Why Would A Catholic Vote For A ProChoice Canidate?

[iamrefreshed]

Not so. It is not easy, but it is possible to vote as the Church instructs. It just is not possible to demonstrate that the major political parties are a good reflection of the Catholic faith.

You have already noted in your other posts that you compromise on abortion, euthanasia, and fetal tissue research. Other non negotiables from the Church you dismiss outright as unimportant.

I have no doubt that you vote what you believe, but what we individually believe and what the Church teaches are often two different things.

It is not my place to judge you on your compromises, since I have my own. But I do think it is telling that you, not I, feel compelled to assign special status to yourself in terms of being Catholic (ie, “Serious”).

And still others rationalize not even trying.

It is a large Church, there is room for both the sorts of people who are inspired by ideas, and those who are looking to be lead.

The key is following the right ideas and the right leaders. In this, I am quite conservative. The Church is the source of the right ideas about our Faith, and the Pope is our undisputed moral leader.

So, if you prefer not to think, fine. But a sheep is still responsible when it comes to rather or not the shepard is the Vicar of Christ or, say, an obese drug felon with an eractile disfunction problem and an inability to honor even a simulation of the Sacrament of Marriage…

Likewise, the Church supports theological thought, provided that a proper understanding of our obligation to obey is included:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

If you really want to keep it simple, start with this:

What distinguishes the Catholic church from other Christian faiths?

Now, ask youself, if you are going to dismiss that distinction as too much trouble, impractical, or too much thinking, why claim to be Catholic? There is already a name for such thinking, it is callled ‘Protestant’…

Another 500 word post that says…nothing.

 

[SoCalRC]

Sorry, you can’t do that because all us Republican’s .

Since you identify yourself as a Republican and you identify your self as a Catholic, how do we know which master you love most?

Remember, they can’t be synomyms. Every serious GOP candidate for national office has to pay homage to extreme Evangelical Protestantism. They, in turn, openly profess that you, by virtue of being Catholic, are not even Christian (you’re a “pagan polydiest” and the Pope is an “agent of the devil”)

Jesus has advice on how we can tell. From our exchanges it seems like GOP 1, Rome 0, but it is not my place to judge what that means.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

Once again, who will not vote for the lesser of two evils automatically votes for the greater of those evils.

That statement is an obvious example of poor elementary math skills. Voting for candidate C by no means increases the vote totals of Candidates A or B.

Additionally, it also makes the false assumption that refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils is not voting at all. Even if that assumption were true, it would still fail due to the fact that if no vote were cast, no one’s vote total would go up.

So no, refusing to vote for one candidate is NOT “actually” voting for the other.

Of course abortion is evil, but how does being pro-choice make a candidate evil? Being prochoice politically is not the same thing as being Pro-abortion which is a personal thing.

Actually, this is incorrect, since when it is used in the political context, the term “pro-choice” IS synonymous with “pro-abortion.”

However, there does seem to be a poor attempt to oversimplify the term “pro-life” as meaning “anti-abortion”. “Pro-life” includes far more than simply opposing abortion, like opposing euthanasia, like opposing indiscriminate killing (like with land-mines or nukes), like opposing human cloning, or opposing the Appolonian death cult of gay “marriage”.

I would contend that not a single candidate for President from either major political party is “pro life” in the Catholic sense. Even if we use a narrower definition, say three of the 9 non negotiables proposed by Rome - Abortion, Euthanasia, and Respect for Fetal Life (stem cell research, fetal tissue in vaccine development, etc.) not one of the three current front runners in either major party comes close.

I agree it is not easy to vote as the Church instructs, but disagree that there are no candidates that are “‘pro-life’ in the Catholic sense.” There are at least two candidates that come pretty darn close to adhering to these values, even if not perfectly on all of them.

There are several ways to confirm this, but a summary evaluation of all candidates compared to the USCCB document on Faithful Citizenship shows that there ARE some candidates that uphold Catholic values pretty well, even if some of them only claim to.

I vote, and I try to vote as closely to Catholic teaching as possible. This means looking at those non-negotiables, then comparing them to both the candidates words & deeds. The fairy tale “crystal ball” claim of unelectability is completely irrelevant, as well as being a rationalization for compromise on those non-negotiables.

defendlife.blogspot.com/ has even put together a summary of the candidates compared to Catholic issues, both the intrinsically evil issues and “other important issues”, which is worth looking at, if only as a starting point for one’s own research.

Chris

 

[JRKH]

The same way being pro-put-the-Jews-in-the-gas-chamber was evil – except that this evil has gone on far longer than the Holocaust and has killed – in this country alone – about four times as many innocent victims.

The last time I checked, the police were not rounding up pregnant women and forcing them to have abortions.

The last time I checked, the police were not rounding up and killing anyone who disagreed with the party in power.

It is those personally involved that are committing the sin, not the government.

That is incorrect – being pro-choice is the same thing as being pro-abortion.

Well obviously we won’t agree on this one since you insist that if I like bananas I must also like pickles.

A good example of that is the party platform plank that supports taxpayer-paid abortions.

Sooooo…
It’s time for you to refuse to pay your taxes since it supports abortion. Think of the issue it would become. Think of the good your going to prison would do for the cause. Shall you do it?

Peace
James

 

[vern_humphrey]

Several bills have been introduced in the last 3 or 4 years to LEGALLY define human life as beginning at conception, & also to remove the ability federal courts to adjudicate the matter, which would let individual states start doing what they can to begin fighting abortion again; without the SC’s interference.

Unfortunately, the federal government has repeatedly shelved the bill to try and make it go away. If a real pro-life president were elected, he might be able to get congress to stop pretending it didn’t exist.

Chris

A while back (before 2000), we had a Congress with a majority of pro-life members. They passed a bill outlawing Partial Birth Abortion. The President at that time vetoed it.

After the election, there was still a pro-life majority, and the bill passed again – but a different party held the chairmanships in the Senate, so even though 60 (out of 100) senators co-sponsored it, it didn’t come to a vote – the committee chairmen where it was submitted would’t allow it.

After the next election, it passed the House, then went to the Senate, where the previous party no longer held the majority, the committee chairmen pushed it through and then the new President signed it.

Congress and the President must work together to deal with abortion.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Since you identify yourself as a Republican and you identify your self as a Catholic, how do we know which master you love most?

I voted republican. I identify myself as Brian.
I don’t know why you would question my love of God, but really why should I care what you think of me?

Remember, they can’t be synomyms. Every serious GOP candidate for national office has to pay homage to extreme Evangelical Protestantism. They, in turn, openly profess that you, by virtue of being Catholic, are not even Christian (you’re a “pagan polydiest” and the Pope is an “agent of the devil”)

As you said about the early Christians, I guess my job is to just persevere. So what if someone calls me a pagan polydiest. Does that interfere with my love of Jesus? Why should I care what another man calls me? As for the Pope, he can defend himself if he chooses.

 

[jwashu]

I am curious, why would a Catholic vote for a prochoice canidate? Do they not see abortion as evil?

Abortion is a type of genocide, so isn’t voting prochoice a method of giving approval to genocide of the most innocent, helpless of victims?

Some on this forum have said that they don’t want to use only one issue to vote for a candidate. But would you think the same if instead of killing unborn babies, we were talking about the killing of minority adults?

Imagine this: two candidates are up for office, one is a worthless human being but against killing the members of a minority group. The second candidate stands for everything that the voter believes in but thinks that killing adult minorities should be allowed, would you still vote for the second candidate?

I don’t see how killing unborn babies is different then killing adult minorities of any race or religion.

Because the social responsibility of the Pro-Choice canidate ACTUALLY decreases the killing of innocent life MORE than the fiscal conservative politics of the Pro-Life canidate.

This can been seen if you look at the Abortion statistics… Reaganomics produced the HIGHEST abortions ever… the 90s President’s (Pro-Choice) social programs and economic boom ( along with the efforts of the Pro-Life movement) cause abortions to decrease at an astounding rate.

The last 7 years we have had a Pro-life but Fiscal Conservative and while there was an article on MSNBC a few weeks ago show still a slight decrease in abortions, the numbers for the past 4 years are projected and not actual numbers. We KNOW abortions are going up for younger people (possibly because they are denied contrception) but the statistics also show that the average person who has an abortion is a minority MOTHER of 1 to 2 kids… she has one not because she is using it for birth control but because she has had an accident and doesn’t believe she can viably take care of the child… while I have no evidence my guess is that abortions have increased during the last 4 years.

These are facts the Pro-Life movement have largely ignored for years. If we are EVER going to truly reduce abortion we all have to open our minds a little.

So what do we do? We support a canidate who is going to promote balanced budgets, social programs for the poor and minority groups (Hey aren’t we suppose to be doing that as Christians ANYWAY?!?). We then continue to push for Life with our Pro-Life movement but we continue (as we are already doing this) to expand free Prenatal care, education, necessities etc… for mothers who need it and streamline the adoption process for people who can’t have children of their own (this is an ever expanding group).

Through those things we can bring the number of murdered children down… possbily almost to zero.

I say almost because I just do not believe abortion will ever be illegal in Western Society. We can still fight for it and should, but I doubt it will ever happen. If that is going to be the case, we need to prepare, and enhance other options for those considering a legal one.

My point is that I believe we should divert some of the money spent on picketing and send it to Life Choice groups who will take care of those mothers who choose to keep their children.

Joe

 

[SoCalRC]

Maybe you can vote when the Pope runs against Jesus?

If you are willing to embrace evil acts beyond what the Church believes is acceptable, what motivation is their for any political party to properly acknowledge the inalienable rights of the human person?

In other words, if you won’t stand with God, on absolute and essential beliefs, evil already wins. On the other hand, our faith teaches that standing with God is a path that will be rewarded. Maybe not in this life, but rewarded just the same.

Look in the back of the COMPENDIUM for the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (the Church created it for people who find the whole Catechism too daunting). If even the Compendium is too much, appendix B contains Formulas of Catholic Doctrine.

The first is The Two Commandments of Love:

1. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.

1. You shall love your neighbor as yourself

I know you aren’t big on the mind part, but how much do we love God if sacrificing political chances for success is more than we are willing to do for His designated path?

 

[SoCalRC]

As you said about the early Christians, I guess my job is to just persevere. So what if someone calls me a pagan polydiest. Does that interfere with my love of Jesus? Why should I care what another man calls me? As for the Pope, he can defend himself if he chooses.

But you aren’t persevering, you are actively promoting. Look at the problems with anti-Catholicism in the Air Force Academy and in the US Justice Department.

We are also specifically instructed on this by the Church. Religous Freedom is one of the non-negotiables listed by the Church when it comes to voting. The GOP likes to talk about us being a Judean-Christian nation, but it would be far more accurate to assert that we were a WASP nation, with much of the policies of political conservatives (like xenophobia) having their roots in anti-Catholicism. I grew up in a house without indoor plumbing because my father would not like about being Catholic. So I fully understand the Church’s position.

 

[iamrefreshed]

If you are willing to embrace evil acts beyond what the Church believes is acceptable, what motivation is their for any political party to properly acknowledge the inalienable rights of the human person?

In other words, if you won’t stand with God, on absolute and essential beliefs, evil already wins. On the other hand, our faith teaches that standing with God is a path that will be rewarded. Maybe not in this life, but rewarded just the same.

Look in the back of the COMPENDIUM for the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (the Church created it for people who find the whole Catechism too daunting). If even the Compendium is too much, appendix B contains Formulas of Catholic Doctrine.

The first is The Two Commandments of Love:

I know you aren’t big on the mind part, but how much do we love God if sacrificing political chances for success is more than we are willing to do for His designated path?

You are now, after 3 years on CAF, only the second person I’ve had to put on ignore.

If you don’t understad why re-read your last couple of posts.

It must be nice to be so morally superior.

 

[dmelosi]

Excuse you, but I am the one who usually says that the Republicans aren’t really pro-life except for the votes. Guess what? I don’t vote pro-choice-on-abortion based on that. If it’s a pro-choice-on-abortion vs. Republican I simply don’t vote on that office and move on to the next one.

And considering that it appears that the greatest possible evil to a Republican or other right-winger is a tax, I seriously doubt that any true believer in Republicanism would abandon their party if it became pro-choice-on-abortion.

I suggest that you do a poll on Catholics who currently vote Republican and ask this very question.

Many here who try to ease their conscience and vote for pro choice candidates, are always looking for an excuse to feel less guilty about promoting the killing of the most innocent. However a person looks at it, that is what they are doing when trying to persuade others that it is ok because of other what they call Pro Life issues.

I would bet that if you did a poll there would be very very few exceptions of those that would not vote for the pro life candidate, republican or democrat.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The last time I checked, the police were not rounding up pregnant women and forcing them to have abortions.

But women are coerced into having abortions every day. And the babies do not volunteer to be aborted.

The last time I checked, the police were not rounding up and killing anyone who disagreed with the party in power.

But women are coerced into having abortions every day. And the babies do not volunteer to be aborted.

It is those personally involved that are committing the sin, not the government.

And the government, which has an obligation to defend and protect the helpless has instead defended and protected their killers.

Well obviously we won’t agree on this one since you insist that if I like bananas I must also like pickles.

Facetious comments will not make abortion less than the most serious of sins.

Sooooo…
It’s time for you to refuse to pay your taxes since it supports abortion. Think of the issue it would become. Think of the good your going to prison would do for the cause. Shall you do it?

Peace
James

If I do go, it will be because the government forced me to go, will it not?

So the police will be rounding up and imprisoning anyone who disagrees with the party in power, won’t they?

 

[Miles_Mariae]

There is a pro-life anti-war candidate, you’re just not looking hard enough.

 

[SoCalRC]

Because the social responsibility of the Pro-Choice canidate ACTUALLY decreases the killing of innocent life MORE than the fiscal conservative politics of the Pro-Life canidate.

This can been seen if you look at the Abortion statistics… Reaganomics produced the HIGHEST abortions ever… the 90s President’s (Pro-Choice) social programs and economic boom ( along with the efforts of the Pro-Life movement) cause abortions to decrease at an astounding rate.

This is an understandable outlook. We have gone from a nation at peace to a nation at perpetual war. Our national debt has nearly doubled. Gas has gone from a 1.50 a gallon to 3.25, while household incomes have declined. Millions of more Americans are now living in poverty, and millions of more Americans are now living without health insurance.

There is no evidence to suggest additional success with regards to abortion, and we have actually moved backwards with regards to euthanasia. We even provide Federal funds for stem cell research, something wholly in the President’s control.

But, it is still a compromise. We are all sinners, we all make moral compromises. We must each, ultimately follow our best Christian concience. I just want to remind you, like I have tried to remind people here who strongly believe that Catholicism can be voted wholly on a very narrow interpreation of a few teachings, that it is better to be mindful of our own shortcomings in living up to the Lord’s expections than declaring our own decisions morally superior to other’s.

Peace

 

[SoCalRC]

I would bet that if you did a poll there would be very very few exceptions of those that would not vote for the pro life candidate, republican or democrat.

I think the point was that there are very few Catholics who are voting “pro life” in a true, Catholic sense now. Remember, equating “right to life” solely to abortion is Republicanism/Evangelicalism. The Church uses the phrase in a wholly different way.

 

[SoCalRC]

defendlife.blogspot.com/ has even put together a summary of the candidates compared to Catholic issues, both the intrinsically evil issues and “other important issues”, which is worth looking at, if only as a starting point for one’s own research.

I would strenuously agree with the recommendation to do one’s own research. One candidate, as a staunch libertarian, seems to have done much better on most of the ‘5 point’ criteria than libertarianism would normally imply.

That said, the criteria itself seems like an excellent synopsis of the broad issues that should be considered. My one criticism of the method is that some issues are identified as the Church as being “fundemental and inalienable rights”. It even states that they do not permit compromise or abridgement. So using a weighted scale to evaluate them in the context of other teachings would seem to be poor theology.

Thank you for the link and thoughts though.

 

[vinessa]

[PART 1 of 2]

Hi – I am going to answer the OP’s question honestly.

I am 51 years old and in RCIA currently. But when I was 28 I had an abortion. I was obviously not Catholic then, but I also had no familial, community, or societal support for a child. My father was an alcoholic who had died at age 45, my mother had been diagnosed with schizophrenia 16 years earlier and so was either medicated or falling into paranoia on a regular basis. My sister married a Vietnam vet heroin addict who was on methadone (but fell off occasionally and got in trouble with heroin), and my learning disabled brother was living (if you could call it that) with my mom (he later died at age 24).

In my life at the time I was barely making it. I had a job, but I had gotten overstrung on credit cards and was looking at bankruptcy. I had also started drinking a bit too much occasionally – it never turned into alcoholism thank God, but still. I was dealing with pain in an unhealthy way – but where were my other supports? My grandparents were all dead, there were only two uncles and one aunt but they lived far away and we never knew them (one was also alcoholic, and two had been divorced). Our sick little nuclear family was its own little island, alone. We took care of ourselves (not very well), but we had to. No one was going to do it for us.

One night when I had drunk too much I brought a guy home that I had been friendly with at my local pizza parlor. He was a friendly, nice guy – but he also had a similar broken family background and was barely making it on his own working evenings and weekends at the pizza parlor.

I got pregnant. There simply was, at that time, on all the horizons I could see, no way to have, keep and care for a child. Pizza parlor wages were certainly not going to support a family, and our own families were unable to even support themselves. Plus, this guy was nice, sweet, but more like a chum – and it was just something that happened one night.

I’m not saying choosing abortion was the right decision. For a lot of reasons that most people don’t ever mention I don’t think it is. But at the time, and through those eyes, I simply could not see giving my child away, or keeping it and trying to raise it.

Now, shelve your opinions for a moment and let me share something.

EVEN THOUGH I was making a morally wrong decision, I am still thankful that my only option was not an illegal, dirty backroom abortion with coat hangers.

On a communal, familial, and societal level, abortion should be strongly discouraged. But where were the social programs that would have helped someone like me? Is there free, universal health care in this country? Is there a dole or welfare for young mothers, sufficient enough so that they can thrive? Can housing, food, and basic safety be guaranteed to everyone?

It’s also fortunate when adopted kids end up in great families. But there are also kids, natural OR adopted, who are abused on a regular basis, fostered out, or otherwise abandoned.

So below is a recap of the three options I had at the time, and the damaging outcome of each choice.

1. Have the child and put it up for adoption. Damage to child, being released to the state, and no certainty that child would not be abused. More damage to birth parents (already damaged people) from having to abandon living child in a not so different way from how they were abandoned.
2. Have the child and keep it. Try to live in soul-draining destitution, on welfare, in ghettos or projects, or be homeless, never getting ahead.
3. Abortion.
   – Suboption A: Illegal, dirty, backroom abortion risking death
   – Suboption B: Legal, sterile abortion

[continued below]

 

[vinessa]

[PART 2 of 2]

Since I was able to get a legal, sterile abortion, I am here now, able to hear God’s word, repent, convert, and be reconciled. But if I had DIED at the hands of a coathanger abortionist…

It’s a complex issue obviously, but I cannot see the value to anyone by criminalizing abortion. What makes more sense is to channel our energies into taking care of the “anawim” with better familial and societal supports – free, universal health care, council housing like they have in the UK so that nobody is without a roof and safety, a decent welfare system that supports young mothers, a universal program that stops child abuse everywhere and nurtures children instead, and much stronger examples of people who live the moral tenets.

For example, what do words about “strong family values” mean to someone who doesn’t have a family, or whose family is completely broken? Not much! But if we actually started adopting these people into our OWN families, showing what we mean with our actions…

For example, in the case of a young unwed mother from a broken family, why does her baby get adopted and she doesn’t? It’s smug to say, well, we saved the child – while she’s still out there, not only damaged but now desolate without her child. Why not adopt her too?

Is it a matter of not wanting to open up your own life? Is it about not wanting to share your wealth and advantages? Or is it a matter of not wanting to deal intimately, over time, with someone who’s from outside your normal circle?

Ideally pregnant women would get LOADS of intervention and counseling before choosing abortion. Someone to talk through all the repercussions with, and someone who knows, authoritatively, what those repercussions will actually be. Not pie in the sky promises like, oh yes, have your baby, welfare will take care of you – when it might not.

In addition, someone who will be there for more than a few sessions, then gone – but someone who will stay with the young person, walk beside them, help out, and not leave.

As I said, none of this is an justification for abortion. But it is an argument for not making the only abortion available a dangerous, backroom kind.

It’s easy to call for legislation for or against “those people” over there. But isn’t the political posturing really a distraction from the healing that’s actually needed, and the challenge we have been given to give our life to make a difference in someone else’s?

When pro-life people actually start opening up their homes and lives to the mothers, not only the children, and adopting them (the mothers), it will be a glorious day. Until then, sterile, legal abortion should still be available in my opinion, as opposed to only the dangerous, illegal kind.

Thanks for this discussion!

 

[SoCalRC]

[PART 1 of 2]

Hi – I am going to answer the OP’s question honestly.

FWIW, my wife and I faced a very difficult pregnancy. She resisted the recommendations for an abortion of medical necessity and we now have a son, who is severely disabled, but one of the lights in my life.

I bring this up only to say to you how sorry I am, after your own suffering, at what I fear you will receive in the nature of replies. I do not condone your choices, nor nec. agree with your reasoning. But you are a fellow Child of God and I appreciate your honesty and candor.

One thing we can agree on is that it is illogical to look at abortion in isolation. Almost half the abortions in this country are procurred by woman who are already mothers. 27% report that they are Catholic (virtually matching the best estimates of our share of the population), and the vast majority are procurred by woman living at or near the poverty line.

I will remember your courage and honesty in my prayers and wish you the best in your own spiritual journey.

Peace

 

[vinessa]

I do not condone your choices, nor nec. agree with your reasoning.

Thank you. And to be clear, my choices were in the past, and I was different then. I don’t condone them now either. But without support, guidance, modeling, or anyone who was willing to help me…

One thing we can agree on is that it is illogical to look at abortion in isolation. Almost half the abortions in this country are procurred by woman who are already mothers. 27% report that they are Catholic (virtually matching the best estimates of our share of the population), and the vast majority are procurred by woman living at or near the poverty line.

Exactly my point. Why traumatize more lives by forcing women who are going to seek abortion anyway into the hands of a backroom coathanger practitioner? The solution isn’t in criminalizing abortion, while at the same time staying nice, cozy, and safe inside our comfortable homes, separated from the bothersome needs of troubled people. The solution is to fix the underpinnings of the way we live together, and to tangibly and materially support those less fortunate.

If the society and community were healthy, abortion would simply be unfathomable, even though technically legal, because love and connection would rule over condemnation and abandonment.

It’s funny how I was even thinking about this this morning while listening to Catholic radio. I was thinking how easy it is for detractors to be so condemning and negative, when love, presence, personal sacrifice, and care are the real answers – per Our Lord himself.

Whosoever is without sin cast the first stone… I’m sorry, I cannot.