Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

  • Thread starter Thread starter adawgj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think he evolved on that position since 2002.
One is not allowed to evolve away from the culture of death. For instance it was okay for the Clintons to go from pro-life to pro-abortion and okay from Obama to go from opposing homosexual marriage to supporting it. In such a case they are praised and applauded. However if someone like Romney goes from supporting abortion to opposing abortion he is not be believed, especially if you are a Democrat Catholic desperately trying to rationalize your vote to support evil
 
One is not allowed to evolve away from the culture of death. For instance it was okay for the Clintons to go from pro-life to pro-abortion and okay from Obama to go from opposing homosexual marriage to supporting it. In such a case they are praised and applauded. However if someone like Romney goes from supporting abortion to opposing abortion he is not be believed, especially if you are a Democrat Catholic desperately trying to rationalize your vote to support evil
You said it better than I. I will delete my post.
 
Sooner or later one must wake up and realize that the denialism regarding the discrepancies between political promises and reality of a certain party, which makes one gullible enough to vote for them just based on their mere lip service on pro-life issues (at least on the federal level) is not normal.

You are missing the precise text of Ratzinger’s statement about formal and material cooperation. Please read again.
I think rather than depend on your personal interpretation , a interpretation not one single member of the magisterium supports, we should go with a member of the Magisterium’s interpretation:

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.

"“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,” he said.

Cardinal Burke
 
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.
USCCB voting guide:

37. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account** a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue.*** In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.*
 
You don’t come across as particularly on any side, but one who straddles the fence and brings confusion and obfuscation to the discussion.
I wouldn’t say I straddle a fence, since both republicans and democrats are both way to liberal for me. But I do distinguish between political preferences and Church teaching.
 
USCCB voting guide:

37. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account** a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue.**** In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.
Again we trun to the Magestrium:

To suggest - as some Catholics do - that Senator Obama is this year’s ‘‘real’’ prolife candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse.

Archbishop Charles Chaput.
 
One is not allowed to evolve away from the culture of death. For instance it was okay for the Clintons to go from pro-life to pro-abortion and okay from Obama to go from opposing homosexual marriage to supporting it. In such a case they are praised and applauded. However if someone like Romney goes from supporting abortion to opposing abortion he is not be believed, especially if you are a Democrat Catholic desperately trying to rationalize your vote to support evil
Do you honestly believe that the Clintons were ever prolife? Do you honestly believe that Obama wasn’t in favor of homosexual marriage? Just curious.
 
Sooner or later one must wake up and realize that the denialism regarding the discrepancies between political promises and reality of a certain party, which makes one gullible enough to vote for them just based on their mere lip service on pro-life issues (at least on the federal level) is not normal.
Rather, sooner or later one must wake up and realize their denial regarding the discrepancies between*** themselves*** and Catholic Church teachings. They’re only paying lip service to, and not much else to these said teachings! If as Catholics the objective is to abolish abortion, we must first have to*** all*** agree that abortion **is **the greatest of all evils in today’s society. Enormous patience would be required. It simply would not dissapear in a few months or a few years. But voting for pro-life candidates would be absolutely imperative! And at this period in time, the Democratic Party is without question a complete and absolute hindrance to this goal. It’s that simple. If Catholics were able to have been united on this from the get go, abortion would have long since been abolished…or at the very least diminished.

With that said, I am not at all optimistic that this will ever come to pass anytime soon. I can’t recall a time in my lifetime, when the Catholic Church finds herself more divided…and on such basic teachings to boot. It seems to me, that the fruits of decade after decade of poor catechesis has been fully exposed, and it’s going to be quite difficult to remedy. The Church finds herself in a real dilemma with large parts of her flock supporting things such as abortion, so-called SSM, contraception, women priests and on and on and on. And they defend their positions with such conviction, and with such confidence that they’d have you believe that the Church is the one who has gotten it all wrong for the past 2000+ years, and it is in fact she who somehow needs to catch up, reverse her positions and modernize. Heck, many Catholics don’t even believe in such basic Church teachings such as the existence of hell any more, as some of the responses on this thread.here will attest to. I’ve also discovered, if you show the least bit of a traditionalist viewpoint nowadays, you’re looked upon with much suspicion. It’s as if your views are antiquated, and old fashioned and need to be abolished, or at best…kept to yourself. All of this division within the Catholic Church, has left me with the very real impression in that as far as abortion is concerned, it’s going to remain here for some time to come, unless more and more Catholics have a ***major *** “epiphany”… and there consciences are awakened. This thread, and many, many others like it on here, are all the proof I need to confirm my suspicions.

Peace, Mark
 
Sooner or later one must wake up and realize that the denialism regarding the discrepancies between political promises and reality of a certain party, which makes one gullible enough to vote for them just based on their mere lip service on pro-life issues (at least on the federal level) is not normal.

You are missing the precise text of Ratzinger’s statement about formal and material cooperation. Please read again.
You mistake me for someone who is stating that you must vote republican. I am not a republican. My whole argument in this thread has been that we Catholics cannot vote for a democrat. Every time you and I have debated you drag up the same footnote to make your case, denialism…hummm.

I understand the document quite well. I also understand the requirement we have as Catholics to properly and fully form our consciences to be in line with Church teaching.

I also know that you consistently support pro-abortion candidates simply because you accuse republicans of lying. It is obvious you dislike them more than you dislike abortion. The teaching of proportionate reasons does not include in any document the proportionate reason of “I think the republicans are lying”, “I don’t trust that group”, “I hate republicans”, “republicans are anti-women and anti-gay etc.”

No matter what we say here you will accuse me of campaigning for the republican party. You will reject what we say because you support the democrat party, and that’s that. Even though they support, as a whole, protecting the issue in which you hate the republicans for not fixing. This is extraordinary to me. The republicans say they want to end it, but they lie and don’t end it; the democrats say they want to protect it and they do in fact protect it and move it further, and you still blame the republicans.

Does that about size it up?
 
Again we trun to the Magestrium:

To suggest - as some Catholics do - that Senator Obama is this year’s ‘‘real’’ prolife candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse.

Archbishop Charles Chaput.
Who said that Obama was a prolife candidate?
 
From the Democratic National Party platform:

Strongly and unequivocally support Roe v. Wade

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.
Source: 2012 Democratic Party Platform , Sep 4, 2012

Invest in stem cell and other medical research

We will join 36 other industrialized nations in making sure everyone has access to affordable health care, starting by fixing the prescription drug program and investing in stem cell and other medical research.
We believe in investing in life saving stem cell and other medical research that offers real hope for cures and treatment for millions of Americans.
Source: 2006 Democratic Party Congressional Promise , Nov 1, 2006

Pursue embryonic stem cell research

Pres. Bush has rejected the calls from Nancy Reagan, Christopher Reeve & Americans across the land for assistance with embryonic stem cell research. We will reverse his wrongheaded policy. Stem cell therapy offers hope to more than 100 million Americans who have serious illnesses-from Alzheimer’s to heart disease to juvenile diabetes to Parkinson’s. We will pursue this research under the strictest ethical guidelines, but we will not walk away from the chance to save lives and reduce human suffering.
Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.29 , Jul 10, 2004

Support right to choose even if mother cannot pay

Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.36 , Jul 10, 2004

Choice is a fundamental, constitutional right

Democrats stand behind the right of every woman to choose. We believe it is a constitutional liberty. This year’s Supreme Court ruling show us that eliminating a woman’s right to choose is only one justice away. Our goal is to make abortion more rare, not more dangerous. We support contraceptive research, family planning, comprehensive family life education, and policies that support healthy childbearing.
Source: 2000 Democratic National Platform as adopted by the DNC , Aug 15, 2000

ontheissues.org/celeb/Democratic_Party_Abortion.htm
 
USCCB voting guide:

37. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account** a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue.**** In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.
I could have recited this for you, there was no need for you to go search for it.

What part of this paragraph speaks to the point you made where thinking a republican who has publically stated their opposition to intrinsic evil is lying and therefore serves as a proportionate reason to vote for a democrat who has spoken out publically in support of the very same intrinsic evil?
 
One is not allowed to evolve away from the culture of death. For instance it was okay for the Clintons to go from pro-life to pro-abortion and okay from Obama to go from opposing homosexual marriage to supporting it. In such a case they are praised and applauded. However if someone like Romney goes from supporting abortion to opposing abortion he is not be believed, especially if you are a Democrat Catholic desperately trying to rationalize your vote to support evil
A candidate may evolve or a candidate may change his/her position for political opportunism.

Any candidate that changes his position radically can expect a percentage of the electorate to question his integrity as a result of the change. President Obama’s change on gay marriage certainly smacks of political opportunism and I would think supporters of that issue would be worried that he could easily change his mind if the political winds change.
 
However if someone like Romney goes from supporting abortion to opposing abortion he is not be believed, especially if you are a Democrat Catholic desperately trying to rationalize your vote to support evil
No rationalization, just lack of blindness to reality.
 
‘Pro-Choice’ Republicans Condemn Platform
P H I L A D E L P H I A, July 31
By Carter M. Yang

— The GOP is trying to put forward a united front at its national convention in Philadelphia, but Republican abortion rights activists call the party platform a “disgrace,” and blame George W. Bush for excluding their views from the document.

“The platform calls for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion,” says Lynn Greef, national director of the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition. “The platform still calls for a litmus test on judges. We clearly oppose that platform.”

Although the Platform Committee that helped draft the document softened language on a number of social issues — including education and immigration — to better reflect the “compassionate conservative” philosophy of Bush, the GOP presidential candidate, the language on abortion was unchanged from the platform adopted at the 1996 Republican National Convention in San Diego. The platform, adopted this morning by convention delegates, calls for a ban on all abortions under any circumstances and advocates the ratification of a constitutional amendment to outlaw the procedure.

“The unborn child has a fundamental individual Right to life which cannot be infringed,” the language reads.

‘We’re All Disappointed’

“We’re all disappointed at what went on here,” said Randall J. Moody, co-chair of Planned Parenthood Republicans for Choice. “We made many attempts to convince ‘pro-choice’ delegates and those who weren’t that there should be no abortion language in the party platform, that it’s not a political issue.”

Those attempts, according to Ann Stone, chairman of Republicans for Choice, were gaining momentum until the Bush campaign intervened.

“There were a lot of people that were willing to come forward that were not with us on the issue, but felt that what we were asking for was very fair,” Stone said today. “It became like a freight train … and then it hit a brick wall called the Bush campaign.”

Stone insisted that, during his primary battle with Arizona Sen. John McCain Bush, in an effort to solidify his support from the right wing, promised “pro-life” factions within the party that the abortion language in the platform would remain intact.

“The paragraph on our issue has not changed,” added Susan Cullman, co-chair of the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition. “Gov. Bush [said he] did not want to change the language on abortion in our platform. And guess what? It did not change.”

‘This Platform is Actually Worse’

Many, in fact, argued that the platform is even more intolerant that the 1996 version because of its stated opposition to “family planning” programs, which teach young people how to effectively use birth control.

“This platform is actually worse than in 1996 because of its attack on ways to prevent abortion,” insisted Moody. “We have a party that’s both against abortion and against [the] means to prevent abortion.”

The new platform calls for the replacement of such programs with increased funding for abstinence education. “The stuff they did on family planning was a disgrace,” said Stone. “It was a throwback to the 18th century and not at all Republican.”

“We certainly are disappointed,” added Dina Merrill of the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition. “The message being sent is very harsh.”

Bush opposes abortion, but believes that it should remain legal in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. He did not, however, advocate changing the platform to reflect that view.

Some “pro-choice” members of the platform committee lobbied unsuccessfully for the adoption of language that recognized the division within the party on the sensitive issue, but their efforts were unsuccessful.

abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=123139
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top