Black Catholics And Voting

[Dave]

In this country, studies show the majority of blacks vote Democrat. Likewise, only a small minority of blacks is Catholic. Of course, we know the Democrats are generally pro-abortion, and it's a mortal sin to knowingly vote for pro-abortion candidates. I can't help but wonder -- are black Catholics more likely to vote Democrat or pro-life (even if the pro-life candidate isn't a Democrat)?

[dUSt]

I suppose they vote just like white people... for whoever looks better on TV.

[hyperdulia again]

i don't think black people are more likely to be pro-choice...i think other issues inform their voting...if i may put my 1/64 of an african american cent in.

[Chrysologus]

it's a mortal sin to knowingly vote for pro-abortion

Disagree. Prove this to me.

[jasJis]

Yes. I think black Catholics might tend to vote a certain way because of their particualar social culture (not just racial culture). My mostly white family up north tend to be Democrats while those who live in the south are mostly Republican. Societal influences are powerful because they influence the core nature of humans. The struggle is always keeping in mind we have a spiritual nature that is more important that our societal one. We have to reference our relation with God as being more important that our relationship in society.

[ironmonk]

Around 45 years ago, a group of republicans were found to be in the KKK. Hence, that's a major factor in the way blacks have voted in the past... also something to note, the majority of blacks that came over here on slave ships were Catholic.

Now, there are many democrooks in the kkk...also, I found that most of the racial bigots that I know are democrook, but they normally don't open up about that tidbit of info.

Catholics must vote pro-life. Any Catholic who votes anti-life, the baby's blood is on thier hands.

____________________________

Our Holy Father John Paul II has stated that “abortion and euthanasia are crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it.’" (The Gospel of Life, no. 73) [emphasis added].

Thus, we see that politicians who vote in favor of laws that legalize the crimes of abortion or euthanasia are guilty of committing a gravely immoral act. In order for an immoral act to be considered a mortal sin, three conditions must be met: 1) It must be a serious matter; 2) committed with full knowledge of its seriousness; and 3) done freely and willfully. Therefore, if a politician votes in this manner and does so knowing that it goes against the law of God, and it is done freely and willingly, then he or she is guilty of mortal sin. It seems reasonable to conclude that most Catholic politicians are aware that a public "pro-choice" position goes directly contrary to Church teaching.

Some pro-abortion politicians — and the voters who support them — attempt to co-opt the “lesser of two evils” principle by reasoning that some pro-life candidates fail to adequately support laws protecting the poor or the elderly, as if those issues are more important than the pro-life issue. But as John Paul II makes quite clear: “It is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (cf. Rom 3:8) … even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general” (Veritatis splendor, nos. 71-83).

Now, where does that leave us as voters? Are we guilty of mortal sin if we vote for these people who clearly and openly state that they are "pro-choice" and intend to vote that way when in public office?

Let us look at how Pope John Paul II explains what it means when we cooperate in evil actions. “Such cooperation [in evil] occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it. This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it. Each individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts which he personally performs; no one can be exempted from this responsibility, and on the basis of it everyone will be judged by God himself” (cf. Rom 2:6; 14:12) (The Gospel of Life, no. 74) [emphasis added].

So, it would seem that if we share knowingly and willfully in the immoral intention of a lawmaker who openly and freely promotes the killing of innocent unborn children or sick or dying persons, then we run the risk of being guilty of mortal sin. It is scandalous to think that any Catholic, or Christian for that matter, could vote for a pro-abortion candidate when there is another in the same race who is pro-life. And yet, they do. Why is this happening?

Often we find that Catholics are not informing themselves properly before going to the polls. Sometimes even our own church bulletins have been used to promote pro-choice candidates. Read more carefully. Become informed! It would be different if there were two pro-abortion candidates. In that situation, we must vote for the one who comes closest to living the full Gospel of Life, but when it is a matter of choosing between two, where one is pro-life and the other "pro-choice," then we must always choose pro-life. There is no escape from this moral responsibility before God.

At present in our country, abortion takes the lives of over 4,000 unborn children every day and over 1.5 million each year. When we stand before God, will we want to say that we took any part in that? Think about it when you go to vote

_____________________________________

http://www.cathinsight.com/morality/

Catholic morality, the only true standard of right and wrong, has been under attack from all sides. Numerous issues come up that all touch on the dos and don'ts given to us by the natural law and reinforced and specially revealed by Our Most Holy Lord, Jesus Christ.

Morality concerns how we live in the world what we believe. As Catholics, we are in the world, not of the world. Hence, we must confront today's challenges and respond to them in the way we have been taught by Divine Revelation.

Morality is also intrinsically connected with politics. Some people believe, wrongly, that politics and religion do not go together. How deceived they are! As Catholics, we have the obligation to be politically active and let our convictions be manifest in the political decisions we make (obviously, this concerns most especially people who have been elected to public office, but also us voters). Real Catholics cannot be political liberals, for instance, nor can they ever, under the pain of mortal sin, vote for a pro-abortion candidate, if there is a pro-Life candidate to choose from.

As things are today, there are many deceptive evils in the world. Not all evil is easily apparent. For instance, the Girl Scouts, the United Nations, UNICEF, the March of Dimes, and Disney--these are all inconspicuous organizations that work iniquity in one way or another.

The United Nations are incredible threat. Many people don't realize this because the U.N. markets itself as a peace-keeping force that wishes all people to live in harmony with each other. But the reality is quite different: the U.N. wants a global government, world domination, global taxes, a global court system, a global New Age religion, unrestricted abortion, citizenship for animals and plants and full recognition of these as equal to human beings (I am not kidding you!), full legalization of homosexual marriage and lifestyle, legalization of pedophilia (sex with children), prohibition of private gun ownership, and more.

In short, if the U.N. has its way, this would be the end of civilization as we know it. Goodbye, Catholic Church. Goodbye, Christian civilization. Goodbye, life. Goodbye, dignity. Goodbye, freedom.

As a little intro, take a look at the pop quiz Six Shockers about the United Nations. Will you pass? You can view or download it in Adobe Acrobat PDF format here.

If you still think I'm out of my mind or that I'm a conspiracy theorist, some extreme right-wing whacko, I challenge you to find out the truth yourself! The threat of the United Nations is extremely serious and real. The U.N. is a wicked organization. To prove it further, I challenge you to read the following article:

Please go to this link... learn about AOL's evils and some others...

http://www.cathinsight.com/morality/

God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary

ironmonk

Edited August 1, 2003 by ironmonk

[jasJis]

Some pro-abortion politicians — and the voters who support them — attempt to co-opt the “lesser of two evils” principle by reasoning that some pro-life candidates fail to adequately support laws protecting the poor or the elderly, as if those issues are more important than the pro-life issue. But as John Paul II makes quite clear: “It is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (cf. Rom 3:8) … even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general” (Veritatis splendor, nos. 71-83).

Now, where does that leave us as voters? Are we guilty of mortal sin if we vote for these people who clearly and openly state that they are "pro-choice" and intend to vote that way when in public office?

Let us look at how Pope John Paul II explains what it means when we cooperate in evil actions. “Such cooperation [in evil] occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it. This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it. Each individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts which he personally performs; no one can be exempted from this responsibility, and on the basis of it everyone will be judged by God himself” (cf. Rom 2:6; 14:12) (The Gospel of Life, no. 74) [emphasis added].

IronMonk,

I agree with everything in your post except how you explain this part. If one truly belived the lesser of two evil was to vote for a pro-abortion canidate, they might not be committing a mortal sin. The real litmus test would be the full and rationally formed conscience (not just a gut feeling) that the Good the pro-abortion canidate would be doing would outweigh the evil of abortion.

That's not the wide open door that many Catholics think it is. You have to seriously consider the entire moral and social consenquences of pro-abortion laws. You would have to seriously consider the moral and social consenquences of the supposed Good that the pro-abortion candidate intends to accomplish as well as the likelyhood they will accomplish it. Abortion is happening now.

To trade off an actually occuring evil, the likelyhood of the possible good to offset it must be very, very likely.

The other scenario, of lesser of two evils requires the same thoughtful and in-depth consideration. One must make themselves fully aware of the broad scope of the evils of abortion. The damage done to society and valuing of life, the damage done to how society views women, the emotional and physical toll on women, etc. These are real evils occuring. The percieved greater evil must be investigated. Are those evils real or just a spin put on by opponents? Are you just hearing the science from one side and not an opposing view?

If all this seems like too much work or effort, what do you think God meant when he wants us to love Him with all our heart, all our soul, and all our mind.

[ironmonk]

Not my words, found on a catholic site.

Forgot to post the link:

http://www.geocities.com/kofc11618/prolifevoting.htm

Here is a google search with much more:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-...vote+sin+mortal

God Bless,

ironmonk

[Norseman82]

I think the problem is that a lot of Catholics don't put pro-life at the top of their

priority list. It doesn't matter what race we are.

Perhaps the question should be rephrased to practicing Catholics.

[Jake Huether]

I hate democrat v. republican debates.

In the most enlightening words of one of the priests at my Church.

"you're stupid if you vote based on a party."

It doesn't matter the party member. What matters is his/her stance on issues. If it's a pro-death repub, then don't vote for him. If it's a pro-life dem. Vote. The opposite is true.

[Chrysologus]

The real litmus test would be the full and rationally formed conscience (not just a gut feeling) that the Good the pro-abortion canidate would be doing would outweigh the evil of abortion.

Exactly, especially considering there are plenty of candidates for various offices whose stances on abortion won't make a bit of difference, but their stances on something else might, so I'll vote based on what I think is better for the common good on that issue.

[jasJis]

Exactly, especially considering there are plenty of candidates for various offices whose stances on abortion won't make a bit of difference, but their stances on something else might, so I'll vote based on what I think is better for the common good on that issue.

But Chrys (that's so cooler than defenderIXOYE and easier to type),

Their stance does make a lot of difference. The difference might not be immdiate, but I look at it long term. If too many pro-abort canidates are in office, anti-abortion laws don't even get a chance to be discussed. Plus, their stance is publically known and gives less careful voters the idea that it's okay to vote for abortion.

Abortion won't go away by law if nobody in office feels the need for it to go. Abortion won't go away by law alone. Politicians need to see the long view to get rid of abortion by being supportive of reformed adoption laws, reformed foster parent laws, better services from the Childhood Protection agencies. How about better childcare for single working women instead of having screwed up laws that make it more financially feasible for them to go on welfare instead of having assistance while they work. How about laws that make it easier for women to get men to have to pay for child support. How about laws that require a male parent search or laws that give equal rights to the father to block abortion?

There is so much more to the abortion problem than just going along to getting along. Maybe anti-abortion politicians won't change things in 5 years, but we've had legal abotion for decades. We don't need legal abortion for a century.

[ryanmeyersmusic]

why would voting for a pro-abortion candidate be any more a mortal sin than a pro-death penalty candidate? or a pro-homosexual unions candidate?

[ironmonk]

I hate democrat v. republican debates. 

In the most enlightening words of one of the priests at my Church.

"you're stupid if you vote based on a party."

It doesn't matter the party member.  What matters is his/her stance on issues.  If it's a pro-death repub, then don't vote for him.  If it's a pro-life dem.  Vote.  The opposite is true.

I disagree.

When looking at the main stances of both parties, and paying attention to what the main stances are: the logical choice is Rep.

Death penalty is bad, but how many people actually get put to death each year verse the 40,000,000 babies that die each year.

It's the democrooks that want to take God out of everything.

God Bless,

ironmonk