Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[Lapey]

No rationalization, just lack of blindness to reality.

On the same note you are blind to the reality that the democratic party fully supports abortion on demand. even to the point of tax dollars paying for it. That is what a vote for a democrat supports. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[estesbob]

No rationalization, just lack of blindness to reality.

I guess planned parenthood was blind:

The Planned Parenthood abortion business is putting another $835,000 into its efforts to attack Mitt Romney’s pro-life positions — reaching almost $13 million in its 2012 election efforts for President Obama.

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund will spend $853,000 to run a 60-second radio ad on Colorado, Ohio and Virginia radio stations from now until Election Day. The ad relies on the some tactic it has used before to bash Romney — saying his pro-life views on abortion and women “seem like they’re from the 1950s.”

As was NARL:

Romney thinks politicians should be in charge. President Obama wants to uphold a woman’s right to choose; Romney wants to outlaw abortion and even supports a ‘personhood’ ban that would outlaw common forms of contraception. President Obama made it possible for nearly every woman to get insurance coverage of contraception without a copay; Romney wants to take away contraception coverage and defund family-planning programs. We will make sure that voters understand the importance of re-electing President Obama."

---

Again the only people questioning Romney’s pro-life credentials were democrat Catholics desperately trying to rationalize their support of evil

 

[Al_Moritz]

On the same note you are blind to the reality that the democratic party fully supports abortion on demand. even to the point of tax dollars paying for it.

I am blind to that? Think again.

But voting for a candidate that supports abortion does not necessarily mean voting in support of abortion.

The Pope Emeritus:

“[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]”

 

[Crossbones]

I guess planned parenthood was blind:

Again the only people questioning Romney’s pro-life credentials were democrat Catholics desperately trying to rationalize their support of evil

Well, Speaker Gingrich and Senator Santorum certainly questioned them in this debate (full transcript at lifenews.com/2012/01/20/republicans-spar-over-abortion-issues-in-gop-debate/)

GINGRICH: After he became pro-life, Romneycare does pay for tax-paid abortions. Romneycare has written into it Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country, by name. Does not have any right to life group written into it.

He did appoint pro-abortion judges. And a branch of the government which included his appointees did agree to fund an abortion clinic for Planned Parenthood. All that occurred after he had become pro-life.

Now, those are all facts which we validated, and it seems to me that’s a legitimate part of the campaign, is to say, “OK, if you’re genuinely pro-life, how come these things are occurring?

SANTORUM: I just want to make one point. And a lot of legislatures here — legislators here in the room and they — and they know this to be the truth, that if you write a piece of legislation and you — and you say medical care and you do not specifically mention that abortion is not covered, we know from every court decision at the state and federal levels that the federal courts and state courts will require it.

That is someone (sic) every governor knows, every state legislator knows. And so when Governor Romney did not put that in the bill, you can’t say, “Oh, gee, surprise, the court made us cover abortions.” He knew very well that the court would make them cover abortions. That’s number one.

Number two…

(APPLAUSE)

Number — number two, what we’re talking about here is someone who’s not going to just check the boxes and say, “Yes, I’m pro-life.”

We’ve got a lot of folks who just whisper into the microphone that they’re pro-life, and then you have other people who go out and fight the battle and defend life and come out of the trenches and actually work to make sure that the dignity of every human life, innocent human life in this country is protected.

And I’ve done that.

 

[Path_Finder]

I guess planned parenthood was blind:

The Planned Parenthood abortion business is putting another $835,000 into its efforts to attack Mitt Romney’s pro-life positions — reaching almost $13 million in its 2012 election efforts for President Obama.

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund will spend $853,000 to run a 60-second radio ad on Colorado, Ohio and Virginia radio stations from now until Election Day. The ad relies on the some tactic it has used before to bash Romney — saying his pro-life views on abortion and women “seem like they’re from the 1950s.”

As was NARL:

Romney thinks politicians should be in charge. President Obama wants to uphold a woman’s right to choose; Romney wants to outlaw abortion and even supports a ‘personhood’ ban that would outlaw common forms of contraception. President Obama made it possible for nearly every woman to get insurance coverage of contraception without a copay; Romney wants to take away contraception coverage and defund family-planning programs. We will make sure that voters understand the importance of re-electing President Obama."

---

Again the only people questioning Romney’s pro-life credentials were democrat Catholics desperately trying to rationalize their support of evil

Exactly, personally, I think all Catholics should be active in the pro-life movement as well, be informed on the struggles of the pro-life movement, get feedback from other activists. I have to say, just sitting back and then discussing this issue seems a bit inconsequential to me. If one is pro-life, pray, read the latest pro-life news that often will not be in the mainstream media, even pray outside of the abortion clinics, do some voluntary pro-life work.

It has already been posted what Planned Parenthood or Naral said about Romney and how Planned Parenthood who is funded by the US Government spent up to $ 4 million dollars campaigning against him and Paul Ryan so this is really a recycling of the same old argument from about 20 pages back.

 

[qui_est_ce]

And I think you are missing the irony of what you posted.

That was my point!

 

[Al_Moritz]

Well, Speaker Gingrich and Senator Santorum certainly questioned them in this debate (full transcript at lifenews.com/2012/01/20/republicans-spar-over-abortion-issues-in-gop-debate/)

GINGRICH: After he became pro-life, Romneycare does pay for tax-paid abortions. Romneycare has written into it Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country, by name. Does not have any right to life group written into it.

He did appoint pro-abortion judges. And a branch of the government which included his appointees did agree to fund an abortion clinic for Planned Parenthood. All that occurred after he had become pro-life.

Now, those are all facts which we validated, and it seems to me that’s a legitimate part of the campaign, is to say, “OK, if you’re genuinely pro-life, how come these things are occurring?

SANTORUM: I just want to make one point. And a lot of legislatures here — legislators here in the room and they — and they know this to be the truth, that if you write a piece of legislation and you — and you say medical care and you do not specifically mention that abortion is not covered, we know from every court decision at the state and federal levels that the federal courts and state courts will require it.

That is someone (sic) every governor knows, every state legislator knows. And so when Governor Romney did not put that in the bill, you can’t say, “Oh, gee, surprise, the court made us cover abortions.” He knew very well that the court would make them cover abortions. That’s number one.

Number two…

(APPLAUSE)

Number — number two, what we’re talking about here is someone who’s not going to just check the boxes and say, “Yes, I’m pro-life.”

We’ve got a lot of folks who just whisper into the microphone that they’re pro-life, and then you have other people who go out and fight the battle and defend life and come out of the trenches and actually work to make sure that the dignity of every human life, innocent human life in this country is protected.

And I’ve done that.

Thanks for posting that debate excerpt. So basically, even Republican candidates concede that Republicans are lying on the issue, or at least that there is a discrepancy between their declared stance and their political deeds. They also point out that some are also paying mere lip service to it:

(Number — number two, what we’re talking about here is someone who’s not going to just check the boxes and say, “Yes, I’m pro-life.”.)

Well, there we go. What I have pointed out all along.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Thanks for posting that debate excerpt. So basically, even Republican candidates concede that Republicans are lying on the issue. They also point out that some are also paying mere lip service to it:

Well, there we go. What I have pointed out all along.

Well, maybe you can’t believe Gingrich or Santorum. They could be lying, because after all, Republicans are all liars.

 

[Path_Finder]

Thanks for posting that debate excerpt. So basically, even Republican candidates concede that Republicans are lying on the issue, or at least that there is a discrepancy between their declared stance and their political deeds. They also point out that some are also paying mere lip service to it:

Well, there we go. What I have pointed out all along.

We know there is a party that has stopped abortions, concrete evidence for anyone willing to look beyond this forum for facts, at lifenews, lifesitenews, etc. And I’ll give you a clue, that party stopping abortion is not the puppet of Planned Parenthood.

In fact, those stories are in fact, routinely reported and posted on this forum, so this is really just choosing not to look at the issues and facts to maintain a bias against not the Republican Party but a bias against some persons right to life.

 

[Path_Finder]

Whole websites are devoted to the Pro-Life movement, it really says something where people are going to cherry pick quotes to try to back up a position.

 

[Path_Finder]

If it is assserted: “A Ha, Republicans stick their neck out for life a lot but not enough for me, look at this quote”.

Doesn’t take one long to show Democrats fight for the abortion-interests and those threads are right in this forum:

"California Democrats Defeat Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (bill against Sex-Selection Abortions) "

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=882860&highlight=Democrats

“Democrats Fast-Track Bill To Override Hobby Lobby Decision.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=895348&highlight=Democrats

And many more.

But instead a lot of this thread has turned into reinventing the wheel and starting from scratch. Not exactly fair I’d say.

 

[estesbob]

Well, Speaker Gingrich and Senator Santorum certainly questioned them in this debate (full transcript at lifenews.com/2012/01/20/republicans-spar-over-abortion-issues-in-gop-debate/)

GINGRICH: After he became pro-life, Romneycare does pay for tax-paid abortions. Romneycare has written into it Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country, by name. Does not have any right to life group written into it.

He did appoint pro-abortion judges. And a branch of the government which included his appointees did agree to fund an abortion clinic for Planned Parenthood. All that occurred after he had become pro-life.

Now, those are all facts which we validated, and it seems to me that’s a legitimate part of the campaign, is to say, “OK, if you’re genuinely pro-life, how come these things are occurring?

SANTORUM: I just want to make one point. And a lot of legislatures here — legislators here in the room and they — and they know this to be the truth, that if you write a piece of legislation and you — and you say medical care and you do not specifically mention that abortion is not covered, we know from every court decision at the state and federal levels that the federal courts and state courts will require it.

That is someone (sic) every governor knows, every state legislator knows. And so when Governor Romney did not put that in the bill, you can’t say, “Oh, gee, surprise, the court made us cover abortions.” He knew very well that the court would make them cover abortions. That’s number one.

Number two…

(APPLAUSE)

Number — number two, what we’re talking about here is someone who’s not going to just check the boxes and say, “Yes, I’m pro-life.”

We’ve got a lot of folks who just whisper into the microphone that they’re pro-life, and then you have other people who go out and fight the battle and defend life and come out of the trenches and actually work to make sure that the dignity of every human life, innocent human life in this country is protected.

And I’ve done that.

Interesting you didn’t post Romneys response. Again we are faced with the contention from those who vote to support evil that those of us who support life are nothing but a bunch of ignorant dupes.

 

[Lapey]

I am blind to that? Think again.

But voting for a candidate that supports abortion does not necessarily mean voting in support of abortion.

The Pope Emeritus:

"[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons

.]"

Lying Republicans is not proportionate reasons. However, it is on that “cute little list” of justifications.

 

[Crossbones]

Interesting you didn’t post Romneys response. Again we are faced with the contention from those who vote to support evil that those of us who support life are nothing but a bunch of ignorant dupes.

You stated that only Catholic Democrats questioned Governor Romney’s commitment to pro-life issues and I was provided evidence that there were prominent Republicans that also questioned that view. Governor Romney’s response is irrelevant to whether or not prominent Republicans questioned his view, but it is in the article I linked to so that anyone with interest can read it in its entirety.

 

[Lapey]

Thanks for posting that debate excerpt. So basically, even Republican candidates concede that Republicans are lying on the issue, or at least that there is a discrepancy between their declared stance and their political deeds. They also point out that some are also paying mere lip service to it:

Well, there we go. What I have pointed out all along.

Oh my, now you’ve got me convinced! I’m going to start voting democrat so I am sure they don’t lie. When they say they will protect R V W and a woman’s right to choose, by golly they mean it.

Thanks Al!!! I’m going re-register to the Democrat Party!

 

[stinkcat_14]

Lying Republicans is not proportionate reasons. However, it is on that “cute little list” of justifications.

According to whom? Has the Church stated this?

 

[pnewton]

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.

Now this is the way Catholics should respond! You lay out orthodox principles, your opinion from them, and do not hold anyone to your conclusion.

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

Wow. I am impressed. Someone that does not like to argue, even when he is uncharitably slandered using all the logic of the Three Stooges. I would like to go back and explain the logic disconnect used, but I am sure anyone with an open mind can go back and figure that out.

 

[Lapey]

According to whom? Has the Church stated this?

Can you show us where this is listed as a proportionate reason to overlook support of intrinsic evil? In Her silence on this She has stated much.

What does proportionate mean? What is the root word? An unproven possibility that candidate A could be lying, because he is a republican, is equal to support of abortion. This is what you are defending.

 

[pnewton]

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.

Well, that surely is your opinion. Okay, I will explain two errors in logic that account for most of your list.

The first is begging the question, which is listed above in the thread title. Some of your points assume the party is the candidate and visa versa. Since this is the question, it cannot be assumed. One may not agree, legitimately, that we can in fact “vote for a party”.

The second logic error is the straw man. Several of your posts refer to one who is “virulently pro-abortion.” This may have merit in some circles, but here, I have seen no one suggesting that we vote for the most pro-abortion candidate. “Virulent” only applies to one side in this debate, as well it should in a Catholic setting. I understand the hatred on one side of such an evil. However, the argument remains a straw man because no one supports such a level of bitter hatred against those defending abortion. You would have to go outside CAF to find that.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Can you show us where this is listed as a proportionate reason to overlook support of intrinsic evil? In Her silence on this She has stated much.

What does proportionate mean? What is the root word? An unproven possibility that candidate A could be lying, because he is a republican, is equal to support of abortion. This is what you are defending.

I am not defending anything, so you should get your facts straight before you make accusations. But, if a politician claimed to be pro-life and someone had sufficient reason to believe that they were lying, then there certainly could be scenarios where one could vote against a supposed pro-life politician.