 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
jsking1964
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 58 |
| First Name: | Benedict | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Basically I have been a Christian all my life, and ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 05:58 am |
|
Instead of hating things and putting up walls, we need to be a community of change. Why not work within the Democratic Party to change the course of action? If enough people did this within the party, then we MUST see a change of ideas. Besides, there are a lot of things happening that are making abortion RARE.
Yet, at the same time you all are treating the Democrats like they are a cult or even some sect of the Protestant Reformation gone bad.
Think about this, In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ said judge not lest YOU BE JUDGED, and in my book, hate is judging; it is also being predjuduce for one another. In my opinion we need to drop the labels and look at one another for what they stand for that makes sence to us individually. If candidate A is stronger say in the ideas about the war on terrorism and weak on the pro-life debate, we can start writing that person to bring about change locally, statewide, and then also in our government nationally. If the Catholic Church found away to get along with the other denominations after the Reformation, can we not find away to get along with those who do not believe or practice as we do?
____________________
Your friend in Christ, +
JS Benedict
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemed. Mark 16:16
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5457 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 04:18 pm |
|
I was a registered Democrat until 1992. I ran for political office that year. In order to run, I had to make a payment to the Democrat party equal to my qualifying fee, and carry the label "Democrat" beneath my name. That was the year Bill Clinton was running for the Democrat nomination for president against Al Gore, and they were tripping all over each other to make sure everyone knew they favored "abortion rights" more strongly than their opponent.
I changed my registration. I could not in good conscience be a member of a party whose official platform supported the murder of unborn children. More importantly I could not put my name on a ballot carrying the label of a party with that platform. I went on the ballot as an independent.
Then, in 2000, I heard Alan Keyes speak. I changed my party registration to Republican so I could vote for him in the primary election. In my state's primary on February 9th, I will vote for him again.
I don't care what party someone belongs to. I have voted for both Democrats and Republicans. I don't particularly care what party I belong to. I've given my reasons for changing, and the party I belong to has never influenced my vote. (Louisiana has open primaries, and any person of any party can vote for any candidate on the same ballot, whether for primaries or general elections, except candidates for federal office starting this year.)
Could I ever vote for a Democrat for president? Certainly. But given the current candidates for the nomination in the Democrat and Republican parties, I won't be voting for a Democrat in November. Their views on abortion are certainly a factor, but there are many other reasons as well.
When I was a kid, I didn't even know a Republican. Democrats didn't have to campaign in the south. The "Solid South" always went for the Democrat. Roe V. Wade changed that. The Democrats aligned themselves on the side of the abortionists, and the Republicans aligned themselves on the side of those who favor life. Today, the south more often votes Republican than Democrat. Older people are still traditional Democrats, although this election might finally change that.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
mrsbmoo
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 341 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | former Methodist. RCA, Presbyterian, Holiness, Wesleyan... Catholic as of June ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 08:22 pm |
|
I am not a Rebuplican, nor am I a Democrat. In fact I have some strong Liberterian leanings. I would vote fer a Democrat but not Hilary. I feel the comment she made about stay at home moms show she is anti-family. On the other hand, the whole homeland security agency and the incursions into individual civil and property rights is just as evil. Show me the NONE of the above button and will vote it.
____________________
Becky
Wife of Michael(called Moo) and stay at home mom to 5 daughters between 13 months and 17
|
|
|
Cindy
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 42 |
| First Name: | Cindy | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Catholic convert |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 4th, 2008 03:14 am |
|
Fr. Stephen Torraco, who had a series about morality and ethics on EWTN, wrote a helpful catechism for Catholic voters:
A Brief Catechism For Catholic Voters
By Father Stephen F. Torraco, Ph.D.
1. Isn't conscience the same as my own opinions and feelings? And doesn't everyone have the right to his or her own conscience?
Conscience is NOT the same as your opinions or feelings. Conscience cannot be identical with your feelings because conscience is the activity of your intellect in judging the rightness or wrongness of your actions or omissions, past, present, or future, while your feelings come from another part of your soul and should be governed by your intellect and will. Conscience is not identical with your opinions because your intellect bases its judgment upon the natural moral law, which is inherent in your human nature and is identical with the Ten Commandments. Unlike the civil laws made by legislators, or the opinions that you hold, the natural moral law is not anything that you invent, but rather discover within yourself and is the governing norm of your conscience. In short, conscience is the voice of truth within you, and your opinions need to be in harmony with that truth. This is the goal of correctly informing and properly forming your conscience.
2. So then, how do I get my conscience to be correctly informed and properly formed?
As a Catholic, you have the benefit of the Church's teaching authority or Magisterium endowed upon her by Christ. The Magisterium assists you and all people of good will in understanding the natural moral law as it relates to specific issues. As a Catholic, you have the obligation to be correctly informed and normed by the teaching of the Church's Magisterium. As for your feelings, they need to be properly formed by virtue so as to be in harmony with conscience's voice of truth. In this way, you will have a sound conscience, according to which way you will feel guilty when you are guilty, and feel morally upright when you are morally upright. We should strive to avoid the two opposite extremes of a lax conscience and a scrupulous conscience. Meeting the obligation of continually attending to this formation of conscience will increase the likelihood that, in the actual operation or activity of conscience, you will act with a certain conscience, which clearly perceives that a given concrete action is a good action that was rightly done or should be done. Being correctly informed and certain in the actual operation of conscience is the goal of the continuing formation of conscience. Otherwise put, you should strive to avoid being incorrectly informed and doubtful in the actual judgment of conscience about a particular action or omission. You should never act on a doubtful conscience.
3. Is it morally permissible to vote for all candidates of a single party?
This would depend on the positions held by the candidates of a single party. If any one or more of them held positions that were opposed to the natural moral law, then it would not be morally permissible to vote for all candidates of this one party. Your correctly informed conscience transcends the bounds of any one political party.
4. If I think that a pro-abortion candidate will, on balance, do much more for the culture of life than a pro-life candidate, why may I not vote for the pro-abortion candidate?
If a political candidate supported abortion, or any other moral evil, such as assisted suicide and euthanasia, for that matter, it would not be morally permissible for you to vote for that person. This is because, in voting for such a person, you would become an accomplice in the moral evil at issue. For this reason, moral evils such as abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide, are examples of a "disqualifying issue." A disqualifying issue is one which is of such gravity and importance that it allows for no political maneuvering. It is an issue that strikes at the heart of the human person and is non-negotiable. A disqualifying issue is one of such enormity that by itself renders a candidate for office unacceptable regardless of his position on other matters. You must sacrifice your feelings on other issues because you know that you cannot participate in any way in an approval of a violent and evil violation of basic human rights. A candidate for office who supports abortion rights or any other moral evil has disqualified himself as a person that you can vote for. You do not have to vote for a person because he is pro-life. But you may not vote for any candidate who supports abortion rights. Key to understanding the point above about "disqualifying issues" is the distinction between policy and moral principle. On the one hand, there can be a legitimate variety of approaches to accomplishing a morally acceptable goal. For example, in a society's effort to distribute the goods of health care to its citizens, there can be legitimate disagreement among citizens and political candidates alike as to whether this or that health care plan would most effectively accomplish society's goal. In the pursuit of the best possible policy or strategy, technical, as distinct (although not separate) from moral reason, is operative. Technical reason is the kind of reasoning involved in arriving at the most efficient or effective result. On the other hand, no policy or strategy that is opposed to the moral principles of the natural law is morally acceptable. Thus, technical reason should always be subordinate to and normed by moral reason, the kind of reasoning that is the activity of conscience and that is based on the natural moral law.
5. If I have strong feelings or opinions in favor of a particular candidate, even if he is pro-abortion, why may I not vote for him?
As explained in question 1 above, neither your feelings nor your opinions are identical with your conscience. Neither your feelings nor your opinions can take the place of your conscience. Your feelings and opinions should be governed by your conscience. If the candidate about whom you have strong feelings or opinions is pro-abortion, then your feelings and opinions need to be corrected by your correctly informed conscience, which would tell you that it is wrong for you to allow your feelings and opinions to give lesser weight to the fact that the candidate supports a moral evil.
6. If I may not vote for a pro-abortion candidate, then should it not also be true that I can't vote for a pro-capital punishment candidate?
It is not correct to think of abortion and capital punishment as the very same kind of moral issue. On the one hand, direct abortion is an intrinsic evil, and cannot be justified for any purpose or in any circumstances. On the other hand, the Church has always taught that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend and preserve the common good, and more specifically to defend citizens against the aggressor. This defense against the aggressor may resort to the death penalty if no other means of defense is sufficient. The point here is that the death penalty is understood as an act of self-defense on the part of civil society. In more recent times, in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II has taught that the need for such self-defense to resort to the death penalty is "rare, if not virtually nonexistent." Thus, while the Pope is saying that the burden of proving the need for the death penalty in specific cases should rest on the shoulders of the legitimate temporal authority, it remains true that the legitimate temporal authority alone has the authority to determine if and when a "rare" case arises that warrants the death penalty.
Moreover, if such a rare case does arise and requires resorting to capital punishment, this societal act of self-defense would be a morally good action even if it does have the unintended and unavoidable evil effect of the death of the aggressor. Thus, unlike the case of abortion, it would be morally irresponsible to rule out all such "rare" possibilities a priori, just as it would be morally irresponsible to apply the death penalty indiscriminately.
7. If I think that a candidate who is pro-abortion has better ideas to serve the poor, and the pro-life candidate has bad ideas that will hurt the poor, why may I not vote for the candidate that has the better ideas for serving the poor?
Serving the poor is not only admirable, but also obligatory for Catholics as an exercise of solidarity. Solidarity has to do with the sharing of both spiritual and material goods, and with what the Church calls the preferential option for the poor. This preference means that we have the duty to give priority to helping those most needful, both materially and spiritually. Beginning in the family, solidarity extends to every human association, even to the international moral order. Based on the response to question 4 above, two important points must be made. First, when it comes to the matter of determining how social and economic policy can best serve the poor, there can be a legitimate variety of approaches proposed, and therefore legitimate disagreement among voters and candidates for office. Secondly, solidarity can never be at the price of embracing a "disqualifying issue." Besides, when it comes to the unborn, abortion is a most grievous offense against solidarity, for the unborn are surely among society's most needful. The right to life is a paramount issue because as Pope John Paul II says it is "the first right, on which all the others are based, and which cannot be recuperated once it is lost." If a candidate for office refuses solidarity with the unborn, he has laid the ground for refusing solidarity with anyone.
8. If a candidate says that he is personally opposed to abortion but feels the needs to vote for it under the circumstances, doesn't this candidate's personal opposition to abortion make it morally permissible for me to vote for him, especially if I think that his other views are the best for people, especially the poor?
A candidate for office who says that he is personally opposed to abortion but actually votes in favor of it is either fooling himself or trying to fool you. Outside of the rare case in which a hostage is forced against his will to perform evil actions with his captors, a person who carries out an evil action -- such as voting for abortion -- performs an immoral act, and his statement of personal opposition to the moral evil of abortion is either self-delusion or a lie. If you vote for such a candidate, you would be an accomplice in advancing the moral evil of abortion. Therefore, it is not morally permissible to vote for such a candidate for office, even, as explained in questions 4 and 7 above, if you think that the candidate's other views are best for the poor.
9. What if none of the candidates are completely pro-life?
As Pope John Paul II explains in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), "...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 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." Logically, it follows from these words of the Pope that a voter may likewise vote for that candidate who will most likely limit the evils of abortion or any other moral evil at issue.
10. What if one leading candidate is anti-abortion except in the cases or rape or incest, another leading candidate is completely pro-abortion, and a trailing candidate, not likely to win, is completely anti-abortion. Would I be obliged to vote for the candidate not likely to win?
In such a case, the Catholic voter may clearly choose to vote for the candidate not likely to win. In addition, the Catholic voter may assess that voting for that candidate might only benefit the completely pro-abortion candidate, and, precisely for the purpose of curtailing the evil of abortion, decide to vote for the leading candidate that is anti-abortion but not perfectly so. This decision would be in keeping with the words of the Pope quoted in question 9 above.
11. What if all the candidates from whom I have to choose are pro-abortion? Do I have to abstain from voting at all? What do I do?
Obviously, one of these candidates is going to win the election. Thus, in this dilemma, you should do your best to judge which candidate would do the least moral harm. However, as explained in question 6 above, you should not place a candidate who is pro-capital punishment (and anti-abortion) in the same moral category as a candidate who is pro-abortion. Faced with such a set of candidates, there would be no moral dilemma, and the clear moral obligation would be to vote for the candidate who is pro-capital punishment, not necessarily because he is pro-capital punishment, but because he is anti-abortion.
12. Is not the Church's stand that abortion must be illegal a bit of an exception? Does not the Church generally hold that government should restrict its legislation of morality significantly?
The Church's teaching that abortion should be illegal is not an exception. St. Thomas Aquinas put it this way: "Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like." (emphasis added). Abortion qualifies as a grievous vice that hurts others, and the lack of prohibition of this evil by society is something by which human society cannot be maintained. As Pope John Paul II has emphasized, the denial of the right to life, in principle, sets the stage, in principle, for the denial of all other rights.
13. What about elected officials who happen to be of the same party affiliation? Are they committing a sin by being in the same party, even if they don't advocate pro-choice views? Are they guilty by association?
Being of the same political party as those who advocate pro-abortion is indeed a serious evil IF I belong to this political party IN ORDER TO ASSOCIATE MYSELF with that party's advocacy of pro-abortion policies. However, it can also be true that being of such a political party has as its purpose to change the policies of the party. Of course, if this is the purpose, one would have to consider whether it is reasonable to think the political party's policies can be changed. Assuming that it is reasonable to think so, then it would be morally justifiable to remain in that political party. Remaining in that political party cannot be instrumental in the advancing of pro-abortion policies (especially if I am busily striving to change the party's policies) as can my VOTING for candidates or for a political party with a pro-abortion policy.
14. What about voting for a pro-abortion person for something like state treasurer, in which case the candidate would have no say on matters of life in the capacity of duties, it just happens to be one's personal position. This would not be a sin, right?
If someone were running for state treasurer and that candidate made it a point to state publicly that he was in favor of exterminating people over the age of 70, would you vote for him? The fact that the candidate has that evil in his mind tells you that there are easily other evils in his mind; and the fact that he would publicly state it is a danger signal. If personal character matters in a political candidate, and personal character involves the kind of thoughts a person harbors, then such a candidate who publicly states that he is in favor of the evil of exterminating people over the age of 70 -- or children who are unborn -- has also disqualified himself from receiving a Catholic's vote. I would go further and say that such a candidate, in principle -- in the light of the natural law -- disqualifies himself from public office.
15. Is it a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate?
Except in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates (in which case, as explained in question 9 above, he or she strives to determine which of them would cause the least damage in this regard), a candidate that is pro-abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic's vote. This is because being pro-abortion cannot simply be placed alongside the candidate's other positions on Medicare and unemployment, for example; and this is because abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. To vote for such a candidate simply with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter knowingly and freely assents to his or her status as such an accomplice, then the voter sins mortally.
____________________
The Lord is near to all who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him in Truth -- Psalm 145:18
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1869 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 4th, 2008 07:06 pm |
|
Abortion is an issue of such paramount importance that anyone who espouses this "legal right" is, in my opinion, disqualified from office. Would we say, "Adolf Hitler is a good candidate, except for his espousal of the Final Solution, which is troublesome. I don't wanna be a one-issue voter, though". Or, "Mr. Smith is a great candidate; his only problem that gives me slight pause, is that he is a KKK member and once participated in a lynching." Those issues are regarded as disqualifiers or deal-breakers, no matter what else the candidate may stand for. Likewise, abortion and Democrats today. Murder is murder. Just because it is hidden and involves the smallest among us, who go right to the trash can (or the sewer), undetected and often unmourned, doesn't change that fact.
It's not so much Democrat vs. Republican as much as it is "pro-life and culture of life vs. pro-abortion and culture of death). I've voted or many Democrats on the state level who were pro-life. If a Democrat was running for President and was pro-life, and the Republican wasn't, everyone knows who I'd vote for. But the fact is, that most Democrats on a national level are pro-aborts. We didn't create that reality. They did. They chose to become more and more hostile to Christian moral values, and it has cost them dearly, though, sadly, they still win elections.
I could go on and on about this but I'll simply post links to two papers of mine:
How on Earth Can Christians Vote for Pro-Abortion Candidates?
Fr. Paul Ward: Catholics May NOT Vote For Pro-Abortion Politicians
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Cindy
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 42 |
| First Name: | Cindy | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Catholic convert |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 5th, 2008 12:55 am |
|
Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics
Catholic Answers Action
Second Edition
How This Voter's Guide Helps You
If you take your Catholic faith seriously then this voter's guide is for you. It will help you cast your vote in an informed manner consistent with Catholic moral teaching and fundamental human rights. This guide will help you tell the difference between candidates' positions that are morally acceptable and ones that are so contrary to fundamental moral principles that they are inconsistent with public service.
On most issues that come before voters or legislators, the task is selecting the most effective policy to implement or apply a moral principle. Good Catholics must embrace the principle, but most of the time there isn't a specifically "Catholic position" on the best way to implement that principle.
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.
As the Holy See has pointed out: "Democracy must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society" (CPL 3).
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.
You should avoid to the greatest extent possible voting for candidates who endorse or promote intrinsically evil policies. As far as possible, you should vote for those who promote policies in line with moral law.
In many elections there are situations where all of the available candidates take morally unacceptable positions on one or more of the non-negotiable issues.
In such situations, a citizen will be called upon to make tough choices. In those cases, citizens must vote in the way that will most limit the harm that would be done by the available candidates.
In this guide we will look first at the principles that should be applied in clear-cut races, where there is an unambiguously good moral choice. These same principles help lay the groundwork for what to do in situations that are more difficult.
Knowing the principles that are applied in ideal situations is useful when facing problematic ones, so as you review the principles you should keep in mind that they often must be applied in situations where the choice is more difficult. At the end of the guide we will offer practical advice about how to decide to cast your vote in those cases.
Your Role As A Catholic Voter
Catholics have a moral obligation to promote the common good through the exercise of their voting privileges (CCC 2240). It is not only civil authorities who have responsibility for a country. "Service of the common good require[s] citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community" (CCC 2239). This means citizens should participate in the political process at the ballot box.
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.
The Five Non-Negotiable Issues
These five issues concern actions that are intrinsically evil and must never be promoted by the law. (For information on additional issues, see the appendix at the end of this guide.) Intrinsically evil actions are those that fundamentally conflict with the moral law and can never be performed under any circumstances. It is a serious sin to deliberately endorse or promote any of these actions, and no candidate who really wants to advance the common good will support any action contrary to the non-negotiable principles involved in these issues.
1. Abortion
The Church teaches that, regarding a law permitting abortions, it is "never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it" (EV 73). Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore, it is a form of homicide.
The unborn child is always an innocent party, and no law may permit the taking of his life. Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest, the fault is not the child's, who should not suffer death for others' sins.
2. Euthanasia
Often disguised by the name "mercy killing," euthanasia is also a form of homicide. No person has a right to take his own life, and no one has the right to take the life of any innocent person.
In euthanasia, the ill or elderly are killed, by action or omission, out of a misplaced sense of compassion, but true compassion cannot include intentionally doing something intrinsically evil to another person (EV 73).
3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Human embryos are human beings. "Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo" (CRF 4b).
Recent scientific advances show that medical treatments that researchers hope to develop from experimentation on embryonic stem cells can often be developed by using adult stem cells instead. Adult stem cells can be obtained without doing harm to the adults from whom they come. Thus there is no valid medical argument in favor of using embryonic stem cells. And even if there were benefits to be had from such experiments, they would not justify destroying innocent embryonic humans.
4. Human Cloning
"Attempts . . . for obtaining a human being without any connection with sexuality through 'twin fission,' cloning, or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union" (RHL 1:6).
Human cloning also involves abortion because the "rejected" or "unsuccessful" embryonic clones are destroyed, yet each clone is a human being.
5. Homosexual "Marriage"
True marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recognition of any other union as "marriage" undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement.
"When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral" (UHP 10).
Which Political Offices Should I Worry About?
Laws are passed by the legislature, enforced by the executive branch, and interpreted by the judiciary. This means you should scrutinize any candidate for the legislature, anyone running for an executive office, and anyone nominated for the bench. This is true not only at the national level but also at the state and local levels.
True, the lesser the office, the less likely the office holder will take up certain issues. Your city council, for example, will not vote on the legality of abortion but may take up issues connected with local abortion clinics. It is important that you evaluate candidates in light of each non-negotiable moral issue that will come before them in the offices they are seeking.
Few people achieve high office without first holding a lower office. Some people become congressional representatives, senators, or presidents without having been elected to a lesser office. But most representatives, senators, and presidents started their political careers at the local level. The same is true for state lawmakers. Most of them began on city councils and school boards and worked their way up the political ladder.
Tomorrow's candidates for higher offices will come mainly from today's candidates for lower offices. It is therefore prudent to apply comparable standards to local candidates. One should seek to elect to lower offices candidates who support Christian morality so that they will have a greater ability to be elected to higher offices where their moral stances may come directly into play.
How To Determine A Candidate's Position
1. The higher the office, the easier this will be. Congressional representatives and senators, for example, have repeatedly seen these issues come before them and so have taken positions on them. Often the same can be said at the state level.
In either case, learning a candidate's position can be as easy as reading newspaper or magazine articles, looking up his views on the Internet, or studying one of the many printed candidate surveys that are distributed at election time.
2. It is often more difficult to learn the views of candidates for local offices, because few of them have an opportunity to consider legislation on such things as abortion, cloning, and the sanctity of marriage. But these candidates, being local, can often be contacted directly or have local campaign offices that will explain their positions.
3. If you cannot determine a candidate's views by other means, do not hesitate to write directly to the candidate, asking for his position on the issues covered above.
How Not To Vote
1. Do not just vote based on your political party affiliation, your earlier voting habits, or your family's voting tradition. Years ago, these may have been trustworthy ways to determine whom to vote for, but today they are often not reliable. You need to look at the stands each candidate takes. This means that you may end up casting votes for candidates from more than one party.
2. Do not cast your vote based on candidates' appearance, personality, or "media savvy." Some attractive, engaging, and "sound-bite-capable" candidates endorse intrinsic evils, while other candidates, who may be plain-looking, uninspiring, and ill at ease in front of cameras, endorse legislation in accord with basic Christian principles.
3. Do not vote for candidates just because they declare themselves Catholic. Unfortunately, many self-described Catholic candidates reject basic Catholic teaching.
4. Do not choose among candidates based on "What's in it for me?" Make your decision based on which candidates seem most likely to promote the common good, even if you will not benefit directly or immediately from the legislation they propose.
5. Do not vote for candidates who are right on lesser issues but who will vote wrongly on key moral issues. This was underscored by Pope John Paul II regarding the life issues: "The common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights -- for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture -- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination" (Christifideles Laici 38). One candidate may have a record of voting in line with Catholic values except, say, for 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.
How To Vote
1. For each office, first determine how each candidate with a real -- even if unlikely -- chance of winning stands on each issue that will come before him and involves non-negotiable moral principles.
2. Rank the candidates according to how well their positions align with these non-negotiable moral principles.
3. Give preference to candidates who do not propose positions that contradict these principles.
4. Where every candidate endorses positions contrary to non-negotiable principles, choose the candidate likely to do the least harm. If several are equal, evaluate them based on their views on other, lesser issues.
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: Rather, it is an action aimed at limiting the evil, and an action that limits evil is good. 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, n.4).
Catholics must strive to put in place candidates, laws, and political programs that are in full accord with non-negotiable moral values. Where an ideal 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 while continuing to work toward better candidates, laws, and programs in the future.
The Role Of Your Conscience
Conscience is like an alarm. It warns you when you are about to do something that you know is wrong. It does not itself determine what is right or wrong. For your conscience to work properly, it must be properly informed -- that is, you must inform yourself about what is right and what is wrong. Only then will your conscience be a trusted guide.
Unfortunately, today many Catholics have not formed their consciences adequately regarding key moral issues. The result is that their consciences do not "sound off" at appropriate times, including on Election Day.
A well-formed conscience will never contradict Catholic moral teaching. For that reason, if you are unsure where your conscience is leading you when at the ballot box, place your trust in the unwavering moral teachings of the Church. (The Catechism of the Catholic Church is an excellent source of authentic moral teaching.)
. . .
Appendix
Other Political Issues
This voter's guide focuses on five non-negotiable issues. These were selected because they involve principles that never admit of exceptions and because they are currently being debated in U.S. politics, giving voters the opportunity to influence these issues through the candidates they elect. The guide does not focus on issues that do not meet the tests of non-negotiability and being "in play" politically.
Issues That Are Not Non-Negotiable
Some issues allow for a diversity of opinion, and Catholics are permitted leeway in endorsing or opposing particular policies. This is the case with the questions of when to go to war and when to apply the death penalty. Though the Church urges caution regarding both of these issues, it acknowledges that the state has the right to employ them in some circumstances (CCC 2309, 2267).
Pope Benedict XVI, when he was still Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, spoke of this in a document dealing with when Catholics may receive Communion:
"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia" (WRHC 3).
The same is true of many other issues that are the subject of political debate: the best way to help the poor, to manage the economy, to protect the environment, to handle immigration, and to provide education, health care, and retirement security. Catholics may legitimately take different approaches to these issues. While the underlying principles (such as solidarity with the poor) are non-negotiable, the specific applications being debated politically admit of many options and so are not "non-negotiable" in the sense that this guide uses the term.
Issues That Are Not "In Play" Politically
These are additional issues that are non-negotiable but that are not "in play" politically. These may be evils that American politicians are not presently tackling, such as contraception (CCC 2370), or evils that they are not presently advocating, such as genocide (CCC 2313). Unlike the five non-negotiables listed in the main part of this guide, Catholic voters generally do not have the ability to influence these issues through the lawmakers they elect because of the lack of debate among politicians.
Abbreviations
CCC Catechism of the Catholic Church
CPL Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Notes on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life
CRF Pontifical Council for the Family, Charter of the Rights of the Family
EV John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life)
RHL Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation
UHP Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons
WRHC Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles
____________________
The Lord is near to all who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him in Truth -- Psalm 145:18
|
|
|
Current time is 01:10 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
