Who Will You Vote For in 2012?

[estesbob]

I understand and accept that you are using your faith formed conscience to make your decision. I also understand that everyone on this thread is doing the same. Cardinal Ratzinger said:

This does not forbid someone from voting their own consciences. Sure many in the Church have interpreted this as forbidden, while others believe it is leaving it up to them to use their faith formed consciences to decide which is right and which is wrong, what is believable from candidates and what is not. Who is silent on an expressed explanation is our Holy Father. Why? If it were as ‘cased closed’ as some say, and it is an issue that half the Church is condemned for by some of the other half, why isn’t he speaking up as our shepherd to protect the salvation of that endangered half? I know some say, he has many bishops who spoke up! The bishops were split last election. Which were correct and which were wrong? Some of the Church says only those bishops they agree with were right and the rest were wrong, and saying some unsavory things about those that disagreed or gave different explanations? Again why is the clarification coming from the Holy Father? It’s his job to lead the Church, to bind and loose. His word is final and the largest majority of Catholics would accept it.

We shouldn’t be taking on condemning members of our Church. That’s the same as judging. We don’t have the authority to bind and loose and on this subject there is no definitive binding and loosing from the one who can end the discussion one way or the other.

We most certainly should be correct members of our Church when they mistake church teaching and lead people believe that a well formed Catholic conscience would ever allow one to vote for pro-abortion candidate.

One need only go back to this thread and see the voluminous documentation provided by those expressing the teachings of the church. Direct quotes from two popes, Vatican documents,the catechism of the Catholic Church, the USCCB voting guide and direct quotes from nemerous bishops. All we get in return is vague arguments based on the primacy of conscience, one line out of context quotes from the voting guide or one’s personal interpretation of a short footnote to a letter written by then Cardinal Ratzinger.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I understand and accept that you are using your faith formed conscience to make your decision. I also understand that everyone on this thread is doing the same. Cardinal Ratzinger said:

This does not forbid someone from voting their own consciences. Sure many in the Church have interpreted this as forbidden, while others believe it is leaving it up to them to use their faith formed consciences to decide which is right and which is wrong, what is believable from candidates and what is not. Who is silent on an expressed explanation is our Holy Father. Why? If it were as ‘cased closed’ as some say, and it is an issue that half the Church is condemned for by some of the other half, why isn’t he speaking up as our shepherd to protect the salvation of that endangered half? I know some say, he has many bishops who spoke up! The bishops were split last election. Which were correct and which were wrong? Some of the Church says only those bishops they agree with were right and the rest were wrong, and saying some unsavory things about those that disagreed or gave different explanations? Again why is the clarification coming from the Holy Father? It’s his job to lead the Church, to bind and loose. His word is final and the largest majority of Catholics would accept it.

We shouldn’t be taking on condemning members of our Church. That’s the same as judging. We don’t have the authority to bind and loose and on this subject there is no definitive binding and loosing from the one who can end the discussion one way or the other.

So, what, then, is the “proportionate reason” that outweighs the dismemberment and death of 50 million innocents?

Abp. Burke, at least, said this about it:

"What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a “proportionate reason” to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation’s labs?

Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate."

And nobody is condemning members of the Church. It isn’t given to us to do that. While people might not always express it well, the condemnation is of an evil act. We are perfectly free to do that.

 

[estesbob]

So, what, then, is the “proportionate reason” that outweighs the dismemberment and death of 50 million innocents?

Abp. Burke, at least, said this about it:

"What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a “proportionate reason” to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation’s labs?

Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate."

And nobody is condemning members of the Church. It isn’t given to us to do that. While people might not always express it well, the condemnation is of an evil act. We are perfectly free to do that.

I think and him is too strong a word but they most certainly need to be corrected. It is one thing to privately go against the teachings of the church. It is quite another thing to try and publicly convince other Catholics that your dissent is acceptable.

 

[ishii]

I was in the middle of studying for a midterm yesterday and inadvertently said ‘birth to natural death’. I meant ‘conception to natural death’ as I believe life begins at conception.

As for what some believe, I cannot say. Only they can say, but so far some have only spoken on a single issue and instead of speaking on other issues have taken opportunities to imply someone support abortion because they see other issues as proportionate. This seems to be a lack of concern in reference to other issues, or that’s what it has appearances of.

Thanks for the clarification.

I think if you go back and look at the posts you’ll find that I am merely saying that 1) Abortion is not the only issue but the most pressing issue - given that 1.3 million of the unborn are killed every year. 2) Other issues, important as they are, are not as grave as abortion. For example, I may think candidate X has the best stance on taxes, or closing down unecessary military bases but if he is pro-abortion rights then I ought not to vote for him because the issue of taxes or military bases does not rise to the level of protecting the unborn. 3) Candidate X might be great on 100% of the issues but have 0%-5% chance of winning. I believe that one must support the most viable, effective pro-life candidate possible so as to have the best chance to protect the unborn.

Good luck on your midterm.

Ishii

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Thanks for the clarification.

I think if you go back and look at the posts you’ll find that I am merely saying that 1) Abortion is not the only issue but the most pressing issue - given that 1.3 million of the unborn are killed every year. 2) Other issues, important as they are, are not as grave as abortion. For example, I may think candidate X has the best stance on taxes, or closing down unecessary military bases but if he is pro-abortion rights then I ought not to vote for him because the issue of taxes or military bases does not rise to the level of protecting the unborn. 3) Candidate X might be great on 100% of the issues but have 0%-5% chance of winning. I believe that one must support the most viable, effective pro-life candidate possible so as to have the best chance to protect the unborn.

Good luck on your midterm.

Ishii

Hey Ishii,

Going to respond to estesbob, Ridgerunner and yourself in one post. (Just got back from midterm)

We have seen social issues discussed, others bring up the wars prior to the last election, etc. etc. My problem last election was, I did not trust McCain, other than think he was going for a bloc of voters. I was, and am, a Ron Paul fan. I believe he best represents the majority of Church teachings. If others call him ‘unelectable’, it’s suspect. What I mean is, he maybe unelectable because of secondary issues. If people say he’s unelectable, then they themselves are not planning on supporting him. If enough people take that route he will be unelectable.

Going back to McCain, it amazed me so many supported him as ‘honest’ when in fact he cheated on his wife. That is something you cannot do without ‘lying’. If you can lie to your wife, and eventually leave her and your children for the woman you cheated with, you could certainly lie to anyone else. At least that was my thoughts.

Now, for proportionate reasons. Cardinal Ratzinger did not define proportionate reasons. Someone mentioned a specific bishop, but he has a view that they happen to agree with. Those bishops that did not agree with them or the specific bishop were spoken very ill of. None of it matters if we truly follow the Church of Rome and submit to the Papacy. The Pope can end all debate on the subject, the voice of the successor to Peter. Again, why has nothing been said by the Pope, if over half the Church indeed did do wrong?

Proportionate reasons are, apparently, different between Christians, and I do not doubt anyone’s faith. Otherwise I would be judging them. I cannot say they are wrong for weighing the election through a spiritual eye, even if I don’t agree with them. I can see how people did not believe one candidate and chose another using what they viewed as proportionate reasons. We will never know now, but there is no way to know if McCain was sincere or not. If one does not believe a candidate, they are not bound to vote for them. Also, I, and others, do not buy into the lesser of two evils. Evil is evil, plain and simple.

Look at how these discussions run and see how some posts lack charitability, required of all Christians. To someone who are sincerely seeking Him, it causes more doubt about taking advice from someone who appears to be demeaning, makes false accusations, and basically lack the charitability required of Christians. This is just food for thought. If you want to convince someone of a wrong, you can’t present wrongs to convince them.

For the upcoming election, I support Ron Paul. If he is not nominated, I will not vote for Romney or Bachmann. I worry about their views of the Catholic Church and will not risk it, myself. Depending on who does get nominated, I may not vote at all in the main election. Last election I spoke about not voting. On these very forums I was condemned for saying that. I found neither candidate qualified. There is no Church teaching that says a Catholic must vote, even if they find both candidates unqualified, for whatever reasons. Again, I see it as avoiding, what I believe is, evil.

I’m tired, and I have a 24 hour shift starting in the morning. I may respond, but it might be tomorrow.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I think and him is too strong a word but they most certainly need to be corrected. It is one thing to privately go against the teachings of the church. It is quite another thing to try and publicly convince other Catholics that your dissent is acceptable.

See my previous post and I’m not going to respond to anymore ‘assumptive’ posts. I do not support abortion and I do not consider myself as dissenting from Church teachings. Thanks for pointing out your judgment though.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And nobody is condemning members of the Church. It isn’t given to us to do that. While people might not always express it well, the condemnation is of an evil act. We are perfectly free to do that.

Hey Ridgerunner,

Communication has gone awry on this thread several times, even when corrections are explained. I tried to cover how it is viewed in my response to Ishii.

 

[estesbob]

See my previous post and I’m not going to respond to anymore ‘assumptive’ posts. I do not support abortion and I do not consider myself as dissenting from Church teachings. Thanks for pointing out your judgment though.

The goal here is not to change your mind. The goal is to make sure that fellow posters and lurkers realize the views you are expressing are in contradiction to the tecahings of the church

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The goal here is not to change your mind. The goal is to make sure that fellow posters and lurkers realize the views you are expressing are in contradiction to the tecahings of the church

That’s your opinion. Show me what the Papacy said, to bring unity to all including those bishops who disagreed prior to the last election.

 

[estesbob]

That’s your opinion. Show me what the Papacy said, to bring unity to all including those bishops who disagreed prior to the last election.

It has been posted repeatedly. In addition not one single member the magisterium stated there were proportionate reasons would allow a Catholic to vote for Barack Obama-which is also been pointed out repeatedly. Again, I know I’m not going to convince you, but it is important that those who lurk realize that what you’re expressing is not supported by the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Hey Ridgerunner,

Communication has gone awry on this thread several times, even when corrections are explained. I tried to cover how it is viewed in my response to Ishii.

I understand, and I’m not going to respond in detail to your responses to what others have said. I’ll just say the following.

The Church actually does teach that we have a duty to vote. It’s in the Catechism and has been quoted in here repeatedly.

The Pope has said we cannot morally support abortion. Popes don’t endorse or oppose candidates, and the U.S. is certainly not their sole focus. A number of bishops in the U.S., including my own, have said we can’t support abortion supporters because there is no “proportionate reason” among American political issues counterbalancing abortion. That’s just not all that difficult a conclusion. 50 million deaths is a lot of deaths, and every last victim is innocent. Nothing short of a widespread nuclear war is proportionate to that.

Now, I don’t expect that you and I can agree on the following. You are, it appears, persuaded that Ron Paul is just an absolute necessity for this country, and if he’s not nominated, you can’t bring yourself to vote at all. I am aware how avid Ron Paul supporters can be.

In a way, that’s a “prudential judgment”, though I might (and do) disagree with the importance of electing Ron Paul, and thus the prudence of a “Paul or nothing” approach. But I think there is another aspect of it, and, however you see it, I see it this way.

I think we have affirmative moral duties as well as negative ones. If we are aware of an evil, it isn’t enough to just avoid it personally. If we have any means of opposing it, we have a moral obligation to utilize that means and, in fact, oppose it, even if we’re not all that crazy about the means. If, say, I see someone about to take a knife to another’s throat, and if my own physical potential for overcoming him is nil, and if I have a .45 in my hand and tell him to stop and he won’t, I believe I have a moral duty to shoot him, notwithstanding that I would find it extremely repugnant to see his brains splatter all over the room, and to see his human life ebb away. It isn’t enough for me to merely refrain from aiding him in his purpose. And, I believe firmly that if I simply refrain from aiding him and do not shoot him, I participate in the moral responsibility for the murder he perpetrates. His sin is my sin as well.

For that reason, I did vote for McCain, even though I didn’t like him and didn’t support him in the primary. I’m not even a Republican. But at the moment I walked into that voting booth, knowing as I did how pro-abortion Obama is, I did not feel I had any choice but to oppose the candidate who promised to perpetrate a grave evil, as little as I liked McCain. I don’t recall if I held my nose, but I might have.

I don’t expect you to accept that, and I do realize you are very devoted to your preferred candidate, but frankly, I don’t see how we can possibly escape moral responsibility when we walk away from opposing evil with the means we have available to do so.

But maybe you will at least consider it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It has been posted repeatedly. In addition not one single member the magisterium stated there were proportionate reasons would allow a Catholic to vote for Barack Obama-which is also been pointed out repeatedly. Again, I know I’m not going to convince you, but it is important that those who lurk realize that what you’re expressing is not supported by the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Our Church has many documents, some need as much discerning as the Bible to understand. I believe you feel you have correctly interpreted them. I don’t believe you give anyone else the same respect. Without producing a definition of proportionate reasons from the man who used the term, you are speculating; one flock, one shepherd The bishops did not agree. There were those who said Catholics were not obligated to support one candidate over another. It’s that simple. There was disagreement.

"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. **

When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted

in the presence of proportionate reasons."**

You are condemning over half the Church with your view. If it were true that half the Church went against Church teaching, don’t you think the ONE shepherd is obligated and would have set the record straight? Why didn’t he?

Like you, I am not trying to change your mind, or anyone else. I am merely trying to point out that any discussion should contain a charitable tone, if one wants it to be taken as a Christian message. There should not be any twists to what someone says. That is the same as bearing false witness.

 

[estesbob]

Our Church has many documents, some need as much discerning as the Bible to understand. I believe you feel you have correctly interpreted them. I don’t believe you give anyone else the same respect. Without producing a definition of proportionate reasons from the man who used the term, you are speculating; one flock, one shepherd The bishops did not agree. There were those who said Catholics were not obligated to support one candidate over another. It’s that simple. There was disagreement.

"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia.

You are condemning over half the Church with your view. If it were true that half the Church went against Church teaching, don’t you think the ONE shepherd is obligated and would have set the record straight? Why didn’t he?

Like you, I am not trying to change your mind, or anyone else. I am merely trying to point out that any discussion should contain a charitable tone, if one wants it to be taken as a Christian message. There should not be any twists to what someone says. That is the same as bearing false witness.

Yes to out great shame over 50% of Catholics who voted in the last election put their politics before their faith. But then the “everybody does it” excuse did not work with our parents nor will it work when we face our makr. The reason we have to viligant in correcting those who misstate Church teaching ios that we can hopfully cut down on the number of Catholics who reject the Church in the next election.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Yes to out great shame over 50% of Catholics who voted in the last election put their politics before their faith.

Yes, dang it. Voted Republican they did.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Church actually does teach that we have a duty to vote. It’s in the Catechism and has been quoted in here repeatedly.

The Pope has said we cannot morally support abortion. Popes don’t endorse or oppose candidates, and the U.S. is certainly not their sole focus. A number of bishops in the U.S., including my own, have said we can’t support abortion supporters because there is no “proportionate reason” among American political issues counterbalancing abortion. That’s just not all that difficult a conclusion. 50 million deaths is a lot of deaths, and every last victim is innocent. Nothing short of a widespread nuclear war is proportionate to that.

Then a ‘write in’ vote is acceptable.

If over half the Church had truly gone against Church teaching, wouldn’t the Pope be obligated to set it back on track?

How does the Church view a Catholic who does not believe a particular candidate and truly thinks that candidate is not telling the truth only to gain a bloc of voters? That seems to be lacking discernment.

Now, I don’t expect that you and I can agree on the following. You are, it appears, persuaded that Ron Paul is just an absolute necessity for this country, and if he’s not nominated, you can’t bring yourself to vote at all. I am aware how avid Ron Paul supporters can be.

In a way, that’s a “prudential judgment”, though I might (and do) disagree with the importance of electing Ron Paul, and thus the prudence of a “Paul or nothing” approach. But I think there is another aspect of it, and, however you see it, I see it this way.

We see the ‘single issue’ being heavily discussed, even though no one has said they support abortion in this thread. Who was the only candidate to attend the right to life rally in Washington, D.C. prior to the last election? That is more than just words, yet he wasn’t right?

I think we have affirmative moral duties as well as negative ones. If we are aware of an evil, it isn’t enough to just avoid it personally. If we have any means of opposing it, we have a moral obligation to utilize that means and, in fact, oppose it, even if we’re not all that crazy about the means. If, say, I see someone about to take a knife to another’s throat, and if my own physical potential for overcoming him is nil, and if I have a .45 in my hand and tell him to stop and he won’t, I believe I have a moral duty to shoot him, notwithstanding that I would find it extremely repugnant to see his brains splatter all over the room, and to see his human life ebb away. It isn’t enough for me to merely refrain from aiding him in his purpose. And, I believe firmly that if I simply refrain from aiding him and do not shoot him, I participate in the moral responsibility for the murder he perpetrates. His sin is my sin as well.

For that reason, I did vote for McCain, even though I didn’t like him and didn’t support him in the primary. I’m not even a Republican. But at the moment I walked into that voting booth, knowing as I did how pro-abortion Obama is, I did not feel I had any choice but to oppose the candidate who promised to perpetrate a grave evil, as little as I liked McCain. I don’t recall if I held my nose, but I might have.

I don’t expect you to accept that, and I do realize you are very devoted to your preferred candidate, but frankly, I don’t see how we can possibly escape moral responsibility when we walk away from opposing evil with the means we have available to do so.

But maybe you will at least consider it.

I liked Huckabee last election, but he wasn’t chosen either. The one that was chosen could not be trusted, in my honest opinion. Evil is evil and two wrongs do not make a right. You cannot do wrong to make a right. A house divided cannot stand, remember that?

I honestly view this secular business of voting through the best spiritual eye that I can. I spent hours, and days, making decisions last election. I also prayed the Father’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven, and I believe it was so. I do not know His plan and cannot believe any other way.

As it stands right now, it appears Romney will get the nomination, even though some feel Bachmann might pull it off. I’m not going to vote for anyone who believes the Catholic Church is in apostasy, or worse. Right now, it is Ron Paul or nothing for me. That can change, but there is going to have to be a qualified candidate, according to my faith formed conscience and I will have to believe Catholics are not being pandered too just to gain another powerful bloc of voters.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia.”

Exactly! Emphasis should be on “deliberately” and “precisely.”

 

[Ridgerunner]

Our Church has many documents, some need as much discerning as the Bible to understand. I believe you feel you have correctly interpreted them. I don’t believe you give anyone else the same respect. Without producing a definition of proportionate reasons from the man who used the term, you are speculating; one flock, one shepherd The bishops did not agree. There were those who said Catholics were not obligated to support one candidate over another. It’s that simple. There was disagreement.

"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. ****

You are condemning over half the Church with your view. If it were true that half the Church went against Church teaching, don’t you think the ONE shepherd is obligated and would have set the record straight? Why didn’t he?

Like you, I am not trying to change your mind, or anyone else. I am merely trying to point out that any discussion should contain a charitable tone, if one wants it to be taken as a Christian message. There should not be any twists to what someone says. That is the same as bearing false witness.

It’s possible that some bishop or other actually said it was morally proper to vote for an abortion-promoting candidate in the 2008 election over one who was (at least more) prolife, but if so, I never saw it. Nor did I ever see one quoted as saying there was some proportionate reason justifying it among the issues in the last election. I saw a lot of bishops, including my own, who said there wasn’t.

And again, you say you want a charitable tone, and I don’t doubt you. But nobody is bearing false witness here, and nobody is condemning 50% of Catholics, either. Maybe I’m being too charitable, but I see people condemning evil ACTS. That’s a whole different thing. We’re supposed to do that. Some 30% of Catholic women, I have read, have had abortions. If I condemn abortions, it’s not the same thing as condemning 30% of the women in the Catholic Church. God is their judge, not me, and I cannot judge their souls. But I am morally derelict if I don’t condemn the ACT, however personally anyone wants to take it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It’s possible that some bishop or other actually said it was morally proper to vote for an abortion-promoting candidate in the 2008 election over one who was (at least more) prolife, but if so, I never saw it. Nor did I ever see one quoted as saying there was some proportionate reason justifying it among the issues in the last election. I saw a lot of bishops, including my own, who said there wasn’t.

And again, you say you want a charitable tone, and I don’t doubt you. But nobody is bearing false witness here, and nobody is condemning 50% of Catholics, either. Maybe I’m being too charitable, but I see people condemning evil ACTS. That’s a whole different thing. We’re supposed to do that. Some 30% of Catholic women, I have read, have had abortions. If I condemn abortions, it’s not the same thing as condemning 30% of the women in the Catholic Church. God is their judge, not me, and I cannot judge their souls. But I am morally derelict if I don’t condemn the ACT, however personally anyone wants to take it.

I have been accused of supporting abortion in this thread. The accusation was repeated, even after I corrected it. That’s what I refer to as ‘bearing false witness’.

It’s also been said that over half the Church went against Church teachings. That sounds pretty condemning to me.

We all agree, we should condemn the act.

As I explained, if one doesn’t believe a candidate and finds him untrustworthy, I don’t see an obligation to ‘gamble’ it anyways. There is no teaching telling us to follow someone we believe to be dishonest.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Then a ‘write in’ vote is acceptable.

If over half the Church had truly gone against Church teaching, wouldn’t the Pope be obligated to set it back on track?

How does the Church view a Catholic who does not believe a particular candidate and truly thinks that candidate is not telling the truth only to gain a bloc of voters? That seems to be lacking discernment.

We see the ‘single issue’ being heavily discussed, even though no one has said they support abortion in this thread. Who was the only candidate to attend the right to life rally in Washington, D.C. prior to the last election? That is more than just words, yet he wasn’t right?

I liked Huckabee last election, but he wasn’t chosen either. The one that was chosen could not be trusted, in my honest opinion. Evil is evil and two wrongs do not make a right. You cannot do wrong to make a right. A house divided cannot stand, remember that?

I honestly view this secular business of voting through the best spiritual eye that I can. I spent hours, and days, making decisions last election. I also prayed the Father’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven, and I believe it was so. I do not know His plan and cannot believe any other way.

As it stands right now, it appears Romney will get the nomination, even though some feel Bachmann might pull it off. I’m not going to vote for anyone who believes the Catholic Church is in apostasy, or worse. Right now, it is Ron Paul or nothing for me. That can change, but there is going to have to be a qualified candidate, according to my faith formed conscience and I will have to believe Catholics are not being pandered too just to gain another powerful bloc of voters.

A write in vote for a candidate who clearly can’t win is just as acceptable, in my view, as firing the .45 into the floor in the example I gave, while the perpetrator cuts the victim’s throat. It’s a mere gesture, devoid of real meaning.

Well, maybe McCain couldn’t be trusted. Maybe he could. Maybe he could be trusted only when pressured. But it was plain to me (and events have proven it right) that Obama could be trusted to promote abortion. He made it as plain as plain could be. So, certitude on the one hand and niggling doubts on the other? Not too hard to choose there.

I haven’t seen Bachman say the Catholic Church is an apostasy, or Romney either if he’s the one who said it. We, as Catholics, believe all protestant denominations are apostasies. But I wouldn’t expect any Catholic president to go oppressing protestants because of it. Nor would I expect a Mormon like Romney or a Lutheran like Bachman, or Baptists like Ron Paul or Huckabee to even attempt oppressing Catholics. Some things really are a stretch, and that would be one of them. But I’m sure every last one of them thinks the Catholic Church is in error, or he/she would have converted already.

But I do remember Obama at Notre Dame telling Catholics that abortion was “off the table” as far as he is concerned. “The audacity of audacity”. Can you picture Romney or Bachman or Paul walking onto a Catholic campus and having the brass to do something like that? And we should worry about, e.g., Romney because his miniscule religion is peculiar, or Bachman because of Martin Luther or Ron Paul because (many, at least) Baptists think the Catholic Church is the “whore of Babylon”?

Nobody on this thread has said he/she supports abortion. But can it truly be said that anyone who voted for Obama didn’t? (Not accusing anyone in particular here) At some point we really need to distinguish between subjective intent and objective fact. And then we might consider whether we, as Catholics have a moral duty to conform our subjective judgments to objective morality as taught by the Church.

 

[Ridgerunner]

As I explained, if one doesn’t believe a candidate and finds him untrustworthy, I don’t see an obligation to ‘gamble’ it anyways. There is no teaching telling us to follow someone we believe to be dishonest.

Yes. I recall lots of people in the last presidential election who said Bush wasn’t prolife because he didn’t, single-handedly, end abortion in the U.S., when everything he managed to do was prolife. I recall lots of people saying they didn’t think Obama was pro-abortion in his heart of hearts as well, and wouldn’t promote it, even though everything he did was abortion-promoting.

At some point, a person just has to act on the words, particularly if the record reasonably supports them. Nobody could possibly deny that Obama promotes abortion and the continuation of abortion on demand. It’s beyond question. Frankly, if one votes for him or fails to oppose him because he doesn’t have an ironclad guarantee that the opposing viable candidate really is prolife who says he’s prolife, has a record that reasonably supports it, and has a constituency that will demand it, I think that person is asking too much.

But I think some will, indeed, fail to oppose evil because their particular candidate isn’t the one chosen to run against it. I get that.