Voting for Pro Abortion candidates

[JackQ]

So legislators who support abortion are guilty of grevious sin but Catholics who vote them into office are not? At the end of World War II would it have a been your contention that we should punish those who ran the gas chambers but not those who appointed them to do so?

It appears to me that you’re trying to twist Catholic teaching in a futile attempt to support your political views . If you reject the Church teaching on abortion that is between you and God-if, however, you try to convince other Catholics that such a rejection is in any way shape or form in accordance with the teachings of the Church you need to be publicly corrected.

Actually, the sentence you highlighted was meant to distinguish between legislators who vote in a pro-abortion manner, and judges who are stuck with the law as it is. But my position is the same as that promulgated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Abortion is an important issue, indeed, it’s at the top of the list. But being pro-life is bigger than abortion. On another thread the question was asked (and not answered) as to whether a particular poster would vote for a pro-life politician who was in favor of repealing the 13th Amendment.

Now if I was trying to twist Catholic teaching, I would be saying that abortion is okay. I’m not. I agree with the Catholic teaching on abortion, and have loudly proclaimed as much in other venues. What I reject is that abortion is the only issue to be considered in casting a vote for a candidate, especially since the legality of abortion is an issue that will be practically out of reach for most politicians, abortion being a constitutional right in the United States, alas. Moreover, since 1980 the numbers of abortions in the U.S. have been declining steadily, regardless of who was in office, indicating that the eradication of abortion will likely not turn on politics. I also reject the notion that what politicians say on that or any other issue should be taken at face value. I strongly reject any idea that the Republican party is the only worthy recipient of the Catholic vote.

Thus far, the Church has declined to state that abortion is a litmus test that all Catholics must use in choosing who to vote for. If she ever does, then I will, of course, submit to the Magisterium. But there are some who are saying that the litmus test method is indeed how Catholics should vote, and that to do otherwise is opposed to Catholic teaching. If you are taking that position, then it is you who needs to be publicly corrected.

 

[estesbob]

Gee I hate to boast, but what I do is repeatedly articulate a pro-life position, on my own program, on a “progressive” radio station to an audience hostile to that position, with open phone lines. On said program I have articulated my position that abortion should be punished with the same penalty as manslaughter, as was the case at common law.

Now this is a thread dealing with how Catholics should vote. It is appropriate to interpret everything that is said in this thread in that context. It is also appropriate to point out that there are no magisterial documents stating that Catholics should vote in the manner described, with abortion as a litmus test, and that, indeed, the document put out by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on faithful citizenship precisely does not take such a position. Yet there are numerous posters here, and many who state the same position elsewhere, that a politician’s articulation of pro-life views as it pertains to abortion requires all Catholics to vote for him, regardless of his position on other issues. Often this is presented as something other than a personal opinion, which it most surely is.

In the last analysis, the source for all of this is a cynical attempt to spiritually intimidate sincere Catholics into voting for Republicans. The positive proof for this is the way that a vote for the latest health care reform legislation has been equated with a pro-abortion vote. Representative Bart Stupak, a Democrat, took positive steps to ensure that the legislation could not be legitimately interpreted to allow for abortion funding, which would be in violation of the Hyde Amendment anyway. As you probably know he was visited with ill-informed hysteria that he had sold out to the abortionists. Well, he did not sell out to the abortionists, nor did any of the other pro-life Democrats in Congress. Nonetheless, I came upon a “pro-life” website crowing that a number of pro-life Democrats had been voted out in the recent election (because, of course, only a Republican can be authentically pro-life). Meanwhile, a vote against the recent health-care reform had nothing to do with being pro-life, and everything to do with enriching insurance companies.

So, I’m sorry if Holly was offended, although I suspect she’s a better judge of that than you are. But I will resist with all my might the attempt to co-opt the Catholic vote into the Republican party, as was done with the Evangelical vote, so that the neoconservatives can pursue their bellicose and robberbaron policies. That will include opposing with firmness the false doctrine that a Catholic vote is a Republican vote. In the meantime, I will pray for the conversion of those who support and practice abortion while you’re throwing rotten fruit at them.

Perhaps you should learn what the Catholic position is before you deride those who adhere to it A Catholic cannot vote for pro-abortion candidate regardless of what party candidate belongs to.Unfortunately it appears that your approach abortion as just another political issue in one which one may wheel and and compromise the lives of the unborn to achieve one’s political goals

Stupak is an example of what happens when moral values give way to political expediency.

 

[estesbob]

Actually, the sentence you highlighted was meant to distinguish between legislators who vote in a pro-abortion manner, and judges who are stuck with the law as it is. But my position is the same as that promulgated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Abortion is an important issue, indeed, it’s at the top of the list. But being pro-life is bigger than abortion. On another thread the question was asked (and not answered) as to whether a particular poster would vote for a pro-life politician who was in favor of repealing the 13th Amendment.

Now if I was trying to twist Catholic teaching, I would be saying that abortion is okay. I’m not. I agree with the Catholic teaching on abortion, and have loudly proclaimed as much in other venues. What I reject is that abortion is the only issue to be considered in casting a vote for a candidate, especially since the legality of abortion is an issue that will be practically out of reach for most politicians, abortion being a constitutional right in the United States, alas. Moreover, since 1980 the numbers of abortions in the U.S. have been declining steadily, regardless of who was in office, indicating that the eradication of abortion will likely not turn on politics. I also reject the notion that what politicians say on that or any other issue should be taken at face value. I strongly reject any idea that the Republican party is the only worthy recipient of the Catholic vote.

Thus far, the Church has declined to state that abortion is a litmus test that all Catholics must use in choosing who to vote for. If she ever does, then I will, of course, submit to the Magisterium. But there are some who are saying that the litmus test method is indeed how Catholics should vote, and that to do otherwise is opposed to Catholic teaching. If you are taking that position, then it is you who needs to be publicly corrected.

Interesting that you tell us you don’t twist Catholic teaching and then twist it to support your political views. You continue to attack the Republican Party when in fact party allegiance has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not one can support a pro-abortion candidate. The fact that the Democratic Party has sold itself out to the abortion lobby in this country is something you should take up with them-not rant and rave about how evil Republicans are and how their evilness allows you to support the slaughter of the innocents.

 

[MarianD]

"Republicans aren’t very pro-life themselves. Supporting an unjust war, the death penalty, embryonic stem cell research.

And this is why I registered proudly as an Independent. Both parties (speaking in terms of their current agendas) offer death. One simply offers it before birth, and the other after birth.

 

[JackQ]

Perhaps you should learn what the Catholic position is before you deride those who adhere to it A Catholic cannot vote for pro-abortion candidate regardless of what party candidate belongs to.Unfortunately it appears that your approach abortion as just another political issue in one which one may wheel and and compromise the lives of the unborn to achieve one’s political goals

Stupak is an example of what happens when moral values give way to political expediency.

Perhaps you should learn what the Catholic position is. The Catholic position, according to the USCCB is that one cannot vote for a proabortion candidate because of that candidate’s position on abortion. Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, put out by the USCCB says this:

"34. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so
important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper
relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes
a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s
intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal
cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s
opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other
important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

1. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable
   position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.
   Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to
   advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil." (Emphasis mine)

But how do we weigh these things? Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship says this:

“27. Two temptations in public life can distort the Church’s defense of human life
and dignity:
28. The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between
different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and
intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception
until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must
always be opposed.
29. The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of
dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. Racism and
other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war,
the use of torture, war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering
from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious
moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not
optional concerns which can be dismissed. Catholics are urged to seriously consider
Church teaching on these issues. Although choices about how best to respond
to these and other compelling threats to human life and dignity are matters for
principled debate and decision, this does not make them optional concerns or
permit Catholics to dismiss or ignore Church teaching on these important issues.
Clearly not every Catholic can be actively involved on each of these concerns,
but we need to support one another as our community of faith defends human life
and dignity wherever it is threatened. We are not factions, but one family of faith
fulfilling the mission of Jesus Christ.” (Emphasis mine)

So, you see, although abortion is at the top of the list, the bishops specifically reject the idea that we are to be one issue voters. If you think differently than that, then you are opposed to the bishops, not me. Since they are the ones given the teaching office, I’ll throw in on their side. [More in the next post]

 

[JackQ]

Perhaps you should learn what the Catholic position is before you deride those who adhere to it A Catholic cannot vote for pro-abortion candidate regardless of what party candidate belongs to.Unfortunately it appears that your approach abortion as just another political issue in one which one may wheel and and compromise the lives of the unborn to achieve one’s political goals

Stupak is an example of what happens when moral values give way to political expediency.

[continued from previous post]
Now let’s talk about Representative Stupak. While the health care legislation was pending, there was some concern that it would allow federal funding of abortions. The legislation didn’t say that, and it would contradict already existing federal law, but there was some concern that courts would interpret it that way. Stupak wanted to add an amendment addressing that, but he also wanted to expand health coverage to people who couldn’t get it. Both are Catholic concerns. Unfortunately, too many Democrats get pro-abortion money, so he couldn’t get his amendment. So what did he do? He arranged for a floor debate where it was made clear that the health care reform package is not intended, then voted for the reform. Suddenly there were certain “pro-life” voices that were raised saying that Stupak had sold out. It was said that the floor debate was meaningless. Ironically, the pro-abortion side said the same thing, since they were trying to cover themselves, and keep their supporters from realizing that they had just been beaten on the issue. But both sides were wrong. Floor debates are not meaningless. When there is a question as to what a piece of legislation means, floor debates are a source that courts look to in order to determine the legislative intent. The executive order that Obama signed, though insufficient in itself, added strength to Stupak’s position. Of course, these facts were inconvenient to Republican forces disguising themselves as pro-life advocates, so the facts were distorted.

Now I’m not an apologist for the Democratic Party by any means. And I certainly realize that Catholic teaching isn’t about party. But I have seen the Republican party successfully co-opt the Evangelicals, and I see the same attempt being attempted with the Catholics. And I’m calling it.

 

[JackQ]

Interesting that you tell us you don’t twist Catholic teaching and then twist it to support your political views. You continue to attack the Republican Party when in fact party allegiance has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not one can support a pro-abortion candidate. The fact that the Democratic Party has sold itself out to the abortion lobby in this country is something you should take up with them-not rant and rave about how evil Republicans are and how their evilness allows you to support the slaughter of the innocents.

I have not twisted Catholic teaching. I have set forth some of it in my previous post. That Catholic teaching contradicts what you say, not what I say.

The fact that so many Democrats support abortion is something I do take up with them when I speak to them. But there are no Democrats supporting abortion participating in this discussion.

The fact that the Republicans also support things contrary to Catholic teaching is something that belongs in the discussion because it is true, and it is something that a Catholic should take into consideration when voting. And no that doesn’t allow me or anyone to support the slaughter of innocents. But, of course, I don’t do that.

 

[JackQ]

And this is why I registered proudly as an Independent. Both parties (speaking in terms of their current agendas) offer death. One simply offers it before birth, and the other after birth.

You are 100% right about this. My humble suggestion is read Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, pray about it and vote your conscience. And don’t let anybody tell you that if you don’t vote the way they want you to that you’re endangering your soul. Stick to what the Church actually teaches.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

And this is why I registered proudly as an Independent. Both parties (speaking in terms of their current agendas) offer death. One simply offers it before birth, and the other after birth.

Seeing as registering as an Independent removes your ability to vote in the primaries in most states — I don’t know your particular situation — wouldn’t it make more sense to register as a Democrat in case a pro-life Democrat slips into the primary season where you are?

 

[Canto]

There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil." (Emphasis mine)

And what are other trully morally grave reasons? “not… to ignore fundamental moral evil” adds the document.

Many bishops have spoken out forcefully that the document is being abused. Bishop Robert Vasa, for example, points out that voting for a pro-abortion candidate is never justified when the opponent is pro-life. Similarly, Bishops Kevin Vann and Kevin Farrell insist there are no “‘truly grave moral’ or ‘proportionate’ reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year.” - catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=30284

“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.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, The Participation of Catholics in Political Life 4)

Out of interest…

“This exercise of conscience begins with outright opposition to laws and other policies that violate human life or weaken its protection.” (Faithful Citizenship 31).

“The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.” (Faithful Citizenship 28)

“As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet **candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion **or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.” (Faithful Citizenship 42)

“The inalienable **right to life of every innocent human person outweighs other concerns **where Catholics may use prudential judgment, such as how best to meet the needs of the poor or to increase access to health care for all.” (New York State Bishops, Our Cherished Right, Our Solemn Duty)

Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights – for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture – is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination… - JPII Christifideles Laici #8

CCC 1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.Cardinal Levada from the CDF noted that abortion comes under the infalibilty of the ordinary magesterium.

“Conscience is not something that allows us to justify doing whatever we want, nor is it a mere ‘feeling’ about what we should or should not do.” (Faithful Citizenship 17)

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This goes lightyears beyond proposterous. City bus drivers do not have the power, claivoyance, or right to snoop into where people are going. And when they do find out where people are going, they don’t have the right to dictate whether or not they’ll drive them there. This is just crazy. When does it end? Ironically this is the nanny state you’re proposing, the very thing hardcore right wingers claim to hate. Bus drivers refusing to drive women certain places because they, as drivers, find something morally questionable? I’m pro life but this is just ‘out there.’ What’s next? A girl says she needs to get to Walgreens to pick up her birth control pill and the cabbie tells her no because he’s Catholic. Then the bus driver refuses to take her and drops her off in another part of town to keep her away from the drug store? What if you know someone is driving to a Mormon temple? The playboy mansion? A stemcell research summit? On their way to see the Da Vinci Code? A XXX rated theatre? Or on their way to city hall to get remarried after a divorce? Or on their way to a fertility clinic for in vitro?

This will be a busy bus driver asking each passenger and double-checking that their destination meets his moral daily fiber count…

To answer your friends question; if the bus driver is a Catholic and knows that the girl is going to the abortion clinic to procure an abortion then…yes, he has committed a sin.

 

[Vince1022]

So legislators who support abortion are guilty of grevious sin but Catholics who vote them into office are not? .

Legislators who support abortion may or may not be guilty of a grievous sin. Catholics who vote for such legislators may or may not be guilty of a grievous sin.

 

[karoleck]

Legislators who support abortion may or may not be guilty of a grievous sin. Catholics who vote for such legislators may or may not be guilty of a grievous sin.

cam.org.au/stateelection

Here is a link that the Catholic Bishops of Victoria issued to every parish within the State.It is two years too late–as Victoria has the worst Abortion Bill in the Western World.

I suspect that the USA will catch up sooner or later!!!

In one way I suspect that it will not count for much as here only twelve percent of Adult Catholics got to Mass anyway!!

 

[karoleck]

Interesting that you tell us you don’t twist Catholic teaching and then twist it to support your political views. You continue to attack the Republican Party when in fact party allegiance has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not one can support a pro-abortion candidate. The fact that the Democratic Party has sold itself out to the abortion lobby in this country is something you should take up with them-not rant and rave about how evil Republicans are and how their evilness allows you to support the slaughter of the innocents.

youtube.com/

History has a way of teaching lessons if we wish to learn from it.From what I can gather Americans are passionately either for the Republic or the Democratic Party, with a lot of apathy in between.

This is what happened only two years ago–a very short period of history indeed; but things travel fast!! Basically in short ,this is what happened of how Victoria got the worst abortion legislation in the world.

A group of Feminists’ about TWENTY FIVE YEARS AGO met in Victoria–they modeled themselves on the Hilary Clinton model called Emerly’s List.Their plan was to get elected to Government (from any party!!) of women & men whose sole election platform was to bring in the "womans’ choice and human “right” to Abortion–period!! This was their secret aim—after twenty five years they got what they wanted and celebrated with champagne drinks!!

So Party policy with both major players in the end did not count for a cent! Voters in the end were fooled ;as they should have targeted individual persons to what they stood for on an issue as critical like abortion.(Do not worry–there were “catholics” and “good christians” on both sides who voted to kill babies up to birth-even “partial births” and they took away a doctors right to refuse to kill a baby!!

So party politics and a blind adherance to it, is a moral issue that each voter has to be aware of.Having a “family” history of a particular party will not count on judgement day(except to a party with clear good, and sound values based on God and under God-for the common good).

 

[MarianD]

Seeing as registering as an Independent removes your ability to vote in the primaries in most states — I don’t know your particular situation — wouldn’t it make more sense to register as a Democrat in case a pro-life Democrat slips into the primary season where you are?

In my state (Massachusetts), Independents can vote in any primary, but Republicans can’t vote in Democratic primaries and vice-versa.

 

[JackQ]

And what are other trully morally grave reasons? “not… to ignore fundamental moral evil” adds the document.)

Well, it wouldn’t make sense for Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship (hereinafter “FCFC”) to address other morally grave reasons if there weren’t any. Of course, voting in this way is “permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.” (FCFC, sec. 35.) In other words, you can’t vote for a pro-abortion candidate because he is pro-abortion. Nor is it permissible to vote for that candidate because he advances your own interests or your party preferences. You have to actually weigh grave moral concerns. But if the bishops meant to say that when there are two candidates, one pro-life and the other pro-abortion, you must vote for the pro-life candidate, they would have simply said that. They didn’t.

What are other grave moral concerns? “Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture, war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed.” (FCFC, sec. 29.)

Many bishops have spoken out forcefully that the document is being abused. Bishop Robert Vasa, for example, points out that voting for a pro-abortion candidate is never justified when the opponent is pro-life. Similarly, Bishops Kevin Vann and Kevin Farrell insist there are no “‘truly grave moral’ or ‘proportionate’ reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year.” - catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=30284

If these bishops are directing the Catholics in their dioceses to vote in this manner, then that is exactly what those Catholics should do. I would never suggest to any Catholic that he disobey the directive of his own bishop.

I am under no such directive, however, and am free to point out that some votes make a great deal of difference and others make little or none. One may vote for a pro-life candidate on principle (though true pro-life candidates are hard to find–most of them allow for exceptions), and get little or nothing accomplished since abortion is a constitutional right in the United States. A pro-abortion candidate, on the other hand, may actually be able to get certain things done, such as ending our involvement with torture, or getting health coverage for those unable to access it. Prudence mandates, it seems to me, that we vote with a view to the actual practical outcome that our vote will bring about, and not solely on the expressed philosophy of a given candidate. Another issue is the problem of unqualified candidates. This especially shows up when we’re selecting a President. Just because a candidate is pro-life doesn’t mean he is qualified to be President. He may be so naive, knavish, or foolish that he will actually endanger the nation.

“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.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, The Participation of Catholics in Political Life 4)

Yes, this is quoted in FCFC. The full quote is:

“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.”

In other words, there is no justification for being a single issue voter.

Out of interest…

“This exercise of conscience begins with outright opposition to laws and other policies that violate human life or weaken its protection.” (Faithful Citizenship 31).

Indeed, we should oopose such things.

“The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.” (Faithful Citizenship 28)

Indeed, it should always be opposed. [continued in the next post]

 

[JackQ]

“As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet **candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion **or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.” (Faithful Citizenship 42)

Emphasis on “may.”

“The inalienable **right to life of every innocent human person outweighs other concerns **where Catholics may use prudential judgment, such as how best to meet the needs of the poor or to increase access to health care for all.” (New York State Bishops, Our Cherished Right, Our Solemn Duty)

Thus say the bishops of New York, and they are clearly right. I haven’t read this document, so I don’t know the context of the statement. But taking the statement by itself, it doesn’t follow that we should vote for knaves or fools who say they are pro-life, especially when they have no appreciable chance of bringing an end to abortion. And it certainly doesn’t mean that meeting the needs of the poor or increasing access to health care for all have no weight whatsoever.

Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights – for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture – is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination… - JPII Christifideles Laici #8

CCC 1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.Cardinal Levada from the CDF noted that abortion comes under the infalibilty of the ordinary magesterium.

“Conscience is not something that allows us to justify doing whatever we want, nor is it a mere ‘feeling’ about what we should or should not do.” (Faithful Citizenship 17)

All of these things are absolutely true.

 

[JackQ]

youtube.com/

History has a way of teaching lessons if we wish to learn from it.From what I can gather Americans are passionately either for the Republic or the Democratic Party, with a lot of apathy in between.

This is what happened only two years ago–a very short period of history indeed; but things travel fast!! Basically in short ,this is what happened of how Victoria got the worst abortion legislation in the world.

A group of Feminists’ about TWENTY FIVE YEARS AGO met in Victoria–they modeled themselves on the Hilary Clinton model called Emerly’s List.Their plan was to get elected to Government (from any party!!) of women & men whose sole election platform was to bring in the "womans’ choice and human “right” to Abortion–period!! This was their secret aim—after twenty five years they got what they wanted and celebrated with champagne drinks!!

So Party policy with both major players in the end did not count for a cent! Voters in the end were fooled ;as they should have targeted individual persons to what they stood for on an issue as critical like abortion.(Do not worry–there were “catholics” and “good christians” on both sides who voted to kill babies up to birth-even “partial births” and they took away a doctors right to refuse to kill a baby!!

So party politics and a blind adherance to it, is a moral issue that each voter has to be aware of.Having a “family” history of a particular party will not count on judgement day(except to a party with clear good, and sound values based on God and under God-for the common good).

Maybe we should start a Catholic party that follows all of the teachings of the Church. Isn’t that how the Christian Democrats in Europe got started?

 

[MarianD]

Maybe we should start a Catholic party that follows all of the teachings of the Church. Isn’t that how the Christian Democrats in Europe got started?

Such a party would be illegal to be elected to office in the United States. “Separation of Church and State” is ordered in the 1st Amendment. So you can’t mention anything Christian about your party or about your policies. You just have to act in accordance with them, without “because it’s the Catholic thing to do” being the reason you give.

 

[estesbob]

Perhaps you should learn what the Catholic position is. The Catholic position, according to the USCCB is that one cannot vote for a proabortion candidate because of that candidate’s position on abortion. Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, put out by the USCCB says this:

"34. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so
important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper
relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes
a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s
intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal
cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s
opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other
important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

1. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable
   position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.
   Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to
   advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil." (Emphasis mine)

But how do we weigh these things? Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship says this:

“27. Two temptations in public life can distort the Church’s defense of human life
and dignity:
28. The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between
different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and
intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception
until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must
always be opposed.
29. The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of
dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. Racism and
other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war,
the use of torture, war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering
from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious
moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not
optional concerns which can be dismissed. Catholics are urged to seriously consider
Church teaching on these issues. Although choices about how best to respond
to these and other compelling threats to human life and dignity are matters for
principled debate and decision, this does not make them optional concerns or
permit Catholics to dismiss or ignore Church teaching on these important issues.
Clearly not every Catholic can be actively involved on each of these concerns,
but we need to support one another as our community of faith defends human life
and dignity wherever it is threatened. We are not factions, but one family of faith
fulfilling the mission of Jesus Christ.” (Emphasis mine)

So, you see, although abortion is at the top of the list, the bishops specifically reject the idea that we are to be one issue voters. If you think differently than that, then you are opposed to the bishops, not me. Since they are the ones given the teaching office, I’ll throw in on their side. [More in the next post]

Nice cut n paste BUT you can not vote for him if there is no viable pro-lifternative.Proportionality comes into play only when both candates are equal to in there stance on abortion. We have previously posted comments from Cardinal Burke, Pope Benedict and , Archbishop Chaput ,among others, pointing this out. In fact the what is you cut and pasted supports this when taken in context of the entire voting guide and in the context of the totality of the teachings of the church on abortion

It is strange that you claim to be pro-life but have no problem empowering those who have vowed to keep abortion legal.