Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[Lapey]

Could you please elaborate on the meaning of the word "support" in this statement? I know that in the context of this discussion, support is taken to mean only one thing: “vote for…”. But the statement you made sounds more general than that, since there are many ways one might “support” an idea or policy or person or party. In particular, can you give an example of other ways - non-voting ways - in which this injunction can apply. I can think of several, but I would rather hear it from you before I propose any.

Is supporting a party monetarily support of their beliefs? I say Yes

Is supporting a group by being a member of the group translate into support of its views? I say Yes

What other support do you have in mind? In my opinion, if we work to further the agenda/success of a group or individual that believes or contains in its creed/platform support of intrinsic evils, then one is supporting those intrinsic evils; whether it is direct or indirect support can be argued but it is hard to make a statement to say that a vote for a candidate doesn’t show support for his/her entire agenda.

 

[ringil]

So let me get this straight.

Some of you are saying that not only can you not vote for a Democratic candidate who is Pro-Choice- you cannot vote for a Democratic candidate who is Pro-Life either because they have identified themselves as a Democrat.

And there is no political agenda going on here. . . . . . really. . . .

 

[Path_Finder]

I want to raise some other issues as well.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, I spent a considerable time working to allow humanitarian aid to several countries, including Iraq, including with a bishop with whom I marched. We were trying to raise money and awareness of the plight of Iraqis who, caught between the pincers of (A) the Hussein regime and (B) the UN sanctions, were dying of diseases that their failing water infrastructure no longer was able to remove and which were facing all number of public health crises from starvation (in some cases) to rolling blackouts affecting their hospitals as their power plants couldn’t be properly repaired under the sanctions.

After 9/11, as the Bush regime beat the drums of war and started talking about WMD being linked with Al-Qaeda, I was able to rely on my somewhat extensive understanding of Iraqi infrastructure to cast an extremely skeptical eye on the justification the Bush administration put forward. I participated in peace vigils, wrote letters to the president, Congress, and the newspapers, but of course, it didn’t make a lick of difference. I warned about the humanitarian crisis that would unfold if we went to war over what seemed to me to be a wholly synthetic case for war, sold by Colin Powell to the UN and the public at large with cartoons. I’d been looking at photos of Iraqi infrastructure for years. What the Bush administration presented to me was a PR campaign, playing on American fears of Al-Qaeda in the most cynical and deceitful way possible.

Although it wasn’t until 2005 that Iraq really started to get bad, the 2004 election presented a very clear case about voting. During this time, while I was listening to my local Catholic radio station, one prominent pro-life advocate, possibly Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, argue that while abortion was a “non-negotiable” issue in Catholic moral theology, Just War Doctrine allowed the prudential use of military force in a situation like Iraq. To me that was shameful at best, and illustrated to me how blind the pro-life movement had become – one of their prominent spokespeople was parroting the Bush administration’s lies. That’s when I lost nearly all respect for the argument about “non-negotiables.”

To me, the Bush-led invasion of Iraq was unmitigated evil, one that was plunging the country into civil war (which didn’t even get bad until after the 2004 election). It was deception of the public on a mass scale, and the use of might-makes-right to justify the hegemonic projection of overwhelming military force. That year, I was disgusted by the hard push by devout Catholics to vote for Bush (trumped up behind “non-negotiables”), because in his war in Iraq, I saw an utter disregard for human life.

The 2004 “Ratzinger Memo” included a footnote that, to me, justified my voting for a presidential candidate who opposed the war in Iraq:

To me, I had “proportionate reasons.” I sincerely believed, and felt with my conscience, that a vote for Bush in 2004 was a vote for death.

Beyond that election, the “non-negotiables” argument had become a hollow shell. When I mentioned the “footnote” to other Catholics, they argued to me that abortion was such an enormous holocaust of humanity, killing 1,000,000 unborn babies every year, that it outweighed any concern about the war in Iraq or any other issue. By citing numbers, it seemed to me that these Catholics had made what amounts to a utilitarian argument.

Since then, I have felt the need to really evaluate the claims by those who tell me that abortion, and the electoral strategy of overturning Roe v. Wade and erecting more state-level restrictions on abortion, should trump all other issues. As a Catholic and a scientist trying to live with integrity, I have looked at as much of the science of abortion, contraception, childbearing, and related behavioral economics, and come to the conclusion that the electoral strategy of “non-negotiables” is simply wrong.

I am no great lover of Democrats. But I feel that this hyper-partisan split among Catholics is destroying the Church. All culture reduce to your voting patterns. “Culture of life” equals “voting Republican.” Evangelism is ignored. Science is ignored. Data is viewed as “good” or “bad,” depending on whether it supports the policy position of the pro-life movement.

I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is murder in all cases. But I don’t buy into this shallow version of political theology.

So you assert there was no belief that Saddam Hussein had WMDs during the Clinton Administration. With this, despite your claims about working in a “humanitarian project”, you placed all the blame on Bush, you accuse others of acting shallow yet, you seem to be the one engaging in partisanship. Now we are totally repeating what has already been said in this thread.

Clinton was questioned about 5000 Iraqi children ** DEATHS ** per month per an allegation of the UN according to Democracy Now. Oh, must be merely an oversight on your part. That was ** During the Clinton Administration. **

Israel struck at Iran’s nuclear facility, gee, I guess they must have been in error as well.

Again, for the humpteenth time, ** GENERAL CLAPPER, CHIEF OF OBAMA’S INTELLIGENCE STATES UNQUESTIONABLY IRAQ HAD WMDS **, you know what, despite your assertions, I will take his.

All of these have been linked. So WMDs were just something created under the Bush Administration, there were no sanctions before this, no hardships place on the Iraqi people, no UN inspectors denied inspecting Iraqi Nuclear Sites per the United Nations.

Glad we cleared all of that out of the way due to your expertise on having worked on a humanitarian mission.

 

[Path_Finder]

So let me get this straight.

Some of you are saying that not only can you not vote for a Democratic candidate who is Pro-Choice- you cannot vote for a Democratic candidate who is Pro-Life either because they have identified themselves as a Democrat.

And there is no political agenda going on here. . . . . . really. . . .

IF they voted for ACA they may well not be Pro-Life, … really… didn’t most Democrats support that??

 

[estesbob]

The 2004 “Ratzinger Memo” included a footnote that, to me, justified my voting for a presidential candidate who opposed the war in Iraq:

To me, I had “proportionate reasons.” I sincerely believed, and felt with my conscience, that a vote for Bush in 2004 was a vote for death.

.

Since the Pope and many other Bishops specifically said that support for the war was not a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate a Catholic who used this excuse was either willfully ignorant of the teachings of the Church or consciously rejected them. In your case you evidently embraced the footnote to the Popes letter but failed to read the rest of the letter-which put it in context.

Obviously, we have other important issues facing us this fall: the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration justice. But we can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children. The right to life is foundational. Every other right depends on it. Efforts to reduce abortions, or to create alternatives to abortion, or to foster an environment where more women will choose to keep their unborn child, can have great merit–but not if they serve to cover over or distract from the brutality and fundamental injustice of abortion itself. We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide. Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.

Archbishop Charles Chaput

1. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. …] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’" (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. …] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).

3.** Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage wa**r, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Pope Benedict XVI

No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,"

Cardinal Burke

CONTINUED

 

[ishii]

No. Republican rhetoric play no better to me than Democrat rhetoric. I will reject this particular bit of partisan rhetoric in favor of my faith. I would encourage all Catholics, Democrat and Republican to re-examine each year whether your faith guides your vote or your politics guide your faith. The Catholic Church makes a better moral teacher than either party.

You totally ignored my post. A vote for the person is indeed a vote for the party. What worthy candidate would run as a Democrat considering that the leadership and power structure is morally bankrupt and anti- catholic? The answe is, someone who deep down does not care about the sanctity of life. Who would run under the banner of the party of death, anti-catholic secularism and moral bankruptcy, and enjoy the support and campaign $$ to get elected ?? You seem all too willing to label others’ posts as “partisan name-calling” without even addressing the substance of the post.

Ishii

 

[Lapey]

I want to raise some other issues as well.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, I spent a considerable time working to allow humanitarian aid to several countries, including Iraq, including with a bishop with whom I marched. We were trying to raise money and awareness of the plight of Iraqis who, caught between the pincers of (A) the Hussein regime and (B) the UN sanctions, were dying of diseases that their failing water infrastructure no longer was able to remove and which were facing all number of public health crises from starvation (in some cases) to rolling blackouts affecting their hospitals as their power plants couldn’t be properly repaired under the sanctions.

After 9/11, as the Bush regime beat the drums of war and started talking about WMD being linked with Al-Qaeda, I was able to rely on my somewhat extensive understanding of Iraqi infrastructure to cast an extremely skeptical eye on the justification the Bush administration put forward. I participated in peace vigils, wrote letters to the president, Congress, and the newspapers, but of course, it didn’t make a lick of difference. I warned about the humanitarian crisis that would unfold if we went to war over what seemed to me to be a wholly synthetic case for war, sold by Colin Powell to the UN and the public at large with cartoons. I’d been looking at photos of Iraqi infrastructure for years. What the Bush administration presented to me was a PR campaign, playing on American fears of Al-Qaeda in the most cynical and deceitful way possible.

Although it wasn’t until 2005 that Iraq really started to get bad, the 2004 election presented a very clear case about voting. During this time, while I was listening to my local Catholic radio station, one prominent pro-life advocate, possibly Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, argue that while abortion was a “non-negotiable” issue in Catholic moral theology, Just War Doctrine allowed the prudential use of military force in a situation like Iraq. To me that was shameful at best, and illustrated to me how blind the pro-life movement had become – one of their prominent spokespeople was parroting the Bush administration’s lies. That’s when I lost nearly all respect for the argument about “non-negotiables.”

To me, the Bush-led invasion of Iraq was unmitigated evil, one that was plunging the country into civil war (which didn’t even get bad until after the 2004 election). It was deception of the public on a mass scale, and the use of might-makes-right to justify the hegemonic projection of overwhelming military force. That year, I was disgusted by the hard push by devout Catholics to vote for Bush (trumped up behind “non-negotiables”), because in his war in Iraq, I saw an utter disregard for human life.

The 2004 “Ratzinger Memo” included a footnote that, to me, justified my voting for a presidential candidate who opposed the war in Iraq:

To me, I had “proportionate reasons.” I sincerely believed, and felt with my conscience, that a vote for Bush in 2004 was a vote for death.

Beyond that election, the “non-negotiables” argument had become a hollow shell. When I mentioned the “footnote” to other Catholics, they argued to me that abortion was such an enormous holocaust of humanity, killing 1,000,000 unborn babies every year, that it outweighed any concern about the war in Iraq or any other issue. By citing numbers, it seemed to me that these Catholics had made what amounts to a utilitarian argument.

Since then, I have felt the need to really evaluate the claims by those who tell me that abortion, and the electoral strategy of overturning Roe v. Wade and erecting more state-level restrictions on abortion, should trump all other issues. As a Catholic and a scientist trying to live with integrity, I have looked at as much of the science of abortion, contraception, childbearing, and related behavioral economics, and come to the conclusion that the electoral strategy of “non-negotiables” is simply wrong.

I am no great lover of Democrats. But I feel that this hyper-partisan split among Catholics is destroying the Church. All culture reduce to your voting patterns. “Culture of life” equals “voting Republican.” Evangelism is ignored. Science is ignored. Data is viewed as “good” or “bad,” depending on whether it supports the policy position of the pro-life movement.

I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is murder in all cases. But I don’t buy into this shallow version of political theology.

Where have you been? This has been discussed. Abortion is intrinsically evil, the Church’s words, war is not. Prudential judgment can be used in deciding to support or not support war. There are no opportunities to support abortion.

As far as the ’04 election, it was quite clear what was at stake, Kerry was and is a proven protector of abortion rights while Bush was and is pro-life. This from an NPR august 9, 2004 article. Hardly a conservative source.

“President Bush’s and Sen. John Kerry’s positions on abortion couldn’t be much more different. But they have one thing in common when it comes to abortion — neither of them wants to talk about it much on the presidential campaign trail.
On the rare occasion Bush mentions the issue, it’s usually before a conservative audience, such as at the Southern Baptist Convention, when he touted his signing of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Kerry has a near-perfect record supporting abortion rights, although the Massachusetts Democrat has upset some abortion rights groups by saying he personally is opposed to the procedure.
The candidates confine themselves to discussing abortion only before select groups because it remains a highly divisive issue more than 30 years after Roe v. Wade. NPR’s Julie Rovner reports.”

 

[estesbob]

Originally Posted by fnr forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*
The 2004 “Ratzinger Memo” included a footnote that, to me, justified my voting for a presidential candidate who opposed the war in Iraq:

To me, I had “proportionate reasons.” I sincerely believed, and felt with my conscience*, that a vote for Bush in 2004 was a vote for death.

**IV. Erroneous Judgment

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.**
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.”59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits. (1704)
1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct. (133)

 

[Path_Finder]

I’m not saying anything about “should.” I’m saying that if abortion is illegal, black market abortions WILL be the law of the land.

Still, fewer abortion clinics as being in a number of states, Missouri and Mississippi only with one apiece surely demonstrates limiting access to abortion means there WILL BE FEWER ABORTIONS.

This can be accomplished in States but if the likes of Texas or Utah or other states outlaw abortion in their states, I believe that is their right by our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

[Lapey]

So let me get this straight.

Some of you are saying that not only can you not vote for a Democratic candidate who is Pro-Choice- you cannot vote for a Democratic candidate who is Pro-Life either because they have identified themselves as a Democrat.

And there is no political agenda going on here. . . . . . really. . . .

How does a person distance him/herself from what the party now stands for? I mean this question in sincerity. How do I belong to and/or vote for a party that stands for intrinsic evils? The platform is what defines the party agenda, is it not?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I might be stepping into a discussion out of place here, but you are in fact doing what many do to support their “right” to vote for pro-abortion candidates, you are cluttering the argument with un-related topics. Bob simply is not taking part in the foolishness. I tend to agree with him.

If you make general statements explaining the injunction against voting for a pro-choice politician, it is only natural to want to inquire as to how broadly that injunction applies. Those who explain the injunction in terms of how it follows from a more general principle cannot cry foul when someone asks about other consequences of the general statement they made. Now if you had only said “A Catholic may not vote for a pro-abortion candidate because the Church says so”, then my inquiries would indeed be out of place. But since you chose to explain things the way you did, they are not out of place.

What does culpability mean? The Archbishop of New Orleans has made public statements to Catholic contract companies who are participating in constructing a new Planned Parenthood facility in New Orleans that they cannot do so without the culpability of the sin of participation in the evil. He has implored the local contractors in his territory to refuse the work.

It is certainly praiseworthy if the local contractors follow the Archbishop’s plea and refuse the work. However I did not hear that the Archbishop has threatened to excommunicate any contractors who do the work, or to declare them unfit to receive communion. That would be for culpability on the level that has been stated here for someone who votes for a pro-abortion candidate.

You have tried to bring absurdity into the discussion and therefore, dilute the point being made.

There have been many points made by many contributors to this discussion. Which of those points have I diluted?

Let me ask you this question. Say you are a taxi cab driver and one morning you pick up a woman who tells you she is on her way to a clinic to terminate a pregnancy. If you bring her, which is your job, is that participation in evil?

Fair enough.

I would say that it would be praiseworthy to try to convince the woman that what she is doing is wrong. And if she cannot be convinced, the cab driver should decline to take her, suffering whatever job consequences that might mean for him. “Praiseworthy” but not “Mandatory”. If the cab driver decided to take her anyway, he may have missed out on an opportunity to witness to his faith, but I would not say he has incurred mortal sin by doing so.

Am I to take it then that you agree with my answer and would give the same answer to every other situation where one might support (in the general sense) abortion? Or do you disagree and think the cab driver has incurred mortal sin if he takes the fare?

 

[Path_Finder]

The truth is is that I realize saying this or that party should not be voted for is difficult,

Truly, African Americans were “in general” going to vote for Obama, Union Members are going to generally vote for the Democratic Party. I do realize this is a complex situation where one doesn’t want to be too judgemental.

Though everything else being equal, I think Church teaching is clear.

 

[ishii]

Source? Or is this just your opinion?
According to whom?

Are you saying that one can vote for a pro-abortion republican over a pro-life democrat?

Stinkcat, let’s dispense with the high school debate tactics. You know full well that the poster is basing their opinion on reason, logic and analysis of the Democrat party. Such comments only serve to unnecessarily muddy the waters. Considering what the Democrat party has done and continues to do, it is my belief that a catholic ought not to support that party in any way. You might hold a different view. Fine. Perhaps you think that in spite of its support of infanticide , we can still support them. If so, make that argument. Good luck.

Regarding voting for a pro-life dem (assuming for the moment that such a thing exists) over a pro-abortion rep, If the election of the “pro-life” dem promotes Nancy pelosi and Barbara boxer into powerful positions in the majority , and the election of the rep would put the GOP pro-life in the majority to choose judges e.g then I would go with the latter. I base that not from a Church document but my brain which I use sometimes. I would also ask the dem why he joined the party joined at the hip with the abortion lobby.

Ishii

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What other support do you have in mind? In my opinion, if we work to further the agenda/success of a group or individual that believes or contains in its creed/platform support of intrinsic evils, then one is supporting those intrinsic evils; whether it is direct or indirect support can be argued but it is hard to make a statement to say that a vote for a candidate doesn’t show support for his/her entire agenda.

That is exactly the question, isn’t it? Does any form of support constitute support for the entire agenda? The contractors in New Orleans that you mentioned would certainly be working on something that had the effect of furthering the success of Planned Parenthood in New Orleans. Are they culpable for supporting an intrinsic evil in the same sense that a voter might be? I would be interested in hearing your view on the example that you raised. Do you think the Archbishop was saying that taking the work would be a mortal sin for those who participate?

 

[Lapey]

Fair enough.

I would say that it would be praiseworthy to try to convince the woman that what she is doing is wrong. And if she cannot be convinced, the cab driver should decline to take her, suffering whatever job consequences that might mean for him. “Praiseworthy” but not “Mandatory”. If the cab driver decided to take her anyway, he may have missed out on an opportunity to witness to his faith, but I would not say he has incurred mortal sin by doing so.

Am I to take it then that you agree with my answer and would give the same answer to every other situation where one might support (in the general sense) abortion? Or do you disagree and think the cab driver has incurred mortal sin if he takes the fare?

To knowingly participate in the evil is just that, to participate in the evil. The taxi driver must refuse the fair if he/she is Catholic. I would agree completely with trying to coach the woman to reconsider.

 

[Lapey]

That is exactly the question, isn’t it? Does any form of support constitute support for the entire agenda? The contractors in New Orleans that you mentioned would certainly be working on something that had the effect of furthering the success of Planned Parenthood in New Orleans. Are they culpable for supporting an intrinsic evil in the same sense that a voter might be? I would be interested in hearing your view on the example that you raised. Do you think the Archbishop was saying that taking the work would be a mortal sin for those who participate?

What he did say was that the AD would boycott those companies. A bishop will not publically declare sin in the media, that is just silly. But yes, participation is sinful. The connection to the sin in this case is the same as in a vote; to vote for a pro-choice candidate for that reason is in fact grave sin. If I vote for a pro-choice candidate instead of the pro-life one available but not for those reasons there is still participation even though it may be of less culpability.

To support the evil is what is being done in either case.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

To knowingly participate in the evil is just that, to participate in the evil. The taxi driver must refuse the fair if he/she is Catholic. I would agree completely with trying to coach the woman to reconsider.

That is surprising. The cab driver is guilty of a mortal sin if he knowingly carries a woman to where she says she will get an abortion.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What he did say was that the AD would boycott those companies. A bishop will not publicly declare sin in the media, that is just silly.

Really? I would think declaring what is a sin is one of the prime duties of any clergy. If he does not declare it, who will?

And threatening to boycott those companies is an understandable response, but it does not equate with declaring what those companies are doing to be a mortal sin for those who knowingly do it. But at least you are consistent if you say it is a sin.

 

[Crosscut]

This is a good topic.

I think a lot of Catholics believe in the marriage of Catholicism and Conservatism. I am frankly appalled by most of the stuff the republican party stands for so Democrat is the way to go for me.

 

[stinkcat_14]

The truth is, if a party/person supports evil; a Catholic cannot support it/them.

Once again, you cite no Church teaching on this. I agree that the Church says that we cannot vote for a pro-abortion politician. The Church has not taught that we must disqualify pro-life politicians because of their party affiliation.