Is this true? Is voting for a pro-choice candidate a serious sin?

[Daniel_Marsh]

Catholics who knowingly vote for a pro-choice candidate are committing a grave sin.

Is this true? Is voting for a pro-choice candidate a serious sin?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Note new rule due to IRS rules, don’t name any candidate by name.

 

[1ke]

I suggest you get the Voter’s Guide For Serious Catholics by Catholic Answers.

There are non-negotiables, and the right to life is one of them.

Yes, it **CAN **be a sin to purposely choose a candidate who supports abortion-- especially when choosing them for that express reason. It is gravely wrong to support a pro-abortion candidate when there is a candidate available who does not support it.

In the absence of a moral candidate choice, one may choose the lesser of the evils.

A Catholic must properly form their conscience and do their best to promote those who respect and protect life.

 

[Newbie2]

Dittos.

But you’ll get opinons that say that it’s better not to vote at all than to vote the lesser of two evils.

There was a recent thread on this topic.

 

[Sir_Knight]

But you’ll get opinons that say that it’s better not to vote at all than to vote the lesser of two evils.

By not supporting the lesser of two evils, one automaticly lends support to the greater of the two evils.

 

[Newbie2]

By not supporting the lesser of two evils, one automaticly lends support to the greater of the two evils.

Yes, if those are the only two choices, I agree.

Many times that’s what we have a choice to vote for, sadly.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Remember that God does not ask us to be successful, just be faithful.

 

[melensdad]

Remember that God does not ask us to be successful, just be faithful.

Perhaps true, but can we properly and publicly exercise our faith when the greater of two evils is trying to remove faith from every corner of our society? In most cases the candidate who is the ‘greater of two evils’ on the specific issue of abortion is also the candidate who will try to remove Christianity from all public display, force educators to remove the word “GOD” from our classrooms, who push for relativism over true morality, etc.

 

[BobP123]

By not supporting the lesser of two evils, one automaticly lends support to the greater of the two evils.

So if both frontrunners are pro-choice, what’s the tiebreaker?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Perhaps true, but can we properly and publicly exercise our faith when the greater of two evils is trying to remove faith from every corner of our society? In most cases the candidate who is the ‘greater of two evils’ on the specific issue of abortion is also the candidate who will try to remove Christianity from all public display, force educators to remove the word “GOD” from our classrooms, who push for relativism over true morality, etc.

My experience in the Aerospace industry included a couple of periods of cutbacks and layoffs, fortunately I didn’t get laid off. The suspense of waiting to see who was next gave rise to the sign

Better a Horrible Ending, than Unending Horror.

Maybe the same is true for our country. Maybe better a complete moral collapse, than continued moral decline. Like the frog in the heated pot, we become more accustomed to moral degradations each year. Maybe only a shock will turn some back.

 

[melensdad]

Maybe only a shock will turn some back.

No doubt it will turn some back. But no doubt it will also desensitize many to much worse.

BobP123:

So if both frontrunners are pro-choice, what’s the tiebreaker?

First what is to say they are equally pro-choice. Some politicians are actively pro-choice and push liberalization of laws. Some politicians are passively pro-choice, they vote for it but would never introduce or sponsor a bill that support it. Some politicians are passively pro-choice with limits and oppose many types of abortion. Some support some abortion but oppose fetal stem cell research, euthanasia, etc. So there are ‘degrees’ of good and bad. While we may look for 100% pro-choice on all the non-negotiable points, we are probably better off voting for an 80% candidate than not voting at all.

 

[mary_bobo]

So if both frontrunners are pro-choice, what’s the tiebreaker?

How about the party platform? Or the kind of judges they say they will appoint? It seems to me that a candidate can and will say whatever he thinks the people want to hear.

 

[BobP123]

How about the party platform? Or the kind of judges they say they will appoint? It seems to me that a candidate can and will say whatever he thinks the people want to hear.

I don’t vote for party platforms. Remember the Contract with America? Was that a joke or what. As to judges, who knows how they will turn out. And there’s a lot of compromise there too, depending on how holds the powers in Congress. Remember Bork and Thomas? Although Thomas got in, he lost a some pro-life seats that late turned out to be disasters on the partial abortion bill, especially in Illinois. Sometimes these apparent “victories” can lead to major unintended consequences.

I still think that good congressman in Texas says it best. Live by the constitution. Give those powers back to the states where it really belongs. This whole abortion business would then be a non-issue and we might produce more honest politicians not say whatever the people want to hear. He’ll probably not win but at least he may have some influence over the others.

And don’t forget the primaries. You shouldn’t vote for pro-choice candidates simply because they’d have a better chance later in the general election.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Catholics who knowingly vote for a pro-choice candidate are committing a grave sin.

Is this true? Is voting for a pro-choice candidate a serious sin?

You must use your vote in the interests of the country as a whole. That means not having abortion as a widely-accepted social practise.

So it is a sin to use your vote in such a way as to make it more likely that abortion will continue. However there is some room for latitude on how you achieve that - for instance if there is one radical pro-abortionist, one moderate pro-abortionist, and one anti-abortionist who has no realistic hope of being elected, it would be legitimate to vote for the moderate pro-abortionist if you think that is the wisest use of your vote.

Though you can also vote for a pro-abortionist on the grounds that other issues outweigh this, it really is a slippery slope. What, realistically, can outweigh something so clearly against any moral norms as the destruction of one third of all babies in the womb?

 

[Delphinus85]

Catholics who knowingly vote for a pro-choice candidate are committing a grave sin.

Is this true? Is voting for a pro-choice candidate a serious sin?

Well, put it this way, do you think it would have been moral to vote for Hitler because he had a great ecomonic policy?

 

[BobP123]

Well, put it this way, do you think it would have been moral to vote for Hitler because he had a great ecomonic policy?

Or any Muslim, for that matter. As long as they’re looking at party/group platforms, might as well go for a high-percentage pro-life one.

 

[Listener]

I would have to vote no. I just got done filling out my absentee ballot for miscellaneous positions like city council members and school board members.

I looked up all of their web sites, and 9 out of 10 candidates didn’t have a thing in their web sites one way or the other.

When looking in the official voter’s guide, I did find one candidate who was 100% pro-choice.

I would guess that the majority of these candidates are probably pro-choice, but I don’t really know.

I used past experience and their opinions on other issues to make my decision.

 

[mary_bobo]

I don’t vote for party platforms. Remember the Contract with America? Was that a joke or what.

I find nothing funny about the points of the Contract with America. Thus: 1. All laws that apply to the people of the US shall apply equally to the Congress; 2. A major independent auditing firm to be chosen to audit for waste, fraud and abuse in the Congress; 3. cut the number of house committee and cut the committee staff by 1/3; 4. limit the terms of all committee chairs; 5. ban the casting of proxy votes in committee; 6. require committee meetings to be open to the public; 7. require a 3/5 majority to pass a tax increase; 8. implementation of a zero base-line budget. I see nothing in this that could be considered a JOKE.

As to judges, who knows how they will turn out. And there’s a lot of compromise there too, depending on how holds the powers in Congress. Remember Bork and Thomas? Although Thomas got in, he lost a some pro-life seats and this happened how?that late turned out to be disasters on the partial abortion bill, especially in Illinois. Sometimes these apparent “victories” can lead to major unintended consequences.

I still think that good congressman in Texas says it best. Live by the constitution. Give those powers back to the states where it really belongs. This whole abortion business would then be a non-issue and we might produce more honest politicians not say whatever the people want to hear. He’ll probably not win but at least he may have some influence over the others. I strongly believe in the Constitution and we would all be better off if we conducted our government in accordance with it. That certainly is not happening now on either side of the aisle.

And don’t forget the primaries. You shouldn’t vote for pro-choice candidates simply because they’d have a better chance later in the general election.

I don’t intend to vote for a pro-choice candidate at any time, primary or after.

 

[Delphinus85]

Or any Muslim, for that matter. As long as they’re looking at party/group platforms, might as well go for a high-percentage pro-life one.

No. Being muslim doesn’t many a person “evil” any more than being catholic makes a person perfect. I would vote for a muslim if he had the same goals politically that I do. If he insisted than everyone should be muslim I’d think otherwise.

 

[pa226p]

It is absolutely true! Voting for any candidate having knowledge of their stance on abortion is a grave sin. Women who are selfish as the ones who believe their right to choose is more important then the right of the unborn baby are a spawn of satin. Look at it this way, if you had knowledge that I had the power to stop a rape and murder of a person, but you knew I did not care to stop the rape and murder and would only look the other way, would you want me as your chief of police……

I have a real problem with a lot of liberal minded women who only care about themselves. Did you know the womb of a mother is the most dangerous place on earth…! These so-called anti war politicians who preach bring the troops home do not care about saving lives; if they did they would stop the madness of abortion.

Remember the strong warning from the Lord Jesus Christ himself regarding the little children… Too say you are only voting for the lesser of the two evils is a lazy cop-out and ridicules. The good Lord is going to pay us back sooner or later for our evil ways. What we should demand and act upon is a cleaning up of Washington.

I get sick and tired of the so-called good Catholics / Christians writing on these blogs pretending to be so-holy, but never once write a letter to their representative, or a letter to the editor about moral wrongs which are happening every day in this country. Somehow the blogger feel good about them-selves, portraying themselves as so-holy on the internet and then wonder if it is ok to support satins represenitives in Washington……

Forty million plus babies have been slaughtered in the United States alone! Before I was married I was dating a beautiful woman. When I found out she was pro-choice, she some how turned ugly…. A new born baby is a gift from God and only Satin would want to destroy a baby. So for who ever is reading this blog and somehow believes abortion or the support of a politician who advocates abortion is somehow acceptable, you have full knowledge of the murder “you” support.

One last thing, why would you have to ask the question in the first place?