Voting

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike316
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mike316

Guest
This may be in the wrong forum, but I wanted responses from people who frequent this section. I recently read from a catholic forum that it is alright to vote for a pro-death candidate providing the other candidate is more pro-death. Murder is murder; 1 unborn or 100 unborn is it not?. Can we justify or please God by voting for any pro death candidate? Thanks as always for clarity.
 
Don’t vote at all. Isn’t that what you can do in America?
 
I never voted in my life. Under the Communist regime in Hungary I did not voted because there was no choice, over here I do not vote because no candidate represent my political views, and I do not feel myself appropriate judge to decide what is better.

My conscience said that the Pastooral Letter of the USCCB about the voting in 2004 represents the truth, that
  • dignity of life
  • social justice
  • family
  • global solidarity
are the points to be decided, but around me no candidate represents all in appropriate acceptable manner. I firmly believe that the human life is not the highest value, so to say that ‘if there is no life there is nothing’ is untrue in the context, because there is eternal life above the human earthly life

My order of the values is:
  • God
  • Church, as Jesus Christ’s body in the Earth
  • the humanity
  • human communities and groups (the fireman can risk his life to save his village), the men can risk his life to save his children
  • individual human life
  • human property
 
Mike316 said:
This may be in the wrong forum, but I wanted responses from people who frequent this section. I recently read from a catholic forum that it is alright to vote for a pro-death candidate providing the other candidate is more pro-death. Murder is murder; 1 unborn or 100 unborn is it not?. Can we justify or please God by voting for any pro death candidate? Thanks as always for clarity.
Click to expand...
In the last presidential election (USA) both candidates were pro death, though not to the same degree!
One cannot, in Good Conscience, cast a vote to the most prolific advocate of murder!
We vote for the best possible outcome for society, and pray that this is pleasing to God.
Sadly this is too often, not the case.
 
The thing about the political process is this; always vote for the candidate that agrees the most with you. The hope is as time progresses the laws enacted by those you voted for will be like gateway drugs to what you really want, you know the hard-stuff! 👍
 
Mike316 said:
This may be in the wrong forum, but I wanted responses from people who frequent this section. I recently read from a catholic forum that it is alright to vote for a pro-death candidate providing the other candidate is more pro-death. Murder is murder; 1 unborn or 100 unborn is it not?. Can we justify or please God by voting for any pro death candidate? Thanks as always for clarity.
Click to expand...
So, who would be better to win, pro-death or MORE pro-death?
 
You could consider voting for a third party candidate. Some may argue against voting for third party candidates because they don’t have a chance of winning, put that is a self-fulfilling prophecy; if people stop using that excuse then maybe a third party will become a viable (and much welcomed) option.
Also, I am not personally recommending the Tea Party. I actually liked the Constitution Party. Though not Catholic, their preamble specifically recognizes “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ”. And their platform seems well grounded in constitutional principles.
Anyway, there are options that allow you to vote for a pro-life candidate; so don’t restrict yourself to the Democrats or Republicans.
 
Evil, like everything else, has a hierarchy. The killing of an innocent is always more grave than the killing of a criminal, even though we should avoid both. Just because we can does not mean that we should.

If we take the killing of innocents, the murder of the unborn child is always more grave than killing a person who has been born.

Between two people who are born, the killing of a defenseless person is graver than one who can defend himself.

The bottom line, the Catholic Church has ruled that the killing of the unborn child is never morally justifiable, under any circumstance. It is always the gravest evil against a human being and a sin punishable by automatic excommunication. Pope John Paul II not only decreed this, but he invoked his apostolic authority as the successor of Peter to bind all Catholics.

When it comes to voting, if you have one who is pro-war and one who is pro-abortion, voting for the pro-war candidate is the greater good, because people can defend themselves in a war. An unborn child cannot defend himself.

The other situation that may arise is that you have two pro-abortion candidates. One is pro-abortion with restraints and limitations. The other has fewer restraints or none at all. Voting for the one who has more restraints is the greater good, because more children will be protected than if the other candidate wins.

To answer the question about two pro-murder candidates, the question is whose position will do less harm. Less harm is the higher good. It’s not the desired good, but it’s closer than the other position. This also happened in the last election. Many people put the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan against abortion, believing that they were saving more lives. The truth is that they were not choosing the higher good, because the unborn cannot get out of harm’s way. A person in a war stands a better chance of finding shelter for him and his loved ones than a person in the womb.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Let me pose this hypothetical choice. Suppose you have two candidates that are are both nominally pro-life. But one of them advocates the death penalty for doctors convicted of performing an abortion, while the other advocates a $100 fine for anyone caught performing an abortion. Is it always correct to go with the candidate with the most severe restrictions on abortion? Or does there come a point where we can say “that is severe enough - no more”?

Then consider the same question except that the candidate who advocated the death penalty now advocates a life sentence with no possibility of parole.
 
Catholic Answers has a “Voters’ Guide for Serious Catholics.” This should clear up most questions.

If one cannot vote for any candidate in good conscience, so be it. Good choice for that voter.

But we should be careful about requiring a perfect candidate before we vote. Unless it is Jesus or His Mother Mary, he or she does not exist.

Not to vote IS a vote. Whatever candidate came the closest to my views has a lesser chance of getting elected and that candidate who is furthest from my view has a greater chance of getting elected when I choose to not vote.

For example: Many Republicans refused to support McCain because they felt he was not Republican enough. Thus Obama had an easier chance to get elected.

Now whether we should have had McCain over Obama is still debatable. But the stay at homes helped O get elected.
 
Voting is one of the most patriotic actions an individual can perform in their service to their country. Through voting, the nation is given a clearer understanding of what the MAJORITY of its people want.

Simply put, if you don’t vote, you’re probably NEVER going to like the direction the country is headed. Christians still consist of 70% of the United States population, if you’re not casting a ballot because you don’t like one aspect of a candidate who will only be around for 4-8 years (or 2 for stated/local government), you’re robbing your own political agenda of a valuable vote.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Let me pose this hypothetical choice. Suppose you have two candidates that are are both nominally pro-life. But one of them advocates the death penalty for doctors convicted of performing an abortion, while the other advocates a $100 fine for anyone caught performing an abortion. Is it always correct to go with the candidate with the most severe restrictions on abortion?
Click to expand...
You may never resolve one evil by committing another evil. If both candidates are pro-life, neither should be advocating the death penalty.

The one doctor who advocates the death penalty is anti-abortion, not the same as pro-life. Pro Life mans embracing what the Church teaches concerning the sacredness of human life and human dignity.

While the Church the recognizes that the state has the right to use capital punishment to protect the innocent. She also teaches the the state is rarely justified in using it. This would be one of those situations where it is unjustifiable. You can stop an abortionist with a prison term.
Then consider the same question except that the candidate who advocated the death penalty now advocates a life sentence with no possibility of parole.
Click to expand...
A life sentence with no parole for the murder of an innocent child would be just retribution and would provide the sinner time and opportunity to repent and atone for his sins. Whereas capital punishment denies the sinner the opportunity to atone and sometimes to repent too.

I’ll give you two simple examples from the Capuchin Franciscans. They are both very famous, so I’m not telling tales out of schoo.

I was in novitiate with a brother who had killed his wife and unborn child. He had been sentenced to life w/possibility of parole. During 25 years that he was in prison, he had a lot of contact with Franciscans from different branches of the order. Gradually, he not only repented for his sins, but converted to Catholicism. Eventually, he was paroled. He joined the Capuchin Franciscan and became one of the most beloved and holy brothers with whom I have ever lived. He went on to preaching ministry to at risk youth. I have no idea how many youth he may have saved. He also has a book. You can Google, Brother Jim Townsend.

The second case is Brother Alessandro the murderer of Maria Goretti. He was never sentenced to death, as I undestand it, it was because he was a teen. God worked wonders in his life, through her intercession. He too had a lot of contact with different Franciscans. When he was parolled, he entered the Capuchin Franciscans and lived a very holy life. Today, there are friars gathering material for to postulate for his beatification.

Both of these men benefitted from their time in prison. It provided the time to repent, convert and atone. In the end, they have become sources of grace for all of us who are reading this post, because everytime a religious of an exempt order makes solemn vows, the entire Church is gifted with special graces. That person is restored to his baptismal state, because solemn vows are an extension of baptism.

That’s why the Church teaches us that even though she recognizes the right of the state, he also recognizes that there is rarely a reason to exerecise that right. In other words, just because you can do it, does not mean that you should do it There may be a greater good to be achieved through imprisonment. This was Pope John Paul’s agrgument in defense of his attacker. You must give a chance for the greater good to happen, as long as innocents are safe.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Mike316 said:
This may be in the wrong forum, but I wanted responses from people who frequent this section. I recently read from a catholic forum that it is alright to vote for a pro-death candidate providing the other candidate is more pro-death. Murder is murder; 1 unborn or 100 unborn is it not?. Can we justify or please God by voting for any pro death candidate? Thanks as always for clarity.
Click to expand...
You can always write in a name of a pro-life person. I’ve done that in the voting booth before. It’s rather easy. Of course, that person won’t win, but “not voting” is a terrible idea! I believe we have a duty, especially as Catholics to vote according to our conscience, on the issues that affect social justice, including first and foremost, the dignity of the human person. Even if we are outnumbered, and our efforts are an exercise in futility, that’s okay. God asks us to be faithful, not necessarily successful. Not voting at all is a cop out and a gross neglect of our civil rights and civic duty.
 
RosaryFan said:
You can always write in a name of a pro-life person. I’ve done that in the voting booth before. It’s rather easy. Of course, that person won’t win, but “not voting” is a terrible idea! I believe we have a duty, especially as Catholics to vote according to our conscience, on the issues that affect social justice, including first and foremost, the dignity of the human person. Even if we are outnumbered, and our efforts are an exercise in futility, that’s okay. God asks us to be faithful, not necessarily successful. Not voting at all is a cop out and a gross neglect of our civil rights and civic duty.
Click to expand...
I just want to piggy-back on RosaryFan. Voting according to our conscience does not mean that we vote as we see is right. This sounds strange, does it not?

The Church demands that Catholics form their conscience to conform to the Church’s moral teachings. A conscience that is out of compliance with Catholic moral teaching is an erroneous conscience. The Catholic has the means to correct that, because the fullness of truth subsists within the Catholic Church. Therefore, the Catholic has a moral duty to correct his or her erroneous conscience and bring it into compliance with the moral teachings of the Church.

The claim for consciensce has been abused all too often during the last 40-years, because Vatican II defended the inviolability of conscience. But people did not read the rest of the documents. On several documents, they remind us that the teaching of the Church has always been those who know that they have an erroneous conscience, have a moral duty to correct it by thinking as the Church thinks. The inviolability of conscience does not state that one may knowingly allow his or her conscience to be out of compliance withe the Church.

The conscience is inviolable when it conforms to the teachings of the Catholic Church or in the case of a non-Catholic, when it conforms to the truths that he or she knows, which are less than those known by Catholics. Non-Catholics do not have access to the fullness of truth. They have parts of the Truth. This includes moral truth. But they have a right to exercise their conscience according to those truths that they know and one has a right to interfere with them. They do not have a right to do evil. No one has that right. I one follows his conscience and evils results from it through no fault of ones own, then one is not culpable. Catholics have no excuse for not knowing the whole moral truth on social issues.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
I just want to piggy-back on RosaryFan. Voting according to our conscience does not mean that we vote as we see is right. This sounds strange, does it not?

The Church demands that Catholics form their conscience to conform to the Church’s moral teachings. A conscience that is out of compliance with Catholic moral teaching is an erroneous conscience. The Catholic has the means to correct that, because the fullness of truth subsists within the Catholic Church. Therefore, the Catholic has a moral duty to correct his or her erroneous conscience and bring it into compliance with the moral teachings of the Church.

The claim for consciensce has been abused all too often during the last 40-years, because Vatican II defended the inviolability of conscience. But people did not read the rest of the documents. On several documents, they remind us that the teaching of the Church has always been those who know that they have an erroneous conscience, have a moral duty to correct it by thinking as the Church thinks. The inviolability of conscience does not state that one may knowingly allow his or her conscience to be out of compliance withe the Church.

The conscience is inviolable when it conforms to the teachings of the Catholic Church or in the case of a non-Catholic, when it conforms to the truths that he or she knows, which are less than those known by Catholics. Non-Catholics do not have access to the fullness of truth. They have parts of the Truth. This includes moral truth. But they have a right to exercise their conscience according to those truths that they know and one has a right to interfere with them. They do not have a right to do evil. No one has that right. I one follows his conscience and evils results from it through no fault of ones own, then one is not culpable. Catholics have no excuse for not knowing the whole moral truth on social issues.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
Thank you for adding that! Very important, indeed!
 
Br. JR, thanks for considering my question. However I cannot agree that the threat of the death penalty would not stop an abortionist. In fact, an abortion doctor is more likely to be dissuaded by the threat of a death penalty than someone who murders in the act of a robbery while strung out on drugs (like Karla Faye Tucker). If, as some have suggested, the murder of the unborn is worse than the murder of someone who might actually defend himself, why would you say that the use of the death penalty would be less appropriate for an abortionist than for any other crime? If it is not appropriate for an abortionist, then it is not appropriate for anyone.

But getting back to the question of voting, we have heard about the 5 non-negotiables which include abortion. The principle is supposed to be that these 5 issues form an absolute override to any voting considerations based on “lesser” values, such as social justice, or even the death penalty (which is not one of the 5 non-negotiables). That would imply that regrettable as it is to vote for someone who supports the death penalty, it is always more regrettable to vote for someone who takes abortion lightly (like our hypothetical candidate who favors a $100 fine). So who would you vote for?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Br. JR, thanks for considering my question. However I cannot agree that the threat of the death penalty would not stop an abortionist. In fact, an abortion doctor is more likely to be dissuaded by the threat of a death penalty than someone who murders in the act of a robbery while strung out on drugs (like Karla Faye Tucker). If, as some have suggested, the murder of the unborn is worse than the murder of someone who might actually defend himself, why would you say that the use of the death penalty would be less appropriate for an abortionist than for any other crime? If it is not appropriate for an abortionist, then it is not appropriate for anyone.

But getting back to the question of voting, we have heard about the 5 non-negotiables which include abortion. The principle is supposed to be that these 5 issues form an absolute override to any voting considerations based on “lesser” values, such as social justice, or even the death penalty (which is not one of the 5 non-negotiables). That would imply that regrettable as it is to vote for someone who supports the death penalty, it is always more regrettable to vote for someone who takes abortion lightly (like our hypothetical candidate who favors a $100 fine). So who would you vote for?
Click to expand...
I understand what you’re saying. Maybe my statement was not too clear. The problem about voting for the politician who wants the death penalty for abortionists is that you may never do an evil to eliminate another evil. This is not the case of a war or a attacker where you have to defend yourself. In this case, you have a choice, you can put someone in prison or you can execute them. Putting the prison is the greater good. We must always choose the greater good between two choices.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
I understand what you’re saying. Maybe my statement was not too clear. The problem about voting for the politician who wants the death penalty for abortionists is that you may never do an evil to eliminate another evil. This is not the case of a war or a attacker where you have to defend yourself. In this case, you have a choice, you can put someone in prison or you can execute them. Putting the prison is the greater good. We must always choose the greater good between two choices.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
So does that mean you would vote for the candidate who supports a $100 fine for abortion and not the candidate who favors executing abortionists if those were your only two choices?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
So does that mean you would vote for the candidate who supports a $100 fine for abortion and not the candidate who favors executing abortionists if those were your only two choices?
Click to expand...
There is no other moral choice. A Catholic must always choose the greater good. If you execute in order to save the unborn, you are doing an evil for the sake of a good. That makes you (us) no better than these folks who have gunned down abortioinists. The only difference is that this would be legal, but it would be the same action.

We have to remember, the Catholic Church does not condone the use of capital punishment until you have exhausted all other means of protecting the innocent. We cannot vote for someone who will use capital punishment to stop abortion, when the solution is to pass laws that prohibit abortion. The greater good must be tried first. The consequences for breaking the law may never violate human dignity and must seek the greater good, to allow the person the chance to repent and atone for his sins. The person is guilty. Humanity is not. When we violate human dignity, we are sinning against humanity, not just a single person.

Popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have made it very clear that the Gospels command us to hold all life as sacred. Obviously, the protection of the most vulnerable is our greatest moral responsibility. But our moral responsibility extends to all human beings in proportionate measures. My obligation to protect the life of an unborn is greater than my obligation to protect someone who can protect himself. That’s what I mean by proportionate.

However, protecting the unborn does not involve killing another person when there are other ways of granting protection to the unborn.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
…We cannot vote for someone who will use capital punishment to stop abortion, when the solution is to pass laws that prohibit abortion. The greater good must be tried first…
Click to expand...
OK, that makes a lot more sense than the overly-simplistic 5 non-negotiables. It is good to hear that at least in some instances a value outside the group of 5 (death penalty) can be given comparable weight to a value inside that group (abortion).

What about if we separate the two issues? Suppose candidate A favors a life sentence for abortion and the death penalty for rapists, while candidate B favors the $100 fine for abortion and is against the death penalty in general. If I believe that society can be protected from rapists without resorting to executing them, am I allowed to vote my conscience and choose candidate B, even though he is considerably softer on abortion? If you say yes, then I promise - no more hypotheticals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top