How can you be Democratic and also be Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter itstymyguy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

itstymyguy

Guest
It seems like there would be Democratic Catholics out there. But these Democratic Catholics would be promoting ProChoice, whether they know it or not. It’s a huge Democratic policy right now. And ProChoice is the opposite of what Catholic doctrine teaches, which is ProLife. So how could any person claim they are Catholic Democrat and not be lying to themselves, because any person who supports ProChoice really isn’t Catholic because they don’t believe in what Catholicism teaches?
 
There’s a document somewhere stating that in an election, given proportionate reasons, a Catholic can vote for someone whose platform includes something that goes against Catholic teaching.

As for the inherent platform of the Democratic party I don’t think there’s anything in there that inherently says abortion must be part of it. I think if, let’s say, tomorrow every Democrat woke up and became pro-life, they could keep their platform essentially the same while just removing the abortion parts.

I myself would consider voting Democrat if they weren’t so pro-abortion, as well as other issues I have with them. They did kind of change though, it seems. Back in the 70s and 80s they seemed to be, I don’t know, more local-oriented. Nowadays it’s all centralization.

I have voted for pro-abortion parties in the past, myself, because I thought the good parts of their stance were proportionately better than the other choices. Not because they were pro-abortion, mind you, just because I thought they were a better pick overall. Though truth be told if they ever came close to actually winning, I’d start to question voting for them. In the past it was a protest vote as much as anything.
 
Last edited:
Democrat Platform 2020 includes:
Securing Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice
Click to expand...
Democrats are committed to protecting and advancing reproductive health, rights, and justice. We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion—regardless of where she lives, how much money she makes, or how she is insured. We believe that reproductive health is core to women’s, men’s, and young people’s health and wellbeing. We will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers, which provide critical health services to millions of people. We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment. We condemn and will combat any acts of violence, harassment, and intimidation of reproductive health providers, patients, and staff. We will defend the ACA, which extends affordable preventive health care to women, including no-cost contraception, and prohibits discrimination in health care based on gender.
…
Click to expand...
The “Party of Choice” means, for a Catholic, choose to be Catholic OR choose to be Democrat. Or, choose to be of two contradictory minds at the same time.
 
Last edited:
There are tons of threads on this topic with literally hundreds of answers.
Use the search tool to see them.
 
Quite easily. As aroosi said, we have had dozens of threads on this already, so I see no need to discuss further here.
Speaking as a Catholic Dem, t’s getting a bit wearing to be constantly asked the question on here.
 
Last edited:
you can’t. Not in good conscience. (this comment will probably get a lot of flak lol)
 
I don’t get the obsession with having to “be” affiliated with any party. They all promote some good things, and they are all also flawed.
 
Maybe this article from 2016 by Claretian Father Paul Keller will help you understand the issue better. You may not agree, but there are Catholics, myself included, who have thought long and hard over the ethical legitimacy of voting for the Democratic party, and decided it is possible, if done for the right reasons.

 
You have to read the Pope’s own words in his encyclical “Gaudete et Exsultate.”

And scroll down to item 101
  1. The other harmful ideological error is found in those who find suspect the social engagement of others, seeing it as superficial, worldly, secular, materialist, communist or populist. Or they relativize it, as if there are other more important matters, or the only thing that counts is one particular ethical issue or cause that they themselves defend. Our defence of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection.[84] We cannot uphold an ideal of holiness that would ignore injustice in a world where some revel, spend with abandon and live only for the latest consumer goods, even as others look on from afar, living their entire lives in abject poverty.
Now Lets Bullet point these other Equally Sacred Items

Equally sacred, however, are
  • the lives of the poor,
  • those already born,
  • the destitute,
  • the abandoned
  • the underprivileged,
  • the vulnerable infirm
  • elderly exposed to covert euthanasia,
  • the victims of human trafficking,
  • new forms of slavery,
  • every form of rejection.
Discovered this thru this article which requires a serious reading in detail which details the exclusion of this paragraph from the Bishop’s report. Then draw your own conclusion.

 
Last edited:
And the Pope agreed with the bishops. They have jurisdiction and understand the culture and situation as it exists.
 
Yes, and guess what - - Republicans also:
  • Help the poor
    *Are BIGLY against euthanasia (as opposed to the Dems!)
    *Help the destitute
    *Support social programs
The Dems rely on pretending that they are the only ones who help the poor etc.
Not true!
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
As aroosi said, we have had dozens of threads on this already, so I see no need to discuss further here.
Speaking as a Catholic Dem, t’s getting a bit wearing to be constantly asked the question on here.
Click to expand...
Fortunately we have freedom of speech and even though there are multiple threads on a topic, one can ask the same question again.It is up to CAF to either close a thread or combine threads. Also, fortunately there is a mute button for those who weary of the same conversation.
RidgeSprinter said:
Equally sacred, however, are
  • the lives of the poor,
  • those already born,
  • the destitute,
  • the abandoned
  • the underprivileged,
  • the vulnerable infirm
  • elderly exposed to covert euthanasia,
  • the victims of human trafficking,
  • new forms of slavery,
  • every form of rejection.
Click to expand...
Agreed, there isn’t any reason why we can’t fight for these people while also fighting for the unborn, though unfortunately one party likes to totally exclude the unborn and exclude many of those listed in this group.
 
I’ll see your quote from Pope Francis and raise you a quote from a Saint.
In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.100
By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.
Click to expand...
http://www.vatican.va/content/john-...s/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus.html
 
christofirst said:
Maybe this article from 2016 by Claretian Father Paul Keller will help you understand the issue better. You may not agree, but there are Catholics, myself included, who have thought long and hard over the ethical legitimacy of voting for the Democratic party, and decided it is possible, if done for the right reasons.
Click to expand...
Maybe if one day the Republicans decide to allow murder for any cause or for no cause, some group of human persons “unworthy of life”, then it would be possible to vote for the lesser horrific and insane party. Maybe the Nazis would qualify for an equally horrific party.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
Quite easily. As aroosi said, we have had dozens of threads on this already, so I see no need to discuss further here.
Speaking as a Catholic Dem, t’s getting a bit wearing to be constantly asked the question on here.
Click to expand...
All I can do is shake my head and moan. And pray. God help us all.
 
itstymyguy said:
ProChoice is the opposite of what Catholic doctrine teaches, which is ProLife.
Click to expand...
The ProLife position includes a number of principles beyond opposition to abortion:
  1. a government may dictate what choices may be made by a pregnant woman.
  2. a government can make medical decisions, paving the way for universal health care.
  3. Irresponsibility, where the State can demand action without responsibility for the consequences.
Opposition to the first principle here is called ProChoice. It has little to do with the anti-abortion principle of ProLife, though it has everything to do with the practice of abortion. An anti-abortion position that acknowledges the right of the mother to choose would be ideal, but that looks impossible.

The other issues come up for discussions sometimes. Any one of them might motivate someone to vote against a ProLife platform. It is not a simple abortion/life choice.
 
Dovekin said:
It is not a simple abortion/life choice.
Click to expand...
Um, yeah it is. Again you’ve drawn somewhat anarchistic conclusions and are trying to reconcile them with Catholic teaching. It’s impossible, my friend.
 
I’m not asking you to not vote for the Republican party, or whichever party or candidate you choose. All I’m asking is that you respect my telling you (and others here on CAF) that like you, I want to see less abortions. I happen to believe that Democratic economic policies address the reasons for why a woman chooses an abortion better than Republican policies. We can legitimately disagree on that last sentence, and I respect that. Having said that, I also agree with Democratic party policies on the other important (equally sacred, as Pope Francis put it) issues as well. See the other part of the article I linked above:


What I won’t stand for is anyone trying to use the Church as a cudgel to attempt to force anyone to vote against their well-formed conscience, because that is simply not in accord with Church teaching.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top