Is Voting for a Pro-Choicer a Mortal Sin?

[rr1213]

You, me, and every other Christian out there.

I agree…but I thought we were talking about nations…at least I was responding to Jmcrae’s post about Americans believe that they are the New Israel.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Let’s address Father Irvin’s questions:
We have an election every two years, a presidential election every four years. In some states (Virginia, for example) they have odd year elections for state office.
If we don’t enforce it in one year, how can we enforce it in another year? Is it okay to murder a baby in 2007 but not in 2008?
3
Are we to sell our immortal souls for a tax-exempt status? Will we be comforted in Hell to know that even if we’re burning, we aren’t paying taxes?
Catholic politicians can:
Pass laws restricting abortions – as Roe vs Wade said they can.
Eliminate laws that allow school nurses, for example, to whisk underage girls off to abortionsts without notifying the parents.

• Choose and confirm judges who will overturn this monstrous ruling.
• Speak out forthrightly against the murder of the unborn.
• Demonstrate, by winning elections, that the American people do not favor abortion on demand.
• And do what leaders are supposed to do – lead! Lead this country out of this horrible holocaust.

 

[Listener]

I voted that it is not a sin. I believe that we are responsible for our own sins and that we just can’t be responsible for other people’s sins. In the first place, in lesser elections (city council, etc.) it is almost impossible to find out where these people stand on abortion. Even if they call themselves “pro life,” how do I know that they aren’t stretching the truth? It makes more sense to consider how a candidate voted on different issues than what they say about a particular issue. Some of them go from pro-life to pro-choice and then say they are “reluctantly” pro-choice. What on earth does that mean? I don’t think that it is a sin, unless you are very pro-abortion yourself and you are trying to find the candidate who is the most pro-abortion.

Many times, all of the candidates are some version of pro-choice, so your only choice is to vote for Mickey Mouse or not to vote at all. This is not a responsible choice, since it does say in the Catechism that we are supposed to be responsible citizens and exercise our right to vote.

 

[JoeyWarren]

I voted that it is not a sin. I believe that we are responsible for our own sins and that we just can’t be responsible for other people’s sins. In the first place, in lesser elections (city council, etc.) it is almost impossible to find out where these people stand on abortion. Even if they call themselves “pro life,” how do I know that they aren’t stretching the truth? It makes more sense to consider how a candidate voted on different issues than what they say about a particular issue. Some of them go from pro-life to pro-choice and then say they are “reluctantly” pro-choice. What on earth does that mean? I don’t think that it is a sin, unless you are very pro-abortion yourself and you are trying to find the candidate who is the most pro-abortion.

Many times, all of the candidates are some version of pro-choice, so your only choice is to vote for Mickey Mouse or not to vote at all. This is not a responsible choice, since it does say in the Catechism that we are supposed to be responsible citizens and exercise our right to vote.

That has been my point all along. It took someone like to to put in the proper verbage.

Furthermore, how many so-called Pro-lifers are actually lieing just to garner votes?

 

[JoeyWarren]

Grave matter? It is grave matter for the one committing the abortion and the one having the abortion.

To say that the exact same Grave Matter transfers itself to the person that supports the action such as John Kerry is a bit much.

Then to say that the exact same Grave Matter transfers iteself to the voter thru the candidate whom in turn recieved from the aborter and abortee is a very bit much.

 

[kangnamdragon]

I’m not going to vote on this because the options that are given are limited.

I agree with this. In the general election, if both are pro-abortion we have to vote for the lesser of two evils. For example, between Guiliani and Clinton, I would vote for Guiliani because he would put more conservative judges on the bench.

 

[fix]

I voted that it is not a sin. I believe that we are responsible for our own sins and that we just can’t be responsible for other people’s sins.

Well, we can be responsible if we formally cooperate with evil and we can further evil if we do not oppose unjust laws when we have the ability to do so.

In the first place, in lesser elections (city council, etc.) it is almost impossible to find out where these people stand on abortion. Even if they call themselves “pro life,” how do I know that they aren’t stretching the truth? It makes more sense to consider how a candidate voted on different issues than what they say about a particular issue. Some of them go from pro-life to pro-choice and then say they are “reluctantly” pro-choice. What on earth does that mean?

We can determine as best as we can. We know how politicians vote and what they say. Why is that any different than any other aspect of life?

Many times, all of the candidates are some version of pro-choice, so your only choice is to vote for Mickey Mouse or not to vote at all. This is not a responsible choice, since it does say in the Catechism that we are supposed to be responsible citizens and exercise our right to vote.

If they are all pro choice then try to determine which will do the least harm.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I voted that it is not a sin. I believe that we are responsible for our own sins and that we just can’t be responsible for other people’s sins.{/quote]
Let’s examine your main proposition – if it is not a sin to vote for a politician committed to the murder of the innocent, it would be morally acceptable to vote for Hitler, knowing he was going to enact the Holocaust.

About 12 million people died in the Holocaust, 6 million Jews, and an equal number of gypsies, Polish Catholics and so on. In this country alone, we have killed fouir times as many innocent babies.

You are responsibile for your vote.

I
Listener;1989856:

n the first place, in lesser elections (city council, etc.) it is almost impossible to find out where these people stand on abortion. Even if they call themselves “pro life,” how do I know that they aren’t stretching the truth?

First of all, check their records. Next, listen to what they say. And if they lie to you, throw them out of office in the next election.

It makes more sense to consider how a candidate voted on different issues than what they say about a particular issue.

That is exactly what the Church wants you to do – educate yourself on the issues and candidates before casting your vote.

Some of them go from pro-life to pro-choice and then say they are “reluctantly” pro-choice. What on earth does that mean? I don’t think that it is a sin, unless you are very pro-abortion yourself and you are trying to find the candidate who is the most pro-abortion.

To kill the innocent is a sin. To kill the innocent in assembly-line numbers is a horrible sin. I repeat, we have killed four times as many innocent people by abortion in this country alone as the Nazis killed in the Holocaust.

Every one of us who aided and abetted in that crime – even if only by voting for a pro-choice politician, is blood-guilty.

Many times, all of the candidates are some version of pro-choice, so your only choice is to vote for Mickey Mouse or not to vote at all. This is not a responsible choice, since it does say in the Catechism that we are supposed to be responsible citizens and exercise our right to vote.

The responsible thing is to choose the lesser of two evils. Who will not vote for the lesser of two evils automatically votes for the greater of those two evils.

We must also accept responsibility for candidates – who chose the candidates? What did we do to be sure we had acceptable candidates?

 

[didymus]

For what office? Will the candidate have any power, if elected, to actually influence abortion policy? Is his/her opponent pro-life and if so would they actually be effective?

Here in NY the legislature, Court of Appeals, (and sadly, the populace) are solidly pro-“choice”, so deciding my vote for State Senator or Assemblyman on that issue would hardly make a difference. It would make a difference voting for US Senator (votes for SCOTUS nominees) or State governor or Attorney General candidates.

For offices like State Comptroller it doesn’t matter at all – even a pro-life Comptroller can’t cut the flow of funding for abortion, he can only make sure it was spent as the Legislature directed.

I dunno. I just moved so I have to re-register, I’m tempted to enroll in (and vote) the RTL party. I’ve had it with the Demopublicans.

 

[vern_humphrey]

For what office? Will the candidate have any power, if elected, to actually influence abortion policy? Is his/her opponent pro-life and if so would they actually be effective?

Here in NY the legislature, Court of Appeals, (and sadly, the populace) are solidly pro-“choice”, so deciding my vote for State Senator or Assemblyman on that issue would hardly make a difference. It would make a difference voting for US Senator (votes for SCOTUS nominees) or State governor or Attorney General candidates.

What involvement do you have in the political process?

If we don’t like the current crop of candidates, what did we do years ago to recruit and push pro-life candidates? This is our country, and if we sit back and let others run the local committees, choose the candidates, and so on – we have only ourselves to blame for the outcome.

[For offices like State Comptroller it doesn’t matter at all – even a pro-life Comptroller can’t cut the flow of funding for abortion, he can only make sure it was spent as the Legislature directed.

Not so – offices like State Comptroller are stepping stones to higher office. And even the lowliest politician has power that can be used quietly, under the table, in pursuit of his goals.

**

What are you doing to change those parties? Are you a member of your local committee? Do you get involved in recruiting and supporting candidates? Do you hold fundraisers for candidates you like?

If the Demopublicans are not to our liking, it’s because we failed to do our duty years ago.
[/quote]

 

[jmcrae]

For what office? Will the candidate have any power, if elected, to actually influence abortion policy? Is his/her opponent pro-life and if so would they actually be effective?

Candidates don’t stay at the same level forever, though. If you vote in an abortionist for dog-catcher, it’s true that he won’t actually enact any pro-abortion legislation while acting as dog-catcher - but he will stand on his record as dog-catcher to move up to City Council, and from there to state or provincial politics, where he can start influencing abortion legislation.

But if we want pro-life candidates at high levels, then we need to vote them in to the lower “work experience” levels, so that they can even begin to get into the higher levels with any degree of credibility.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Candidates don’t stay at the same level forever, though. If you vote in an abortionist for dog-catcher, it’s true that he won’t actually enact any pro-abortion legislation while acting as dog-catcher - but he will stand on his record as dog-catcher to move up to City Council, and from there to state or provincial politics, where he can start influencing abortion legislation.

But if we want pro-life candidates at high levels, then we need to vote them in to the lower “work experience” levels, so that they can even begin to get into the higher levels with any degree of credibility.

You are absolutely, 100% right.

When people say, “We don’t have pro-life candidates running for national office” the answer is, “That’s because you didn’t support pro-life candidates 30 years ago – when they were running for Justice of the Peace, Clerk of Court and similar low-level offices.”

We own the government, and if it’s not run to suit us, it’s because we failed to do our jobs as conscientious citizens.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Is Voting for a Pro-Choicer a Mortal Sin?

It’s not sinful at all.​

If it were, & if the only candidates available were people who in at least one such respect failed to support the “true Catholic” programme in these matters, the result would be that Catholics would be entirely disenfranchised. Not everyone has the luxury of candidates who score five out of five.

That five point programme is perhaps all very well, considered as a moral programme - but it is hopelessly unrealistic in practice, because it is so strict. Strict morality is fine for private conduct, but to expect it of politicians or other public figures is deluded - that, or so unrealistic as to make people who expect such behaviour almost the last people who should have the vote. The world is just not like that, and neither is public life. The programme is not even consistent - it totally ignores corruption in public life, for a start.

Which is another reason this is such a foolish programme - if it is statement of intent, it’s fine, perhaps; but as a predictor of the behaviour of those elected, it’s worthless, because what candidates say, is no guide to what they will do once elected; for they are not free agents, once they are. To elect candidates using that programme rests on assumptions such as that candidates will have no other pressure groups breathing down their necks, no outstanding business to deal with - IOW, no distractions.

OTOH, if the USA were inhabited solely by the converted, that programme would be very useful; & totally unnecessary. The USA is not - & its neither. It would be fine in a Puritan or Catholic theocracy: but the USA is neither of those - & thank God for that.

Politics is the art of the possible - and the sooner the single-issue fanatics learn that, the better for us all. OIf course, they could always go & join the Christian Reconstructionists - they hold to that programme anyway: it’s included in their programme of making the Law of Moses the law of the USA. That’s where expecting or demanding perfection in politicans gets a nation - it creates hell for everyone

The solution ? Ignore the fanatics, & listen to the bishops; instead of trying to do their job.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Gottle of Geer is another voice of reason.

 

[aspawloski4th]

It’s not sinful at all.​

If it were, & if the only candidates available were people who in at least one such respect failed to support the “true Catholic” programme in these matters, the result would be that Catholics would be entirely disenfranchised. Not everyone has the luxury of candidates who score five out of five.

That five point programme is perhaps all very well, considered as a moral programme - but it is hopelessly unrealistic in practice, because it is so strict. Strict morality is fine for private conduct, but to expect it of politicians or other public figures is deluded - that, or so unrealistic as to make people who expect such behaviour almost the last people who should have the vote. The world is just not like that, and neither is public life. The programme is not even consistent - it totally ignores corruption in public life, for a start.

Which is another reason this is such a foolish programme - if it is statement of intent, it’s fine, perhaps; but as a predictor of the behaviour of those elected, it’s worthless, because what candidates say, is no guide to what they will do once elected; for they are not free agents, once they are. To elect candidates using that programme rests on assumptions such as that candidates will have no other pressure groups breathing down their necks, no outstanding business to deal with - IOW, no distractions.

OTOH, if the USA were inhabited solely by the converted, that programme would be very useful; & totally unnecessary. The USA is not - & its neither. It would be fine in a Puritan or Catholic theocracy: but the USA is neither of those - & thank God for that.

Politics is the art of the possible - and the sooner the single-issue fanatics learn that, the better for us all. OIf course, they could always go & join the Christian Reconstructionists - they hold to that programme anyway: it’s included in their programme of making the Law of Moses the law of the USA. That’s where expecting or demanding perfection in politicans gets a nation - it creates hell for everyone

The solution ? Ignore the fanatics, & listen to the bishops; instead of trying to do their job.

that attitude is the exact reason why abortion is still legal in the USA. If every Catholic voted prolife abortion would be a very distant memory.

 

[vern_humphrey]

that attitude is the exact reason why abortion is still legal in the USA. If every Catholic voted prolife abortion would be a very distant memory.

Yes. Abortion is our sin. We allow it to happen. We find excuses to vote for pro-abortion politicians.

We could put an end to this grisly murder of the innocent, but we have other fish to fry.

 

[mary_bobo]

Yes. Abortion is our sin. We allow it to happen. We find excuses to vote for pro-abortion politicians.

We could put an end to this grisly murder of the innocent, but we have other fish to fry.

Yes, Vern. And other excuses to offer. It was bad during the 2006 election, just wait for 2008!

 

[Evan]

The way our bishop explained it on his radio show was:

To vote for a pro-choice candidate because he is pro-choice would be a sin.

in all other situations, context comes into play and no blanket statement (mortal sin, venial sin, no sin) could be made.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The way our bishop explained it on his radio show was:

To vote for a pro-choice candidate because he is pro-choice would be a sin.

in all other situations, context comes into play and no blanket statement (mortal sin, venial sin, no sin) could be made.

If it would be a sin to vote for Senator Ptzatz because he is pro-choice, how would it not be a sin to vote for him for other reasons, if there were a pro-life candidate opposing him?

 

[buffalo]

The way our bishop explained it on his radio show was:

To vote for a pro-choice candidate because he is pro-choice would be a sin.

in all other situations, context comes into play and no blanket statement (mortal sin, venial sin, no sin) could be made.

You can only vote for a pro-death candidate for proportionate reasons. For example, if both canidates were pro-death and one had the added support of euthanasia, you could vote for the other. That would be the candidate that would do less harm. If you have a pro-life vs pro-death race you cannot vote for the pro-deather. Their are no proportionate reasons. Life issues always trump quality of life issues.