Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[Lapey]

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.

I didn’t say that. I did say that he driver is guilty of participating in the evil. The presence or absence of mortal sin is between the person and the confessor.

 

[Lapey]

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**.

I am consistent, I didn’t say it here either.

 

[Lapey]

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.

So you agree with abortion and same sex marriage?

 

[Lapey]

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.

Neither did I. Its all about the issues. The democrat party fights for evil. The Church states we cannot align ourselves with that evil. Can you figure out what I’m saying now?

 

[stinkcat_14]

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.

The other poster is giving their own opinion, based solely on their own opinion. They have a right to their opinion. They do not have the right to represent their opinion as Church teaching.

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.

The Church teaches that we may always support a pro-life politician. There is no exception that says: “unless its a democrat”.

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

Please point out where the Church says we can vote against a pro-life politician if we don’t like their party?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Neither did I. Its all about the issues. The democrat party fights for evil. The Church states we cannot align ourselves with that evil. Can you figure out what I’m saying now?

Once again, please present the Church teaching that says that Catholics cannot be and cannot support democrats. You are great at making pronouncements. Terrible at backing them up.

 

[Ridgerunner]

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.

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.

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.

It’s unfortunate, then, that you were wrong about what Bush was saying. Never did he claim that Al Quaeda in Iraq had WMD. I guess we sometimes believe what someone says another said instead of what he really said.

If you voted for Obama because of that, it’s tragic, really.

 

[Ridgerunner]

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.

“Stands for” isn’t much of a standard. After all, the Bolsheviks claimed to “stand for” the workers and peasants but sent tens of millions of them to their deaths.

What precise acts of the Repubs do you find appalling, and what present acts of the Dems do you find morally appealling?

 

[Lapey]

Once again, please present the Church teaching that says that Catholics cannot be and cannot support democrats. You are great at making pronouncements. Terrible at backing them up.

Do I really have to present Church documents for you to believe that She teaches abortion and SSM etc. are intrinsically evil? If not, refer to the party platform. Done.

 

[adowcday]

It’s unfortunate, then, that you were wrong about what Bush was saying. Never did he claim that Al Quaeda in Iraq had WMD. I guess we sometimes believe what someone says another said instead of what he really said.

If you voted for Obama because of that, it’s tragic, really.

George Bush told the U.N. that Sadaam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Here’s a link: cbsnews.com/news/text-of-bush-iraq-speech-to-un-12-09-2002/

You may be splitting hairs by saying that Bush never claimed that Al Qaeda (rather than the Iraqi government) possessed WMD’s, but Bush’s words in this speech (and many other statements by his administration) did state that Iraq had WMD’s.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Do I really have to present Church documents for you to believe that She teaches abortion and SSM etc. are intrinsically evil? If not, refer to the party platform. Done.

No, for the last time, I am asking you to support your claim that the Church says one cannot vote for a democrat (a pro-life one) or that one cannot be a democrat (a pro-life one). You obviously cannot back up your claim.

 

[estesbob]

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.

Welcome to CAF!

Can you tell us what specifically in the Republican party Platform is in conflict with the Teachings of the Church? Can you tell us what proportionate reasons would have allowed a Catholic to Vote for Barrack Obama?

Also it would be helpful if yu backed this up with cites from Church Documents and the Magisterium-as we have done pointing out the problems with Catholicism and the Democrat Party

 

[estesbob]

It’s unfortunate, then, that you were wrong about what Bush was saying. Never did he claim that Al Quaeda in Iraq had WMD. I guess we sometimes believe what someone says another said instead of what he really said.

If you voted for Obama because of that, it’s tragic, really.

A double failure. Failure to inform themselves of Church Teaching and failure to research exactly what the candidates stood for and what their claims were.

 

[fnr]

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.

So if a candidate doesn’t support abortion, every war he suggests is OK? That’s what you kinda suggest. That’s what I think a lot of pro-life Catholics did in 2004. Closed their eyes to the misery Bush was creating, ignoring the Catechism’s words about what constitutes just war (2307-2317) which starts with the words, before laying out the very stringent conditions under which a war may be considered just:
“All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.”
Just because war may be morally licit under just war theory doesn’t make every war OK. And it was clear to me that Bush’s invasion of Iraq did not fit into the narrow confines of just war doctrine.

To say that “war CAN be morally licit” but “abortion CAN NEVER be morally licit” is not an adequate way to decide how to vote. If you’re looking at war in general, perhaps, but for a particular war, not at all. You’re comparing a generality to a particularity, and that’s not a valid comparison.

Given the lack of major difference in per-capita abortion rates between 1860-1940 and today, as I have documented in my comments above, which suggests that Roe v. Wade didn’t significantly change of abortion rates, how can anyone say that it’s OK to support an unjust war that killed at least half a million Iraqis (as a lower-bound estimate that largely missed the 1.1 million people living in displaced-persons camps – before ISIS took over).

Most deaths occurred between 2003-2007, so if you take the annual average death rate from the war to be 100,000 Iraqis and divide by the population of Iraq in 2003, the annual average war-related mortality rate was about 397 per 100,000 population. By contrast, in the U.S. in 2010, there were an estimated 1,120,775 (ChristianLifeResources.com), with an estimated population of 308,745,538, generating an abortion-related mortality rate in the U.S. of 363 per 100,000 population. Now, unless you’re willing to tell me that there were just fewer Iraqis whom it was OK to kill to (hopefully) limit abortion in the U.S. (an entirely utilitarian argument totally against Catholic moral teaching), it sounds very much to me that the death rates in Iraq as a direct result of the unjust war brought about by Bush produce proportionate reasons for voting against him.

This discussion also illustrates to me the flaws in the “non-negotiables” approach to political theology.

 

[fnr]

It’s unfortunate, then, that you were wrong about what Bush was saying. Never did he claim that Al Quaeda in Iraq had WMD. I guess we sometimes believe what someone says another said instead of what he really said.

If you voted for Obama because of that, it’s tragic, really.

“President Bush framed his Monday keynote address on Iraq around the idea that the country is now “the central front in the war on terror.” He implied that the invasion of Iraq was a choice forced on the U.S. by the Sept. 11 attacks and that the enemy facing the U.S. there shares al-Qaeda’s goal of establishing “Taliban-type” rule.”

 

[fnr]

It’s unfortunate, then, that you were wrong about what Bush was saying. Never did he claim that Al Quaeda in Iraq had WMD. I guess we sometimes believe what someone says another said instead of what he really said.

If you voted for Obama because of that, it’s tragic, really.

motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline
11/8/2001
The New York Times and Frontline report that an Iraqi general witnessed the Iraqi military training Arab fighters to hijack airplanes. Mother Jones later reports general to be bogus Chalabi plant. [Date the public knew: 3/1/06]

12/9/2001
Cheney on Meet the Press: “Well, the evidence is pretty conclusive that the Iraqis have indeed harbored terrorists.” Also claims 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi spy in Prague, a claim he’ll repeat long after CIA and Czechs disavow.

 

[estesbob]

So if a candidate doesn’t support abortion, every war he suggests is OK? That’s what you kinda suggest. That’s what I think a lot of pro-life Catholics did in 2004. Closed their eyes to the misery Bush was creating, ignoring the Catechism’s words about what constitutes just war (2307-2317) which starts with the words, before laying out the very stringent conditions under which a war may be considered just:
“All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.”
Just because war may be morally licit under just war theory doesn’t make every war OK. And it was clear to me that Bush’s invasion of Iraq did not fit into the narrow confines of just war doctrine.

To say that “war CAN be morally licit” but “abortion CAN NEVER be morally licit” is not an adequate way to decide how to vote. If you’re looking at war in general, perhaps, but for a particular war, not at all. You’re comparing a generality to a particularity, and that’s not a valid comparison.

Given the lack of major difference in per-capita abortion rates between 1860-1940 and today, as I have documented in my comments above, which suggests that Roe v. Wade didn’t significantly change of abortion rates, how can anyone say that it’s OK to support an unjust war that killed at least half a million Iraqis (as a lower-bound estimate that largely missed the 1.1 million people living in displaced-persons camps – before ISIS took over).

Most deaths occurred between 2003-2007, so if you take the annual average death rate from the war to be 100,000 Iraqis and divide by the population of Iraq in 2003, the annual average war-related mortality rate was about 397 per 100,000 population. By contrast, in the U.S. in 2010, there were an estimated 1,120,775 (ChristianLifeResources.com), with an estimated population of 308,745,538, generating an abortion-related mortality rate in the U.S. of 363 per 100,000 population. Now, unless you’re willing to tell me that there were just fewer Iraqis whom it was OK to kill to (hopefully) limit abortion in the U.S. (an entirely utilitarian argument totally against Catholic moral teaching), it sounds very much to me that the death rates in Iraq as a direct result of the unjust war brought about by Bush produce proportionate reasons for voting against him.

This discussion also illustrates to me the flaws in the “non-negotiables” approach to political theology.

Again you have been given multiple cites where the Church said the war was not a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate . Were you not aware of this before you cast your vote?

What this discussion shows is how those Catholics who vote for pro-abortion candidates have done little or no research on what the Church teaches. It is they who have formed their theology based on their politics.

 

[Ridgerunner]

George Bush told the U.N. that Sadaam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Here’s a link: cbsnews.com/news/text-of-bush-iraq-speech-to-un-12-09-2002/

You may be splitting hairs by saying that Bush never claimed that Al Qaeda (rather than the Iraqi government) possessed WMD’s, but Bush’s words in this speech (and many other statements by his administration) did state that Iraq had WMD’s.

That’s a different thing, though, isn’t it? Saying Saddam had WMD is a very different thing from saying AQ in Iraq had WMD. That’s not “splitting hairs” at all.

Bush, virtually all of congress, the U.S., Brit, Israeli and Russian intelligence services all said the same thing; that Saddam had WMD. He did, of course, but by the time the Brits got through destroying the last of them last summer at the request of the Iraqi government, they were pretty old, though discovered long after the war. And, there are those who assert that Assad’s chem weapons came from Iraq. But probably anybody involved in that, if it happened, were killed as soon as they delivered, because that was Saddam’s way of doing things, as exemplified by his executing all the men who he employed to execute Iranian captives.

And there’s no objective reason to think Bush lied. He was actually correct factually, though it can certainly be argued that the hazard was nowhere near as great as he and the intelligence services believed. He, and others who had the same information, more likely believed it.

It’s entirely possible, even more likely than not, that your anger was, and is, misplaced.
If so, and if you voted for the abortion supporting Obama because of it, it really is tragic. Truly.

 

[Lapey]

No, for the last time, I am asking you to support your claim that the Church says one cannot vote for a democrat (a pro-life one) or that one cannot be a democrat (a pro-life one). You obviously cannot back up your claim.

I already have, several times. Peace.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I already have, several times. Peace.

In all of our discussion you have not cited one Church teaching. You keep making claims without backing them up. We must have twenty posts between us and you have not once cited any Church teaching that addresses the issue of party affiliation.