Do Catholics Have to Vote for Romney

[zenith15]

This is the truth!

I beg to differ:

USCCB:

“35. 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.”

 

[LegoGE1947]

Thanks. I do have a Catechism. I was actually able to pick up for $2 used! Something I appreciate about Catholicism is the moral clarity (as compared with Protestantism), which I think the Catechism helps teach.

I never found Protestanism clear about much of ANYTHING. Catholicism, on the other hand is quite clear and the Catechism makes it even more so!

 

[zenith15]

Respect for Life is about more than unborn life–it also involves respect for those currently born and living in dire poverty, or who have no access to health care in the richest nation on earth, or the death penalty (respect for life means respect for ALL life), or politicians who spout pro life beliefs to get elected but then, once the unborn are BORN, have no desire to help them anymore and are all about cutting benefits, cutting healthcare, cutting access to low cost childcare, slashing social programs that feed the hungry, etc. Those things matter too, and they should also be considered–not ignored or swept aside in favor of just one single issue.

 

[TimothyH]

Catholics have a duty to vote. Voting for a pro abortion candidate when you know there is a pro life alternative means you become a moral accomplice in abortion

No, you are not an accomplice.

What you are talking about is culpablity to sin, not becoming an accomplice.

Being an accomplice means that you directly participated in the sin. Culpability means that you share some of the blame but doesn’t mean that you actively participated in the sin. Casting a vote for a candidate who supports abortion is several levels distant from actually committing an abortion, or working at the clinic, or driving someone there. You may be culpable when you vote, but you are not an accomplice.

In the case when there is no true pro-life candidate, Catholics may abstain from voting to avoid culpability to (blame for) the sin of abortion. You can also vote for the better candidate, but if you do vote for a candidate who is not 100% pro-life, then you have a moral obligation to work to change that person’s heart and mind.

Pro-life is about more than abortion. A 100% pro-life candidate would immediately act to eliminate all abortion, euthenasia and the death penalty. There may be a case where one candidate supports abortion in the case of rape and incest while the other supports unrestricted access to abortion. There may be a case where one candidate supports the death penalty but the other supports abortion. It is not black and white, and you can vote for whomever you feel is a better candidate, or not cast a vote, but if you do vote then you have to work to change the person’s postion.

-Tim-

 

[zenith15]

No, you are not an accomplice.

What you are talking about is culpablity to sin, not becoming an accomplice.

Being an accomplice means that you directly participated in the sin. Culpability means that you share some of the blame but doesn’t mean that you actively participated in the sin. Casting a vote for a candidate who supports abortion is several levels distant from actually committing an abortion, or working at the clinic, or driving someone there. You may be culpable when you vote, but you are not an accomplice.

In the case when there is no true pro-life candidate, Catholics may abstain from voting to avoid culpability to (blame for) the sin of abortion. You can also vote for the better candidate, but if you do vote for a candidate who is not 100% pro-life, then you have a moral obligation to work to change that person’s heart and mind.

Pro-life is about more than abortion. A 100% pro-life candidate would immediately act to eliminate all abortion, euthenasia and the death penalty. There may be a case where one candidate supports abortion in the case of rape and incest while the other supports unrestricted access to abortion. There may be a case where one candidate supports the death penalty but the other supports abortion. It is not black and white, and you can vote for whomever you feel is a better candidate, or not cast a vote, but if you do vote then you have to work to change the person’s postion.

-Tim-

Agreed

 

[Seeker1961]

CAF approval notwithstanding there is no Catholic obligation to vote for any particular candidate in any election.

I’m really dissatisfied with my choices this year. I cannot believe that in this entire country this is the best we could come up with.

 

[Carolyn_Widhalm]

Catholics are not forbidden to vote for anyone. However, we ARE required to form our consciences.
Not everything is black and white, so we need to think very carefully about our choices. It is not just a healthcare package that is at stake, but our very freedom. If Obama and Congress can legislate away my right to freedom of religion, he can do the same for other freedoms Americans hold dear. Will Romney lead us down the same road? I don’t know. Pray, Americans.

 

[TEPO]

Catholics should NOT be “single issue voters”.

There are actually multiple reasons why one should NOT vote for Obama and the levels of severity involved are too great to turn a blind eye to.

With Romney -his ideals can only be indirectly immoral and even then, the level of severity is small.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Catholics have a duty to vote. Voting for a pro abortion candidate when you know there is a pro life alternative means you become a moral accomplice in abortion

Please provide the reference.

Cardinal Ratzinger

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.]

 

[exoflare]

“single issue voters”

Yes, yes we’ve heard all the bumper sticker slogans and rationalizations by now…

 

[Jeanne_S]

You do know that there are more than two options, right?

Yet,we are a two party system…until there is a equitable way of changing that fact,voting outside the two parties is nothing more than a protest vote,giving a victory or loss to the two main cadidates

 

[jwinch2]

nationalreview.com/corner/313468/baltimore-archbishop-catholic-voters-cant-vote-candidate-who-stands-intrinsic-evil-kat

“This is a big moment for Catholic voters to step back from their party affiliation,” Baltimore archbishop William E. Lori tells me from the Knights of Columbus annual convention in Anaheim, Calif.

For Catholic voters in November, Lori advises, “The question to ask is this: Are any of the candidates of either party, or independents, standing for something that is intrinsically evil, evil no matter what the circumstances? If that’s the case, a Catholic, regardless of his party affiliation, shouldn’t be voting for such a person.”

 

[jwinch2]

catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=34198

…World War I, World War II, the Korean conflict, and the Vietnam conflict were all begun by Democrats, leading to the death of roughly 1.6 million American soldiers in combat…

…For all intents and purposes, the Democratic party is the first of all American parties in any real and recognizable sense. [And, granted, I’m dismissing the commonly held historical view that dates the first parties back to the Federalists and Anti-federalists]. Founded as an alliance of New York bankers, southern plantation owners, and western farmers, the Democratic party began its institutional life not as a party for the common good (the res publica) but for the benefit of special interest groups.

[Frankly, even in the deepest days of the Great Depression, the Democratic party favored its own or potential own over the good of the country.]…

…The first Democratic president Andrew Jackson–against the will and decisions of the Supreme Court–forcibly removed American Indians from their proper and “ancient” homelands. Good estimates note that of, for example, the southern tribes removed, nearly ⅓ died en route to Indian Territory, while another ⅓ died once arriving there, mostly from exposure to the elements and disease.

In the 1830s and 1840s, the Democratic party as a whole opposed the rise of Personal Liberty Laws [PLLs] in northern states. The PLLs stated that if the federal government wanted to reclaim runaway slaves, it would have to pay for it, for the states would not.

In 1850, the Democratic party gave us the first federal police force, the slave catchers authorized by the Fugitive Slave Act of that year.

In 1854, the Democratic party gave us the Kansas-Nebraska Act, thus opening Kansas and Nebraska, in complete violation of the spirit of the Old Northwest Ordinance and the Missouri Compromise, to the evils of slavery and civil war.

During the last third of the nineteenth century, the Democrats repeatedly segregated the American population, one group from another, and authored and helped pass a multitude of anti-black laws.

The one clear and important exception to all of this nastiness is President Grover Cleveland.

In 1917, under the leadership of Democratic president, Woodrow Wilson, the United States entered World War I, and nearly subjected American sovereignty to the purposeless League of Nations.

During his presidency, Wilson not only racially segregated Washington, D.C., but he also segregated the American military, forcing blacks into separate units and, generally, away from combat and in support positions…

…Through his “minister or propaganda,” George Creel, Wilson violated more civil liberties than any other president of the twentieth century, with the exception of FDR. Paul Murphy has done an outstanding job detailing all of the violations on the home front in WWI in his readable and disturbing book, World War I and the Origin of Civil Liberties (W.W. Norton, 1979).

Under the executive order (9066) of Franklin Roosevelt, the federal government countenanced and organized the concentration of thousands of loyal Americans of Japanese ancestry (few Japanese has immigrated to the United States after 1905 due to a “gentlemen’s agreement”), so there were relatively very few recent immigrants from Japan).

In a manner comparable to Henry VIII’s confiscation of Church property, Japanese Americans were denied all of their property previously held and earned, as it was sold to the highest non-Japanese bidders. Conditions in the camps–such as in the Idaho desert–could be horrendous as well, as abuses by local whites were often tolerated by larger society.

In 1945, under the Democratic leadership of FDR and Harry S Truman (who, thankfully, reversed many of Wilson’s earlier segregation decrees), the federal government designed, tested, and used (against civilian targets) Atomic weaponry…

…Obama, though, is possibly the worst of all recent presidents. Not only has he continued the immense and unimaginably costly stimuli packages (which only benefit the politically connected rich), but he has also expanded nearly every one of Bush’s war efforts.

Obama is especially bad when it comes to human rights and civil liberty abuses. The clearest example of this has been the passage of the NDAA, which now gives the power–false and contrived as it is from the perspective of natural law and natural rights–to the president to detain any person without trial. The rise of the national security state has grown exponentially under Obama as well.

So, this is our Democratic party. When the followers of Obama act surprised by his pro-war policies, I can only laugh in deep sorrow. What did they expect? What history of the Democratic party have they been reading?..

…In the history of the United States, what single institution has so consistently opposed the common good as well as the dignity of the individual human person while fiercely promoting (at least prior to Truman) racism and (always) war?

Where in any of the above, is it right, moral, ethical, and just for a Roman Catholic to support such a party? The answer should be clear.

As Catholics, we have a duty to vote against the Democratic party and undermine it in every peaceful way possible.

 

[jwinch2]

Respect for Life is about more than unborn life–it also involves respect for those currently born and living in dire poverty, or who have no access to health care in the richest nation on earth, or the death penalty (respect for life means respect for ALL life), or politicians who spout pro life beliefs to get elected but then, once the unborn are BORN, have no desire to help them anymore and are all about cutting benefits, cutting healthcare, cutting access to low cost childcare, slashing social programs that feed the hungry, etc. Those things matter too, and they should also be considered–not ignored or swept aside in favor of just one single issue.

I am assuming since we are talking about this election that you are referring the GOP proposals regarding the budget. The budget proposed by congressman Ryan which Romney has endorsed does not cut funding for any of the programs you mentioned. What it does do, is not raise them to the same level that Obama wishes. Obama then spins this and calls not raising spending to higher levels, a “cut”. Its a lie, and he knows it, and so does anyone else who actually reads the budget. The only cuts being made are off of Obama’s projected spending over the next 10 years, not off of current levels.

As was discussed at length in another thread here on CAF, we are currently spending in America approximately $300,000 per person living below the poverty line. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=685217 How much is enough? Is throwing more money into a massively bloated and inefficient system really going to help anyone? As I pointed out in the thread I just linked, we could cut our spending on welfare down to 1/6 of what it currently is, hand everyone below the poverty line a check for $50,000 and they would probably be far better off than through the programs we have to help them. Even if the entire Ryan budget was enacted upon a Romney victory, which it wouldn’t be because it would need Dem support in congress, we would still be spending MASSIVE amounts of money to help the poor. Ryan’s plan only cuts 5 trillion off of a projected 15 trillion dollar debt. How much is enough? Seriously?

Finally, Catholics of good will can, in good conscience and in full acceptance of Church teaching, disagree on the best method to help the poor. What they cannot do is decide not to help them at all. In addition, we are to embrace all aspects of Catholic social doctrine to include the principle of subsidiarity, which never seems to get mentioned by those who speak about social programs. catholicculture.org/culture/what_you_need_to_know/index.cfm?id=84. We never seem to hear this, but handling everything at the federal level and developing a massive bloated bureaucracy is actually not in line with Catholic social teaching.

What Catholics cannot disagree on in good conscience are areas of intrinsic evil such as abortion or disordered behavior such as homosexual sex or marriage. Those areas are non-negotiable.

Catholic social doctrine for helping the poor is not a suicide pact. We do not have to keep dolling it out again and again until the entire country is ruined. In fact, if that happens, there will be no one to help the poor because none of us will have any money for the government to tax. catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=15109

 

[jwinch2]

You do know that there are more than two options, right?

If you vote for anyone other than Romney, you might as well have voted for Obama. If you choose to do so, you will have contributed to the same phenomenon that occurred with Perot in 1992 and Nader in 2004.

I understand where you are coming from, but it just isn’t practical.

 

[Seeker1961]

If you vote for anyone other than Romney, you might as well have voted for Obama. If you choose to do so, you will have contributed to the same phenomenon that occurred with Perot in 1992 and Nader in 2004.

I understand where you are coming from, but it just isn’t practical.

That is your personal opinion, it is not church teaching. The church has not and will not command us to vote for a particular candidate.

 

[jwinch2]

That is your personal opinion, it is not church teaching. The church has not and will not command us to vote for a particular candidate.

True, it is not Church teaching. However, it is not simply my opinion either. It is based on political analysis conducted based on the number of votes received by third party candidates in years of close elections.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

True, it is not Church teaching. However, it is not simply my opinion either. It is based on political analysis conducted based on the number of votes received by third party candidates in years of close elections.

Doesn’t the Church teach to act on one’s conscience, and that no one should force another against their conscience?

 

[Seeker1961]

True, it is not Church teaching. However, it is not my opinion. It is based on political analysis conducted based on the number of votes received by third party candidates in years of close elections. If you believe this election will be close, which most polls right now indicate, then choosing a Ron Paul for example, might as well have been a vote for Obama.

But the question is: do Catholics have to vote for Rommey?

The answer is NO…Catholics are NOT commanded to vote for Romney.

Anything beyond that is personal opinion.

I’ve watched both Romney and Ryan for a LONG time. I didn’t just discover them this year and I do NOT like what I see in either of them. I will be just as Catholic if I choose to skip the Presidential line and concentrate on the other races and so will anyone else.

 

[jwinch2]

Doesn’t the Church teach to act on one’s conscience, and that no one should force another against their conscience?

Certainly we should not force someone to ask against their conscience, but its not as simple as that. I’ll try to explain.

The first thing to understand is that we can have both: Correct Conscience, which means that your conscience is properly formed within the teachings of the Church; and Incorrect Conscience, which means it is not properly formed.

A Correct Conscience is the voice of God within us and helps us to align our will with God’s will. An Incorrect Conscience is not the voice of God and in fact is the voice of someone else. You can guess who. However, as a general rule of thumb, both a correct and incorrect conscience are to be followed, because in the spur of the moment, one cannot always distinguish between a conscience which is correct or one that is not correct.

However, in the context of an election, when we are dealing with decisions or actions which are not in the spur of the moment, things change dramatically. In addition, this does not in mean that a person with an incorrect conscience is off the hook and can do whatever they want. Far from it.

The question which must be asked is: why is a person’s conscience is not properly formed? To figure this out we have to have an understanding of: Willful Ignorance, meaning that you have intentionally chosen not to seek proper teaching in order to form the conscience vs. Unintentional Ignorance, which means that one is totally unaware that their conscience is not properly formed. The last thing we have to understand is: Rejection, which means that they have been informed of proper teachings, but have chosen not to follow them. This highlights another exception to the general rule above, in that a person who has chosen to reject Church teaching is not supposed to follow their incorrect conscience.

Following a Correct Conscience is a virtuous act. Following an Incorrect Conscience due to Unintentional Ignorance is not virtuous, but neither are we condemned for it. Following an Incorrect Conscience due to Willful Ignorance or committing the act of Rejection is something we are condemned for barring later repentance, confession, and either Perfect Contrition, where we regret our actions out of love for God or Imperfect Contrition, where we regret our actions out of fear of God’s just punishments. Obviously, one is better than the other.

Does that help at all? I hope I didn’t come across as condescending, but I wasn’t too sure what you were getting, at so I might have gone overboard a bit.

Peace,