Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[Crossbones]

I have some comments on your analysis of Catholic voters here on CAF as well as that of the Bush presidency:

I would not compare the utter contempt toward Obama on the part of CAF posters here to the liberals on secular forums. We hold Obama’s policies in utter contempt which we view to be almost completely contrary to Catholic teaching. We also do not trust him on religious freedom due in part to the nature of Obamacare, HHS mandate, etc. Our contempt for Obama is based on this, among other things. I think it is natural for Catholics to be very upset by Obama’s policies - including his abortion policy. What is saddening to me is why some Catholics here actually support Obama (let alone are not upset at his policies).

Regarding compassionate conservatism, I think that was more of a campaign slogan than anything else. But if you want to look at Bush’s record, note that he was a big spending - ushering in new entitlements. I would tend to believe that such spending was done in the name of “compassionate conservatism.” So much for fiscal responsibility. I am sympathetic with your views on foreign policy, and would tend to agree that we have been perhaps too willing to put troops on the ground with no real timeline for withdrawal, nor a definition of what victory is. Thus, we get involved in a country like Afghanistan in 2001 and 13 years later we are still there. 13 years. That is what bothers me - not necessarily the involvement itself, but the length of the involvement. Its kind of like the corollary to the liberal big spending entitlements: once they are created, they never end. One thing that I think conservatives forget is that an activist foreign policy and a huge armed forces requires a huge, monolithic, activist federal government. Ironically it is the wars fought in our country’s history that have done so much to increase the size of government: wars that conservatives have always supported (for the most part).

Ishii

Oh, I think the comparison is s fair. If someone posts a contrary view on either site, they are insulted. For Pete’s sakes, all I did was say here were a few things I think Obama did right and I get abused with a lot of posters following that with the big thumbs up smileys. I don’t care, but the comparison is fair and people like ringil and mulligan2 see through it. There are posters like you that are reasonable and you can have a fruitful discussion with, but probably the majority aren’t.

Maybe President GW Bush’s compassionate conservatism was a campaign slogan, but did it have to be? Many of my Latino friends felt quite betrayed by President Bush - that he could have ushered in reasonable immigration reform but didn’t. The fact that Republican candidates have faired so poorly with this important voting bloc in the last two presidential elections seems to point to this. Probably a majority of these voters agree with Republicans on abortion, but they aren’t voting for Republicans because of other issues. And I agree, President GW Bush was not fiscally responsible.- another strike against the Republicans.

I’m glad we agree on aspects of foreign policy. I hope that the Republicans can find the leadership needed to articulate and follow a more reasonable foreign policy when they come back to power. I wish somebody would ask Vice President Cheney and Senator McCain to not appear on the Sunday news programs and let a new generation of Republicans create a new face and separation from some of the failed ideas of the past.

 

[Path_Finder]

Oh, I think the comparison is s fair. If someone posts a contrary view on either site, they are insulted. For Pete’s sakes, all I did was say here were a few things I think Obama did right and I get abused with a lot of posters following that with the big thumbs up smileys. I don’t care, but the comparison is fair and people like ringil and mulligan2 see through it. There are posters like you that are reasonable and you can have a fruitful discussion with, but probably the majority aren’t.

Maybe President GW Bush’s compassionate conservatism was a campaign slogan, but did it have to be? Many of my Latino friends felt quite betrayed by President Bush - that he could have ushered in reasonable immigration reform but didn’t. The fact that Republican candidates have faired so poorly with this important voting bloc in the last two presidential elections seems to point to this. Probably a majority of these voters agree with Republicans on abortion, but they aren’t voting for Republicans because of other issues. And I agree, President GW Bush was not fiscally responsible.- another strike against the Republicans.

I’m glad we agree on aspects of foreign policy. I hope that the Republicans can find the leadership needed to articulate and follow a more reasonable foreign policy when come back to power. I wish somebody would ask Vice President Cheney and Senator McCain to not appear on the Sunday news programs and let a new generation of Republicans create a new face and separation from some of the failed ideas of the past.

I would urge you to count the

Again, just because some Catholics think things such as voting to allow a baby that survives abortion should be left to die as abhorrent as President Obama did 3 times should likewise not receive condemnation that some would be defending such outrageous behavior.

But talk about Bush, that’s a good tactic.

 

[Path_Finder]

Is this sarcastic?

Was she saying something about those who voted for a man who voted 3 times for infanticide? Yes, against BAIPA in Illinois, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Seems an easy mistake to make if indeed, it is an error. I am not to judge.

 

[Mark121359]

On the differences between Obama and Romney, I agree with NARAL. I am a woman and I want to make choices regarding my body with my doctor. It is my right to decide/choose. I am part of the middle class. The women in Romney’s world are able to make choices about their bodies. When you have the money, you have access to doctors who “abide by your wishes”. That’s why you don’t see PP in Beverly HIlls. They don’t need it.

And finally, the overwhelming majority of Catholic women of child bearing age, use some form of contraception. I personally do not use contraception, but I would never support any man who would try to defund family planning services. I would not support a personhood bill. Women are not are brainless. We are smart, quite capable of making decisions about our own bodies and we vote.

Yes, I voted for Obama. I am one of them.

"If you don’t accept what the Church teaches on issues of faith and morals you can’t claim to be a Catholic. I would say if you’re in favor of the choice to kill babies it isn’t compatible with Catholic faith."
“One cannot be a pro-choice catholic, There are Catholics who don’t understand that and think they’re Catholics… We believe that if you don’t accept what the church teaches in the grave matters of faith and morals, and we know what those are in the Catholic Church, then you’re not in communion with what the Church teaches and therefore you shouldn’t go to communion. Communion isn’t about personal worthiness, it’s about faith, what you believe.”
~Archbishop Charles Chaput~

Peace, Mark

 

[SMGS127]

Can you even name a single thing in the Republican platform, let alone any part that’s immoral.

Opposition to foreign aid (a direct human life issue), support for a very broad usage of the death penalty (a direct human life issue), budgetary policy, monetary policy, economic policy, opposition to AIDS funding in foreign countries (a direct human life issue), broad support for unjust wars, etc.

Pretty much the only parts that aren’t immoral are their views on diplomacy and social issues, but their diplomatic views are just bad. So you’d really be voting for an incompetent Party whose views are almost entirely either immoral or ill-advised merely because on the biggest issue of the day, they are correct.

Only being 2% right, even on such a huge issue, still makes one hesitant to support such a radical Party as the Republican Party.

 

[Ridgerunner]

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

I do not favor throwing sinners out of the Church either. But sinners ought to have the honesty to admit they’re sinning when they do, instead of rationalizing their way around it. “Revinventing” Catholicism to fit what one prefers is why there are some 40,000 sects of Protestantism today.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Opposition to foreign aid (a direct human life issue), support for a very broad usage of the death penalty (a direct human life issue), budgetary policy, monetary policy, economic policy, opposition to AIDS funding in foreign countries (a direct human life issue), broad support for unjust wars, etc.

Pretty much the only parts that aren’t immoral are their views on diplomacy and social issues, but their diplomatic views are just bad. So you’d really be voting for an incompetent Party whose views are almost entirely either immoral or ill-advised merely because on the biggest issue of the day, they are correct.

Only being 2% right, even on such a huge issue, still makes one hesitant to support such a radical Party as the Republican Party.

SOME Repubs oppose foreign aid to SOME countries, but total opposition to foreign aid is actually a libertarian tenet, not a Republican one.

Some Repubs support the death penalty. Some oppose it. Church doctrine does not forbid it absolutely, but does say it should be limited.

The Fed controls monetary policy, not congress or the administration.

Don’t know where anyone came up with the idea that Repubs opposed aiding countries in which AIDS is a problem. Bush had a massive program for that. Now, it is true that SOME Repubs opposed funding of condom distribution.

And I think before anybody gets too righteous about “unjust wars”, one needs to look at what has happened when total opposition to U.S. intervention won the White House. Can anybody really say there was no moral purpose in deposing Saddam Hussein who was responsible for a million deaths and was more danger to the region and the world than ISIS, and none in keeping Iraq stable with our presence?

Iraq went from being ruled by a murderer who started two wars, to peace under U.S. intervention, to being ruled by murderers who have been at war ever since we left.

The Sunni leaders, the Kurds and the Shiites all asked us to stay and guarantee the peace. We didn’t, and now ISIS rules half of the country and half of Syria as well, and has turned Iraq into the battleground between Sunni extremists and Iran that anybody could have known would be the case if Obama won in 2008. He won, and that’s what the Middle East has now.

I would like to see some leftist defend Obama’s war on Libya, turning it over to Islamic terrorists. And I wouldn’t mind seeing their defense of Obama’s support of Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. We just don’t hear them doing that, for some reason.

 

[Dawnia]

Opposition to foreign aid (a direct human life issue), support for a very broad usage of the death penalty (a direct human life issue), budgetary policy, monetary policy, economic policy, opposition to AIDS funding in foreign countries (a direct human life issue), broad support for unjust wars, etc.

Pretty much the only parts that aren’t immoral are their views on diplomacy and social issues, but their diplomatic views are just bad. So you’d really be voting for an incompetent Party whose views are almost entirely either immoral or ill-advised merely because on the biggest issue of the day, they are correct.

Only being 2% right, even on such a huge issue, still makes one hesitant to support such a radical Party as the Republican Party.

So…that’s a no.

 

[Mark121359]

Opposition to foreign aid (a direct human life issue), support for a very broad usage of the death penalty (a direct human life issue), budgetary policy, monetary policy, economic policy, opposition to AIDS funding in foreign countries (a direct human life issue), broad support for unjust wars, etc.

Pretty much the only parts that aren’t immoral are their views on diplomacy and social issues, but their diplomatic views are just bad. So you’d really be voting for an incompetent Party whose views are almost entirely either immoral or ill-advised merely because on the biggest issue of the day, they are correct.

Only being 2% right, even on such a huge issue, still makes one hesitant to support such a radical Party as the Republican Party.

I’d rather be on the side of the “2% right” as you call them, than the “98% wrong” on the real important issues. I’ll stand with Archbishop Charles Chaput and his comments in post # 715, and those that follow as well; I’ve heard no one in the hierarchy challenge or dispute his words.

“I can only speak in terms of my own personal views. I certainly can’t vote for somebody who’s either pro-choice or pro-abortion,” As an individual and voter I have deep personal concerns about any party that supports changing the definition of marriage, supports abortion in all circumstances, wants to restrict the traditional understanding of religious freedom. Those kinds of issues cause me a great deal of uneasiness.”
~Archbishop Charles Chaput~

Peace, Mark

 

[estesbob]

Opposition to foreign aid (a direct human life issue), support for a very broad usage of the death penalty (a direct human life issue), budgetary policy, monetary policy, economic policy, opposition to AIDS funding in foreign countries (a direct human life issue), broad support for unjust wars, etc.

Pretty much the only parts that aren’t immoral are their views on diplomacy and social issues, but their diplomatic views are just bad. So you’d really be voting for an incompetent Party whose views are almost entirely either immoral or ill-advised merely because on the biggest issue of the day, they are correct.

Only being 2% right, even on such a huge issue, still makes one hesitant to support such a radical Party as the Republican Party.

I have posted direct quotes from members of the Magestrium dismissing all these issues as being sufficent to allow a Catholic to vote for a pro abortion canidate.

 

[Milasol]

I do not favor throwing sinners out of the Church either. But sinners ought to have the honesty to admit they’re sinning when they do, instead of rationalizing their way around it. “Revinventing” Catholicism to fit what one prefers is why there are some 40,000 sects of Protestantism today.

Exactly!

 

[SMGS127]

I have posted direct quotes from members of the Magestrium dismissing all these issues as being sufficent to allow a Catholic to vote for a pro abortion canidate.

When your two choices are both pro abortion, as in the case of the 2012 Presidential election, it is, however, sufficient to vote your conscience on the other issues of human life that the Republican Party blatantly fails on.

 

[SMGS127]

SOME Repubs oppose foreign aid to SOME countries, but total opposition to foreign aid is actually a libertarian tenet, not a Republican one.

Some Repubs support the death penalty. Some oppose it. Church doctrine does not forbid it absolutely, but does say it should be limited.

Some Democrats oppose abortion. Some Democrats oppose SSM. Whoop-dee-do. All of the immoral things I listed are still enshrined in the Republican platform. We were talking about the immoralities of platforms, not individual candidates. The Republican platform is hideously immoral. And the death penalty, as discussed in the GOP platform, does violate the conditions under which the death penalty is restricted, and is therefore included in this immoral list.

The Fed controls monetary policy, not congress or the administration.

But Republicans in Congress have attempted to override that authority, and the President appoints the FR Chairman.

 

[Milasol]

When your two choices are both pro abortion, as in the case of the 2012 Presidential election, it is, however, sufficient to vote your conscience on the other issues of human life that the Republican Party blatantly fails on.

I believe Romney had a change of heart. And that made him the lesser of two evils if you will.

NARAL Pro-Choice America correctly notes on its website that Romney made pro-abortion comments prior to his 2004 change of heart. But even NARAL knows Romney merely gave lip service to abortion advocates in Massachusetts. His record as governor was decidedly pro-life. NARAL’s website attacks Romney for vetoing a bill to expand the availability of Plan B. Ultimately, that veto was overridden by the pro-abortion Democrat-controlled legislature.

Romney also vetoed a bill to expand funding for embryo-destructive research. The veto took tremendous courage considering nationally Republicans like Sen. Orrin Hatch, Sen. Dick Lugar and former Speaker Newt Gingrich were urging their party to drop their opposition to embryonic stem cell research. In a press release following Romney’s victory in the New Hampshire primary, NARAL said, “During his campaign for governor of Massachusetts, Romney pledged to uphold pro-choice laws. However, once he assumed office, he took anti-choice actions.”

NARAL notes that Romney would be an “anti-choice President.” The group cites Romney’s belief that Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided, his support for a constitutional amendment to protect life at the moment of conception, his opposition to taxpayer funding of abortion and Planned Parenthood, his commitment to repeal Obamacare and his support for conscience rights. Planned Parenthood reaches the same conclusion, adding on their website that Romney’s PAC donated money to pro-life organizations like the Palmetto Family Council, Massachusetts Citizens for Life, South Carolina Citizens for Life and the Massachusetts Family Institute.

Mitt Romney’s conversion to the pro-life position should be something celebrated, not something viewed with scorn or skepticism among pro-life advocates. The goal of the pro-life movement is to get all elected officials to support protective laws for unborn children. In the future, what politician would want to come to our side if we’re going to constantly question their authenticity? President Reagan never faced the same scrutiny.

I would like some leftist to actually try and refute some of this instead of repeating the broken record, (only when it is convenient tho) that Romney was just as bad as Obama in terms of abortion issues.

So the justification some used to directly go against Church morality is that Romney was pro-choice, however the same pro-abortion orgs demonized Romney for being a closet pro-life.

 

[sallybutler]

I believe Romney had a change of heart. And that made him the lesser of two evils if you will.

NARAL Pro-Choice America correctly notes on its website that Romney made pro-abortion comments prior to his 2004 change of heart. But even NARAL knows Romney merely gave lip service to abortion advocates in Massachusetts. His record as governor was decidedly pro-life. NARAL’s website attacks Romney for vetoing a bill to expand the availability of Plan B. Ultimately, that veto was overridden by the pro-abortion Democrat-controlled legislature.

Romney also vetoed a bill to expand funding for embryo-destructive research. The veto took tremendous courage considering nationally Republicans like Sen. Orrin Hatch, Sen. Dick Lugar and former Speaker Newt Gingrich were urging their party to drop their opposition to embryonic stem cell research. In a press release following Romney’s victory in the New Hampshire primary, NARAL said, “During his campaign for governor of Massachusetts, Romney pledged to uphold pro-choice laws. However, once he assumed office, he took anti-choice actions.”

NARAL notes that Romney would be an “anti-choice President.” The group cites Romney’s belief that Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided, his support for a constitutional amendment to protect life at the moment of conception, his opposition to taxpayer funding of abortion and Planned Parenthood, his commitment to repeal Obamacare and his support for conscience rights. Planned Parenthood reaches the same conclusion, adding on their website that Romney’s PAC donated money to pro-life organizations like the Palmetto Family Council, Massachusetts Citizens for Life, South Carolina Citizens for Life and the Massachusetts Family Institute.

Mitt Romney’s conversion to the pro-life position should be something celebrated, not something viewed with scorn or skepticism among pro-life advocates. The goal of the pro-life movement is to get all elected officials to support protective laws for unborn children. In the future, what politician would want to come to our side if we’re going to constantly question their authenticity? President Reagan never faced the same scrutiny.

I would like some leftist to actually try and refute some of this instead of repeating the broken record, (only when it is convenient tho) that Romney was just as bad as Obama in terms of abortion issues.

So the justification some used to directly go against Church morality is that Romney was pro-choice, however the same pro-abortion orgs demonized Romney for being a closet pro-life.

The Mormon church is pro-choice (in rape and incest). In order to be a eligible to go into the temple, a Mormon must tithe 10% of his/her income. I thought Romney was able to go into the temple.

I didn’t pay attention to what pro-abortion organizations said. I went by what the Mormon church said.

 

[estesbob]

When your two choices are both pro abortion, as in the case of the 2012 Presidential election, it is, however, sufficient to vote your conscience on the other issues of human life that the Republican Party blatantly fails on.

As has been shown to you repeatedly that assertion is utter nonsense Please read the previous posts.

You assertion that Republican Party also fails on your personal definition of “life issues” is also incorrect, as many others have patiently shown you. Way too many Catholics try to hide behind a Caricature of the Republican party as being consummate evil to try and rationalize their support of evil.

 

[Milasol]

The Mormon church is pro-choice (in rape and incest). In order to be a eligible to go into the temple, a Mormon must tithe 10% of his/her income. I thought Romney was able to go into the temple.

I didn’t pay attention to what pro-abortion organizations said. I went by what the Mormon church said.

Again nuances… when comparing a record over the other record. We are talking about Obama versus Romney.

No comparison

 

[SMGS127]

As has been shown to you repeatedly that assertion is utter nonsense Please read the previous posts.

You assertion that Republican Party also fails on your personal definition of “life issues” is also incorrect, as many others have patiently shown you. Way too many Catholics try to hide behind a Caricature of the Republican party as being consummate evil to try and rationalize their support of evil.

I mean…the Republican Party pretty much is consummate evil. It’s just a question of whether abortion overrides that (which I agree with, to a degree) and whether we have to shut off our intelligence regarding pro-abortion politicians just because they have a R next to their name. That seems to be a Party-line thing, not a Catholic thing. I support true pro-life politicians, not ones who don’t care about it and use it as a political wedge.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Some Democrats oppose abortion. Some Democrats oppose SSM. Whoop-dee-do. All of the immoral things I listed are still enshrined in the Republican platform. We were talking about the immoralities of platforms, not individual candidates. The Republican platform is hideously immoral. And the death penalty, as discussed in the GOP platform, does violate the conditions under which the death penalty is restricted, and is therefore included in this immoral list.

But Republicans in Congress have attempted to override that authority, and the President appoints the FR Chairman.

Excerpts from a text by Bishop Thomas John Paprocki:

Even more troubling is that this whole discussion about God in the platform is a distraction from more disturbing matters that have been included in the platform. In 1992 Presidential candidate Bill Clinton famously said that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” That was the party’s official position until 2008. Apparently “rare” is so last century that it had to be dropped, because now the Democratic Party Platform says that abortion should be “safe and legal.” Moreover the Democratic Party Platform supports the right to abortion “regardless of the ability to pay.” Well, there are only three ways for that to happen: either taxpayers will be required to fund abortion, or insurance companies will be required to pay for them (as they are now required to pay for contraception), or hospitals will be forced to perform them for free.

Moreover, the Democratic Party Platform also supports same-sex marriage, recognizes that “gay rights are human rights,” and calls for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law signed by President Clinton in 1996 that defined marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman.

Now, why am I mentioning these matters in the Democratic Party Platform? There are many positive and beneficial planks in the Democratic Party Platform, but I am pointing out those that explicitly endorse intrinsic evils. My job is not to tell you for whom you should vote. But I do have a duty to speak out on moral issues. I would be abdicating this duty if I remained silent out of fear of sounding “political” and didn’t say anything about the morality of these issues. People of faith object to these platform positions that promote serious sins. I know that the Democratic Party’s official “unequivocal” support for abortion is deeply troubling to pro-life Democrats.

So what about the Republicans? I have read the Republican Party Platform and there is nothing in it that supports or promotes an intrinsic evil or a serious sin. The Republican Party Platform does say that courts “should have the option of imposing the death penalty in capital murder cases.” But the Catechism of the Catholic Church says (in paragraph 2267), “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm — without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself — the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

One might argue for different methods in the platform to address the needs of the poor, to feed the hungry and to solve the challenges of immigration, but these are prudential judgments about the most effective means of achieving morally desirable ends, not intrinsic evils.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=2311

 

[Milasol]

I mean…the Republican Party pretty much is consummate evil. It’s just a question of whether abortion overrides that (which I agree with, to a degree) and whether we have to shut off our intelligence regarding pro-abortion politicians just because they have a R next to their name. That seems to be a Party-line thing, not a Catholic thing. I support true pro-life politicians, not ones who don’t care about it and use it as a political wedge.

You want to see something evil? Look at the party that has been promoting, financing, supporting the entire abortion industry. That, my friend, is the Democrat party.

To the extend some people would lie to themselves for justification to going against the most basic morality is outstanding. Unreal

You have avoided all the evidence presented to you regarding the immorality of the democratic party. you were also shown the diabolical platform of the democratic party
You have been shown how there are politicians in the republican side are FAR MORE pro-life and have a FAR MORE Pro-life voting record and you call it lip service.

You insist on denying the truth and keep calling it a lie.

At this point, only divine intercession can help you.

Pray for less pride, for wisdom, and for an end to abortion. Because surely democrats won’t do it. If anything they would increase it.

And that is the truth.

Democratic party is a conglomerate of demons pushing ALL of the immoral agendas.
They are the AUTHORS of it. They are the sponsors of those nefarious groups that push for the anti-family, pro-abortion agendas.