Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

  • Thread starter Thread starter adawgj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

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

Please point out where the Church says we can vote against a pro-life politician if we don’t like their party?
Again, I am basing MY opinion on logic and common sense, from the standpoint of someone who is pro-life. You may well base your opinions on something else. In any case, I wish you would address the substance of my comments rather than engage in the silly high school debate tactics.

The Church may say that we can always support a “pro-life” Democrat. But the Church can’t predict the specific circumstances throughout the years that might change over time. For someone who is authentically pro-life, it would make sense to not elect someone who empowers Nancy Pelosi, Obama and Barbara Boxer. There might well have been members of the Nazi party that did not want to kill Jews. Hardly a reason to support the Nazi party.

Ishii
 
Again, I am basing MY opinion on logic and common sense, from the standpoint of someone who is pro-life. You may well base your opinions on something else. In any case, I wish you would address the substance of my comments rather than engage in the silly high school debate tactics.

Ishii
I base my opinions on Church teaching, not what seems convenient to me.
 
In my OPINION, a catholic in good standing cannot vote for any democrat above the local level. The term “pro-life democrat” is an oxymoron. I would ask such a person then why are you a democrat? There really are no acceptable answers. I look at it as a vote for any other candidate is a vote against intrinsic evil.
 
In my OPINION, a catholic in good standing cannot vote for any democrat above the local level. The term “pro-life democrat” is an oxymoron. I would ask such a person then why are you a democrat? There really are no acceptable answers. I look at it as a vote for any other candidate is a vote against intrinsic evil.
What if the republican is equally pro-abortion, like what could happen in the MA governors race.
 
What if the republican is equally pro-abortion, like what could happen in the MA governors race.
The difference then would be that one candidate is perfectly at home being part of the abortion party. The other is perfectly at home in the pro-life party. The democrat is usually hard core pro abortion. The republican is usually for some restrictions.
Lastly, voting for the democrat further empowers the abortion political machine. You need to look at the big picture, stinkcat

Ishii
 
What if the republican is equally pro-abortion, like what could happen in the MA governors race.
I know there are a number of “pro-life” organizations in that state. One could consult what they have to say.

Massachusetts Citizens for Life: masscitizensforlife.org/

Mass Pro-Life: massprolife.org/

And other organizations.

Of course, what they say doesn’t mean this is the way to go either. But if one is truly interested, it can’t hurt to read and research the issue.
 
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.
Since it is not above your pay grade to state unequivocally that a Catholic may not vote for a pro-choice politician, let’s stick with that terminology and ask if it is also true that a Catholic cab driver may not give a ride to an abortion clinic, and if a Catholic contractor may not take a job building for Planned Parenthood, both of which you cited as examples.
 
Republicans’ opposition to abortion has been woefully ineffective, even when they controlled the presidency and both houses of congress in the 2000s. There are no facts to support the idea that a Republican vote will significantly reduce the abortion rate in the United States relative to a Democratic vote.

Democrats’ active promotion of abortion, while real, is unnecessary, because our corrupted culture already considers abortion to be acceptable and widely available. The culture has promoted abortion on its own - with great success - regardless of which political party is in power, and there is no evidence that Democratic power makes this cultural message stronger than it otherwise would be.

In conclusion, the Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated that they are either unable or unwilling to make serious attacks on abortion, and the Democrats’ pro-abortion message is just a symptom of the widespread disease in our culture, which voting Republican would not cure.
 
Republicans’ opposition to abortion has been woefully ineffective, even when they controlled the presidency and both houses of congress in the 2000s. There are no facts to support the idea that a Republican vote will significantly reduce the abortion rate in the United States relative to a Democratic vote.

Democrats’ active promotion of abortion, while real, is unnecessary, because our corrupted culture already considers abortion to be acceptable and widely available. The culture has promoted abortion on its own - with great success - regardless of which political party is in power, and there is no evidence that Democratic power makes this cultural message stronger than it otherwise would be.

In conclusion, the Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated that they are either unable or unwilling to make serious attacks on abortion, and the Democrats’ pro-abortion message is just a symptom of the widespread disease in our culture, which voting Republican would not cure.
This again, actually abortion has been combatted effectively in New Jersey, Wisconsin, Mississippi, Texas, Oklahoma, Indiana, Arizona, etc. and that is with the Democratic Party basically fighting tooth and nail any measures that are put up.

Who backs the Democrats? Planned Parenthood, the organization that gets $500 million plus a year from the Federal Government.

Who backs the legislation limitting abortions in these states whereas states like Mo. and Ms. only have one abortion clinic remaining, this ineffectiveness you speak of? Grass Roots efforts.

Now, I am curious, the people who make these statements I assume have prayed a lot of Rosaries outside of abortion clinics, read pro-life literature frequently and also say pro-life Rosaries frequently at Church or in the Home, possibly even counseling, sidewalk counseling near abortion mills. Am I correct in assuming this Fogwalker? I think it’s fair game to find out how committed people making such statements are as well.
 
This again, actually abortion has been combatted effectively in New Jersey, Wisconsin, Mississippi, Texas, Oklahoma, Indiana, Arizona, etc. and that is with the Democratic Party basically fighting tooth and nail any measures that are put up.

Who backs the Democrats? Planned Parenthood, the organization that gets $500 million plus a year from the Federal Government.

Who backs the legislation limitting abortions in these states whereas states like Mo. and Ms. only have one abortion clinic remaining, this INEFFECTIVENESS you speak of? Grass Roots efforts.
Our definitions of “effective” are not aligned. The word “effective” implies that there are results that can be measured. The only result that I care about in this debate is the number of babies that are aborted, and more specifically, that the number is zero. I do not see killing 1.1 million people as “better” than killing 1.2 million people - we should be killing zero people and anything more than zero is unacceptable.

Saying that Democrats “fight tooth and nail” against pro-life policies is an unfair generalization. SOME Democrats fight pro-life policies. MANY do not. OTHERS break party lines to support pro-life policies.

My personal experience is that a woman who is willing to drive 1 hour across town to have an abortion will also be willing to drive 2 hours to have the same procedure out of state. And there are ways and means outside of clinics to have abortions. The number and location of clinics is not a good measure of abortion rates. As for funding Planned Parenthood, government funding and intervention do not guarantee an organization’s success (and might make it worse - just ask the Postal Service).
 
Republicans’ opposition to abortion has been woefully ineffective, even when they controlled the presidency and both houses of congress in the 2000s. There are no facts to support the idea that a Republican vote will significantly reduce the abortion rate in the United States relative to a Democratic vote.

Democrats’ active promotion of abortion, while real, is unnecessary, because our corrupted culture already considers abortion to be acceptable and widely available. The culture has promoted abortion on its own - with great success - regardless of which political party is in power, and there is no evidence that Democratic power makes this cultural message stronger than it otherwise would be.

In conclusion, the Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated that they are either unable or unwilling to make serious attacks on abortion, and the Democrats’ pro-abortion message is just a symptom of the widespread disease in our culture, which voting Republican would not cure.
I forget which excuse your post applies to. But it is an excuse. I think it goes like this: “Republicans are (according to me) ineffective in opposing abortion so therefore its okay for me to vote for the pro-abortion Democrat.”

Let me give you my take : the state legislatures which have Republican majorities have done significant things to give the unborn protection under the law. Voting for Republicans helps give the unborn legal protection (contrary to your false impression). Now, as for the US congress under Bush - you are right - they had a majority for a brief time. But was it a super majority? No. They would not have been able to withstand a Democrat filibuster. That leaves the supreme court as the best way to make it easier to allow state legislatures to protect the unborn legally. I don’t know if you voted for Obama, but if you did, to the extent the supreme court justices he nominated uphold abortion rights - you are complicit.

You also present a false premise: the idea that voting Republican will somehow “cure” the disease in our culture which views abortion as a legitimate option. That disease has been decades in the making and merely changing the law won’t reverse that. But I don’t know ONE pro-life person here on CAF or elsewhere who believes that electing Republicans will reverse the culture of death that exists overnight. So quit with the strawmen arguments. I hope you stick around here. Its good to have different points of view.

Ishii
 
Our definitions of “effective” are not aligned. The word “effective” implies that there are results that can be measured. The only result that I care about in this debate is the number of babies that are aborted, and more specifically, that the number is zero. I do not see killing 1.1 million people as “better” than killing 1.2 million people - we should be killing zero people and anything more than zero is unacceptable.

Saying that Democrats “fight tooth and nail” against pro-life policies is an unfair generalization. SOME Democrats fight pro-life policies. MANY do not. OTHERS break party lines to support pro-life policies.

My personal experience is that a woman who is willing to drive 1 hour across town to have an abortion will also be willing to drive 2 hours to have the same procedure out of state. And there are ways and means outside of clinics to have abortions. The number and location of clinics is not a good measure of abortion rates. As for funding Planned Parenthood, government funding and intervention do not guarantee an organization’s success (and might make it worse - just ask the Postal Service).
Ah. One of those “all or nothing” people. Unless the policies don’t result in zero abortions, then you will not support. Right. So for example, giving the unborn the protection of the law in say, Oklahoma, is not worth it because… a woman in that state might drive to Arkansas and get an abortion. So therefore let’s have abortion on demand across the country and hundreds of thousands of abortions until we arrive at the point of perfection where there are zero abortions. From 900,000 per year to zero - that’s realistic. Don’t vote for people who will give the unborn in North Dakota the protection of the law because in California, they don’t have that.

I believe you’ve created another official excuse to vote Democrat.

Ishii
 
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.
You’ve made a lot of very good points here.
 
You’ve made a lot of very good points here.
No, the poster made a false caricature of the Iraq war era. Many Democrats were in favor of the Iraq war. Moreover, the term “Bush regime” shows that the poster fnr is not the least bit objective on issues during the Bush admin. “Regime” is a term used to describe dictatorships. I am disappointed that you think those are good points. But I am most disappointed in posters that bring up events of 10 years ago to excuse supporting pro-abortion Democrats.

Ishii
 
Our definitions of “effective” are not aligned. The word “effective” implies that there are results that can be measured. The only result that I care about in this debate is the number of babies that are aborted, and more specifically, that the number is zero. I do not see killing 1.1 million people as “better” than killing 1.2 million people - we should be killing zero people and anything more than zero is unacceptable.

Saying that Democrats “fight tooth and nail” against pro-life policies is an unfair generalization. SOME Democrats fight pro-life policies. MANY do not. OTHERS break party lines to support pro-life policies.

My personal experience is that a woman who is willing to drive 1 hour across town to have an abortion will also be willing to drive 2 hours to have the same procedure out of state. And there are ways and means outside of clinics to have abortions. The number and location of clinics is not a good measure of abortion rates. As for funding Planned Parenthood, government funding and intervention do not guarantee an organization’s success (and might make it worse - just ask the Postal Service).
I guess you missed the part where I asked what your participation in the pro-life movement was. I assume you have said pro-life rosaries outside of abortion mills or read pro-life literature frequently or are involved in the movement at your church. Looks like you completely missed that. So this largely confirms my belief that someone who was involved would probably not be making such statements.
 
As far a Rep majority and what they have done to help combat abortion, I know in TX the measures, laws, they have passed regarding drs having to have admitting privileges at local hospitals, safety for patient, is causing many to close.
MS has the same but a judge has stopped it for now as the drs at the one and only clinic cannot get admitting privileges.
As to women going to other states to have abortions, I can say MS is very helpful to pregnant women, unwed. So, the birth rate should be proof that a majority are NOT going to surrounding states for abortions. Health care is provided for the children till they are 18.
TX and MS have majority republicans.
So, there are laws they can pass to help slow it down and also protect women better.
 
Since it is not above your pay grade to state unequivocally that a Catholic may not vote for a pro-choice politician, let’s stick with that terminology and ask if it is also true that a Catholic cab driver may not give a ride to an abortion clinic, and if a Catholic contractor may not take a job building for Planned Parenthood, both of which you cited as examples.
A Catholic in good standing with a fully and properly formed conscience understands he/she cannot participate in evil; even though it may be indirect or some how removed.

Check out this article by Randall Smith, who is an associate professor of theology at the University of St. Thomas, Houston.

thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/no-cooperation-with-evil.html

This one paragraph truly places into context what an excuse or a justification can allow a person to participate in.

*But let’s remember that, during the Holocaust, one man ran the trains, another man opened the doors, and another man loaded the prisoners, so that none of them had to take responsibility for the evil being done. Those who want you to violate your conscience will first seek to misinform your conscience, and then try to deaden its voice. *
 
A Catholic in good standing with a fully and properly formed conscience understands he/she cannot participate in evil; even though it may be indirect or some how removed.

Check out this article by Randall Smith, who is an associate professor of theology at the University of St. Thomas, Houston.

thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/no-cooperation-with-evil.html

This one paragraph truly places into context what an excuse or a justification can allow a person to participate in.

*But let’s remember that, during the Holocaust, one man ran the trains, another man opened the doors, and another man loaded the prisoners, so that none of them had to take responsibility for the evil being done. Those who want you to violate your conscience will first seek to misinform your conscience, and then try to deaden its voice. *
I read through the article - twice - and I think I understand it. The article does not say what your first sentence says. Randall Smith does an excellent job in explaining the categories of cooperation with evil, and the moral evaluation of each category. Regarding mediate material cooperation, he says it “should be avoided”. Those are his exact words. He did not say “must be avoided”, or the one “may not” engage in it. But the words I have seen here regarding voting are “may not”. How do you explain the difference?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top