Is Voting for a pro-Choice politician ok if you don't vote for them because of the pro choice stance they have?

[Benedictus]

Just now, Freedom said:

It works for all practicing Catholics. Feel free to bring this up to the Archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis. It is stated right here in my examination of conscience leaflet.

that's a sealed deal then

[Freedom]

When it comes to voting morally righteous, from an Archbishop, it is a sealed deal.

[Peace]

10 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

When it actually counted Rubio skipped the vote to fund or defund Planned Parenthood. So yes in that regard Politics trumped faith. I think Rubio does as many other politicians do, he uses his faith to get votes, but when it counts his faith doesn't cause him to act on his words.

But isn't it precisely the opposite? What does Rubio gain politically by not showing up for that vote? Rubio is going after the conservative vote, not the liberal vote. It's not like he is trying to steal away voters from Hillary. Not showing up for the vote only harms him politically - it allows all of the other conservatives to sit there and grandstand about how they are committed life and he is not.

Look at it this way. Can you explain the manner in which Planned Parenthood would be defunded with a Democratic president sitting in office? It won't happen, it never had any chance of happening, and everyone knew that it would never happen. The same thing with the shutdown in 2013. It was not a realistic attempt to try to reduce the number of abortions - it was nothing more than a political stunt so that folks like Cruz can grandstand and draw attention to their campaigns. I don't think the fact that Rubio goes out and does something productive, instead of waste his time participating in something that would ultimately achieve nothing (as did the previous government shutdown) tells us much about his commitment.

You have to pick your battles, and that is one of my main problems with Cruz. He is an ideologue. He would rather grandstand, gain attention, and lose than achieve something productive without being in the spotlight.

[Socrates]

22 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Soc, does it mean anything to you that Cruz is Baptist whereas Rubio is Catholic?

With regards to whom I'd vote for, no.

Let's not forget that John Kerry also identifies as Catholic, as does Nancy Pelosi, as did Ted Kennedy, as do any number of thoroughly rotten politicians.

My point here isn't to judge the sincerity of Rubio's faith, nor to imply that he's as bad as the other people I mentioned.  However, the fact of the matter is that nowadays the label "Catholic" in itself tells you little to nothing about how well, or morally, an individual will govern.

I look at an individual's positions and record when judging who it's best to vote for.  Frankly, at least in this day and age, rallying around behind a candidate solely or chiefly based on the church he attends is moronic.

22 hours ago, Peace said:

Politics trumps faith.

Oh, so now voting for Cruz over Rubio is contrary to the Faith?

Must I confess it to a priest?

Of course.  I must have slept through that part of Catechism class where they were discussing the Commandment "Thou Shalt Vote for Rubio and None Other."

(And "Trumps" - is that a pun?)  Oh well, I guess I just don't share your faith in Marco Rubio.

12 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

When it actually counted Rubio skipped the vote to fund or defund Planned Parenthood. So yes in that regard Politics trumped faith. I think Rubio does as many other politicians do, he uses his faith to get votes, but when it counts his faith doesn't cause him to act on his words.

 

Who cares?  He's Catholic!

I bet you didn't support Kerry either, you heathen infidel.

And at least he didn't commit the unforgivable mortal sin of "shutting down the government."

[Nihil Obstat]

Other things equal, I think voting for a Catholic is better than voting for a non Catholic. Obviously in a real life situation all things will never be strictly equal. So what it comes down to is whether the Catholic or the Baptist follows Catholic principles (as a public figure) more exactly. Would you agree?

[Peace]

35 minutes ago, Socrates said:

With regards to whom I'd vote for, no.

Let's not forget that John Kerry also identifies as Catholic, as does Nancy Pelosi, as did Ted Kennedy, as do any number of thoroughly rotten politicians.

My point here isn't to judge the sincerity of Rubio's faith, nor to imply that he's as bad as the other people I mentioned.  However, the fact of the matter is that nowadays the label "Catholic" in itself tells you little to nothing about how well, or morally, an individual will govern.

I look at an individual's positions and record when judging who it's best to vote for.  Frankly, at least in this day and age, rallying around behind a candidate solely or chiefly based on the church he attends is moronic.

 Would you vote for Ted Cruz if his record were exactly the same, yet he worshipped at a Mosque? I suppose that if Ted Cruz were an athiest that would not matter in the least either?

The question was not "would you rally around someone solely or cheifly based on the church he attends". The question was whether or not you consider a person's Catholic faith as a factor when deciding who to vote for.

As I recall you were the one who some time ago gave me a lecture about the importance of a politician's character. But I suppose that a beief in the Christian God tells you nothing about the person's character?

You seem to say, essentially, that "a person's faith is irrelevant to his or her qualifications as a candidate." Should it come as a surprise then that someone such as myself thinks you put your politics before your religion? A person's faith to me is one of the most relevant, if not the most relevant, things that I look for in a candidate. The deeper a person's faith, the more likely that faith is to play itself out in the way that he leads and carries out the duties of his office. We want those duties to be carried out according to Catholic principles (even if it means giving illegal aliens an avenue towards citizenship).

Quote

Oh, so now voting for Cruz over Rubio is contrary to the Faith?

Yes. Absolutely. Didn't you hear? The liberal Pope Francis has declared it dogma.

Quote

Must I confess it to a priest?

I think that you should. And any other mortal sins that you may have committed.

Quote

Of course.  I must have slept through that part of Catechism class where they were discussing the Commandment "Thou Shalt Vote for Rubio and None Other."

(And "Trumps" - is that a pun?)  Oh well, I guess I just don't share your faith in Marco Rubio.

To clairify - my faith is in God.

I thought that comment might get your feathers in a ruffle. But I do not see why that should surprise you. I have accused you of putting your politics ahead of your faith many times before. But I must confess that has more so to do with your desire to strip away all government programs that support the poor, rather than your desire to root for Ted Cruz.

35 minutes ago, Socrates said:

And at least he didn't commit the unforgivable mortal sin of "shutting down the government."

LOL. Not a mortal sin. Just extremely stupid, self-serving, and indicative that he does not have the character that one desires in a president.

That 1% charity contribution on the other hand. He might want to see a confessor about that.

Edited January 28, 2016 by Peace

[Benedictus]

14 hours ago, Freedom said:

When it comes to voting morally righteous, from an Archbishop, it is a sealed deal.

Until you realize that there are other things to consider, equally as important. Hardly anybody votes on the basis of one issue in isolation. Candidates aren't that cookie cutter. They also, at least usually, care little for the examination of conscience leaflet or your Archbishop.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i dont think anyone answered Peace's hypothetical. 

what if a person is prochioice but for practical purposes their policies result in less abortions? and the opposing candidate is prolife but their policies result in more abortion. 

i think you could extend it further than that. if a person thinks the abrotion issue is a stalemate and not changing, i dont see why you can't base your vote on non abortion or intrinsically evil related issues. 

people who say you can't vote for prochioce politicians even in recent presidential elections are speaking for themselves only. especially when they say it's a mortal sin to vote that way. there is abolutely nothing the popes have said to make a perosn say otherwise. all the pope has said at most on the issue is you cant vote for a prochoice president unless there's a proportionate reason to. that terminology is debateable such that PEace or my hypothetical covers it. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Abortion being legal is itself a moral evil. Not as grave as the act of abortion itself, but still in and if itself evil.

[dairygirl4u2c]

17 hours ago, Freedom said:

Knowingly voting for someone who is pro choice is a mortal sin. Due to the fact that death is a serious matter. Just saying.

the pope said you CAN vote for a prochoice person if there's a proportionate reason. the pope trumps your pamphlet and your local religous figures. i hope you are just being overally general with your wording and already are aware of this. 

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Abortion being legal is itself a moral evil. Not as grave as the act of abortion itself, but still in and if itself evil.

Hmm. I think so. But the same should extend to all sin should it not? There seems to be no solution other than to enact the Ten Commandments.

[Nihil Obstat]

1 minute ago, Peace said:

Hmm. I think so. But the same should extend to all sin should it not? There seems to be no solution other than to enact the Ten Commandments.

Not necessarily. Some evils can be tolerated, though not encouraged. Allowance of the practice of false religions, for instance. The state can allow it, though moral law should not permit it to be encouraged. In a perfect world perhaps.

While it is true that reducing abortions, even if it remains legal is better than neither reducing nor forbidding it, I think there would have to be an incredibly grave reason that would make it prudent to tolerate its legal status. And even so it remains evil even that it is legal. Just that graver evils, in that hypothetical, are avoided.

Certainly a matter for in depth discussion though.

[KnightofChrist]

18 hours ago, Peace said:

But isn't it precisely the opposite? What does Rubio gain politically by not showing up for that vote? Rubio is going after the conservative vote, not the liberal vote. It's not like he is trying to steal away voters from Hillary. Not showing up for the vote only harms him politically - it allows all of the other conservatives to sit there and grandstand about how they are committed life and he is not.

Look at it this way. Can you explain the manner in which Planned Parenthood would be defunded with a Democratic president sitting in office? It won't happen, it never had any chance of happening, and everyone knew that it would never happen. The same thing with the shutdown in 2013. It was not a realistic attempt to try to reduce the number of abortions - it was nothing more than a political stunt so that folks like Cruz can grandstand and draw attention to their campaigns. I don't think the fact that Rubio goes out and does something productive, instead of waste his time participating in something that would ultimately achieve nothing (as did the previous government shutdown) tells us much about his commitment.

You have to pick your battles, and that is one of my main problems with Cruz. He is an ideologue. He would rather grandstand, gain attention, and lose than achieve something productive without being in the spotlight.

This is why I hate politics. It causes us to look past things we shouldn't and make excuses for things that are not excusable.  I'm not going to look at it the way you propose. Because that's just defeatism or can't win don't even bother to try kind of thinking. Rubio can't be counted on to fight the good fight. He retreated rather than stand up for what was right and there is no excuse for it. He broke his word and he was a no show coward for it. If you can look past that ok, but I don't accept lame excuses. Also, government shutdowns are a bunch of bunk, and they are lame, cowardly and selfish excuses to avoid defunding a group of bigoted mass-murders. 

[Peace]

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

This is why I hate politics. It causes us to look past things we shouldn't and make excuses for things that are not excusable.  I'm not going to look at it the way you propose. Because that's just defeatism or can't win don't even bother to try kind of thinking. Rubio can't be counted on to fight the good fight. He retreated rather than stand up for what was right and there is no excuse for it. He broke his word and he was a no show coward for it. If you can look past that ok, but I don't accept lame excuses. Also, government shutdowns are a bunch of bunk, and they are lame, cowardly and selfish excuses to avoid defunding a group of bigoted mass-murders. 

Well in that case why don't all of the Senators get together and pass a bill to overturn Roe v. Wade? Why let the mere fact that it is impossible get in the way? All of the members of Congress are cowards for not pursuing it.

A person does have to mindlessly follow every inane action of Ted Cruz to care about the issue. Rubio has cast plenty of pro-life votes. I don't blame him for wasting his time by chasing unicorns.

Please feel to name the 13 non-Republican Senators who would vote for it.

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

41 minutes ago, Peace said:

Well in that case why don't all of the Senators get together and pass a bill to overturn Roe v. Wade? Why let the mere fact that it is impossible get in the way? All of the members of Congress are cowards for not pursuing it.

How is it impossible? Norma McCorvey would highly disagree with you. She has dedicated her life to overturning the Supreme Courts decision.  You may know her.  She is Roe from Roe v. Wade. 

Yes, any members of congress who arent working toward overturning Roe v. Wade are cowards for not pursuing it.