Voting Catholic Doesn't Just Mean Voting For Mccain

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='philothea' post='1681623' date='Oct 20 2008, 03:54 AM']Good points. I just wish that they were on the ballots in all states. I don't think either Baldwin or Keys will be available in IL.[/quote]
Keyes only made it on the ballot in 3 states: FL, CA, and CO, I think.

[Akalyte]

Liberals democrats are both america's worst enemies and the church's worst enemies. Think about them being in power. They oppose traditional family and moral values. They will undo all the great work weve done in this country. They might even strong arm us into a corner.

[LouisvilleFan]

I'm still considering a Ron Paul write-in. Being in Kentucky, Obama has no chance at winning my state (we haven't seen a wiff of any candidates since the primaries!), and while I'm no Ron Paul fanboy, I do like some of his ideas and writing him in would be a vote of support for his approach to politics and running our country.

I think it would've be fun if McCain showed a little personality on Letterman by announcing that he's "giving up" Kentucky along with Michigan

[MissyP89]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1681817' date='Oct 20 2008, 02:43 AM']While I agree with you to an extent, Catholics also have the moral responsibility to keep a pro-choice candidate from obtaining office.[/quote]

I agree, however I have to disagree with what you imply. The way I'm reading this, you're suggesting that we [i]must[/i] vote for John McCain, which simply isn't true. Any vote not for Obama will keep him a little further from the White House, no matter who that vote goes to, IMO.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Akalyte' post='1681829' date='Oct 20 2008, 03:49 AM']Liberals democrats are both america's worst enemies and the church's worst enemies. Think about them being in power. They oppose traditional family and moral values. They will undo all the great work weve done in this country. They might even strong arm us into a corner.[/quote]

[FSM Sister]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1681681' date='Oct 20 2008, 12:14 AM']Just because Palin is pro-life does not mean she is a worthy candidate. She agrees with us on the most basic issue, but she may be completely incompetent when it comes to economy or other issues.[/quote]


She is completely competent. If she was an idiot, the other governors would have ridiculed her to death by now. Instead, they voted her to preside over their energy commission. She handles everything dished out to her. Even fmr president Clinton says she's a quick study. Hilary says the same. Everyone who has met her and really gotten to know her thinks she is capable. And everyone had to admit that she handled Biden pretty well in the debate considering she had 5 weeks to prepare and he's been at it for close to 3 decades.

Here's the more important question: Why in the world would we want a Pres and VP with absolutely no military experience, and the VP who has an abysmal foreign policy record (wrong about the invasion, wrong about the surge, wrong about Lebanon, wrong about returning power to the Iraqis, wrong about IRAN, wrong about Israel) running our country? Joe Biden is so tied to the credit card industry, and Obama is so tied to crooked interest groups like ACORN and Planned Parenthood, I can't trust them with girl scout cookie money.

Obama didn't keep his word about accepting public funding (and he even signed an agreement) so what makes you think he'd keep his word on his idiotic tax cuts? Or keep his word on anything else, for that matter. The only promises he keeps are the ones that deal with illegal dealings or murderous infanticide.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Akalyte' post='1681829' date='Oct 20 2008, 04:49 AM']Liberals democrats are both america's worst enemies[/quote]


hey buddy, in case you did not know they are Americans.


This may be a tricky point but in a representative democracy people are allowed to disagree with you.
[quote]and the church's worst enemies.[/quote]

ow about the Masons?

[quote]Think about them being in power.[/quote]

How [b]dare[/b] they be voted into office by popular support

[quote]They oppose traditional family and moral values.[/quote]

Which ones?

[quote]They will undo all the great work weve done in this country.[/quote]

I KNOW!

Like all those horrid liberals/progressives who went down and registered black Americans to vote and tried to end abusive child labour laws.

What great work have whatever group "weve" is supposed to represent done by itself?

No one political faction is responsible for all great work done in the US.



[quote]They might even strong arm us into a corner.[/quote]

Who is "us"?

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='MissyP89' post='1681873' date='Oct 20 2008, 11:51 AM']I agree, however I have to disagree with what you imply. The way I'm reading this, you're suggesting that we [i]must[/i] vote for John McCain, which simply isn't true. Any vote not for Obama will keep him a little further from the White House, no matter who that vote goes to, IMO.[/quote]

It depends on what state you are in. Here in Illinois, Obama is far in the lead. A vote that does not go toward McCain would not go toward the effort of keeping Obama out of office. In a state like Texas, however, where McCain is in the lead, a vote for a write-in or third party is morally permissible.

[MissyP89]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1681936' date='Oct 20 2008, 01:54 PM']It depends on what state you are in. Here in Illinois, Obama is far in the lead. A vote that does not go toward McCain would not go toward the effort of keeping Obama out of office. In a state like Texas, however, where McCain is in the lead, a vote for a write-in or third party is morally permissible.[/quote]

New Jersey is very similar to IL in its political leanings right now. I trust you, and I say this with no animosity, but can you cite where I am morally obliged to vote for McCain in my state?

To my knowledge, my responsibility is to 1) exercise my right to vote, and 2) vote in accordance with the Church's teachings on social/moral issues.

Voting for a third party fulfills both those requirements. I find it *extremely* hard to believe that voting for Barr, Keyes, or Baldwin would be as morally impermissible as voting for Obama. True, it won't help McCain win, but as long as I don't vote for Obama, I am not helping his cause.

[Didymus]

[quote name='Akalyte' post='1681829' date='Oct 20 2008, 05:49 AM']Liberals democrats are both america's worst enemies and the church's worst enemies.[/quote]

A liberal democrat is not theoretically pro-choice and and pro-homosexual unions. Those are both interest group pushed platforms.

Edited October 20, 2008 by Didymus

[HereticHunter10]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1681978' date='Oct 20 2008, 04:21 PM']A liberal democrat is not theoretically pro-choice and and pro-homosexual unions. Those are both interest group pushed platforms.[/quote]

Good point. Examples would include pro life liberal democrats like Bob Casey Jr and Tim Ryan. Historical examples would include Joe McCarthy (Red Scare) and JFK.

I have no problem with those kind of lib dems. They would not be considered social liberals like Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='MissyP89' post='1681967' date='Oct 20 2008, 02:32 PM']New Jersey is very similar to IL in its political leanings right now. I trust you, and I say this with no animosity, but can you cite where I am morally obliged to vote for McCain in my state?[/quote]

I cannot cite such a source. I am quoting others whom I trust, both on these phorums, as well as in other media: in addition to not voting for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil, we also have the moral obligation to prevent them from obtaining office.

Really, this seems pretty straight-forward to me. Yes, voting third-party is a good "means", but it has an evil "end" (Obama does not receive a "negative vote" in a vote for McCain). You are correct in asserting that you are not responsible for the bad effects of your good actions, but ... there is another option available to you. Voting for McCain is also a good means, with a good end* -- Obama receives a negative vote. In terms of prioritizing possible actions, while it is certainly permissible to perform a good action that unavoidably results in an evil end (according to the principle of double effect), we also have the responsibility to limit the evil effects of the means that we choose. [b]To put it another way, if I give you the choice between doing something good, that also results in a bad, and then doing something good that results in a good -- you had better pick the second, as it is objectively better.[/b]

* -- McCain may not support [b]everything[/b] that our Church supports. However, She (the Church) has also directed us to act with "prudential judgement" on the matter. Of note:

[list]
[*]"limit the harm done by such a law" ([i]Evangelium Vitae[/i], no. 73)
[*]"incremental improvements in the law are acceptable as steps toward the full restoration of justice" ([i]Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship[/i], no. 32)
[*]"There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable
position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.
Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to
advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental
moral evil" ([i]Forming Consciences[/i], no. 35)
[*]"In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that [b]all issues do not carry the same moral weight[/b]" ([i]Forming Consciences[/i], no. 37)
[/list]

We must recognize, first and foremost, that while other social issues are important, abortion is the defining issue of our times, that takes precedent over other unacceptable positions. We are called to "limit the harm done" and to make "incremental improvements" where no candidate supports the entirety of the Catholic Social Teaching. Indeed, I attended a lecture just the other day given by the Bishops' lobbyist in Illinois; he made the point that for a candidate to support all of the Church's teachings would constitute certain political suicide. Anyway, no perfect candidate exists! We must look at candidates, and the political system, as tools to accomplish the will of God. Problem is, we have to be patient about it, too.

Edited October 20, 2008 by mommas_boy

[HereticHunter10]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1681914' date='Oct 20 2008, 02:11 PM']hey buddy, in case you did not know they are Americans.


This may be a tricky point but in a representative democracy people are allowed to disagree with you.


ow about the Masons?



How [b]dare[/b] they be voted into office by popular support



Which ones?



I KNOW!

Like all those horrid liberals/progressives who went down and registered black Americans to vote and tried to end abusive child labour laws.

What great work have whatever group "weve" is supposed to represent done by itself?

No one political faction is responsible for all great work done in the US.





Who is "us"?[/quote]

"Us" is the faithful Catholic population who understand that politcians, like so many liberal democrats, cannot claim to be for the common good AND support abortion rights. Pope John Paul II would be my reference for that.

Most lib dems go against the teaching of traditional family values with their support of homosexual marriages and murder of the unborn.

True that No One faction is responsible, but they are a big part of the problem (they meaning lib dems).

Masons do smell of elderberries though.

[flip]

Voting for McCain is a cooperation with evil. He supports abortions in cases of rape and incest. and he supports murdering babies for science (embryonic stem cell research).


He is still ok with murdering babies. period.

Murdering babies doesn't get my vote.





third party all the way.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1682089' date='Oct 20 2008, 04:22 PM']I cannot cite such a source. I am quoting others whom I trust, both on these phorums, as well as in other media: in addition to not voting for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil, we also have the moral obligation to prevent them from obtaining office.

Really, this seems pretty straight-forward to me. Yes, voting third-party is a good "means", but it has an evil "end" (Obama does not receive a "negative vote" in a vote for McCain). You are correct in asserting that you are not responsible for the bad effects of your good actions, but ... there is another option available to you. Voting for McCain is also a good means, with a good end* -- Obama receives a negative vote. In terms of prioritizing possible actions, while it is certainly permissible to perform a good action that unavoidably results in an evil end (according to the principle of double effect), we also have the responsibility to limit the evil effects of the means that we choose. [b]To put it another way, if I give you the choice between doing something good, that also results in a bad, and then doing something good that results in a good -- you had better pick the second, as it is objectively better.[/b]

* -- McCain may not support [b]everything[/b] that our Church supports. However, She (the Church) has also directed us to act with "prudential judgement" on the matter. Of note:

[list]
[*]"limit the harm done by such a law" ([i]Evangelium Vitae[/i], no. 73)
[*]"incremental improvements in the law are acceptable as steps toward the full restoration of justice" ([i]Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship[/i], no. 32)
[*]"There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable
position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.
Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to
advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental
moral evil" ([i]Forming Consciences[/i], no. 35)
[*]"In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that [b]all issues do not carry the same moral weight[/b]" ([i]Forming Consciences[/i], no. 37)
[/list]

We must recognize, first and foremost, that while other social issues are important, abortion is the defining issue of our times, that takes precedent over other unacceptable positions. We are called to "limit the harm done" and to make "incremental improvements" where no candidate supports the entirety of the Catholic Social Teaching. Indeed, I attended a lecture just the other day given by the Bishops' lobbyist in Illinois; he made the point that for a candidate to support all of the Church's teachings would constitute certain political suicide. Anyway, no perfect candidate exists! We must look at candidates, and the political system, as tools to accomplish the will of God. Problem is, we have to be patient about it, too.[/quote]
34. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so
important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper
relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes
a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s
intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal
cooperation in grave evil. [b]At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s
opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other
important moral issues involving human life and dignity.[/b]

36. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the
conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the
extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation,
may decide to vote for the candidate
deemed less likely to advance such
a morally flawed position and more
likely to pursue other authentic
human goods.

Both are from [url="http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf"]http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf[/url]

Seeing as both John McCain and Barack Obama support the death of unborn children in some way, shape, or form, it is perfectly permissible to vote for a completely pro-life third party candidate.

Edited October 20, 2008 by fidei defensor