Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[estesbob]

The logic and facts are precisely what is at debate here, given the actual texts from the USCCB voting guide and the Pope Emeritus.

Neither of which support your personal opinion.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Neither of which support your personal opinion.

…in your personal opinion.

 

[shockerfan]

First, the options are not
A) Al Moritz’s
B) Bishops Farrell and Vann

but

A) the USCCB’s
B) Bishops Farrell and Vann’s particular interpretations that go beyond the text proper of the USCCB guide

I follow in my conscience the USCCB guidelines, but the formation of my conscience and the prudential judgments that I make based on it are only mine and not someone else’s.

Second, let me ask you a counter-question: if the particular interpretations of Bishops Farrell and Vann are binding for every Catholic in the USA, then why are they not explicitly included in the USCCB guide?

Do you think the USCCB guide is less strict and defining in its formulations than these two Bishops just in order to confuse, given that the text allegedly indeed needs further clarification by particular Bishops? Or do you think it is because the USCCB has judged the formulations to be just right for the individual Catholic to form their conscience acordingly, and no further clarifications that define the issues in a more strict manner are deemed to be needed and wanted? I have no reason not to believe the latter.

That Bishop Farrrell’s interpretation may be binding for you because he is your Bishop is a different matter.

Well, every Bishop that has expounded upon the USCCB document all pretty much say the same thing…the only contradictory opinion seems to be yours…since you can’t cite one single Bishop who agrees with your perspective.

It seems to me that Bishops of the USCCB that wrote or approved the document (Like Farrell and Vann) would know best the thought process that went into the writing of the document, and thus have the best perspective on the true meaning of the context…unlike you.

There are a lot of parallels with this conversation and the ones I have with my Protestant friends who hold their own opinions of the contextual meaning of various Bible verses higher than the interpretations of early Church Fathers on those same verses.

 

[DeniseNY]

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.

Excellent post, milasol. If the Republican Party is “consummate evil” and infanticide is not, then your posts (and those of several others in this thread) are all for naught. Allegience to, and support of, a political ideology has replaced the Truth in the hearts of many, and that’s not something that is going to be changed in a forum (this thread is evidence of that).

 

[estesbob]

The attack on Iraq in 2003 sure seemed like an unjust war to me, especially given everything we learnt afterwards. Iraq was not a credible threat to the United States; they did not have weapons of mass destruction. Yes, Saddam Hussian was a bad person, but so is Kim Jong Il.

Furthermore, why should the property of American people be taken away from them to help half-way across the world? Why should the lives of soldiers who volunteered to protect America, not some other country be put at risk? The whole things seems to violate the principle of subsidiarity. The problem should have been dealt with on a local level.

The Pope specially said a Catholic could support this war and it did not rise to the level of abortion

 

[estesbob]

…in your personal opinion.

“You can never vote for someone who favors absolutely the right to choice of a woman to destroy a human life in her womb or the right to a procured abortion,

Cardinal Raymond Burke

 

[estesbob]

Among those who vote for Democrats/Obama: either their conscience (such as it is) allows them to do so - i.e. they don’t care about Church’s stance on this issue because they are not Catholic or Christian. Or they believe in women’s rights over human (unborn) rights for example.

-OR-

They are Catholics who*** think ***they have a well-formed conscience and vote for Obama - or they have convinced themselves in their mind that voting for Obama is morally permissible. This thread contains a lot of examples of that.

I agree with Milasol. Only divine assistance can help them, as manifestly logic and facts have not.

Ishii

It’s either willful ignorance our wilful disobedience. Neither a good place for a Catholic to be in.

 

[theCrow]

It’s either willful ignorance our wilful disobedience. Neither a good place for a Catholic to be in.

Exactly the same for Climate Change deniers: willful ignorance

 

[Jeanne_S]

Exactly the same for Climate Change deniers: willful ignorance

Last time I checked,climate change isn’t an issue that one is compelled to agree with,especially as it pertains to Church Doctrine

 

[Al_Moritz]

Well, every Bishop that has expounded upon the USCCB document all pretty much say the same thing…

Perhaps. But it seems obvious that only those bishops dissatisifed with the wording of the USCCB document have expounded on it and deemed it necessary to provide extra ‘clarification’. What about all the other hundreds of bishops? Again:

Second, let me ask you a counter-question: if the particular interpretations of Bishops Farrell and Vann are binding for every Catholic in the USA, then why are they not explicitly included in the USCCB guide?

Do you think the USCCB guide is less strict and defining in its formulations than these two Bishops just in order to confuse, given that the text allegedly indeed needs further clarification by particular Bishops? Or do you think it is because the USCCB has judged the formulations to be just right for the individual Catholic to form their conscience acordingly, and no further clarifications that define the issues in a more strict manner are deemed to be needed and wanted? I have no reason not to believe the latter.

---

the only contradictory opinion seems to be yours…since you can’t cite one single Bishop who agrees with your perspective.

Talking about contradictory opinions, there actually appears to be a contradiction between the USCCB and the statement of Bishops Farrell and Vann:

USCCB:
3*5. 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.
*
Bishops Farrel and Vann:
b. If another intrinsic evil outweighs the evil of abortion. While this is sound moral reasoning, there are no “truly grave moral” or “proportionate” reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year.

If that is so, then this contradicts USCCB paragraph 35. with its “other morally grave reasons”. It contradicts the USCCB document especially in light of the fact that that document states in paragraph 37 the decisions (about moral issues and the opposition to intrinsic evil) “should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue.” *). This phrase, ignored by Bishops Farrell and Vann, plays directly into the reasons why there legitimately may be a decision to vote for a candidate despite his unacceptable position “for other morally grave reasons” – “other morally grave reasons” relative to the abortion issue and the political realities around it (again, e.g., the ‘ability to influence a given issue’) which Farrrell and Vann deny to exist with their statement above.

In view of this contradiction I seek the pastoral advice of the text of the USCCB document as is, which is binding for all Catholics in the USA.

---

*) as you may remember, these points, in particular the ‘ability to influence a given issue’, have also been discussed in this thread

 

[Crossbones]

The Pope specially said a Catholic could support this war and it did not rise to the level of abortion

Did he say that knowing everything that we found out later? Like that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq was not an immediate threat to the United States like was claimed. Or did he base his statement off of the bad intelligence collected by President Bush’s administration?

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

First, the options are not
A) Al Moritz’s
B) Bishops Farrell and Vann

but

A) the USCCB’s
B) Bishops Farrell and Vann’s particular interpretations that go beyond the text proper of the USCCB guide

I follow in my conscience the USCCB guidelines, but the formation of my conscience and the prudential judgments that I make based on it are only mine and not someone else’s.

Second, let me ask you a counter-question: if the particular interpretations of Bishops Farrell and Vann are binding for every Catholic in the USA, then why are they not explicitly included in the USCCB guide?

Do you think the USCCB guide is less strict and defining in its formulations than these two Bishops just in order to confuse, given that the text allegedly indeed needs further clarification by particular Bishops? Or do you think it is because the USCCB has judged the formulations to be just right for the individual Catholic to form their conscience acordingly, and no further clarifications that define the issues in a more strict manner are deemed to be needed and wanted? I have no reason not to believe the latter.

That Bishop Farrrell’s interpretation may be binding for you because he is your Bishop is a different matter.

To my understanding the USCCB as an organization has no special authority in the Church. The Bishops who make up the USCCB have authority individually for their diocese.

To answer your question I would say that Bishops Farrell and Vann’s explanation are clearly more binding especially for the parishioners of their respective diocese at a minimum but since no other Bishops have contradicted what they said, it can reasonably be argued that it can be applied for all Catholics.

 

[Path_Finder]

Hillary voted for the Iraq Invasion. Let’s hope people are consistent.

It’s a whole issue into itself. Everyone thought Saddam had WMDs, they may well have been taken to Syria. Gassing people anyone?

Besides, let’s look at this from the local level, in countless states, more probably than the abortion giants like NY and California, abortion clinics are being shut down.

Thank You New Jersey

Thank You Texas

Thank You Missouri

Thank You Mississippi

Thank You Oklahoma

Thank You Arizona

Thank You Ohio

Thank You Wisconsin

Thank You South Dakota

Thank You North Dakota

I wonder if those bringing up President Bush would ever vote locally for a pro-life politician?? Because the Presidency is just one aspect of all this.

 

[zz912]

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).

Why must this “logic” be extended? Could you lay out the logic where you compare the two situations? One situation involves a political party that works to enact legislation and policies that are pro-abortion, and the other involves churches that have no such impact. So exactly how are the two situations comparable?

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.

One of those organizations enacts laws and policies that have effect on the country. The other does not. Do you see this difference?

 

[zz912]

This:

I’m guessing that most of them are genuinely good people who are ignorant. We are all sinners. But this thread has been one of the most disappointing threads in a long time. I mean, its illuminating to see the vacuous arguments of the Democrat catholics. But its depressing to see so much obstinacy.

Ishii

Yes it is. Very sad to see a rejection of the Catholic faith for a political party. Not the first time it has happened in history, nor will it be the last, but it is still sad.

 

[sallybutler]

Why must this “logic” be extended? Could you lay out the logic where you compare the two situations? One situation involves a political party that works to enact legislation and policies that are pro-abortion, and the other involves churches that have no such impact. So exactly how are the two situations comparable?

One of those organizations enacts laws and policies that have effect on the country. The other does not. Do you see this difference?

Yes, I see the difference. But which would he put first?

 

[zz912]

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.

So you voted for McCain in 2008. Good to know!

(Oh wait, you didn’t.)

 

[zz912]

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.

So in your logic (assuming your view on Romney is correct), then the politician who opposes 98% of abortions is the same as the politician who supports 100% of abortions?

Do I understand you correctly?

 

[zz912]

Thank you for this post milasol. All we can do is lay the facts out for all to see. What this thread shows is how blind to the truth people are. Whether it’s vincible or invincible I do not know. I don’t think there is much else we can do. You could have the devil run for president and some would vote for him if he had a D next to his name.

Ultimately what these people represent is the mentality that says “I will not serve.” For them politics trumps their faith. They’re blind allegiance to ideology makes them unable to see the truth. They have been presented with the facts but they continue to support evil. I agree divine assistance is the only help here.

Ishii

True. Sadly true.

 

[zz912]

Yes, I see the difference. But which would he put first?

Depends on the politician, as we see from the many Catholic politicians. Some are faithful to Church teaching, and many are not. But in virtually ALL of those instances, their departure from Church teaching is blatantly spelled out in their campaign info. Same with those who are faithful to Church teaching, their adherence is not a secret.

So it is best to judge them based upon their stated positions (which sometimes are contrary to their church’s positions) and their party allegiance. And some that we must also consider in your comparison, is the amount of difference of opinion allowed in those churches. As far as I know, Mormons are allowed to disagree with their church on accepting abortion for rape.