Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[Crossbones]

(with reference to Aziz and my suggestion that the only reason to bring him up was to suggest he was unduly influencing the Pope)I didn’t say that. Obviously, his purpose was to induce the Pope to counsel peace with Saddam. Maybe Aziz had some information that was worthwhile. Nobody knows.

I didn’t say you said it. I said you implied it. Or it’s a total red herring and has nothing to do with the discussion, in which case you brought up an irrelevant point.

As I said before, the Pope (and others) placed their hopes on UN action. But it was misplaced due to the UN corrupation.

It seems to me that the Pope was placing hope in good leadership in a lot of places, but he was met with hardened hearts determined to start a war.

(with regards to your assertion that the Pope might have supported the war after it started by lack of comment condemning it and my claim that there is strong evidence that he was not in support of it) You certainly don’t know.

Well, there’s this article usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/04/16/a-rift-over-iraq-between-president-and-pope, but since the evidence I have presented hasn’t convinced you yet, I doubt this will. Such verbal gymnastics.

(Your defense is that this is a just war because Saddam is bad, so I suggest this could be extended to the Kim Jong’s of North Korea) This is just silly. Taking down one bad guy does not mean one ought to attempt to take down all bad guys.

So who decides? You? This was worth doing, at the cost of US treasure and lives (not your life, of course, other American lives), but this one isn’t worth doing. Is there a criteria of badness that needs to be met? You’re right, this is just silly.

How long have we been in Germany? How long will we stay there? We have been there 70 years. Nobody knows how long we will remain. Success is not measured in years, but by accomplishment of objectives.

Ah, President GW Bush gets to define the foreign policy of the country for the next 70 years because we have to meet the objectives. Remember that Bush was promising at the time that this wouldn’t be a quagmire, we wouldn’t be there for more than a year or a few. Now it’s 70. So, either he lied or he was very, very wrong. Of course, the good Catholics on this forum are SHOCKED that this might tide over to future elections, that maybe if someone is not trustworthy in these matters, that they can’t be trusted to install policies that a voter wants and may be some good might come from the other guys.

I would be careful about touting Obama for not having a “shoot em up” policy. He certainly shot em up in Libya in order to help the jihadis. He’s shooting em up in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, and he’s going to do a lot more of the former. The reality is, of course, that the U.S. had made the peace in Iraq, supported by all factions there except the foreign jihadis. Had McCain been elected, we wouldn’t be looking at ISIS killing everybody it doesn’t like and threatening to take over half the Middle EAst.

Obama is responsible for ISIS’ actions in Iraq. No mistake about that.

Yep, let’s change the topic. President Obama’s foreign policy grade is incomplete, but it’s been better than President GW Bush’s. Now, that’s saying nothing since President GW Bush’s foreign policy was probably the worst in the history of the presidency. In fact, you are the only person defending the Iraq War at this point.

And with the Democrats in power, there’s no possibility of life issues being served because they are against them

Except for all the legislation that happened on the state level in the last couple of years because the Republicans finally got off the stick and did something. They could have done something many times in the past at the national level, but basically blew it.

*EDIT: Sorry, can’t get quotes right. Stuff in between

and \quote] is Ridgerunner’s.

 

[ishii]

Is it moral to vote for a democrat when both republican and democrat candidates have equally bad positions on abortion?

No, because anyone with the slightest amount of political knowledge knows that a Democrat will enable Nancy pelosi or Harry Reid or Barack Obama. Once again, the questions you pose seem to lack basic knowledge of political reality.

Ishii

 

[stinkcat_14]

No, because anyone with the slightest amount of political knowledge knows that a Democrat will enable Nancy pelosi or Harry Reid or Barack Obama. Once again, the questions you pose seem to lack basic knowledge of political reality.

Ishii

Does the Church tell us not to support particular parties?

Let me give you a specific example. Suppose that we have two candidates, a repub and a democrat who both support unrestricted abortion on demand. However, suppose the democrat is opposed to the wars we started and against the death penalty. I could see in this particular situation where proportionate reasons may exist to support the democrat. Obviously the teachings on the latter issues are not strictly binding, but one could argue that as a package, the democrat is more pro-life in this scenario.

 

[fnr]

The pro-life movement is not as you describe it. It is not by any stretch of the imagination a one strategy movement.

But this is a thread about voting. And the general contention of many on this thread is that a Catholic cannot morally vote for a Democratic candidate for office. So I’m talking about the political emphasis of the pro-life movement, which I think has been wrong, because it’s focused on the ballot box.

Evangelism as you suggest is the best way and believe me that is getting done.

I know. I’m an evangelist.

There is also other strategies. It’s not lets turn roe vs wade at the supreme court and that’s it. Just take a look at all the restrictions, bans that have been enacted.

And if you look at my post, I reference the Cytotec black market that’s arisen in Texas. On top of that, most of the states that have enacted more stringent restrictions on abortion are not the states where most abortions occur: NY, CA, etc. I will say that parental notification laws have reduced abortions, and there’s good evidence by researchers like Jonathan Klick to support that.

But to me, the bottom line is that if the focus is only on erecting legal barriers, there is no focus on the underlying drivers of abortion, which are the same drivers of abortion that were mentioned in the papers published in the 1920s and 1930s. I’ve seen a paper from 1931 in which the author cited an estimate of 1,000,000 abortions per year annually in the U.S., when abortion was illegal. So it tells me that legal restrictions don’t help much!

Also look at the crisis centers and how they have increased.

A good thing, but it’s not voting.

Also take a look at the apologetic and evangelization movement and how life is a central part

I have been a street evangelist. I get this. It’s not voting.

I don’t think it is fair to sit on the side lines and say what the “movement” should do without knowing what it does already.

I’ve stood vigil outside abortion clinics. I’ve been a street evangelist. I’ve offered to adopt the unborn babies of women who told me that they’re planning to have an abortion. I’ve worked in poor neighborhoods trying to help kids succeed in school.

What I’m saying is that the politicization of the “movement” is a mistake, and that it’s never going to work. And that’s a matter of prudence, not doctrine. Abortion is murder, but I don’t think a singular focus on electing pro-life politicians is going to really help that much. In fact, I think the abortion issue has sundered American Catholic, and divided the Church. This thread is a prime example of that problem.

 

[estesbob]

What I’m saying is that the politicization of the “movement” is a mistake, and that it’s never going to work. And that’s a matter of prudence, not doctrine. Abortion is murder, but I don’t think a singular focus on electing pro-life politicians is going to really help that much. In fact, I think the abortion issue has sundered American Catholic, and divided the Church. This thread is a prime example of that problem.

We often hear the claim that we shouldn’t press for laws that impose our morality on others. But no one really believes that kind of argument because it makes no sense. In practice, all law involves imposing certain moral claims on other people. Persons who support permissive abortion or same-sex unions, for example, are very comfortable in coercing the public through the courts and lawmaking process.* As Christians we should be equally comfortable—and even more zealous—in defending the human person and advancing human dignity through legislative and judicial means*****.**

Archbishop Charles Chaput, August 2014

 

[steve_b]

Does the Church tell us not to support particular parties?

It should be a no brainer. When you have one party that is pro abortion, and has as their platform, not only abortion on demand at any stage of life, but also by executive order, send $500 million to Mexico EACH YEAR so they can kill their babies, as opposed to the Republicans who are pro life and by executive order, stops automatic yearly funding to Mexico, and elsewhere for their abortion industry, then the decision is clear.
s:

Let me give you a specific example. Suppose that we have two candidates, a repub and a democrat who both support unrestricted abortion on demand.

Which we don’t
s:

However, suppose the democrat is opposed to the wars we started and against the death penalty. I could see in this particular situation where proportionate reasons may exist to support the democrat. Obviously the teachings on the latter issues are not strictly binding, but one could argue that as a package, the democrat is more pro-life in this scenario.

It’s not even close. #783

The internal links show the difference between capital punishment numbers vs abortion. 30 executions / yr of murders vs millions / yr by abortion of innocents?

Given the choice between the Republican candidates and the Democrat candidates, the Democratic party is the party of death, hands down. But the voters who voted them in are just as guilty because they had a clear choice for life, and they chose the party of death.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Which we don’t

You are saying that there are no republican candidates who support unrestricted abortion on demand?

 

[Lapey]

Does the Church tell us not to support particular parties?

Let me give you a specific example. Suppose that we have two candidates, a repub and a democrat who both support unrestricted abortion on demand. However, suppose the democrat is opposed to the wars we started and against the death penalty. I could see in this particular situation where proportionate reasons may exist to support the democrat. Obviously the teachings on the latter issues are not strictly binding, but one could argue that as a package, the democrat is more pro-life in this scenario.

If the two are equal, TRULY equal and not just perceived or as many say, “in my opinion” they are equal; then the next issues must be looked at next. In reality a Dem could be deemed as more pro-life than the Rep in this case. But I will tell you, if the balance of the House or the Senate was hanging in the balance, the responsibility goes further than the single position in question. There are many more pro-life Republicans than Democrats, that’s just plain fact.

 

[Lapey]

You are saying that there are no republican candidates who support unrestricted abortion on demand?

I would say they are few and far between unlike the Dems.

 

[Crossbones]

I would say they are few and far between unlike the Dems.

Senators Kirk (IL) and Collins (ME).

Representatives Jenkins (KS), Frelinghuysen (NJ), Dent ¶ and Capito (WV)

were supported by the Republican Majority for Choice in 2008.

The Senators worry me because it’ll mean that the Republicans need a 53-47 majority to pass legislation.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I would say they are few and far between unlike the Dems.

Maybe in your part of the country.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Senators Kirk (IL) and Collins (ME).

Representatives Jenkins (KS), Frelinghuysen (NJ), Dent ¶ and Capito (WV)

were supported by the Republican Majority for Choice in 2008.

The Senators worry me because it’ll mean that the Republicans need a 53-47 majority to pass legislation.

Also, if you look at the state level you find many more pro-abortion republicans.

 

[Milasol]

What I’m saying is that the politicization of the “movement” is a mistake, and that it’s never going to work. And that’s a matter of prudence, not doctrine. Abortion is murder, but I don’t think a singular focus on electing pro-life politicians is going to really help that much. In fact, I think the abortion issue has sundered American Catholic, and divided the Church. This thread is a prime example of that problem.

This thread is about voting.

 

[Lapey]

My proportionate reasons are usually every other issue except Abortion, and same sex-marriage, as I disagree with nearly every stance taken by a politician (at least a hard-line one) identified as Conservative.

Our magisterium has instructed us on these issues. Accordingly, there are no proportionate reasons to jump over the intrinsic evils. We cannot make our own list and justify our actions by ignoring the issues which are at the top of the list. What on the “hard-line conservatives” list of evils would cause you to overlook abortion and same sex “marriage”; both of which our Church has given us direct teachings that we must oppose?

I don’t know what kind of document you would be looking for, or if it is a realistic thought that such a document would address such a specific issue.

Well, there have been many sites to magisterial writings and Church documents listed on this thread that illustrate the course of action for Catholics. We have been begging for someone to give us something that will show that your way of thinking is allowed by Mother Church and your local Bishop. As of yet, there has been a grand total of ZERO quotes.

My question is- Are you actually trying to discover an answer to your question or are you actually seeking to debate and “prove” that Catholics cannot vote for a Democratic Candidate.

It’s not really a debate, the Church has laid it out for us, all we have to do is listen. My hope would be to try my best to illustrate the truth in such a way as to allow someone who is ready to listen will hear. Also, it is my duty to inform you of your error. That may infuriate you, but it is my duty none the less.

In other words- do you believe that a Catholic should not vote for a Democratic candidate?

I believe, a Catholic in good standing, with a properly and fully formed conscience, cannot vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights over the candidate who believes in ending or at least limiting abortion. Looking at the two platforms as they read today, a Catholic cannot vote for a member of that party. Why? Because the platform explicitly states support of several intrinsic evils; a Catholic in good standing with a properly and fully formed conscience cannot vote for that person without grievous sin.

 

[Lapey]

Also, if you look at the state level you find many more pro-abortion republicans.

Not in Luoisiana. They would not survive long.

 

[Lapey]

Senators Kirk (IL) and Collins (ME).

Representatives Jenkins (KS), Frelinghuysen (NJ), Dent ¶ and Capito (WV)

were supported by the Republican Majority for Choice in 2008.

The Senators worry me because it’ll mean that the Republicans need a 53-47 majority to pass legislation.

I notice you didn’t list the Democrats…

 

[stinkcat_14]

Not in Luoisiana. They would not survive long.

Pro-life republicans don’t survive long in Massachusetts either.

 

[aellis422]

Though I feel many try to justify the teachings of the Church when it comes to politics, I believe it cannot be so. How could one vote for a candidate of a political party that supports abortion, gay rights, etc.? I know that each political party may have something about them that one disagrees with, but the appalling reality and degree of what the Democratic Party supports is too great for my conscience to vote with. When you support this party, even if it is truly based on their economic strategies (which in my opinion are fruitless), you are supporting the movement of gay rights and abortions, which are both destructive to society.

 

[fnr]

Archbishop Charles Chaput, August 2014

With all due regard for his excellency, I will make reference to the following scriptural citations, which suggests a different political theology for bringing about the Kingdom of God.

Mark 10
35n Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” 36 He replied, “What do you wish [me] to do for you?” 37 They answered him, “Grant that in your glory we may sit one at your right and the other at your left.” 38 Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Can you drink the cup that I drink or be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39 They said to him, “We can.” Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink, you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized; 40 but to sit at my right or at my left is not mine to give but is for those for whom it has been prepared.” 41 When the ten heard this, they became indignant at James and John. 42 Jesus summoned them and said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones make their authority over them felt. 43 But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you will be your servant; 44 whoever wishes to be first among you will be the slave of all. 45 For the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Wait, we’re not supposed to be seeking political power as a means of imposing Christian ethics on the world around us?

Matthew 28
"18 Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19h Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”
Jesus is making a political claim here, that he has all power in heaven and on earth, but he’s telling us to go making disciples??? But surely, he can’t mean that Christians are just supposed to be impotent politically (hint: he doesn’t)!

Luke 24
15 And it happened that while they were conversing and debating, Jesus himself drew near and walked with them, 16 but their eyes were prevented from recognizing him. 17 He asked them, “What are you discussing as you walk along?” They stopped, looking downcast. 18 One of them, named Cleopas, said to him in reply, “Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know of the things that have taken place there in these days?” 19 And he replied to them, “What sort of things?” They said to him, “The things that happened to Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 how our chief priests and rulers both handed him over to a sentence of death and crucified him. 21 But we were hoping that he would be the one to redeem Israel; and besides all this, it is now the third day since this took place.
So these disciples were expecting a Messiah that would do more than just die? They were expecting a Messiah like Judas Maccabeus, who won the battle in Emmaus against the Seleucid occupiers and eventually restored Jewish rule to Judea and the temple. They weren’t just picking some random road… they had their eyes on the location where the zealous Maccabees had won a temporal victory over their enemies. But that was not the kind of messiah Jesus was…

Acts 1
*6 When they had gathered together they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He answered them, “It is not for you to know the times or seasons that the Father has established by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” *
So even after the resurrection, the Apostles thought that Jesus was going to clean up the political mess that Israel was in. And they were wrong. They weren’t going to receive power by “restoring the kingdom to Israel” as a nation; they were to be the New Israel, empowered by the Holy Spirit.

I could go on. Romans 13. 1 Thessalonians 5:3. And parable after parable. But the point is that Christian political theology is not one of taking political power by force or by vote. It is by transforming the world through transforming ourselves and those around us: “For creation awaits with eager expectation the revelation of the children of God.” (Romans 8:19).

What does this mean? What Pope Francis has been saying. Not “occupying spaces” but “initiating processes.” Changing the culture through long-term change, evangelism, and Christian charity.

The temptation to power is so great: to impose what is good on everyone. But that is not the calling we have.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Though I feel many try to justify the teachings of the Church when it comes to politics, I believe it cannot be so. How could one vote for a candidate of a political party that supports abortion, gay rights, etc.? I know that each political party may have something about them that one disagrees with, but the appalling reality and degree of what the Democratic Party supports is too great for my conscience to vote with. When you support this party, even if it is truly based on their economic strategies (which in my opinion are fruitless), you are supporting the movement of gay rights and abortions, which are both destructive to society.

Amen to that!: