Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[ringil]

I Guess if logic can be ignored, so can grammar, as long as it supports ideological rhetoric. However wrote this entry needs to repeat grade school and learn that English is not regular in many respects. You were being nice calling it “silly”.

Oh, and “autocrat” does become the adjective “autocratic” and adjectives can be used in titles.

Still, I would give up correct others if I were you. People will still be deliberately offensive if that is their wont.

I guess so.

There are issues here- real issues.

I am not going to get into a discussion here until folks can simply make the simple admission- and, like I said, I can respect that.

Yes, I use that term to express some antipathy with the Democratic Party.

Why wont folks admit that? It may just be my personality, but I need that. It’s simple and it lets me know that I am conversing with folks who can at least express this small degree of genuineness.

Sometimes I use terms which are untoward towards folks I disagree with. I shouldn’t but I do. If I were asked if I were dong it on purpose I would say “yes”, because- heck- what would it hurt?

 

[ringil]

#2: A word misspelled. Perhaps deliberately
i

Then admit it’s deliberate.

 

[ringil]

Good to see that everyone is ready for the midterms. Question: Can’t we just change the dates on our posts from last time and save typing, bandwidth and so on?

Good point. And before the 2012 election, and the 2008 election.

 

[Dawnia]

I guess so.

There are issues here- real issues.

I am not going to get into a discussion here until folks can simply make the simple admission- and, like I said, I can respect that.

Yes, I use that term to express some antipathy with the Democratic Party.

Why wont folks admit that? It may just be my personality, but I need that. It’s simple and it lets me know that I am conversing with folks who can at least express this small degree of genuineness.

Sometimes I use terms which are untoward towards folks I disagree with. I shouldn’t but I do. If I were asked if I were dong it on purpose I would say “yes”, because- heck- what would it hurt?

So…you’re going to pout because everyone won’t lie to make you feel better. Several of us have already said why we use the terms the way we do. Get over…or don’t. But, going on and on and on and on and on…and on about something so trivial is not the way to get invited to the grownups table to discuss serious issues.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Please charitably discuss the issues, not each other nor how each other post.

MORE (this is a copy of the forum rule about discussing politics here, I thought it might be helpful in your discussion, it is from the forum rules posted at the top of the forum):

Catholic Answers does not endorse or oppose any candidate or party. Rather, CA seeks only to explain and defend Catholic moral teachings.

Discussions of politics (discussing particular politicians, candidates, asking who to vote for, etc.) among CAF members is acceptable only in the World News sub-forum. However, CAF is not a channel that political parties, candidates, or advocates can use to further their political agendas. Please do not post campaign ads or campaign on the forums.

Campaigning for a candidate on the forum is not allowed. You may charitably discuss current news items but you must try to remain objective and not use CAF as a vehicle to campaign for a certain candidate or against a certain candidate.

No name calling or belittling anyone, including political candidates and politicians. Keep all comments charitable. Participants are strongly reminded that charity is essential to our discussions here.

If you wish to review the subject, please see Charity for specifics, or CAF rules for an overview, both of which are located in the Rules of the Road sub-forum.

News stories discussed here should at least tangentially related to religion. When posting new threads, please keep this in mind.

It is fair to discuss a politician’s or newsmaker’s position on the issues and their qualifications for office, it is not fair to discuss their spiritual well being. Criticisms of a anyone’s spiritual life or spirituality should be left between that person and their spiritual director or confessor. They are not allowed in the forums. If a politician or newsmaker states that they are a certain religion that is the assumed religion of the politician in this forum, please do not question it.

 

[estesbob]

Good point. And before the 2012 election, and the 2008 election.

Problem in every election we have Democrat Catholics making the assertion that a Catholic can , in good conscience, vote for a pro-abortion candidate. For the sake of those who are new to the group and might actually believe this it is necessary to patiently lay out in great detail the actual teachings of the Church.

Teachings such as:

“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,”

Cardinal Burke

 

[Path_Finder]

Problem in every election we have Democrat Catholics making the assertion that a Catholic can , in good conscience, vote for a pro-abortion candidate. For the sake of those who are new to the group and might actually believe this it is necessary to patiently lay out in great detail the actual teachings of the Church.

Teachings such as:

“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,”

Cardinal Burke

A principal difference is every year, you can add another 1.25 million abortions or however many it is. Fortunately, since the early '90s, abortion clinics have been closing, notoriously, a number in the last few years in the usual states, Wisconsin, Texas, etc.

So, personally, I think things do change from year to year.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Given the Democrat Party’s support of so much abject evil I can totally understand why one would consider the term “Democrat” denigrating.

Not intending to derail, but at least in some places “Democrat party” was once the preferred usage. When, as a young man, I became heavily involved with the party, I was told it’s “Democrat party”, not “Democratic party”. The explanation was that the party was a “party consisting of Democrats”; that is, people of independent mind who were not ideologically in lockstep, but who had important principles in common. “Democratic party”, for some reason, seemed more ideologically uniform. Those old time Democrats paraphrased the joke Baptists sometimes used: “I’m not a member of an organized political party…I’m a Democrat.”

Possibly using “Democrat party” was a localism, though i have heard Democrats from other places say that’s the way they learned it too.

Maybe it should be taken as insulting now that Democrats are so much more uniform ideologically. I left active participation in the party long ago because it seemed plain to me one could not remain a faithful Catholic and a dedicated party member at the same time. But I continue using the term sometimes out of respect for the “old party” people with whom I used to work.

 

[estesbob]

Catholics can indeed Vote Democrat, and I’m very sure
a very large percentage will be voting for Hillary in 2016

votes for women step in time step in time

Can you tell us what Hillary Clinton supports/proposes that would mitigate her support for unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand to the extent a Catholic could vote for her?

 

[estesbob]

A principal difference is every year, you can add another 1.25 million abortions or however many it is. Fortunately, since the early '90s, abortion clinics have been closing, notoriously, a number in the last few years in the usual states, Wisconsin, Texas, etc.

So, personally, I think things do change from year to year.

One of the big changes is the ACA vote put a stake through the heart of the myth of the pro-life Democrat congressman . After that vote we were able to replace many allegedly pro-life Democrats with solid pro-life Republicans who would not abandon the unborn if their Party put enough pressure on them.

 

[ishii]

Good to see that everyone is ready for the midterms. Question: Can’t we just change the dates on our posts from last time and save typing, bandwidth and so on?

Good point. And before the 2012 election, and the 2008 election.

As long as we see the same fallacious arguments trotted out by Democrat catholics, we will see the same responses - year after year, election after election. Note - in my case it isn’t because I think any of the usual Democrat Catholic posters will read my post and have an “aha!” moment but because there are newer members all the time and lurkers. If there are Catholics or Christians out there who might not be well-versed on the application of Catholic moral teaching vis-à-vis the sanctity of life - I don’t want them to be swayed by the false arguments of the Democrat party voting Catholic.

Ishii

 

[SuperLuigi]

Problem in every election we have Democrat Catholics making the assertion that a Catholic can , in good conscience, vote for a pro-abortion candidate. For the sake of those who are new to the group and might actually believe this it is necessary to patiently lay out in great detail the actual teachings of the Church.

Teachings such as:

“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,”

Cardinal Burke

What about when all of the candidates are pro-choice? I’ve heard that one can vote for someone who will do lesser evil.

Of course the marriage issue, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning, euthanasia ----and now religious freedom---- are things we need to consider—but in equal measure?

 

[estesbob]

What about when all of the candidates are pro-choice? I’ve heard that one can vote for someone who will do lesser evil.

Of course the marriage issue, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning, euthanasia ----and now religious freedom---- are things we need to consider—but in equal measure?

“You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone,”

Cardinal Burke

 

[DeniseNY]

“You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone,”

Cardinal Burke

Nothing ambiguous about that

 

[RACJ]

Can you tell us what Hillary Clinton supports/proposes that would mitigate her support for unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand to the extent a Catholic could vote for her?

She is another person “who cares more about people like me”, just as almost 90% of voters believed of “Fore More Years” Obama in 2012. Why, just ask the woman who was raped at age 12 by a demon whom Hillary defended, all while trashing the raped girl! :sad_yes:

 

[estesbob]

Nothing ambiguous about that

What is so frustrating is there is noting ambiguous at all about Church teaching-yet we still continually see the same excuses, the same rationalizations for supporting evil. As Archbishop Chaput put it:

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.

 

[JorduSpeaks]

What is so frustrating is there is noting ambiguous at all about Church teaching-yet we still continually see the same excuses, the same rationalizations for supporting evil. As Archbishop Chaput put it:

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.

The pro-abortion activist Catholics, like Nancy Pelosi, aren’t Catholics at all. They merely claim to be Catholic.

I can claim to be a banana, but it doesn’t make me more a-peelin’.

 

[steve_b]

What about when all of the candidates are pro-choice? I’ve heard that one can vote for someone who will do lesser evil.

That’s true. The problem is, parties have platforms. And the pressure is huge on a candidate to vote with his/her party platform.

So let’s look at some of the “life” issues people are asked to consider when voting for a candidate.

Issue:
The Born alive infant protection act, = (baby born alive after a botched abortion) is to be protected.

• Obama voted against it 4 times before he became president factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-infanticide/

Issue:

What about capital punishment? What if someone is for capital punishment but anti abortion. vs Another candidate is pro abortion but anti capital punishment. Who does the least damaqge?

• How many criminals were executed for example in 2013 through capital punishment? 39 murderers executed for murdering 60+ people. deathpenaltyinfo.org/execution-list-2013
• Abortion otoh kills ~1.5 million children / yr. in this country.

Issue:

• Democrat party platform democrats.org/democratic-national-platform#protecting-rights do a word search on abortion
• Republican party platform gop.com/2012-republican-platform_Renewing/ do a word search on abortion.

The focus of a party platform tells us how the individuals in that party will vote.

Issue:

Since Reagan’s presidency, who by executive order, he ended the funding for abortions to Mexico’s abortion industry. His presidency which lasted 2 terms, saved untold lives and saved this country ~$4 billion dollarrs. When a Democrat is elected president, the funding is resumed by executive order and back and forth it goes depending on the party in office. “Executive order” is not challengable. A president needs no other approval for what he does with that executive order. abcnews.go.com/Politics/International/story?id=6716958.

About the money. The funding each year of a presidents term, is ~$500 million. If a president is a Democrat, and is in office for 2 terms, the money spent for abortions in Mexico is $4 billion over 2 terms. If the president is a Republican, that funding is ended.

These are clear comparisons between a Republican president vs Democrat president. It’s probably never been clearer.

 

[estesbob]

The pro-abortion activist Catholics, like Nancy Pelosi, aren’t Catholics at all. They merely claim to be Catholic.

I can claim to be a banana, but it doesn’t make me more a-peelin’.

We shouldn’t question other people Faith. Nancy Pelosi considers herself a Catholic. We are free to point out her rejection of Church teaching on abortion but that does not make her not a Catholic.

 

[JorduSpeaks]

We shouldn’t question other people Faith. Nancy Pelosi considers herself a Catholic. We are free to point out her rejection of Church teaching on abortion but that does not make her not a Catholic.

Her support and advocacy of abortion puts her in a state of mortal sin and automatically excommunicates her from the Church. Therefore, she is not a Catholic.

I can’t tell what’s in a person’s heart, but I can tell what a person does and says. If the House Minority Leader values being Catholic, she clearly values cutting up kids more.