Not voting as most moral stand? Catholic term?

[nordskoven]

The gent at church said one couldn’t vote for Republicans who killed millions in Iraq for monetary gain; and I said I couldn’t vote for Democrats because of their plank supporting abortion. I said he should vote Republican as being the lesser of two evils and he said that’s not proper for Catholics and there was a technical term for this. Buehler?

PS I think the Military Industrial Complex has more to do with sprouting wars regardless of who is in power per (Republican) President Ike Eisenhower.

 

[bilop]

The gent at church said one couldn’t vote for Republicans who killed millions in Iraq for monetary gain; and I said I couldn’t vote for Democrats because of their plank supporting abortion. I said he should vote Republican as being the lesser of two evils and he said that’s not proper for Catholics and there was a technical term for this. Buehler?

PS I think the Military Industrial Complex has more to do with sprouting wars regardless of who is in power per (Republican) President Ike Eisenhower.

I think you are correct. Wars are a matter of prudential judgement, left to the competent civil authorities. Likewise taxes, social spending, and the death penalty. A Catholic is free to take diverse positions on these issues and remain in full communion.

Life issues (abortion, euthanasia, stem-cell research) and same-sex marriage are non-negotiable moral issues. A Catholic who support abortion, fetal stem-cell research, euthanasia or “Gay marriage” is no longer in union with the Church, and sins mortally if they are aware of the Church’s teaching.

God Bless

 

[_Abyssinia]

Majority of Democrats supported Iraq war funding so it was not purely Republicans supporting the war

Catholics have a duty to vote

Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one’s country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.

2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country [Rom 13:7]:

Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. [Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners… They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws… So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it. Ad Diognetum 5: 5, 10]

The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.” [1 Tim 2:2]

ewtn.com/vote/voting_faq.htm

Pope Benedict has spoken of non negotiables to be of central concern to a Christian in politics, protection of life from conception, recognition and promotion of marriage between one man and one woman and the right of parents to educate their children

Pope Benedict said in a 2004 letter to the US Bishops on Catholic politicians and communion

‘While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment,’ he said. ‘There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia’

Fr. Stephen F. Torraco says

Except in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates (in which case, as explained in question 8 above, he or she strives to determine which of them would cause the let damage in this regard), a candidate that is pro-abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. This is because being pro-abortion cannot simply be placed alongside the candidate’s other positions on Medicare and unemployment, for example; and this is because abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally

ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm

Here is a letter by Bishop Gracida which talks about voting and the lesser of two evils

 

[Iron_Donkey]

The gent at church said one couldn’t vote for Republicans who killed millions in Iraq for monetary gain; and I said I couldn’t vote for Democrats because of their plank supporting abortion. I said he should vote Republican as being the lesser of two evils and he said that’s not proper for Catholics and there was a technical term for this. Buehler?

PS I think the Military Industrial Complex has more to do with sprouting wars regardless of who is in power per (Republican) President Ike Eisenhower.

Voting for the lesser of two (or however many) evils is acceptable and very nearly required, since there is no such thing as a perfect candidate. See catholic.com/video/voting-for-the-lesser-of-two-evils.

(Also where did he get “killed millions”? Never mind the monetary gain part. But anyway.)

 

[Phaedra777]

I read something a long time ago and cannot find an Internet source for the author, but it goes something like this:

There are statesmen and there are politicians. All politicians are devilish but Republicans are merely Luciferian while Democrats are Satanic. Bwa ha ha ha!

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Catholics have a duty to vote

Nice, well organized and informative post! Thanks!

BTW - even from a civic view, an absention (not voting) is never the right answer, and there are pollsters out there who are counting on Catholics not showing up.

 

[superamazingman]

Here’s the way I look at it:

First of all, the church tells us to vote for the best candidate. There will never be a perfect candidate, so we should look for the best one who is a chance of being elected. (For example, I may run and be a perfect Catholic in office, but if I have no chance of being elected, then it is the same as if I never ran.)

Also, by not voting, you are giving a half a vote to each candidate. Unless both candidates are exactly equal on every issue in every way, one is objectively better than the other from a Catholic standpoint. Therefore, one must also be objectively worse.

As Catholics, we would object to voting for the worse candidate directly, why do we think it’s ok to give them half a vote?

If we don’t vote, one of them will still be elected, so we have a duty to vote for the better one, so that the worse one isn’t elected.

 

[datritle]

This line of argument is frustrating… Both major party candidates are terrible. one is anti abortian(BUT NOT PROLIFE) and one is pro choice…one stands for moderate(but incomplete) assistance to the most vulnerable and marginalized, while the other would have them thrown under a bus if it meant the economy got better(for the rich). so…why should i vote for either of them? i can’t see voting for ONE ISSUE as a basis for a moral voting decision. this is very difficult to justify voting for either of them…as i am very pro life…meaning anti abortian AND death penalty. but also, i am very pro social justice. anyone else understand what i am saying here?

 

[bilop]

This line of argument is frustrating… Both major party candidates are terrible. one is anti abortian(BUT NOT PROLIFE) and one is pro choice…one stands for moderate(but incomplete) assistance to the most vulnerable and marginalized, while the other would have them thrown under a bus if it meant the economy got better(for the rich). so…why should i vote for either of them? i can’t see voting for ONE ISSUE as a basis for a moral voting decision. this is very difficult to justify voting for either of them…as i am very pro life…meaning anti abortian AND death penalty. but also, i am very pro social justice. anyone else understand what i am saying here?

When that one issue is allowing the murder of 1 million innocent babies annually, or wanting to drastically limit that (probably saving 900k+ lives a year), then yes, we must vote on one issue.

If a candidate wanted to exterminate Jews in death camps at the rate of 1 million per year, would you say, gee he’s much better than his non-genocidal opponent on programs for the poor, so I’ll vote for him anyway?

Abortion is no different.

The death penalty, the amount of gov’t aid to the poors, what wars to wage, etc., and not non-negotiable issues. Good Catholics are free to hold varied opinions, and even disagree with the prudential judgement of the Pope on these issue.

Life issues (abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research) and homosexual marriage are non-negotiable. The teachings are de Fide, and must be held by all Catholics.

God Bless

God Bless

 

[datritle]

When that one issue is allowing the murder of 1 million innocent babies annually, or wanting to drastically limit that (probably saving 900k+ lives a year), then yes, we must vote on one issue.

If a candidate wanted to exterminate Jews in death camps at the rate of 1 million per year, would you say, gee he’s much better than his non-genocidal opponent on programs for the poor, so I’ll vote for him anyway?

Abortion is no different.

The death penalty, the amount of gov’t aid to the poors, what wars to wage, etc., and not non-negotiable issues. Good Catholics are free to hold varied opinions, and even disagree with the prudential judgement of the Pope on these issue.

Life issues (abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research) and homosexual marriage are non-negotiable. The teachings are de Fide, and must be held by all Catholics.

God Bless

God Bless

I appreciate your kind response to my post. truly! one issue requiring clarification: I understand that there are non negotiables…and among them are abortion and euthanasia…but both[candidates] are pro death penalty…what to do…what to do…!? I can’t bring myself to vote for romney. i just CANNOT do it…

 

[George_Stegmeir]

The gent at church said one couldn’t vote for Republicans who killed millions in Iraq for monetary gain; and I said I couldn’t vote for Democrats because of their plank supporting abortion. I said he should vote Republican as being the lesser of two evils and he said that’s not proper for Catholics and there was a technical term for this. Buehler?

PS I think the Military Industrial Complex has more to do with sprouting wars regardless of who is in power per (Republican) President Ike Eisenhower.

Your arguments are merely sophistry-a “cop out” to excuse you from your civic responsibilities and obligations.
Voting should never be easy. It is hard work. One has to balance ones moral beliefs with the practicality of the every day world. Not all candidates are perfect. Believe it or not, they are human!
The forthcoming U. S. elections in November will be the most important in history. You will be choosing between someone who will implement and promote the amoral secularist movement in our government, and someone who promises to maintain the traditions upon which the US was founded.
Your issue abour war is bogus, because the number of deaths of fetuses (actual living human beings), since Roe vs. Wade in 1973, exceeds that of all deaths in the 20th century due to war! In New York City alone there are many thousands of abortions a month! It is a major industry in the US and Europe.
By neglecting to vote, no matter what “moral” excuse you give yourself, you will be voting for the secularists by default and thereby committing a sin.
Never forget, our current President is the greatest deceiver and most anti-Catholic President in the History of the United States. As a Catholic you have a moral duty to prevent him from continuing in office.

 

[datritle]

Your arguments are merely sophistry-a “cop out” to excuse you from your civic responsibilities and obligations.
Voting should never be easy. It is hard work. One has to balance ones moral beliefs with the practicality of the every day world. Not all candidates are perfect. Believe it or not, they are human!
The forthcoming U. S. elections in November will be the most important in history. You will be choosing between someone who will implement and promote the amoral secularist movement in our government, and someone who promises to maintain the traditions upon which the US was founded.
Your issue abour war is bogus, because the number of deaths of fetuses (actual living human beings), since Roe vs. Wade in 1973, exceeds that of all deaths in the 20th century due to war! In New York City alone there are many thousands of abortions a month! It is a major industry in the US and Europe.
By neglecting to vote, no matter what “moral” excuse you give yourself, you will be voting for the secularists by default and thereby committing a sin.
Never forget, our current President is the greatest deceiver and most anti-Catholic President in the History of the United States. As a Catholic you have a moral duty to prevent him from continuing in office.

This is very inflammatory hate speech. a moral duty to get obama out of office? just as much as getting anyone else out of office… how about all the good he has done? i guess health care is something only the rich deserve… i guess public education is a terrible thing to support, i guess withdrawing from a false war is bad…

get off your high horse and let judgements up to God. who, by the way, is merciful, and just. keep your hate politics elsewhere…

 

[bilop]

I appreciate your kind response to my post. truly! one issue requiring clarification: I understand that there are non negotiables…and among them are abortion and euthanasia…but both[candidates] are pro death penalty…what to do…what to do…!? I can’t bring myself to vote for romney. i just CANNOT do it…

Pope Benedict himself stated that a person can support the death penalty and remain a Catholic in good standing.

See here:

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

The Church has always allowed the death penalty if justly applied by competent legal authorities. Read St. Thomas Aquinas if you don’t believe me.

The lawful execution of dozens of men guilty of horrible crimes is not even a speck compared the monstrosity of one million murders of completly innocent babies.

God Bless

Edit: to state it a different way, if one candidate was a magic fairy that would cure all disease, end all war, and end poverty, but supported abortion, and the other candidate was anti-abortion, we have to vote for the second candidate as Catholics.

 

[livingwordunity]

Voting for the lesser of two (or however many) evils is acceptable and very nearly required, since there is no such thing as a perfect candidate. See catholic.com/video/voting-for-the-lesser-of-two-evils.

(Also where did he get “killed millions”? Never mind the monetary gain part. But anyway.)

I agree.

Pope John Paul II said that faith and reason go together.

Using faith, reason, and math, the way I will vote Pro-Life is this:

If candidate A is 10% Pro-Abortion, I will be 10% against him.

If candidate B is 100% Pro-Abortion, I will be 100% against him.

Since candidate B has:

• failed with the economy
• weakened and demoralized the military while still getting the country involved in wars and helped make a complete mess of the Middle East (“Arab Spring” is actually an Islamic extremist spring)
• threatens to take away freedom of religion
• has publicly blasphemed God by saying that God would approve of the sacrilege of so-called “same-sex marriage”

I would vote for candidate A since I would only be 10% against him but 100% against candidate B.

Pope John Paul II had this to say:

“A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. … In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” [Gospel of Life 73]

If this principle is true for elected officials voting then it’s also true for people who vote for these elected officials.

In other words, I can vote for the candidate who is for the “passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed…when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law”.

When I vote for candidate A, it’s the same basic principle of trying to reduce an evil (candidate B) that is already in place. Only instead of a bill that’s being voted on to reduce the evil a candidate is being voted on who will reduce the evil.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This line of argument is frustrating… Both major party candidates are terrible. one is anti abortian(BUT NOT PROLIFE) and one is pro choice…one stands for moderate(but incomplete) assistance to the most vulnerable and marginalized, while the other would have them thrown under a bus if it meant the economy got better(for the rich). so…why should i vote for either of them? i can’t see voting for ONE ISSUE as a basis for a moral voting decision. this is very difficult to justify voting for either of them…as i am very pro life…meaning anti abortian AND death penalty. but also, i am very pro social justice. anyone else understand what i am saying here?

Catholics are free in conscience to support the death penalty. Though I do not, I recognize that it can be a moral choice. Catholics are not free to support abortion, period.

You might want to reconsider your conclusion that the Dem party stands for assistance to the most vulnerable and marginalized and that the Repub party stands for throwing them under the bus. The truth is that neither party has done anything for the truly poor…the ones who can’t help themselves, for decades. I say that as a born Democrat who once held office in the party. Decades ago, it abandoned the truly poor and adopted abortion as its number one goal. I was there, and I know.

We are TOLD that the Dem party provides assistance for the poor and marginalized, but it doesn’t. What it does do is buy middle class votes with middle class welfare. The Repubs do the same thing, but not on such a massive scale.

Now, do the Repubs show the better promise for restoring the economy? I don’t know, though I do know small business people don’t fear them the way they do the Dems. And those are the people who create most jobs. I say it’s a time to give Romney a chance. We know what Obama is doing, and none of it is good.

And I sure don’t think the Repubs will attack the Church the way Obama has. They never have before, and I don’t look for them to do it now.

I’m not a Republican, but I vote for them, and I will do it this year again. I’m certainly not voting for any abortion supporting politician.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is very inflammatory hate speech. a moral duty to get obama out of office? just as much as getting anyone else out of office… how about all the good he has done? i guess health care is something only the rich deserve… i guess public education is a terrible thing to support, i guess withdrawing from a false war is bad…

Obamacare is going to hurt the poorest of the poor significantly. It adds millions of new people to Medicaid; people who mostly qualified for employer-based insurance before. That will “crowd out” the truly poor who have nothing else. Providers will onlly take so many Medicaid patients. By adding hugely to the numbers, the poor are going to be squeezed. They’re also going to be squeezed by the shift from funding “chronic care” to “well care”. “Well care” is a middle class thing, mostly. Chronic patients are overrepresented among the poor. Chronic patients are being dumped as we speak.

Public education has not benefitted from throwing ever more money at it. It needs reform, and it’s not likely to get it from obama.

And Obama upped the ante in the Af/Pak war he knows we’re not going to win, started a new one in Libya for oil and is trying to figure out how to get us into one in Syria. At least Bush had Congressional approval for Iraq. Obama had none at all for Libya. Obama is, if anything, more warlike than Bush.

And yes, Obama pushes abortion, and he oppresses the Church. No way I could vote for a man like that.

I think you have picked the propaganda candidate, not the real one.

 

[superamazingman]

This is very inflammatory hate speech. a moral duty to get obama out of office? just as much as getting anyone else out of office… how about all the good he has done? i guess health care is something only the rich deserve… i guess public education is a terrible thing to support, i guess withdrawing from a false war is bad…

That’s not hate speech, it’s the truth. Obama has done more to hurt the church, and to hurt the unborn than any president in US history. Yes, a moral duty.

Frankly, none of anyone’s policies matter if they aren’t prolife. There’s no war in history where 3700 people have been killed A DAY, with no end in sight. 1/3 of my generation has been murdered, and you are telling me that foodstamps and how we punish criminals is more important than that?

Let me give you an analogy: there are two candidates. Candidate A has policies that WILL destroy the economy, and loose millions of jobs. Candidate B has a great policy for keeping the country on track, has an amazing jobs bill ready to send to the senate, but there’s one small thing: he also has declared that if he is elected, he will pass a bill stating that one is allowed to go into the streets and shoot at those their enemies every Friday, with no penalties.

Which one would you vote for? Sometimes, we DO need to be single issue voters, when one issue trumps all the rest.

get off your high horse and let judgements up to God. who, by the way, is merciful, and just. keep your hate politics elsewhere…

We can’t judge people’s souls (and no one is), but we can darn well judge actions. In fact, you just did by saying he is speaking hate. Yes, God is merciful and just. We can still call a spade a spade and say that we need to get this anti-christian, anti-God, pro-abortion president out of office. That’s not hate. Telling him to go to hell is hate, and last time I checked, no one has done that in this thread.

 

[superamazingman]

Obamacare is going to hurt the poorest of the poor significantly. It adds millions of new people to Medicaid; people who mostly qualified for employer-based insurance before. That will “crowd out” the truly poor who have nothing else. Providers will onlly take so many Medicaid patients. By adding hugely to the numbers, the poor are going to be squeezed. They’re also going to be squeezed by the shift from funding “chronic care” to “well care”. “Well care” is a middle class thing, mostly. Chronic patients are overrepresented among the poor. Chronic patients are being dumped as we speak.

Public education has not benefitted from throwing ever more money at it. It needs reform, and it’s not likely to get it from obama.

And Obama upped the ante in the Af/Pak war he knows we’re not going to win, started a new one in Libya for oil and is trying to figure out how to get us into one in Syria. At least Bush had Congressional approval for Iraq. Obama had none at all for Libya. Obama is, if anything, more warlike than Bush.

And yes, Obama pushes abortion, and he oppresses the Church. No way I could vote for a man like that.

I think you have picked the propaganda candidate, not the real one.

Let’s not forget about the debt. It’s going to come crashing down very soon, and the poor will be the most affected, because they have nothing of their own to survive on.

 

[superamazingman]

This line of argument is frustrating… Both major party candidates are terrible. one is anti abortian(BUT NOT PROLIFE) and one is pro choice…one stands for moderate(but incomplete) assistance to the most vulnerable and marginalized, while the other would have them thrown under a bus if it meant the economy got better(for the rich). so…why should i vote for either of them? i can’t see voting for ONE ISSUE as a basis for a moral voting decision. this is very difficult to justify voting for either of them…as i am very pro life…meaning anti abortian AND death penalty. but also, i am very pro social justice. anyone else understand what i am saying here?

Yes, I understand. I don’t think Romney is terrible, it’s beside the point though.

Obama is worse.