Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[Lapey]

Wow, nearly 1800 posts in 25 days. That’s pretty amazing.

I am fiscally conservative. In my opinion, the government really does nothing well and they don’t need more money with which to prove this. As far as caring for the poor and other social programs, see above. The part about the government doing nothing well. If the government got out of the way and left that money in the hands of those that earned it, it would end up being funneled into charities. I think they would do a better job.

I cannot vote for a candidate that supports or did support abortion. In the last presidential election, I didn’t vote for either one. It’s not really better to choose the lesser of two evils. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

If you look at the percentage of the population that is Catholic in various states, it isn’t hard to imagine that the United States could ban abortion if the Catholics wanted that to happen. Draw your own conclusions.

Well said!

 

[Lapey]

The Church teaches that we should have a well developed conscience. Since in good conscience I cannot support the use of secular authority to force a women to remain in a state of pregnancy against her will - and thereby robbing her of her fundamental right to personal autonomy, I have no alternative but to oppose any politician or law that seeks to do just that. This is a position I came to through careful consideration and weighing of different arguments. It is not an opinion the Church teaches, it is a personal opinion.

On the other hand, I would also oppose any politician or law that seeks to encourage or facilitate abortion as a solution to social problems. I would also support actions by the state that would to reduce the likelihood that a woman would seek an abortion. I believe Church would support both of those positions.

Another contributor to this forum wanted to dismiss my argument as an example of “pluralism” (i.e., “I personally don’t agree with the evil but I don’t feel I can prohibit you from that action”.) Actually, the issue is not whether I “can” or “can not” prohibit something, but rather whether I "should’ or “should not” prohibit it. Anyone with enough muscle or weapons can prohibit whatever they please. They may even believe they are justified in doing so, but that doesn’t mean anything. I am certain that the militants in Iraq believe they are justified in what they are doing.

The whole problem with the abortion debate is that it is often set up in a way that forces a person to make a choice between two bad options: either violate a woman’s rights or allow a child’s rights to be violated. I see that as a false choice. There are many things a person can do that does not require him to violate anyone rights or sit idly by while another person’s rights are violated. Unfortunately, both Republicans and Democrats lack the political will to engage in the kind of discussion that could actually go beyond the false choice narrative in a constructive manner.

I am that “other contributor”…

Two questions for you if you don’t mind.

1. Where does the child’s right to life come from, by what authority does the child have life?
2. Where does the mother’s right to end that life come from, by what authority does the mother have a right to end the life of the child?

 

[estesbob]

The Church teaches that we should have a well developed conscience. Since in good conscience I cannot support the use of secular authority to force a women to remain in a state of pregnancy against her will - and thereby robbing her of her fundamental right to personal autonomy, I have no alternative but to oppose any politician or law that seeks to do just that. This is a position I came to through careful consideration and weighing of different arguments. It is not an opinion the Church teaches, it is a personal opinion.

er.

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
**
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
**
1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions,* assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.*

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Really? If you haven’t noticed, that quote comes from the website of the Constitution Party of Virginia, and their statement on sanctity of life reads:

constitutionparty.com/the-sanctity-of-life-2/

They are firmly anti-abortion and only expose the discrepancy between Republican promises and Republican reality, i.e. the Great Republican Lie.

I don’t care who it comes from, it serves the Democrat abortion cause. Splinter “constitutionalists” usually do. If they don’t think Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas are prolife, then in my mind they’re aligned with the enemy, whatever they may think they’re doing.

I’m not a Repub. Used to be a Dem party activist. I prefer to support candidates who can actually defeat the abortionist candidates instead of following some idiosyncratic fringe group just to make myself feel virtuous. The Repubs aren’t perfect, but they’re the only ones with any chance of beating the abortion party.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I cannot vote for a candidate that supports or did support abortion. In the last presidential election, I didn’t vote for either one.

If you look at the percentage of the population that is Catholic in various states, it isn’t hard to imagine that the United States could ban abortion if the Catholics wanted that to happen. Draw your own conclusions.

In your first statement above, you can count yourself among those who aided in the appointment of any new justices appointed by Obama. And you can be sure they will be pro-abortion.

Your last statement I agree with entirely.

 

[Brandall]

In your first statement above, you can count yourself among those who aided in the appointment of any new justices appointed by Obama. And you can be sure they will be pro-abortion.

.

False

My state has been solidly red since the 1980s. Regardless, I don’t have to vote for bad over worse. If you vote for garbage, it can be assumed you like garbage and that will be your only choice.

The republicans haven’t had a decent candidate since the 1980s. They keep giving you garbage and you keep voting it.

 

[Crossbones]

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.

My only intention was to clarify why I think that platforms count for nothing, not to twist your statement. I didn’t explain in my original post why I think for platforms count for nothing adequately. If you want to use platforms as a meaningful tool, you are welcome to, and I think we can agree to disagree.

Furthermore, if you also don’t want to vote for a pro-life Democrat because it might empower Speaker Pelosi, then that is a reasonable position given your convictions, but I think you cannot extend Church teaching to exclude voting for any Democrat. You only have so much control. I know I didn’t vote for President GW Bush or my Congressional representatives to start what I consider an unjust war in Iraq and that’s what they did. I voted for them to work to abolish abortion and that’s certainly what they didn’t do.

 

[ishii]

The whole problem with the abortion debate is that it is often set up in a way that forces a person to make a choice between two bad options: either violate a woman’s rights or allow a child’s rights to be violated. I see that as a false choice. There are many things a person can do that does not require him to violate anyone rights or sit idly by while another person’s rights are violated. Unfortunately, both Republicans and Democrats lack the political will to engage in the kind of discussion that could actually go beyond the false choice narrative in a constructive manner.

Talk about false choices: you present a false choice. It is not a matter of "violating a woman’s rights --OR-- violating a child’s rights. It is a matter of giving the unborn the right to life - as all humans have. Recognizing the unborns’ right to life does not violate anyone else’s rights at all. Protecting the unborn and rejecting the false arguments of “my body my choice” and all that - is not a bad option. Unless I’m misunderstanding you. If so, please let me know.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Maybe send you list to the Bishops and see if they will publish it, thus giving it authority because as it stands now it’s just some post by an anonymous internet poster.

As are all of your posts - nothing more than words of an anonymous internet poster. Yet you put your thoughts out there for everyone to read and (presumably) hope or expect them to see your side of things. I guess some are more anonymous than others?

I think his list is a very accurate summary of the excuses Democrat catholics use to justify voting for pro-abortion Democrats. So he’s not the only one who recognizes the excuses.

Ishii

 

[Path_Finder]

False

My state has been solidly red since the 1980s. Regardless, I don’t have to vote for bad over worse. If you vote for garbage, it can be assumed you like garbage and that will be your only choice.

The republicans haven’t had a decent candidate since the 1980s. They keep giving you garbage and you keep voting it.

There have been plenty of abortion clinics closed down through legislation in individual states so if that is garbage, one must be for abortion.

 

[Brandall]

There have been plenty of abortion clinics closed down through legislation in individual states so if that is garbage, one must be for abortion.

Ok, I’m for abortion. I never knew that before but I don’t care to argue.

 

[ManOnFire]

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.

It pains me to type these words, but it’s too easy to ignore the flip side of the coin. There’s nothing simplistic about the 53% who pay federal taxes to support the 47% who don’t. There’s nothing simplistic about married parents struggling to pay for their own kids, while also being forced to help pay to support the 41% (and rising) of babies who are born to single mothers. The percentage was less relevant years ago when it was a small number, but the new trend is dramatic. There’s nothing simplistic about being forced to pay thousands of extra dollars in college tuition so that other’s kids can go for free. No offense, but that sounds like punishment to me. The innocent taxpayer had no free will in “doing the deed.” If there was a male birth control pill and the government had the authority to perform DNA cheek swabs of suspected biological fathers against their will, with the goal of garnishing his wages to pay to support his child, there would be progress. It’s odd that people argue that the biological father’s rights would be violated, but ignore the flip side of how the innocent taxpayer and college-tuition-payer’s rights are being violated. Maybe giving tax credits for all children regardless of the parent’s marital status would be progress, but then it would come down to income, where 2 parents are more likely to have a higher income, and would still be forced to pay more than their fair share. Where are the biological fathers in this? They get off the easiest. The politicians and the media “can’t” tell the truth because they know they’ll lose money and votes. They are content to grow the number of dependent voters rather than discuss Real solutions, because, deep down, they believe that people can’t really handle Freedom. They’ll be content to become the governing elite while the rest of us are reduced to demotivated socialists. If taxes go higher, my goal is to work less, which will only reduce tax revenues.

Sadly, women need to be on foolproof birth control or abstain completely. The middle ground is expensive and unjust for innocent taxpayers. Some have speculated that free birth control and the elimination of benefits to single mothers, along with free birthing and adoption if the baby is given up for adoption, would force women to choose birth control and quality of men much more carefully. If the truth is inconvenient, should we choose to remain willfully ignorant of it until it bankrupts us and democracy ends? I don’t think so. Don’t expect the politicians and media to step up to the plate either. It’s time to exchange ideas.

Continuing to ignore the elephant in the room, while voting for more, is the far more popular and overly simplistic option.

 

[steve_b]

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.

From the declaration of independence (emphasis mine)

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

So one asks, when does life begin? When do these unalienable rights begin?

Science previously parsed words and terms that obfuscated the admission that life begins at conception. Science does not do that anymore. Science states with no obfuscation, that life (i.e. human life) begins at conception. Therefore, using a central govt document from this country’s beginning, it can be argued, that new person from conception, has rights too, given by God (the creator) NOT government! AND whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

It can be argued then, ONE party (the Democrat party) in their very party platform supporting abortion on demand at any time, violates these rights spoken of in the declaration of independence, of every person aborted. They represent a destructive form of government and the people have the right to abolish it, AND INSTITUTE NEW GOVERNMENT.

What say you?

 

[Lapey]

From the declaration of independence (emphasis mine)

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

So one asks, when does life begin? When do these unalienable rights begin?

Science previously parsed words and terms that obfuscated the admission that life begins at conception. Science does not do that anymore. Science states with no obfuscation, that life (i.e. human life) begins at conception. Therefore, using a central govt document from this country’s beginning, it can be argued, that new person from conception, has rights too, given by God (the creator) NOT government! AND whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

It can be argued then, ONE party (the Democrat party) in their very party platform supporting abortion on demand at any time, violates these rights spoken of in the declaration of independence, of every person aborted. They represent a destructive form of government and the people have the right to abolish it, AND INSTITUTE NEW GOVERNMENT.

What say you?

I say AMEN!!!

 

[CrossofChrist]

But put my name of the list of thinking the Church should pay taxes like everyone else so there would be no strings attached.

• In this way (property taken by the state and taxation)the Church is compelled to submit to examination by the civil power for the fulfillment of her divine mission, and the State has constituted itself judge of what is necessary for purely spiritual functions.* - Pope Pius XI

 

[Lapey]

In addition to my previous post:

I have morally grave reasons to vote for a pro-life candidate over a pro-choice candidate only if I can trust that s/he is serious about his/her stance and that in practice, not just in theory, s/he will (be able to) do something about it. From past evidence I have no reason to trust the Republican Party on much, and certainly not on the issue of abortion, at least not on the federal level (actions on the state level in some states are a different matter).

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).

You are twisting words and meanings of statements of Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict, and the USCCB Faithful Citizenship document. Unless I am truly mistaken, nowhere in either of the documents you constantly use to defend your position state what you conclude. Neither list any proportionate reasons. Neither mention lying politicians anywhere. ALL politicians lie, do you believe the Democrat but not the Republican or other party? I would rather go with the lying Republican or third party candidate rather than the Democrat who continues to hold to his/her word where it comes to fighting to protect a woman’s “right” to choose death for children.

Sooner or later one must wake up and realize that the anger I have for a certain group of people that allows me to vote for the protection of murder is not normal.

The “morally grave reasons of not voting for a pro-choice candidate” are in no way “theoretical”. To support pro-abortion candidates is to participate/cooperate in that intrinsic evil. That is not debatable; as to what level of participation we are guilty of, that is debatable to a certain extent. But to simply disregard it as not “formal cooperation with evil” for the fact that two little words are there, “because of”, and that makes everything okay is just not accurate. Informal or remote material cooperation is still cooperation. What am I missing?

 

[Ridgerunner]

False

My state has been solidly red since the 1980s. Regardless, I don’t have to vote for bad over worse. If you vote for garbage, it can be assumed you like garbage and that will be your only choice.

The republicans haven’t had a decent candidate since the 1980s. They keep giving you garbage and you keep voting it.

I understand the mindset; one greatly encouraged by the left.

 

[zz912]

Mental gymnastics? Are you referring to those who say that a Catholic cannot vote Democrat? I ask for the Catholic position is to give the moral principles and allow the application of those principles to the voters. You do know that this is the actual Catholic position, do you not?

Yes, there are many Catholic politicians that put their politics first, but this is hardly limited to Democrats, as I have seen here. The point is that not all put their politics ahead of their faith. One should ask himself if they put their faith first. If they do, then surely this is evidence one can put their faith above politics.

The other question that one should ask himself if they understand the difference between Catholic teaching and their own opinion. Hint: if you aren’t quoting the Church, it might be your opinion. We are morally responsible first and foremost for our own moral actions, including making rash judgments. I have seen too many in the defense of their opinion about abortion, albeit based on sound Catholic teaching, judge the actions of others in excess of what actual Catholic doctrine judges, or even misjudge facts about others.

One side in this discussion is fully in line with Catholic teaching. The other is not. And that side gives twisted and contorted excuses for why they can ignore Church teaching.

 

[zz912]

Maybe send you list to the Bishops and see if they will publish it, thus giving it authority because as it stands now it’s just some post by an anonymous internet poster.

Why would the bishops publish a list of excuses from people who ignore Church teaching?

 

[zz912]

Well I have to admit that is a new one. Democrat Catholics vote to support evil because Republicans want Obama to fail.We might have to add that one to the list!

We’ll put it a committee vote, right after we get done kicking some puppies and pushing grandmas.