Question about voting obligations

[EphelDuath]

Suppose I agreed with some Democrats on every political stance, except for abortion. As a faithful Catholic, am I obligated by Church law to not vote for a politician due to their pro-choice stance?

What if I defended my view by saying that the President has little control over the right to life, only Supreme Court justices? Would I still be morally obligated to vote for a pro-life candidate?

 

[dmelosi]

The defense you give is not a good one. The decision on who is nominated is the presidents sole decision.

 

[CapIV]

I seriously don’t understand how anybody can vote for a candidate that not only condones and supports murder, but wants to federally fund murder.

 

[Steve40]

The big 5 that all Catholics should pay attention to are:

1. Don’t vote for a Baby Killer.
2. Don’t vote for a Fetal Stem Cell Reasearch supporter
3. Don’t vote for a Gay Marriage supporter.
4. Don’t vote for a Euthenasia supporter.
5. Don’t vote for a Human cloning supporter.

I think you candidate might be a 5 time loser. Don’t do it. Why do want to have that kind of blood on your hands after you vote? As the leader in our nation he will stand before God for allowing these things to go on. Do you want to stand with him?

 

[rpp]

Suppose I agreed with a certain presidential candidate on every political stance, except for abortion. As a faithful Catholic, am I obligated by Church law to not vote for him due to his pro-choice stance?

What if I defended my view by saying that the President has little control over the right to life, only Supreme Court justices? Would I still be morally obligated to vote for a pro-life candidate?

The President nominates the Supreme Court justices. President Bush filled two Justices while he was in office. Two abortion supporters were replaced by justices who appear to feel that abortion may not be a right. That makes a huge difference.

Additionally, the president can make it easier or more difficult for a woman to kill her child. An example of making it easier would be to provide federal funds. Or allow the UN to use money to promote abortion in other countries.

That is why you cannot vote for a presidential candidate that supports aborttion. If both candidates support abortion, then one must look at the both the other “non-negotiables” (mentioned in an earlier posts as well as the Catholic Answers Voter’s Guide For Serious Catholics) as well as how committed each candidate is to abortion.

 

[Ferdinand_Mary]

NOTICE: Please refrain from referring to political candidates either by name or circumlocution. That is to say, no wink-wink nudge-nudge references either.

God Bless,
Ferdinand Mary

 

[Newbie2]

It’s a tough call. I often wonder if moderate candidates i.e. specifically on abortion are wishy-washy or luke-warm pro-choice really are (do support) and/or will support abortion if elected or is is a promise that they intend to break once elected.

I guess you’d have to look at voting records and such of a particular candidate, when it comes to abortion, and critically evaluate whether or not they’re regurgitating the party platform or if they are trying to get elected.

Extreme hard right wingers seem to be “screw the poor” and extreme left wingers seem to be “screw the unborn”, neither of which is a very Christ-like position. Wish that every candidate could say what they really mean without pandering to their donors…sigh…

 

[SoCalRC]

The big 5 that all Catholics should pay attention to are:

1. Don’t vote for a Baby Killer.
2. Don’t vote for a Fetal Stem Cell Reasearch supporter
3. Don’t vote for a Gay Marriage supporter.
4. Don’t vote for a Euthenasia supporter.
5. Don’t vote for a Human cloning supporter.

I think you candidate might be a 5 time loser. Don’t do it. Why do want to have that kind of blood on your hands after you vote? As the leader in our nation he will stand before God for allowing these things to go on. Do you want to stand with him?

Actually, that list of ‘Big Five’ is from a lay group, not the Church. The Vatican released a Doctrinal Note in 2002 that can be read here:

vatican.va/roman_curia//congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

The same document is also linked to by the USCCB web page on voting:

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/

(Just click on “Vatican Statement”).

In the Vatican Doctrinal Note (prepared by then Cardinal Ratzinger and signed by Pope John Paul II), you can search for the words:

“When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning…”

Nine examples are then given, highlighted in the text. The lay list you provide only fully overlaps two, and partially overlaps two more. Voting the whole list is very hard.

But look at your list of 5. That list was presented as “non negotiable” by the lay folks that produced it, but you would be hard pressed to find a single Presidential candidate in either party that is clearly on the Church with regards to all 5.

Personally, I try to vote all nine, plus I try to give special attention to the the seven broad themes covered in the US Bishop’s “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”, but since I end up voting for candidates no one has heard of, that is a bigger step than many Catholics want to take. Forsaking earthly ‘political power’ for faith is harder than it sounds. And, no matter how hard you try, you still end up making compromises.

For most of us, some teachings resonate more than others. For example, as a Vietnam combat vet I feel very strongly about the war and the treatment of veterens. But I cannot let those emotions cloud me to my other Christian responsibilites. In fact, the Vatican document appears to specifically warn us about doing this, even with the motive of ‘limiting harm’:

“In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.”

Good luck - to all, everyone has to follow their concience. I hope that everyone will remenber that we are all sinners and that we all make moral compromises. Arguing that one’s own compromises are inherently more rightous than other’s would seem to be another false path that Jesus specifically warned us about.

 

[SoCalRC]

The President nominates the Supreme Court justices. President Bush filled two Justices while he was in office. Two abortion supporters were replaced by justices who appear to feel that abortion may not be a right. That makes a huge difference.

It is probably worth noting that in Carhart, both Roberts and Alito sided with the majority in upholding Roe and Casey. Only Scalia and Thomas, in a concurring opinion, took exception to the constitutionality of Roe.

 

[Ender]

It is probably worth noting that in Carhart, both Roberts and Alito sided with the majority in upholding Roe and Casey. Only Scalia and Thomas, in a concurring opinion, took exception to the constitutionality of Roe.

This is untrue. The question of the constitutionality of Roe and Casey was not raised in the majority decision so it is improper to claim that the decision upheld them. This was one of the complaints of the minority. In their dissenting opinion they lamented the fact that Roe and Casey were not reinforced by the Carhart decision.

Scalia and Thomas have long held that Roe and Casey were unconstitutionally decided but since the question has never been argued before Roberts and Alito it would be totally inappropriate for them to comment on the issue.

Ender

 

[rpp]

This is untrue. The question of the constitutionality of Roe and Casey was not raised in the majority decision so it is improper to claim that the decision upheld them. This was one of the complaints of the minority. In their dissenting opinion they lamented the fact that Roe and Casey were not reinforced by the Carhart decision.

Scalia and Thomas have long held that Roe and Casey were unconstitutionally decided but since the question has never been argued before Roberts and Alito it would be totally inappropriate for them to comment on the issue.

Ender

It is not surprising that SoCalRC made such an inaccurate observation. Despite being well informed, he cannot present Church teaching correctly. It would only be consistent that he not be able to present legal decisions correctly either. He always wants to put his own highly personalized spin on things rather than simply state the truth. That is why I will never engage him in conversation or respond to his posts; he is not intellectually honest.

 

[Ender]

It is not surprising that SoCalRC made such an inaccurate observation. Despite being well informed, he cannot present Church teaching correctly. It would only be consistent that he not be able to present legal decisions correctly either. He always wants to put his own highly personalized spin on things rather than simply state the truth. That is why I will never engage him in conversation or respond to his posts; he is not intellectually honest.

I’m sure that this charge against Alito and Roberts is not something that SoCalRC made up, rather it is an argument invented by those seeking to minimize the problem Democrats face by fielding pro-abortion candidates … and is seized on by those who share that pain. Catholic Democrats face a significant moral dilemma that is not (normally) a problem for Republicans. That Roe can only be overridden by SCOTUS highlights the difficulty of supporting a pro-abortion (Democrat) candidate for president, so minimizing the distinction between the nominees that the two parties would likely appoint is a key factor in convincing wavering Catholic Democrats not to give weight to this issue.

Ender

 

[SoCalRC]

The question of the constitutionality of Roe and Casey was not raised in the majority decision so it is improper to claim that the decision upheld them.

Alas, we can only go by what the decisions actually say, not more chest thumping:

supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf

Notice what Scalia and Thomas actually say in their concurring opinion (it isn’t very long):

"JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins,concurring.

I join the Court’s opinion because it accurately applies current jurisprudence, including Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992). I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court’s abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution. See Casey, supra, at 979 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part); Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U. S. 914, 980–983 (2000) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). I also note that whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts didnot address it. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 727, n. 2 (2005) (THOMAS, J., concurring).

Scalia notes that the the majority opinion is a proper application, legally, of Casey. But he (and Thomas) want to make it clear that they do not agree with the legitimacy of Casey and Roe (on which Casey is based).

There is also an interesting note suggesting that, although they disagree with the court in its use of Casey (because of Casey’s perceived illegitimacy), they might well have voted to overturn the ban had the issue of the Commerce Clause of the constitution been raised. Commerce before babies, boy, I’m gald we are getting real Christian values on the court…

 

[SoCalRC]

Catholic Democrats face a significant moral dilemma that is not (normally) a problem for Republicans.

Are you inferring that I am a Democrat? If so, you are sadly mistaken. Please read what I write more carefully. I have never voted for a pro-choice candidate.

I have repeatedly stated this. I am sorry that what the Church actually teaches does not match what you want to believe. But that is your problem, not mine. Denying demonstrable fact and making false accusations against me will not change a thing.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Are you inferring that I am a Democrat? If so, you are sadly mistaken. Please read what I write more carefully. I have never voted for a pro-choice candidate.

I have repeatedly stated this. I am sorry that what the Church actually teaches does not match what you want to believe. But that is your problem, not mine. Denying demonstrable fact and making false accusations against me will not change a thing.

It’s amazing what protestant thinking does, isn’t it? We’re not the religion of either/or…but it appears that there are many people who talk like we are.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

Suppose I agreed with some Democrats on every political stance, except for abortion. As a faithful Catholic, am I obligated by Church law to not vote for a politician due to their pro-choice stance? What if I defended my view by saying that the President has little control over the right to life, only Supreme Court justices? Would I still be morally obligated to vote for a pro-life candidate?

With the exception of Supreme Court nominations, the President has little direct control over abortion. Since only the Congress has the “power of the purse”, the President can only prohibit the use of federal funds or UN “dues” which are used to promote or enable abortion, by vetoing spending bills from congress that include these things.

In any case, I fail to see any hope in the argument of the Supreme Court ever doing anything about it, even if every nominee made for the next 30 years claimed to be “pro-life.” Even Roberts stated that he had no interest in revisiting Roe.

However, overturning Roe isn’t the only (or even best) way to fight abortion. Bills have been introduced that would both define life as beginning at conception & remove the federal court’s jurisdiction over the matter. Overturning Roe would return the issue to the states, as would this bill, but simply relying on the SC to do it would leave the possibility that a future SC could do it again with different language. The bill would prevent federal courts from even trying again.

On the issue of Catholic voting according to Church teaching, there is a blog called “Defend Life” out there that put together a spreadsheet evaluating all of the presidential candidates according to the Criteria published in the US Conference of Catholic Bishops document on Faithful Citizenship. (Found here: defendlife.blogspot.com/2007/11/forming-consciences-for-faithful.html)

No democratic candidate scores as well when compared to Catholic teaching as even the worst Republican.

(Here’s a link to the spreadsheet - spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pSaR9kLq8ruNdalwiA-fXPQ)

It’s worth looking at the Faithful Citizenship document & the spreadsheet that evaluates the candidates to it so one can try to discern the best person to support (especially now in the primary season!)

I guess you’d have to look at voting records and such of a particular candidate, when it comes to abortion, and critically evaluate whether or not they’re regurgitating the party platform or if they are trying to get elected.

I agree entirely, although I would only add that it is important to look at their records on ALL of the issues that the Church teaches are important.

“Deeds, not Words” are the best indication of whether someone walks the talk or is just blowing smoke to get elected.

Chris

 

[SoCalRC]

No democratic candidate scores as well when compared to Catholic teaching as even the worst Republican.

That’s the problem of wholly subjective scoring. For example, if you’ve written about the Biblical justification for segregation, how does one get the maximum score on opposing racism?

Similiarly, if you profess that you would expand secret prisons and use more severe interogation, how do you get high marks with regards to torture?

Most baffling to me was the scoring on fetal life issues. It seems to me if you voted against a bill to ban cloning and against a bill restricting the use of fetal tissue in vaccines, you probably shouldn’t get a perfect score…

My advice, read the Vatican’s advice, and read the USCCB’s advice (both can be found at www.usccb.org\faithfulcitzenship)), then study very hard.

If you rely extensively on others to do your moral assessments, chances are you will pick up an agenda, regardless of the proxy’s original intentions.

I will give kudos to the site for at least acnolowledging the broader teachings of our faith (the CAF’s removal of all Gosepl related teachings from it’s voter’s guide still has me baffled). Though I object to the concept of relative scoring. The Church has identified nine broad moral principles that do not permit abridgement (see the Vatican statement). Being ‘right’ on a bunch of lesser teachings does not excuse being wrong on larger ones.