Catholic and Democrat?

[chevalier]

There is a historical connection between Catholics and Democracts, as well as a number of social justice problems with Republicans.

However, Catholics must finally learn that life issues are more important than party lines and indeed more important than lesser social justice issues. Also that a nice image of a candidate is not as important as his stance on life matters, as long as he has any influence in those matters in his work. In American terms, a congressman or senator or president and a number of other elected positions have that ability. Being nice and cool just needs to stop being more important than being pro-life.

And it’s not optional for Catholics to put life first. Catholics are obliged to put life first. This is required. The Church is not telling anybody who to vote for, as in specific names or specific guys. But this fact cannot be a smokescreen for the fact that it’s not okay to vote against life in pro-life matters, a Catholic cannot vote for a pro-choicer if there’s a pro-life candidate available. If both are pro-choice, the less radical one should be chosen.

 

[mellowcalico]

Someone pointed this out to me as well… it’s from the US conference of Catholic Bisshop’s website:

1. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods.* A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.* (my emphasis since it relates to the topic at hand).

And some more information because I thought it might be useful and was important to the discussion…

1. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental
   moral evil.

1. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.

1. 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.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-part-one.cfm

 

[Gwendolen]

I look at the number of abortions performed. Regardless of who is in office, women tend to abort more when there are less options for them to raise their child. As much as we like to promote adoption, I can tell you from my experience (pregnancy resource center) women are more likely to abort than place for adoption. Sad, but true.

Number of abortions performed, as I recall, actually went down during the Clinton administration. So although he is pro-choice, we still had less abortions.

As far as issues, as a nurse, I am pro-life for EVERYONE, not just babies. Health care is HUGE issue for me, as I see daily our most vulnerable not getting care, as well as very hard working folks in lower paying jobs with no health insurance.

 

[chevalier]

1. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity. (my emphasis since it relates to the topic at hand).

…can’t be read without:

1. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

It takes a lot to outweigh a pro-choice record. More than a couple of jerk policies by the more pro-life party/candidate.

 

[scipio337]

I was thinking of this (I had to look it up to get the exact quote). Pope Benedict said it when he was still a Cardinal (just for the sake of cull disclosure).

“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.”…

How does one rationalize a proportion to 1 million dead in the US, every year?

 

[mellowcalico]

How does one rationalize a proportion to 1 million dead in the US, every year?

What if I think the policies of the other candidate will result in 2 million dead?

Now, I am not saying I think that… I am just using it as an example of something that would be proportional.

 

[mellowcalico]

…can’t be read without:

It takes a lot to outweigh a pro-choice record. More than a couple of jerk policies by the more pro-life party/candidate.

I agree (that’s why I thought it was important to quote everything). It’s not easy and it’s not black and white either. I really think BOTH parties want to make it appear that way though for easy votes. Neither party is Catholic… and neither is 100% pro life (both candidates have in the presidential election for example, have pledged to keep abortion legal). So you really have to look at the candidates and what they say and do.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

I agree (that’s why I thought it was important to quote everything). It’s not easy and it’s not black and white either. I really think BOTH parties want to make it appear that way though for easy votes. Neither party is Catholic… and neither is 100% pro life (both candidates have in the presidential election for example, have pledged to keep abortion legal). So you really have to look at the candidates and what they say and do.

With regards to abortion, most people on either side will agree that there is a huge difference between Romney’s views and Obama’s view. Huge.

Could you imagine Obama ever responding this way:

(Moderator): Starting with you, Governor, would the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed be a good day for America.
Romney: Absolutely.

source

How can anyone suggest that holds these beliefs is just as pro-abortion as a man that voted against the born alive infant protection act (thus saying that babies born of failed abortions should not be considered people)? Obama said he voted against the act because it would be an impediment to abortions… So he would rather risk having children thrown out in the trash alive (which does happen), than do anything that can limit access to abortion… How can this be considered equal to a man that has stated he will be a pro-life president?

People can have different opinions on the best way to make health care affordable and accessible for all, but what good is having the right to health care if you don’t have the right to life to enjoy that health care? Also, there is a difference between two sides having morally acceptable differing opinions on how an issue should be resolved, and two sides having different opinions, but one side’s opinion supports intrinsically evil actions.

Regarding the social aspect, from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church found on the vatican’s web site:

“Promoting human dignity implies above all affirming the inviolability of the right to life, from conception to natural death, the first among all rights and the condition for all other rights of the person[1158]. Respect for personal dignity requires, moreover, that the religious dimension of the person be recognized. “This is not simply a requirement ‘concerning matters of faith’, but a requirement that finds itself inextricably bound up with the very reality of the individual”.[1159] The effective recognition of the right to freedom of conscience and religious freedom is one of the highest goods and one of the most serious duties of every people that truly wishes to ensure the good of the individual and of society[1160]. In the present cultural context, there is a particularly urgent need to defend marriage and the family, which can be adequately met only if one is convinced of the unique and singular value of these two realities for an authentic development of human society[1161].”

1. Right to Life
2. Religious Freedom
3. Marriage

Which candidate has supported more attacks on these three areas?

 

[HumblePilgrim]

Janesansible, I will get back to you when I have more time to post sources, but I was wondering if you are aware of the program in FL where many low income families can send their children to any private school (including Catholic ones) that they feel best serves their child? It isn’t what I want to address from your comments, though.

I am aware of the program but they are getting their budget cut thanks to Rick Scott.

stateimpact.npr.org/florida/2011/10/07/florida-ranks-sixth-for-k-12-education-cuts/

 

[HumblePilgrim]

I was thinking of this (I had to look it up to get the exact quote). Pope Benedict said it when he was still a Cardinal (just for the sake of cull disclosure).

“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.”

It is evil to vote for a candidate who is for abortion because you you agree with that stand on abortion… but you can vote for someone who happens to be pro-abortion (even if you aren’t) if you have other proportional reasons (like they might be pro-abortion, but their policies might actually reduce abortions).

If that quote is correct then voting for Obama while hating his pro-choice stance would not be wrong.

I also would like to know what happens in other countries where ALL of the candidates have no abortion platform (meaning that abortion is legal and so is not part of any party platform) does a Catholic then not vote? Does anyone know that answer?

 

[mellowcalico]

Romney’s views may be pro-life (and they seem to be–especially considering his position as a bishop in his church), but his actions aren’t. To stating, “I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintaining the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice and so far I’ve been able to successfully do that….” (youtube.com/watch?v=FxV-QNXoRIc), to forcing Catholic hospitals to distribute the morning after pill (catholiccitizens.org/platform/platformview.asp?c=30353), to appointing known pro-abortion judges (abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3279653&page=2#.UEo3mSK2Xyw)… he hasn’t acted pro-life politically/legally. In fact, I see him and Obama acting pretty similarly in that regard–it’s only their words that are different and I just don’t put much stock in political words and promises.

Listen, I really think Romney is a good guy… and I am still considering him because, as I said before, I think an improved economy would be a huge thing to turn back abortions and he’s been a successful business man. I need to listen to his plan and figure out if it will be better on the economy than Obama plan. If I don’t think either candidate is going to improve things that much, then next thing to look at is education, healthcare, and programs that help women and infants like WIC.

and no matter what I think of the two presidential candidates… that’s not going to effect how I vote on other candidates. I might end up voting for one party for president and another for my representative. It’s all based on the candidate and what they do… not what they say or what their party says.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

I am aware of the program but they are getting their budget cut thanks to Rick Scott.

stateimpact.npr.org/florida/2011/10/07/florida-ranks-sixth-for-k-12-education-cuts/

I don’t have time to look up Gov. Scott’s budget cuts, and they may be a bad idea, but I googled the program’s budget really quick and found that it has grown to cover 10K more students because of something signed by Gov. Scott:
news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/08/29/florida-increases-tax-cap-school-choice-program

And the beauty of it is because it is funded by letting people (I think corporations as well) “receive tax credits on Florida returns for donations” and according to this article, has actually saved tax payers money.

Regardless, I would not consider the issue of lowering the budget for schools to be on par with supporting the killing of innocent children.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Romney’s views may be pro-life (and they seem to be–especially considering his position as a bishop in his church), but his actions aren’t. To stating, “I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintaining the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice and so far I’ve been able to successfully do that….” (youtube.com/watch?v=FxV-QNXoRIc), to forcing Catholic hospitals to distribute the morning after pill (catholiccitizens.org/platform/platformview.asp?c=30353), to appointing known pro-abortion judges (abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3279653&page=2#.UEo3mSK2Xyw)… he hasn’t acted pro-life politically/legally. In fact, I see him and Obama acting pretty similarly in that regard–it’s only their words that are different and I just don’t put much stock in political words and promises.

Romney was pro-choice when all of those quotes/actions took place, and acted accordingly. His views have changed according to him, he is pro-life now. I understand you not taking stock in what he is saying vs what he did when he had different views, but if you just compare the actions of both candidates you will see that Obama has done, and has potential to do, far more harm to the pro-life movement than Romney does. While Romney says he is pro-life, Obama is very clear that he is pro-choice. Romney has not had a chance to show us what he can do as a pro-life politician, Obama has shown us what he will do as a pro-choice one. In the links I included earlier: jillstanek.com/2008/02/links-to-barack-obamas-votes-on-illinois-born-alive-infant-protection-
His views are more extreme than most pro-choice people, which is why in the 2008 elections pro-life groups would often call him pro-abortion instead of pro-life. The Born Alive Infant Protection Act was something many pro-choice people were ok with, the pro-choice NARAL (their president spoke at the DNC) was neutral towards it, but he wasn’t because he felt it could affect abortion rights by placing a burden on the mother.

Now, yes, I do think it is important to research the social issues, economic issues, etc etc… And I am of the opinion, through my research, that Obama doesn’t really have the general advantage in those areas either. But, of course, many of these topics can have different seemingly morally neutral solutions being presented and we may have different opinions about the solutions. The interesting thing is, if you look carefully, you will find that regardless if Obama’s ideas are good or not, he manages to make morality relevant often (eg, Obamacare could be moral, regardless of one’s opinion whether it is economically/logistically sound, but he still manages to attack religious liberty, and push other immoral agendas with it, which then affects the morality of supporting it as it is).

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

If that quote is correct then voting for Obama while hating his pro-choice stance would not be wrong.

If you have proportionate reasons to vote for him. And the Church is very clear in stating that protecting the lives of the innocent is a top priority.

I also would like to know what happens in other countries where ALL of the candidates have no abortion platform (meaning that abortion is legal and so is not part of any party platform) does a Catholic then not vote? Does anyone know that answer?

As in any other election, you would use the information available to make the best choice.

 

[kelvinf]

I look at the number of abortions performed. Regardless of who is in office, women tend to abort more when there are less options for them to raise their child. As much as we like to promote adoption, I can tell you from my experience (pregnancy resource center) women are more likely to abort than place for adoption. Sad, but true.

Number of abortions performed, as I recall, actually went down during the Clinton administration. So although he is pro-choice, we still had less abortions.

As far as issues, as a nurse,** I am pro-life for EVERYONE, not just babies**. Health care is HUGE issue for me, as I see daily our most vulnerable not getting care, as well as very hard working folks in lower paying jobs with no health insurance.

I have been trying to understand how someone can be pro-life but anti-universal healthcare.

 

[kelvinf]

I know this post is very old but I agree with this. Yes, I struggle with the abortion issue very much. But, I cannot ignore what the Republican party stands for. I cannot in good conscience support the Republicans. I can only support the pro-life causes and work that work on changing the public perception on the matter. Also, just to note, the Republicans have not so far done anything to change the abortion laws in this country and they use the abortion platform as a bargaining chip to gain conservative voters.

I am concerned about the market. I mean, if little Greece troubles economies worldwide, what more of the US?

After all that has happened, I am concerned about Romney wanting to get rid of regulations that are still being implemented. It’s very hard to understand why, apart from the fact that he only seems to have the interest of a few people at heart.

 

[anthrogirl]

I’m a catholic who has voted for both republican and democratic presidential candidates. I have to say that I’m saddened that the anti-abortion wing of the church is so loud that the other important issues of the church are being drowned out. We need to stop throwing the poor, the earth, the imprisoned, the elderly, the young, our enemies and our friends under the bus to outlaw abortions. If we want to stop abortions (really stop them… not just send them underground where statistics are unavailable) we need to address their root cause. We need to educate our youth about sex. We also need to make healthcare easily accessible. We also need to offer financial stability and educational support to the poor. If we don’t addess these issues and we just outlaw abortions, we’ve accomplished nothing.

 

[JoeofCupertino]

The one thing about abortion is that if you believe it is wrong, it must be murder since you are taking the life of another without just cause such as self defense. With the numbers aborted, it puts both the holocaust and gulags to shame in terms of lives lost.

When the Nazis came to power, Catholics there for the most part said what happened to the Jews and others were pretty horrible but either way the bad German economy and military glory of Germany mattered more than opposing and trying to remove Hitler by force to stop the horrors of the Nazi regime. Those Christians and Catholics that tried to oppose or overthrow Hitler had almost no popular support to effect change from the general Catholic community.

Abortion is so normalized that it doesnt seem serious and because the babes dont cry and the pictures of aborted babies are rarely publicized, it doesnt seem abortion is that bad so many just vote for the pro-choice candidate because the economy and wars are more personal and seem worse than a baby being murdered.

 

[kelvinf]

The one thing about abortion is that if you believe it is wrong, it must be murder since you are taking the life of another without just cause such as self defense. With the numbers aborted, it puts both the holocaust and gulags to shame in terms of lives lost.

When the Nazis came to power, Catholics there for the most part said what happened to the Jews and others were pretty horrible but either way the bad German economy and military glory of Germany mattered more than opposing and trying to remove Hitler by force to stop the horrors of the Nazi regime. Those Christians and Catholics that tried to oppose or overthrow Hitler had almost no popular support to effect change from the general Catholic community.

Abortion is so normalized that it doesnt seem serious and because the babes dont cry and the pictures of aborted babies are rarely publicized, it doesnt seem abortion is that bad so many just vote for the pro-choice candidate because the economy and wars are more personal and seem worse than a baby being murdered.

I believe all true Catholics care about abortion. But as mentioned in post #333, there are many other things we shouldn’t ignore.

 

[Cat]

I believe all true Catholics care about abortion. But as mentioned in post #333, there are many other things we shouldn’t ignore.

But the right of a human being to live is basic. If you don’t care about right to life, then you will not have the right disposition to care for the poor, the sick, and all the misfortunate human beings. After all, why not just abort them? Then we wouldn’t have poor, sick, or disabled people.

That is the attitude that many Americans have–“it’s better to abort the child than allow it to be born into poverty and misery.” You see, they want to define a person’s right to life by the “quality” of their life.

Think about it–it’s actually quite horrific. If someone other than you decides that you have a miserable life, or the potential for a miserable life, you must die so that you won’t have the miserable life. That’s really devilish, but that’s what many, many MANY people in the United States believe! Really!

So we need to get our thinking in order–being against abortion is the stepping stone to caring for all the other needs. When people recognize the infinite value of ALL humans, we will want to take care of those who are less fortunate. But when we allow many humans to die just because they are unwanted, we develop a callous attitude towards the less fortunate.