Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

  • Thread starter Thread starter adawgj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No one here is trying to control anyone. And these are not “our beliefs.” This is clearly what the Church believes. And although she doesn’t explicitly say you cannot vote democrat, she clearly shows you the positions that are most important, and gives you clear guidelines. And at the*** top*** of this list are life issues. Abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning and so on. So-called homosexual “marriage” is also very high on this list. Can anyone here deny, that for the most part, democrats give full support to all of the aforementioned issues? And yet I guarantee you, if Hillary Clinton were going up against say, Rick Santorum…you would still vote Clinton. Disregarding the fact that she fully supports the above mentioned evils. And you would come on here and post page after page arguing your reasons for doing so. Even though Santorum is a Catholic in good standing and is true to the Church and her teachings. Look, I don’t deny for an instant that my traditionalist Catholic views would more than likely prevent me from ever voting democrat. But I will vehemently deny that I vote Republican. I vote Catholic! My conscience takes over completely. It sees very clearly the sickness that must be present in those who would allow, and indeed promote and protect the “rights” for one to dispose as you would garbage, a precious innocent human life. And my conscience sees clearly the disastrous effects that the destruction of traditional marriage has on the family, and society. And I also see very clearly which party is more likely to support and promote these evils.

One other thing that I have to mention again, is the HHS Mandate. This to me was so over the top, that I can’t imagine that any Catholic with a well formed conscience could simply brush it aside. When Secretary of HHS Kathleen Sebelius, (a “catholic”) said that aside from houses of worship, all other religious agencies and organizations, including the likes of EWTN and the Little Sisters of the Poor, would be required to provide sterilization and contraceptive services, including abortifacients, in their employee healthcare plans, or face severe fines and penalties…I thought to myself, how low can you possibly sink! And even when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, Democrats pushed for a bill that would undermine the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby ruling. It showed me vividly that this party has no respect whatsoever for people of faith. I don’t know about you, but I love the Holy Catholic Church more than life itself. And when someone goes after her that ruthlessly, and without ever relenting…I see red.

Peace, Mark
Wonderful post, and absolutely spot-on. And we know it’s true. Many on here claiming to be fully Catholic and adhering to her teachings would readily vote for Hillary Clinton over Santorum. Like disobedient sons and daughters, they give lip service to the teachings, and undermine or ignore them on a moment’s notice.
 
Generally speaking, Catholics can’t vote for anyone with a clear conscience. We can’t help seeking a politician who is decent, but I believe it’s an exercise in futility. No State could ever be Christian, it’s just inherently impossible. It’s why Catholics will always be outsiders.
Most certainly Catholics CAN vote with a clear conscience. If the vote is between two unnacceptable politicians, you vote for the one who will limit the evil most. And your conscience is clear, as you have voted as best you possibly can. You may not like the options, but you have made the best and most Catholic choice you possibly can. That is all we can do, and God does not ask the impossible from us.
 
Are they pro-life when they vote into power the pro-abortion party? Of course not.

It is one thing to belong to and vote into power a party that is neutral on the issue, or does not take any measureable steps to promote abortion. It is entirely another to vote into power the party which promotes and pushes abortion at every opportunity. Mr. Peterson has done so. So his claim to be pro-life is false.
So are you saying that him being registered Democrat means he isn’t pro-life?
40.png
ishii:
But even if there were “no other options” I would not vote for the Democrat… If the only candidates running were Democrats then I guess I’d pick the one that would do the least damage.
I think that’s the situation this person described. 🤷
 
I don’t think that’s a fair comparison. A pro-life Democrat would be someone who is actively against what the party stands for. Your analogy might make more sense for the person who claims to be prolife but doesn’t want to do anything to change any laws.

I suppose it depends on why you would be in the party. Is there no other practical alternative? Is there a stigma attached to the “better” party that makes it difficult to associate with them, or are they actually a worse party at your local level? How much of a chance is there to reform the party? Can you continue to hold your beliefs while still being a member of the party (IOW, does the party tolerate “dissent”)?

I’m obviously not a definitive source, but IMO these are questions that should be considered and require prudence.
So if your only two options at the local level are the Nazi Party and the Communist Party, it’s okay to belong to the Nazi Party?!?!

Of course not. When a political party has gone so far down the trail in its support and cooperation with evil, it is simply inexcuseable to belong to that party. There is no acceptable reason why you belong to the party.
 
Promoting the common good is a socialistic concept. The correct role of government is to protect individual rights. Protecting individual rights, by very definition, benefits society as a whole.
Promoting the common good is not intrisically a socialistic concept. That verbiage has been misused and abused by the socialists so that it is highly identified with them. But that doesn’t mean the phrase is inherently bad.

You gave a great example, protecting individual rights IS promoting the common good (and it is contrary to socialism too) 👍
 
I’m not interested in tangential “what if” games. I’ll kindly refer you back to my previous post # 1369, which will answer your question.
Funny how we can wish for the discussion to stop when it gets uncomfortable.
 
No I am saying that no sincere Catholic can say that they love the unborn and vote for a baby murderer (i.e. Pro-Abortion) Republican candidate over a Pro-Life Democrat.

Now I would agree that there aren’t too many Pro-Life Democrats but that doesn’t remove the obligation to vote for life.
There are NO pro-life Democrat candidates if they will vote to empower the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is pro-abortion and will work to encourage and expand abortion as much as possible. So when a “pro-life” Democrat politician votes into power Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi, they are no longer pro-life.
 
I think that’s the situation this person described. 🤷
Yes, sorry for being vague there. Just to clarify: if the two candidates are pro-life I would vote for the Republican because I don’t want to empower Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid/Barbara Boxer et al.

Ishii
 
Funny how we can wish for the discussion to stop when it gets uncomfortable.
We all need to be uncomfortable with certain things. On the issue of voting for pro-abortion Democrats, I hope that any Catholic Democrat would be very uncomfortable.

Ishii
 
Which party does he empower while a member of Congress? Which party does he vote to hold the control of the HOR?

Those are not prolife votes.
Yes. With all apologies to pnewton and “begging the question”, being a Democrat might as well be pro-abortion. You might say, “but I’m a pro-life Democrat!” You can say so, but the party you empower with your votes is dominated by Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Barbara Boxer, Barbara Mikulski, and all the rest of the pro-abortion Democrats. Sorry, but that is the political reality.

Ishii
 
There are NO pro-life Democrat candidates if they will vote to empower the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is pro-abortion and will work to encourage and expand abortion as much as possible. So when a “pro-life” Democrat politician votes into power Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi, they are no longer pro-life.
There is more than one level of government. State and local government doesn’t have any effect on who has power in the federal government.

I was just reading today about an actively pro-life Dem in Louisiana who worked to get abortion restrictions passed in that state. We need to work to make both parties actively pro-life. We can’t do that if we discount those in the Dem party who are on our side.
 
FYI - This crosses the line to personal judgment, that is judging the heart. I am a little sensitive to this since someone did the same to me. Claiming that anyone here who is Democrat is choosing the party over life is much more than Mother Church ever taught and assumes a great deal that is not charitable. We do not know how much any of use are committed to opposing abortion.
I was referring to the actions of Dem politicians at the federal level, not individuals on CAF. 😦
 
There is more than one level of government. State and local government doesn’t have any effect on who has power in the federal government.

I was just reading today about an actively pro-life Dem in Louisiana who worked to get abortion restrictions passed in that state. We need to work to make both parties actively pro-life. We can’t do that if we discount those in the Dem party who are on our side.
The problem, as we saw with the ACA, is that when push comes to shove they aren’t on our side. For instance this Lady in La voted for the pro-abortion leadership of the Democrat Party in the LA legislature.

The Democrat party at all levels should know that they will not receive the support of Catholics as long as their Party supports abortion , Period. If Catholics did that the Party would become Pro-life in about 2 election cycles.
 
The problem, as we saw with the ACA, is that when push comes to shove they aren’t on our side. For instance this Lady in La voted for the pro-abortion leadership of the Democrat Party in the LA legislature.

The Democrat party at all levels should know that they will not receive the support of Catholics as long as their Party supports abortion , Period. If Catholics did that the Party would become Pro-life in about 2 election cycles.
The last sentence speaks volumes.

DGB
 
Funny how we can wish for the discussion to stop when it gets uncomfortable.
I’m not sure what your point is. The discussion is not uncomfortable at all. The question had already been answered.
 
It’s unpalatable as well the way this tragic event in Missouri is being used as well by some people. Another reason I would find the Democratic Party dubious and divisive. Those seemingly looking for an incident to fan the flames of racism may one day find such an incident but it’s looking like this one isn’t it either like Duke Lacrosse and others before it. Yet, they aren’t in Chicago or other places. That seems to say a lot, I’d be troubled to vote for a party that seems like a major part of it is just to try to accuse others of racism. And it’s been shown, some of those at these riots have been the Black Panthers coming in from Oakland. Department of Justice wanted that video with-held as it might not have been that helpful to their narrative.

This is why the GOP should not pander. One mentions Marco Rubio? I’d think a Cuban-American’s appeal might be limited but there are plenty of others.
 
The problem, as we saw with the ACA, is that when push comes to shove they aren’t on our side. For instance this Lady in La voted for the pro-abortion leadership of the Democrat Party in the LA legislature.

The Democrat party at all levels should know that they will not receive the support of Catholics as long as their Party supports abortion , Period. If Catholics did that the Party would become Pro-life in about 2 election cycles.
Proof that she voted for pro-abortion leadership? It was a Dem (Democratic Rep. Katrina Jackson) who authored the bill that was passed and signed into law. Just because jerks at the fed level are willing to put their party over values, does not mean that state and local politicians have that option. They don’t get to hide away in Washington where they don’t have see their constituents every day.
 
Proof that she voted for pro-abortion leadership? It was a Dem (Democratic Rep. Katrina Jackson) who authored the bill that was passed and signed into law. Just because jerks at the fed level are willing to put their party over values, does not mean that state and local politicians have that option. They don’t get to hide away in Washington where they don’t have see their constituents every day.
So she does not support the National Democrat Party?
 
Katrina Jackson sounds like the “real deal” and I could not find her endorsing President Obama per se as well. Something to at least be alert too.

newsbusters.org/people-and-organizations/katrina-jackson
Katrina Jackson
Louisiana’s Abortion Law Gets Light Attention, Perhaps Due to Its ‘Overwhelming’ Democratic Support
So what’s more newsworthy: A white, privileged, female lawyer wearing pink shoes whose filibuster failed to stop abortion restrictions from taking effect in Texas, or a an African-American female state representative who sponsored and helped successfully shepherd a similar law through Louisiana’s legislature —* with overwhelming support from Democratic legislators?* If you think it should be the latter, you obviously don’t understand the priorities of the nation’s establishment press.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top