Voting based on one issue - Abortion

[steve_pattee]

Is it immoral to vote for a politician who supports abortion? That depends on if I vote for him BECAUSE he supports abortion or IN SPITE of his pro-abortion position.
Voting pro-choice(i.e., pro abortion) because I believe in abortion would be immoral and I commit a mortal sin, cutting myself off from God. This would be formal cooperation in allowing to end a life so that another could supposedly live (better).
When the pro-life politician strongly supports what I consider immoral, such as unjustified war, I may choose the pro-choice candidate who otherwise supports what I consider moral. I made this choice because I perceive this politician’s decisions are more right than wrong. I cannot weigh who’s life is more important to God, the unborn child to be killed or the adult child sent off to war which kills him. Both are terrible choices, and in the case of unjustified war, sinful choices.
I believe one-issue voting was a deciding factor in the last general election. I’d like to hear what you think about what we Catholics should use to make our choices in the upcoming elections.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Is it immoral to vote for a politician who supports abortion? Yes if the other choice is pro-life. That depends on if I vote for him BECAUSE he supports abortion or IN SPITE of his pro-abortion position.
Voting pro-choice(i.e., pro abortion) because I believe in abortion would be immoral and I commit a mortal sin, cutting myself off from God. This would be formal cooperation in allowing to end a life so that another could supposedly live (better).
When the pro-life politician strongly supports what I consider immoral, such as unjustified war, I may choose the pro-choice candidate who otherwise supports what I consider moral. Holy Mother church teaches that abortion is not a choice. War or no war is a moral choice we can agree with or not. I made this choice because I perceive this politician’s decisions are more right than wrong. I cannot weigh who’s life is more important to God, the unborn child to be killed or the adult child sent off to war which kills him. Both are terrible choices, and in the case of unjustified war, sinful choices.
I believe one-issue voting was a deciding factor in the last general election. I’d like to hear what you think about what we Catholics should use to make our choices in the upcoming elections.

One non-choice issue is abortion. Check the teachings of Holy Mother Church.

So sorry but abortion trumps all if there is any choice. Now if both are “pro-choice” then other moral issues can come into play.

Voters Guide for Serious Catholics caaction.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

 

[sprout]

I’m a single-issue 100% prolife voter. I include war, death penalty, euthanasia, ESCR in my assessment of a candidate’s position on prolife issues. That’s why I say 100%. As a California voter this basically means I throw my vote away at every election, but God doesn’t ask that I succeed, only that I follow my conscience as formed by the teachings of the Church.

I pray for the day when the slaughter of innocent children in the womb is no longer a voting issue so that I can have the luxury of assessing a given candidates other positions. Until such a time, a candidates position on life tells me everything I need to know about his/her character and worthiness of my vote.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

I find it fascinating the reaction of people who rant against “one-issue voting” and I pose this question:

Well, maybe you’re a one-issue spouse. Would you marry someone if you agreed with them on finances, houses, cars, religion, children, in-laws and where to spend vacations, but the only issue that you disagreed with them on was the other person believed adultery was perfectly okay and one had a right to stray?

All of a sudden, that one-issue thinking isn’t so horrible.

Some issues… it doesn’t matter what they are right on, if they are wrong on that, they are wrong for the job.

 

[Teflon93]

Catechism:

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 **Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: **

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"**The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80 **
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81

Scandal:

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."86 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing.87

2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible."88 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,89 or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!"90

Politicians who support abortion are guilty of scandal.

 

[Philothea53]

One non-choice issue is abortion. Check the teachings of Holy Mother Church.

So sorry but abortion trumps all if there is any choice. (philothes53 bold) Now if both are “pro-choice” then other moral issues can come into play.

Voters Guide for Serious Catholics caaction.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

KathleenElsie - you know, you have not posted even one thing that I disagree with on any of the threads in this entire forum where I have seen you post something. In my eyes, you are a rock star. May God bless you.

 

[gradstud35]

I look at it this way. There are many things I don’t agree with in the Republican party. I don’t believe in the death penalty. And Republicans seem to screw the middle and lower class a lot especially when it comes to things like health care, student loans, etc. Take it from me, I used to work for a Republican congressman.
But abortion is murder. Sometimes you have to suffer economically when issues of such great moral importance are at stake. It is the greater sacrifice.

 

[Eileen_T]

Change the wording and see if it holds up.
Premise:
Is it immoral to vote for a politician who supports abortion, who otherwise supports what I consider moral?

Is it immoral to vote for a politician who supports a return to slavery, who otherwise supports what I consider moral?

Matthew 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.

 

[RhyannaRose]

It’s hard to reconcile voting for someone like the POTUS just because they are pro-life when I disagree with so many other of their politics. For me this election is going to be alot about the war on terror and figuring out what on earth to do about the Iraq mess. Hopefully the candidate I agree with on his stance in those matters is also pro-life. If he’s not, then I have quite a hard decision to make.

Question - Would you guys vote for someone whose ideas on the war on terror or Iraq were completely opposite from yours just because they were pro-life.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Remember that Hitler had some bad plans for the Jews, but otherwise he was quite dedicated in improving Germany.

 

[Philothea53]

It’s hard to reconcile voting for someone like the POTUS just because they are pro-life when I disagree with so many other of their politics. For me this election is going to be alot about the war on terror and figuring out what on earth to do about the Iraq mess. Hopefully the candidate I agree with on his stance in those matters is also pro-life. If he’s not, then I have quite a hard decision to make.

Question - Would you guys vote for someone whose ideas on the war on terror or Iraq were completely opposite from yours just because they were pro-life.

If you devalue human life in the womb, why should it be protected at any other stage, if you won’t protect it when it’s most innocent and most vulnerable?

 

[Sure]

Question - Would you guys vote for someone whose ideas on the war on terror or Iraq were completely opposite from yours just because they were pro-life.

Absolutely, yes.

Maybe it would help to substitute a different issue than abortion. Unfortunately too many people fail to grasp the gravity of evil that is abortion. Instead, ask yourself what you would do if the issue was rape. Say it’s Romney vs Clinton in a presidential election. Romney is opposed to rape but favors the war. Clinton, on the other hand, favors the right of anyone to rape anyone else at any time and she opposes the war in Iraq. So, would you vote for the pro-rape candidate because of the war? Or would you vote for the candidate who opposes rape even though he supports a war that you feel is unjust?

 

[Teflon93]

It’s hard to reconcile voting for someone like the POTUS just because they are pro-life when I disagree with so many other of their politics. For me this election is going to be alot about the war on terror and figuring out what on earth to do about the Iraq mess. Hopefully the candidate I agree with on his stance in those matters is also pro-life. If he’s not, then I have quite a hard decision to make.

Question - Would you guys vote for someone whose ideas on the war on terror or Iraq were completely opposite from yours just because they were pro-life.

Yes. The smartest thing Democrats could do to woo Catholics back would be to run a staunchly pro-life candidate for President.

I have to take exception to “just because” in your formulation. The Church recognizes that there is no graver sin than the murder of an infant as in abortion. It cannot be justified on any moral grounds.

The Catholic position on war, however, recognizes that there is such a thing as just war. Reasonable people may of course debate whether a given conflict meets this criteria, but clearly some do.

Likewise the Catholic position on capital punishment. The Church recognizes there are some situations where it is licit.

This is not the case with abortion, which is everywhere and always evil.

The person who believes abortion to be licit while just war and the death penalty are always illicit put themselves in the position of claiming that the slaying of the most innocent among us is fine while the killing of those attempting to murder or enslave us is not.

I agreed with the Catholic teaching on this long before I became a Catholic because moral logic strongly favors the Church here.

 

[estesbob]

Is it immoral to vote for a politician who supports abortion? That depends on if I vote for him BECAUSE he supports abortion or IN SPITE of his pro-abortion position.
Voting pro-choice(i.e., pro abortion) because I believe in abortion would be immoral and I commit a mortal sin, cutting myself off from God. This would be formal cooperation in allowing to end a life so that another could supposedly live (better).
When the pro-life politician strongly supports what I consider immoral, such as unjustified war, I may choose the pro-choice candidate who otherwise supports what I consider moral. I made this choice because I perceive this politician’s decisions are more right than wrong. I cannot weigh who’s life is more important to God, the unborn child to be killed or the adult child sent off to war which kills him. Both are terrible choices, and in the case of unjustified war, sinful choices.
I believe one-issue voting was a deciding factor in the last general election. I’d like to hear what you think about what we Catholics should use to make our choices in the upcoming elections.

In the first place it is wrong to describe what you’re referring to a single issue voting. Just because a person is pro-life does not mean that I would vote for them. It is just the first hurdle they have to pass before I would even consider voting for them. I suspect you are the same way-for instance would you vote for someone who wanted to reinstitute segregation even if you supported the rest of their views?

Cardinal Ratzinger expressed the Church’s teachings as follows:

1. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy 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. **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.

**

 

[estesbob]

Question - Would you guys vote for someone whose ideas on the war on terror or Iraq were completely opposite from yours just because they were pro-life.

No. But I most certainly wouldn’t turn around and vote for somebody who supports abortion because of this. There have been several elections for Senate and Congress where I refused to vote for the candidate of either party. If I vote for a candidate who supports abortion I up with blood on my hands.

 

[catechumen08]

Just kind of curious, is there a candidate who hasn’t flip-flopped on being pro-life?

 

[drafdog]

Well, since we’re quoting Cardinal Ratzinger of the Office of the Inquisition:
“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and /or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”
the Cardinal as quoted by A. M. Greeley in “The Making of the Pope: 2005”

That being said it is the task of the voter to look at the platform of the candidate and the party and evaluate stands on education, public welfare, health, war, capital punishment, global warming, etc. and see how the candidate (party) stacks up to what the voter constitutes as social good. It still comes back to your own personal conscience. The Church cannot order you to vote for or against any given candidate or party.

Matthew

 

[estesbob]

Just kind of curious, is there a candidate who hasn’t flip-flopped on being pro-life?

Yes. In fact most of the flip-flopping went the other way. As it became a litmus issue in the Democrat party droves of Democrats became pro-choice. **** Durbin, Al Gore and Bill Clinton are prominent examples.

Personally I look at their voting record. If they have consistently voted pro-life over the last few years I really don’t care if they were pro-choice before that.

 

[estesbob]

Well, since we’re quoting Cardinal Ratzinger of the Office of the Inquisition:
“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and /or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”
the Cardinal as quoted by A. M. Greeley in “The Making of the Pope: 2005”

That being said it is the task of the voter to look at the platform of the candidate and the party and evaluate stands on education, public welfare, health, war, capital punishment, global warming, etc. and see how the candidate (party) stacks up to what the voter constitutes as social good. It still comes back to your own personal conscience. The Church cannot order you to vote for or against any given candidate or party.

Matthew

I wonder how many other people in this thread are amazed that you would quote Greeley as having any authority whatsoever to speak for the Catholic Church. His only claim to fame is he is a mystery writer and a prominent dissident. You might as well start posting quotes from Ann Stone, Former President of “Catholics for Choice”

The church can’t order you to do anything whatsoever. However in this area they have laid out clearly what a practicing Catholic should do. If you want to support abortion that is your choice but please don’t try and reconcile that with being true to the teachings of the Church.

 

[fix]

Well, since we’re quoting Cardinal Ratzinger of the Office of the Inquisition:
“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and /or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”
the Cardinal as quoted by A. M. Greeley in “The Making of the Pope: 2005”

That being said it is the task of the voter to look at the platform of the candidate and the party and evaluate stands on education, public welfare, health, war, capital punishment, global warming, etc. and see how the candidate (party) stacks up to what the voter constitutes as social good. It still comes back to your own personal conscience. The Church cannot order you to vote for or against any given candidate or party.

Matthew

Too bad the priest did not define what is meant by proportionate reasons. Has the Church said such reasons include capital punishment, healthcare, education…?

And conscience must be informed that includes never contradicting the Church teachings on faith and morals.