Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[Milasol]

Our country’s in a fine state. I don’t understand why people think there’s such a doomsday scenario. Jobs are returning (except in conservative states), health care is becoming broader and more protective and accessible (except in some conservative states), the economy is booming (except in conservative states). And we’re doing extremely well at international relations and diplomacy.

For all intents and purposes, outside of abortion and related issues (IVF/contraception), our country is on a good path. But of course, Republicans generally support IVF and contraception, which is why they aren’t mentioned on CAF as political issues . And Romney would not have changed virtually anything with regards to abortion.

So I’d rather have our current state of abortion and our current recovering economy than have our current state of abortion and have a crashed economy with an even larger wealth gap and a disaster of a foreign policy that Romney would have provided us with. You’re kidding yourself if you think Ryan would’ve had any power whatsoever.

You think this country is in a good path? What?
Economically a disaster
Foreign Policy… supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, bringing in the so-called Arab spring that put more hardcore islamists into power, i.e. Morsi, Russia
Every sector is suffering
Health care… well don’t get me started
Freedoms are being taken away (see the current dozens of lawsuits our Church is currently taking to court against this administration)

I have never seen this country in such a bad state.

You are trying to justify voting for someone who SUPPORTED INFANTICIDE 3 times and then lied and said that there were programs to support those babies. Lies there was none. That is why it was brought to the floor 3 times. So you voted for someone who would leave babies rot in a trash can. Literally.

 

[Jeanne_S]

For example, did you agree with Obama when he said, “if you like your plan, you can keep it” ?

• Or -

Did you prefer his other position which was, “if you like your plan, you can’t keep it” ???

Did you agree with Obama when he said his administration would “be the most transparent” ?

Or did you agree with the reality of his administration which has been the opposite?

Did you agree with Obama that “there is no red state America, no blue state America” ?

Or, do you agree with Obama’s strategy to divide Americans against each other and demonize his opposition?

Which Obama did you agree with?

Ishii

Nailed it!

 

[freeRadical]

Our country’s in a fine state. I don’t understand why people think there’s such a doomsday scenario. Jobs are returning (except in conservative states), health care is becoming broader and more protective and accessible (except in some conservative states), the economy is booming (except in conservative states). And we’re doing extremely well at international relations and diplomacy.

What country are you living in? Jobs are returning? The economy is booming? The economy is not doing fine. Just wait until the Fed stops propping up the economy. Then we will see just how “good” the economy is doing.

We’re doing extremely well at international relations and diplomacy? Don’t make me laugh.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Our country’s in a fine state. I don’t understand why people think there’s such a doomsday scenario. Jobs are returning (except in conservative states), health care is becoming broader and more protective and accessible (except in some conservative states), the economy is booming (except in conservative states). And we’re doing extremely well at international relations and diplomacy.

For all intents and purposes, outside of abortion and related issues (IVF/contraception), our country is on a good path. But of course, Republicans generally support IVF and contraception, which is why they aren’t mentioned on CAF as political issues . And Romney would not have changed virtually anything with regards to abortion.

So I’d rather have our current state of abortion and our current recovering economy than have our current state of abortion and have a crashed economy with an even larger wealth gap and a disaster of a foreign policy that Romney would have provided us with. You’re kidding yourself if you think Ryan would’ve had any power whatsoever.

There have been numerous salient rebuttals to your misguided perception of this administration…there are none so blind as those who refuse to see…

 

[freeRadical]

So I’d rather have our current state of abortion and our current recovering economy than have our current state of abortion and have a crashed economy with an even larger wealth gap and a disaster of a foreign policy that Romney would have provided us with. You’re kidding yourself if you think Ryan would’ve had any power whatsoever.

You do know that the gap between the rich and the poor has increased under Obama right?

As far as foreign policy is concerned, there is no way Romney could have done worse than Obama.

 

[Path_Finder]

Because they’re loyal to the Democratic Party? PP is more afraid of state Republicans than anything national – they know they’re solid on a national stage.

They know they are on a solid stage nationally so they spend $ 3 million in Ohio and Virginia alone?? Got It!! Pocket change

Planned Parenthood’s Action Fund plans to spend more than $3 million in Ohio and Virginia against Mitt Romney in the wake of his pledge to “get rid” of the women’s health advocacy group.

thehill.com/homenews/campaign/245437-planned-parenthoods-action-fund-planning-revenge-on-mitt-romney

Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s political action fund has spent $3,925,229 campaigning against Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, according to data gathered by opensecrets.org.

weaselzippers.us/125738-planned-parenthood-spends-3925229-campaigning-against-romney/

 

[markomalley]

My main concern in 2012 was that I agreed with Obama on 98% of issues. On the very few we disagreed with, I felt like Romney was a terrible comparison (such as abortion). So even if Mitt Romney would’ve instituted an extremely minor change in abortion law that barely affected anything, we’d be stuck with a fairly pro-abortion President for 8 years minimum (since 2016 would likely be Mitt Romney vs. a pro-abortion Democrat again). If Obama won, 2016 would not involve Mitt Romney. So we’d have 4 years of ever-so-slightly-worse policies at worst, even policies more likely, and then we’d have a real chance to institute change. I considered it actually more pro-life long-term to vote for someone who would only guarantee pro-abortion policies for 4 years than vote for someone who made us stuck with them for 8.

As I did with another poster earlier on this thread, I would encourage you to really take a good, hard look at your positions on various issues and reconcile them with the teachings of the Papal Magisterium. And I don’t mean a cursory examination, but really looking at them hard. When you examine teachings from the Popes since Clement XIV, you can learn a whole lot. Leo XIII, in particular, had a HUGE amount of guidance for the lay faithful in regard to the political life and our conduct as Christian citizens.

Only after doing the above, then bump the position statements and the history of any of the major candidates up against those positions informed by the Papal Magisterium.

No, none of them will be perfect…but you may find that you don’t agree with ANY of the candidates 98%…

 

[Path_Finder]

Jobs are returning except in Conservative States?

All that about Texas leading the nation in jobs is wrong I guess.

North Dakota??: Near zero percent employment?? Conservative State??

 

[DoGodsBidding]

Jobs are returning except in Conservative States?

All that about Texas leading the nation in jobs is wrong I guess.

North Dakota??: Near zero percent employment?? Conservative State??

 

[PTL]

They can . I’m not sure if they can vote Republican , though.

No, they cannot vote for Dem. If Catholics vote for Dem, they are actually not Catholics at all and they know that.

 

[estesbob]

Our country’s in a fine state. I don’t understand why people think there’s such a doomsday scenario. Jobs are returning (except in conservative states), health care is becoming broader and more protective and accessible (except in some conservative states), the economy is booming (except in conservative states). And we’re doing extremely well at international relations and diplomacy.

For all intents and purposes, outside of abortion and related issues (IVF/contraception), our country is on a good path. But of course, Republicans generally support IVF and contraception, which is why they aren’t mentioned on CAF as political issues . And Romney would not have changed virtually anything with regards to abortion.

So I’d rather have our current state of abortion and our current recovering economy than have our current state of abortion and have a crashed economy with an even larger wealth gap and a disaster of a foreign policy that Romney would have provided us with. You’re kidding yourself if you think Ryan would’ve had any power whatsoever.

Can you show us where the Church accepts the view that economic issues trump abortion?

 

[estesbob]

No, they cannot vote for Dem. If Catholics vote for Dem, they are actually not Catholics at all and they know that.

ACatholic who votes for. Pro abortion canidate is still a Catholic. If we start throwing sinners out of the Church there will be no Church left

 

[shockerfan]

Lets see…one side presents Church teaching and a plethora of writings from Bishops supporting their position. The other side presents opinions and feelings, and no writings from Bishops supporting their positions.

guess which is which.

 

[estesbob]

No, they cannot vote for Dem. If Catholics vote for Dem, they are actually not Catholics at all and they know that.

Lets see…one side presents Church teaching and a plethora of writings from Bishops supporting their position. The other side presents opinions and feelings, and no writings from Bishops supporting their positions.

guess which is which.

Which is how these threads always go

 

[sallybutler]

No, they cannot vote for Dem. If Catholics vote for Dem, they are actually not Catholics at all and they know that.

You also can’t vote for anyone who Is okay with contraception or belongs to a church that allows abortion or contraception.

 

[estesbob]

You also can’t vote for anyone who Is okay with contraception or belongs to a church that allows abortion or contraception.

And the Church teaches that where?

 

[sallybutler]

And the Church teaches that where?

People keep saying you can’t vote for a pro-life Democrat. I say that logic must be extended
to pro-life candidates that are members of churches that allow for abortion in the case of rape or incest (the Mormon church) or contraception as that prevents conception (just about all Protestant churches).

I don’t see any difference between a pro-life Democrat and a pro-life Protestant or a pro-life Mormon. They all are affiliated with organizations that are, to some degree, pro-choice.

 

[estesbob]

People keep saying you can’t vote for a pro-life Democrat. I say that logic must be extended
to pro-life candidates that are members of churches that allow for abortion in the case of rape or incest (the Mormon church) or contraception as that prevents conception (just about all Protestant churches).

I don’t see any difference between a pro-life Democrat and a pro-life Protestant or a pro-life Mormon. They all are affiliated with organizations that are, to some degree, pro-choice.

In other words the Church does not teach this

 

[Al_Moritz]

Lets see…one side presents Church teaching and a plethora of writings from Bishops supporting their position. The other side presents opinions and feelings, and no writings from Bishops supporting their positions.

guess which is which.

Here we go. From the USCCB voting guide (emphases added):

1. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.
2. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position* may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons*. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental
   moral evil.

---

Note that all this is in full agreement with the statement by the Pope Emeritus discussed earlier in the thread:

"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia.

“When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

---

The USCCB guide continues (emphases mine):

1. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.
2. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.

---

Note that we have discussed the ‘ability to influence a given issue’. Also discussed were ‘character and integrity’, for example when it came to Romney’s convenient flip-flopping on abortion depending on the political needs of the moment (paying lip service, that is).

 

[sallybutler]

In other words the Church does not teach this

In other words, there is no difference.

When it comes to abortion, the Mormon church and the Democratic party both believe it should be okay in cases of rape and incest.

I am just asking that the association with other pro-choice organizations be treated the same. Of course, as a Catholic, we cannot join another church. But should we be supporting candidates based on their stance on abortion when they obviously have no problem with belonging to a church that teaches abortion is okay?