Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[markomalley]

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?

Perhaps you should re-examine the positions of politicians you support in light of the Papal Magisterium.

I am not saying that the GOP platform lines up with the Magisterium totally. It doesn’t.

But if you take a good, solid examination of these positions, I think you’d be surprised.

I’ll give you two examples:

First, trade unions.

The Church, without a question, allows Catholics to support trade unions and, in fact, supports the concept of participation through that mechanism. However, consider the words of Pius X on the subject (which have never been contradicted by any subsequent pope):

1. Furthermore, if Catholics are to be permitted to join the trade unions, these associations must avoid everything that is not in accord, either in principle or practice, with the teachings and commandments of the Church or the proper ecclesiastical authorities. Similarly, everything is to be avoided in their literature or public utterances or actions which in the above view would incur censure.

The Bishops, therefore, should consider it their sacred duty to observe carefully the conduct of all these associations and to watch diligently that the Catholic members do not suffer any harm as a result of their participation. The Catholic members themselves, however, should never permit the unions, whether for the sake of material interests of their members or the union cause as such, to proclaim or support teachings or to engage in activities which would conflict in any way with the directives proclaimed by the supreme teaching authority of the Church, especially those mentioned above. Therefore, as often as problems arise concerning matters of justice or charity, the Bishops should take the greatest care to see that the faithful do not overlook Catholic moral teaching and do not depart from it even a finger’s breadth.

Or as JPII said,

In this sense, union activity undoubtedly enters the field of politics, understood as prudent concern for the common good. However, the role of unions is not to “play politics” in the sense that the expression is commonly understood today. Unions do not have the character of political parties struggling for power; they should not be subjected to the decision of political parties or have too close links with them. In fact, in such a situation they easily lose contact with their specific role, which is to secure the just rights of workers within the framework of the common good of the whole of society; instead they become an instrument used for other purposes.(Laborem Exercens)

Yet there are those politicians who support all trade unions no matter what those trade unions stand for (I think of the pro-abortion messages that unions such as NEA and SEIU have supported as an example). Or consider the marriage between Trade Unions and certain political parties.

Another example. is the welfare state.

Benedict XVI clearly stated,

The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person—every person—needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. (Deus Caritas Est)

Or, as JPII stated,

In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good. (Centesimus Annus)

These are clear warnings (and, yes, there are many more) about the danger of the State that would provide cradle-to-grave support for its citizens. Yet there are some politicians who support just that. Should Catholics give their support to politicians with those views?

Of course, there are other examples. I am not hardly saying that either political party is perfect in this regard (I think about many politicians in the GOP who support unrestricted illegal immigration for the purpose of providing cheap labor. I also think about politicians of both parties who are in favor of cronyism in government contracting)

But the Magisterium should be our guide in shaping our political views.

 

[Path_Finder]

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.

Or some people care more about abortion supporting politicians than innocent lives.

** Ring, Ring, Ring! **

Talking about browbeating, the DemocratIC party sought to take God out of its platform. Unbelievable.

 

[Ender]

But to balance that, note that my scenario saves only one little girl, whereas I might believe with my prudential judgement that the foreign aid vaccination program favored by the pro-choice candidate could thousands of lives. So that is a difference in degree only.

I disagree with this. I believe the situations are different in kind, not just in degree, but let’s put this in the starkest light possible: I can save one girl by doing A or thousands by doing B. Clearly I should do B…or should I? Suppose that instead of the choice being between supplying insulin or not the choice is between killing the girl or not. After all, if the girl dies the father won’t go to work and cast his vote. Once again we have the choice between one life and thousands of lives. If I am justified in letting the girl die (by withholding insulin) to achieve a political goal why would I not be equally justified in killing the girl outright to achieve the same goal? In both cases my actions directly lead to her death and the saving of thousands of others. What’s not to like?

The only objection to either killing the girl or deliberately letting her die to save thousands of others is that the action is intrinsically wrong and may not be done for any reason. Unless we can accept that this is true then we are consequentialists who believe that the morality of an act is determined by its consequences. This is why the situations above differ in kind and not just in degree.

I don’t know if enabling is right word or not. But whatever the word is that best describes why voting for a pro-choice candidate is wrong, I want to use the same word to describe what John’s neighbor did for John.

Cooperation with evil will do.

How is this different from saying that there is no absolute prohibition against voting for a pro-choice candidate over a pro-life candidate…

The prohibition against voting for a pro-choice candidate over a pro-life candidate is not absolute; there are conceivable scenarios where such an act could be justified. Where this all goes wrong is that none of those scenarios include the justifications we have so far heard.

Ender

 

[Path_Finder]

I disagree with this. I believe the situations are different in kind, not just in degree, but let’s put this in the starkest light possible: I can save one girl by doing A or thousands by doing B. Clearly I should do B…or should I? Suppose that instead of the choice being between supplying insulin or not the choice is between killing the girl or not. After all, if the girl dies the father won’t go to work and cast his vote. Once again we have the choice between one life and thousands of lives. If I am justified in letting the girl die (by withholding insulin) to achieve a political goal why would I not be equally justified in killing the girl outright to achieve the same goal? In both cases my actions directly lead to her death and the saving of thousands of others. What’s not to like?

The only objection to either killing the girl or deliberately letting her die to save thousands of others is that the action is intrinsically wrong and may not be done for any reason. Unless we can accept that this is true then we are consequentialists who believe that the morality of an act is determined by its consequences. This is why the situations above differ in kind and not just in degree.
Cooperation with evil will do.
The prohibition against voting for a pro-choice candidate over a pro-life candidate is not absolute; there are conceivable scenarios where such an act could be justified. Where this all goes wrong is that none of those scenarios include the justifications we have so far heard.

Ender

Great post and low and behold, not one mention of the parties involved in those who try to make this a partisan issue and belittle those who actually are doing things to stop abortion outside of course, of states where it is common like California and New York.

 

[sallybutler]

If someone says they are pro-life, but belongs to a church that says abortion is okay in certain situations, is it a sin to vote for that person?

 

[Path_Finder]

Black Pro-Lifers say abortion is way worse than what that other militia arm of the DemocratIC party ever did historically. This is what Reverend Childers and others say. I will take their word for it. The way Planned Parenthood is set up indeed is racist as can much of what Margaret Sanger said.

A black child is 5 times more likely to be aborted than a white.

Those who seem to cynically defend this industry, take note.

 

[Ender]

When it comes to the biggie, Roe v. Wade, there is no will to overturn it by the Supreme Court. Just look at what Chief Justice Roberts said in his Senate confirmation hearing: he would not seek to overturn it because “it’s the law of the land”.

Your ideology distorts your understanding. Roberts never said he would not seek to overturn Roe. Such a statement about pre-judging a case before it was even presented to him would have marked him as unfit for the office. All he did was acknowledge that Roe was “the law of the land.” Wow, a justice admitted that laws are laws. What was he thinking? We do not know how Roberts, Alito, Kagan, or Sotomayor would vote should an abortion case come before the court, but if Vegas was to set odds on which way they would go the differences between the Republican and Democrat appointees would be obvious.

So you think more Republican-appointed judges would make a difference and the Supreme Court would actually want to take on the issue? Dream on, ain’t gonna happen.

Since it has already happened before there is little reason to believe it won’t happen again. In fact had Robert Bork been confirmed back in 1987 Roe would have already been overturned. Unlike every other nominee since, Bork had written about Roe and called it wrongly decided. Had he been on the court instead of Anthony Kennedy when the Casey decision was heard, Roe would have fallen. The assertion that Republicans won’t nominate justices willing to overturn Roe is a fairy tale.

Ender

 

[markomalley]

Black Pro-Lifers say abortion is way worse than what that other militia arm of the DemocratIC party ever did historically. This is what Reverend Childers and others say. I will take their word for it. The way Planned Parenthood is set up indeed is racist as can much of what Margaret Sanger said.

A black child is 5 times more likely to be aborted than a white.

Those who seem to cynically defend this industry, take note.

Anybody who hasn’t seen the movie, Maafa 21, should. You can watch it online for free at the link (you have to give an email addy, but that’s it)

 

[Path_Finder]

Anybody who hasn’t seen the movie, Maafa 21, should. You can watch it online for free at the link (you have to give an email addy, but that’s it)

I think it’s all there at youtube as well. I watched it all one day at the library since my own computer is not that good.

I heard one African American minister go on about how horrible it would be that their daughters go through these procedures.

 

[Ender]

Once more, you must have missed my remarks about voting Republican on the state level, where they actually do something about abortion.

What is it you think they could do - or could have done - at the national level? They did get a partial birth abortion ban passed but what other restriction do you think was possible?

Ender

 

[WildCatholic]

I. I think that for a lot of Christians, their political party IS their religion, and that is unfortunate. /QUOTE]

You are telling me. I got an earful from a Christian evangelical because I was an independent.

 

[Path_Finder]

Allegra;12225365:

I. I think that for a lot of Christians, their political party IS their religion, and that is unfortunate. /QUOTE]

You are telling me. I got an earful from a Christian evangelical because I was an independent.

There may be some people ashamed to support marriage and life but not me.

Saying party IS religion is more or less, seems to be a way to take a slight, and another one at that, at others who actually do things for the good.

 

[Dawnia]

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?

First, I am not saying that at all. I am simply pointing out that voting in pro-abortion candidates is counterproductive to ending abortion. It should be no surprise that the outcome of voting in such people is that abortion will be expanded rather than reduced.

Secondly, I’d suggest if you want a better selection of candidates, don’t wait until you only have the choice between the lesser of two evils to choose from.

 

[Dawnia]

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.

Not even all politicians toe the line of their party’s platform, so why would you expect voters to?

 

[sallybutler]

Not even all politicians toe the line of their party’s platform, so why would you expect voters to?

So it is okay to vote for a pro-life Democrat?

 

[Milasol]

So it is okay to vote for a pro-life Democrat?

yes, but for decades I’ve been trying to find one at the national or state level but haven’t.

 

[estesbob]

So it is okay to vote for a pro-life Democrat?

Of course it is.Whether one should or not given their likely support of pro-abortion democrat leadership is a matter for prudential judgement

 

[sallybutler]

Of course it is.Whether one should or not given their likely support of pro-abortion democrat leadership is a matter for prudential judgement

What is the difference between a that and a pro-life candidate that belongs to a church that says abortion is allowed in certain limited situations?

 

[Path_Finder]

Not even all politicians toe the line of their party’s platform, so why would you expect voters to?

What is Torture? Waterboarding? Will it make detractors happy if a few thousand Americans are killed because someone wasn’t waterboarded?

War? Are the same people who bring this up wanting to call the current president a war criminal for drone bombing innocent civilians? Or for the wanted intervention in Libya? Possible arming of rebels?

Social Security? What are the conditions of the Great Democrat run cities like Chicago and Detroit?

Capital Punishment?? Last I knew, former President Clinton did not stop executions.

I guess everything must be the Republican faults.

Oil? Big environmental damage being done in North Dakota? 0% unemployment or near it.

 

[Personanongrata]

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.

Roe v Wade will never be overturned. It’s time to get over that part and continue to work to decrease the numbers and reasons why women choose abortion.