Why Would A Catholic Vote For A ProChoice Canidate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter deb1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t know that I agree or disagree with what you say, it is not very clear. However, I can offer these comments;
Swan said:
Regardless of what one believes, it is imperitive that all are given the freedom to decide their beliefs for themselves.
Click to expand...
All freedoms are from God. This country’s founding fathers knew it, as well as the Church. It’s not really our ‘imperitive’ at all. It just is the fact, it is called free will.
Most of us form our beliefs based on personal experience and, since none but us and God can know how we have been effected by our experiences, I find it somewhat arrogant for others to automatically offer their damning assessment.
Click to expand...
This I don’t understand. Right and wrong, good and evil, like God, are constant and unchanging. They are not relative, that is to say, they are not influenced by our experiences. Just becuase we have a particular experience does not mean that what is right or wrong has changed. Our experience will definitely affect our ability to pick right versus wrong, but it will not determine what is actually right or actually wrong. The right answer is always the right answer, no matter what experiences happened in this physical world. Right and wrong came before this world, and transcend this world and all its experiences. Experiences are random. Right and wrong are constants. To suggest that right and wrong are somehow influenced by random experiences seems to deny their absolute constancy. God does not change, that is, he is not bound by time, space, or experiences. Neither does the truth of what is right or wrong.

And add that our experiences typically add emotion, which can be the enemy of rational, logical thought, and we see why our physical experiences can be detrimental to choosing what is right versus what is wrong.
I also find the automatic assumption that women only have abortions for convenience insulting as a woman.
Click to expand...
I understand why making this narrow assertion would be unreasonable, but I do not understand how it would be insulting to a woman. Why would a good and just woman be insulted by someone’s assertion that all sin of this type was due to one particular cause? It would just be incorrect, silly maybe, but why insulting. It is not an idictment of woman.
Christ looked on sinners with love and mercy - that is why they followed him. It is, I believe, what he had in mind for us also. 🙂
Click to expand...
I agree wholeheartedly. And, Christ is also all just. Those who are unrepentent will suffer, as he clearly articulated. All human life is from God and is of infinite value to Him. To seek to destroy that which God has created is grave. To truly demonstrate our love of others, we must continually and lovingly share this truth, and counsel others that such a path is the path of ruin.

Sincerely,

Dan Grelinger
 
I would question the statement that we are giving damning assessments. That is not the case. It is like saying God sends us to hell. God does not send us to hell, it is we who send ourselves. The way that was explained to me by a very learned theologian was that when one stands in the presence of God he intuitively knows if he can approach or not. If he can approach, he/she has salvation. If they cannot approach, they have damnation. I merely am pointing out what we are taught. I for one, do not at any time, in any circumstance believe that I know better than the teaching Magisterium of the Church, under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Deacon Ed B
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
I would question the statement that we are giving damning assessments. That is not the case. It is like saying God sends us to hell. God does not send us to hell, it is we who send ourselves. The way that was explained to me by a very learned theologian was that when one stands in the presence of God he intuitively knows if he can approach or not. If he can approach, he/she has salvation. If they cannot approach, they have damnation. I merely am pointing out what we are taught. I for one, do not at any time, in any circumstance believe that I know better than the teaching Magisterium of the Church, under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Deacon Ed B
Click to expand...
Deacon, I am disturbed by your post. Not because I disagree, but by the hard “kick in the gut” it gave me. I have been such a terrible person most of my life. I’ve prayed many times for forgiveness directly to God and I go to confession often. I pray daily for my wife, children, grandchild, nieces, nephews, and parents. I pray for the victims of my sins, that they will find peace and that God will bless them. I pray for many things, but I rarely pray for myself.

How can any of us feel that we can approach perfect love, perfect forgiveness, perfect grace; as David said 3000 years ago, “For I know my transgressions, and my sin is always before me.”
 
To RWMorris - At judgment you will have perfect intuition. You will know if you are in a state of sanctifying grace or not. You even know that now, without intuition, but with knowledge of whether you are in a state of sin or not. You will know if you have unatoned temporal punishment due to sin, and you will gladly go to purgatory, knowing that salvation is yours. OR, you will turn from God to hell, or approach God knowing that you are able. We all know we are not worthy of salvation, simply because of our sinfulness. That is the marvel and wonder of Gods infinite Divine Mercy. He loves us even knowing we are not worthy. To understand his infinite Divine Mercy, simply consider what Jesus said upon the cross, :Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." This is a God of infinite love so far beyond our ability to understand in our finite existence that we can only humbly and gladly accept his love and say “My God I thank you with every fiber of my being” This is not a kick in the gut, but an infinite loving embrace. Relish it and cling to it with all your strength.
Deacon Ed B
 
I might be wrong, but I don’t know of any candidates Rep or Dem that have said they are 100% against abortion and plan to make it illegal once again. They all say it’s a legal issue and they won’t change what the “voters want”. If no candidate will stand up for the issue, then the only thing a voter can do is vote on the other issues. It’s nice to vote for a candidate that’s pro-life, but if they won’t do anything about it in office, what’s the point?
 
davia said:
I might be wrong, but I don’t know of any candidates Rep or Dem that have said they are 100% against abortion and plan to make it illegal once again. They all say it’s a legal issue and they won’t change what the “voters want”. If no candidate will stand up for the issue, then the only thing a voter can do is vote on the other issues. It’s nice to vote for a candidate that’s pro-life, but if they won’t do anything about it in office, what’s the point?
Click to expand...
Davia:

I guess you haven’t been to the National Right to Life website:

nrlpac.org/

You’ll see that the politicians who objected to the Supreme Court decision declaring a ban on Partial Birth Abortions to be Constitutional were ALL Democrats, while the politicians with solid Pro-Life voting Records are almost all Republicans, and those with solid Pro-Death voting Records are almost all Democrats.

capwiz.com/nrlc/home/

The DNC Party Platform includes a plank not only to keep Abortions “Safe and Legal”, but to oppose any and all bans on abortions, while providing federal funding for Abortions for poor women. The GOP Platform has always included a plank calling for overturning Roe v. Wade and passing of a “Right to Life Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution, along with an incremental approach forcing the courts to revisit the Issue of Abortion and Roe v. Wade.

One party promotes the Status Quo, whlle expanding Abortions internationally, while the other party tries to limit Abortion in the hopes of eventually getting rid of the evil in the same manner as Slavery was gotten rid of.

You also haven’t read this - Put out originally by Catholic Answers:

Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics Copyright © 2004, Catholic Answers.

*On most issues that come before voters or legislators, the task is selecting the most effective strategy among several morally good options. A Catholic can take one side or the other and not act contrary to the faith. Most matters do not have a “Catholic position.”

But some issues concern “non-negotiable” moral principles that do not admit of exception or compromise. One’s position either accords with those principles or does not. No one endorsing the wrong side of these issues can be said to act in accord with the Church’s moral norms.

This voter’s guide identifies five issues involving “non-negotiable” moral values in current politics and helps you narrow down the list of acceptable candidates, whether they are running for national, state, or local offices.*

*But voting cannot be arbitrary. “A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law that contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals” (CPL 4). A citizen’s vote most often means voting for a candidate who will be the one directly voting on laws or programs. But being one step removed from law-making doesn’t let citizens off the hook, since morality requires that we avoid doing evil to the greatest extent possible, even indirectly.

Some things are always wrong, and no one may deliberately vote in favor of them. Legislators, who have a direct vote, may not support these evils in legislation or programs. Citizens support these evils indirectly if they vote in favor of candidates who propose to advance them. Thus, to the greatest extent possible, Catholics must avoid voting for any candidate who intends to support programs or laws that are intrinsically evil. When all of the candidates endorse morally harmful policies, citizens must vote in a way that will limit the harm likely to be done.*

FIVE NON-NEGOTIABLES
  1. Abortion
  2. Euthanasia
  3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research
  4. Human Cloning
  5. Homosexual “Marriage”
5. Do not vote for candidates who are right on lesser issues but will vote wrongly on key moral issues. One candidate may have a record of voting in line with Catholic values except for, say, euthanasia. Such a voting record is a clear signal that the candidate should not be chosen by a Catholic voter unless the other candidates have voting records even less in accord with these moral norms.

*In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more issues involving non-negotiable moral principles. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.

A vote cast in such a situation is not morally the same as a positive endorsement for candidates, laws, or programs that promote intrinsic evils: It is only tolerating a lesser evil to avoid an even greater evil. As Pope John Paul II indicated regarding a situation where it is not possible to overturn or completely defeat a law allowing abortion, “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”(EV 73; also CPL 4).*

priestsforlife.org/elections/voterguide.htm

*I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live, *
Deut. 30:19 RSV

Yours in Christ, Michael
 
I am so grateful and pleased to find this thread. I’ve been asking myself the same question for many months, being part of another forum of Catholic women and mothers, some of whom are proudly and loudly supporting democrats. I’ve basically been shunned for holding Catholic truths above all else, so when I say something in support of Church teaching, they respond with anger. It’s very lonely.
Here’s their position: I’m told that homosexual behavior isn’t a sin anymore, since “most” biblical references about it are in the O.T. and that abortion isn’t THE most important issue. I get so tired of being the lone voice for Truth.
They have taken my sins of the past (tubal ligation, which I confessed to a priest and was forgiven and shared with them a long while back, saying it was a sin and a terrible decision I live with) and used that against me now to say I have not been forgiven and that I basically have no right to stand for Church teaching if I have myself gone against her in my own actions at one time. I even went back to my priest for another confession and he told me what they say is not of God. I am forgiven and should move on.
Anyway, I can’t understand why anyone who doesn’t hold to the teaching of the Church, and so openly argues against her, would continue to be Catholic. They don’t see that no matter what they call themselves, they are NOT Catholic, and they DO encourage others to go astray just by example. 😦
 
To Jennifer Moon - Welcome to this thread. I wonder where these ladies you were referring to get their theology. It certainly is not Church teaching. Do they profess to be more wise than the Church Magisterium under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If that is the case, I would definitely not call them true friends, no matter how 'enlightened" they may think they are. Cling to the truth, for as Pope John Paul II has said, the truth shall set you free.
Deacon Ed B.
 
Amen Deacon Ed. I’ve read your posts before and find myself in agreement & wishing I could invite you over for coffee. 🙂
 
Thank you for the invite. I love Starbucks. But, with you in New York and me in south Texas, a great distance lies in between. Keep me in your prayers, and know you are in mine.
Deacon Ed B
 
Now isn’t that just too funny. My very closest sister lives in Plano, my sweetest Catholic friend lives in Austin, and several other people I admire are there in Texas. You think God is trying to tell me something? Lol

Prayers, of course!
 
Pong said:
God endowed me with a conscience as did he you. After much thought and contemplation, I have come to hold this position.
Click to expand...
*“To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one’s conscience is unduly added the affirmation that one’s moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience. But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear, yielding their place to a criterion of sincerity, authenticity and “being at peace with oneself”, so much so that some have come to adopt a radically subjectivistic conception of moral judgment. … There is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly.” *(Veritatis splendor 32)

You are not excused from accountability by claiming that you were following your conscience.

Ender
 
I keep asking that myself, why? But if I had to respond, I would say they are lasped in the Church’s teachings; they have stronger loyalties to their political party; they don’t see the issue as pressing as some make it to be; they’re simply not informed.

As a Catholic, the whole discussion of poltics leaves me pretty aggravated, seeing how I can see corruption from all sides. I consider myself a social Conservative, yet I jokingly consider myself a disgruntled Democrat. Obvious reason being they refuse to remove this certain stance from the party platform. Also, I see the Bush Administration gives money to Planned Parenthood, which I find confusing since the President considers himself a Compassionate Conservative.

So I’m at a crossroads, politically speaking. I now identify myself as an Independent, because both parties seem to leave me unsatisfied in more ways than one. So whom shall I vote for? Should I vote at all? What should ask my Priest in conversation what I should do. What I can be sure about is that I want to do the best to not compromise my Faith in something so mundane as Politics.

That being said, I am Pro-Life, I am Catholic, and knowing these things, I have ask God to give me the grace to make decisions that correspond to my beliefs.
 
Traditional_Ang said:
Davia:

I guess you haven’t been to the National Right to Life website:

nrlpac.org/

You’ll see that the politicians who objected to the Supreme Court decision declaring a ban on Partial Birth Abortions to be Constitutional were ALL Democrats, while the politicians with solid Pro-Life voting Records are almost all Republicans, and those with solid Pro-Death voting Records are almost all Democrats.

capwiz.com/nrlc/home/

l
Click to expand...
No, I haven’t been to that site, but I will go visit it. I primarily am talking about the presidental election. I may have heard a candidate say they were pro-life, but they also say it’s a moral issue and up to the voters. Which rep presidential candidate has said they plan to use the presidency to change Roe V Wade? Just curious. Please tell me if they are, I would like to know 🙂
 
🤷 Correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t we* not* to talk about presidential candidates by name or even allude to them? Just wondering because there IS a prolife candidate who wants to change Roe.v Wade and I can’t mention his name if it goes against guidelines.
 
davia said:
No, I haven’t been to that site, but I will go visit it. I primarily am talking about the presidental election. I may have heard a candidate say they were pro-life, but they also say it’s a moral issue and up to the voters. Which rep presidential candidate has said they plan to use the presidency to change Roe V Wade? Just curious. Please tell me if they are, I would like to know 🙂
Click to expand...
Davia:

Please see the National Rite to Life Site I gave you - You’ll see that both of the Republicans have stated clearly that they would nominate Justices to the Supreme Court who are “Strict Constructionists”. As Roe v. Wade was based on a Legal Doctrine known as “Living Document”, any Justice commited to “Strict Constructionism” would be bound, as a matter of principal, to vote to overturn it whenever the matter came before the Court. “Stare Decisis” only applies when a matter has been “Rightly Decided”, and would be as applicable here as in the case of Plessy v. Fergusen. At the same time, both have stated they would propose & sign Anti-Abortion Legislation which would force the issue before the Court. And, Support of a Pro-Life Amendment is still part of the Republican Party Platform. 👍

Because of our poisoned political discourse, most politicians can’t be this frank. But, most “Political Jukies” know that “Strict Constructionist” is code for, “I’ll nominate Justices who could never have voted for Roe v. Wade in a million years.” :rotfl:

As you’ll see from that website, both Republicans have the records to back up their claims - you’ll have to go back several years, which the website allows you to do. At the same time, you’ll see that both Democrats have the exact opposite records, voting Pro-Death almost every time. :banghead:

Note to Jennifer Moon

I believe the forum rules forbid us from campaigning on behalf of any particular candidate, but they don’t forbid us from refering to them either by name or party; otherwise, we could never have honest and frank discussions on what their positions are on this very crucial issue. :yup:

I hope this is helpful to both of you.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
 
morning_star_27 said:
I keep asking that myself, why? But if I had to respond, I would say they are lasped in the Church’s teachings; they have stronger loyalties to their political party; they don’t see the issue as pressing as some make it to be; they’re simply not informed.

As a Catholic, the whole discussion of poltics leaves me pretty aggravated, seeing how I can see corruption from all sides. I consider myself a social Conservative, yet I jokingly consider myself a disgruntled Democrat. Obvious reason being they refuse to remove this certain stance from the party platform. Also, I see the Bush Administration gives money to Planned Parenthood, which I find confusing since the President considers himself a Compassionate Conservative.

So I’m at a crossroads, politically speaking. I now identify myself as an Independent, because both parties seem to leave me unsatisfied in more ways than one. So whom shall I vote for? Should I vote at all? What should ask my Priest in conversation what I should do. What I can be sure about is that I want to do the best to not compromise my Faith in something so mundane as Politics.

That being said, I am Pro-Life, I am Catholic, and knowing these things, I have ask God to give me the grace to make decisions that correspond to my beliefs.
Click to expand...
Morning Star:

Can I ask you what your source is on the Bush Administration giving money to Planned Parenthood?

Because, I just tried to look it up and found Gov. Romney giving funding to Planned Parenthood while he was Governor of Mass.
Team Thompson Busts Romney’s Claim That As Governor Romney “Came Down on the Side of Life.”
punditreview.com/2007/12/page/2/

I did find Internarnational Planned Parenthood Foundation in the ASAID Page which is administered by the US Department of State. That doesn’t mean that we’re funding them - it just means they’re on the list of agencies. Of course, no one knows with the U.S. State Department…
usaid.gov/policy/budget/cbj2006/acronyms.html

Congress simply includes funding for Planned Parenthood in its annual Consolidated Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act each year, which President Bush essentially can’t veto without shutting down the Federal Government. Please remember, unlike State Governors, the President doesn’t have the “Line-Item Veto”, so he can’t just strike out the offending item while signing the rest of the Act into law.

It’s simply unfair to blame the President for that since the budget he proposes excludes funding for agencies such as Planned Parenthood. President Bush has prosposed and signed Anti-Abortion Legislation and Nominated at least 2 Justices to the Supreme Court who, as a result of their judicial philosophy, will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade should the issue reach the Court again. Please see my earlier discussion on “Strict Constructionism” and the most recent Supreme Court decision on an Abortion case which overturned a similar decision made just 7 years ago.

That leaves you with the link I posted earlier from Priests for Life, which was a “Reprint” of something Catholic Answers had published for the 2004 election:

Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics
Copyright © 2004, Catholic Answers.
WHEN THERE IS NO “ACCEPTABLE” CANDIDATE

*In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more issues involving non-negotiable moral principles. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.

A vote cast in such a situation is not morally the same as a positive endorsement for candidates, laws, or programs that promote intrinsic evils: It is only tolerating a lesser evil to avoid an even greater evil. As Pope John Paul II indicated regarding a situation where it is not possible to overturn or completely defeat a law allowing abortion, “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”(EV 73; also CPL 4).

Catholics must strive to put in place candidates, laws, and political programs that are in full accord with non-negotiable moral values. Where a perfect candidate, law, or program is not on the table, we are to choose the best option, the one that promotes the greatest good and entails the least evil. Not voting may sometimes be the only moral course of action, but we must consider whether not voting actually promotes good and limits evil in a specific instance. The role of citizens and elected officials is to promote intrinsic moral values as much as possible today while continuing to work toward better candidates, laws, and programs in the future.*
priestsforlife.org/elections/voterguide.htm

Please read the entire “Pamphlet”. I’m sure it will be quite helpful to you.

And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.
Galatians 6:9 RSV

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
 
davia said:
No, I haven’t been to that site, but I will go visit it. I primarily am talking about the presidental election. I may have heard a candidate say they were pro-life, but they also say it’s a moral issue and up to the voters. Which rep presidential candidate has said they plan to use the presidency to change Roe V Wade? Just curious. Please tell me if they are, I would like to know 🙂
Click to expand...
What the U.S. presidential candidates ‘say’ is irrelevant. All politicians, to some degree or another, will propose their positions in a manner that they believe will best suit the purpose of getting elected. When we analyze what they say, we will either be mislead, or confused, as evidenced by some comments on this thread.

Fortunately, all ‘major’ presidential candidates have a record. Their record is extremely pertinent because it shows us with much more clarity what they have done, and very likely will continue to do. In the are of life issues, candidates have remarkably consistency.

If you examine the voting records and other actions of the candidates, shart differences in their respect for innocent human life will be obvious.

Sincerely,

Dan Grelinger
 
I am in just such a predicament right now here in Texas. I am completely pro life and I am perplexed with these upcoming elections. I am considering voting in the Democratic primary for the candidate that will be easier to defeat in November. Is it a sin to vote for such a candidate since voting is a reflection of our will?

Thanks for your help:confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top