Voting

[Philip_P]

TPJCatholic:

Philip,

Nice try, , but you didged my question.

Do you think our culture should have legal rape? It is really a yes or no type question…

The point I am making is that some actions are so greievous in nature that we absolutely must make the effort to outlaw them even if many people will still do them (albeit in an illegal manner). We are a human, and as such we must govern ourselves with laws and those laws MUST reflect a sense of proper morality based in moral law. If abortion is acceptable to be legal, then so should rape, murder, drug use, etc…

No, I don’t think rape should be legal. Nor do I think abortion should be legal. Legislation and effective governance, however, need to take current conditions into account.

Let’s return to the hypothetical society that does not hold rape to be illegal (our culture, thankfully, finds rape unacceptable and so rape is illegal in law and in fact. For the most part anyway - we’re still to quick to excuse certain situations). The ideal would be that the society would turn to find rape unacceptable, and then pass laws against it. If I lived in that society, I would be primarily concerned with making rape unacceptable and not altogether concerned as to its legal status.

Return to our society. Ultimately, I don’t believe abortion ought to be legal. However, I don’t think making it illegal is a real possibility at this point, and even if a law outlawing it could be pushed through somehow, I don’t think it would give us the results we are looking for. In fact, as with the real-world example of prohibition, I think it would be likely to backfire.

 

[Philip_P]

TPJCatholic:

The point I am making is that some actions are so greievous in nature that we absolutely must make the effort to outlaw them even if many people will still do them (albeit in an illegal manner). We are a human, and as such we must govern ourselves with laws and those laws MUST reflect a sense of proper morality based in moral law. If abortion is acceptable to be legal, then so should rape, murder, drug use, etc…

I don’t really agree with that legal philosophy. I see law as tools that help shape and define society, not necessarily as a moral code. Moral codes belong in the Bible, the Catechism, and other sources of morality (and, as a Catholic, sources I believe to be divinely inspired). We certainly use these moral sources to determine what goals, what sort of society, we wish to achieve, but I don’t believe that the secular law itself is necessarily a moral code.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Philip,

I think you are missing the point that both paths need to happen together. Slavery will still be legal if both paths were not being worked. In fact, I once read that only 35% of the American public during the Civil War times thought slavery should be banned; therefore, if Lincoln and the other leaders followed the mainstream opinions slavery would still be legal.

If we find something to be truly grievous in nature, then we are bound by the moral law to make every attempt to outlaw those actions within civil law–justice demands such attempts.

I disagree that abortion cannot be made illegal, all it takes is the proper will to do so.

 

[Philip_P]

Stu:

I understand your point, but why do think there is a dichotomy between changing society or changing the law? I would say we can and should pursue both approaches simultaneously. Therefore shouldn’t we as Catholics vote for legislators who are pro-life in their approach to making laws as well as taking other actions to change societies outlook on infanticide?

I’d love to be able to pursue both simultaneously, but that has not been on the electoral buffet of options. To truly do so, to pursue a “consistent ethic of life” means to cross party lines.

It’s a prudential judgment of which approaches a voter believes will yield the best outcome.

(Sorry for three posts in a row, but I’ve been having troubles getting online and so I’m trying to post while I can.)

 

[vern_humphrey]

Richardols:

Please read the platform. Nowhere does it state that the DNC supports “killing the unborn.”

From The Democratic Party Platform presidency.ucsb.edu/docs/platforms/D2004platform.pdf

We will defend the dignity of all Americans against those who would undermine it. Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We repudiate President Bush’s divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a “Federal Marriage Amendment.” Our goal is to bring Americans together, not drive them apart.

 

[MikeWM]

ByzCath:

You are indeed mistaken.

We are not called to vote for any party but there are some issues that trump other issues.

One can not vote for a pro-abortion candidate just because you like their stand on other issues.

There are many places were we are free to disagree. Those issues that Phillip brought up earlier, living wage, affordable housing, health care, and child care are just such issues. But if a candidate stands on these issues the way you do but is pro-abortion, then as a Catholic you can not vote for them.

The issues raised in your UK document…

1. Marriage and Family Life
2. Respect For Life
3. Criminal Justice
4. Education
5. The Global Common Good
6. Refugees and Migrants

Only 1 and 2 are, as the Catholic Answers Voters Guide put it, non-negotables. Faithful Catholics can disagree on 3 though 6 but on 1, sanctity of Marriage (no gay marriage), and 2, pro-life, there is only one stand a faithful Catholic may take.

Could you dig out an official Church document that says that, please? That you may not vote for a candidate that supports abortion rights if they are frankly the ‘least worst’ option?

I wonder, are you saying the official position of the Catholic Church is you shouldn’t vote at all if all parties are violating the key issues you mention?

Frankly, if I were an American voter, I would have difficulty voting Democrat because of the party stance on abortion. But I would have equal difficulty voting Republican, because they started a war the Pope begged them not to, and because of their support for the death penalty.

Equally in Britain, all the main parties support abortion ‘rights’. May I therefore not vote at all? That certainly wasn’t the advice of the Bishop’s Conference of England and Wales, in their document.

Surely if all parties are violating the pro-life views a Catholic needs to hold, you have to start taking other things into account, rather than refrain from voting at all?

I find it funny that the leftists here at the forum who claim to be Catholic yet insist on voteing for candidates who hold and promote views that are incompatible with Catholicism cry out that the Catholic Answers Voters Guide said that we had to vote Republican when the Guide did not mention any Candidates nor parties in it, it just spoke of issues.

I find that very telling that people can read a Guide that speaks only to issues but then are able to infer a certain party. That tells you that everyone knows that the DNC adheres to values that are incompatable with Catholicism.

I haven’t read the CA voters guide, but the impression I’ve got from other posts is that it only addressed a narrow subset of the issues the USCCB stated in their document. Frankly when voting you’re never going to be able to vote for someone you think is ‘ideal’, that’s the nature of politics.

Of course, that is CA’s right, to advocate whatever they want, but my concern is what the USCCB was saying, and my mind has been put to rest on that.

Mike

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

MikeWM:

Could you dig out an official Church document that says that, please? That you may not vote for a candidate that supports abortion rights if they are frankly the ‘least worst’ option?

I will let others go into this in more detail but I will say that abortion is a moral evil. It can never be good. Read the Catechism paragraphs 2270-2275.

A moral evil can never be a “least worst” option especially when the other options are not a moral evil but just something you disagree with them on. Read the Catechism parapgraph 1789, actually this one is so important I will post it (bold emphasis added)

1789 Some rules apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
• the Golden Rule: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”
• charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: “Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ.” Therefore “it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble.”

This proves that one may not support an evil so that some good can be done.

I just can not understand that argument. “Oh yes, he supports killing unborn children but I like his stand on raising the minimun wage by $5.00.” Just does not make sense to me.

The “least worst” option is only when those things do not deal with something that goes against Church Teaching.

I wonder, are you saying the official position of the Catholic Church is you shouldn’t vote at all if all parties are violating the key issues you mention?

Yes, I guess that would be so. That is the way I vote. If everyone supports something that is inherently evil, or morally evil, then I will not vote for anyone. After all withholding your vote is a vote.

But I would have equal difficulty voting Republican, because they started a war the Pope begged them not to, and because of their support for the death penalty.

Neither of these issues are inherently evil, they are not moral evils. Faithful Catholics can stand on both sides of these issues.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Philip,

The Roman Catholic faith disagrees with your view of the law. The following Catechism paragraph reflects that the civil law is based on the natural law…they must be bound together in order to foster a properly oriented culture:

*CCC 1959 *
*The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides **the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral *rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.

 

[MikeWM]

ByzCath:

The “least worst” option is only when those things do not deal with something that goes against Church Teaching.

Yes, I guess that would be so. That is the way I vote. If everyone supports something that is inherently evil, or morally evil, then I will not vote for anyone. After all withholding your vote is a vote.

I understand what you are saying, but the logical implication of what you are saying is that if a fascist or communist party were to say ‘the first day we’re in power, we’ll pass a federal law to make all abortion illegal’ then it would be the duty of all Catholics to vote for that fascist or communist party.
I can’t accept that that conclusion is what the Church would want us to do.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

The only thing I’ve managed to dig up so far is the publication ‘Cherishing Life’(2004) on the England/Wales Catholic Church site.

It says

1. When faced with a general election, every voter has a responsibility to act for the common good. Whatever may have been the case in the past, representatives to our legislative bodies are now almost always chosen on the basis of a party manifesto, and it is reasonable that people should pay as much attention to the party as to the person. In deciding which party to vote for, the voter needs to consider as wide a spectrum as possible of the policies proposed in the manifesto. Voting in a general election should seldom if ever be based on a single issue, because elections are concerned with a whole range of issues very many of which are concerned with life and with human flourishing. ‘A general election must never be confused with a single-issue referendum.’ (The Common Good, paragraph 65)."

Mike

 

[miguel]

Philip P:

…I also think it’s entirely possible to have a virtually abortion-free society without overturning Roe v Wade. I’d rather put energy into creating a world were women do not choose abortion rather than being focused on the legality of their choice.

I think this is unrealistic. Because of original sin, laws are necessary to protect life and property. You can’t have civilization without punishment for crime.

 

[Philip_P]

Originally Posted by MikeWMBut I would have equal difficulty voting Republican, because they started a war the Pope begged them not to, and because of their support for the death penalty.

ByzCath:

Neither of these issues are inherently evil, they are not moral evils. Faithful Catholics can stand on both sides of these issues.

But to commit evil is inherently evil. If your conscience tells you that the Iraq war was immoral, then it is just as evil to support it as it is to support an abortion law that your conscience tells you is immoral. If you believe capital punishment in the U.S. to be immoral, there is no more wiggle room for you on this issue than on another issue.

Again, this demonstrates the fallacy of “non-negotiable” approaches to voting. The fact is, any and all negotiation is over the second you pull the ballot box lever. Designating an issue non-negotiable gives the false impression that other issues are somehow unimportant or irrelevant or “negotiable.” This is absurd. Abortion is an important issue, but so is war, yet under the CA voting philosophy, war is completely irrelevant to informing one’s voting choice.

 

[Philip_P]

TPJCatholic:

Philip,

The Roman Catholic faith disagrees with your view of the law. The following Catechism paragraph reflects that the civil law is based on the natural law…they must be bound together in order to foster a properly oriented culture:

*CCC 1959 *
*The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides **the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral *rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.

Natural law is the basis of civil law, but it is not identical to it. I stick with my earlier statement that civil law is a tool to shape and structure society, not a moral code. I will readily agree that the shape we are trying to build society to is informed by natural law – natural law tells us the goal we are working toward – but I see nothing in the Catechism that requires civil and natural law to be identical.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Philip P:

But to commit evil is inherently evil. If your conscience tells you that the Iraq war was immoral, then it is just as evil to support it as it is to support an abortion law that your conscience tells you is immoral. If you believe capital punishment in the U.S. to be immoral, there is no more wiggle room for you on this issue than on another issue.

This is provided that your conscience is properly formed. If so then you will know that war is not an inherent evil and that captial punishment is not an inherent evil. You will know that they are not on the same level as abortion.

That being said, even if you did believe what you say, then how can it be exceptable to vote for a pro-abortion candidate? It isn’t.

Again, this demonstrates the fallacy of “non-negotiable” approaches to voting. The fact is, any and all negotiation is over the second you pull the ballot box lever. Designating an issue non-negotiable gives the false impression that other issues are somehow unimportant or irrelevant or “negotiable.” This is absurd. Abortion is an important issue, but so is war, yet under the CA voting philosophy, war is completely irrelevant to informing one’s voting choice.

You are wrong, war is not completely irrelevant but war is not a reason to pick someone who is pro-abortion.

All you are doing here is rationalizing.

Regardless of what CA says, there are certain non-negotiables that I have in voteing. If a candidate supports one of those then I will never vote for that candidate.

You seem to put forward the idea that everything is relative. That if someone is for killing innocent unborn children but against the war, then its ok to vote for them. I say it isn’t and looking at Church teaching I find much support for that view.

 

[Philip_P]

ByzCath:

This is provided that your conscience is properly formed. If so then you will know that war is not an inherent evil and that captial punishment is not an inherent evil. You will know that they are not on the same level as abortion.

But an unjust war is an inherent evil. If one believes this war to be unjust, then one is bound to oppose it.

That being said, even if you did believe what you say, then how can it be exceptable to vote for a pro-abortion candidate? It isn’t.

Because I don’t believe simply supporting the status quo makes one pro-abortion. An example of a “pro-abortion” candidate, to my mind, would be one who says certain people must have an abortion, for instance something along China’s one-child policy. You may disagree. It’s a prudential judgment.

Regardless of what CA says, there are certain non-negotiables that I have in voteing. If a candidate supports one of those then I will never vote for that candidate.

It is your right and your duty to vote for the person you feel most qualified for the position. I would suggest that making a statement such as “I will never vote for that candidate” is inherently unworkable (if it came to a choice between two pro-choice candidates, and one was a fascist while the other supported democracy, would you really just not vote and allow the fascist to win?), but it would be inappropriate of me to threaten you with mortal sin just because I disagree with your voting philosophy. I have no more authority to make such a threat than Catholic Answers does.

You seem to put forward the idea that everything is relative. That if someone is for killing innocent unborn children but against the war, then its ok to vote for them. I say it isn’t and looking at Church teaching I find much support for that view.

No, what I’m putting forward is the idea that voting is a prudential judgment. Since we do not know what the end result of any action, especially one as complex as voting, will be, we must make our decisions as best we can. This means we must inform ourselves as much as possible in order to make the best possible choice. CA, by contrast, is pushing a philosophy that none of it matters, all one must do is look at a candidate’s stance on a small number of issues. One not even need to consider whether a candidate is likely to have any appreciable effect on these issues; one’s statement on them is sufficient, and even outweighs actual actions on issues of great importance. This is a gravely deficient voting philosophy (but a sin? Again, I have no more authority on this than CA)

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Again, rationalization.

What you suggest is that one support someone who goes against what God Teaches. That is never a good thing.

The just war idea something that faithful Catholics can and do disagree on. Abortion is not something faithful Catholics can disagree on.

I have stated my stand on this issue and it is useless to debate it any further with you as you seem set in your ways.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Philip,

The point is that the natural law comes from God, the civil law comes from people. As Catholics we are never allowed to “forget” the natural law in favor of civil law. Proper civil law should find its foundation in God’s natural law.

 

[Philip_P]

ByzCath:

Again, rationalization.

What you suggest is that one support someone who goes against what God Teaches. That is never a good thing.

The just war idea something that faithful Catholics can and do disagree on. Abortion is not something faithful Catholics can disagree on.

I have stated my stand on this issue and it is useless to debate it any further with you as you seem set in your ways.

What you are suggesting is you vote against one’s conscience. That is also never a good thing. And you are right, abortion is not something faithful Catholics can disagree on. How to address it is.

From your last statment, I am afraid you think I do not understand or respect your position. I do, even if I disagree with it. Please note, however, that I have never said you ought to vote for a Democrat. In fact, my position is that one cannot tell someone who they ought to vote for, as it is a prudential decision based upon conscience. If you vote GOP, by all means you should make your case. I will continue to make the case for my preferred candidates. That’s the way we learn, debate progresses, and democracy thrives. I hope to cross paths with you again on these forums.

 

[vern_humphrey]

From the 2004 Democratic Party Platform presidency.ucsb.edu/docs/platforms/D2004platform.pdf

We will defend the dignity of all Americans against those who would undermine it. Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

Very clearly, in their own words, the Democratic Party is the party of abortion. And, again in their own words, the Republicans are seeking to “undermine” the “right” to an abortion.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Philip,

There are candidates that Catholics risk sin to vote for…if a Catholic knows a person is prochoice, and if that Catholic knows there are prolife choices to vote for, then they risk committing grave sin if they vote for the prochoice person.

The Church cannot tell people who to vote for, but they can tell us the type of candidate we should not vote for.