Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[stinkcat_14]

This is the problem. The “pro-life” Democrat is going to vote into power the pro-abortion party. Now using your own standard that you have used to judge Romney in this thread, you are REQUIRED by intellectual honesty to admit the Democrat is NOT pro-life.

It is far from clear that we are giving power to the democrat party by voting for a pro-life democrat. Even if Nancy is speaker, she cannot force the pro-life democrat to vote for abortion. So intellectual honesty means that this is in dispute. Clearly, we agree that Romney is nowhere close being morally correct on abortion. We need to pray for him that he sees the error in is ways, because his position on abortion is gravely immoral. Whether he has sufficient knowledge or full consent is not something we are aware of though.

I’ll thank you in advance for agreeing with me, as I know you will, because you are always looking for specificity, clarity, and correctness.

I appreciate your vote of confidence in my quest for specificity, clarity and correctness, although for the reasons listed above I cannot agree with you.

Now if there was a situation where the Democrat was not going to vote into power his/her party, or their elected office did not vote into power their party, or their vote was in no way shape or form putting the Democratic Party into power, then it would be appropriate to vote for the Democrat. But this is a VERY hard hurdle to overcome.

In such a scenario is would never be permissable to vote for a pro-abortion republican over a pro-life democrat. The Church has made it very clear, you cannot vote for a pro-abortion politician when there is a pro-life alternative.

 

[zz912]

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.

If people are attracted to the Catholic faith, but only if they can still support pro-abortion politicians, then they aren’t attracted to the Catholic faith at all. They are attracted to their own made-up faith.

It’s far better to be clear about what the Church teaches so people make an informed decision instead of fooling them into thinking they can ignore Church teaching they don’t like.

 

[zz912]

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.

This perfectly summarizes your discussion/argumentation strategy. Working hard to muddy and confuse the issue.

The reason why you can’t vote for them is because it is immoral to do so.

 

[stinkcat_14]

No it would not, if the vote for the dem would place the chance of putting the party as a whole in power; which in fact would promulgate the intrinsic evils in the platform.

For the millionth time, please cite the Church teaching on this. Or is this just your opinion.

The morally correct answer may be to not vote or vote for a third party candidate. If both candidates were pro-abortion I would not vote for the dem because of his/her party’s earned reputation and its platform’s support of evil.

We are not talking about the case here where they are both pro-abortion. If one candidate is pro-life and one is pro-abortion, which should we vote for?

Either way, I would not see the choice of the dem as an option because of the bigger picture. But again, that does not mean I would default back to the rep. Any candidate getting my Catholic vote will have to earn it; and that includes what his/her affiliation to a party platform brings.

If there is a third party candidate who is pro-life it is certainly reasonable to vote third party.

 

[stinkcat_14]

This perfectly summarizes your discussion/argumentation strategy. Working hard to muddy and confuse the issue.

The reason why you can’t vote for them is because it is immoral to do so.

What I meant is just because the poster cannot in their opinion vote for them does not mean that it is immoral to vote for that person. For example, in the last election I did not vote for Romney. I could not in good conscious vote for someone who supported abortion. That does not mean that the people who voted for Romney were necessarily acting immorally.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Inaction and lying by pro-life politicians (and inaction by appointed Supreme Court justices) alone could be morally grave reasons, and proportionate reasons, enough to neutralize the theoretically morally grave reasons of not voting for a pro-choice candidate, especially when you do not vote for that candidate because of the pro-choice stance (only the ‘because of’ would be formal cooperation with evil, c.f. Cardinal Ratzinger, USCCB).

The above obviously also holds when one asserts the very debatable claim that any ‘proportionate reasons’ only can relate to the abortion issue.

 

[Lapey]

Of course, your predictable answer (shrug). What if the ‘excuse’ is true, as I demonstrated above?

The past is the past. If you want to live in the past why don’t you bring up the 13th amendment and which party fought against it. How about the Civil Rights Act of the 60’s, who fought that?

“The Senate passed the amendment on April 8, 1864, by a vote of 38 to 6. However, just over two months later on June 15, the House failed to do so, with 93 in favor and 65 against, thirteen votes short of the two-thirds vote needed for passage; the vote split largely along party lines, with Republicans supporting and Democrats opposing.”

The original House version;

Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate;

Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version;

Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House;

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

Hummm, sure does seem to me that the Democratic Party was much less in favor of freeing slaves or the Civil Rights Act of 1964. How do you like those stats of the past?

Just in case you didn’t realize this, racism is also an intrinsic evil which the Democrats earned the reputation of supporting. Today however, the perceived reputation is the opposite, but is it accurate? I say no.

 

[numberonefan]

If people are attracted to the Catholic faith, but only if they can still support pro-abortion politicians, then they aren’t attracted to the Catholic faith at all. They are attracted to their own made-up faith.

It’s far better to be clear about what the Church teaches so people make an informed decision instead of fooling them into thinking they can ignore Church teaching they don’t like.

You have a serious reading comprehension problem. I have never and do not intend to vote for a pro abortion candidate (previously stated). I think however you are hurting your own party by only allowing one issue to be talked about. Can we not get candidates that are pro-life to also care about other issues??? Your position is so strong on abortion yet seems to not exist on any other issue. Anyways just logged in so I can un-follow this thread and others I have posted on so I do not have to be bombarded with emails about posts from people who are unable to think outside their tiny little world.

 

[zz912]

Of course, your predictable answer (shrug). What if the ‘excuse’ is true, as I demonstrated above (posts # 1713, 1717)?

That’s the thing. They aren’t true. They’re just excuses. What you demonstrated above is that some SC justices nominated by Republican Presidents have not voted to overturn Roe when they had the chance. That doesn’t mean they ALL have. And when we look to the nominees from Democratic Presidents, they have a 100% voting record for pro-abortion.

So your attempt to validate excuse #1 is not successful. It is still just an excuse to ignore Church teaching.

 

[Lapey]

It is far from clear that we are giving power to the democrat party by voting for a pro-life democrat. ** Even if Nancy is speaker, she cannot force the pro-life democrat to vote for abortion.** So intellectual honesty means that this is in dispute. Clearly, we agree that Romney is nowhere close being morally correct on abortion. We need to pray for him that he sees the error in is ways, because his position on abortion is gravely immoral. Whether he has sufficient knowledge or full consent is not something we are aware of though.

I appreciate your vote of confidence in my quest for specificity, clarity and correctness, although for the reasons listed above I cannot agree with you.

In such a scenario is would never be permissable to vote for a pro-abortion republican over a pro-life democrat. The Church has made it very clear, you cannot vote for a pro-abortion politician when there is a pro-life alternative.

Can you say Bart Stupak???

 

[stinkcat_14]

Can you say Bart Stupak???

When did he vote in favor of abortion?

 

[estesbob]

When did he vote in favor of abortion?

ACA

 

[Lapey]

What I meant is just because the poster cannot in their opinion vote for them does not mean that it is immoral to vote for that person. For example, in the last election I did not vote for Romney. I could not in good conscious vote for someone who supported abortion. That does not mean that the people who voted for Romney were necessarily acting immorally.

I can agree with this because if you consider Romney as pro-abortion then they are equal; Obama=Romney. But were those two candidates equal? No, they were not.

 

[stinkcat_14]

ACA

Did he have full knowledge that he was voting for abortion? Second, would the ACA have been more pro-life if a fully pro-abortion republican was voting for the bill?

 

[Lapey]

The above obviously also holds when one asserts the very debatable claim that any ‘proportionate reasons’ only can relate to the abortion issue.

The root of “proportionate” is proportion, what is equal to abortion that the Republican Party supports that would make it wrong for you to vote for them?

 

[stinkcat_14]

I can agree with this because if you consider Romney as pro-abortion then they are equal; Obama=Romney. But were those two candidates equal? No, they were not.

I never said that Romney and Obama were equal. If you are going to commit adultery it is better to commit it once a year than every day. It doesn’t make the person committing it once a year virtuous though.

 

[Lapey]

You have a serious reading comprehension problem. I have never and do not intend to vote for a pro abortion candidate (previously stated). I think however you are hurting your own party by only allowing one issue to be talked about. Can we not get candidates that are pro-life to also care about other issues??? Your position is so strong on abortion yet seems to not exist on any other issue. Anyways just logged in so I can un-follow this thread and others I have posted on so I do not have to be bombarded with emails about posts from people who are unable to think outside their tiny little world.

Go to your settings on your account and turn the email notification setting off.

 

[zz912]

It is far from clear that we are giving power to the democrat party by voting for a pro-life democrat. Even if Nancy is speaker, she cannot force the pro-life democrat to vote for abortion.

This is intellectually dishonest. Of course she can’t force him to vote for abortion, but by being in power, she is able to bring up pro-abortion legislation. Legislation that would not make it to a vote under Republican leadership. Sad that you are obfuscating this issue and muddying the water.

So intellectual honesty means that this is in dispute.

No, as noted above, you are not being intellectually honest about the issue.

Clearly, we agree that Romney is nowhere close being morally correct on abortion. We need to pray for him that he sees the error in is ways, because his position on abortion is gravely immoral. Whether he has sufficient knowledge or full consent is not something we are aware of though.

Sure, but this is deflection. I was discussing your rigid purity test for politicians that you selectively apply only to Romney, and possibly to other Republicans. I have not seen you apply it to Democrats, which shows a lack of consistency.

I appreciate your vote of confidence in my quest for specificity, clarity and correctness, although for the reasons listed above I cannot agree with you.

This is sad to see then. I was optimistically hopeful you would come around.

In such a scenario is would never be permissable to vote for a pro-abortion republican over a pro-life democrat. The Church has made it very clear, you cannot vote for a pro-abortion politician when there is a pro-life alternative.

Again, more intellectual dishonesty and muddying the issue. The “pro-life” democrat is voting into power the virulently pro-abortion party. As such, the claim of being pro-life is false, and there is no pro-life alternative in this situation.

 

[stinkcat_14]

This is sad to see then. I was optimistically hopeful you would come around.

You claim that I was intellectually honest and then you want me not to be

Again, more intellectual dishonesty and muddying the issue. The “pro-life” democrat is voting into power the virulently pro-abortion party. As such, the claim of being pro-life is false, and there is no pro-life alternative in this situation.

So a republican who supports unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand is exactly equal to a pro-life republican?

 

[Lapey]

When did he vote in favor of abortion?

ACA

HHS Mandate came from his caving along with his “group of pro-life dems”. That is how he voted for abortion, tax payer funded abortions, and contraceptives. Even the Little Sisters of the Poor are being coerced to supply these immoral items because of his compromise of values; court cases pending of course.

The truth is there, we simply have to be ready to see it and accept it for what it is.