Catholic Democrat and voting for pro-choice politicians

  • Thread starter Thread starter LennyFL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ender said:
Actually, I think ishii’s comment is right to the point. Abortion has become such a common, every day action that it has come to be seen as rather mundane by a great many people. Lynchings, which haven’t occurred in 60 years, are viewed in an entirely different light, but except for the methods involved, the result is identical: the life of an innocent person is brutally terminated.

The point is that no one would justify voting for a candidate who sanctioned lynchings because (e.g.) he vowed to end our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. So the question is, if no one would entertain for a moment the idea of supporting someone who supported lynchings, how does one justify supporting someone who supports abortion, which by any rational comparison is significantly worse?

Ender
Click to expand...
But you are a vociferous fan of capital punishment, are you not? Let’s switch the word “lynchings” to “electrocutions”: “Electrocutions…are viewed in a different light, but…the result is identical: the life of an innocent person is brutally terminated.” Hmmm…according to you, that would mean that if you voted for a candidate who believed in capital punishment that would make you “indirectly responsible” for the continuation of killing humans. I see a conflict…
 
Ender said:
“I am justified in supporting pro-abortion politicians because my conscience is clear.”
True, nor have I made that assertion, and you wouldn’t have to repeat yourself if you understood that what you are rejecting is not what I have claimed. I have (so far) addressed only the argument about following one’s conscience.

Ender
Click to expand...
Before I go further…could you tell me who said that quote and in what context it was said?
 
Ender said:
Actually, I think ishii’s comment is right to the point. Abortion has become such a common, every day action that it has come to be seen as rather mundane by a great many people. Lynchings, which haven’t occurred in 60 years, are viewed in an entirely different light, but except for the methods involved, the result is identical: the life of an innocent person is brutally terminated.

The point is that no one would justify voting for a candidate who sanctioned lynchings because (e.g.) he vowed to end our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. So the question is, if no one would entertain for a moment the idea of supporting someone who supported lynchings, how does one justify supporting someone who supports abortion, which by any rational comparison is significantly worse?

Ender
Click to expand...
Perfect analogy with the lynchings Ender.

Well said. To bad that some people don’t get it or most likely don’t want to get it.
 
on_the_hill said:
Seems to me the best way of conquering the death culture is to stop name calling and find consensus on policies that are the most likely to end abortion. Without regard for the cost.

Let’s see a show of hands: How many of us have changed our minds about anything after we’ve been the target of verbal attacks?

Banning abortion wouldn’t end it. Making it unconstitutional wouldn’t end it. It existed before RvW, it will continue to exist afterward. Yes, there were many fewer abortions prior to 1973, but the whole world was unrecognizably different then. There’s no going back. Once people have been given a “freedom,” you can’t ever take it away from them by force.
Click to expand...
A very sensible post.
 
NeedsMercy said:
But you are a vociferous fan of capital punishment, are you not? Let’s switch the word “lynchings” to “electrocutions”: “Electrocutions…are viewed in a different light, but…the result is identical: the life of an innocent person is brutally terminated.” Hmmm…according to you, that would mean that if you voted for a candidate who believed in capital punishment that would make you “indirectly responsible” for the continuation of killing humans. I see a conflict…
Click to expand...
I’m not sure you are using the word “innocent” correctly. Look it up and see if you can tell the fundamental difference in the two situations.

Also, I would recommend reading the Catechism.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
 
kozlosap said:
Agreed! There is no GOP or DEM politician at the national level that is going to be able to overturn Roe. It seems that currently the method that works the best in stopping access to abortions is at the state level where they can pass laws that make it almost impossible to run a clinic. I firmly believe that the populated states on the West Coast and the North East will always have abortion clinics. Yes, I vote for whom I think is the best candidate. On the national level, I worry about or young men and women being shipped off to battle zones and children who need food everyday and a reasonable place to live where they aren’t in fear of being shot at school or in their neighborhoods.
Click to expand...
Excuses #1, 5 and 6

REASONS FOR VOTING FOR PRO-ABORTION POLITICIANS
  1. National Republicans aren’t “really” pro-life, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
  2. Specific candidate isn’t “really” pro-life, or I don’t believe his supposed change of belief, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
  3. My deacon/priest/bishop/cardinal told me or wrote me a letter telling me it was okay to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  4. I’m not a one-issue voter, so I can ignore the Church’s teaching and vote for the virulently pro-abortion politician.
  5. Republicans (at any level) have not passed enough pro-life laws (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
  6. Republicans (at any level) have not had enough success on pro-life issues (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
  7. Roe vs. Wade is still the law of the land even though most Supreme Court justices were appointed by the Republicans, therefore Republicans aren’t serious about abortion, so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
  8. I found a Church document that mentioned proportionate reasons in voting, so I personally judged support for a higher minimum wage (or other social justice cause) was on equal footing with abortion, and I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
  9. I personally believe that Democratic policies will reduce abortions, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  10. We can’t do anything about abortion until we change the hearts and minds of the people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  11. You can’t legislate morality, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  12. People will still have abortions even if you make them illegal, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  13. We can’t end abortion until we address the root causes, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  14. I can’t impose my beliefs on other people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  15. There isn’t any difference between the parties, so it is okay for me to vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
 
zz912 said:
I’m not sure you are using the word “innocent” correctly. Look it up and see if you can tell the fundamental difference in the two situations.

Also, I would recommend reading the Catechism.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
Click to expand...
Take it up with Ender; I’m quoting him/her.
 
zz912 said:
You are the one who tried to insert capital punishment into the quotation, completely ignoring the word “innocent” in there.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I should be having this discussion with Ender…
 
LennyFL said:
So this is my dilemma. I am a democrat and a pro-life Catholic. I also do not agree with homosexual marriage. Now my question is, is it a sin to vote for a democrat that happens to be prochoice. I do not agree with the republican agenda other then the marriage and the pro-life aspects. If I were to vote for a democrat who happens to be pro-choice but do not agree with it at all but I agree with their stance on almost everything else would this be counted as sin?
Click to expand...
NeedsMercy said:
If you vote for a pro-choice candidate because of his or her stand on abortion, that would be wrong. If you are voting for that candidate for other reasons, there is no problem. Don’t let anyone browbeat you into voting for something other than what YOUR conscience tells you. No one knows what is in your heart except you and the Lord.
Click to expand...
According to Fr Stephen F Torraco:
14. Is it a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate?

Except in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates (in which case, as explained in question 8 above, he or she strives to determine which of them would cause the let damage in this regard), a candidate that is pro-abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. This is because being pro-abortion cannot simply be placed alongside the candidate’s other positions on Medicare and unemployment, for example; and this is because abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally.
Click to expand...
ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm
 
Listener said:
Some people can’t vote for Republicans because they seem to be pro-homicide of babies who happen to live in Iraq or Afghanistan.

These people need to use their conscience to decide who to vote for, just as you use your own conscience to decide who to vote for.

Women have the power to decide whether or not to have abortions, whether it is legal or illegal. Politicians have the power to decide whether or not to kill people in other countries.
Click to expand...
Based on what I have read, when it came to the Iraq war it wouldn’t of happened without congressional approval and the many votes of democrats in the House and Senate and the war not have continued for as long as it did without congressional funding which continued to happen when the democrats had a majority in congress.
The capitulation of the Democratic Party’s congressional leadership to the Bush administration’s request for nearly $100 billion of unconditional supplementary government spending, primarily to support the war in Iraq, has led to outrage throughout the country. In the Senate, 37 of 49 Democrats voted on May 24 to support the measure. In the House, while only 86 of the 231 Democratic House members voted for the supplemental funding, 216 of them voted in favor of an earlier procedural vote designed to move the funding bill forward even though it would make the funding bill’s passage inevitable (while giving most of them a chance to claim they voted against it).
Click to expand...
fpif.org/articles/the_democrats_support_for_bushs_war

I also have read that, and I can’t find the exact source, that Dennis Kucinich had a bill to end the war in Afghanistan, 85 Democrats voted yes, 99 congressional Democrats voted no. Democrats in the House Senate near-unanimously voted in support of the military force in Afghanistan.
 
Listener said:
Some people can’t vote for Republicans because they seem to be pro-homicide of babies who happen to live in Iraq or Afghanistan.

These people need to use their conscience to decide who to vote for, just as you use your own conscience to decide who to vote for.

Women have the power to decide whether or not to have abortions, whether it is legal or illegal. Politicians have the power to decide whether or not to kill people in other countries.
Click to expand...
Based on what I have read, when it came to the Iraq war it wouldn’t of happened without congressional approval and the many votes of democrats in the House and Senate and the war not have continued for as long as it did without congressional funding which continued to happen when the democrats had a majority in congress.
The capitulation of the Democratic Party’s congressional leadership to the Bush administration’s request for nearly $100 billion of unconditional supplementary government spending, primarily to support the war in Iraq, has led to outrage throughout the country. In the Senate, 37 of 49 Democrats voted on May 24 to support the measure. In the House, while only 86 of the 231 Democratic House members voted for the supplemental funding, 216 of them voted in favor of an earlier procedural vote designed to move the funding bill forward even though it would make the funding bill’s passage inevitable (while giving most of them a chance to claim they voted against it).
Click to expand...
fpif.org/articles/the_democrats_support_for_bushs_war

I also have read that, and I can’t find the exact source, that Dennis Kucinich had a bill to end the war in Afghanistan, 85 Democrats voted yes, 99 congressional Democrats voted no. Democrats in the House Senate near-unanimously voted in support of the military force in Afghanistan
 
LennyFL said:
So this is my dilemma. I am a democrat and a pro-life Catholic. I also do not agree with homosexual marriage. Now my question is, is it a sin to vote for a democrat that happens to be prochoice. I do not agree with the republican agenda other then the marriage and the pro-life aspects. If I were to vote for a democrat who happens to be pro-choice but do not agree with it at all but I agree with their stance on almost everything else would this be counted as sin?
Click to expand...
You need to asses whether any of the reasons you want to vote for a pro-choice candidate over a pro-life candidate would be considered proportional enough to vote for a pro-choice candidate over a pro-life candidate?

Bishop Robert J. Carlson:
If one had a properly formed conscience admitting the grave evil of abortion and euthanasia, as the Church teaches, and does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and euthanasia, but votes for the candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation which can be permitted, Cardinal Ratzinger states, if proportionate reasons are present, e.g., the candidate would limit abortions.
Click to expand...
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8446

Archbishop John J. Myers:
What are ‘proportionate reasons’? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong . . . .
Click to expand...
What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a “proportionate reason” to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation’s labs?
Click to expand...
Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.
Click to expand...
jimmyakin.com/2004/09/archbishop_myer.html

Archbishop Burke:
The archbishop told a reporter that he believes Catholics could vote for a politician who supports abortion rights as long as that’s not the reason they are voting for the candidate, and they believe the politician’s stance on other moral issues outweighs the abortion issue.
Click to expand...
“That is called remote material cooperation and if the reasons are really proportionate, and the person remains clear about his or her opposition to abortion, that can be done,” the archbishop told the Post-Dispatch.
Click to expand...
“The sticking point is this - and this is the hard part,” Archbishop Burke was quoted as saying. "What is a proportionate reason to justify favoring the taking of an innocent, defenseless human life? And I just leave that to you as a question. That’s the question that has to be answered in your conscience. What is the proportionate reason?
Click to expand...
One of the reasons the bishop did not discuss this point in June is because “it is difficult to imagine what that proportionate reason would be,” he said.
Click to expand...
catholicnewsagency.com/news/archbishop_burke_to_clarify_stance_on_communion_in_upcoming_pastoral_letter

Fr Stephen F. Torraco:
Fr. Stephen F. Torraco, PhD., explains that “‘Proportionate reasons’ has a very specific meaning in Catholic moral teaching. A proportionate reason [to vote for pro-abortion candidates] would be the desire to avoid supporting an equally grave or graver intrinsic evil, and not just for any reason at all. An intrinsic evil is an evil that cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. So, for example, capital punishment is not a proportionate reason. A candidate’s stand on economic issues is not a proportionate reason.”
Click to expand...
patriciabainbridge.blogspot.co.uk/2007/02/politics-of-distortion-and-confusion.html

George Weigel:
But the crucial questions – largely missing from press coverage of the cardinal’s letter – remain: When is this morally justifiable? What are the “proportionate reasons” that would lead a pro-life voter to conclude that a pro-abortion candidate’s unacceptable position on the life issues can, in effect, be bracketed?
Click to expand...
I can imagine one such situation: when the choice is between two pro-abortion candidates, and a voter opts for the pro-abortion candidate of a pro-life party in order to keep that pro-life party in control of Congress. That was the case in my own Congressional district for years. But that is not the situation that Catholic voters face in the current presidential contest or in most Congressional races
Click to expand...
eppc.org/publications/pubID.2177/pub_detail.asp

According to Fr Stephen F Torraco:
14. Is it a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate?

Except in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates (in which case, as explained in question 8 above, he or she strives to determine which of them would cause the let damage in this regard), a candidate that is pro-abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. This is because being pro-abortion cannot simply be placed alongside the candidate’s other positions on Medicare and unemployment, for example; and this is because abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally.
Click to expand...
ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm
 
_Abyssinia said:
You need to asses whether any of the reasons you want to vote for a pro-choice candidate over a pro-life candidate would be considered proportional enough to vote for a pro-choice candidate over a pro-life candidate?

Bishop Robert J. Carlson:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8446

Archbishop John J. Myers:

jimmyakin.com/2004/09/archbishop_myer.html

Archbishop Burke:

catholicnewsagency.com/news/archbishop_burke_to_clarify_stance_on_communion_in_upcoming_pastoral_letter

Fr Stephen F. Torraco:

patriciabainbridge.blogspot.co.uk/2007/02/politics-of-distortion-and-confusion.html

George Weigel:

eppc.org/publications/pubID.2177/pub_detail.asp

According to Fr Stephen F Torraco:

ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm
Click to expand...
You have given some nice quotes; however, you’ve only given one-half of the picture. As I said before, for every cleric that says it’s a mortal sin to even vote for a pro-choice candidate, even for other reasons than his/her pro-choice stance, there is another cleric that says it is permissible under given circumstances. Even the apologists on CAF have differing opinions. And the USCCB isn’t even as rigid as the people you have quoted. But everyone says this one thing: a voter’s conscience—properly catechized, of course—should guide them in the voting booth. And that’s the point that I’ve been trying to make all along. One person can’t force the ideas of his/her conscience on another. It just doesn’t work that way. And only God knows someone’s heart.
 
NeedsMercy said:
You have given some nice quotes; however, you’ve only given one-half of the picture. As I said before, for every cleric that says it’s a mortal sin to even vote for a pro-choice candidate, even for other reasons than his/her pro-choice stance, there is another cleric that says it is permissible under given circumstances. Even the apologists on CAF have differing opinions. And the USCCB isn’t even as rigid as the people you have quoted. But everyone says this one thing: a voter’s conscience—properly catechized, of course—should guide them in the voting booth. And that’s the point that I’ve been trying to make all along. One person can’t force the ideas of his/her conscience on another. It just doesn’t work that way. And only God knows someone’s heart.
Click to expand...
Are any of the reasons anyone would want to vote for a pro-choice candidate over a pro-life candidate be considered proportional enough to vote for a pro-choice candidate over a pro-life candidate, given the various guidence there is?
 
Bishop Ricken:
“A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program that contradicts fundamental contents of faith and morals.’ Intrinsicically evil actions are those which have an evil object. In other words, an act is evil by its very nature and to choose an action of this type puts one in grave moral danger. But what does this have to do with the election? Some candidates and one party have even chosen some of these as their party’s or their personal election platform. To vote for someone in favor of these positions means that you could be morally ‘complicit’ with these choices which are intrinsically evil. This could put your own soul in jeopardy”
Click to expand...
greenbaypressgazette.com/assets/pdf/U01963741026.PDF
 
_Abyssinia said:
Are any of the reasons anyone would want to vote for a pro-choice candidate over a pro-life candidate be considered proportional enough to vote for a pro-choice candidate over a pro-life candidate, given the various guidence there is?
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top