion, if they had a majority in the House, that bill could pass.

This article was written in 2012

Four ways the president affects abortion rights

 

[Al_Moritz]

Plessy vs Ferguson was also settled law and never supposed to be overturned.

There are three ways in which Roe v Wade could be overturned.

First, the basis of Roe v Wade was that there was no legal basis to assert the rights of personhood on an unborn child. As more and more states assert rights associated with “personhood” to an unborn child, the situation is changing. For example, there are a number of states, including rabidly pro-abortion states like California, that have embraced the idea of fetal homicide (remember the Scott Peterson case?)

If such a case went to the SCOTUS challenging the constitutionality of such a law on the basis of the fact that a fetus is not a person and is therefore incapable of being a victim of homicide and SCOTUS does not overturn the law, then there becomes a precedent for a state to defend an abortion law and directly challenge Roe v Wade, because SCOTUS would have, in effect, changed the fundamental premise upon which Roe v Wade was based.

Secondly, if a pro-life party (GOP or something else or a combination of GOP and so-called pro-life Democrats) was able to get a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress, along with control of sufficient state legislatures, they could get a “personhood” amendment to the Constitution. That, too, would have the effect of nullifying Roe v Wade, as its fundamental premise would be gone.

Third, as SCOTUS justices are replaced, SCOTUS could simply decide to reverse itself. This, of course, would require a pro-life President who would nominate pro-life justices who, in turn, would have to be confirmed by a pro-life Senate (with well more than 60 votes).

Difficult, but not impossible, I admit. Until that time, all they can do is try to eat away at the edges of abortion.

Oh boy, did I mention bizarre mental gymnastics?

A 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress on a “personhood” amendment to the Constitution? Dream on.

As for SCOTUS reversing itself, only someone determined in creating their own comforting ‘alternate reality’ would think that as being possible given Republican-appointed Chief Justice Roberts’ remarks.

 

[markomalley]

Oh boy, did I mention bizarre mental gymnastics?

A 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress on a “personhood” amendment to the Constitution? Dream on.

There are no mental gymnastics involved here. Those are three very straightforward scenarios.

But, don’t worry. I’m not holding my breath as regards getting a 2/3 majority in both houses (personhood amendment or something less effective). After all, there are too many people who have the attitude you’ve displayed in your posts on this thread (whether these are your actual thoughts or just the message you have conveyed, God only knows): “I’m personally pro-life, but I think its fine to vote pro-abortion because pro-life doesn’t politically really mean anything.”

 

[Dawnia]

Oh boy, did I mention bizarre mental gymnastics?

A 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress on a “personhood” amendment to the Constitution? Dream on.

As for SCOTUS reversing itself, only someone determined in creating their own comforting ‘alternate reality’ would think that as being possible given Republican-appointed Chief Justice Roberts’ remarks.

FYI - Justices are only on the bench for a single lifetime, not eternity. New judges change the makeup of the court. While it is a long shot, stranger things have happened. See Amedment 18.

Voting Democrat just sets up a self-fullfilling prophesy. It doesn’t take a genius to see that voting for someone who is for expanding abortion won’t do anything to limit or end abortions. At least some of the Republicans are willing to make the effort to try.

 

[shockerfan]

Oh boy, did I mention bizarre mental gymnastics?

A 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress on a “personhood” amendment to the Constitution? Dream on.

As for SCOTUS reversing itself, only someone determined in creating their own comforting ‘alternate reality’ would think that as being possible given Republican-appointed Chief Justice Roberts’ remarks.

Mr. Moritz,

I see your response about Roe V. Wade. But what about the other abortion laws that pro-abortion rights judges impact? (see post 570). While you think overturning Roe V. Wade is merely a dream, what is not a dream is the danger to many other laws caused by voting for Democrat presidents who appoint pro-abortion rights judges.

Thoughts?

 

[ringil]

FYI - Justices are only on the bench for a single lifetime, not eternity. New judges change the makeup of the court. While it is a long shot, stranger things have happened. See Amedment 18.

Voting Democrat just sets up a self-fullfilling prophesy. It doesn’t take a genius to see that voting for someone who is for expanding abortion won’t do anything to limit or end abortions. At least some of the Republicans are willing to make the effort to try.

So I should vote for someone with whom I disagree on virtually EVERY issue besides abortion on the outside chance that they might, just might be able to do something to limit abortions?

 

[Path_Finder]

Even if it is clear and demonstrable in 2014 that children in Wisconsin, Texas, Arizona, Mississippi are all going to be saved today from abortion, there is usually no shortage from the abortion giant states of New York, California, Massachusetts and Delaware and the last 2 much below the first two who are going to try to justify and rationalize defending pro-abortion politicians i.e. the Democratic Party who is so subservient to Planned Parenthood.

 

[sallybutler]

So I should vote for someone with whom I disagree on virtually EVERY issue besides abortion on the outside chance that they might, just might be able to do something to limit abortions?

I was wondering something along the same lines. Are the people voting Republican only doing it because of the abortion issue, or are they using that as a reason for browbeating others into voting Republican? Do they agree or disagree with the Republican party on taxes, oil, environment, torture, war, social security, capital punishment, health care, etc?

If they disagree with everything else the Republican party stands for, then I admire them for their stance. They are truly making a sacrifice with their votes.

 

[ringil]

i was wondering something along the same lines. Are the people voting republican only doing it because of the abortion issue, or are they using that as a reason for browbeating others into voting republican? .

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!