Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[LeafByNiggle]

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.

It seems you are using different terminology when describing the voting situation and the cab driver and New Orleans contractor situations. What I want to know is does this different terminology signify a difference in the seriousness of the offense? Please compare these various ways of participating in evil so that it is clear if you do or do not believe that voting for a pro-choice candidate is more or less serious than a cab driver giving a ride to an abortion clinic, or a contractor taking a job for Planned Parenthood, or are they all equally serious. That is, would they all be mortal sins if committed by a person with a well-formed conscience and fully aware of what he is doing?

 

[fnr]

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.

No, I actually read the entire thing. That’s why it was so difficult for me.

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

I have not engaged in any gymnastics. I’ve walked right into the fire. I know how bad the abortion problem is, and I know the sad and inconvenient estimate that in 1931, Taussig published a paper (cited above) in which he estimated 700,000 annual abortions per year in the U.S. In 1931, the U.S. population was 124.04 million. That means the abortion rate per 100,000 population was 564.33. A few posts ago, I calculated that the 2010 abortion rate per 100,000 population was lower than that. Scroll up and see. Abortion was totally illegal everywhere in the U.S. then, and it took place at relatively high rates. Sure, the estimates from 1931 were exceptionally uncertain, but no one was arguing to legalize abortion at the time. You can’t cite the “ex-abortionist” who claims that he was part of the vast conspiracy to inflate the numbers to justify making abortion legal when you’re talking about 1931. Or the 1860s, where illegal abortion was reported to be running rampant in NYC.

Today, there’s easy access to the stomach drug Cytotec (misoprostol), which results in abortion about 70% of the time – a drug widely used in Latin American and sub-Saharan countries where abortion is illegal. There’s a black market for it in Texas and easy-to-find online instructions on how to get it. And there’s that pesky problem that the culture in NYC, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, and many other parts of the country will ensure that abortion will remain legal, no matter the state of Roe v. Wade.

Am I required to believe, in opposition to all evidence, that following Archbishop Chaput’s or Cardinal Burke’s instructions on voting will actually do anything to reduce abortion? Sorry, I don’t believe it, and neither should you. Don’t conflate strategy and objective.

I want to end abortion, sincerely I do. I know the Church’s teaching perfectly well. May God strike me down and damn me forever if I’m lying. But it’s not easy.

 

[estesbob]

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.

Bet you wish you hadn’t went down that rabbit hole! This is why I always ignore the wild scenarios people post trying to rationalize supporting pro-abortion canidates.

 

[estesbob]

No, I actually read the entire thing. That’s why it was so difficult for me.

I have not engaged in any gymnastics. I’ve walked right into the fire. I know how bad the abortion problem is, and I know the sad and inconvenient estimate that in 1931, Taussig published a paper (cited above) in which he estimated 700,000 annual abortions per year in the U.S. In 1931, the U.S. population was 124.04 million. That means the abortion rate per 100,000 population was 564.33. A few posts ago, I calculated that the 2010 abortion rate per 100,000 population was lower than that. Scroll up and see. Abortion was totally illegal everywhere in the U.S. then, and it took place at relatively high rates. Sure, the estimates from 1931 were exceptionally uncertain, but no one was arguing to legalize abortion at the time. You can’t cite the “ex-abortionist” who claims that he was part of the vast conspiracy to inflate the numbers to justify making abortion legal when you’re talking about 1931. Or the 1860s, where illegal abortion was reported to be running rampant in NYC.

Today, there’s easy access to the stomach drug Cytotec (misoprostol), which results in abortion about 70% of the time – a drug widely used in Latin American and sub-Saharan countries where abortion is illegal. There’s a black market for it in Texas and easy-to-find online instructions on how to get it. And there’s that pesky problem that the culture in NYC, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, and many other parts of the country will ensure that abortion will remain legal, no matter the state of Roe v. Wade.

Am I required to believe, in opposition to all evidence, that following Archbishop Chaput’s or Cardinal Burke’s instructions on voting will actually do anything to reduce abortion? Sorry, I don’t believe it, and neither should you. Don’t conflate strategy and objective.

I want to end abortion, sincerely I do. I know the Church’s teaching perfectly well. May God strike me down and damn me forever if I’m lying. But it’s not easy.

Have you anything other than your personal opinion to offer in support of your position?

Abortion will remain legal in this country until Catholic Democrats come to love the unborn more than they hate the GOP.

 

[Lapey]

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.

You want me to make a blanket statement about party affiliation, I am not saying that. If that is what you are hearing me say then please reevaluate your perception tools.

I am and have emphatically stated Church teaching prohibiting us, Catholics, from supporting evil. The Democrat Party platform supports intrinsic evils. You go ahead and support and belong, I will follow Church teaching and not belong nor support; I might add, neither will I belong to the Republican Party.

As I have asked already, do I really need to produce the documents which state that we as Catholics cannot support evil? I didn’t think so either, but I’ll do it anyway.

Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship - Part II - Applying Catholic Teaching to Major Issues: A Summary of Policy Positions of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Human Life
64. Our 1998 statement Living the Gospel of Life declares, “Abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human life and dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental good and the condition for all others” (no. 5). Abortion, the deliberate killing of a human being before birth, is never morally acceptable and must always be opposed. Cloning and destruction of human embryos for research or even for potential cures are always wrong. The purposeful taking of human life by assisted suicide and euthanasia is not an act of mercy, but an unjustifiable assault on human life. Genocide, torture, and the direct and intentional targeting of noncombatants in war or terrorist attacks are always wrong

CCC
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

 

[Lapey]

It seems you are using different terminology when describing the voting situation and the cab driver and New Orleans contractor situations. What I want to know is does this different terminology signify a difference in the seriousness of the offense? Please compare these various ways of participating in evil so that it is clear if you do or do not believe that voting for a pro-choice candidate is more or less serious than a cab driver giving a ride to an abortion clinic, or a contractor taking a job for Planned Parenthood, or are they all equally serious. That is, would they all be mortal sins if committed by a person with a well-formed conscience and fully aware of what he is doing?

No, I’m not. Both cases, as well as supporting a pro-abortion candidate/party is participating in evil; to what level that participation equates to sin and/or culpability of sin is above my pay grade.

 

[fnr]

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?

You’ve given me the citations from Archbishop Chaput and Cardinal Burke. I am required as a Catholic to prayerfully consider it in my heart (Dei Verbum 8), which I have done.

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.

Absolutely incorrect on all counts. I am totally aware of the Church’s teachings. But that does not require me to close my eyes to science, even as early as 1931 or the 1860s, and pretend that going along with some Church prelates’ electoral strategy for getting a Supreme Court that will nullify the finding that the 14th Amendment implies a right to privacy and erecting as many state-level restrictions on abortion as possible will actually result in an America where significantly less abortion will occur. All evidence I have reviewed has told me otherwise.

Please don’t insult those of us who strive to maintain complete allegiance to our Catholic faith but whose politics, or political theology, differ from yours. Pope Francis himself suggests that an emphasis on longer-term changes to society, and this citation from Evangelii Gaudium ends with a metric I think is totally appropriate, and which I have tried to follow:
*222. A constant tension exists between fullness and limitation. Fullness evokes the desire for complete possession, while limitation is a wall set before us. Broadly speaking, “time” has to do with fullness as an expression of the horizon which constantly opens before us, while each individual moment has to do with limitation as an expression of enclosure. People live poised between each individual moment and the greater, brighter horizon of the utopian future as the final cause which draws us to itself. Here we see a first principle for progress in building a people: time is greater than space.

1. This principle enables us to work slowly but surely, without being obsessed with immediate results. It helps us patiently to endure difficult and adverse situations, or inevitable changes in our plans. It invites us to accept the tension between fullness and limitation, and to give a priority to time. One of the faults which we occasionally observe in sociopolitical activity is that spaces and power are preferred to time and processes. Giving priority to space means madly attempting to keep everything together in the present, trying to possess all the spaces of power and of self-assertion; it is to crystallize processes and presume to hold them back. Giving priority to time means being concerned about initiating processes rather than possessing spaces. Time governs spaces, illumines them and makes them links in a constantly expanding chain, with no possibility of return. What we need, then, is to give priority to actions which generate new processes in society and engage other persons and groups who can develop them to the point where they bear fruit in significant historical events. Without anxiety, but with clear convictions and tenacity.
2. Sometimes I wonder if there are people in today’s world who are really concerned about generating processes of people-building, as opposed to obtaining immediate results which yield easy, quick short-term political gains, but do not enhance human fullness. History will perhaps judge the latter with the criterion set forth by Romano Guardini: “The only measure for properly evaluating an age is to ask to what extent it fosters the development and attainment of a full and authentically meaningful human existence, in accordance with the peculiar character and the capacities of that age”.182]*

I propose that if we’re really going to end abortion (or, to be honest, to reduce it to levels where it is no longer a major cause of death to the unborn), we need a long-term cultural change that requires all of us Catholics to come together to confront the culture itself, not just the political dimension of our government. That means evangelization in the places of pain, where people make mistakes that lead them to sin. Crisis Pregnancy Centers are a starting point, but far from enough.

 

[Lapey]

Bet you wish you hadn’t went down that rabbit hole! This is why I always ignore the wild scenarios people post trying to rationalize supporting pro-abortion canidates.

Not really, it helps keep me on my toes. I get these questions all the time because I dare to be a vocal member of the clergy. What makes it worse, I am a conservative loud voice; well at least for most subjects.

Many Republicans would not like to hear my opinions on the death penalty and immigration. But those are topics meant for their own thread.

 

[stinkcat_14]

You want me to make a blanket statement about party affiliation, I am not saying that. If that is what you are hearing me say then please reevaluate your perception tools.

The reason you are not saying that is that you cannot say it and remain faithful to the teaching of the Church.

I am and have emphatically stated Church teaching prohibiting us, Catholics, from supporting evil. The Democrat Party platform supports intrinsic evils. You go ahead and support and belong, I will follow Church teaching and not belong nor support; I might add, neither will I belong to the Republican Party.

For the record, I support neither the republican nor democratic party. They are both big government parties and way too liberal for me. The Church does not however say we must not support people based on their party platform, but on their personal viewpoint and voting record.

As I have asked already, do I really need to produce the documents which state that we as Catholics cannot support evil? I didn’t think so either, but I’ll do it anyway.

Since you have made it clear that there is nothing in Church teaching that forbids a faithful Catholic from voting for a pro-life democrat or from running as a pro-life democrat I think it is redundant at this point.

Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship - Part II - Applying Catholic Teaching to Major Issues: A Summary of Policy Positions of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Human Life
64. Our 1998 statement Living the Gospel of Life declares, “Abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human life and dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental good and the condition for all others” (no. 5). Abortion, the deliberate killing of a human being before birth, is never morally acceptable and must always be opposed. Cloning and destruction of human embryos for research or even for potential cures are always wrong. The purposeful taking of human life by assisted suicide and euthanasia is not an act of mercy, but an unjustifiable assault on human life. Genocide, torture, and the direct and intentional targeting of noncombatants in war or terrorist attacks are always wrong

CCC
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

All this says is that we cannot support abortion. It says nothing about party affiliation. But, since you agree that one can remain a faithful Catholic and vote for a democrat (pro-life of course) or run as a democrat (pro-life), it is kind of moot at this point.

 

[fnr]

Have you anything other than your personal opinion to offer in support of your position?

I have presented you with numbers, not opinions. And web links that describe how Cytotec is readily available to women in places where abortion is illegal. These aren’t opinions. These are facts. Do interpret them differently than I have?

Abortion will remain legal in this country until Catholic Democrats come to love the unborn more than they hate the GOP.

Actually, I’ll say it this way. Abortion will remain a major cause of death of unborn children until devout Catholics start working together to evangelize the culture, as we were commanded by Jesus Christ in Matthew 28:18-19.

 

[Ridgerunner]

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.

Why do you think Mother Jones is right and the NYT and Frontline wrong?

But if you are thinking Bush claimed Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 911, you’re wrong, because he never said that.

I don’t know what all terrorists Saddam harbored and which ones he killed. He picked his victims according to his own thinking, and some of his thinking was paranoid and/or insane. What is indisputably true is that he paid the families of suicide bombers who killed Israeli civilians. Maybe some wouldn’t call that terrorism, but I sure would. And possibly some would say that Saddam’s attempt to assassinate Bush Sr wasn’t terrorism either. The 2008 Pentagon study concluded that Saddam and AQ didn’t actually share projects and aims, but did work together in an overlapping sort of manner, and both were involved in terrorism, but each with his own agenda.

Cheney did back off his statement after the Czechs backed off theirs, and said that’s why he did.

Accuse Bush and Cheney of being too easily convinced of threats being larger than they really were. There would be some truth to that. But a lot of others, including nearly all Democrat congressmen were convinced as well.

Some of these accusations are simply left wing myths fabricated to make people hate the Repubs; sort of like the “truthers” who claim Obama was born in Kenya. I think I would want to do a lot of digging before I supported abortion out of dislike of an abortion-promoter’s opposition.

 

[estesbob]

Not really, it helps keep me on my toes. I get these questions all the time because I dare to be a vocal member of the clergy. What makes it worse, I am a conservative loud voice; well at least for most subjects.

Many Republicans would not like to hear my opinions on the death penalty and immigration. But those are topics meant for their own thread.

I suspect we are kindred spirits-I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances and lean towards open borders on immigration!

 

[stinkcat_14]

I suspect we are kindred spirits-I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances and lean towards open borders on immigration!

I lean toward open borders with the only caveat that you cannot have both open borders and a welfare system at the same time.

 

[estesbob]

I have presented you with numbers, not opinions. And web links that describe how Cytotec is readily available to women in places where abortion is illegal. These aren’t opinions. These are facts. Do interpret them differently than I have?

Actually, I’ll say it this way. Abortion will remain a major cause of death of unborn children until devout Catholics start working together to evangelize the culture, as we were commanded by Jesus Christ in Matthew 28:18-19.

None of that anything whatsoever to do with whether a Catholic can vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Someone who supports abortion on demand is so morally flawed they are unfi9t to hold any position of leadership.

And please stop the condescension. You don’t have any idea how involved the rest of us are. I have been involved in the pro-life movement for over 30 years. I have counseled in CPCs, I have marched and I have picketed and am capable of doing this while refraining form voting for anyone who supports this intrinsic evil.

When a Catholic proclaims to be pro-life but supports pro-abortion candidates they do great harm to the movement and to themselves. You don’t evangelize the Culture by empowering those who are working to drag it down.

 

[estesbob]

I lean toward open borders with the only caveat that you cannot have both open borders and a welfare system at the same time.

Agreed-I also don’t believe that everyone who comes across is entitled to citizenship.

 

[CrossofChrist]

You totally ignored my post. A vote for the person is indeed a vote for the party.

Not necessarily. That makes it impossible to change parties from within.

Following the example of these martyrs of the faith, who believed that those who die have more to gain than those who kill, the layman, the Christian of today, has a mission to accomplish in society: renew the family, do away with corruption and poverty. How to achieve it. By changing the political parties from within, and not by changing party. – Bishop Manuel Eguiguren Galarraga O.F.M.

What worthy candidate would run as a Democrat considering that the leadership and power structure is morally bankrupt and anti- catholic?

Wasn’t it that way back when 80-90% of Catholics were Democratic? You have to start somewhere. Whether or not a person thinks they should work within the Republican or Democratic parties, or neither, is their own prudential judgment though.

The answe is, someone who deep down does not care about the sanctity of life.

That’s just false. There were people that genuinely cared about the sanctity of life when the KKK was alive and well within the Democratic party, and there are today also.

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 ??

Maybe in Boston or somewhere where practically no Republicans exist or have a chance of getting elected? Or perhaps they sincerely want to and think they can transform the Democratic party. Certainly Catholics have thought that in the past.

But then again, is it really prudent to try to reform the Democrats? IMO the Republicans seem much more willing. While not in the same context, I think these words apply to this discussion:

Caution is rightly required for any alliance with political parties – this is what the famous German sociologist, Max Weber, called the “striving after a share in power, or the influence of the distribution of power.” – Paul Josef Cardinal Cordes

 

[Lapey]

All this says is that we cannot support abortion. It says nothing about party affiliation. But, since you agree that one can remain a faithful Catholic and vote for a democrat (pro-life of course) or run as a democrat (pro-life), it is kind of moot at this point.

So again…what’s your point? Are you simply arguing to argue? Ok. I give. Although we are saying the same thing. But for whatever reason you think im saying something different.

 

[adowcday]

Part of the problem in this debate is the definition of an “intrinsically evil” act. Abortion certainly makes the short list. However, a number of other acts should also be considered. Pope John Paul II, quoting *Gaudium et Spes, *said that intrinsically evil acts are “any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat laborers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace … and they are a negation of the honor due to the Creator” (Veritatis Splendor, 80).

If you work from the broader definition of intrinsically evil acts and not cherry pick those that suit your politics, then you may end up deciding that a faithful Catholic can vote for neither Democratic and Republican candidates. Alternatively, you avoid a simple-minded, single-issue analysis and you pick the best-available candidate based on a more nuanced analysis.

I do not believe for a minute that Catholics can vote only for Republican candidates.

 

[estesbob]

Part of the problem in this debate is the definition of an “intrinsically evil” act. Abortion certainly makes the short list. However, a number of other acts should also be considered. Pope John Paul II, quoting *Gaudium et Spes, *said that intrinsically evil acts are “any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat laborers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace … and they are a negation of the honor due to the Creator” (Veritatis Splendor, 80).

If you work from the broader definition of intrinsically evil acts and not cherry pick those that suit your politics, then you may end up deciding that a faithful Catholic can vote for neither Democratic and Republican candidates. Alternatively, you avoid a simple-minded, single-issue analysis and you pick the best-available candidate based on a more nuanced analysis.

I do not believe for a minute that Catholics can vote only for Republican candidates.

I have never run across a candidate who supports the other intrinsic evil you list so it really doesn’t come into play.In my experience when a Catholic says they takeke a more nuanced approach to voting they are really saying"I vote Democrat"

 

[Dawnia]

Part of the problem in this debate is the definition of an “intrinsically evil” act. Abortion certainly makes the short list. However, a number of other acts should also be considered. Pope John Paul II, quoting *Gaudium et Spes, *said that intrinsically evil acts are “any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat laborers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace … and they are a negation of the honor due to the Creator” (Veritatis Splendor, 80).

If you work from the broader definition of intrinsically evil acts and not cherry pick those that suit your politics, then you may end up deciding that a faithful Catholic can vote for neither Democratic and Republican candidates. Alternatively, you avoid a simple-minded, single-issue analysis and you pick the best-available candidate based on a more nuanced analysis.

I do not believe for a minute that Catholics can vote only for Republican candidates.

How can living in subhuman conditions be intrinsically evil? Are homeless people sleeping under bridges sinning?

More on topic…point out where in the Republican platform any of those are promoted. I see two that the Democrats promote in their platform.

And last…for the smarter than me people…what does coercing the spirit mean.