Voting in Elections

[Mary67]

I know that the church teaches not to vote for politicians who have morally objectionable stances, but if all the political candidates have morally objectionable stances is it better simply not to vote? This may ruffle some feathers, but while the Republican party has bee the main pro-life party, I see the republican party drifting toward things that degrade human dignity in other ways besides abortion/euthanasia. I know we aren’t voting for a pope in political elections, but sin is sin and voting for it make us complacent to it and this really troubles me.

 

[mVitus]

One guideline I’ve seen is “Vote for the person you think will do the most good.” We are allowed to vote for someone with objectionable stances so long as we are not voting for them because of the objectionable stances. But for the good stances they have.
I also have a feeling you might like to take a look at American Solidarity Party. https://solidarity-party.org/platform/

 

[exnihilo]

It seems to me the Church teaches you can vote for the lesser of two evils. I think that not voting is a perfectly viable option. And I think I can make a great argument for it. However you’ll find most people on CAF reject that idea. I think most modern clergy might too. But I am still not convinced not voting isn’t an option.

 

[KJW5551]

Just remember abortion and euthanasia are non negotiable issues:
https://www.ewtn.com/vote/specific-moral-issues.asp

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Just a reminder that no moral issue is really negotiable. Can you imagine saying “OK, I’ll vote to reinstate slavery if you agree to lower my taxes.” ???

 

[Mark121359]

I see the republican party drifting toward things that degrade human dignity

Children being taught transgenderism, homosexuality in kindergarten. Perverting the minds of five year olds. Using our children as guinea pigs. Now, what was that you were saying about the republican party drifting toward things that degrade human dignity?

 

[KJW5551]

No one is talking about slavery here. Catholics can’t vote for pro-abortion politicians. It’s non-negotiable.

 

[KMC]

The USCCB states voting is a duty.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/

Its not always easy (2016 was a prime example), however, I would rather have Catholics who consider the moral implications of the issues voting, as opposed to abstaining, thus deferring to people who may not consider the moral implications of the issues deciding our leaders.

Also consider that some politicians are openly hostile to Catholics (and other people of faith), and want to implement policies that are morally objectionable. Catholics need to vote.

Bishops Farrell & Vann (Dallas & Ft. Worth) issued this statement on voting in 2008. It would be worth your time to read it.

Catholic Pro-Life Committee - Civic Action

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No one is talking about slavery here. Catholics can’t vote for pro-abortion politicians. It’s non-negotiable.

They most certainly can. And it does not equate to negotiation.

 

[KMC]

They most certainly can. And it does not equate to negotiation.

The situations where a Catholic may vote for a politician who supports abortion rights are very limited. Here is the teaching of my (former) Bishop

Catholic Pro-Life Committee - Civic Action

"Joint Statement from Bishop Kevin Farrell and Bishop Kevin Vann:

The only moral possibilities for a Catholic to be able to vote in good conscience for a candidate who supports this intrinsic evil are the following:

a. If both candidates running for office support abortion or “abortion rights,” a Catholic would be forced to then look at the other important issues and through their vote try to limit the evil done; or,

b. If another intrinsic evil outweighs the evil of abortion. While this is sound moral reasoning, 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.

To vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion or “abortion rights” when there is a morally acceptable alternative would be to cooperate in the evil – and, therefore, morally impermissible.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

They most certainly can. And it does not equate to negotiation.

The situations where a Catholic may vote for a politician who supports abortion rights are very limited. Here is the teaching of my (former) Bishop
Catholic Pro-Life Committee - Civic Action
"Joint Statement from Bishop Kevin Farrell and Bishop Kevin Vann:

The only moral possibilities for a Catholic to be able to vote in good conscience for a candidate who supports this intrinsic evil are the following:

a. If both candidates running for office support abortion or “abortion rights,” a Catholic would be forced to then look at the other important issues and through their vote try to limit the evil done; or,

b. If another intrinsic evil outweighs the evil of abortion. While this is sound moral reasoning, 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.

To vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion or “abortion rights” when there is a morally acceptable alternative would be to cooperate in the evil – and, therefore, morally impermissible.

1. The opinion of these bishops on this issue is not morally binding on those outside of their diocese.
2. I question the characterization of those candidates as “supporting” abortion. I do not consider it “support” if a candidate merely refuses to enact specific sanctions against abortion. For example, most politicians today refuse to enact laws against consensual homosexual behavior in private. Does that make them “supporters of homosexuality?” I don’t think so. Nor do I think that a politician who does not want a law criminalizing a woman who gets an abortion is necessarily a “supporter of abortion.”

 

[KJW5551]

Ok, how about if they vote against a 20 week ban? Or a heartbeat bill? This stuff comes up every year; it’s not that difficult to figure out where these politicians stand.

 

[KMC]

LeafByNiggle:

They most certainly can. And it does not equate to negotiation.

The situations where a Catholic may vote for a politician who supports abortion rights are very limited. Here is the teaching of my (former) Bishop
Catholic Pro-Life Committee - Civic Action
"Joint Statement from Bishop Kevin Farrell and Bishop Kevin Vann:

The only moral possibilities for a Catholic to be able to vote in good conscience for a candidate who supports this intrinsic evil are the following:

a. If both candidates running for office support abortion or “abortion rights,” a Catholic would be forced to then look at the other important issues and through their vote try to limit the evil done; or,

b. If another intrinsic evil outweighs the evil of abortion. While this is sound moral reasoning, 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.

To vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion or “abortion rights” when there is a morally acceptable alternative would be to cooperate in the evil – and, therefore, morally impermissible.

1. The opinion of these bishops on this issue is not morally binding on those outside of their diocese.

Your comment seems to imply there is something faulty in their reasoning. They were expounding upon the USCCB’s “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”. Do you put any weight on that document either?

1. I question the characterization of those candidates as “supporting” abortion. I do not consider it “support” if a candidate merely refuses to enact specific sanctions against abortion. For example, most politicians today refuse to enact laws against consensual homosexual behavior in private. Does that make them “supporters of homosexuality?” I don’t think so. Nor do I think that a politician who does not want a law criminalizing a woman who gets an abortion is necessarily a “supporter of abortion.”

Your homosexuality example is flawed. If a politician enacts no law against consensual homosexual sex, then what is the worst that happens? Two people sin. However, if a politician enacts no law against abortion, babies continue to die.

I’m curious how your answer would be thought of if we inserted “slavery” for “abortion”? “Hey, I don’t support slavery, I just won’t enact legislation outlawing it”. Hmmm…

 

[Rob2]

I know that the church teaches not to vote for politicians who have morally objectionable stances, but if all the political candidates have morally objectionable stances is it better simply not to vote?

In the last two general elections here I did not vote because none of the candidates in my constituency represented my views .

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

1. The opinion of these bishops on this issue is not morally binding on those outside of their diocese.

Your comment seems to imply there is something faulty in their reasoning.

I implied nothing more than I said - that their opinion is not morally binding. Whether their reasoning is faulty is not the issue. Some may not agree with their reasoning. I do not presume to know what the reasons for such a person might be - only that they are allowed to hold such opinions contrary to the opinions expressed.

They were expounding upon the USCCB’s “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”. Do you put any weight on that document either?

The statements quoted above were considerably weakened by the USCCB’s expounding. I don’t think “Faithful Citizenship” says quite what those two bishops were saying. I consider the USCCB’s document a much better guide.

1. I question the characterization of those candidates as “supporting” abortion. I do not consider it “support” if a candidate merely refuses to enact specific sanctions against abortion. For example, most politicians today refuse to enact laws against consensual homosexual behavior in private. Does that make them “supporters of homosexuality?” I don’t think so. Nor do I think that a politician who does not want a law criminalizing a woman who gets an abortion is necessarily a “supporter of abortion.”

Your homosexuality example is flawed. If a politician enacts no law against consensual homosexual sex, then what is the worst that happens? Two people sin. However, if a politician enacts no law against abortion, babies continue to die.

The grounds you used earlier were that abortion is an intrinsic evil. Well, homosexuality is also an intrinsic evil. I do recall that gay marriage is another one of those supposedly “non-negotiables.” If the point you are making is that abortion is a more serious evil than homosexuality, I agree with you. That means the two issues differ quantitatively, but not qualitatively. I can think of other sins where people die unnecessarily, but you might say those sins are negotiable sins, and not subject to the admonition that we must never vote for a politician that supports them.

 

[KJW5551]

@LeafByNiggle I will concede that there is one scenario in which it would be ok for a Catholic to vote for a pro-choice politican and it is this: if candidate A (pro-life)was intent on starting or continuing an unjust war that would kill more people per year than abortion does, then it would be ok to vote for candidate B (pro-choice). But given that that scenario is rare (nonexistent?) in modern U.S. history, for all intents and purposes it’s never ok to vote for pro-choice politicians.

 

[PJM]

I know that the church teaches not to vote for politicians who have morally objectionable stances, but if all the political candidates have morally objectionable stances is it better simply not to vote? This may ruffle some feathers, but while the Republican party has bee the main pro-life party, I see the republican party drifting toward things that degrade human dignity in other ways besides abortion/euthanasia. I know we aren’t voting for a pope in political elections, but sin is sin and voting for it make us complacent to it and this really troubles me.

No: All have grave obligation to VOTE {if possible}

ALL: {no exceptions} CANNOT in present circumstances VOTE for for ANY Candidate on the NATIONAL Democratic ticket given their Party Platform of mandated SUPPORT for Abortion; for Gay “rights”; for same sex “marriages”; for 'Transgender rights"; as they are able to legislate and MANDATE these positions universally in the USA. { And HAVE DONE SO!}

One’s personal view {objectively or subjectively} of any candidate by itself in a National election is insufficient to choose not to vote or to support CURRENTLY the National Democratic Party candidate: THIS IS A GRAVE MORAL ISSUE; NOT A POLITICAL ONE

Presently the National PARTY Platforms give Catholics and Christians a CLEAR, unambiguous choice:

NATIONALLY:
The Democratic Party is the party of the “culture of DEATH”

Abortion under any condition violated the 5th COMMANDMENT : “Do NOT Kill” GOD speaking, NOT some republican! … No Catholic and no Christian can in good conscience JUSTIFY doing otherwise.

While the Republican Party has shown itself to be the party of the culture of LIFE.

And YES, this IS the teaching of the RCC

Pray very much,
Patrick

 

[PJH_74]

The Democratic Party is the party of the “culture of DEATH”

This is what does not belong here in this thread. I can label one or another a party of something. As much as you clearly do not like the Democrats, there are always valid reasons to vote for them. What concerns me more at the moment is the quality, lack of civility, and spinelessness in government at the moment.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Patrick:

If the words you wrote are official binding Catholic doctrine, then please cite the official binding document where these words can be found.

It is true that the 5th commandment is the word of God. The 5th commandment tells me that I may not kill. It does not say I may not vote for a county drain commissioner who happens to believe that there should not be a law that punishes women who get an abortion.

There are other commandments that are also the word of God. In no other case do those commandments prohibit voting for a candidate who does not want to pass a law punishing people who violate those commandments. Think for a while about the 1st commandment, the 2nd commandment, and the 6th commandment. Most candidates do not want to pass laws that punish those who worship strange gods, or who take the Lord’s name in vain, or who commit adultery. So just saying the 5th commandment is God’s word does not prove your point.

 

[KJW5551]

You seem intelligent and thoughtful. Surely you can see why murdering the unborn is an issue of primary moral importance to Catholic voters, right? The issue is plain and simple really: you can either vote for people who want to keep or expand abortion, or you can vote for people that want to get rid of it or at least diminish it.

Oh, and we’re not talking about “county drain commissioners” here. We’re talking about Congress. You know, the ones who make law.