Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[JorduSpeaks]

Abortion is an immoral solution to social problems, but to eliminate a woman’s right to autonomy over her own body is also immoral

Well, the Democratic party also supports gun control. It is an unequivocal fact that gun control places a burdensome limitation on a woman’s personal autonomy in the use of her body to end the life of another person.

Now, murder of a post-natal individual is illegal in all fifty states, but one must consent that having easy, legal access to a gun would enable a woman to commit murder in a way that is easier, more convenient, and most importantly exposes the woman committing the murder to less risk of personal bodily injury. Why, the Democratic party must be in favor of back-alley stabbings, probably with coat hangers.

I should also point out that the Democratic party (like the Republican party, for what it’s worth) has consistently failed to force employers to provide the women working for them with safe, effective firearms and any necessary training. I’d say this is probably because they are anti-woman.

 

[JorduSpeaks]

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.

I read your post. What I want is for you to provide a specific thing the Republican party supports that is comparable to the grave evil of abortion supported by Democrats. Be specific.

 

[pnewton]

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?

One does not need to weigh issues against each other to discuss them. We can be like the Holy Father who both stands against abortion and considers all moral obligations non-negotiable. Surely we are at least free to discuss other issues in the political arena. Our bishops constantly bring moral teaching to many areas, not just abortion.

 

[numberonefan]

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

Ok I get it. You only care about abortion and until it is illegal you will not discuss anything else. I think that is very sad. I don’t think you even read my posts. In fact I think I am done with this forum after one day because of the attitudes on here. One of the reasons I became Catholic was the people I deal with had way more patience and understanding of others. I am glad nobody spoke to me the way you have on this forum or my opinion may have been different. Lets hope you aren’t turning people off to the Faith with your responses.

 

[estesbob]

Ok I get it. You only care about abortion and until it is illegal you will not discuss anything else. I think that is very sad. I don’t think you even read my posts. In fact I think I am done with this forum after one day because of the attitudes on here. One of the reasons I became Catholic was the people I deal with had way more patience and understanding of others. I am glad nobody spoke to me the way you have on this forum or my opinion may have been different. Lets hope you aren’t turning people off to the Faith with your responses.

I posted direct quotes from the Magestrium of the Cathoilc church.This far all you have posted its your opinion. If you can find a member of the Magestrium who backs your opinion please post it.

 

[ishii]

Ok I get it. You only care about abortion and until it is illegal you will not discuss anything else. I think that is very sad. I don’t think you even read my posts. In fact I think I am done with this forum after one day because of the attitudes on here. One of the reasons I became Catholic was the people I deal with had way more patience and understanding of others. I am glad nobody spoke to me the way you have on this forum or my opinion may have been different. Lets hope you aren’t turning people off to the Faith with your responses.

numberonefan -

I am a bit disappointed at your reaction to someone who holds a different opinion than yours. This is an opinion forum. People have different opinions. Don’t be offended by someone who merely quotes a bishop in support of their opinion. You say that we should consider other issues, not just abortion, when deciding on who to vote for. Which issue do you think rises to the level of moral gravity of abortion? Can you give a specific example of when other stands on issues might cause you to vote for someone who is for abortion rights?

Remember, this is a forum. We disagree all the time. You shouldn’t imply that people who merely state their opinions are turning people off to the faith. That is very, very unfair.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

One does not need to weigh issues against each other to discuss them. We can be like the Holy Father who both stands against abortion and considers all moral obligations non-negotiable. Surely we are at least free to discuss other issues in the political arena. Our bishops constantly bring moral teaching to many areas, not just abortion.

Maybe all moral obligations are non-negotiable, but some are more non-negotiable than others: i.e. - some are more urgent and grave. A baby that is killed in the womb doesn’t really have a use for unemployment benefits or foodstamps, does it.

Ishii

 

[Path_Finder]

Ok I get it. You only care about abortion and until it is illegal you will not discuss anything else. I think that is very sad. I don’t think you even read my posts. In fact I think I am done with this forum after one day because of the attitudes on here. One of the reasons I became Catholic was the people I deal with had way more patience and understanding of others. I am glad nobody spoke to me the way you have on this forum or my opinion may have been different. Lets hope you aren’t turning people off to the Faith with your responses.

Let’s not forget, though you and EstesBob may disagree on this issue and I indeed do agree with EstesBob’s well-thought-out posts and think it is proper on Church teaching, if I may go off-topic here for a second, I might remind you, you and EstesBob might actually have some common ground in discussing the events in Ferguson Missouri and be in agreement. I thought in that thread if I have this correctly, your posts were imho admirable, Christian and compassionate even if I might not totally agree with them.

So at times, we should remember, we may have common ground. I think EstesBob is merely asking for a citation and the title of the thread is after all, “Can Catholics Vote Democrat”. We are all sinners but I do recognize I can’t really act autonomous of Church teaching on matters.

In short, there is no reason to be frustrated. We are just discussing the issues.

 

[ishii]

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.

We’re not talking about the different issues in the platform being of equal gravity. A Democrat might well indeed disagree with his party on the level of taxation for example. Or on the need for strict environmental measures. But abortion is pretty basic. Its not like, “I agree with x,y & z but, “ho-hum” on this abortion issue I disagree with my party. But let’s all get along and get to work passing x, y, & z.”

If you are pro-life, then you should be working to defeat Democrat candidates and the Democrat power structure, not joining it and meekly (and ineffectively) protesting.

Ishii

 

[stinkcat_14]

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?

The problem with your argument is that you are assuming that if one is a member of a party that they agree with every word in the platform. That, however, is patently false. For example Romney had views that went against the republican platform. Also, just because you cannot vote for someone does not mean that it is immoral to vote for them.

 

[Lapey]

The problem with your argument is that you are assuming that if one is a member of a party that they agree with every word in the platform. That, however, is patently false. For example Romney had views that went against the republican platform. Also, just because you cannot vote for someone does not mean that it is immoral to vote for them.

You have some serious Romney issues. Please try to get him out of your thoughts. If we weigh every response on the Romney scale, we’ll all be confused. Who is “thinking sloppy”?

The second half of the question is still waiting for your response.

 

[stinkcat_14]

You have some serious Romney issues. Please try to get him out of your thoughts. If we weigh every response on the Romney scale, we’ll all be confused. Who is “thinking sloppy”?

Please tell me how I am thinking sloppy? Your claim is that if one is a democrat then one has to agree 100% with every word that is in the platform. I gave a counter example. I personally don’t care about Romney, he just happens to contradict your hypothesis. If the data contradicts the hypothesis, then the whole hypothesis is called into question. That is the scientific method. I don’t know what method you use.

 

[Lapey]

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.

You’re twisting my statement into something it was not meant to be.

I’m not saying a candidate will emulate the platform or do everything in his/her power to implement those values; what I am saying is the Party as a whole places it’s values and priorities in the planks of their platform. To stand in as a candidate with the party affiliation carries with it the weight of the party and what it believes. I haven’t and I am not now saying that they will fight for what they do not personally believe in. My comments about platform=candidate or candidate=platform, is simply stating that, in my opinion, if I vote for a party that supports IE, then I do just that, vote for a party who supports IE. That is all.

Personally, there is no way for me to separate the two and this is why; to place Nancy Pelosi back in the Speaker of the House position would be completely contrary to the Catholic Church’s mission, to speak for life; every life, especially the most vulnerable.

As pope Francis states in “The Joy of the Gospel”;

“Among the vulnerable for whom the Church wishes to care with particular love and concern are unborn children, the most defenseless and innocent among us.”

“This is not something subject to alleged reforms or “modernizations”. It is not “progressive” to try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life. On the other hand, it is also true that we have done little to adequately accompany women in very difficult situations, where abortion appears as a quick solution to their profound anguish, especially when the life developing within them is the result of rape or a situation of extreme poverty. Who can remain unmoved before such painful situations?” (213-214)

The Democratic Party, as a collective group even though not every individual, stands in direct conflict with these words and the Church’s teachings from the very beginning of the Church.

 

[Lapey]

Please tell me how I am thinking sloppy? Your claim is that if one is a democrat then one has to agree 100% with every word that is in the platform. I gave a counter example. I personally don’t care about Romney, he just happens to contradict your hypothesis. If the data contradicts the hypothesis, then the whole hypothesis is called into question. That is the scientific method. I don’t know what method you use.

Never said that. Try reading my last post in response to another.

Your example doesn’t contradict anything I said, I never stated every candidate believes and will fight for every plank in a platform, did I?

I use common sense;

Democratic Platform = support for intrinsic evil

Democratic candidate winning = increased power for that party and its platform

voting for a democrat = not an option for me as long as the party as a whole supports evil

 

[Lapey]

Please tell me how I am thinking sloppy?

By thinking and continuing to say that I am stating that all candidates believe everything in their party’s platform. You are changing my words and therefore, if the shoe fits…

PS. You still haven’t addressed the second half of my question. If I missed where you said yes or no to whether the Republican Party platform contains support for intrinsic evil or not, please direct me to your post stating your answer. I apologize if I missed it.

 

[zz912]

I would consider the position of any politician suspect, wouldn’t you?

This is the kind of muddying, disengenous discussion that gives cover to Democrat catholics to vote for pro-abortion politicians.

“Since all positions of politicians are suspect, we can never know really any position of a politician, nor form any real opinion of them, so I’m okay with voting for the politician that promotes intrisic evils.”

As noted before in this thread, this seems to be your M.O. for discussions. Endlessly bringing up tangential points to cloud the issues and avoid clarity.

 

[ringil]

As noted before in this thread, this seems to be your M.O. for discussions. Endlessly bringing up tangential points to cloud the issues and avoid clarity.

Instead of reducing the discussion down to.

Abortion and Same Sex Marriage is wrong- Democrats support Abortion and Same Sex Marriage thus you cannot vote for any democrat.

I am glad that we have a minority or folks around here who are not tied to right-wing politics.

Folks who wont tolerate posters using Abortion and Same Sex Marriage as a cudgel to drawn out discussion.

And I don’t forget that most of the vociferous posters here not only support the stance of the GOP on issues of life- which is good- but also support the entire foundation of right-wing political thinking.

The agenda to scare (bringing up sin, purgatory, judgement), control and seek to constrict the discussion into narrow lane of discourse, and distort, is crystal clear as an effort to convince readers to vote for the GOP.

 

[stinkcat_14]

This is the kind of muddying, disengenous discussion that gives cover to Democrat catholics to vote for pro-abortion politicians.

“Since all positions of politicians are suspect, we can never know really any position of a politician, nor form any real opinion of them, so I’m okay with voting for the politician that promotes intrisic evils.”

As noted before in this thread, this seems to be your M.O. for discussions. Endlessly bringing up tangential points to cloud the issues and avoid clarity.

Actually, what I was responding to was ishii’s claim that we cannot trust democrats if they claim to be pro-life. He was the one who brought up the issue of trust. I think it is clearly obvious that there is no evidence that one party is more honest than another.

I didn’t bring up the issue, I was just responding to what another poster wrote, so it would be the other poster who is guilty of muddying the issue.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Instead of reducing the discussion down to.

Abortion and Same Sex Marriage is wrong- Democrats support Abortion and Same Sex Marriage thus you cannot vote for any democrat.

I am glad that we have a minority or folks around here who are not tied to right-wing politics. Folks using Abortion and Same Sex Marriage as a cudgel to drawn out discussion.

And I don’t forget that most of the vociferous posters here not only support the stance of the GOP on issues of life- which is good- but also support the entire foundation of right-wing political thinking.

I’m not sure what you mean by the “right wing political thinking”. Perhaps you could give us a reasonably complete analysis of that based on facts, not conjecture, contrasting it with Dem party acts, not mythologies.

And then perhaps we can see whether any of the differences justify supporting abortion.

 

[zz912]

No.

Now I will answer the OP’s question:

Yes Catholics can vote Democrat

Now answer my question: Can we agree that the Republican party has a reputation and stigma of being Anti-Gay, Anti-Woman, Anti-Poor, and Anti-Immigrant.

Yes or No

Choose one.

I choose Yes, which is why I vote Democrat.

No. And even if your personal vindictive feelings towards them and their motives were true, it STILL would not be proportionate reason for a Catholic to vote for a Demcrat.