Skip to comments.Voting Guide for Serious Catholics (or any Christian)
Posted on 09/22/2012 8:02:01 PM PDT by pgyanke
"The common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights--for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture--is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination" -- Pope John Paul II, "Christifideles Laici"
According to Catholic theologians, five moral issues are intrinsically evil and must never be promoted by law. Intrinsically evil actions fundamentally conflict with the moral law and can never be performed under any circumstances. It is a serious sin to deliberately endorse or promote any of these actions, and no candidate who wants to advance the common good will support any action contrary to the non-negotiable principles involved in these issues. These five issues are abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human closing and homosexual marriage.
Regarding a law permitting abortions, the Church teaches that 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. Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and is therefore homicide. The unborn child is always an innocent party, and no law may permit the taking of his life. Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest, the fault is not the childs, who should not suffer death for others sins.
2012 Democratic Party Platform:2. Euthanasia
Page 52: President Obama and Democrats will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a womans right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay.
[Editors note: Regardless of ability to pay means that taxpayer funds will be used to perform abortions without concern for the objections of those opposed to this intrinsic evil (such as faithful Catholics).]
Page 69: in his first month in office, President Obama overturned the global gag rule, a ban on federal funds to foreign family planning organizations that provided information about, counseling on, or offered abortions.
2012 GOP Platform:
Page 14: We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.
Republican leadership has led the effort to prohibit the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion and permitted States to extend health care coverage to children before birth. We urge Congress to strengthen the Born Alive Infant Protection Act by enacting appropriate civil and criminal penalties on healthcare providers who fail to provide treatment and care to an infant who survives an abortion, including early induction delivery where the death of the infant is intended. We call for legislation to ban sex-selective abortions gender discrimination in its most lethal formand to protect from abortion unborn children who are capable of feeling pain; and we applaud U.S. House Republicans for leading the effort to protect the lives of pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia.
We also salute the many States that have passed laws for informed consent, mandatory waiting periods prior to an abortion, and health-protective clinic regulation. We seek to protect young girls from exploitation through a parental consent requirement; and we affirm our moral obligation to assist, rather than penalize, women challenged by an unplanned pregnancy. We salute those who provide them with counseling and adoption alternatives and empower them to choose life, and we take comfort in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.
Page 33: Through Obamacare, the current Administration has promoted the notion of abortion as healthcare. We, however, affirm the dignity of women by protecting the sanctity of human life. Numerous studies have shown that abortion endangers the health and well-being of women, and we stand firmly against it.
We call on the government to permanently ban all federal funding and subsidies for abortion and healthcare plans that include abortion coverage.
Page 34: We urge enactment of pending legislation that would require parental consent to transport girls across state lines for abortions.
Page 36: We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related services for abortion and contraception.
Page 45: The United Nations Population Fund has a shameful record of collaboration with Chinas program of compulsory abortion. We affirm the Republican Partys long-held position known as the Mexico City Policy, first announced by President Reagan in 1984, which prohibits the granting of federal monies to non-governmental organization that provide or promote abortion.
Page 46: The effectiveness of our foreign aid has been limited by the cultural agenda of the current Administration, attempting to impose on foreign countries, especially the peoples of Africa, legalized abortion and the homosexual rights agenda. At the same time, faith-based groupsthe sector that has had the best track record in promoting lasting developmenthave been excluded from grants because they will not conform to the administrations social agenda. We will reverse this tragic course, encourage more involvement by the most effective aid organizations, and trust developing peoples to build their future from the ground up.
Often disguised by the name mercy killing, euthanasia is also a form of homicide. No person has a right to take his own life, and no one has the right to take the life of any innocent person. In euthanasia, the ill or elderly are killed, by action or omission, out of a misplaced sense of compassion, but true compassion cannot include intentionally doing something intrinsically evil.
2012 Democratic Party Platform: Silent on this issue.3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research
2012 GOP Platform:
Page 14: We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Page 32: We renew our commitment to the inclusion of Americans with disabilities in all aspects of our national life. In keeping with that commitment, we oppose the non-consensual withholding of care or treatment from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide, which endanger especially those on the margins of society.
Human embryos are human beings. Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo.
Recent scientific advances show that medical treatments that researchers hope to develop from experimentation on embryonic stem cells can often be developed by using adult stem cells instead. In fact, there have been no beneficial treatments to come from experimentation on human embryos there have been over 72 cures and treatments to come from adult stem cells. Adult stem cells can be obtained without doing harm to the adults from whom they come. Thus there is no valid medical argument in favor of using embryonic stem cells. And even if there were benefits to be had from such experiments, they would not justify destroying innocent embryonic humans.
2012 Democratic Party Platform:
Page 48: the President issued an executive order repealing the restrictions on embryonic stem cell research .
2012 GOP Platform:
Page 14: We call for a ban on the use of body parts from aborted fetuses for research. We support and applaud adult stem cell research to develop lifesaving therapies, and we oppose the killing of embryos for their stem cells. We oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
Page 34: We call for expanded support for the stem-cell research that now offers the greatest hope for many afflictionswith adult stem cells, umbilical cord blood, and cells reprogrammed into pluripotent stem cellswithout the destruction of embryonic human life.
4. Human Cloning
Attempts for obtaining a human being without any connection with sexuality through twin fission, cloning, or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union.
Human cloning also involves abortion because the rejected or unsuccessful embryonic clones are destroyed, yet each clone is a human being.
2012 Democratic Party Platform: Silent on this issue.5. Homosexual Marriage
2012 GOP Platform:
Page 34: We urge a ban on human cloning and on the creation of or experimentation on human embryos.
True marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recognition of any other union as marriage undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement.
2012 Democratic Party Platform:Additionally, in 2012 the Church took up the challenge to religious freedom laid down by the Obama administration sparked by the healthcare mandates of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In response, the GOP Platform includes a statement on this fundamental principle of our constitutional republic.
Page 53: We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. We oppose discriminatory federal and state constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny equal protection of the laws to committed same-sex couples who seek the same respect and responsibilities as other married couples. We support the full repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act.
2012 GOP Platform:
Page 10: Defending Marriage Against An Activist Judiciary
A serious threat to our countrys constitutional order, perhaps even more dangerous than presidential malfeasance, is an activist judiciary, in which some judges usurp the powers reserved to other branches of government. A blatant example has been the court-ordered redefinition of marriage in several States. This is more than a matter of warring legal concepts and ideals. It is an assault on the foundations of our society, challenging the institution which, for thousands of years in virtually every civilization, has been entrusted with the rearing of children and the transmission of cultural values.
A Sacred Contract: Defense of Marriage
That is why Congressional Republicans took the lead in enacting the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of States and the federal government not to recognize same-sex relationships licensed in other jurisdictions. The current Administrations open defiance of this constitutional principlein its handling of immigration cases, in federal personnel benefits, in allowing a same-sex marriage at a military base, and in refusing to defend DOMA in the courts makes a mockery of the Presidents inaugural oath. We commend the United States House of Representatives and State Attorneys General who have defended these laws when they have been attacked in the courts. We reaffirm our support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We applaud the citizens of the majority of States which have enshrined in their constitutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns underway in several other States to do so.
Page 31: Preserving and Protecting Traditional Marriage
The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that traditional marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, engage in crime, or get pregnant outside of marriage. The success of marriage directly impacts the economic well-being of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also to more government control over the lives of its citizens in all aspects. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage. We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity.
GOP Platform, General Statement on Religious Freedom, Page 12: The first provision of the First Amendment concerns freedom of religion. That guarantee reflected Thomas Jeffersons Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which declared that no one should suffer on account of his religious opinion or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion.... That assurance has never been more needed than it is today, as liberal elites try to drive religious beliefs and religious believersout of the public square.
The most offensive instance of this war on religion has been the current Administrations attempt to compel faith-related institutions, as well as believing individuals, to contravene their deeply held religious, moral, or ethical beliefs regarding health services, traditional marriage, or abortion. This forcible secularization of religious and religiously affiliated organizations, including faith-based hospitals and colleges, has been in tandem with the current Administrations audacity in declaring which faith- related activities are, or are not, protected by the First Amendmentan unprecedented aggression repudiated by a unanimous Supreme Court in its Hosanna- Tabor v. EEOC decision.
We pledge to respect the religious beliefs and rights of conscience of all Americans and to safeguard the independence of their institutions from government. We support the public display of the Ten Commandments as a reflection of our history and of our countrys Judeo-Christian heritage, and we affirm the right of students to engage in prayer at public school events in public schools and to have equal access to public schools and other public facilities to accommodate religious freedom in the public square. We assert every citizens right to apply religious values to public policy and the right of faith-based organizations to participate fully in public programs without renouncing their beliefs, removing religious symbols, or submitting to government-imposed hiring practices. We oppose government discrimination against businesses due to religious views.
"While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia." -- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (before he was Pope Benedict XVI)
* All of the information was culled from The Voters Guide for Serious Catholics and the major political party platforms as amended at their 2012 party conventions.
I will not comment on the accuracy of your cited poll. That said, I believe many of my fellow practicing Christians are middle class and below. I will assume that Catholics have many middle to poor families in their ranks as well. Following this logic thread, many may be either in need or depending on the government and/or unions for their daily living. Hence, the disparity between what should be a religious-polical no-brainer alignment. That is, some people will vote with economics in mind rather than their religious beliefs.
I think there are high concentrations of Catholics is most of the liberal blue states and they are influenced by whatever influences DUmmies. Catholics are fewer and more spread out in red staes.
Yep! I have a close relative who is very like-minded and devout. And those crazy "Nuns on the Bus" make them feel justified.
In MA, there are perhaps 100 people capable of running for Senate and having a chance to get elected. Scott Brown is the most conservative (or least liberal) of all of them. Thus, he is the best of all possible outcomes. Yet some describe the best of all possible outcomes as the “lesser of two evils”. Comical. And “Lesser of two evils” is not a phrase from Catholic theology. The US Army invented that phrase 80 years ago.
In CT, Linda McMahon is the best of all possible outcomes. Yet, some “pro-lifers” refuse to cast a vote in that election.
In the hippie radical territory of MA Berkshires, we had a wonderful candidate in ‘10, but the right could not resist with the “RINO, RINO” chant. Richard Neal got another term.
yet they use the Catholic faith to defend their poor judgment as if the faith require that they continue to be FOOLS? Prudence. It must be the optional virtue.
One more example: the ‘09 special election in NY-20 (Tedisco vs. MurphY), Murphy was elected with 50.1% of the vote allowing him to cast one of the deciding votes for Obamacare. Now, the local leader of the New York Right to Life Party went on a 5-minute 50 decibal tirade when Tedisco’s name was mentioned, something about Tedisco being divorced and re-married, attending a Bible Church, Tedisco needing a haircut and talking too fast and driving the wrong kind of car, basically concluding Tedisco was a worthless toad.
The same Jimmy Tedisco who spent the past 25 years fighting the left in Albany every day, 99% pro-life voting record (NYRTL) and personally dedicated to the issue due to his younger brother having Down’s Syndrome.
Something tells that these cases are a result of ENVY, that “we haven’t spent 40 years fighting Roe v Wade to have some toad like Tedisco to come along and reap the reward.”
I guess it takes all kinds. And if ya take a vulgar scumbag and stick him into a church pew and make him pro-life, what do you have? A pro-life religious vulgar scumbag!
a few more points to pass along to any delusional folks that you encounter in our movement:
voting is not a sacrament and it is not a religious exercise. It is a minor civic duty. Most often, it is a trivial civic duty. Our bloviated congressman John Larson will be elected this NOV by a 100,000 vote margin. The people voting for his conservative opponent are delusional if they think their votes against Larson have some “supernatural value”. No, the election is trivial nonsense. In that election, the DEMS would not give you a pack of cigarettes for your vote, which should tell you something.
It is not a sin if somebody accidentally votes for the “wrong person”. The duty requires a “best efforts” attempt. This is not the Council of Trent when you fill in those bubbles spots. The sin of omission is reducing your civic responsibilities to voting, “I voted, so I’ve fulfilled my civic duties for the year.” Refer to: “and what I have failed to do” which some hear on Sunday morning.
The religous idea that: “If I vote for somebody, then I am responsible for everything that they do in office and it makes me complicit in every sin they commit while pushing the yea/no buttons in the legislature.” This is some freaky heresy involving the “contagious theory of sin”. People who think like this are serious lunatics. You are only responsible for using your informed judgment to make the best selection in the voting booth. And even if you do that properly, it is trivial ... see above.
The recent primary election in Hartford which ended in a 744 to 744 tie and then went 744 to 743 in favor of the leftist and now is back to 744-744. The reason this happened is not because of one sinner in the voting booth, it is because all 5 catholic parishes in the district laughed off the primary as a joke because they were busy planning parish picnics. See the chuckling pastor who will say “Politics? I know nothing, nothing!”
Non-practicing. I will not receive the Eucharist until I have reconciled my differences with the Church.
I’d rather take a vulgar scumbag who believes that killing babies is wrong than a high society don who believes that killing babies is ok.
I’ve worked with the ‘scum of the earth’, and I’ll do so again. :)
I agree with you about MA and CT FWIW. I’ve lived in very deep blue areas and I go with the most conservative option on the ballot.
But I think we can do better than Romney - I feel betrayed by the Republican party casting me out and other prolifers. They feel they can win without us.
Ok good. I’ve been on both sides of that line- I wasn’t Catholic before I converted and I could not take the Eucharist for 2 years.
I agree with you that more respect needs to be paid to taking it in a worthy matter.
We had better options than Romney in the primaries. If the party wants to abandon prolifers and traditional marriage supporter than they can do so on their own time.
That isn't what I posited on this thread. Politicians lie. They say one thing and do another. That isn't the fault of the voters. Rather, I'm pointing out the agenda of the political parties. If you vote for a party knowing the agenda, you are complicit in the agenda.
No. They are taking advantage of the fact that you really have no choice.
considering this is a “Voting Guide for Serious Catholics”, why should we condone pro-lifers who have developed their own religion, a hybrid with some Catholicism and some populism which claims to be Catholic Theology?
Why should we repeal the Gospel to placate the most irrational of the American Life League pro-lifers who have never elected anyone? The ones who always look for the flaws in every candidate that is running as the conservative alternative to some leftist.
The 3 stooges are not good role models. If the 3 stooges became pro-life, this would be a setback as their foolishness would be damaging the pro-life movement which makes their folly worse.
In the CT House, we lost the gay marriage vote 80-70 and lost the transgender rights vote 77-73. yet only 15 of the 70 are genuine pro-lifers. Some pro-lifers would say job #1 is to purge the 55 allies who are fakes. They cannot differentiate between an ally and an adversary. According to them, “it is intrinsically evil to vote for one of the 55 because you are endorsing their error, and complicit” ... etc etc etc. and then judgement day talk starts.
There are 4 GOPers running in this area where it would actually be better if the leftist DEM won the race: Obsitnick CT-4, Roraback CT-5, Tisei MA-4, Bass NH-2.
There is a difference between these 4 NARAL candidates and conservatives with a good voting record who happen not to have a strong pro-family message in their campaign.
well, yeah. I was talking about the folks who only vote for the perfect candidates and leave the rest of their ballot blank because some of the candidates are “the lesser of two evils” ... and then they babble about if the guy gets elected & commits a sin then they are responsible.
If that were the case, better that all of the people you vote for lose, so you never are complicit in anything. (Except for Defeat.)
I do have a choice - Goode. :)
“There is a difference between these 4 NARAL candidates and conservatives with a good voting record who happen not to have a strong pro-family message in their campaign.”
I already said I’m supporting Brown in MA and McMahon in CT.
I will not be supporting Romney. I could care less, “whether they elect anyone”, I care about the truth.
If a candidate chooses not to have a strong prolife message in their campaign, I need to ask myself why is this the case?
America’s already aborted 50 million Americans. Do you not understand why abortion, at least for us, is THE Number one policy. We’re not even fighting to slow the train down (via O-Care and other crap), let alone reversing the train and saving these children.
Where would we be with another 50 million Americans?
if somebody ran statewide in CT or MA with a pro-life message, they would have no way of getting their message out. There is no pro-life media. Not even radio stations.
how do I know? We had a qualified pro-life candidate for the Senate against McMahon in the ‘10 primary. He could not raise money. He could not build support. His campaign never got off the ground. The pro-lifers did little for him. So he dropped out and ran for US House.
You might be supporting Brown and McMahon but the A.L.L. yahoos are not.
“Do you not understand why abortion, at least for us, is THE Number one policy.” Yes, so why do the yahoos help the pro-aborts by sabotaging our best chance candidates? How did Charlie Bass NARAL defeat pro-life Catholic Republican Jennifer Horn in the ‘10 primary? Well, could have something to do with the A.L.L. affiliate endorsing some fringe pro-lifer who finished in last place, siphoning votes away from Horn.
All of this folly is contrary to the Gospel. Since the yahoos are haughtly about their no-tolerance policy, can I not have the same no-tolerance policy toward this filthy ideology that masquerades as Catholicism?
Well, for starters, despite Guida having ‘no hope’, he has a much, much higher profile online.
I challenge you to write up a profile for her and I will put it up on wikipedia.
Giuda. Yep. No hope. He ran a campaign in half the district which makes it tough since Horn had been running for 3 years.
i think wiki has some policy about Wiki pages for losing candidates who never served in office. She’s a class act, I hope she gets another opportunity.
Guida has a page that’s well laid out and organized. I sent you a PM, I’d like you to answer my question. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.