Voting in Elections

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mary67
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
KJW5551 said:
You seem intelligent and thoughtful. Surely you can see why murdering the unborn is an issue of primary moral importance to Catholic voters, right?
Click to expand...
Yes, I do see that, and I agree with it.
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.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe the issues are that “plain and simple.” There are a number of complicating factors.
  1. Someone who says he is against abortion may not actually do anything about it.
  2. Someone who says he is against abortion may, in my judgement, present an existential threat to our nation.
  3. A candidate who is actually sincere about his opposition to abortion may also hold positions that I also consider of primary moral importance. Normally such positions would be less determinative than the candidate’s position on abortion, but due to political realities, I might judge that the candidate has a much better chance of acting effectively on that other position than acting on abortion. This assessment of the probabilities involved figure into my weighing the benefits vs the liabilities of voting for a particular candidate to the extent that it seems more reasonable to vote based on that “other issue.” In other words, he may promise me he will oppose abortion, but if abortion does not come up, but there is an issue about humane treatment of prisoners that is certain to come up, I can be effective in the second issue, but not the first issue. That would make a difference.
Oh, and we’re not talking about “county drain commissioners” here. We’re talking about Congress. You know, the ones who make law.
Click to expand...
How about State Attorney General? How about Governor? How about city council? How about Police Commissioner? Does this “binding Catholic doctrine” apply only to President and Congress? If so, isn’t the justification for limiting it to just those offices because those are the offices that can do something effective about abortion? This leads to two considerations:
  1. If the chance of their doing something about abortion is the determining factor as to who this rule applies to, doesn’t that also give some support to #3 above?
  2. Candidates for Congress and President often get their start in politics and develop name recognition in these “lower” offices. Voting for a pro-choice Governor can give that Governor a better shot at becoming President some day. So if the rule about voting for pro-choice candidates is to have any meaning, it would have to apply to these “lesser” candidates as well. Since you seem to agree that is does not apply like that, we are left with the conclusion that it does not apply in any absolute sense at the top offices either.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
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.
Click to expand...
They don’t differ qualitatively in that they are both moral evils, the absolutely differ qualitatively in that one ends a life. For the benefit of the OP, we can just leave it as this:
  1. Two bishops have provided a teaching on voting.
  2. You feel it is important to note their teaching is not binding on people outside of their diocese.
  3. While I agree that not all government positions impact abortion, the bishops teaching would relate to those positions that do.
  4. If you feel there is superseding teaching of the Church please feel free to provide it.
  5. I would suggest the OP read and take to heart the teachings of the Bishops
 
KMC said:
For the benefit of the OP, we can just leave it as this:
  1. Two bishops have provided a teaching on voting.
Click to expand...
Actually, the whole conference of US Catholic Bishops has also provided a teaching on voting. I would recommend that one.
  1. You feel it is important to note their teaching is not binding on people outside of their diocese.
Click to expand...
I would not normally point it out except when someone implies they are morally binding teaching.
  1. If you feel there is superseding teaching of the Church please feel free to provide it.
Click to expand...
I do not need to provide a superseding teaching of the Church. It is enough to state simply that the statements provided are not binding. Not even the USCCB’s document is morally binding. But it is a very good document.
 
Last edited:
You’re saner and far less cynical than I. I vote for the person who will do the least evil, i.e. most likely the lowest body count.

Abortion rates have gone their course regardless of who is in office. United States abortion rates, 1960-2013

I also weigh other issues of violence vs. non-violence, especially war. Sadly, the most hawkish candidates seem to climb their way to the top of their National Conventions.

For this among many other reasons, I usually end up voting for independent candidates.
 
Mary67 said:
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?
Click to expand...
depends what country you are in… In my country its illegal not to vote
 
LeafByNiggle said:
  • Someone who says he is against abortion may not actually do anything about it.
  • Someone who says he is against abortion may, in my judgement, present an existential threat to our nation.
  • A candidate who is actually sincere about his opposition to abortion may also hold positions that I also consider of primary moral importance. Normally such positions would be less determinative than the candidate’s position on abortion, but due to political realities, I might judge that the candidate has a much better chance of acting effectively on that other position than acting on abortion. This assessment of the probabilities involved figure into my weighing the benefits vs the liabilities of voting for a particular candidate to the extent that it seems more reasonable to vote based on that “other issue.” In other words, he may promise me he will oppose abortion, but if abortion does not come up, but there is an issue about humane treatment of prisoners that is certain to come up, I can be effective in the second issue, but not the first issue. That would make a difference.
Click to expand...
Replace abortion with slavery. Is your assessment the same?
 
I don’t see why it wouldn’t be just as applicable to slavery if we were in an analogous position with regard to slavery. Are you implying it would have been a mortal sin in 1850 to vote for a candidate who accepted slavery?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I don’t see why it wouldn’t be just as applicable to slavery if we were in an analogous position with regard to slavery. Are you implying it would have been a mortal sin in 1850 to vote for a candidate who accepted slavery?
Click to expand...
Testing the consistency of your views really.
 
blackforest said:
You’re saner and far less cynical than I. I vote for the person who will do the least evil , i.e. most likely the lowest body count.
Click to expand...
Don’t worry. I may have heard “vote for most good” but I still think of “lesser evil.” And I’ll probably be like you in a respect as I voted for an independent the first I could vote for president.
 
Yup. I’ve never voted for a major-party president.

I registered as a Democrat hoping to have a say in any pro-life ones during the primaries. But my ballots are usually a chaotic mix of D’s, R’s, and I’s.
 
I’m of the opinion that if you don’t vote, you don’t, er…female dog.

The Church does allow us to vote for the lesser evil (e.g. voting for one who supports abortion only vs. one who supports abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, and eugenics).

However, I would even go so far as to say that if you really cannot vote for any candidates because they’re all equally despicable, or your conscience just doesn’t allow you to vote for anyone, even an independent, then cast a spoiled ballot. But no matter what, haul your behind to the voting booth and make your voice known, even if that voice says all candidates are equal scum and can go to heck.
 
Mary67 said:
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?
Click to expand...
That is your call if your conscience dictates this. We are not morally obliged to vote of we have no confidence in any candidate.

Personally I hold life issues (abortion and euthanasia) to be the preeminent issues on which I base my voting decision, with gay-marriage and gender ideology issues following close behind. On other issues I will consider them, but I may have to compromise and try to go for the candidate that is the best out of the bunch.

But if I found all candidates positions extremely distasteful and crossed the lines on issues I really couldn’t stomach, I would consider spoiling my vote.
 
Last edited:
Remember, this is not an all inclusive list of “non negotiable” things.
 
KMC said:
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.
Click to expand...
The US Bishops are also clear that a Catholic may refrain from voting when there is no moral candidate.

For me, the lesser of two evils is still evil.
 
Do not refrain from voting. Cast a spoiled ballot for what it’s worth, but do your duty and vote.
 
Last edited:
I’m going to follow the US Bishops’ guidance on this one.
 
TheLittleLady said:
The US Bishops are also clear that a Catholic may refrain from voting when there is no moral candidate.

For me, the lesser of two evils is still evil.
Click to expand...
This, I bolded the part that needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

If there is no candidate worth casting your vote for, then skip that vote, but keep voting on the other issues on the ballot!
 
Rob2 said:
Who says ?
Click to expand...
Jesus THROUGH His Church; from the Catechism of the RCC

2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country:

Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. . . . They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. . . . So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.

The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.”

That same Catechism tells us that WE CANNOT support abortion in ANY way, shape or form; AND for the record I was a Democrat until the Clinton and Obama and there immoral positions

May GOD lead you to HIS truths,
Patrick
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top