guanaphore
If that politician is a representative, then his duty is to represent the constituency that elected him. If the majority of them are pro abortion, that is how he must vote. It is a terrible position for a Catholic to occupy!
If a candidate seeks high office, he should be known for the principles he stands for. If a Catholic candidate is silent on the issue of abortion whilst seeking high office and is then confronted with having to vote on the issue, he is a victim of his own silence. If the majority of his electors want him to vote in favour of abortion, he is a victim of his own umwillingness to place all his moral credentials before the electorate. In other words, it is his own fault. Once faced with having to vote in favour of abortion and having to choose between his own moral convictions and the whim of the crowd, the choice should be an easy one. He should vote according to his principles. From the point of view of the electorate, he should also vote in favour of his principles, or else the electors will realise they have not elected a leader, but have instead elected someone who will not stand up for principled decision making, but will go with the crowd. If he is the type to go with the crowd at the expense of his own moral principles, then he just might also be willing to sacrifice his beliefs for a fistfull of cash.
Charlemagne II wrote -
Returning to this point, the politician who takes a census of his constituents before each of his votes in congress is not realistic, nor is it part of his job description to be taking a survey before each vote. If he is a Catholic and votes his conscience on any issue, it is the prerogative of his constituents to respect him for voting as he did or make a point of removing him from office in the next election. However, there is no must about which way he should vote. He is elected and trusted to do the right thing.
The politician who takes a census before a vote on any issue is populist and nothing more. If democracy were pure and true, it might work, as the majority would be truly represented. However, in the real world the groups with the most money and who can make the most noise can influence public opinion. That makes public opinion whimsical and therefore unprincipled. All the more reason for the need to have a principled representative in office. Someone who can’t be bought with cash and who can’t be swayed by popular opinion on matters which have a moral component.
Charlemagne II also wrote -
If he votes to appease a few voters and knows that his vote is immoral, his character is tainted with moral turpitude; he is not only not acting as a Catholic, but the question really is whether he is a Catholic at all or just another Trojan Horse inside the Catholic Church.
Agreed! However, I would also ask is he not only a trojan horse insode the catholic Church, but is he also not a trojan horse inside the political sphere? After all, if a representative will compromise his own principles, will he not then be inclined to trash the principles of others? All it would take is a fist full of dollars…
So it is with catholics who say they believe in such and such, but then add the ryder, not if it applies to me. The true test of moral character is when a moral descision applies to you; when you have to make a moral choice that tests your supposed beliefs. One poster earlier said he was against abortion, yet went on to say he would struggle with it if it applied to his daughter if she were raped. The question is, do you believe in the right to abort babies when it is expedient, or do you not beleive so? If it is wrong for others to use abortion as a tool of expedience, then it is wrong for ourselves as well. No ifs, buts, or maybes. Too often on these threads we see catholics picking and choosing what they want to beleive. That is not being Catholic. It is being expedient.
