Is Voting for a Pro-Choicer a Mortal Sin?

[RNRobert]

Show your disgust with the choices presented to you by casting a write-in vote for Donald Duck or Micky Mouse. Seriously. If you can’t bring yourself to vote for the “lesser of two evils”, and the independent and/or 3rd party candidates are no better, write in a nonsense vote as a form of protest vote.

Years ago I saw the Richard Pryor movie *Brewster’s Millions. *In it, Richard Pryor’s character gets into the NYC mayoral race. But he tells the voters not to vote for him, but for none of the above (the other two candidates who were equally corrupt). At the end of the movie, None of the Above gets the majority of votes, and as a result the two candidates give up in disgust, necessitating the need for another election.

Too bad real life can’t work that way.

Personally, I don’t see Roe v Wade being overturned short of a civil war. As JoeyWarren pointed out, there are 5 Catholics on the bench, enough to overturn it, but they haven’t lifted a finger. Heck, for the past 6 years we had a supposedly pro-life President and a Republican majority in both Houses of Congress, and with the exception of a partial birth abortion ban (which was shot down by the courts) and some laws on stem cell research, nothing’s changed.
I think that candidates give lip service to the pro-life issue simply to garner the conservative vote. It may not be true, but I recall reading somewhere that the first George Bush was pro-life, then changed his tune when he was nominated for VP with pro-life Ronald Reagan.

 

[Ham1]

PS: Also, we would do well to keep in mind that our task is not to vote for the winning candidate; rather, **we are mandated by God to vote for the pro-life candidate, regardless of whether we think he will win. **

It’s not about winning the election; it’s about supporting the pro-life cause.

The bolded part is troublesome. The pro-life cause is about saving babies period. A candidate who doesn’t win can’t save any babies. In the example, I gave on my last post such a statement would fail.

We need to exercise prudence. *If a week *before an election a candidate is at 10% in polls, that candidate is not going to win. If there is a lesser pro-life candidate with a chance of beating a profoundly pro-abortion candidate, voting for him is certainly morally acceptable if not even obligatory if one truly wants to save babies.

It does the pro-life movement NO good if a very pro-life candidate merely siphons off 5 or 6 % of the vote from a “mostly” pro-life candidate which causes him to lose to a completely pro-death candidate. Only winners get to pass the laws and appoint the judges that can save the babies.

 

[Ham1]

I think that candidates give lip service to the pro-life issue simply to garner the conservative vote.

Roberts and Alito are not lip service. Their addition to the court puts us very close indeed. It is commonly held that Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas would all love to reverse Roe V. Wade. That leaves us one vote short. Justice Stevens is 87 years old and Justice Ginsburg is 74 and is said to be in poor health. If one of those seats comes open and if we have a pro-life (mostly) president, Roe V Wade will fall. There is a decent chance the vacancy could occur before Bush leaves office.

 

[mary_bobo]

Roberts and Alito are not lip service. Their addition to the court puts us very close indeed. It is commonly held that Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas would all love to reverse Roe V. Wade. That leaves us one vote short. Justice Stevens is 87 years old and Justice Ginsburg is 74 and is said to be in poor health. If one of those seats comes open and if we have a pro-life (mostly) president, Roe V Wade will fall. There is a decent chance the vacancy could occur before Bush leaves office.

Sorry to rain on the parade, but there is no way that a pro-life judge is going to get out of the Judiciary Committee, not with that famous Catholic, Patrick Leahy as chair.

 

[aspawloski4th]

a now retired bishop, archbishop adam exner stated it is a mortal sin to vote proabortion when one has the choice of a anti abortion candidate.

 

[Corki]

If all the choices were “pro-choice” and you vote on the next most serious issue then IMHO it is not a sin. I also believe it is our Catholic Christian duty to work to get someone with our moral beliefs on the ballot. But, then that is another thread.

If there is someone on the ballot that is “pro-life” and you still vote “pro-choice” then it is condoning and enabling sin which is a sin.

Our Catholic duty then would be to vote for the person who would do the least harm to life. You are right that abortion shouldn’t be the only issue. If there were two equally pro-abortion candidates then we vote on the next dangerous **life **issue. (I am beginning to actually see embryonic stem cell research as even more horrific than abortion from a sheer numbers stand point.)

The Church has said over and over that without the right to life, all of the other “issues” are meaningless.

You are going to have to go way down the list before you exhaust the life issues. To conclude that the abortion issue is a “tie” and jump from abortion to a non-life issues such as welfare reform or health care (or even the war) would be a sinful choice.

 

[rr1213]

Sorry to rain on the parade, but there is no way that a pro-life judge is going to get out of the Judiciary Committee, not with that famous Catholic, Patrick Leahy as chair.

Even when Republicans controlled the Senate before the last election an openly pro-life nominee would not have passed. The ability to fillibuster adds heightened power to the minority in the Senate. At this point, the best that we could hope for is an openly moderate conservative nominee whose stance on abortion has not been defined, yet whom it is believed would be pro-life. (Which is basically what we got in Roberts and Alito).

 

[Ham1]

Sorry to rain on the parade, but there is no way that a pro-life judge is going to get out of the Judiciary Committee, not with that famous Catholic, Patrick Leahy as chair.

Enter the power of Joe Lieberman…who loves the power. The democrats cannot be too forceful in denying candidates from Bush or he will caucus with the republicans which would give the majority to the republicans. I would bet that with that threat and a candidate like John Roberts, Bush would get his nominee through committee and through the senate.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Why are Jews pro-choice?

 

[leonie]

I don’t think we can know if it is a sin because we don’t know the voter’s rationale. I once heard a Democrat say that he voted Democrat because he thought the social policies that the party advocated did more to reduce abortion than implementing laws against it.

In this case, the voter was pro-life. He just had poor logic.

 

[mary_bobo]

Enter the power of Joe Lieberman…who loves the power. The democrats cannot be too forceful in denying candidates from Bush or he will caucus with the republicans which would give the majority to the republicans. I would bet that with that threat and a candidate like John Roberts, Bush would get his nominee through committee and through the senate.

Is Lieberman pro-life? I just know how the Dems on the Judiciary Committee feel and no known pro-life candidate will get by them. I think now that even a suspected pro-life candidate would get by. I may be wrong and I hope I am.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Voting is a formal act. Formal participation in abortion – even to the extent of facilitating it – clearly is a sin.

You are not prohibited from voting for a pro-choice candidate **if **the other choices are as bad. But there is no political issue more important than the murder of innocent children on an assembly line basis.

And don’t be fooled – pro-life candidates can make a difference in office.

 

[Ham1]

Is Lieberman pro-life? I just know how the Dems on the Judiciary Committee feel and no known pro-life candidate will get by them. I think now that even a suspected pro-life candidate would get by. I may be wrong and I hope I am.

He’s not pro-life, but he is publically unhappy with the Democrats right now. He’s always been fairly independant and now he literally is. The committee would be much tougher, but it’s hard to oppose a candidate like Roberts who has no public record on abortion and won’t comment on it at all because it may come before the court.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Our Catholic duty then would be to vote for the person who would do the least harm to life. You are right that abortion shouldn’t be the only issue. If there were two equally pro-abortion candidates then we vote on the next dangerous **life **issue. (I am beginning to actually see embryonic stem cell research as even more horrific than abortion from a sheer numbers stand point.)

The Church has said over and over that without the right to life, all of the other “issues” are meaningless.

You are going to have to go way down the list before you exhaust the life issues. To conclude that the abortion issue is a “tie” and jump from abortion to a non-life issues such as welfare reform or health care (or even the war) would be a sinful choice.

I believe you misread my post. I never said non-life or “fluff” issues. The next one down would be euthanasia etc.

 

[mary_bobo]

He’s not pro-life, but he is publically unhappy with the Democrats right now. He’s always been fairly independant and now he literally is. The committee would be much tougher, but it’s hard to oppose a candidate like Roberts who has no public record on abortion and won’t comment on it at all because it may come before the court.

True about Roberts. And with his brilliance, he ran circles around the senators who tried to trip him up.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Here is an interesting blog concerning voting.

liberalcatholicpropreason.blogspot.com/

 

[JoeyWarren]

blogs.kansascity.com/unfettered_letters/2006/03/prochoice_candi.html

 

[JoeyWarren]

Here is something interesting from home.catholicweb.com/lansingcatholiclawyersguild/index.cfm/NewsItem?ID=124306&From=Home

Last month on September 7th Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, declared in an Italian magazine article that a Catholic who votes for a pro-choice candidate is not thereby in a state of sin and should not be denied Holy Communion solely because of such a vote. A Catholic, Cardinal Ratzinger noted, could vote for a pro-choice candidate if the voter considered other positions of the candidate that are in conformity with other major positions of the Church.

 

[JoeyWarren]

He goes on to point out something very interesting as well

Source: home.catholicweb.com/lansingcatholiclawyersguild/index.cfm/NewsItem?ID=124306&From=Home

I move now to another point. Those who are elected to public offices here in the United States must take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.** Implicit in that is an oath to enforce the decisions of the Courts of the United States**, even though those who take the oath may disagree with, or have moral objections to, those court decisions. Decisions of our courts, particularly decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, are a part of the laws of our land, laws which public office holders are duty bound to uphold.

bold red for emphasis

Here is office of oath for the president.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

 

[JoeyWarren]

This article was written by a Priest

Source: home.catholicweb.com/lansingcatholiclawyersguild/index.cfm/NewsItem?ID=124306&From=Home

Another Archbishop, Archbishop Sean O’Malley of Boston, the bishop in whose diocese Senator John Kerry maintains his residence, has not enforced the provisions of Canon 915 with respect to Senator Kerry’s public pro-choice stance. This brings to our awareness that our U.S. bishops as a body do not have a uniform position as to the enforcement of Canon 915. Of what effect, we must now ask, does this selective enforcement have on both Catholic candidates for high office and on Catholic voters? The question is unanswered. All we can say at this point is that Archbishop Burke has placed a strong case before the American bishops as a body. Will they adopt his course and together, as a unified body, enforce the provisions of Canon 915 uniformly on all Catholics, not just those running for political office?

The question is not simple and it raises a number of subsidiary questions.

1 – Should Canon 915 be enforced during this presidential election?

2 – Should it be enforced at a later time because its enforcement at this time would give the appearance that the U. S. bishops are trying to determine the outcome of this election?

3 – Would its enforcement upon Catholic voters jeopardize the tax-exempt status of every Catholic parish and institution in dioceses where the bishops have taken this prohibitive stance?

4 – As long as Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land, what can a Catholic legislator or governor or president really do? Any actions they take would be negated by the judiciary, and any pro-life public pronouncements made legislators or politicians running for office would be seen as mere posturing and vote-pandering. Our nation’s abortion question will be resolved as a legal matter not in the legislative branch or in the executive branch, but only in the judicial branch.

Fr. Charles E. Irvin, J.D.