Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics

[dmelosi]

Actually he pointed out that that is who your freinds are.

Maple, you confuse me…you have said you are pro-life, yet you are siding with frankadams who votes democrat regardless of the fact that the democratic platform openly and aggressively for abortion on demand.

I guess I read your true intentions incorrectly.

Ami I correct in saying that you are here to try to cloud this issue so it is ok to vote democrat?

 

[mapleoak]

Frank posted this:

R = 6 of the 9 Republican-appointed Supreme Court justice who decided Roe

R = 8 of the 9 Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices who upheld Roe in 1992

R = controlled the White House for 24 of the last 36 years

0 = the number of abortion reduced by R since Roe

Millions = the number of abortions that R helped legalize and keep legal

And ended by taking a jab at republicans calling them your friends:

As I noted earlier, with “pro-life” friends like these, who needs enemies?

To which you misinterpreted friends to mean Democrats:

According to your statement, this means that your friends are the ones that certainly will promote abortion? Is that correct or am I missing something on why you are a hardline democrat?

And I corrected you by saying:

Actually he pointed out that that is who your freinds are.

 

[mapleoak]

Maple, you confuse me…you have said you are pro-life, yet you are siding with frankadams who votes democrat regardless of the fact that the democratic platform openly and aggressively for abortion on demand.

No sides. Simply pointing out your misinterpretation of your adversary’s statement. In order to have meaningful debate, one must accurately interpret your opponents viewpoint, otherwise you can’t properly refute it.

I guess I read your true intentions incorrectly.

Which are?

Ami I correct in saying that you are here to try to cloud this issue so it is ok to vote democrat?

You are incorrect. Voting “pro-abortion” is not okay.

 

[fix]

A Catholic who votes for the “more” pro-abortion candidate could say that just as readily

They could say it, but it would make no sense. How is one limiting evil by allowing more abortion?

This is particularly true when he looks at the abortion-related court decisions and inaction on abortion that the “pro-life” party gave us.

There would be more “action” if the more strongly pro aborts had more control?

 

[fix]

First, that is irrelevant to my point. If you are choosing “remote” complicency with intrinsic evil over “no” complicency with intrinsic evil, you are probably not in a position to pass moral judgement on others.

First, in both cases no sin was committed. Secondly, who is passing judgement?

But, addressing your point, under what theological argument? “Proportional reasons” presumes all evil choices. There is nothing in the statements from Cardinals, the document from the USCCB or the Doctrinal Note to support the suggestion that ‘viability’ can trump morality. That’s not to say that, again, a Catholic is not trying to apply proportional reasons - but the farther one gets from what the Magisterium actually says, the more prudent one should probably be in judging the choices of others.

I think voting for a third party is licit. I think attempting to limit evil is licit. So, does the Church.

As for applying reasons your argument can be used against you as you are the one claiming your interpretation is superior to Cardinal Ratzinger.

 

[Lampo]

Please forgive me if this has already been presented in this thread; I admit I did not read all of the posts here. Would it be prudent to write in a candidate that is 100% pro-life like the candidate that withdrew from the race earlier this year?

 

[frankadams]

According to your statement, this means that your friends are the ones that certainly will promote abortion? Is that correct or am I missing something on why you are a hardline democrat?

Sorry for being away from the computer last night and not being here to respond. Thanks to those who clarified my intent.

This was misinterpreted. What I meant was that this historical record show that the “pro-life” party does not have a “pro-life” track record. If the Republican are our “friends” in this movement, but have had a lot to do with the legalization and continuation of abortion, I have no problem rethinking this “friendship.”

I think this is important because I have been repeatedly told on this thread that it is morally wrong if I vote Democrat instead of Republican (on a couple other threads I have been told that I am “endangering my soul”). But there have been times when I have voted Democrat and I may well do so again.

Those who criticize me largely do so because ofthe fact that the Democratic party platform is hardline pro-abortion, while the GOP platform is not. I understand that.

As one who has voted Republican in national elections before, in part because of abortion, I understand the appeal. However, I feel that the party has done little to nothing to stop or even slow abortions, while at the same time contributing to the “culture of death” by its stand on other “sanctity of life” issues, as well as going against the Church on a vast number of social issues, less important though they may be.

Many of you admit to being “pragmatic” and voting Republican even if the candidate supports limited abortions, which the Church calls “supporting an intrinsic evil.” I understand that as well. I am merely saying that one can look at the historical record, have doubts about the GOP’s true commitment to pro-life action, look at other life issues, look at social issues, and more, and come to a different pragmatic conclusion.

I don’t mind those who disagree with that conclusion.

I don’t mind those who try to show me why their “pragmatic” conclusion is better-reasoned (provided they can make a more compelling argument than “the Republicans will save 1.2 million more lives annually!”).

Nor do I mind those who choose to not vote or to vote for a truly pro-life candidate because of Catholic teaching. As mentioned earlier, this may well be the most authentically Christian response. I compared it to Christian pacifism, a position I could not see myself living, but one which seems to more genuinely embrace the message of the Gospel. I am stunned to see how much people in this category have been maligned here.

What I do mind is those who say that my conclusion means I should be outside of communion with Rome. I (presumably like those who disagree) have done what the bishops call “careful deliberation” and have made a choice when voting about how to best “limit evil.” Most of you have done likewise. But despite what many of you may claim, this makes neither of us “less Catholic.”

If so many of you are going to be “pragmatic,” why am I not afforded that same luxury?

 

[Peter_Da_Rock]

R = 6 of the 9 Republican-appointed Supreme Court justice who decided Roe

R = 8 of the 9 Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices who upheld Roe in 1992

R = controlled the White House for 24 of the last 36 years

0 = the number of abortion reduced by R since Roe

Millions = the number of abortions that R helped legalize and keep legal

As I noted earlier, with “pro-life” friends like these, who needs enemies?R = 6 of the 9 Republican-appointed Supreme Court justice who decided Roe

R = 8 of the 9 Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices who upheld Roe in 1992

R = controlled the White House for 24 of the last 36 years

0 = the number of abortion reduced by R since Roe

Millions = the number of abortions that R helped legalize and keep legal

As I noted earlier, with “pro-life” friends like these, who needs enemies?

 

[dmelosi]

Frank posted this:

And ended by taking a jab at republicans calling them your friends:

To which you misinterpreted friends to mean Democrats:

And I corrected you by saying:

He made the statement since I was saying that republicans are the better of 2 evils, if only by their party platform. (much more than that though), that they were my friends. I did not interpret incorrectly, he stated earlier that he voted democrat, so following his line of reasoning, they are his friends.

 

[frankadams]

He made the statement since I was saying that republicans are the better of 2 evils, if only by their party platform. (much more than that though), that they were my friends. I did not interpret incorrectly, he stated earlier that he voted democrat, so following his line of reasoning, they are his friends.

I have voted for both parties at pretty much every level of government, including the national level.

You say that the Republicans are the better of two evils. That is a reaonable conclusion. But please know that a Catholic examining the political landscape could also come to a different conclusion.

 

[mapleoak]

He made the statement since I was saying that republicans are the better of 2 evils, if only by their party platform. (much more than that though), that they were my friends. I did not interpret incorrectly, he stated earlier that he voted democrat, so following his line of reasoning, they are his friends.

Okay I understand. Thanks.

 

[estesbob]

I have voted for both parties at pretty much every level of government, including the national level.

You say that the Republicans are the better of two evils. That is a reaonable conclusion. But please know that a Catholic examining the political landscape could also come to a different conclusion.

When you voted for Kerry what issues or combination of issues trumped his support of taxpayer funded abortions up until the monet the childs head fully exits the womb,. ?

 

[mapleoak]

First, in both cases no sin was committed. Secondly, who is passing judgement?

I think voting for a third party is licit. I think attempting to limit evil is licit. So, does the Church.

I believe someone could honestly take either position. The latter is where there would appear the difficulty in appropriately applying proportionate reasons and for which there could justifiably be wide disagreement. I maintain that I don’t condemn anyone for taking either position.

 

[estesbob]

I believe someone could honestly take either position. The latter is where there would appear the difficulty in appropriately applying proportionate reasons and for which there could justifiably be wide disagreement. I maintain that I don’t condemn anyone for taking either position.

What proportionate reasons trump the support of the killing of 1.2 million chodren a year?

Bishop Garcia presents the Churchs position very well:

There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life.

That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not.
Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.
The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.

The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry).
Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and votes for legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils which is morally permissible under these circumstances.

catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1321

Jimmy Akins discusses "Proportionality here:
[jimmyakin.typepad.com/defenso...atzinger_.html](http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2004/09/what_ratzinger_.html)

An Exceprt

The Abortion Numbers
Consider: A million and a half new Americans are murdered every year by abortion.

While particular historical circumstances increase or decrease the number of Supreme Court appointments a president gets to make (some presidents get many and some get none), if we average out the differences then it turns out that a pro-abort president on average could extend the abortion holocaust by four years equivalent to the four year term he spends in office.

At a million and a half kids killed per year, that means that a pro-abort president would be responsible for extending the abortion holocaust to include six million additional murders.

When one takes into account the fact that about half of the recent presidents have had second terms, that would mean a pro-abort president would be responsible for extending the abortion
holocaust to include approximately nine million Americans.

No other issue involves numbers that high. Nothing short of a full-scale nuclear or biological war between well-armed nation states would kill that many people, and we aren’t in imminent danger of having one of those. Not even terrorists with WMDs could kill that many people. As vital as the issue of terrorism is, it does not get us up into the number of deaths caused by abortion. It would take three thousand 9/11-size events in a president’s average term of office (more than one a day) to rack up sufficient deaths to make terrorism proportionate to abortion. Al-Qa’eda simply does not have enough suicidal fanatics to make terrorism proportionate to abortion.

Jobs? The economy? Taxes? Education? The environment? Immigration? Forget it. We do not have nine million people dying in a typical president’s term of office due to bad job programs, bad economic policies, bad taxes, bad education, bad environmental law, bad immigration rules—or even all of these combined.** All of them together cannot provide a reason** proportionate to the need to end abortion.

Make no mistake: Abortion is the preeminent moral issue of our time. It is the black hole that out-masses every other issue. Presenting any other issues as if they were proportionate to it is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

---

 

[mapleoak]

What proportionate reasons trump the support of the killing of 1.2 million chodren a year?

none.

 

[Ender]

R = 6 of the 9 Republican-appointed Supreme Court justice who decided Roe

R = 8 of the 9 Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices who upheld Roe in 1992

R = controlled the White House for 24 of the last 36 years

If you’re comfortable with the strength of your position it shouldn’t be necessary to obscure the truth.

The 1992 case you refer to was the Planned Parenthood v Casey decision which was decided 5-4. Three of the four who opposed its central ruling that reinforced Roe were Republican appointees (the fourth was a Kennedy appointee from before the time when Roe was an issue); the possibility of getting another justice who would oppose Roe from a Democrat president is virtually nil. The chances of getting such a justice from a Republican president are probably 50-50.

You may not consider it important to obtain a fifth justice who might oppose Roe but let’s be clear about what the situation really is. There are four justices who can reasonably be assumed to oppose Roe: all were appointed by Republican presidents. It is inconceivable that a Democrat president would appoint such a justice.

Ender

 

[frankadams]

If you’re comfortable with the strength of your position it shouldn’t be necessary to obscure the truth.

The 1992 case you refer to was the Planned Parenthood v Casey decision which was decided 5-4. Three of the four who opposed its central ruling that reinforced Roe were Republican appointees (the fourth was a Kennedy appointee from before the time when Roe was an issue); the possibility of getting another justice who would oppose Roe from a Democrat president is virtually nil. The chances of getting such a justice from a Republican president are probably 50-50.

You may not consider it important to obtain a fifth justice who might oppose Roe but let’s be clear about what the situation really is. There are four justices who can reasonably be assumed to oppose Roe: all were appointed by Republican presidents. It is inconceivable that a Democrat president would appoint such a justice.

Ender

I am not “obscuring the truth.” The truth is that the “pro-life” party appointed 8 of the 9 Supreme Court justices on the Supreme Court that upheld Roe.

I take this into account when making a decision. I also take into account public statements from Republican candidates (and the Republican presidents) about Roe and public statements from recent Republican appointees to the Supreme Court, and dozens of other considerations.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I am not “obscuring the truth.” The truth is that the “pro-life” party appointed 8 of the 9 Supreme Court justices on the Supreme Court that upheld Roe.

I take this into account when making a decision. I also take into account public statements from Republican candidates (and the Republican presidents) about Roe and public statements from recent Republican appointees to the Supreme Court, and dozens of other considerations.

As do I. Politicians LOVE people who listen only to the words they say and don’t look at the track record or the facts. The Republican party has played the Pro-Life lobby for suckers, IMHO. They talk a good game, but when you look at the facts-they’ve done nothing.

I supported them for years, but I’m done now.

 

[estesbob]

I am not “obscuring the truth.” The truth is that the “pro-life” party appointed 8 of the 9 Supreme Court justices on the Supreme Court that upheld Roe.

I take this into account when making a decision. I also take into account public statements from Republican candidates (and the Republican presidents) about Roe and public statements from recent Republican appointees to the Supreme Court, and dozens of other considerations.

When you voted for Kerry what issues or combination of issues trumped his support of taxpayer funded abortions up until the monet the childs head fully exits the womb,. ?

 

[Fitswimmer]

When you voted for Kerry what issues or combination of issues trumped his support of taxpayer funded abortions up until the monet the childs head fully exits the womb,. ?

Of all the Republicans you have voted for, which one has DONE the most for the unborn? Not talked about, DONE.