My Church Endorsed a Political Party

[pnewton]

I can think of no way of framing a nice answer to a question like that. I would rather say nothing and maintain charity.

 

[upant]

Who would have thought that the rate of abortion would have dropped faster under Obama than it did under Trump?

But why is the key, is contraception a legitimate way to reduce abortion? Closing clinics is.

(Bold mine)

The abortion rate dropped to a nearly 50-year low in 2017, the lowest level recorded since Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized the procedure.

In 2017, the most recent year available, the abortion rate was 13.5 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44, according to a study published Wednesday morning by the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion access research organization. That’s an 8% decline from 2014, the last time Guttmacher calculated the United States’ abortion rate, and 54% lower than when the group recorded the peak rate in 1980.

Guttmacher attributed the decline to two factors: a declining pregnancy rate and a growing disparity between abortion access in liberal and conservative states. That divide stems largely from laws targeting the operations of clinics that provide abortions, a style of regulation known as a Targeted Regulation of Abortion Provider – or TRAP – law.

While all regions — Northeast, South, Midwest and West — recorded declines, rates dropped much more dramatically in states where the number of clinics had also fallen.(cbs news September 2019)

The Church has said that voting in order to promote abortion is a sin.

You don’t think voting people into position who stated they will expand abortion isn’t promoting abortion? You can’t separate the Democrat from the abortion platform. The Democrats are pushing abortion in most laws they pass. They have pushed out their pro-life congressmen and said there is no room for pro-life ideas in their platform.

 

[Ridgerunner]

He sure seemed proud that his was a slave state, formerly.

 

[JimG]

Of course Catholics and all Christians ought to promote pro-life policies and oppose abortion in any way they can. But we can not expect to make much difference if we continue to elect candidates from what has become the literal party of abortion, Promotion of abortion has been in its platform and on its agenda for decades now.

 

[Rau]

You made a statement on who to vote for, you stated net good, there has to be a proportionate reason for this net good, whatever that is

You of course agree with me. You are judging that a vote for democrats is a vote for net evil.

 

[Rau]

Rau:

But the fact that it is a question for debate demonstrates that voting is a matter of prudential judgement.

Anything can be debated, right or wrong.

My goodness, a catholic can’t believe that. The negative precepts are not up for debate.

That doesn’t mean one can vote pro-abortion without sinning.

Correct. Fortunately we don’t find that as an option on the ballot paper. We find parties and individuals. We have information about their platforms. We vote (let’s hope with good intentions only) based on the mix of good and evil we believe can flow from our vote. If we believe the preferred candidate will materially lessen the prevalence of abortion, that’s a whole lot of good in the equation. Sin is personal - if we, in good faith, judge a vote for our preferred candidate does more good than evil, (and we do not intend the evil they may do) we do not sin.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Not true. Your judgment or mine about the best way to eliminate poverty for millions, for instance, does not equal even one act of abortion in evil. We are free to exercise our judgment as to the efficacy of various programs, but we are not free to exercise our judgment as to the support of abortion candidates UNLESS there is some equally grave evil to avoid in doing so. All of the Dem talking points put together do not overcome one act of killing an innocent child.

But no matter how we lie to ourselves about how more welfare, for example, will reduce abortion, we are still not free to support abortion. The people on welfare will live. The aborted babies all die.

And of course supporting the abortion candidate, if known, (and it usually is) is a scandal to the young; a corruption of their souls. Luke 17:2 tells us what would be better than if we did that.

 

[upant]

You are judging that a vote for democrats is a vote for net evil.

No I am not, their platform of intrinsic evils is what I am voting against, specific issues not a net evil

we don’t find that as an option on the ballot paper.

Why don’t people listen to those they will vote for? Harris’ record and statements are clear, it may not be a check on a ballot sheet but it is what this election is about

 

[Rau]

Not true.

I’m afraid it is. “ Sin is personal - if we, in good faith, judge a vote for our preferred candidate does more good than evil, (and we do not intend the evil they may do) we do not sin.”

 

[Ridgerunner]

No. That’s not Catholicism. We are obliged to obey the teachings of the Church no matter how we feel about them. “Personal judgment” when it comes to particular teachings is protestant, not Catholic. Catholicism holds that the Church has teaching authority from Christ. Protestantism does not hold that any church has teaching authority.

 

[Thomas54]

I might have voted that way anyway but I think it inappropriate and an abuse of the name of the Church for them to be partisan

I wish that our priest would come out and boldly say that you cannot be Catholic and vote for a candidate/party that supports abortion. I have no problem with that whatsoever, but any priest that says that would be removed by our liberal bishops.

I don’t believe that we are supposed to be comfortable in church sitting next to a neighbor that, in essence, supports abortion.

From my life, our son’s life & faith was basically destroyed when his Catholic fiancé, a month before the wedding, decided to tell our son that she wasn’t pure & that she had had two abortions.

That’s a tough thing for a 23-year-old who was madly in love with the woman of his dreams to digest.

That was almost 20 years ago and he has never gotten over it. So the theory that abortion is just between a woman and her God, doesn’t hold water in my family.

Thomas

 

[Rau]

No. That’s not Catholicism. We are obliged to obey the teachings of the Church no matter how we feel about them.

Statements from bishops need not be and often are not statements of church teaching. They are often their prudential judgements.

The “formula” I gave for determining the morality of a voting decision (ie. intending only the good outcomes and choosing the course you believe will produce more good than evil consequences) is catholic theology 101.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The “formula” I gave for determining the morality of a voting decision (ie. intending only the good outcomes and choosing the course you believe will produce more good than evil consequences) is catholic theology 101.

No it isn’t except in the case of invincible ignorance. If you don’t know what the Church teaches and are so lacking in insight that you don’t think killing unborn children is simply inhuman, and if you are blameless in both, then in a rare case like that, you would be correct.

But for a Catholic who believes the teachings of the Church, “intending only good outcomes” is not the yardstick, and the sufficiency of good intentions is certainly not Catholic theology.

 

[Rau]

No it isn’t except in the case of invincible ignorance. If you don’t know what the Church teaches and are so lacking in insight that you don’t think killing unborn children is simply inhuman, and if you are blameless in both, then in a rare case like that, you would be correct.

. . . A voting decision - even when a candidate favours an intrinsic evil - does not have as its moral object the said intrinsic evil. Hence morality of the vote is determined by the remaining fonts.

This is why the bishops have correctly referred to as “proportionate” reasons.

Were my statement above incorrect, the bishops would be quite obligated to point out that it would be mortally sinful to vote for a candidate favouring serious intrinsic evil.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Not only the bishops have said it. No reasons presently at issue in this election are proportionate to deliberately killing upwards of a million children per year. Not all of them put together will result in a million deliberate killings.

 

[Rau]

The foreseeable consequences of the voter’s choice is what voters are called on to judge.

 

[JimG]

What is the foreseeable consequence of voting for a candidate and a party that are and have been fiercely pro-abortion for decades?

 

[Shasta4737]

Alert your priest first, he should retract it in front of the congregation and in the church newsletter but if nothing is done about it you should contact higher authorities in the church.

 

[phil19034]

It violates guidelines put out by the USCCB and dioceses, and very likely US tax law.

You should alert your pastor, not to get people in trouble but because they need guidance and correction. This sort of thing could get the parish in trouble with the IRS under current law.

From what I understand from my pastor, he’s allowed to say who a Catholic in good standing cannot vote for, but he can’t tell you who to vote for.

So in his homily, he said “a Catholic cannot vote for Joe Biden.” But he also said “that doesn’t mean you have to vote for Trump.”

 

[WanderingPilgrim]

What do I think?

I think it’s high time the Church kissed their tax exempt status goodbye and flat out told Catholics who they ought to vote for. I think in this election there has never been a more clear cut, black and white case of who to vote for and who not to vote for. Yet countless Catholics will still end up voting for evil/Joe Biden, citing that they are only voting their personal conscience. If politicians who openly support abortion are barred from Holy Communion (or at least, they are supposed to be), then I argue that Catholics who vote for pro abortion politicians (regardless of any reasoning they use) ought to be held to the same standard.

Patrid Madrid answers it best when he says to replace “abortion” with “slavery”. A lot of Catholics will vote for Biden for other issues that are important to them and dismiss abortion or suggest that while they don’t like it, they can’t be single issue voters. But Patrid Madrid asks, “What would they say if that single issue was slavery”? Would these same Catholics feel the same about voting for a candidate for the same reasons if, instead of providing for abortions, his stance was that all people of color ought to be bought and sold in slavery again?

I agree that we shouldn’t be single issue voters, but it’s also important to note that some issues are vastly more important than others. And when one candidate is trying to secure the right to life while the other is trying to destroy it, I can’t imagine anyone voting for someone willing to destroy the right to life. The only way this election could be any more obvious would be if Jesus and Satan themselves were on the ballot.

I’m sure this will be highly controversial for some, but Patrick Madrid makes good points.