Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[Luke6_37]

After reading through the thread, I now understand that the real question is whether a Catholic can support a candidate who believes a woman has the right to have an abortion, regardless of his or her political affiliation.

Personally, I believe they can, as long as the candidate does not support any legislation that would facilitate or encourage a woman to have an abortion, while at the same time promotes public policies that are likely to reduce the number of women who seek abortions.

We have a lot of problems that need fixing in our society. Abortion is an immoral solution to social problems, but to eliminate a woman’s right to autonomy over her own body is also immoral - and fortunately unconstitutional. I think its better to limit the government’s authority in this area and trust women to do the right thing, especially if given real incentives to do so.

That’s just my opinion!

 

[pnewton]

Well said! Their Intentions are beautiful, but the result is the opposite. Turning people into victims of liberal behaviors is big business, and it gets illogical people to vote for more.

I cannot agree. I think intentions matter even more than results. If abortions decline under Obama, does that make him more attractive to the prolife movement because his results are better than the previous president?

 

[ManOnFire]

I cannot agree. I think intentions matter even more than results. If abortions decline under Obama, does that make him more attractive to the prolife movement because his results are better than the previous president?

I didn’t get to that hypothetical yet. I agree with you. Better to go to confession and have women on 3 year birth control implants than having abortions. If young women are going to do the deed, best to avoid abortion at all costs. If abstention is not likely, then go with birth control. I wouldn’t be surprised if history shows Obama’s policies will reduce abortion, albeit at an alarming rise in agnostic hedonistic lifestyles, which is why many orthodox christians are against his policies overall. We The People’s battle between God versus no-God rages on. Europe was successfully converted to no-God and the population decreased the number of carbon burners, only to be re-populated by that other group of God-fearing people. Hence, the push by some for communist one-world government that will limit the population.

The middle ground is being snuffed out by our sexed-up culture: abstain and get married young, or buy into the unelected pop culture and go on foolproof birth control or have an abortion. President Obama has said he doesn’t want unmarried women to be “punished with a baby.”

 

[Luke6_37]

I didn’t get to that hypothetical yet. I agree with you. Better to go to confession and have women on 3 year birth control implants than having abortions. If young women are going to do the deed, best to avoid abortion at all costs. If abstention is not likely, then go with birth control. I wouldn’t be surprised if history shows Obama’s policies will reduce abortion, albeit at an alarming rise in agnostic hedonistic lifestyles, which is why many orthodox christians are against his policies overall. We The People’s battle between God versus no-God rages on. Europe was successfully converted to no-God and the population decreased the number of carbon burners, only to be re-populated by that other group of God-fearing people. Hence, the push by some for communist one-world government that will limit the population.

The middle ground is being snuffed out by our sexed-up culture: abstain and get married young, or buy into the unelected pop culture and go on foolproof birth control or have an abortion. President Obama has said he doesn’t want unmarried women to be “punished with a baby.”

Young women do not impregnate themselves and so cannot be “doing the deed” alone. However, I suppose it is easier to think about it that way if you want simplistic solutions to complex social problems.

Having a baby shouldn’t be a "punishment’, but it sure feels that way to many women who find themselves pregnant and alone. Socially stigmatized, economically marginalized and blamed for being a burden on society. That sounds like punishment to me.

 

[Crossbones]

Platforms mean jack-diddly-squat.

It doesn’t tell you anything about the candidate’s priorities and the priorities determine what gets done and what are words on a page.

 

[Lapey]

The one politician that I know that kind of started this whole “pro-life Democrat” stuff is also a very spiritual Catholic. If one can make assumptions of another based on the party one belongs to, why not consider the faith one holds? I would say the only thing that prevents this is too many put their party before their faith and cannot imagine anyone being different.

Don’t you have to look at the core values of the party in which a candidate is associated with? I understand what you’re saying, but if voting for that pro life Catholic candidate places the party’s values front and center in the leadership, I can’t vote for him or her.

Can you see my perspective?

 

[Lapey]

After reading through the thread, I now understand that the real question is whether a Catholic can support a candidate who believes a woman has the right to have an abortion, regardless of his or her political affiliation.

Personally, I believe they can, as long as the candidate does not support any legislation that would facilitate or encourage a woman to have an abortion, while at the same time promotes public policies that are likely to reduce the number of women who seek abortions.

We have a lot of problems that need fixing in our society. Abortion is an immoral solution to social problems, but to eliminate a woman’s right to autonomy over her own body is also immoral - and fortunately unconstitutional. I think its better to limit the government’s authority in this area and trust women to do the right thing, especially if given real incentives to do so.

That’s just my opinion!

What you are describing is called pluralism. I personally don’t agree with the evil but I don’t feel I can prohibit you from that action.

Cardinal Ratzinger condemned pluralism in a 2003 writing. Its not acceptable to act as you describe, as a Catholic.

Furthermore, a woman has autonomy over her body. What you are promoting is the notion that she have autonomy over both individual’s bodies, hers and the child growing within her womb. That is called intrinsic evil by Mother Church.

 

[Lapey]

Young women do not impregnate themselves and so cannot be “doing the deed” alone. However, I suppose it is easier to think about it that way if you want simplistic solutions to complex social problems.

Having a baby shouldn’t be a "punishment’, but it sure feels that way to many women who find themselves pregnant and alone. Socially stigmatized, economically marginalized and blamed for being a burden on society. That sounds like punishment to me.

So does ending the life of the child that did nothing but be conceived by no fault or participation on their part seem like punishment to the child?

Remember there are two lives here, not just the mother. There is never a reason to end the life of a child.

 

[Lapey]

Platforms mean jack-diddly-squat.

It doesn’t tell you anything about the candidate’s priorities and the priorities determine what gets done and what are words on a page.

Platforms tell exactly what the party’s values are. If the candidate is part of that party, they are part of the platform. Can’t seperate the two.

 

[Lapey]

Romney was not pro-life even though the platform was.

According to whom?

I already answered your question.

You answered half of my question. Uhou agreed the Democratic Party supports intrinsic evil but then you changed the second half of your answer into a “but the Republican Party doesn’t stand for life” question. Which by the way, you were shown to be in error.

So how about the second half of the question? Does tge Republican Party support intrinsic evil in its platform? Yes or no?

 

[pnewton]

Don’t you have to look at the core values of the party in which a candidate is associated with? I understand what you’re saying, but if voting for that pro life Catholic candidate places the party’s values front and center in the leadership, I can’t vote for him or her.

Can you see my perspective?

Oh, I see your perspective and totally respect that. However, if the platform of politics disagree with the doctrine of the person’s religion, which will determine the person’s position? For some their religious convictions will trump their political party platform.

I cannot imagine that even the majority of politicians agree 100% with everything their party platform states. I can respect those here that see the need for 100% partisanship, but I do not think all need to be so partisan. I think this extreme emphasis on party loyalty is one of the greatest lessons we will learn with regret this generation.

 

[Lapey]

Oh, I see your perspective and totally respect that. However, if the platform of politics disagree with the doctrine of the person’s religion, which will determine the person’s position? For some their religious convictions will trump their political party platform.

I cannot imagine that even the majority of politicians agree 100% with everything their party platform states. I can respect those here that see the need for 100% partisanship, but I do not think all need to be so partisan. I think this extreme emphasis on party loyalty is one of the greatest lessons we will learn with regret this generation.

Do you see my posts as partisan? Hopefully my posts are completely 100 % against intrinsic evil and pro Catholic faith.

 

[numberonefan]

I have posted direct quotes in this thread 3 Popes, 2 encyclicals,6 bishops,2 cardinals and the catechism showing you can not vote for a pro abortion candidate unless their opponent is more pro abortion than they are. If you have anything from the Church that refutes them please post it.

Note we are not required tho vote for a candidate because they are pro life -we just can’t vote for them if they are not.

1. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is
   so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the
   proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate
   who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the
   voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty
   of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a
   candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness
   to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

The above paragraph is put way more eloquently than I have said anything so far. Specifically the second half. My point has been and will continue to be that Republicans are using a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity. The Republican party is riddled with indifference towards social policy issues. People simply write off these issues because the candidate is pro-life. This is unacceptable. Instead how about we just assume everyone is pro-life for just a minute. Now lets talk about the issues. Everyone is so blinded by abortion they cant even discuss anything else.

Once again I will state I have always voted pro-life and I intend to continue doing that. What I have a problem with is a perceived lack of attentiveness to the millions of other issues that exist.

 

[pnewton]

Do you see my posts as partisan? Hopefully my posts are completely 100 % against intrinsic evil and pro Catholic faith.

I was referring to the idea that Democrats are always 100% in agreement with other Democrats (or ditto for Republicans). This is a real problem for today. It has not always been this way and there are those that wish to see the two-party system weakened.

 

[Crossbones]

Platforms tell exactly what the party’s values are. If the candidate is part of that party, they are part of the platform. Can’t seperate the two.

I’m sorry, but I must disagree with you as platforms are incredibly long (over 30,000 words) and cover so many issues that it tells you nothing about what the priorities of the party really are.

For example, both the 2000 and 2004 Republican platforms contain language similar to below (from the 2004 platform):

“That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.”

Now, we saw no attempt for a human life amendment to the Constitution during the entire presidency of G. W. Bush. Furthermore, when asked if he would appoint pro-life Supreme Court justices during a debate, President Bush said this:

"SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, I want to go back to something Senator Kerry said earlier tonight and ask a follow-up of my own. He said – and this will be a new question to you – he said that you had never said whether you would like to overturn Roe v. Wade. So I’d ask you directly, would you like to?

BUSH: What he’s asking me is, will I have a litmus test for my judges? And the answer is, no, I will not have a litmus test. I will pick judges who will interpret the Constitution, but I’ll have no litmus test."

Well, that’s inconsistent with the platform. The platform clearly supports that the unborn child has a right to life and that would require that a president nominate judges according to a litmus test.

In the end though, the tenure of President Bush was dominated by the Iraq War, which left scant time to address the issue of abortion. I should mention that no where in the 2000 Republican platform did it call for a war on Iraq, but it did state clearly that the US should rebuild the coalition for the removal of Saddam Hussian. Those statements were about 1/100th of the total document, so clearly a lot of other things didn’t get done as well, but that got done really well (or maybe not, since most agree with the Holy Father on that war).

I just don’t think the platform tells us much because it tells us too much. A party can only get so much done. I mention the human life amendment, but that was only one of four new amendments called for in the 2000 Republican Platform (one to protect victim’s rights, one for protecting the flag and one for a balanced budget). Now, none of those got anywhere near the Senate floor and the balanced budget one is pretty laughable in retrospect.

So, while you correctly point out that the platform’s position on life issues is much, much better than the Democrats, it is only one of probably a hundred issues, most of which will never get addressed at all.

 

[JorduSpeaks]

Everyone is so blinded by abortion they cant even discuss anything else.

That might be because abortion is the most important issue. Can you name one issue that comes anywhere close to the moral gravity of abortion?

 

[estesbob]

After reading through the thread, I now understand that the real question is whether a Catholic can support a candidate who believes a woman has the right to have an abortion, regardless of his or her political affiliation.

Personally, I believe they can, as long as the candidate does not support any legislation that would facilitate or encourage a woman to have an abortion, while at the same time promotes public policies that are likely to reduce the number of women who seek abortions.

We have a lot of problems that need fixing in our society. Abortion is an immoral solution to social problems, but to eliminate a woman’s right to autonomy over her own body is also immoral - and fortunately unconstitutional. I think its better to limit the government’s authority in this area and trust women to do the right thing, especially if given real incentives to do so.

That’s just my opinion!

Can you show us any teaching of the church that backs your opinion?

 

[JorduSpeaks]

So, while you correctly point out that the platform’s position on life issues is much, much better than the Democrats, it is only one of probably a hundred issues, most of which will never get addressed at all.

If we were electing kings, you would be correct in your assessment. However, our political system requires a politician to work together with other politicians, and here is where platforms come into play. When there is an important, high-profile vote on an issue in Congress, the party leadership will demand that the party members fall in line with the party platform for that vote, regardless of their individual beliefs. A politician who does not fall in line is at risk of losing party funding for her or his re-election campaign, or worse, that the party would back a primary challenger.

The party platform is not just an abstract string of purported values, it is a promise to the people who give the party money that, when push comes to shove, the party will come together to do what the platform says. If the party fails to fulfill its platform promises, they will lose the support of financial backers.

 

[estesbob]

1. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is
   so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the
   proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate
   who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the
   voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty
   of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a
   candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness
   to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

The above paragraph is put way more eloquently than I have said anything so far. Specifically the second half. My point has been and will continue to be that Republicans are using a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity. The Republican party is riddled with indifference towards social policy issues. People simply write off these issues because the candidate is pro-life. This is unacceptable. Instead how about we just assume everyone is pro-life for just a minute. Now lets talk about the issues. Everyone is so blinded by abortion they cant even discuss anything else.

Once again I will state I have always voted pro-life and I intend to continue doing that. What I have a problem with is a perceived lack of attentiveness to the millions of other issues that exist.

Why should we accept your personal interpretation of this excerpt. Better to go straight to the Magestrium:

Can a Catholic vote, in good conscience, for a candidate who supports abortion?… A candidate who asks us to add our weight to such a destructive momentum in our society, asks us to be participants in their own gravely immoral act. This is something which, in good conscience, we can never justify. Despite hardship, beyond partisanship, for the sake of our eternal salvation: This we should never do.”

Bishop Robert Finn

Being “right” on taxes, education, health care, immigration, and the economy fails to make up for the error of disregarding the value of a human life…. Abortion is the issue this year and every year in every campaign. Catholics may not turn away from the moral challenge that abortion poses for those who seek to obey God’s commands. They are wrong when they assert that abortion does not concern them, or that it is only one of a multitude of issues of equal importance. No, the taking of innocent human life is so heinous, so horribly evil, and so absolutely opposite to the law of Almighty God that abortion must take precedence over every other issue. I repeat. It is the single most important issue confronting not only Catholics, but the entire electorate -
Bishop Martino

 

[numberonefan]

That might be because abortion is the most important issue. Can you name one issue that comes anywhere close to the moral gravity of abortion?

Did you not read the entire post? I quoted the usccb which explicitly said you cant ignore all other issues. Kind of frustrating that I ask a legitimate question and you attempt to hijack it by ignoring everything else I said.