Can Catholics Vote For Obama?

[Anomaly]

There has been lot's of discussion regarding voting for Romney, voting third Party, or obstaining from voting as viable moral choices for Catholics. It's been touched on, but not really discussed.
Can Catholics morally justify voting FOR Obama? Why or why not?

Edited October 31, 2012 by Anomaly

[dUSt]

If you listen to most of the posters on here who have been disagreeing with me, then yes.

If you listen to me (the more wise one), then no.

[i<3franciscans]

NO.

[arfink]

There are no candidates who violate more foundational principles of justice than President Obama, so voting for him would constitute cooperation in his plan to violate those principles.

[kujo]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1351697289' post='2501143']
There are no candidates who violate more foundational principles of justice than President Obama, so voting for him would constitute cooperation in his plan to violate those principles.
[/quote]

Explain.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1351694366' post='2501098']
I know Catholics who have justified their belief that Romney is worse than Obama. They cite economic & domestic policy - they believe that Romney will drive more people into poverty and will destroy more American jobs. They are against abortion, but believe that Romney is just playing that card to get Catholic votes. While they hate the birth control mandate, they believe that Obamacare is better for society and that the birth control mandate will eventually be overturned. They still blame Bush for the wars and see Romney as a status quo Republican that would have done the same thing. I disagree with them, but I could never even suggest that they are somehow less Catholic than I am.
[/quote]

[dUSt]

[quote name='i<3franciscans' timestamp='1351697153' post='2501140']
NO.
[/quote]
Uh oh. You better not let Aloysious see this. He's already argued that Romney and Obama are the same, and he's also said that voting for Romney could be morally acceptable, so we can only assume that a vote for Obama could be morally acceptable as well, according to the logic he is using.

[To Jesus Through Mary]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1351696511' post='2501122']
There has been lot's of discussion regarding voting for Romney, voting third Party, or obstaining from voting as viable moral choices for Catholics. It's been touched on, but not really discussed.
Can Catholics morally justify voting FOR Obama? Why or why not?
[/quote]

No- the 5 non-negotiables and intrinsic evil and all. Everything else takes 2nd place. Some might argue that it doesn't matter what president is elected, abortion (or whatever of the other non-negotiable) will go on just the same. Looking at Obama's record has proved otherwise. His policies have increased abortion in America and abroad- not to mention the attacks on freedom. He has clearly and definitively stated he will continue in this direction. So how could a Catholic justify voting for Obama? If we are not protecting the most vulnerable and innocent in our society, what good is our economy? Or foreign policy? Or whatever other political issue you want to plug in there.

[To Jesus Through Mary]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351696702' post='2501127']
If you listen to most of the posters on here who have been disagreeing with me, then yes.
[/quote]

? I haven't read that- with the exception of Kujo...

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351696702' post='2501127']
If you listen to most of the posters on here who have been disagreeing with me, then yes.

If you listen to me (the more wise one), then no.
[/quote]

No, we've actually been arguing that you can vote for a third party candidate instead of Romney.

And voting for a third party is NOT the same as voting for Obama, even if it looks that way to you.

[dUSt]

[quote name='To Jesus Through Mary' timestamp='1351698000' post='2501163']
? I haven't read that- with the exception of Kujo...
[/quote]
Weird. I've seen many people justifying an action that helps keep Obama in office.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1351698528' post='2501168']

No, we've actually been arguing that you can vote for a third party candidate instead of Romney.

And voting for a third party is NOT the same as voting for Obama, even if it looks that way to you.
[/quote]
I do not believe voting third party is a vote for Obama.
I believe voting third party may be a contributing factor in Obama getting elected.

In the end, you are not voting to help get Obama out of office, so what's the difference?

It's kinda like when Obama told the church they don't have to pay for contraception, but they still have to pay for insurance policies that provide contraception.

Same result. Different wording.

[arfink]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1351697325' post='2501144']

Explain.
[/quote]

Of course. I'll need to lean on some Thomas Aquinas for this, but I'm sure you'll forgive me.

First, Thomas doesn't speak directly of rights in the same sense that we do, but rather of justice, which is "the habit whereby a man renders to each one his due by a constant and perpetual will." In this sense, justice is rather similar to the modern notion of "right" in that it is that which is peculiar to every person and what every other person owes to him. [url="http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/rights.html"][cite][/url]

Being a good Dominican, Thomas then picks apart this notion into several levels. Some of these principles are foundational, and are simply true by virtue of what a human being is, while others are derived from these foundational principles.

The first foundational principle is that, in justice, I must be free from attacks upon my physical person by outside influences. If I am not free to be alive then I am not free in any other regard.

There are 2 other foundational principles: religion and family. As human beings we are made by and ordered towards God, and so our ability to do the good things which we are asked to do by God must not be impeded. As for family, it is the institution by which humans come into the world, are trained in how to be human, and are supported and sustained. It must also be preserved as a foundational principle, because without it humans cannot be human.

Obama has shown that not only does he not support these foundational principles, he seeks to attack and subvert each one. Because all human rights are built on these foundational principles, it does not matter what other principles he claims to support. His claims are false because it is impossible to preserve justice when these foundational principles are attacked.

[FutureCarmeliteClaire]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351697369' post='2501146']
Uh oh. You better not let Aloysious see this. He's already argued that Romney and Obama are the same, and he's also said that voting for Romney could be morally acceptable, so we can only assume that a vote for Obama could be morally acceptable as well, according to the logic he is using.
[/quote]
Thanks. Glad to know that not supporting Romney means supporting Obama. FYI, I don't believe that voting for either are morally acceptable unless:

Cf. the following from the Arlington diocese's recently released document on civic responsibility:

[s]----------[/s]
38. ...In certain circumstances, it is morally permissible for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports some immoral practices while opposing other immoral practices. Catholic moral teaching refers to actions of this sort as material cooperation, which is morally permissible when certain conditions are met. With respect to the question of voting, these conditions include the following: 1) there is no viable candidate who supports the moral law in its full integrity; 2) the voter opposes the immoral practices espoused by the candidate, and votes for the candidate only because of his or her promotion of morally good practices; and 3) THE VOTER AVOIDS GIVING SCANDAL BY TELLING ANYONE WHO MAY KNOW FOR WHOM HE OR SHE HAS VOTED THAT HE OR SHE DID SO TO ADVANCE THE MORALLY GOOD PRACTICES THE CANDIDATE SUPPORTS, WHILE REMAINING OPPOSED TO THE IMMORAL PRACTICES THE CANDIDATE ENDORSES AND SUPPORTS.
[s]----------[/s]
I just can't support evil of any kind, and I don't believe it will make a difference whether Obama or Romney are elected.

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351699043' post='2501173']
In the end, you are not voting to help get Obama out of office, so what's the difference?
[/quote]
Oh yeah, right. Because we all hope Obama wins this election. Good to know what our REAL motives are. Thanks, dUSt.






[s]This whole thread[/s] The debate table really p'sses me off.

Edited October 31, 2012 by FutureCarmeliteClaire

[qfnol31]

[quote name='FutureCarmeliteClaire' timestamp='1351702296' post='2501193']
38. ...In certain circumstances, it is morally permissible for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports some immoral practices while opposing other immoral practices. Catholic moral teaching refers to actions of this sort as material cooperation, which is morally permissible when certain conditions are met. With respect to the question of voting, these conditions include the following: 1) there is no viable candidate who supports the moral law in its full integrity; 2) the voter opposes the immoral practices espoused by the candidate, and votes for the candidate only because of his or her promotion of morally good practices; and 3) THE VOTER AVOIDS GIVING SCANDAL BY TELLING ANYONE WHO MAY KNOW FOR WHOM HE OR SHE HAS VOTED THAT HE OR SHE DID SO TO ADVANCE THE MORALLY GOOD PRACTICES THE CANDIDATE SUPPORTS, WHILE REMAINING OPPOSED TO THE IMMORAL PRACTICES THE CANDIDATE ENDORSES AND SUPPORTS.[/quote]
I'm not sure your intention, but typically this statement (especially the part in caps) is used as a defense of the "lesser of two evils," even though the second (lesser evil) may still be morally repugnant.