Presidential Campaign

I launched A Sensible Life back in June with the intent to write about authentic Catholic social teaching: gratuitousness, solidarity, subsidiarity and a distributed economy. My intent was and is to cover these subjects from a theoretical and practical standpoint. I want to write about public policy relative to these topics as well as writing about down to earth ways we can live these principles in our families and in the larger economy.

These topics still serve as the primary reason of being for A Sensible Life. Unfortunately, as I was launching A Sensible Life I failed to take into account the fact that we were entering into the prime season for what one could reasonably call the most important presidential campaign in the last several generations. Because of this presidential campaign, I have allowed myself to focus the attention of A Sensible Life on politics more than I would have otherwise liked. Please be patient with us. I will steer the ship back to more weighty and interesting matters. However, pardon me if I spend some more time now and in the next few weeks on the more imminent issues surrounding the presidential campaign.

That said, I feel the need to lay the cards on the table. Here goes. There is no moral or rational posturing that can justify a Catholic or other person of good will in not supporting Mitt Romney for president. That is to say, it is our moral obligation not only to vote against Barack Obama but to vote for Mitt Romney. How can I say that with absolute certainty? Here is how.

Moral absolutes: The first issues we must examine as discerning Christian electors are those non-negotiable issues involving intrinsic moral good and intrinsic moral evil. The moral absolutes at stake in this presidential election include: the defense of life from birth to natural death, the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman and the protection of each individual’s freedoms of religion and conscience. These are issues that touch upon the most basic rights of men and women in this country. They are incontrovertible and they trump all other issues.

On each one of these issues Mitt Romney’s position is without any question or doubt better than that of his opponent. His statements support this conclusion as do his actions. No amount of equivocating will get around this fact. No matter how many people repeat, “well, Romney isn’t perfect on these issues either”, the fact remains that Mitt Romney is substantively better on these issues. No amount of cynicism about the honesty of politicians will relieve us of the moral burden of acting upon this reality.

Matters of prudential judgment: There are other issues that women and men of good will may debate. These matters, subject to the conclusions of our well-formed prudent judgments, can include important issues like the death penalty, the most just and prudent way to engage in international policy and the application of Catholic social teaching to domestic policy. In a presidential election, these are important issues and should be issues upon which we form our political decisions so long as the are not trumped by issues of a higher magnitude.

However, in this particular presidential election all issues are trumped by those involving the moral absolutes. And, what is more, there may never have been an election like this one in the history of the United States: an election (a) that involved so many questions concerning moral good and evil and (b) in which there was so much clarity on each of these questions with regard to the positions of each of the candidates.

I just want to say one more thing about issues involving prudential judgment and that has to do with the question of Catholic social teaching. Many Catholics have taken the position during this presidential campaign that we are justified in voting for or even obligated to vote for Barack Obama because of what he has done with government money and policy in support of the poor. First, as I have said above, matters of prudential judgment cannot trump matters of moral imperative. However, this fact aside, these folks are simply wrong in their understanding of Catholic social teaching. Catholic social teaching (and Christian charity) tells us that we must care for those in need (the poor, the sick, the weak). We do not fulfill this obligation by passing it along to the government. To the extent the government takes my tax dollars to care for my brother, it robs me both of my freedom and my responsibility. Moreover, such activity by the national government is in direct opposition to the Christian principle of subsidiarity. This principle states (for purposes of this conversation) that the needy must be cared for by those closest to them; their brothers or very local institutions. The national government not only bungles such work but it de-humanizes the recipients of its efforts and robs others of the opportunity to fulfill their obligations in Christian charity.

In summary, there is no case in support of Barack Obama. On the contrary, we are morally obligated to oppose him and to support his opponent, Mitt Romney.

Comments

36 responses to “Presidential Campaign”

  1. Kurt Avatar

    I have obviously come to the opposite conclusion (not that any other person is obligated to vote my way, but that I perosnally, as a Catholic and regular communicant, have decided my vote will go for the President). Prudential judgment requires us to respect other’s judgments, even when they are contrary to our own. But if a voter is personally convinced of the merits of a particular policy, program or initiative, he needs to follow his prudent judgment.

    Many things are intrinsic evils. Racism, the killing of non-combatants, hate, lying, etc. That does not end the discussion as to the legal status of an act. Should all expressions of racism be a criminal act? It is disputable to say that two men entering a civil marriage is an instrinsic evil. The Church would say that an act of sodomy is an evil. In the past the Church has supported laws that call for jail time for homosexuals, but in recent years, not so much.

    Elections in democratic societies are a complex matter. Each Christian must try his or her best to discern the proper path.

    1. Foster Avatar
      Foster

      Kurt, here’s the excellent “A Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters”: http://www.knightsofdivinemercy.com/2012/09/06/a-brief-catechism-for-catholic-voters/. Rather simple and straight forward: We must act with an informed conscience.

    2. Mona Lisa Biberstein Avatar
      Mona Lisa Biberstein

      Thank you Mr. Anderson for writing this piece. I would like to respond to Kurt, however. As one who has done pro-life voters’ guides since 2002 citing 1st amendment rights and using a scripture, Catholic teachings, etc to create this guide, I try to “improve” my guides with each election.

      Because of the absolute critical election we are facing, I knew I had to delve more deeply into why we COULD NOT vote for President Obama, not just should not, or might not. I received a great informative piece on the NON-Negotiables and amended it somewhat and I call it Pope Quotes.

      On LIFE: Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004 letter to US Bishops: “…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. And Pope John Paul II in evangelism Vitae on abortion law: 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”. That being said, many Catholics might say but that’s their “opinion”.

      So we check what the Church laws tell us and Canon Law 1398 states in no uncertain terms that abortion is an excommunicable sin.

      Canon 1329 states that “accomplices” (anyone who facilitates that abortion – though theologians are still disagreeing as to who constitutes an accomplice) are subject to the same punishment.

      If the candidate claims he will institute unrestricted abortion, and you vote for him/his campaign, you DO become complicit (the degree of sin is, like any other sin, based on knowledge) to an excommunicable offense and could also be subject to that punishment of excommunication.

      “….the deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always evil from the moral point of view and can NEVER be lawful,”..Pope Benedict XVI Dec 19, 2008. No matter how you slice it, voting for Obama’s PROGRAM of abortion…is an intrinsic evil, and morally wrong AND (in my lowly opinion) a mortal sin, especially knowing full well that Pres Obama has not only openly supported abortion, but actively voted for a law that would allow not only unrestricted abortion (govt funded no less) but would ALSO allow the killing of a baby born alive in spite of the abortion. He not only voted NOT to give medical attention to that baby and allowing the baby to die “..lest we believe that the doctor is a murderer {hmmm}”, he did it 3 times! (actually after talking against that bill the first time, he didn’t even have the conviction of his own words and merely voted “present” – the next 2 votes on this subject, he voted against taking care of the baby. this is truly “priceless”.

      He has made public promises in his campaign speeches that supporting PP is of utmost importance to him (never mind that it violates our first amendment rights through the HHS mandate in Obamacare) –this IS his propaganda campaign that is …NEVER licit to obey, OR take part in a ….campaign in favor of a law, OR TO VOTE FOR IT!

      Shame on Catholics who refuse to understand these teachings (same for those in favor of same sex unions) and continue to vote for candidates who promise to provide these “intrinsic evils” but GREATER shame on the shepherds who do not teach true Catholic teachings on these subjects to their flock out of fear or ignorance. We must pray for our shepherds!!
      ps Kurt, all you have to do is google any of these words (abortion, non-negotiables, intrinsic evil etc) and you’ll get all kinds of information.

  2. Joe Anderson Avatar
    Joe Anderson

    Thank you for your comments, Kurt. Unfortunately, perhaps due to a failure of clarity on my part, you missed the point of the article. The point is this – there are certain issues that because they treat with moral issues that are both grave and clear-cut trump all other issues. I listed the three that are most at play in this presidential campaign.

    Life – because the taking of innocent human life for any reason is an objective moral evil and because, while Romney is squishy on the “life of the mother” exception, he opposes abortion in the vast majority of cases. President Obama, on the other hand, in conformity with the Democrat Party platform pledges to keep abortion legal in almost all cases (including partial birth abortion) and in fact has enacted policy requiring us as tax payers to support abortion.

    Marriage – because the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman is critical to the survival of marriage as the foundational unit of our society and culture, which, in turn is critical to the survival of our society and culture and because Romney stands in support of the defense of marriage while President Obama by his words and actions has unambiguously informed us that he supports the destruction of marriage as we know it (he has already abdicated his constitutional obligation to defend duly enacted law in the Defense of Marriage Act).

    Religious Freedom – because this fundamental human freedom (after the right to live) is the freedom that serves as the first foundation of all human freedoms and informs and guides our activities in living our other freedoms. You will, of course, be aware of the attacks the Obama Administration has leveled against religious freedom. I need say no more.

    The other issues you mention are important but (a) they don’t rise to the level of the moral absolutes I have listed and (b) we can prudently disagree about the impact this election will have upon them.
    For example, there is nothing objective to indicate that electing one candidate or another will impact in any way racism in America.
    You are correct in saying that Christians must employ discernment in the democratic process. I would simply add that this strenuous effort of discernment must be informed by sound moral teaching, that we must not allow our discernment to be swayed by subjective feelings and biases and that we must recognize the importance to our own souls of discerning well in the light of the Truth.

    1. Fr. Tony Avatar
      Fr. Tony

      Thanks for the clarity, Joe. Kurt says that we must use our “prudent judgement,” when voting, but you have made it clear that it would never be prudent to vote for a man who promotes abroad and within the United States the killing of innocent unborn human beings.

  3. Steve Avatar

    Kurt, while what you’ve said makes intuitive sense, Joe is correct and Church teaching is actually very clear on supporting political programs (including candidates) involving “non-negotiable issues”. Joe has done a great job of explaining the principles involved, but let me try to do so in different words. To cite one source of authoritative teaching, I would refer you to Bishop Olmsted’s pamphlet, “Catholics in the Public Square”.

    On p. 21 Bishop Olmsted addresses the question of whether all issues are equal in choosing a political candidate. He acknowledges important issues of immigration, education, affordable housing, health and welfare but then says:

    “When it comes to direct attacks on innocent human life, being right on all the other issues can never justify a wrong choice on this most serious matter.” He then quotes Pope John Paul II expressing the same concept in “Christifideles Laici”.

    On p. 22, Bishop Olmsted enumerates the non-negotiable issues for Catholics in politics, and they are as Joe describes. In this election, the most clear non-negotiable is the protection of life — specifically abortion. Barack Obama’s policies support the intrinsic evil that is abortion. Mitt Romney’s policies, while not completely consistent with Church teaching, will serve to limit the intrinsic evil of abortion. This trumps other (albeit important) issues that are matters of prudential judgment but are not among the non-negotiables.

    On these other matters of prudential judgment, the Church recognizes that people will have different opinions on how best to proceed and I agree with your statement that we have to discern and follow our own judgments. On p. 19 Bishop Olmsted describes circumstances when a Catholic person can disagree with Church hierarchy on the application of a Church teaching (again, these are in matters of prudential judgment). But he then emphasizes that other issues — the non-negotiables, including abortion — “are always wrong and do not allow for the correct use of prudential judgment to justify them.”

    So in order to follow this important Church teaching, one cannot vote for Obama.

    Kurt, I agree with you that we need to follow our prudent judgment; put another way, we are indeed compelled to follow our consciences. But I would assert that it is our obligation to properly form our consciences, which means to inform ourselves of what the Church teaches. While one doesn’t have to accept Church teaching, can one really deny Church teaching from an authoritative source and still be Catholic? I would say no.

  4. MatthewM Avatar
    MatthewM

    Joe’s procedure in the article is exactly right. He first lists the intrinsic evils or moral absolutes at stake in the election. According to Church teaching, the intrinsic evils are primary over the other issues in terms of morality. They are primary because the teaching about them is absolute and without exception. For the other issues it is not so. In other words, we are morally obligated to try to help the poor, but morality does not fix one way or the other. Both candidates state that they want to help the poor, and contrast on how to do it. The Church does teach that reasonable men can disagree and that we are not morally obligated to one plan or another of helping the poor. There is no Catholic endorsement of a political plan here because morality is no absolute towards one plan or another. But Joe does rightly point out that there is a morally absolute principle that does apply to this issue, which is written in the section on politics and economics in “Faithful Citizenship:” the principle of subsidiarity. According to this principle, if directs his energies to fulfill his human responsibilities to members of his community by establishing programs outside of his immediate, local community, then human participation in community is destroyed. The intrinsic evils are also primary for another reason: the gravity of the issue involved is more severe. Abortion is a much more grave evil than the personally difficulty one suffers from an inefficient tax code, for instance. The Church teaching clarifies that we cannot be moral and simultaneously vote for a candidate that supports an intrinsic evil when an alternative is present.

    The Church teaching is intended to form our consciences, so that we are morally sensible — so that we can have a morally sensible life. What the Church teaches on morality and politics is clear from reason when one thinks correctly, but the Church teaches it anyways because she knows how feeble our intellects can be due to the fall of man from grace. Again, the Church teaches to form our consciences. The Church’s teaches that the intrinsic evils are morally more significant. The moral issues involved in this election are as Joe listed pro-life from birth to death, homosexual “marriage,” religious freedom. When we turn to look at our candidates: Obama is wrong and Romney right on all three of the morally significant issues.

    And, of course, with abortion, it is not only the most grave of the intrinsic evils but it also is done in tremendous proportion. 1.4 million abortion per year, approx. 6 million during the next election just in the United States. 42,000 million worldwide each year. Obama supports this in a radical way.

    Once one thinks the moral issues (according to Church teaching) of this election through, the question is not which one of the candidates is the better moral choice. It is clearly Romney. The question is whether one is more attached to his Church’s moral teaching, or his political party.

    Thank you, Joe.

  5. Kurt Avatar

    You say that “Mitt Romney’s policies, while not completely consistent with Church teaching, will serve to limit the intrinsic evil of abortion.”

    That is a conclusion based on your judgment, which I presume is based on your best efforts of prudence. But it is not a fact. I think the man who said that no pro-life legislation is on his agenda will not in fact limit abortion. We may disagree, but that is because we have different prudent judgments. I actually believe that should Romney become President, the number of abortions would rise. Certainly those unborn lives killed by Mercury poisoning would rise under Romney firm policies there. History has shown predicting the actions of judicial appoitments is always somewhere between a prudent judgment and a crapshoot.

    As to the intrinsic evils of racism, hate, etc. your prudent judgment might tell you there will be no difference in the extent of these evils following the election. But if I am convinced (as I am) that the election of one candidate will result in these instrinsic evils being advanced, then it is my moral duty to act accordingly.

    I don’t pay much attention to the debate over marriage law. I know what the sacrament of marriage is. As for “marriage as we know it” in our civil society, I know that it is an arrangement that is most commonly contracted between a man and a woman with the right to dissolve it at the will of one party and with the intention of both parties to withhold the gift of fertility by contracepting during all or part of the duration of their marriage.

    1. Joe Anderson Avatar
      Joe Anderson

      Kurt,

      In 1984 President Reagan introduced the Mexico City Policy, ensuring that U.S. taxpayer funds would not be used to pay for abortions or advocate for or actively promote abortion abroad. This policy was overturned by President Clinton in 1993 and restored by President Bush in 2001. On January 23, 2009, 3 days after his inauguration, President Obama issued an executive order reversing this policy.

      I mention these facts to you to demonstrate two realities: (1) Obama and the Democrat party are a known quantity with regard to abortion, being aggressively and openly committed to promote abortion using taxpayer dollars both in the United States and abroad and (2) even if you don’t believe what Romney says about his position on abortion and even if he in fact does not champion legislative curbs on the killing of innocent life, it is abundantly clear that he will not further the cause of abortion “rights” and in fact he will most likely curb numbers abortions and abortion support through executive actions such as restoring the Mexico City Policy, removing government mandates for taxpayer and insurance company funding of abortion and appointing pro-constitution (and pro human being, pro conscience, and pro religious freedom) individuals to our court system (including the Supreme Court).

      I must say this in all charity, a refusal to admit that Romney is far superior to Obama on the issue of abortion appears to be nothing more than obfuscation, a deliberate attempt to muddy the otherwise crystal clear water.

      Here is my call to all Catholics, please, please approach this election with an open mind and an open heart! Fight all inclinations to pre-judgments and biases that reduce your freedom to make clear, rational, moral decisions.

      God bless,

      Joe

      1. Kurt Avatar

        The Mexico City Policy does not pertain to using taxpayer funds to pay for abortions. That has long been prohibited. What the policy says is that as the government puts out contracts for bid (contracts that do not fund abortion), non-profit groups that are involved with abortion using their private funds may not bid on these contracts. This can still be objectionable, but it is a different objection than the government funding an abortion program. (The policy only applied to a small part of government contracting).

        The argument for the MCP is based on many people’s prudential judgment that funding could be fungible or this could indirectly aid an organization that promotes abortion with its private money. Of course, the theory of the fungibility of funds is not a non-negotiable principle but a matter of prudential judgment.

        Others believe that government contracting should be merit based — i.e based on an objective process of which bidder is best able to carry out the contract at the lowest price to the taxpayer. This view fears that once the government starts banning groups from bidding on government contracts based on outside activities, all sort of actions against the public good could occur (i.e. the Church could be banned as many would argue that taxpayers should not be supporting a sectarian organization). Of course, some see this as also increasing the costs to taxpayers by not allowing what could be the cheapest bidder to bid.

        And then some are scandalized because the Republican Party has only sought to apply the MCP to non-profit groups bidding on certain government contracts. MCP policy supporters maintained perfect silence with the Bush Administration’s A-76 initiative that allowed for-profit government contractors to directly fund abortions with taxpayer money that would have not occurred without the Bush A-76 program. President Obama has ended the A-76 program.

        1. Joe Anderson Avatar
          Joe Anderson

          God bless you, Kurt. But if I may be so bold as to quote the president who created the Mexico City Policy, “Here you go again.” You are attempting to introduce obscurity where there is clarity. Fact – Republican presidents have and Romney likely will follow the Mexico City Policy – because they support life and do not want U.S. taxpayer funding (USAID funding) to go to organization that provide or promote abortion. Fact – Democratic presidents including our current incumbent do not support this restriction.

          A good historical analysis of the Mexico City Policy and related topics can be found in this article: http://www.lifenews.com/2011/07/21/house-bill-would-restore-mexico-city-policy-on-abortion/

          I find it interesting that President Obama himself on the White House web site has indicated that one of his primary reasons for overturning the policy was because its implementation has, “undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning programs in foreign nations.” You can find that quote here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/MexicoCityPolicy-VoluntaryPopulationPlanning.

          I disagree with you on the fungibility issue but I don’t want to get into that debate. Once again, we are arguing about grey areas around the fringe of the issue. A straightforward analysis of the abortion issue clearly indicates that Romney is substantively better on the issue than Obama. There is no reason to get lost in the weeds. I have already acknowledged that Romney is far from perfect on the issue but a cursory review of Obama’s actions and positions show him to be in favor of abortion on demand and responsible for national government funding for abortions. Here is one good source: http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/17/obama-criticized-for-misleading-voters-on-abortion-during-debate/.

          God bless,

          Joe

          1. Kurt Avatar

            Joe,

            I appreciate your revised statement that “Romney likely will follow the Mexico City Policy – because [he does not] want U.S. taxpayer funding (USAID funding) to go to organization that provide or promote abortion.”

            That corrects your earlier misstatement about taxpayer funding paying for abortions, to clarify that the issue is taxpayer funding of services other than abortion by organizations that are involved with abortion in their privately funded activities. That was my point, and I appreciate your revision.

            President Obama did say that the MCP “undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning programs in foreign nations.”

            He may be correct in that, I don’t know. Obama joins President Bush and Governor Romney in supporting US funding for voluntary family planning programs in foreign nations. Rigging the bidding process for these contracts rather than awarding them based solely on merit could undermine program effectiveness. If it actually did nor not, I don’t know.

            But I agree with you that we are arguing about gray areas around the fringe of the issue. This is a matter of prudential judgment.

            Governor Romney is out with a new campaign commercial that distances himself from the pro-life cause (his only ad to address abortion). His inconsistent statements on this issue simply lead many faithful Catholics to use our prudential judgment to evaluate if the policies of his Administration would save any unborn lives. Further doubts also come from that to get his “binders of women”, he turned exclusively to pro-abortion feminist groups for nominations, not speaking to a single pro-life or even abortion neutral women’s organization.

    2. Sayre Swarztrauber Avatar
      Sayre Swarztrauber

      Kurt:

      I’d like to ask a simple question. I think we mostly agree that Obama supports abortion. One strike against Obama vis-a-vis the Church. Does Romney support racism or killing of non-combatants? What intrinsic evil does Romney support?

      Sayre

  6. Kurt Avatar

    One further comment. Joe you speak of “the Democrat Party.” If you look at the registrations at the Federal Election Commission or the filings of the DC Registry of Corporations, there is no such organization. There have been focus groups paid for by the Republican Party that indicated misspeaking the Democratic Party’s name helps the Republican cause. But misspeaking another’s name (personal or corporate) is generally considered a sign of dehumanizing the other and, in this case, exposing oneself as partisan. I’m sure in your case it was a typo, but it could lead readers to the wrong conclusion.

    1. Joe Anderson Avatar
      Joe Anderson

      Kurt,

      I certainly intended to convey no disrespect of the Democratic Party by mistaking their official name. I think you will agree that I have been pointedly respectful of individuals and institutions even as I work to refute error. Thank your for the correction.

      1. Kurt Avatar

        Thank you. You have and I just didn’t want a minor error to be an impediment to those who would otherwise consider your writings.

        We don’t baptize organizations (even though I’ve heard some say that “corporations are people, too” 🙂 ) but the significance we give in baptism of the naming of the person is something that I have always found as an affirmation of Christian and human dignity. Just as the unfortunate practice under Jim Crow of calling men of one race “boy” rather than by their name was a contrary act.

  7. Steve Avatar

    Kurt, the question is which candidate will do more to limit the intrinsic evil of abortion. Yes, we need our judgment to assess this, but I don’t see any evidence to suggest that it is Obama. Obama is for virtually no restriction on abortion whereas Romney has said he would limit it to certain circumstances. I’m not sure how one can come to a conclusion other than that Romney will do more to limit the evil of abortion than Obama.

    Also, I know that the appointment of judges can be unpredictable, but do you really think that there’s any chance Romney would appoint justices that are more sympathetic to abortion than those Obama would appoint? I think the chance of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade is much higher with whoever Romney would appoint than who Obama would appoint. Yes, that’s a judgment I’ve made, but I’d be surprised to hear a compelling argument in the other direction.

    Lastly, you bring up the racism and hate and I agree that these are evils. However, as pointed out by Joe, Matthew, and others, these issues are secondary to matters of life when it comes to Catholics supporting a particular political program or candidate. This concept, it seems to me, is the very crux of Joe’s essay on Catholic teaching.

    1. Arni Avatar

      I just had a meeting with our local parish priest with regards this very topic. I cannot place my vote with Pres. Obama. Here are my problems with simply voting for “the opponent”, in this case, Mr. Romney. His record doesn’t show him to be “less of two evils”:

      Under RomneyCare, Massachusetts’ health care plan which Mr. Romney drafted, a woman can receive an abortion on demand for $50. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/nov/27/fred-thompson/indeed-abortions-are-covered/ see also the Massachusetts State site on Commonwealth Care and search: Abortion

      If social programs like public health care are not supposed to be governmental programs, again Mr. Romney flunks the test. It was his idea and he not only helped to draft it, he appointed three of the people on its board.

      What sort of judge would Mr. Romney submit for our federal Supreme Court? From his own website: http://www.mittromney.com/issues/courts-constitution He would support for nomination justices in the mold of Justice Roberts, who was the deciding vote upholding ObamaCare.

      How pro-life is he? It must depend on who he’s talking with: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/09/romney_and_abortion.html

      This is what I’ve concluded: Voting for either candidate will not stop abortion; it will not ensure (possibly three) supreme court justice nominations which could over-turn Roe v Wade; history of Republican presidencies indicate an increase in abortion procedures; history of Republican presidencies indicate cuts to social programs which help women who choose to keep their children.

      Will I vote for Mr. Romney. No. Can I vote for Pres. Obama? No.

      I’m all for further conversation on these matters. I am a practicing Catholic who takes our beautiful faith with me to the voting booth. Comments appreciated!

      1. Steve Avatar

        Romney is not the perfect pro-life candidate — I think we all get that. But the notion that Romney and Obama would have an equivalent impact on the unborn seems absurd to me. There are no guarantees, but read the respective partty platforms — which one gives the unborn a better chance?

        Do you really think Romney would be a lock to nominate a pro-choice Supreme Court justice? Really? There’s not a better chance a Romney nominee would be better for the unborn than an Obama nominee? I think there’s a very high probablity that Romney’s nominee(s) would be more favorable, so we need to make that happen rather than register a protest vote in hopes it might somehow help in the future.

        Your disappointment with the shortfalls in Romney’s stance on life seem to have blinded you that while okay is worse than good, okay is a lot better than the savage anti-life stance of Mr. Obama and his administration.

        Think of this example: a nursery school is on fire and children are trapped inside. The incumbant fire department refuses to do anything to save the children. The fire department in the next village looks like they might save some of the children, but you’re not sure how many. The fire department across the state (Constitution party) would save them all, but they can’t get here in time to save ANY of these kids. Who will you call on? Are you telling me you will prevent some children from possibly being saved by choosing the one who can’t possibly get here in time? I am not willing to do that. It seems like you have 3 choices but really you only have 2 choices at this moment.

        The 2012 election is like this particular nursery school fire. We need to do what we can right now, because these kids need us. We can arrange to hire the better fire department (Constitution party, or better Republican candidate) later, in time for the next fire.

        Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the children.

    2. Kurt Avatar

      Kurt, the question is which candidate will do more to limit the intrinsic evil of abortion. Yes, we need our judgment to assess this, but I don’t see any evidence to suggest that it is Obama.

      Then you should judge Romney the better candidate on this issue, following the evidence you see.

  8. Blair Avatar
    Blair

    JMJ+OBT

    I agree with Dr. Alan Keyes’ assessment of this election, and with his proposed approach to it that he outlines on his blog (www.loyaltoliberty.com)

    For all I can see, Mitt Romney has done little more than pay lip service to the non-negotiable moral issues. His record is actually very alarming to me. As governor of Massachusetts, he imposed: socialized medicine, $50 co-pay government funded abortions, conscience-violating requirements for Catholic hospitals to dispense so-called “emergency contraception,” legal recognition of same sex marriage, and preferential consideration for adoption to same sex couples.

    Additionally, he has expressed nothing but pride in this record, and in the days prior to receiving the GOP nomination, he publicly disavowed the GOP platform with regards to the sanctity of life. He has joined with elitist faction GOP leadership in trying to destroy Todd Akins senatorial campaign–a man who, despite his unfortunate choice of words, actually takes the GOP platform seriously. Akins’ successful bid will give Republicans a Senate majority. Finally, we witnessed at the GOP Convention breathtaking corruption in the SCRIPTED rules change that will silence grassroots moral conservatives from having any appreciable voice in guiding the direction of the party. This travesty, in addition to multiple reports I have read about dishonest skewing in favor of Romney the results of various primary races leading up to the Convention, gives me no confidence whatever that Romney will be any less of a danger to the good of our Republic and its moral soul. In fact, I fear that, given his record, if allowed to be cast as a moral conservative, Romney may lead us into Socialism more surely and with less opposition than Obama would face.

    This concern is germane to the present moral discussion, because morally strong families and morally responsible individuals are antithetical to Socialism. Socialists cannot make inroads in a morally sound society, because the Principle of Subsidiarity becomes operative and infused with vivifying vigor that makes government intervention in these important areas of prudential judgment superfluous. Romney’s record is not one of vigorous support and defense of a morally strong society. The grassroots conservative base of the GOP has been told that their function is to support with their votes whatever “alternative” the elites offer them to the unapologetic evil that Obama represents. I believe there is a better way.

    When I first read the Constitution Party’s platform, I could find nothing at variance with Catholic teaching, save that its position on capital punishment is not as nuanced. Thus, I will support Virgil Goode and James Clymer in the presidential/vice presidential election, because I will not have to abandon the pro life principle as I would have to do to support Romney. Pro lifers do nothing to teach politicians to hold fast to principle where the sanctity of life is concerned when they demonstrate a willingness to compromise on principle themselves. One of my favorite things Blessed Teresa of Calcutta said was to the effect that God asks us to be faithful, not successful. Romney does not represent my deepest convictions as a Catholic or as an American. The Constitution Party ticket does. Obama’s success or failure in his bid for re-election is the burden of those who support him, not of those who do not. If I support Romney, then every innocent child who is given the death penalty for the crime of his father (who himself cannot be subjected to that same penalty) will be, in part, my doing.

    God sets before us life and death, not an option of choosing an admixture of the two. We have a clear choice for Life in the Constitution Party. We have all the tools necessary to make this choice widely known, with very little effort or expense. The GOP replaced the Whigs who were sluggish to condemn the evil of slavery. We have witnessed just as much statism from the GOP, and very little reduction in the 1.2-1.5 million lives lost to abortion annually, under its leadership.

    Therefore, I think that adopting Dr. Keyes’ approach of vigorous support for every tried and true “platform Republican” so as to win a clear majority of true moral conservatives in Congress who will stand up to the intrinsic evils which both elitist faction candidates have a record of supporting is the true possibility for real hope and real return to being “one nation under God.” The elitist faction has been enormously successful in marketing to the People the notion that two options are all we have. Freedom and liberty lie in our willingness to look beyond their poor options to the rich possibilities that flow from or may be created in order to make an unreserved choice for Life.

    May God bless us and keep us.

    1. Joe Anderson Avatar
      Joe Anderson

      Dear Blair,

      Thank you for your thoughtful response. I cannot write much more in my refutation of your position than what I have already written. I will just add two comments:

      A vote for anyone other than Romney or Obama is exactly equivalent to half a vote for Obama.

      We cannot sacrifice the good (Romney) for the ideal (someone who has no chance of winning). The primary season is over and we now have two viable candidates.

      God bless,

      Joe

      1. Arni Avatar

        Years ago (and I do mean “years ago”), when I was a newly eligible voter, there were many votes for “Mickey Mouse”. At the time I thought, “How utterly disrespectful, to take our civic duty and make a mockery of it.” Now, with the wisdom age can bring about, I understand more and more that perhaps it was not meant as an act of disrespect, but an act of frustration. Perhaps the thought was, “if politicians are going to make a mockery of our government, I will vote for a cartoon character in mockery of them”. While I still find the act a disrespectful one, I do understand it. It is the very place I am at — frustrated.

        I think “Blair” states clearly many voter’s dilemmas. It certainly co-insides with mine. The thought that not voting for Mr. Romney is a vote “for” Pres. Obama does not make logical sense in that Pres. Obama has his voting base. Whether Mr. Romney does or not, is not my concern as a voter. Mine concern is to properly align my conscious with the box marked with an “x”. In this case, I cannot vote “for” someone who does not align with my Catholic teaching just because he is either the lesser of two evils or is the “other option”. We all have options. I will be happy to research a candidate who is both pro-life, pro-environment and who has a record of voting which aligns with our faith’s teachings. Will I find one? I don’t know. I do know that I will be sending a message, even if subtly, that the two main party candidates are not satisfactory and will not receive my endorsement. I cannot be “for” either one.

  9. Steve Avatar

    Blair, in a practical sense you are quite mistaken when you say: “Obama’s success or failure in his bid for re-election is the burden of those who support him, not of those who do not.” A second Obama term will be a burden on all of us. It would make the hole we Americans need to dig ourselves out of much, much deeper.

    Supporting a third party at this stage in ths election is akin to not voting. It is effectively ceding this election to Obama, and it would be disastrous. I propose this alternative: let’s elect Romney and slow the slide towards socialism in this country. The difference between Obama and Romney in this regard is enormous. Then, let’s work to move the Republican party further right during the next four years, especially with regard to the non-enogtiable issues of intrinsic evil. The time for that is the primaries and in the intervening Congressional elections.

    1. Blair Avatar
      Blair

      I meant a burden, in the sense of the moral one that results from positively supporting intrinsic evil. To vote in support of one who supports the taking of innocent life for ANY reason–especially one as crass as calculated political expediency—is a vote that supports that intrinsic evil. Continuing to compromise the pro life principle only makes the principle appear unrealistic and unreasonable.

      To the rest, I say that “the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men…for the foolish things of the world, hath God chosen, that he may confound the wise; and the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the strong.” (1 Corinthians 1:25,27)

      A so-called “third party” (I agree with Dr. Keyes that the two major parties are merely opposing wings of the same elitist faction) has no chance, at this time, only because serious Catholics and others of good will refuse to believe otherwise. All we have to do is get word of the real choice the Constitution Party represents to go viral, and let the battle be the Lord’s. David set one heck of a precedent for us when he RAN to do battle–outmatched and ill-equipped—against a battle-hardened, blasphemous Goliath who enjoyed every worldly advantage and estimation of superiority. David proved that one plus God is a majority…that, as Mother Angelica once put it, in order to see the miraculous, we must be willing to do the ridiculous.

      Taking half measures, such as those proposed in response to my comment, has resulted in little more than the unabated butchering of six million children every four years. We are not going to steer the Republican Party to the right. The Rules change fraudulently adopted at this last convention made that quite clear. Recent history of GOP leadership only resulted in more statism. The GOP’s grassroots moral conservative base is wasting its time thinking otherwise. Romney will merely turn the HHS Mandate into the Mexico City Policy of the 21st century…something that is reinstated every time a pro-death candidate wins the White House, just as the Mexico City Policy is the first thing to go.

      As for Obama, much could be resolved if we would take our own Constitution seriously and demand that he be vetted properly for eligibility. This is a whole conversation in itself, but here suffice it to say that when he was running against Alan Keyes in the US Senate race in Illinois, Keyes brought up in a debate the issue of his not being a natural born citizen, to which Obama replied, “So what? I’m running for the Senate, not the Presidency of the United States.” Videos have been on YouTube for at least the last four years in which Michelle Obama openly admits Kenya is her husband’s home country. Obama’s mother was not old enough to confer US citizenship upon her son when he was born, according to the laws in force at the time, and in any case, he was subject to foreign law AT BIRTH through his father…a fact freely admitted on his own website during the last campaign.

      If Obama’s usurpation is laid bare, everything he has purported to do as POTUS is null and void. The only thing stopping us from demanding this due diligence appears to be the fear of being labeled “birthers” by a liberal media beholden to this deeply troubled man.

      I distinctly recall that in the primary season, reports came of the Obama campaign expressing no fear of a Romney candidacy. George Soros (atheist financier of many leftist causes) has said that there is no difference between Romney and Obama. These things ought to be instructive. As awful as it will be for Obama to get in for a second term (sic), I don’t see Romney doing anything more than continuing to dig the hole deeper, either. His record has the same “accomplishments” as Obama and more. The highest office in the land is not the appropriate place for him to prove that his alleged conversion is in good faith. At least with Obama, we’ll know to resist. A Republican Congress is not known for standing up to a Republican President.

      Ultimately, “It is better to take refuge in The Lord than to trust in men.” (Psalm 118:8) If we commit to choose Life without compromise as an act of hope in the Lord, we will find that “we shall never hope in vain.” (Final responsory prayer at the end of the Te Deum hymn)

      p.s. My use of ALL CAPS is an attempt to replicate emphasis in the inflection of my voice, not to denote screaming.

      1. Blair Avatar
        Blair

        One last thought: to choose Life is to choose Jesus, the Life, and in whom is Life, the light of men. In Christ there is no “yes” and “no”; only “yes.” Let us choose Life wholeheartedly, then, and remember Gideon’s army of three hundred, as well as the prayer of the father of the possessed boy: “Lord, I do believe! Help me in my unbelief.”

      2. Steve Avatar

        Blair – this comment page is full of compelling arguments that Romeny is not the same as Obama when it comes to life issues. We certainly cannot trust George Soros to instruct us that there is really no difference between Romney and Obama.

        Please see my nursery school fire analogy above in a response to Arni’s comment. It’s simplistic but it captures the decision we face, as I see it.

        Lastly, ruminating on whether Obama is really eligible by birth to be president is an unneeded distraction at this point. If you can get him thrown out of office, great — you’d be a hero. But that ship has sailed. Meanwhile there is a nursery school on fire and we need to do the best we can on election day. The fight won’t be over then, but we must do what we can in this election and then work to make better candidates viable in the future.

  10. MatthewM Avatar
    MatthewM

    I will vote for the Constitutional candidates too, probably. But on very different grounds. I will vote for them since I know Texas will go for Romney. If Obama and Romney were neck and neck in Texas I would be morally obligated to vote for Romney. In Texas, voting for the Constitutional candidate is akin to an effort to move the Republican party away from the faction of “country club republicans” within it (who have been destroying it) and back to morality. Refusing to vote for Romney on principle is just a misapplication of principles and a poor diagnosis of the present situation.

    Alan Keyes and you admit Romney gives lip service to moral principles. This is another way of saying that he states publicly that he WILL NOT promote abortions, that he WILL NOT support homosexual unions but the traditional (and only true) view of the family, and that he WILL NOT attack religious liberty. Obama on the contrary professes unwavering allegiance to do exactly these things.You, therefore, acknowledge that Romney at least from what he says is the candidate that adheres more closely to Catholic principles. But you claim that Romney is only giving those principles lip service. Of course, that is a different argument than Kurt’s, which holds that even though Romney may do what he says in these matters, this is not as important as other things regardless that the Church teaches that they are less important. There are two different arguments. Both agree that Romney says the right position on the three intrinsic evils. One then argues that he is just lying and won’t do it. The other that that his doing what he says on those issues is not most important. I think a couple of additional points are important at this point.

    First, there are three intrinsic evils at stake. Of course there are more intrinsic evils than three, but only three at stake right now in this election. Gladiatorial battles in the colosseum were intrinsically evil, but there is no use in talking about them now for this election.

    Second, I completely disagree that you can just dismiss what a person’s says. Romney has taken a lot of heat by saying he will defund planned parenthood, for instance. I do not know what his situation was in Massachusetts, and I agree that he is not the strongest moral candidate. Santorum was stronger. He may be committed to opposing the intrinsic evils for pragmatic purposes, not entirely in principle. But it is absurd to say that he is outright deceiving in his commitment to do these things, for whatever reason. This position has less purchase than the constitution party. It is absurd to claim that he is not morally superior to Obama in a way that would warrant a vote if we were in a swing state. I have met Alan Keyes and love him. I wanted to have him at OLCC the weekend Obama was at Notre Dame. He is completely wrong if you represented him correctly.

    Third, the Republican party is the party of life. Pro-life, support for the (traditional) family, and religious liberty above sexual license are a part of its platform. The Democrat platform includes the support of abortion, homosexual unions, and sexual license above religious liberty. One must not only consider the individual, but the platform too. Here is a quote from Faithful Citizenship, invoking a document of the Universal Magisterium. “Political program” means party platform in our country.

    “It must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to
    the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. (Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life, no. 4)”

    Until the Democratic party cares to represent Catholics, I will not give them my vote. And by represent Catholic, I do not mean getting some dissenting and weasel-like nuns to arm you with arguments against the magisterium that play technical patsy-foot with Church teachings, and miss their meaning and the spirit in which they were written. And secularized charity in the form of public programs in neither care for the poor, nor is it Catholic. The modern welfare state is the economic equivalent to taking Christ out of Christmas and it is not concerned with the true human good of the poor, but only giving them cheap material things. Mother Theresa became poor with the poor, she did not try to buy their votes with cheap food stamps and WIC.

    1. Joe Anderson Avatar
      Joe Anderson

      Matthew,

      I did not say that Romney, “gives lip service to moral principles.” That would be ascribing a level of insincerity to Romney which is unmerited as far as I can see. I believe Romney is sincere but that his intellectual and moral formation is not at the level of most of us who have been exchanging ideas here. That should not be a great surprise. He has not had the benefit of formation in the Church that most of us have had. This is God’s gift to us, a gift that carries with it grave and wonderful responsibilities. Let us use it wisely.

      I totally agree with your comments about party platforms. Even if we totally distrust both candidates we can look to the platforms. Their individual parties will hold them to the platform they were elected to support, at least to a very large extent.

      As I have said elsewhere, voting for a third party candidate is equivalent to casting half a vote for Obama. Even if you are in a state where the vote is not in question, it is important to vote for Romney. He needs to carry the popular vote by as wide a margin as possible. The mandate must be clear and convincing.

      Joe

  11. Ron Avatar
    Ron

    Joe, this is about as logically laid out an explanation of the Catholic approach to conscience as I have seen. I think it makes an excellent guide for one to print off and prayerfully consider the validity of each point you make in every election at every level of Government. If he/she is a viable candidate (i.e., has a realistic chance of winning the election), award 1,000 points. If there exists objective evidence of a candidate’s commitment to support (or at least to do no harm) on non-negotiable issues, give him/her 100 points for each. If the candidates come out even, then move on to the prudential judgment issues and award him/her 10 points for each issue important to the individual Catholic voter and issue in that region. Ultimately, if one is honest, one should end up with a clear choice of for whom he/she should vote. If one decides to disregard the objective evidence of who aligns with Catholic teaching, to quote Bishop Chaput, and in all Christian charity, “Change your mind.”

    1. Joe Anderson Avatar
      Joe Anderson

      Thank you, Ron. You are too kind. I actually put together a “decision matrix” that works similarly to what you describe. It’s in a spreadsheet and tallies the points. I haven’t been able to figure out how to make it available on-line.

      God bless,

      Joe

  12. MatthewM Avatar
    MatthewM

    Joe,

    Blair stated that Romney gave “lip service to moral principles” in one of the comments. My comment was in some part a response to that: I aimed to refute the moral equation of Obama and Romney that I understood to be Blair’s basis for holding that each would be disqualified on Catholic principles from receiving a vote, or that voting for Romney was not morally superior to voting for Obama.

    I respect your judgment and I will consider your thoughts on the issue of the popular vote. I know it is important for a president. Let me tell where I am coming from: the issue is to bring about the most moral country, which is a larger issue that includes but also surpasses the issue of supporting the most moral candidate in this election. In my judgment, GIVEN ROMNEY’S VICTORY IN ONE’S AREA, the popular vote for Romney is not as important as registering a protest against the moral wavering that has occurred in the Republican party and trying to move the party farther to the right. I follow the policy: vote for the most moral candidate, try to move the party/country towards morality long-term. In short, do (immediate) and pursue (long-term) good, and always avoid evil. It might be that we differ about a prudential matter (not an intrinsic evil or moral principle), and this is a prudential not a principled disagreement (like Kurt’s) if it turns out to be so.

    Thank you for an interesting blog and conversation. I know your procedure is correct since as directed by my Bishop, I have volunteered to teach “Faithful Citizenship” all over my diocese and know the document well.

    Peace.

  13. Padre Antonio Avatar
    Padre Antonio

    Dear Dale Ahlquist, MatthewM and Blaire,

    Here is a little magisterial light on your conversation with Joe (with all due respect for your respective positions and your reasonable writing).

    In 1982, Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, wrote a letter to the U.S. Bishops in which he said “…according to the principles of Catholic morality, an action can be considered licit whose object and proximate effect consist in limiting an evil insofar as possible.”
    “Thus, when one intervenes in a situation judged evil in order to correct it for the better, and when the action is not evil in itself, such an action should be considered not as the voluntary acceptance of the lesser evil but rather as the effective improvement of the existing situation, even though one remains aware that not all evil present is able to be eliminated for the moment.”

    I don’t presume to correct you with this, but I thought it would shed light on the conversation for all readers.

  14. Franciscan Avatar
    Franciscan

    President Obama is the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history. It doesn’t help when people try to obfuscate that fact in order to rationalize their desire to vote for him or in order to try to confuse others.

    I normally refer to such people as “pro-abortion rights”, but in the case of President Obama, I believe it’s fair to call him “pro-abortion.”

    First, one of Obama’s first acts was to rescind the Mexico City Policy.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/obama_to_reinstate_american_fu.html

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/01/23/us-obama-abortion-idUSTRE50M3PQ20090123

    Second, Obama opposed a law that would have protected unborn children whose only crime was that they happened to be the “wrong” gender (gender-selection abortion very disproportionately singles out girls, btw).

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-house-sex-selective/2012/06/01/id/440861

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/abortion-staff-agree-to-gender-based-abortion/article/1333361

    Third, Obama opposed a law that would protect the lives of children who were *born alive* after a botched abortion attempt.

    http://www.jillstanek.com/2008/02/links-to-barack-obamas-votes-on-illinois-born-alive-infant-protection-act/

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jill-stanek/2012/05/16/multiple-mistakes-about-obama-and-born-alive-act-new-book-amateur

    http://www.mrctv.org/audio/barack-obamas-speech-against-illinoiss-born-alive-infants-protection-act

    http://www.jillstanek.com/2008/08/obama-caught-on-tape-arguing-against-giving-medical-attention-to-aborted-babies/

    Fourth, he arguably has given the most support to and has the closest ties with the nation’s largest abortion chain: Planned Parenthood. The president of Planned Parenthood is even out personally campaigning for him.

    http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/04/obama-admin-sues-to-force-arizona-fund-planned-parenthood/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/26/planned-parenthoods-obama-title-x-grants_n_1706303.html

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/planned-parenthoods-obama-rally-reveals-a-lot/article/2506909#.UG3__7SB13A

    http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/03/planned-parenthood-president-to-personally-campaign-for-obama/

    Fifth is his immoral HHS mandate that forces Catholics (and others) to violate their faith and consciences by requiring them to pay for coverage for abortifacient drugs. The “exception” given by his administration is narrower than the accepted one given by even prior Democrats (hence the lawsuits filed by virtually all Catholic dioceses in the U.S. against his administration).

    http://www.christianpost.com/news/obamacare-hhs-mandate-redefines-religion-say-christian-legal-experts-77415/

    http://www.becketfund.org/faq/

    http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/hhs-decision-prompts-more-opposition-from-catholics/

    1. Franciscan Avatar
      Franciscan

      Mitt Romney and his campaign have repeatedly promised to:

      1) Reinstate the Mexico City Policy
      2) Rescind the immoral HHS mandate
      3) Defund the nation’s largest abortion chain: Planned Parenthood
      4) Appoint judges who don’t legislate from the bench (such as those who invented the “right” to abortion)

      He is far from perfect and he has not always been reliable. But it will be very difficult for him to step away from these repeated, public promises. At the very least, he will be an improvement over the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history, a president who is being sued by virtually every Catholic diocese in the country for his violation of our religious freedom.

  15. Franciscan Avatar
    Franciscan

    Here are some recent statements by our bishops. How do you think this applies to this presidential election?

    Bishop Paprocki:

    Video statement that should be watched first:

    http://vimeo.com/49790332

    Article:

    http://ct.dio.org/bishops-column/text/61-politics-and-moral-complexity-gods-law-comes-first.html

    Catholics should avoid voting for candidates that would involve them in cooperation with the wrongdoing of politicians. Voting for a candidate who promotes public funding for abortion makes you morally complicit in the grave evil of killing some of our fellow human beings. Not every case of material cooperation with evil is unjustifiable, but every case requires us to think about whether it is justified, and this is acutely important with a widespread grave injustice such as abortion. As indicated earlier, it is not a simple analysis.

    Some who try to navigate this labyrinth of moral analysis simply rationalize their way to a desired conclusion, for example, by saying that voting for a pro-choice candidate is justified by their support for other “social justice” causes. But such people should apply the Golden Rule by placing themselves in the shoes of the people who are going to be killed by abortions. Would these voters really think it is more “just” to vote for the “pro-choice” candidate if they or their own children or their brothers and sisters were going to be deliberately killed — along with 1.3 million others? Not very likely, is it?

    Archbishop Chaput:

    http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=36380

    I certainly can’t vote for somebody who’s either pro-choice or pro-abortion. I’m not a Republican and I’m not a Democrat. I’m registered as an independent, because I don’t think the church should be identified with one party or another. As an individual and voter I have deep personal concerns about any party that supports changing the definition of marriage, supports abortion in all circumstances, wants to restrict the traditional understanding of religious freedom. Those kinds of issues cause me a great deal of uneasiness.

    http://www.hliworldwatch.org/?p=1898

    I think many of the Democrats have [taken] Democrat Catholic votes for granted because they’ll go with them no matter what the Party position might be on abortion. That’s why the position of the Democrat Party has gotten worse, and worse, and worse as time goes on because Catholics haven’t abandoned them as they’ve moved in that direction. So we just have to be insistent on that Catholic identity takes precedence over everything.

    Bishop Lori of Maryland:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/313468/baltimore-archbishop-catholic-voters-cant-vote-candidate-who-stands-intrinsic-evil-kat

    The question to ask is this: Are any of the candidates of either party, or independents, standing for something that is intrinsically evil, evil no matter what the circumstances? If that’s the case, a Catholic, regardless of his party affiliation, shouldn’t be voting for such a person.

    Bishop Felipe Estevez of Florida:

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-felipe-estevez-tells-floridas-catholics-to-vote-pro-life-pro-family

    I would not tell you how to vote or who to vote for, but it is my responsibility to remind you that, for us Catholics, some issues are simply never morally acceptable. The taking of an innocent human life, whether inside the womb or not, and up until natural death, is always and everywhere intrinsically evil. Such issues as embryonic stem cell research and attempts at human cloning are also direct attacks against the dignity and uniqueness of human life made in the image of God. Finally, preserving the dignity of traditional marriage is of central importance and must never be undermined because marriage is a cornerstone of any stable society. Any attempts to re-define marriage as something other than between a man and a woman, should be vigorously opposed by a Catholic as contrary to reason, the natural law, and the divinely revealed truths of the Bible. Beyond these fundamental issues, and closely related to them is the issue of religious liberty – our ability as Catholics to live our lives publically according to our faith and morals at all levels of society.

    As Catholics we must first consider the various candidates and party platforms in light of those immutable issues I have mentioned above. Then, in good conscience, we must give preference to the candidate who does not oppose our God given moral principles.

    The Illinois Bishops

    https://filemanager.capwiz.com/filemanager/file-mgr/ilcatholic/1_Sept23ElectionIntroLetter.pdf

    The moral imperative to respond to the basic needs of our neighbors – such as food, shelter, health care, education, and meaningful work – is universally binding on our conscience, but may be legitimately fulfilled through a variety of means. Catholics should seek the best methods to respond to these needs. However, candidates who promise ways to address these important needs, yet at the same time gloss over their support for “intrinsically evil” actions such as abortion, will not receive the support of a person with a conscience well-formed by the Catholic faith or human reason.

    Bishop David Ricken of Wisconsin:

    http://wtaq.com/news/articles/2012/oct/26/gb-catholic-diocese-warns-voters-their-soul-is-in-jeopardy-on-election-day

    Some candidates and one party have even chosen some of these [intrinsic evils – abortion, gay marriage, etc.] as their party’s or their personal political platform. To vote for someone in favor of these positions means that you could be morally “complicit” with these choices which are intrinsically evil. This could put your own soul in jeopardy.

    The U.S. Bishops on the attack on religious liberty in the United States:

    http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/march-14-statement-on-religious-freedom-and-hhs-mandate.cfm

    http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-010.cfm

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/us/catholic-groups-file-suits-on-contraceptive-coverage.html?_r=0

    The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Corrects Joe Biden:

    http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-163.cfm

    Pope Benedict XVI on the attack on religious liberty in the United States:

    http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-010.cfm

    Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion. Many of you [bishops] have pointed out that concerted efforts have been made to deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices. Others have spoken to me of a worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience.

    Here once more we see the need for an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity endowed with a strong critical sense vis-à-vis the dominant culture and with the courage to counter a reductive secularism which would delegitimize the Church’s participation in public debate about the issues which are determining the future of American society.

    Pope Benedict XVI on weighing moral issues when voting:

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-benedict-xvi-on-what-should-be-the-principal-focus-for-catholic-voters

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *