Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[Hopey]

“Material cooperation” means that you don’t share the intent but your actions nevertheless are instrumental in bringing about the evil outcome. Without getting into all the layers of complexity in defining “material cooperation,” suffice it to say that, as a rule, Catholics should avoid voting for candidates that would involve them in cooperation with the wrongdoing of politicians. Voting for a candidate who promotes public funding for abortion makes you morally complicit in the grave evil of killing some of our fellow human beings. Not every case of material cooperation with evil is unjustifiable, but every case requires us to think about whether it is justified, and this is acutely important with a widespread grave injustice such as abortion. As indicated earlier, it is not a simple analysis."

^^ There it is, again. You are in the realm of prudential judgment when you are deciding a candidate, which is not easy.
There are guidelines we can follow to help us, but when given no good choice, this is where Catholics must decide on their own. I write in Daffy Duck knowing that one of the potential candidates, if both pro-choice, will get in office. IF I were to vote for one, I would follow up with letter writing to the winner.
It is not easy in those situation and to find a pro-life Democrat is hard, rare, but they do exist.
We are asked to go beyond party line voting - voting for this person because I might be Republican and so are they, although they may be very pro-choice.

 

[estesbob]

You are not accurately stating what “the Church” has taught, but statements by Archbishop Chaput and Cardinal Burke. Not every statement of a bishop of the Church constitutes the regular Magesterial teaching of the Church, though it is the obligation of every Catholic to attend to (notably, to “conform to”) what they say. You are selectively citing two bishops and saying their political positions constitute what every Catholic must follow…

And yet you have cited not one member of the Magnestrium who supports your position

When I look at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’s Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility, or as I previously cited, the Ratzinger Memo (the main which you insist I ignored in favor of what you consider an insignificant footnote) do not say what you are saying.

If you want to be selective in citing the USCCB’s document, you can jump to number 90 (and skip the previous 89 points) and cite the following:

*90. *Address the preeminent requirement to protect the weakest in our midst—innocent unborn children—by restricting and bringing to an end the destruction of unborn children through abortion.

• Keep our nation from turning to violence to address fundamental problems—a million abortions each year to deal with unwanted pregnancies, euthanasia and assisted suicide to deal with the burdens of illness and disability, the destruction of human embryos in the name of research, the use of the death penalty to combat crime, and imprudent resort to war to address international disputes.
• Define the central institution of marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and provide better support for family life morally, socially, and economically, so that our nation helps parents raise their children with respect for life, sound moral values, and an ethic of stewardship and responsibility.
• Achieve comprehensive immigration reform that secures our borders, treats immigrant workers fairly, offers an earned path to citizenship, respects the rule of law, and addresses the factors that compel people to leave their own countries.
• Help families and children overcome poverty: ensuring access to and choice in education, as well as decent work at fair, living wages and adequate assistance for the vulnerable in our nation, while also helping to overcome widespread hunger and poverty around the world, especially in the areas of development assistance, debt relief, and international trade.
• Provide health care for the growing number of people without it, while respecting human life, human dignity, and religious freedom in our health care system.
• Continue to oppose policies that reflect prejudice, hostility toward immigrants, religious bigotry, and other forms of discrimination.
• Encourage families, community groups, economic structures, and government to work together to overcome poverty, pursue the common good, and care for creation, with full respect for religious groups and their right to address social needs in accord with their basic moral convictions.
• Establish and comply with moral limits on the use of military force—examining for what purposes it may be used, under what authority, and at what human cost—and work for a “responsible transition” to end the war in Iraq.
• Join with others around the world to pursue peace, protect human rights and religious liberty, and advance economic justice and care for creation.

“Different weight and urgency,” yes. I agree that abortion is an abomination, but the bishops don’t say how I, as a voter, am supposed to end it. As I have argued based on the abortion rate in Taussig’s 1931 paper (when abortion was illegal everywhere), the widespread availability of black market Cytotec, and the probability in the eventuality that Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion rates will remain high regardless of who the president is. So the attempt to restate all Catholic social teaching to “you must vote for a candidates who vow to restrict abortion any way possible” is incorrect.

Again you want us to accept your personal interpretation of a passage in faithful citizenship and ignore the overwhelming evidence from Church documents and the teachings of the magisterium that your interpretation is wrong. You would have us believe that we can accept a candidates and his party’s rejection of the first three items on the list and still vote for him because he is so “good” on the other items-items that are endorsed both both party’s -differing only on the best way to accomplish them.

Most ludicrous of all is the assertion that since women will get abortion anyway its ok to support it.

I have quoted two encyclicals, 3 Popes 5 Bishops and a Cardinal in support of my position. Please note the bolded-it responds to your post better than I ever could

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

 

[Path_Finder]

“Material cooperation” means that you don’t share the intent but your actions nevertheless are instrumental in bringing about the evil outcome. Without getting into all the layers of complexity in defining “material cooperation,” suffice it to say that, as a rule, Catholics should avoid voting for candidates that would involve them in cooperation with the wrongdoing of politicians. Voting for a candidate who promotes public funding for abortion makes you morally complicit in the grave evil of killing some of our fellow human beings. Not every case of material cooperation with evil is unjustifiable, but every case requires us to think about whether it is justified, and this is acutely important with a widespread grave injustice such as abortion. As indicated earlier, it is not a simple analysis."

^^ There it is, again. You are in the realm of prudential judgment when you are deciding a candidate, which is not easy.
There are guidelines we can follow to help us, but when given no good choice, this is where Catholics must decide on their own. I write in Daffy Duck knowing that one of the potential candidates, if both pro-choice, will get in office. IF I were to vote for one, I would follow up with letter writing to the winner.
It is not easy in those situation and to find a pro-life Democrat is hard, rare, but they do exist.
We are asked to go beyond party line voting - voting for this person because I might be Republican and so are they, although they may be very pro-choice.

Good points.

I think too, we are to remember this Fall, we vote for candidates on the State and Local level, even if some posters ignore Kosovo, the bombing of Serbia, all of the Democratic politicians statements about how dangerous the build up of Saddam’s WMDs were, sanctions back in the day, we are not voting for the office of Presidency this year.

 

[fnr]

The problem with all this talk of Ayn Rand, Hayek, etc. is that you’re just using it to rationalize voting for a president who is in favor of legalized infanticide (partial birth abortion).

You’re not a mind reader. Stick to your day job. I’ll refrain from speculating about your motives, since I don’t know you.

What do you think you’d say to an aborted baby that asked you why you voted for those who want to keep abortion legal? Would you say, “Ayn Rand, blah blah blah… Bush…blah blah blah… Iraq…blah blah blah… the environment…EPA… blah blah blah…”

To the unborn baby I offered to adopt to prevent her mother, a friend of mine, from getting an abortion, I would say that I tried everything I could to save her life.

What do you say to the baby aborted in Texas as a result of her mother taking Cytotec that she bought at the local flea market? Maybe that you cheered on the state legislature to close down abortion clinics by erecting more stringent regulations, and then closed your eyes to the abortions that were still occurring because you really wanted your strategy of regulating abortion clinics out of existence to work and didn’t want your decades of effort to go to naught?

What are you going to do if in 2014, the Republicans take the Senate, and in 2016 Paul Ryan gets elected to the White House, who in 2017 appoints a new pro-life justice to the Supreme Court to replace the recently-deceased Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who votes with a 5-4 majority that there’s not an implicit right to privacy implied in the 14th Amendment after all, overturning Roe v. Wade, which induces a bunch of states with already low abortion rates to make abortion illegal while leaving abortion legal in Alaska, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington (the states NARAL grades B- or better)? Meanwhile, the Cytotec black market thrives in the other states, and out of state abortion trips skyrocket? All of a sudden, the official abortion numbers drop, but how many Cytotec prescriptions aren’t fully taken by the patients with stomach problems? And why don’t adoption rates increase?

Maybe, as in 1931 when abortion was illegal everywhere, the rate is higher than today’s, and instead of making a fuss about it, the major pro-life organizations claim victory and disband, because the reason for their founding – Roe v. Wade especially – no longer exists.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, because the news is bad. Overturning Roe v. Wade isn’t going to make abortion go away, any more than the Roe v. Wade decision made abortion a reality in this country. Want to end abortion for real? Time to get creative and stop pretending that being a single issue or “non-negotiables” voter is going to make much difference. Because it’s not.

 

[estesbob]

ct.dio.org/bishops-column/message/politics-and-moral-complexity-gods-law-comes-first/read.html

Thank you for posting this! For those to lazy to follow links:

Some who try to navigate this labyrinth of moral analysis simply rationalize their way to a desired conclusion, for example, by saying that voting for a pro-choice candidate is justified by their support for other “social justice” causes. But such people should apply the Golden Rule by placing themselves in the shoes of the people who are going to be killed by abortions. Would these voters really think it is more “just” to vote for the “pro-choice” candidate if they or their own children or their brothers and sisters were going to be deliberately killed — along with 1.3 million others? Not very likely, is it?

Bishop Thomas John Paprocki

 

[tmelosi]

“Material cooperation” means that you don’t share the intent but your actions nevertheless are instrumental in bringing about the evil outcome. Without getting into all the layers of complexity in defining “material cooperation,” suffice it to say that, as a rule, Catholics should avoid voting for candidates that would involve them in cooperation with the wrongdoing of politicians. Voting for a candidate who promotes public funding for abortion makes you morally complicit in the grave evil of killing some of our fellow human beings. Not every case of material cooperation with evil is unjustifiable, but every case requires us to think about whether it is justified, and this is acutely important with a widespread grave injustice such as abortion. As indicated earlier, it is not a simple analysis."

^^ There it is, again. You are in the realm of prudential judgment when you are deciding a candidate, which is not easy.
There are guidelines we can follow to help us, but when given no good choice, this is where Catholics must decide on their own. I write in Daffy Duck knowing that one of the potential candidates, if both pro-choice, will get in office. IF I were to vote for one, I would follow up with letter writing to the winner.
It is not easy in those situation and to find a pro-life Democrat is hard, rare, but they do exist.
We are asked to go beyond party line voting - voting for this person because I might be Republican and so are they, although they may be very pro-choice.

He does give an example the very next paragraph:

Some who try to navigate this labyrinth of moral analysis simply rationalize their way to a desired conclusion, for example, by saying that voting for a pro-choice candidate is justified by their support for other “social justice” causes. But such people should apply the Golden Rule by placing themselves in the shoes of the people who are going to be killed by abortions. Would these voters really think it is more “just” to vote for the “pro-choice” candidate if they or their own children or their brothers and sisters were going to be deliberately killed — along with 1.3 million others? Not very likely, is it?

 

[Hopey]

"Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, because the news is bad. Overturning Roe v. Wade isn’t going to make abortion go away, any more than the Roe v. Wade decision made abortion a reality in this country. Want to end abortion for real? Time to get creative and stop pretending that being a single issue or “non-negotiables” voter is going to make much difference. Because it’s not. "

This is where you are wrong in that you are calling it a single issue, etc. Call it what it is, intrinsic evil.
I still don’t think MS people are going to surrounding states for abortions because of the high rate of births out of wedlock.
Also, making a dr have admitting privileges to hospital should be basic, which is what you called stringent laws.

 

[estesbob]

You’re not a mind reader. Stick to your day job. I’ll refrain from speculating about your motives, since I don’t know you.

To the unborn baby I offered to adopt to prevent her mother, a friend of mine, from getting an abortion, I would say that I tried everything I could to save her life.

What do you say to the baby aborted in Texas as a result of her mother taking Cytotec that she bought at the local flea market? Maybe that you cheered on the state legislature to close down abortion clinics by erecting more stringent regulations, and then closed your eyes to the abortions that were still occurring because you really wanted your strategy of regulating abortion clinics out of existence to work and didn’t want your decades of effort to go to naught?

What are you going to do if in 2014, the Republicans take the Senate, and in 2016 Paul Ryan gets elected to the White House, who in 2017 appoints a new pro-life justice to the Supreme Court to replace the recently-deceased Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who votes with a 5-4 majority that there’s not an implicit right to privacy implied in the 14th Amendment after all, overturning Roe v. Wade, which induces a bunch of states with already low abortion rates to make abortion illegal while leaving abortion legal in Alaska, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington (the states NARAL grades B- or better)? Meanwhile, the Cytotec black market thrives in the other states, and out of state abortion trips skyrocket? All of a sudden, the official abortion numbers drop, but how many Cytotec prescriptions aren’t fully taken by the patients with stomach problems? And why don’t adoption rates increase?

Maybe, as in 1931 when abortion was illegal everywhere, the rate is higher than today’s, and instead of making a fuss about it, the major pro-life organizations claim victory and disband, because the reason for their founding – Roe v. Wade especially – no longer exists.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, because the news is bad. Overturning Roe v. Wade isn’t going to make abortion go away, any more than the Roe v. Wade decision made abortion a reality in this country. Want to end abortion for real? Time to get creative and stop pretending that being a single issue or “non-negotiables” voter is going to make much difference. Because it’s not.

So I think that people who claim that the abortion struggle is ‘‘lost’’ as a matter of law, or that supporting an outspoken defender of legal abortion is somehow ‘‘prolife,’’ are not just wrong; they’re betraying the witness of every person who continues the work of defending the unborn child. And I hope they know how to explain that, because someday they’ll be required to.

Archbishop Charles Chaput

You mock all of us who work in the pro-life ministry-telling us we are wasting our time trying to defend the unborn and are dupes when we vote for pro-life candidates And you do so for the rankest of reasons-trying to justify your support of a Party Cardinal Burke fears has become the “Party of Death”.

 

[Path_Finder]

What do you say to the baby aborted in Texas as a result of her mother taking Cytotec that she bought at the local flea market? Maybe that you cheered on the state legislature to close down abortion clinics by erecting more stringent regulations, and then closed your eyes to the abortions that were still occurring because you really wanted your strategy of regulating abortion clinics out of existence to work and didn’t want your decades of effort to go to naught?

So because auto theft still happens even though it is illegal in all 50 states, then it would seem to make sense to propose auto theft be made legal using this same reasoning?

Bank robbery, Assault and Battery and so on using this same kind of logic.

 

[tmelosi]

It appears that you, Archbishop Chaput, and Cardinal Burke do not believe that there are any “proportionate reasons” that would allow an American Catholic to vote for a candidate that expresses support for Roe v. Wade. I disagree, and would welcome a canon lawyer’s interpretation here.

I did forget to note that Bishop Paprocki is a canon lawyer and a civil lawyer:

dio.org/bishop/about-bishop-paprocki.html

 

[Path_Finder]

They are great states all the same however, there are reasons some states tower above others in abortion rates. One has to think NY, California, some of the Eastern seaboard in effect encourage abortion vs. states that frown upon it and have lower rates. I doubt if somehow there is more of a black market of abortions in Oklahoma for instance.

 

[Jerurussia]

Dead Catholics can and have been known to vote Democrat en masse…

 

[stinkcat_14]

Church teaching tells us that unborn human life is sacred. I have concluded based on that teaching that the Democrat party is unworthy of any votes of Catholics. Do you base your decisions/opinions on something other than Church teaching? E.g Stinkcat teaching: you don’t like Republicans’ spending habits?

Ishii

I base my opinion on Church teaching. Nothing I have said goes against Church teaching.

 

[Path_Finder]

Respectfully, I can’t entertain the view that if one can’t stop one abortion, allow all abortions.

Yes, the back alley abortion scenario is scary but in turn, there is another life involved.

The rates of abortion per states are out there.

If the national median is about 20 per so many women and Mississippi comes in at 7 and another state is at over 30, I’d have to say MS. could indeed be saving some babies instead of saying we have to be cautious of the black market.

 

[theCrow]

Sad that this thread has turned purely into an abortion thread. From many posts, if a pro choice JFK ran against a Rep. Adolf Hitler, people would vote for the latter. (Yes bad example but made to make point)

Catholics CAN and DO Vote Democrat. I agree we really really NEED more parties, 3, 4, or even more. My friend is from Holland and they have at least THIRTEEN parties.

When you take any 2 groups, it becomes an US VS THEM mentality. So ALL Democrats are wrong, or all Republicans are wrong.

I have voted for both Dems and Republicans and look at their stance on other issues besides abortion.

So the answer is Yes Catholics can vote democrat.

And just imagine the chaos here when Hillary wins in 2016

 

[Path_Finder]

Sad that this thread has turned purely into an abortion thread. From many posts, if a pro choice JFK ran against a Rep. Adolf Hitler, people would vote for the latter. (Yes bad example but made to make point)

Catholics CAN and DO Vote Democrat. I agree we really really NEED more parties, 3, 4, or even more. My friend is from Holland and they have at least THIRTEEN parties.

When you take any 2 groups, it becomes an US VS THEM mentality. So ALL Democrats are wrong, or all Republicans are wrong.

I have voted for both Dems and Republicans and look at their stance on other issues besides abortion.

So the answer is Yes Catholics can vote democrat.

And just imagine the chaos here when Hillary wins in 2016

I believe in love.

I don’t call love voting for those who stand for an industry that tears the bodies of the most vulnerable to pieces.

 

[estesbob]

Sad that this thread has turned purely into an abortion thread. From many posts, if a pro choice JFK ran against a Rep. Adolf Hitler, people would vote for the latter. (Yes bad example but made to make point)

Catholics CAN and DO Vote Democrat. I agree we really really NEED more parties, 3, 4, or even more. My friend is from Holland and they have at least THIRTEEN parties.

When you take any 2 groups, it becomes an US VS THEM mentality. So ALL Democrats are wrong, or all Republicans are wrong.

I have voted for both Dems and Republicans and look at their stance on other issues besides abortion.

So the answer is Yes Catholics can vote democrat.

And just imagine the chaos here when Hillary wins in 2016

Godwins law affirmed again.

 

[Dawnia]

Sad that this thread has turned purely into an abortion thread. From many posts, if a pro choice JFK ran against a Rep. Adolf Hitler, people would vote for the latter. (Yes bad example but made to make point)

Catholics CAN and DO Vote Democrat. I agree we really really NEED more parties, 3, 4, or even more. My friend is from Holland and they have at least THIRTEEN parties.

When you take any 2 groups, it becomes an US VS THEM mentality. So ALL Democrats are wrong, or all Republicans are wrong.

I have voted for both Dems and Republicans and look at their stance on other issues besides abortion.

So the answer is Yes Catholics can vote democrat.

And just imagine the chaos here when Hillary wins in 2016

We can wish all we want to have more options, but our government is designed as a two party government and that isn’t going to change without major changes. The only options we really have are to change the parties we have.

I recall people doing victory laps for Hillary back in 2008 until she got knocked out of the running by a nobody. So, can we hold off on the victory laps at least until 2016? (I’d really appreciate if we could hold off on the campaigning until then too, but no one ever listens to me in that respect.)

 

[Sy_Noe]

You are not accurately stating what “the Church” has taught, but statements by Archbishop Chaput and Cardinal Burke. Not every statement of a bishop of the Church constitutes the regular Magesterial teaching of the Church, though it is the obligation of every Catholic to attend to (notably, to “conform to”) what they say. You are selectively citing two bishops and saying their political positions constitute what every Catholic must follow. Neither of them is my bishop, and do not have the authority to define “proportionate reason” in all cases for every Catholic in America, in the same way that Bishop Paprocki’s “Ars celebrandi et adorandi” does not require church buildings outside the Diocese of Springfield, IL to move the tabernacle to the center of the church, as it does within that diocese.

When I look at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’s Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility, or as I previously cited, the Ratzinger Memo (the main which you insist I ignored in favor of what you consider an insignificant footnote) do not say what you are saying.

If you want to be selective in citing the USCCB’s document, you can jump to number 90 (and skip the previous 89 points) and cite the following:
90. Catholic teaching challenges voters and candidates, citizens and elected officials, to consider the moral and ethical dimensions of public policy issues. In light of ethical principles, we bishops offer the following policy goals that we hope will guide Catholics as they form their consciences and reflect on the moral dimensions of their public choices. Not all issues are equal; these ten goals address matters of different moral weight and urgency. Some involve matters of intrinsic evil that can never be supported. Others involve affirmative obligations to seek the common good. These and similar goals can help voters and candidates act on ethical principles rather than particular interests and partisan allegiances. We hope Catholics will ask candidates how they intend to help our nation pursue these important goals:

• Address the preeminent requirement to protect the weakest in our midst—innocent unborn children—by restricting and bringing to an end the destruction of unborn children through abortion.
• Keep our nation from turning to violence to address fundamental problems—a million abortions each year to deal with unwanted pregnancies, euthanasia and assisted suicide to deal with the burdens of illness and disability, the destruction of human embryos in the name of research, the use of the death penalty to combat crime, and imprudent resort to war to address international disputes.
• Define the central institution of marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and provide better support for family life morally, socially, and economically, so that our nation helps parents raise their children with respect for life, sound moral values, and an ethic of stewardship and responsibility.
• Achieve comprehensive immigration reform that secures our borders, treats immigrant workers fairly, offers an earned path to citizenship, respects the rule of law, and addresses the factors that compel people to leave their own countries.
• Help families and children overcome poverty: ensuring access to and choice in education, as well as decent work at fair, living wages and adequate assistance for the vulnerable in our nation, while also helping to overcome widespread hunger and poverty around the world, especially in the areas of development assistance, debt relief, and international trade.
• Provide health care for the growing number of people without it, while respecting human life, human dignity, and religious freedom in our health care system.
• Continue to oppose policies that reflect prejudice, hostility toward immigrants, religious bigotry, and other forms of discrimination.
• Encourage families, community groups, economic structures, and government to work together to overcome poverty, pursue the common good, and care for creation, with full respect for religious groups and their right to address social needs in accord with their basic moral convictions.
• Establish and comply with moral limits on the use of military force—examining for what purposes it may be used, under what authority, and at what human cost—and work for a “responsible transition” to end the war in Iraq.
• Join with others around the world to pursue peace, protect human rights and religious liberty, and advance economic justice and care for creation.

“Different weight and urgency,” yes. I agree that abortion is an abomination, but the bishops don’t say how I, as a voter, am supposed to end it. As I have argued based on the abortion rate in Taussig’s 1931 paper (when abortion was illegal everywhere), the widespread availability of black market Cytotec, and the probability in the eventuality that Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion rates will remain high regardless of who the president is. So the attempt to restate all Catholic social teaching to “you must vote for a candidates who vow to restrict abortion any way possible” is incorrect.

Thank you for this. I believe I asked way back in the thread if all Catholics were bound by Chaput and Burke and hadn’t seen an answer until now.

 

[estesbob]

Thank you for this. I believe I asked way back in the thread if all Catholics were bound by Chaput and Burke and hadn’t seen an answer until now.

Actually we nave quoted 3 Popes, 2 encyclicals , 6 bishops and a cardinal. Can you find even a single member of the Magisterium that disagrees with Chaput and Burke or agrees with yours or FNRs personal opinon? Should a Catholic depend on a Democrats Catholics’ personal interpretation of a passage in a church document OR depend on the teachings of the Magisterium?

You are not bound by Burke and Chaput. You are bound by the teachings of the Church. All they did was affirm it.