Voting your faith

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Please explain

Tell you:

1. No party or President is “fully christian”;
2. No party or President is completely “non-christian”. Even John Paul Ii told once that communism that some good things. He knew it…
3. So you must choose between the best of the sufficient or the least worse of the bad.

I do not think that it is a good idea to jump into a political wagon and put it at the Christ’s side. That will end bad.
Politically you must make a choice that is political, it is Caesar’s. You do a citizen duty for you are in the City of Man. But forget about thinking about grace, sin, Christ and so on. You must do your job with open eyes not thinking that for you voted in A, A is the angel, as you did not vote in B, B is the devil.
And you make the religious choice for God. It is impossible that the 2 choices do not clash for the City of God is not the City of Man.
To God what is God’s.
You must be a light in the middle of dark times and that includes every party’s evil laws for both have them. You must judge everyday how to live in the City of Man being a Citizen of the City of God.
Be in this world not being of this world, said Christ.
Not easy.
I put my observation for I think that there is a tendency to make statements like the candidate A is christian and B is not christian. And some candidates profit from such mentalities like Bush and feign reading the Bible and appealing to Bible verses and so on to cheat on people.
So, most of the time we have, we citizens of the City of Man, to weigh the values of the Candidates not on black an white but on who is the least bad in christian values.
For instance, what is better or worse in Obamacare: the health for everybody or his stance on abortion?
Tough choice.

My viewpoint…

 

[AJB328]

The priest was correct. Democrats will have a multitude of questions to answer. Even though the parties may not be run on faith, you have the choice at the ballot box to change the fact that promoting a valueless, moral deficient, culture of death, agenda is not acceptable for our nation.by our Catholic standards. It is not only the government that can lay claim to taking care of the poor and disadvantaged, though the are certainly trying to force it to be that way…(HMS) ring a bell to anyone.

His main point was that Republicans would be dammed, and Democrats would be scolded. The reason for this is because voting for a politician who will uphold a woman’s right to slaughter her own child doesn’t mean that it will happen. It’s possible to have abortion be completely legal and have no one want one. After all, God gave us free will and we make our own decisions to sin. On the other hand voting for a politician who wants to get rid of or severely cut “entitlements” directly, profoundly and immediately effects tens of millions of children by taking food out of their mouths, denying them medical care etc.

Pulling the lever for a Democrat means that there is a possibility for a grave sin. Pulling the lever for a republican means there is an inevitability for a multitude of other grave sins.

People also demonize sex education and contraception (which I choose not to use because I’m Catholic). Republicans want to teach abstinence only but data shows that states who only teach abstinence have by far the greatest numbers of teenage pregnancy.

When working for welfare I had a conversation with a nurse who worked at an abortion clinic. She hated her job and wasn’t there long, but I remember her telling me, “you know the craziest thing I hear is, ‘I didn’t know I could get pregnant that way.’ It still amazes me that girls as old as 19 or 20 have no idea how their body works.” She went on to say that during her time there (about 4 months) all the patients she encountered could have avoided having abortions by knowing how a baby is made and having access to condoms.

Studies also show kids who have comprehensive sex education during their middle school years put off having sex and treat it more seriously. So in the end the best and most practical ways to put an end to abortion (though still not in communion with the Church, but I believe much less of a sin than murder), the Republicans are against.

 

[GRATEFULONEjim]

… On the other hand voting for a politician who wants to get rid of or severely cut “entitlements” directly, profoundly and immediately effects tens of millions of children by taking food out of their mouths, denying them medical care etc.

That is the main problem in our country. We have been hoodwinked into believing that only “Big Government” can supply all and everything necessary for the well being of Americans. Republicans realize that this is not the case and believe that their are acceptable options available, and for government entitlement programs to be trimmed. Democrats, on the other hand, see "Big Government " as the only way to effectively handle the issues of the day. Thus giving them more control over the masses and more POWER. It’s all about power and control.

 

[JRKH]

The political parties in this country are not balanced around issues of faith. Sure the Republicans are against abortion and they believe life begins at conception (as I do) but the problem with them is that they stop caring at birth. Most women who have abortions have them based on economic reasons. Republicans believe in cutting welfare, Medicaid and food stamps (entitlements). So in effect, like it or not, the Republican party wishes to deny medical care, food and shelter to these children. That doesn’t sound very Christ like. I used to work with the division of welfare and saw it for myself.

With regards entitlements…
The American people as a whole are faced with the problem of the spiraling debt. The country is slowly but surely using up it’s wealth and sinking further and further into fiscal insolvency. This is a harsh reality that most, on both sides of the aisle, would rather ignore in favor of more short term “sound bite” issues.
The sad fact is that, regardless of what is “Christlike”, the United States Government cannot sustain the entitlement programs indefinitely. Already these programs are being supported, not so much by tax dollars, as by money borrowed overseas.

From the time of the “New Deal” in the mid 1930’s, to today is some 80 years or so. Little by little, through depression and then war, the government became more and more involved in social issues. What started out as an intent to provide minimal and temporary relief and some fiscally sound social security programs, morphed over time into the ravenous and unsustainable behemoth that we see today.
Even getting a good start on fixing what is wrong with the US will take at least half that long.

That said, I understand your concern over taking care of the poor and yet…who will care for them when the government is no longer able to sustain the existing programs and the growing debt? The question on this front is really which do you prefer, a gradual, controlled draw down of entitlements across the board with a greater emphasis placed on private and community supported services, or a more sudden and precipitous loss of funding to large segments with the likely result of civil unrest, riots and bloodshed?

I don’t say this to be alarmist - I just look at history and look at what is happening today and I draw certain conclusions - and I must say that history tend to teach us that the politicians and the people of America are already too “short term” oriented to break the cycle…To establish a well thought out long term plan and to stick to it.
It makes me sad for the generations coming up…
I hope I’m wrong…

Peace
James

 

[markomalley]

Republicans believe in cutting welfare, Medicaid and food stamps (entitlements). So in effect, like it or not, the Republican party wishes to deny medical care, food and shelter to these children. That doesn’t sound very Christ like. I used to work with the division of welfare and saw it for myself.

His main point was that Republicans would be dammed, and Democrats would be scolded. The reason for this is because voting for a politician who will uphold a woman’s right to slaughter her own child doesn’t mean that it will happen. It’s possible to have abortion be completely legal and have no one want one. After all, God gave us free will and we make our own decisions to sin. On the other hand voting for a politician who wants to get rid of or severely cut “entitlements” directly, profoundly and immediately effects tens of millions of children by taking food out of their mouths, denying them medical care etc.

Wow.

I am really impressed.

That has got to be the gutsiest statement I have ever read on CAF in the years I have been around this place.

In one fell swoop, you condemn Pius XI, Bl John XXIII, and Bl. John Paul II to perdition.

I don’t agree in any way, shape, or form with what you said, but I will take my hat off to you for sheer the sheer guts it took to make the statement.

(Of course, you may be insufficiently familiar with the teachings of the Church to recognize this, in which case your statement would be nothing but a political hack job, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and attribute it to gutsiness)

 

[Keith_W_OR_USA]

I vote for candidate or on an issue that I agree with. I do not takes the churches view on political ideas or candidates into consideration at all. I solely worship God in Spirit, but I will not let the Church dictate my politics for any reason.

 

[JRKH]

I vote for candidate or on an issue that I agree with. I do not takes the churches view on political ideas or candidates into consideration at all. I solely worship God in Spirit, but I will not let the Church dictate my politics for any reason.

I see that your profile says “christian” and not specifically “Catholic” christian so obviously you take on these matters may be somewhat different than that of a full fledged Catholic.

However - as one Christian to another -

If God does not guide your voting then you are not Loving God above all else and seeking to do His Will in all things and build up the Kingdom of God.
If God DOES guide your voting, then such voting will - at least in large part - reflect that of Christ’s Church. In other words it will be, at least in large part, pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-human rights, pro-religious freedom etc.
The simple reason that I say this is because God guides by Love (agape) and in these matters God’s Love will sway the true and sincere Christian in certain ways - that is, in God’s ways.

I do not mean the above to be a personal attack on you, but rather a comment on the general principle that some try to advance of keeping “religion” separate from voting - which is hogwash.

Peace
James

 

[TarkanAttila]

Wow.

I am really impressed.

That has got to be the gutsiest statement I have ever read on CAF in the years I have been around this place.

In one fell swoop, you condemn Pius XI, Bl John XXIII, and Bl. John Paul II to perdition.

Really? I didn’t know they were a part of American politics! Don’t recall any of them running in the GOP for ANY office.

The problem really is, though, that both the GOP and the Dems contain evil that is contrary to Christ and the Catholic Church. The question is, which is the worse evil: a big, bureaucratic government, or a neglect of social concern?

I’m gonna say, in light of the history of communism in the past century, I’ll be voting GOP this year. As immoral as it is to neglect the poor, hungry, and homeless, it’s even more so to cause them to continue to be poor, hungry, and homeless. Communism and the welfare state do not work in favour of the plebs. They hurt the plebs, and turn them into the animals - livestock, or pets - of the state.

 

[TexanKnight]

Any Catholic who votes democratic should be excommunicated. Pelosi, Kennedy (when he was alive) Kerry, should all be excommunicated. Their support of abortion is horrific.

 

[KateKimmer]

I am voting for Romney.

 

[markomalley]

Really? I didn’t know they were a part of American politics! Don’t recall any of them running in the GOP for ANY office…

They’re not. But if the politicians who espouse the beliefs are condemned to perdition, then surely those who defined those beliefs would share the same destination. That’s just common sense (or so I’d think).

 

[Swiss_Guy]

The political parties in this country are not balanced around issues of faith. Sure the Republicans are against abortion and they believe life begins at conception (as I do) but the problem with them is that they stop caring at birth. Most women who have abortions have them based on economic reasons. Republicans believe in cutting welfare, Medicaid and food stamps (entitlements). So in effect, like it or not, the Republican party wishes to deny medical care, food and shelter to these children. That doesn’t sound very Christ like. I used to work with the division of welfare and saw it for myself.

I was once shocked to hear a very conservative traditional Priest say that at the final Judgement Democrats will have a lot of questions to answer for, while Republicans will have a lot of questions to ask…

When did we see you hungry or thirsty? When did we see you a stranger? When did we see you naked or ill or in prison and not minister to your needs?

There’s little need for interpretation in Matthew 25: 31-46

I agree that (many) Republicans stop caring after birth. But keep in mind that cutting spending to some of those things isn’t necessarily antiCatholic or Christian. If you look at this: usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/federal-budget/upload/Letter-to-Congress-Federal-Budget-2012-03-06.pdf

you will see that the USCCB wants to restore CUTS to food stamps. What is needed to help the poor are programs that reduce dependency and encourage work. I see that much more from Republicans than Democrats, who would rather have the poor dependent on big government.

I like the priest’s saying.

 

[AJB328]

In one fell swoop, you condemn Pius XI, Bl John XXIII, and Bl. John Paul II to perdition.

If I didn’t know any better I’d think that these three Popes were all U.S. citizens, registered republicans and preached against the evils of feeding and clothing the poor, if that’s what you got from my previous post.

The two parties remind me of the parable of the two sons. The father asks one to help in the vineyard, he says yes and then never shows up. The father asks the other son to help and he says no, but winds up helping anyway.

There’s one party seen as doing God’s work (the reps) but they don’t. They support abstinence only sex ed. and withholding contraception. If you read the trends over the years, these two stances do more to increase the demand for abortion than anything the dems could come up with. They also cut important government programs that exist for the sole purpose of providing food, shelter and medical care to the poor (especially poor children who are the real victims).

Charity and caring for the poor are probably talked about by Jesus more than any other topics and he explicitly says that not caring for the least among us is a damnable offense. Therefore voting for republicans will increase the demand for abortion, and refuse food, medical care and shelter to the poor. Just as pulling a trigger on a loaded gun has the direct result of a bullet being fired, so does the election of republicans to positions of power where they will be allowed to do these things.

On the other hand we have the party seen as the one not doing God’s work, actually doing God’s work. Dems with their “entitlements” care for the least among us by doing all the things Jesus mentioned in the Gospels. Dems seek to have comprehensive sex ed. programs and availability of birth control. These two issues, by the way, account for the abortion rate going from an all time high of 5% in the mid eighties to 2% in 2006. This fact alone shows that dems have done more to stop abortion than the reps ever have.

Also, having abortion legal does not automatically create a demand for it. Women had abortions before they were legal. Alcohol is legal and some people never touch it. Cigarettes are legal but tobacco use has been in free fall over the past fifty years. Conversely marijuana is illegal and there are some studies that point to as many people being frequent users of marijuana as regular tobacco. **Legality has nothing to do with demand as long as there is a demand for something people will find away to acquire it. **

Just because a democrat might support the right of a woman to slaughter her own child doesn’t mean that it will ever happen. It’s a choice and the woman will have to use the free will God gave her to consciously commit such a grave sin. But it’s important to notice here that voting for a dem only supplies a circumstance were this sin might be easily (legally) committed, where as voting for a republican (one that supports abstinence only sex ed and is against contraception) will** directly increase demand for abortion not to mention the other sins against charity which we forget are equally grave.

Democrat= indirect possibility for a grave sin.
Republican= direct responsibility for many grave sins.

BTW I’ve mentioned contraception here and wish to point out that I in no way support the government forcing the Church to supply it, and I believe fornication is a grave sin, but if it’s use can stop the murder of an innocent child in its mother womb, then I regard it as the lesser of two evils.**

 

[TexanKnight]

I

Democrat= indirect possibility for a grave sin.
Republican= direct responsibility for many grave sins.

BTW I’ve mentioned contraception here and wish to point out that I in no way support the government forcing the Church to supply it, and I believe fornication is a grave sin, but if it’s use can stop the murder of an innocent child in its mother womb, then I regard it as the lesser of two evils.

Actually,

Democrat= factual and actual responsibility for mortal sin
Republican= fights for the life of children

 

[markomalley]

If I didn’t know any better I’d think that these three Popes were all U.S. citizens, registered republicans and preached against the evils of feeding and clothing the poor, if that’s what you got from my previous post.

On the subject of economic policy:
Pope Pius XI:
79. As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do.

Quadragesimo Anno​

Pope John XXIII:
34. Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority.

Mater et Magistra​

Pope John Paul II:

In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.100

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need.

Centesiumus Annus 48​

These Popes support subsidiarity. Scripture itself supports subsidiarity.

Conservatives (of any particular party…the GOP is, sadly, not necessarily conservative) support subsidiarity. Socialists support the big government solution to all our problems.

I think I will stand with the Papal Magisterium and with Sacred Scripture. Where you stand is your business.

 

[markomalley]

They support abstinence only sex ed. and withholding contraception. If you read the trends over the years, these two stances do more to increase the demand for abortion than anything the dems could come up with.

…

Just because a democrat might support the right of a woman to slaughter her own child doesn’t mean that it will ever happen. It’s a choice and the woman will have to use the free will God gave her to consciously commit such a grave sin. But it’s important to notice here that voting for a dem only supplies a circumstance were this sin might be easily (legally) committed, where as voting for a republican (one that supports abstinence only sex ed and is against contraception) will** directly increase demand for abortion** not to mention the other sins against charity which we forget are equally grave.

Democrat= indirect possibility for a grave sin.
Republican= direct responsibility for many grave sins.

BTW I’ve mentioned contraception here and wish to point out that I in no way support the government forcing the Church to supply it, and I believe fornication is a grave sin, but if it’s use can stop the murder of an innocent child in its mother womb, then I regard it as the lesser of two evils.
On contraception and abortion:
It is frequently asserted that contraception, if made safe and available to all, is the most effective remedy against abortion. The Catholic Church is then accused of actually promoting abortion, because she obstinately continues to teach the moral unlawfulness of contraception. When looked at carefully, this objection is clearly unfounded. It may be that many people use contraception with a view to excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion. But the negative values inherent in the “contraceptive mentality”-which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act-are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro- abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church’s teaching on contraception is rejected. Certainly, from the moral point of view contraception and abortion arespecifically different evils: the former contradicts the full truth of the sexual act as the proper expression of conjugal love, while the latter destroys the life of a human being; the former is opposed to the virtue of chastity in marriage, the latter is opposed to the virtue of justice and directly violates the divine commandment “You shall not kill”.

But despite their differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree.

Evangelium Vitae 13​

On the morality of abortion laws:

1. Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. …In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to “take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it”… Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil…
   
   Evangelium Vitae 73​
   Any politician who supports continuation of abortion or, God forbid, the public funding of abortion or any other action making abortion more available is formally cooperating in evil. Any member of the electorate who supports such a politician is materially cooperating with evil. Period.

And, in the words of Bl John Paul II, abortion and contraception are “fruits of the same tree.”

 

[OraLabora]

Actually,

Democrat= factual and actual responsibility for mortal sin
Republican= fights for the life of children

Looking at it as a disinterested observer from North of the Border, I’d be more inclined to say:

“Republican=talks up a storm during election campaigns but once elected does nothing about it”.

That sounds to me like lying or misleading. And that sounds to me like mortal sin.

I see very little difference, on the abortion issue, between the Bush years and the Obama years.

Maybe I’m wrong, but if I am, please provide me with direct factual evidence that I’m wrong.

 

[TexanKnight]

Looking at it as a disinterested observer from North of the Border, I’d be more inclined to say:

“Republican=talks up a storm during election campaigns but once elected does nothing about it”.

That sounds to me like lying or misleading. And that sounds to me like mortal sin.

I see very little difference, on the abortion issue, between the Bush years and the Obama years.

Maybe I’m wrong, but if I am, please provide me with direct factual evidence that I’m wrong.

I won’t do your research, but if you were not from North of the Border, you would know that Democrats support abortion and Republicans don’t.

 

[vz71]

I vote for candidate or on an issue that I agree with. I do not takes the churches view on political ideas or candidates into consideration at all. I solely worship God in Spirit, but I will not let the Church dictate my politics for any reason.

Assuming one believes their church is not truly ordained by God, this would probably be a good position.

Catholics (should) know this is not the case.
God himself ordained our church and the Holy Spirit continues to guide it.

We should conform our lives to the ideals provided us by God through his church in every aspect.

 

[JRKH]

Assuming one believes their church is not truly ordained by God, this would probably be a good position.

Catholics (should) know this is not the case.
God himself ordained our church and the Holy Spirit continues to guide it.

We should conform our lives to the ideals provided us by God through his church in every aspect.

Indeed.
Sometimes the problems come in when one seeks to vote “their faith” in the Church, but the particular combination of issues coupled with candidates positions complicates the matter.
Add to this the fact that politicians can and do change, or modify or compromise their positions on matters, or a particular party member does not choose to “tow the party line” etc…and things get even more complicated.

That said…I fully agree that we should try, to the best of our ability, to vote in a manner that best reflects the principles of the Church. If we don’t - well we are still voting our faith…it’s just that that “faith” may not be in what it should be…

Peace
James