What type of Sin is "Voting for a Pro-Choice Candidate"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JoeyWarren
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JoeyWarren

Guest
At the request of Mannyfit, I have repolled the question with more choices.

P.S. If voting solely on the Platform ( candidate has not agenda concerning abortion ) =The Candidate that is Pro-choice has not made a part of his Platform something along the lines of:
“If Elected I will fight every attempt to overturn Roe vs Wade”
 
  1. I think that if you vote for a candidate BECAUSE of his/her pro-choice stance, then you are colluding with the abortion industry and incur a latae sententia excommunication.
  2. If you vote for a candidate on the basis of party platform, which includes a strong pro-choice agenda, I think that you are sinning, but not to the level of what is mentioned in 1. If the candidate was truely pro-life and was determined to make a stand on that issue, they would not allow that party to fund their campaign, because much of the coampaign contributions at the party level is “blood money”, i.e., money from the abortion industry or rabid pro-choice groups like NARAL and NOW.
 
You need a category for 'It depends" I would say sometimes (or often) voting for a pro-choice candidate is a mortal sin, but sometimes it is a good act when the alternative is someone who is even MORE pro-abortion. I can’t see it ever being a venial sin. Either is an act of supporting abortion which is serious or it is a good act of voting against an even more pro-death candidate.
 
You need a category for 'It depends" I would say sometimes (or often) voting for a pro-choice candidate is a mortal sin, but sometimes it is a good act when the alternative is someone who is even MORE pro-abortion. I can’t see it ever being a venial sin. Either is an act of supporting abortion which is serious or it is a good act of voting against an even more pro-death candidate.
Sorry, I did the best I could with the limit of 10 options. There were some that believed that under certain circumstances it could be classified as Venial. I tried to think this out as thoroughly as possible within the limit of 10 options.
 
  1. I think that if you vote for a candidate BECAUSE of his/her pro-choice stance, then you are colluding with the abortion industry and incur a latae sententia excommunication.
  2. If you vote for a candidate on the basis of party platform, which includes a strong pro-choice agenda, I think that you are sinning, but not to the level of what is mentioned in 1. If the candidate was truely pro-life and was determined to make a stand on that issue, they would not allow that party to fund their campaign, because much of the coampaign contributions at the party level is “blood money”, i.e., money from the abortion industry or rabid pro-choice groups like NARAL and NOW.
You unwittinly have stressed my own argument on another thread.

Not every Democrat is Pro-choice.
Not every Republican is Pro-life.

The Candidate’s Platform is not the same as the Party’s Platform.

When a Candidate runs, he has established a Platform to help him garner votes.

That platform is what I am referring to in the opening post.

No-one should go into a ballot and vote straight party. Each Candidate should be evaluated on his campaign platform not the platform of the Party.

As far as I can tell so far not one Democrat has made as part of his platform “a promise to fight any attempt to overturn Roe vs Wade”
As far as I can tell so far not one Republican has made as part of his platform “a promise to make an effort to overturn Roe vs Wade”

So is any one candidate truely Pro-life or Pro-choice?

Based on a lack of Postive and Affrimative Promise on the individual’s Platform I say no. I say it’s mostly lip service.
 
I think the root question is this: Does voting for a candidate who supports legalized abortion constitute material cooperation in evil?

We all cooperate with evil to some extent, simply by going through the motions of daily life. We pollute, at least to some minor extent, simply by driving our car. We buy products that are sold by companies that buy them from sweat shops. We work for companies that make contributions to Planned Parenthood.

All of these things constitute remote cooperation with evil, and according to Catholic moral theology, we may do them because we are not materially, or directly cooperating with evil.

If we are not doing the act (driving the car, buying the product, working for the company) BECAUSE of the evil they do, then we have no moral guilt.

If, however, we do those things because we want to support the evil, then that’s another story.

A simple example would be that I may subscribe to Sports Illustrated, even if I consider the swimsuit edition to be immoral because my cooperation in the evil I perceive cannot reasonably be considered to be material or direct cooperation.

So we have to ask, given the unlikelihood of our vote actually determining the election, whether or not voting for a candidate who supports abortion can be considered material or direct cooperation with evil, especially if we are voting for the lesser of two evils.

I think a good argument can be made either way.

My opinion is that voting for someone like McCain, who has a relatively pro-life record (albeit not perfect) is a valid choice over someone like Clinton, who is thoroughly, publicly, and enthusiastically committed to expanding abortion rights, both in law and in practice.
 
You unwittinly have stressed my own argument on another thread.

Not every Democrat is Pro-choice.
Not every Republican is Pro-life.

The Candidate’s Platform is not the same as the Party’s Platform.

When a Candidate runs, he has established a Platform to help him garner votes.

That platform is what I am referring to in the opening post.

No-one should go into a ballot and vote straight party. Each Candidate should be evaluated on his campaign platform not the platform of the Party.

As far as I can tell so far not one Democrat has made as part of his platform “a promise to fight any attempt to overturn Roe vs Wade”
As far as I can tell so far not one Republican has made as part of his platform “a promise to make an effort to overturn Roe vs Wade”

So is any one candidate truely Pro-life or Pro-choice?

Based on a lack of Postive and Affrimative Promise on the individual’s Platform I say no. I say it’s mostly lip service.
Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and some of the lesser candidates (I don’t know where Obama is with regards to a “promise”) have all said that they will not appoint judges who are not clear on the issue of abortion rights.

Brownback is one Republican who has said clearly that he will only consider judges who have been clearly opposed to Roe v. Wade. McCain and Romney have made personal statements that they believe the government has the obligation to protect the unborn. Rudy has said that he will appoint conservative judges and abortion is not a litmus test.

Additionally, we need to also look at how they have personally voted on this issue. All major Democratic candidates have voted to allow the continuance of partial birth abortions (the partial extraction of the baby from the womb and then sucking the brains out of the baby). Every Republican candidate including Rudy has expressed support for ending this heinous practice.

Regarding your question, it is totally wrongly worded. Mortal sin requires knowledge and consent of the individual. These are determinations that are not readily evident unless we know the person intimately enough to know these matters.

The question is whether or not it is grave matter or not. If we cooperate with consent but have faulty knowledge it can be venial sin. If we have cooperated with neither full knowledge or consent, it is not a sin regardless of the gravity.
 
Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and some of the lesser candidates (I don’t know where Obama is with regards to a “promise”) have all said that they will not appoint judges who are not clear on the issue of abortion rights.
Is this equal to “a promise to fight any attempt to overturn Roe vs Wade”?

What is said now and in the past, does not mean it will be part of the platform that will be preached to the masses during the actual campaign.

Anyway, how is Roe vs Wade expected to be overturned?

What processes need to occur to invoke a review of the ruling?

Is a review even possible?

Do we have the answers to these questions?

All you Lawyers and Attorneys out there, chime in.
 
Regarding your question, it is totally wrongly worded. Mortal sin requires knowledge and consent of the individual. These are determinations that are not readily evident unless we know the person intimately enough to know these matters.
The question is whether or not it is grave matter or not. If we cooperate with consent but have faulty knowledge it can be venial sin. If we have cooperated with neither full knowledge or consent, it is not a sin regardless of the gravity.
How could it have been worded?

How did you actually vote, if you don’t mind divulging? I voted options 2 and 9
 
How could it have been worded?

How did you actually vote, if you don’t mind divulging? I voted options 2 and 9
I couldn’t vote. As a Catholic, I have only one choice but to say it is grave matter as this is the teaching of the choice.

The seriousness of the sin is a function of knowledge and consent of the person. Unless they are under duress, a vote is with consent and at minimum is venial. However, in America, few Catholics can claim to be doing so without knowledge of Church teaching. To the degree they don’t understand the knowledge and it is faulty, this is a question that they and God will reconcile. But, in my opinion, the Catholic who has faulty knowledge is not making much effort and is rare.
 
I agree with about everything Orion said, it is a grave matter regardless!

Though I voted mortal sin, in assuming that voting because the candidate is pro-choice implies consent and knowledge in this situation, though of course only God can determine that on an indivual basis.
 
Uknown since the Vatican has not made an EXPLICIT statement which leads little room for interpretative speculation.
I just noticed this discussion and haven’t looked through all the points made. However, you may want to check the last option again. The Vatican has addressed this issue in “Evangelium Vitae” and is called the Problem of an Unjust Law.

On the issue of abortion the Vatican has given a clear instruction on what is expected of Catholic lawmakers or perhaps people we have to elect. Evangelium Vitae 73 states, … when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects

Please vote for the person who actively works at limiting the negative effects of the unjust law.

For more reading on this: Evangelium Vitae 73: The Catholic Lawmaker and the Problem of a Seriously Unjust Law

👍 👍 👍
 
I just noticed this discussion and haven’t looked through all the points made. However, you may want to check the last option again. The Vatican has addressed this issue in “Evangelium Vitae” and is called the Problem of an Unjust Law.

On the issue of abortion the Vatican has given a clear instruction on what is expected of Catholic lawmakers or perhaps people we have to elect. Evangelium Vitae 73 states, … when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects

Please vote for the person who actively works at limiting the negative effects of the unjust law.

For more reading on this: Evangelium Vitae 73: The Catholic Lawmaker and the Problem of a Seriously Unjust Law

👍 👍 👍
I have read it. It is just as vague as some of Paul’s writings. The articles has some degree of wiggle room.

As I stated before in the last option. The Vatican has never stated nor do I believe it will in the future to make an “Explicit Statement” such as:
“IT IS A MORTAL SIN WITHOUT EXCEPTION TO VOTE FOR A PRO-CHOICE CANDIDATE”
But I don’t think even the Vatican want’s to take away one’s Free Will. That is why it will never make such a statement of Dogma or Doctrine that is binding on the whole.
 
I have read it. It is just as vague as some of Paul’s writings. The articles has some degree of wiggle room.
What part of it is vague? The parts of Evangelium Vitae 73 I have quoted applies to the Catholic Lawmaker. However there is a clear implication that, if we vote, we should vote in a manner so as to limit the effect of an unjust law. I offered this for those who may be tormented by the limited choices there may be out there.

To answer your question, it is a mortal sin to vote for a Pro-Choice candidate. It is a direct extension of “Thou shall not Kill” and is discussed in depth in Chapter III of Evangelium Vitae… “From man in regard to his fellow man I will demand an accounting for human life” (Gen 9:5): human life is sacred and inviolable.

Hence to say that the Vatican is vague on this is not true in my opinion.
 
I don’t think this should be a poll. That would imply that there is more than one option. It is not up for us to say what is a mortal sin. Just ask someone from the Church who knows the answer.
 
I don’t think this should be a poll. That would imply that there is more than one option. It is not up for us to say what is a mortal sin. Just ask someone from the Church who knows the answer.
The church can’t, doesn’t, and shouldn’t, have a pat answer for every possible situation we might face that has moral consequences. Rather, she proposes general guidelines we should learn, with some (relatively few examples) of how to apply them.

Evangelium Vitae 73 proposes such a guideline. It can’t, however, be viewed in isolation. It is part of a large body of discussion of moral principles that has been developed over two thousand years. This body of discussion includes generally accepted (by orthodox moral theologians) principles such as the “Principle of Double Effect” and the principle of the “Lesser of Two Evils”, among others, that may apply to a particular circumstance, such as whether or not a voter may vote for a politician who believes in legalized abortion.

It is the job of the Catholic Church to teach these principles and how to apply them.

It is the job of the individual to learn the principles and to actually apply them when encountering situations of an unclear moral nature.

It is unreasonable to expect the Church to speak definitively on every single moral question of the day with an infinite number of nuances that might affect the licitness of an action.

These are complicated questions. It is reasonable to expect that good and reasonable people will come to different conclusions based on reason.

It is an abrogation of one’s personal responsibility to ask the Church to make every moral decision for you.

The people on this forum are trying to discuss this important issue so that they can inform (and form) their conscience properly. They are doing the “due diligence” the church asks of us.
 
You unwittinly have stressed my own argument on another thread.

** Not every Democrat is Pro-choice**.
Not every Republican is Pro-life.
Our local Congrescritter, Mike McNulty, is a pro-life Democrat. He has a protective detail from the EPA under the terms of the Endagered Species Act.
 
Mortal !!!
  1. I think that if you vote for a candidate BECAUSE of his/her pro-choice stance, then you are colluding with the abortion industry and incur a latae sententia excommunication.
Hey ! welcome back Scott, long time no hear. :thumbsup
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top