voting

[katy]

This may be addressed somewhere, but I didn’t find it.

What if all the candidates you have available to vote for on the state level are pro-abortion? We are supposed to vote, but how do we determine for whom? I’m tempted to just sit it out.

 

[Della]

We are to vote for the least objectionable/closest to pro-life candidate when both are pro-abortion. The reason being that the least objectionable/closest to pro-life one would be better to have in office than the one that is more committed to the pro-abortion stance. If you don’t vote you will be throwing away your opportunity to make even that much difference.

 

[katy]

We are to vote for the least objectionable/closest to pro-life candidate when both are pro-abortion. The reason being that the least objectionable/closest to pro-life one would be better to have in office than the one that is more committed to the pro-abortion stance. If you don’t vote you will be throwing away your opportunity to make even that much difference.

A good point.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Don’t sit it out. That just says you don’t care. If you don’t like either candidate write one in, or cast a blank ballot in protest.

You can always write in “Pro-Life Rita”.

 

[Tietjen]

This may be addressed somewhere, but I didn’t find it.

What if all the candidates you have available to vote for on the state level are pro-abortion? We are supposed to vote, but how do we determine for whom? I’m tempted to just sit it out.

I am not certain that there is an official position in this circumstance; however, my personal view is that no anti-life candidate will get my vote. I know that many will say to vote for the least evil candidate but (for me) anti-life is nonnegotiable. I do not however condemn others who may prefer to use the “lesser of two evils” approach if that is what they’re led to do. God bless.

PS - I like the idea of opting to vote “write-in.” That would be very acceptable.

 

[Della]

The problem with writing in a name is just the same as not voting. All one is doing is not voting for the candidate who has a real chance of winning who would be the closest to Church teaching.

And yes, it is official Church teaching that we should vote for candidates that come the closest to the Catholic position when our only choices are pro-abortion.

By voting for the “lesser of two evils” we are sending a message that we will not elect those who whole-heartedly support the pro-abortion position. This wears down the opposition little by little, which is better than not at all.

Also, a candidate that is not whole-heartedly given over to the pro-abortion position may be influenced to come even farther into a pro-life position, since s/he is probably more open to listening to sound reasons for the pro-life position.

Jesus commanded us to be “as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves.” This is one of those instances in which we can put his command into practice.

 

[SoCalRC]

The problem with writing in a name is just the same as not voting. All one is doing is not voting for the candidate who has a real chance of winning who would be the closest to Church teaching.

The problem with that thinking, that standing wholly with God is somehow ‘impractical’, is that it can make one adopt evil means. For example, if one accepts the Church teaching on the torture of prisoners in the context of ‘just war’ doctrine, one could easily find themselves trying to choose between ‘pro choice’ and ‘unjust war’, both of which are gravely immoral.

Further, there is little to suggest that pragmatism really works either. Our largest drop in the abortion rate in the US since Roe was under the watch of a pro-choice President and our states which have abortion rates significantly below the national average are disproportionately represented by pro-choice state legislatures. Instead of ‘wasting’ our votes pursuing our values, it appears that we have simply attached them to a litmus test of lip service.

Case in point, look at the '08 Presidential race. We have one party were candidates now claim to be pro-life with regards to abortion (though also aggressively supporting things like state sponsored torture), but the top spots in both parties are all currently occupied by individuals with long histories of being pro-abortion in public life. Even several second tier candidates, who at least seem to have the right voting record, have a surprising amount of abortion baggage in their closets.

If one stands with God, and encourages others to do so, how could one’s vote truly be wasted? Since the beginning of the Church and Roman persecution, Christians have long stood for what is right, not what is popular or what is convenient. On the other hand, if we are ‘practical’ to the point where our votes are traded for empty lip service, how do we face the Son of Man when it is our time?

Also, the Church has provided some doctrinal notes on questions like voting:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

 

[Joe_Kelley]

The problem with writing in a name is just the same as not voting. All one is doing is not voting for the candidate who has a real chance of winning who would be the closest to Church teaching.

And yes, it is official Church teaching that we should vote for candidates that come the closest to the Catholic position when our only choices are pro-abortion.

By voting for the “lesser of two evils” we are sending a message that we will not elect those who whole-heartedly support the pro-abortion position. This wears down the opposition little by little, which is better than not at all.

Also, a candidate that is not whole-heartedly given over to the pro-abortion position may be influenced to come even farther into a pro-life position, since s/he is probably more open to listening to sound reasons for the pro-life position.

Jesus commanded us to be “as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves.” This is one of those instances in which we can put his command into practice.

God doesn’t ask us to win; just to be faithful.

 

[rlg94086]

The problem with that thinking, that standing wholly with God is somehow ‘impractical’, is that it can make one adopt evil means. For example, if one accepts the Church teaching on the torture of prisoners in the context of ‘just war’ doctrine, one could easily find themselves trying to choose between ‘pro choice’ and ‘unjust war’, both of which are gravely immoral.

Further, there is little to suggest that pragmatism really works either. Our largest drop in the abortion rate in the US since Roe was under the watch of a pro-choice President and our states which have abortion rates significantly below the national average are disproportionately represented by pro-choice state legislatures. Instead of ‘wasting’ our votes pursuing our values, it appears that we have simply attached them to a litmus test of lip service.

Case in point, look at the '08 Presidential race. We have one party were candidates now claim to be pro-life with regards to abortion (though also aggressively supporting things like state sponsored torture), but the top spots in both parties are all currently occupied by individuals with long histories of being pro-abortion in public life. Even several second tier candidates, who at least seem to have the right voting record, have a surprising amount of abortion baggage in their closets.

If one stands with God, and encourages others to do so, how could one’s vote truly be wasted? Since the beginning of the Church and Roman persecution, Christians have long stood for what is right, not what is popular or what is convenient. On the other hand, if we are ‘practical’ to the point where our votes are traded for empty lip service, how do we face the Son of Man when it is our time?

Also, the Church has provided some doctrinal notes on questions like voting:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

Thanks for the document link SoCalRC, but it doesn’t speak against practical voting; nor does it support your notion that voting for someone who has no chance of winning is somehow more virtuous than choosing the best available option (i.e. “lesser of two evils”).

You may personally interpret it that way, but I don’t see it. What the document does is instruct us to inform our political decisions based on Catholic morality and avoid relativism and pluralism.

1. Such relativism, of course, has nothing to do with the legitimate freedom of Catholic citizens to choose among the various political opinions that are compatible with faith and the natural moral law, and to select, according to their own criteria, what best corresponds to the needs of the common good. Political freedom is not – and cannot be – based upon the relativistic idea that all conceptions of the human person’s good have the same value and truth, but rather, on the fact that politics are concerned with very concrete realizations of the true human and social good in given historical, geographic, economic, technological and cultural contexts. From the specificity of the task at hand and the variety of circumstances, a plurality of morally acceptable policies and solutions arises. It is not the Church’s task to set forth specific political solutions – and even less to propose a single solution as the acceptable one – to temporal questions that God has left to the free and responsible judgment of each person.

Please consider these passages before you accuse people of putting their politics before God because they don’t choose to vote in the same manner as you.

 

[Della]

The question before us isn’t what other issues equate to abortion nor is it one’s loyalty to God. It is the Church that tells us to vote for the lesser of two evils when only pro-abortion candidates are our choice, not me.

And the war against abortion will not be won by hanging our hats on pure idealism, which even the Church does not recommend nor demand. Voting as a “Don Quixote” type of gesture will not win the war against abortion. It will have to be chipped away until it gives way.

There are two methods that work: prayer–lots and lots of prayer, and voting viable candidates into office who come closest to our values.

If the current administration hadn’t been elected we would have had a Supreme Court loaded with pro-abortionists instead of constitutionalists. We would have given our approval for UN programs of forced contraception in third world countries, many Catholic countries. And partial birth abortion would not have been stemmed. Just to name a few things of national importance in the battle against abortion.

No candidate short of Christ himself will ever match all our expectations. So, until he comes to rule the world in person, we have the Church to advise us on matters of faith and morals. I will do as the Church advises because it is wise and sensible beyond mere sentiment or personal desire to make empty gestures.

 

[SoCalRC]

Thanks for the document link SoCalRC, but it doesn’t speak against practical voting; nor does it support your notion that voting for someone who has no chance of winning is somehow more virtuous than choosing the best available option (i.e. “lesser of two evils”).

Read more closely. The document also discusses non negotiable moral principles:

“When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia (not to be confused with the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate). Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death. In the same way, it is necessary to recall the duty to respect and protect the rights of the human embryo. Analogously, the family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such. The same is true for the freedom of parents regarding the education of their children; it is an inalienable right recognized also by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. In the same way, one must consider society’s protection of minors and freedom from modern forms of slavery (drug abuse and prostitution, for example). In addition, there is the right to religious freedom and the development of an economy that is at the service of the human person and of the common good, with respect for social justice, the principles of human solidarity and subsidiarity, according to which «the rights of all individuals, families, and organizations and their practical implementation must be acknowledged».[21] Finally, the question of peace must be mentioned. Certain pacifistic and ideological visions tend at times to secularize the value of peace, while, in other cases, there is the problem of summary ethical judgments which forget the complexity of the issues involved. Peace is always «the work of justice and the effect of charity».[22] It demands the absolute and radical rejection of violence and terrorism and requires a constant and vigilant commitment on the part of all political leaders.” (emphasis in original)

Notice that more than just aboriton is mentioned. Further, if there is any question about forgoing some princples that “moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation” in the name of “limiting the harm” of a single teaching, the document specifically addresses that question as well:

“In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.” (emphasis added)

So the document does, most assuredly, appear to support my position. If a person agrees with the Church on torture and just war doctrine (and notice that I left it open to the individual concience in my previous post), it would be “incoherent” and a “detriment” to support state sponsored torture in the name of “pro life”.

It is not my place to judge anyone. But it does seem worth noting that ‘pragmatic’ voting has relegated values voters to the status of ‘reliable base’ which can be appeased with lip service. Further, for all the talk, single party rule at the national level has yielded plenty of benefits for part of the GOP caucus, but little to celebrate for values voters.

 

[rlg94086]

It is not my place to judge anyone.

Then please stop.

You still did not quote anything from the document that tells me I can only vote for a candidate who abides 100% by the non-negotiables. I have yet to see a candidate that does.

 

[SoCalRC]

And the war against abortion will not be won by hanging our hats on pure idealism, which even the Church does not recommend nor demand. Voting as a “Don Quixote” type of gesture will not win the war against abortion. It will have to be chipped away until it gives way.

What do you mean by ‘winning the war’? Getting politicians who uniformly give lip service to pro-life positions, or actually reducing the abortion rate?

We currently have zero evidence to suggest that our ‘pragmatism’ (dating from Reagan) has worked. We contributed massive amounts of time and money to a national partial birth abortion ban. But it was just political theatre. The law targetted about 2,000 of the 1.2 M abortions in this country. Of those targetted, it will stop 0.

Both new appointees to the Supreme Court joined the majority opinion, which justifies the ban primarily on the basis that it will not actually stop any abortions. Scalia and Thomas were so concerned that they wrote a brief concurring opinion, specifically to differentiate themselves from the majority on the issue of reaffirming Roe.

Politics and power corrupt. The NRLC snubbed 10 democratic lawmakers when they responding to stated concerns about s-chip legislation. Similiarly, NARAL endorsed Lieberman. Both groups have obviously reached the ‘pragmatic’ conclussion that they must sacrifice on their stated principles to preserve their overall political power.

I believe that the answer is to not put faith in earthly constructs and earthly power, but to faithfully follow the one true power.

 

[SoCalRC]

Then please stop.

I take it that the contradiction of calling someone the Pharisee is, in fact, being the Pharisee escaped you in a recent homily?

You still did not quote anything from the document that tells me I can only vote for a candidate who abides 100% by the non-negotiables. I have yet to see a candidate that does.

“When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person.” (emphasis added)

Which part of the paragraph don’t you understand? No, the Church cannot stop you from exercising your secular rights. It can only point out that compromising in this way attacks our proper understanding of the human person - IE, the foundation of our Catholic pro-life beliefs.

Applying the principles laid out by Pope Benedict in “Sacramentum Caritatis”, a Catholic who compromises on the “essence of the moral law” should give serious consideration as to rather or not he/she should present themself for communion.

Get as angry as you want, but look at my username. I accept Primacy and the Gift of Authority, which means I strive to follow Rome. If I compromised on a war that I myself believe is unjust (per the CCC) or compromised on the legalization of abortion, I would be unfit to present myself for communion. That part of my spiritual life is more important to me than rather or not I vote for a political ‘winner’.

Secular research seems to show that secular law is the least effective means of reducing abortions, while traditional Catholic values (everything from the importance of family and marriage to our obligation to devote ourselves to service to the poor) are the most effective. I would think that the relevance of Christ would be reassuring on such an important social ill, but many self described ‘values voters’ simply attack the research. Presumably that is because they are getting confused between loyalty to Catholic teaching and and devotion to earthly political power.

 

[rlg94086]

I take it that the contradiction of calling someone the Pharisee is, in fact, being the Pharisee escaped you in a recent homily?

Not at all. I haven’t accused you of being a Pharisee. I am merely asking you to cease and desist in accusing people, as you did me, of putting their politics before God. It is uncharitable.

SoCalRC:

Which part of the paragraph don’t you understand? No, the Church cannot stop you from exercising your secular rights. It can only point out that compromising in this way attacks our proper understanding of the human person - IE, the foundation of our Catholic pro-life beliefs.

I understand it fully, and I would not vote for a law or proposition that is contrary to any of those principles. What I quoted earlier from the document, does not refer to “secular rights.”

1. Such relativism, of course, has nothing to do with the legitimate freedom of Catholic citizens to choose among the various political opinions that are compatible with faith and the natural moral law, and to select, according to their own criteria, what best corresponds to the needs of the common good. Political freedom is not – and cannot be – based upon the relativistic idea that all conceptions of the human person’s good have the same value and truth, but rather, on the fact that politics are concerned with very concrete realizations of the true human and social good in given historical, geographic, economic, technological and cultural contexts. From the specificity of the task at hand and the variety of circumstances, a plurality of morally acceptable policies and solutions arises. It is not the Church’s task to set forth specific political solutions – and even less to propose a single solution as the acceptable one – to temporal questions that God has left to the free and responsible judgment of each person.

What part of that don’t you understand? As the document also mentions, a Catholic politician can vote for legislation that helps limit abortion, even though it allows exceptions. I believe a Catholic voter can make a similarly pragmatic vote, choosing between the two viable candidates and selecting the best option.

SoCalRC:

Applying the principles laid out by Pope Benedict in “Sacramentum Caritatis”, a Catholic who compromises on the “essence of the moral law” should give serious consideration as to rather or not he/she should present themself for communion.

Indeed. If a Catholic votes directly for something contrary to the “essence of moral law,” that is the case.

SoCalRC:

Get as angry as you want, but look at my username. I accept Primacy and the Gift of Authority, which means I strive to follow Rome. If I compromised on a war that I myself believe is unjust (per the CCC) or compromised on the legalization of abortion, I would be unfit to present myself for communion. That part of my spiritual life is more important to me than rather or not I vote for a political ‘winner’.

I’m not angry. I respect your choice, even though I don’t understand your reasoning. Unfortunately, you don’t respect mine. My spiritual life is also more important to me than whether my candidate wins or loses. I disagree that choosing the most viable option in line with my faith harms my spiritual life. If I ignored the teachings of the Church in making my choices, that would be great error. I don’t. They are utmost in my mind as I prayerfully make my choices.

Secular research seems to show that secular law is the least effective means of reducing abortions, while traditional Catholic values (everything from the importance of family and marriage to our obligation to devote ourselves to service to the poor) are the most effective. I would think that the relevance of Christ would be reassuring on such an important social ill, but many self described ‘values voters’ simply attack the research. Presumably that is because they are getting confused between loyalty to Catholic teaching and and devotion to earthly political power.

Are you saying that a Catholic who votes for making abortion illegal in our secular laws isn’t supporting traditional Catholic values? Since when? I think it is important that we push for both. I am also able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

I don’t have a “devotion to earthly political power,” and I see no evidence of any of my fellow Catholics that would be described in that manner.

 

[melensdad]

I don’t have a “devotion to earthly political power,” and I see no evidence of any of my fellow Catholics that would be described in that manner.

Thank you for such a thoughtful reply to SoCalRC. I feel constantly under attack by his/her posts, even if I don’t state a position and simply ask a question. Your post very clearly refutes and defends the position of those of us who believe that it is not impossible to be a good Catholic and still vote for viable candidates. Heck by simply posting a question about the death penalty I was accused of turning my back on the Church! I’m personally getting tired of posting on Catholic Answers because I’m getting tired of having my words twisted uncharitably beyond recognition and I applaud your post for its defense of logic and a deep and loving belief in Christ.

Thank you.

 

[Ender]

Both new appointees to the Supreme Court joined the majority opinion, which justifies the ban primarily on the basis that it will not actually stop any abortions. Scalia and Thomas were so concerned that they wrote a brief concurring opinion, specifically to differentiate themselves from the majority on the issue of reaffirming Roe.

Your opinions are remarkably impervious to the truth. Twice I have responded to this claim by quoting from the ruling itself the remarks of Justice Ginsburg where she explicitly lamented not only the fact that this ruling failed to reaffirm Roe but chips away at it … yet you continue to make the claim that the ruling in Carhart reaffirms Roe. Knowing that your interpretation is wrong how can you continue to make this claim?

I believe that the answer is to not put faith in earthly constructs and earthly power, but to faithfully follow the one true power.

A good start would be to faithfully follow the truth.

Ender

 

[Tietjen]

The problem with writing in a name is just the same as not voting. All one is doing is not voting for the candidate who has a real chance of winning who would be the closest to Church teaching.

And yes, it is official Church teaching that we should vote for candidates that come the closest to the Catholic position when our only choices are pro-abortion.

By voting for the “lesser of two evils” we are sending a message that we will not elect those who whole-heartedly support the pro-abortion position. This wears down the opposition little by little, which is better than not at all.

Also, a candidate that is not whole-heartedly given over to the pro-abortion position may be influenced to come even farther into a pro-life position, since s/he is probably more open to listening to sound reasons for the pro-life position.

Jesus commanded us to be “as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves.” This is one of those instances in which we can put his command into practice.

While I appreciate your position and in no way ridicule you for it, I do not agree with it. There are many areas of politics where I can make the choice between the “lesser of two evils” and so in those areas I would agree with you. However, there are some areas (abortion, euthanasia, homosexual marriage, embryonic stem cell research, and human cloning) that I consider non-negotiable. When I stand before God, I will have much to account for. I do not wish to also be accountable for votes, which helped elect those I knew were pro-death candidates. Even if that candidate might be better equipped to reduce the deficit, improve the overall economy, be an excellent foreign policy President, or clean up the environment. For me, it would be like selling out the souls of all those babies so that life in the U.S. would be easier or more pleasant. It is (for me) simply NON-NEGOTIBLE. We each will have to face God individually one day. Though I may have come up short in some areas, this will not be one of those areas. God bless.

 

[melensdad]

I do not wish to also be accountable for votes, which helped elect those I knew were pro-death candidates.

And this is exactly why we sometime may vote for someone who will conditionally support some abortion, if they are the lesser of two evils.

With politicians there are many types across a wide spectrum:

• Pro-Life in all ways in accord with Catholic Teaching AND willing to champion restrictions on abortion, cloning, etc.
• Pro-Life in all ways in accord with Catholic Teaching BUT is a passive member who will not initiate legislation, may act as a co-sponsor.
• Pro-Life in most instances but may make some minor exceptions (rape, etc), generally doesn’t sponsor or introduce legislation. Our friend most of the time.
• Generally Pro-Life but also Pro-Gay rights, but doesn’t sponsor or introduce legislation, we can’t count on this guy but we can’t count him out either.
• Generally Pro-Abortion, pro Gay, pro cloning, etc. Votes against us most times but does not sponsor or introduce legislation.
• Pro-Abortion/Gay/etc and votes against us on the 5 non-negotiable issues, but does not introduce legislation
• Active Pro-Abortion/Gay/etc, introduces and sponsors legislation we oppose.

If you figure the candidate at the bottom of this list is the WORST possible choice, but the other viable candidate is only generally pro-life but also favors gay rights, etc, then we have a choice of one of only a few things.

• Vote for the ‘best’ viable candidate
• Vote for a candidate we know will lose (write in vote or 3rd party choice)
• Not vote at all.

The problem with not voting at all, or voting a “write in” or other minor party, is that we have effectively not voted and therefore have helped the WORST candidate. If we hold our nose and vote for the other viable candidate, despite their shortcomings, we have not made our situation much worse and may have eliminated a candidate who will ACTIVELY oppose our goals.

Therefore, when we stand in judgement, we have a to face this option.

• We voted for someone with no chance to win, but it allowed a pro-abortionist to win.
• Or we voted for someone who mildly supported some of my positions and mildly supported some positions we oppose, but it prevented a pro-abortionist win.

Collectively we are a very large voting block. We do, however, hurt ourselves by dividing up our votes, sitting out elections, and doing other silly things like voting for a party that USED to believe in our beliefs but no longer does. We need to vote for individuals not parties. We need to unify our beliefs on the 5 non-negotiable points and realize that sometimes we can win a small battle by slowly electing people who are less likely to push the pro-abortion/death causes.

I will gladly take a few mildly pro-death candidates over any active and militant pro-death candidates because while both are bad, one will not push the agenda of death, and if we get enough of those to replace the militant abortionists, then we may also have enough Pro-Life candidates on the other side to do some good and reverse the Death culture.

 

[SoCalRC]

Not at all. I haven’t accused you of being a Pharisee. I am merely asking you to cease and desist in accusing people, as you did me, of putting their politics before God. It is uncharitable.

I cut a cloth, rather or not it fits is for you to decide.

What part of that don’t you understand? As the document also mentions, a Catholic politician can vote for legislation that helps limit abortion, even though it allows exceptions.

Nice sidestep, but you are just repeating what I said. I specifically quoted what the document says about dangers and constraints on “limiting the harm” and on non negotiable moral principles.

The whole point is that the principle has definate limits on how far it can be applied. You specifically stated otherwise, I requoted.

I’m not angry. I respect your choice, even though I don’t understand your reasoning. Unfortunately, you don’t respect mine.

Reason has little to do with it. We are talking about absolute moral obligations to God.

The Church says that elevating a single teaching to special status and using it as a principle litmus test of voting Catholic values is “incoherent” and a “detriment”, since our beliefs are a coherent whole. I agree, but rather I agreed or not, I would obey.

You see, I happen to think that Fr. Neuhaus was correct in his article in First Things. Kennedy’s election speech addressing concerns about his Catholicism was good politics, but poor Catholicism. It is not our place to pick and choose what moral guidance we receive from the Magesterium.

As a fellow citizen, I respect your right to vote and hold any views that you wish. I believe in our free and pluralistic society. Enough that I enlisted to serve in war I did not personally support.

However, as a Roman Catholic I do not accept the premise that each member of the laity is free to reject moral principles that the Church describes as non negotiable when voting.

Are you saying that a Catholic who votes for making abortion illegal in our secular laws isn’t supporting traditional Catholic values? Since when?

Huh? If I believed that why would I refuse to vote for a pro-choice candidate (as I have reported many times)?

The point is that if you use secular law as a litmus test for faith, at the expense of other non negotiable moral principles, you are, as the Church says, voting incoherently. Further, I believe that it is easy to see why the Church warns that it can be a detriment as well.

Look at some of the other post. Politics has contracted the meaning of ‘pro life’ to the point where posters are arguing that a ban that stops zero abortions and is ruled to be in accordance with Casey and Roe is ‘pro life’.