How can you be Democratic and also be Catholic?

[christofirst]

That’s the thing. The reasons that I find to be proportionate do not have to convince you. Vote for whomever you want, as will I. In accord with our well-informed consciences, and God-given intelligence of course.

 

[christofirst]

What if I’m convinced that the social programs will help to prevent the murders, better than will a prohibitive law? And what if I’m convinced that those social programs will also do more to help better our society, to promote the common good? You, I suspect, would perhaps not be convinced, but I am.

 

[upant]

The reasons that I find to be proportionate do not have to convince you.

that is the problem, they should be the same for every Christian,

if there is a proportionate reason to vote for a supporter of abortion, SSM, etc. it applies to all, not just one person.

 

[upant]

What if I’m convinced that the social programs will help to prevent the murders, better than will a prohibitive law?

there is more than one way to fix the social issues

what about the issues that are directly in conflict with church teaching? the policies pushed by the Democrats may endanger souls for eternity. 1 Cor 6:9-10

 

[JSRG]

As far as I am aware, the American Solidarity Party is not in favor of open borders. One can see the immigration part of their platform here. While they favor less restrictive immigration policies than, say, the Republican Party, I see absolutely nothing to indicate desire for open borders and completely unregulated immigration. The statement of "The federal government has the responsibility to implement safe, secure, and orderly borders. " would seem to completely contradict that.

 

[christofirst]

But the fact remains that others of us may in good conscience vote for the Democratic candidate. That souls will assuredly be saved or lost because of our decision, on that we may only speculate. My intention is to save as many souls as possible, and to also help improve the lives of as many of the living as possible, as well as caring for our common home, God’s good creation.

 

[phil3]

Does the Church teach that it is wrong for companies to provide retirement plans to employees?

I don’t know what the church teaches, but I had one catholic poster tell me that I was in love with mamon for having been very successful in saving for retirement.

 

[Rau]

If a candidate is pro or anti something serious (pre-eminent even) but can’t move the needle on that issue much (or a voter believes that), it’s not surprising that their stand on that point comes to be given less weight in the voter’s mind.

 

[Rau]

if there is a proportionate reason to vote for a supporter of abortion, SSM, etc. it applies to all, not just one person.

However the nature of the judgements to be made lie in a balance of consequences - not balance of policies - evaluation. Different good people will come to different conclusions.

 

[c4csp]

I believe “Catholics” that are trying to justify their vote for Democrats(who undeniably are in support of abortion) are being insidious and circumventing God’s will. They are attempting to use their intellectual faculties of reason and logic, all gifts from God, to muddy the waters, as if to downplay their accountability for such a vote. The only problem is that the waters are not muddy, yet the exact opposite, the waters are crystal clear.

 

[Rau]

I guess that is speculative, and somewhat judgmental.

 

[phil3]

And bring in a regular supply of customers for restaurants and other businesses in the area, and jobs for the people who build the stadium, and jobs for the people who sell concessions at the stadium, and a regular supply of customers for satellite parking facilities, and so on. Not everything is so simplistic as some would have us believe.

Look up the economic effects that building Nationals Park in DC had on a rather poor and depressed area of the city, totally aside from the actual ballpark itself.

I dont know about you, but most people have x amount of dollars to spend on entertainment. If I go to a AAA baseball game and spend $100 on tickets and food. That is 100 dollars I wont spend on the movies, or a restaurant near me. So no, building a ball park for a rich sports team owner, just shuffles the deck.

 

[upant]

If a candidate is pro or anti something serious (pre-eminent even) but can’t move the needle on that issue much (or a voter believes that), it’s not surprising that their stand on that point comes to be given less weight in the voter’s mind.

we do not face this scenario

Biden acknowledges he will expand abortion by codifying it into law so no state can restrict it. He will have the federal government pay for it so everyone that wants an abortion will get one. he will repeal the Mexico City policy which will provide money for abortion providers worldwide thus expanding it where our money now limits it.

50 million abortions a year worldwide and Biden wants to expand this

yes, this election and your vote is about the expansion of abortion. It will increase under Biden.

However the nature of the judgements to be made lie in a balance of consequences - not balance of policies - evaluation. Different good people will come to different conclusions.

in the national presidential election we all face the same issues and their consequences, the church has one stance on the pre-eminent issue and other intrinsic evils, we should not come to different conclusions if we follow church teaching.

these issues are not prudential judgment issues, they are exactly opposite church teaching. there is no acceptable alternative. the consequences may be eternal.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But how can something be proportionate to murder, especially when preeminent?
[/quote]
It is not the issue that needs to be proportionate. It is the reason. The correct phrase is “proportionate reasons”.

 

[Canvas]

The catechism needs to be shorter. You could take 100 “experts” on the catechism and no two of them would be able to understand it from front to back.

It is worst than the US tax code.

But I go right back to things you have said and quoted.

What you really mean is that the Catholic Church should conform it’s teachings to so as not to conflict with the views of the American right.

Republican Rite Catholicism.

 

[christofirst]

Agreed. This is why I try to avoid telling anyone for whom they should or shouldn’t vote. If a candidate is truly that unworthy of consideration, I am certain that in our day of interconnectedness, no one will need to hear about it from me.

I only object when someone tries to wrongly use Church authority in an attempt to prohibit our legitimate choices in voting, because that is potentially deceitful and could be used to give a candidate an unjust advantage. Level the political playing field, stick to the Church’s actual rules and recommendations, and then may the best candidate win.

 

[Annie]

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.

I look at my voting for president like this: do we have USSC justices who might be replaced in the next 4 to 8 years? If so, I need to consider which kind of judge the candidate is likely to choose: constructionist or activist. I do believe constructivists are more likely to vote according to the Constitution and the intentions of the FF when they wrote it than are activists.

Since this is the “preeminent” issue for me when I vote for President, I do not vote D (since I love in a swing state where every vote counts).

Similarly, I vote for those senatorial candidates most likely to approve a constructivist judge.

I understand that overturning Roe v Wade will not immediately eliminate abortion but it will remove a blockade of abortion-reducing laws.

What I saw in the 1960s and 70s was that increases in government aid to pregnant women and mothers accompanied an increase in abortion, not a decrease.

What seems to have caused a reduction in abortion is the advent of long-lasting forms of ABC such as Depo-Provera, not simply access to the (daily) Pill or more education on abc (both of which occurred during the 1960s and 70s along with that increase I mentioned).

In more recent years, it seems that some young people are putting off or reducing sexual activity as well.

So I don’t really see the common “alternate solutions” to helping reduce abortion as actually doing so.

 

[c4csp]

Let us remember that Catholics do have a duty to vote. There are 5 nonnegotiables: abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, human cloning, and homosexual marriage. As Catholics, do not vote for a candidate that will advance or leave the door open for these issues. It is pretty clear.

 

[pnewton]

That is a good proportional reason to vote for the lesser candidate, in this presidential election. The problem with the black and white arguments against Democrats will often eliminate the Republican candidate as well, if there is a better third party. That is why the Catholic Church does not use a non-negotiable list, but rather relies on moral teaching, formation of conscience, and prudence.

Nothing can be more important than abortion. However, there are mitigating factors. For instance, one can consider if a candidate is electable. The perfect candidate can be passed over if he is going to garner less than on percent of the vote. He can be, he doesn’t have to be, as one can also consider the impact on successive elections, which might need to build on each other.

Another factor might be the actual ability to affect any change in abortion law, or whether there might be more, or less effect on the number of actual abortions. One could, for example, consider the saving of lives by reducing abortions to be of more importance than a law that has little impact except symbolism on reducing actual abortions.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I look at my voting for president like this:…

What you have given is a very excellent description of and prudential argument for your reasons for not voting for a Democrat in this election. However my discussion with @(name removed by moderator) was a different sort. It was not a debate on the level of prudential judgments. At least in my mind it wasn’t. Maybe (name removed by moderator) saw it as a debate over prudential judgments. I thought I was address the question of whether it was even possible for a Catholic to vote for a Democrat without objectively violating Church teaching, which is the question raised by the title of this thread. My position is that it is possible.

But I can also address a few of your practical points, although not all, because many of them I agree with. One that I do not agree with is the implication that helping women with childbirth expenses increases the abortion rate. It does not. The correlation you refer to is a coincidence, not a causation.

There are 5 nonnegotiables: abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, human cloning, and homosexual marriage.

This list was put together by an organization that is not an official office of the Church or operating under its authority, so it is not valid to treat this list the same as binding doctrine.