How can you be Democratic and also be Catholic?

[phil3]

If the authority made that decision against the will of all the people they are supposed to represent, they would not be a legitimate authority. But if a legitimate authority decides something that is not directly in conflict with Church teaching, that decision is to be obeyed.

So if 50% +1 agree with it, it is ok?

 

[phil3]

You understand it according to your life lessons. The CCC is full of verbal qualifiers. What is legitimate to some many not be legitimate to others.

 

[phil3]

It happens all the time. If I am poor and don’t work, I receive unemployment benefits with no regard for the tax I’ve paid in the past

Do you know how unemployment works? The business that hired you pays the tax. It is not free, a business has to look at the cost to hire you. The unemployment tax is a part of that cost

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

If the authority made that decision against the will of all the people they are supposed to represent, they would not be a legitimate authority. But if a legitimate authority decides something that is not directly in conflict with Church teaching, that decision is to be obeyed.

So if 50% +1 agree with it, it is ok?

Only if the government is a democracy. Democracy is not the only form of legitimate authority. The Catechism makes no such claim. Even a benign monarchy could be a legitimate authority in the eyes of the Church. The exact form of the government is not the deciding factor. According to the Catechism it is the extent to which that government serves the common good. If you want the Catholic definition of common good, again I suggest the Catechism.

 

[Rau]

There are some (very few) issues involving grave, intrinsic evils which the church has utterly condemned, and condemned not only the acts but also providing political support which legalizes the acts.

The church’s condemnation of governments for “failing to declare abortion illegal“ is a prudential judgement about the better policy choice. A journey needs to start from the present location, and more than a wave of the arm is required to arrive at the destination.

There is no doubt that the law ought move in a direction more compatible with the respect owed to human life. How to bring that about is a very challenging question. There is no question that Democrat convictions around abortion should be unacceptable to Catholics. This does not itself demand a vote a vote for Republicans as some believe.

Those explicit prohibitions I listed above with regard to abortion are completely absent in church teaching on the vast majority of other political issues. And yes, decisions on those issues are prudential judgments.

It would not be surprising that the church is more vocal on a policy that encourages killings than policies which, say, require harsh treatment of someone. And you are quite right to point out that the presence of black and white intrinsic evils makes it easier to reject a policy prescription.

 

[upant]

There is no question that Democrat convictions around abortion should be unacceptable to Catholics. This does not itself demand a vote a vote for Republicans as some believe.

a vote for a democrat supports more than just abortion, don’t limit it.

by voting for a Democrat, you enable the entire LGBT agenda, euthanasia, embryonic
stem cell research, transgenderism, identity politics, the destruction of the family, contraception, socialism, breaking the seal of the confession, federal funds to pay for abortions, forced abortions in Catholic hospitals, the selection of liberal judges who will uphold these policies, repealing the Mexico City Policy, etc

which of these policies are church-supported?

 

[Rau]

Umm…I was addressing abortion, not advocating a voting option or giving support to any parties policies.

 

[upant]

Umm…I was addressing abortion, not advocating a voting option.

sure you did

This does not itself demand a vote a vote for Republicans as some believe.

 

[Rau]

That’s a true statement. You are not required to vote Republican. Check the USCCB website.

 

[upant]

That’s a true statement. You are not required to vote Republican. Check the USCCB website.

I agree, but you can not vote for a democrat without proportionate reasoning and there is no proportionate reasoning when one or more candidates don’t support the expansion of abortion.

you can vote 3rd party or write-in if you don’t want to vote GOP, but you can not vote for a democrat.

 

[pnewton]

you can vote 3rd party or write-in if you don’t want to vote GOP, but you can not vote for a democrat.

Things the Church has never said.

 

[upant]

Things the Church has never said.

things the policies that are against the church dictate.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I agree, but you can not vote for a democrat without proportionate reasoning and there is no proportionate reasoning when one or more candidates don’t support the expansion of abortion.

The judgement that there is no proportionate reason is a prudential judgement that you and I may judge differently and still remain faithful Catholics.

If there was an absolute impossibility of there being a proportionate reason, Cardinal Ratzinger would not have left in that qualifier in that famous statement you allude to.

 

[christofirst]

It seems to me that if I were a Republican, which I’m not, and I wanted to persuade others to vote Republican, which I don’t, I would extol the virtues of my own party and my own candidate, rather than offering misleading interpretations of Church teaching to make it seem as though a vote for the Democratic candidate was somehow forbidden by the Church. It is not forbidden by the Church, and especially now it might actually be the better option.

On the other hand, if I knew my candidate was possibly not likely to win, based in large part on a very poor performance in his first term, the temptation to twist Church teaching to my advantage would be great. I still wouldn’t mislead others though.

 

[christofirst]

You’re right. For a Catholic, voting third party is certainly a legitimate option, as is voting Republican. But voting for the Democratic candidate can also be a legitimate option. This is the true teaching of the Church. You have to make that determination for yourself, as do I. The USCCB even says that abstaining from voting is an option, though this would be unusual. The point is, those who are trying to just remove the option of voting Democratic as though this was the teaching of the Church in its entirety are wrong. I think they know this. It’s certainly been pointed out here countless times. And yet they continue with this strategy, this seemingly desperate attempt at persuasion.

 

[christofirst]

While waiting for the answer, I’ll ask this question. What do the words “equally sacred” mean?

 

[christofirst]

And another question came to me. Do the words “preeminent issue” tell us specifically just how we are to achieve the desired goal, or is that left for us to best determine? So many questions.

 

[christofirst]

Now for some reason the words “remote cooperation” are coming to me. Not sure why.

Perhaps another way to achieve the desired goal is to focus on alleviating some of the reasons that lead to the actual problem in the first place. But simply outlawing the the problem and cutting funding is certainly another option.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Out of curiosity, you seem pretty intelligent you might be able to answer this question so I will be able to understand
What does the word “preeminent” mean?
[/quote]

Well, I’m no expert, but the dictionary says “surpassing all others, very distinguished in some way”. And to save you time I will address your next question, which would probably be "How should we interpret the sentence “The threat of abortion remains our preeminent priority…” . And I will add, "in keeping with the sentence that follows it, which is: “At the same time, we cannot dismiss or ignore other serious threats to human life and dignity such as racism, the environmental crisis, poverty and the death penalty.” At first blush these two sentences may seem contradictory. How can an issue be preeminent if other issues cannot be ignored? The fact is that in voting we cannot vote for every issue we agree with and against every issue we disagree with. We don’t get to vote for issues (usually). We get to vote for people. And each person that we could vote for represents numerous issues, some of which we might agree with and some of which we might not. If the “preeminent” nature of abortion were to be interpreted simplistically, that would necessarily mean that whenever a voting decision includes the abortion issue (and apparently all national offices do) we must ignore all other issues in choosing a candidate. However I don’t think the bishops intended a contradiction here. I think these two sentences can be interpreted in such a way that respects both of them. That is, in the process of deciding who to vote for, we consider many factors. A major factor (but not the only factor) is the candidate’s stand on issues. The “preeminent” sentence would then mean that when weighing the issues, we must consider the policy issue of abortion to be more serious than the other policy issues that we also need to consider. But we weigh more than policy issues. We also weigh the probability of this candidate having an effect on various issues. So for example, if a candidate is against abortion, but would likely never be put in a position where his view would change abortion policy, that fact could be used to downgrade the relative importance of that candidate’s view as compared to the candidate’s view on some issue where he would more likely make a difference. If that is too abstract, I can give some hypothetical examples, but I would rather just stop right here and see if this is clear.

 

[upant]

rather than offering misleading interpretations of Church teaching

what is misleading about the democrat support for the LGBT agenda, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, transgenderism, identity politics, the destruction of the family, contraception, socialism, breaking the seal of the confession, forced abortions in catholic hospitals, liberal judges who will uphold these policies, repealing the Mexico City Policy, etc

what is misleading is those who claim proportionate reasoning allows one to vote for these policies.

But voting for the Democratic candidate can also be a legitimate option.

not while they support the policies they do. there is no proportionate reasoning which is what is needed to allow one to vote for the democrats who support abortion, SSM, etc. which is most of them.

if you think there is proportionate reasoning, please explain what is worse than the list I have above?