On How to Vote

I started this post as a response to a comment on my previous posting of last Sunday's homily. However, I try to keep my own comments from going on too long without placing any restrictions on how much readers are allowed to say. When it started looking long I decided that I might as well make it a post for tonight, seeing as how I'm a day overdue if you're looking for me to post daily (more or less). So with a little cutting and pasting and adding more on, here's what I have for you.

A reader writes:

For a Catholic in good standing to support politicians such as Obama and especially Biden and Pelosi flies in the face of what the Bishops have told us in documents such as Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.

For me it flies in the face of what the Faithful Citizenship document tells us if we attempt to tell people who to vote for or how to vote (party-wise)—to allow someone to do our thinking for us goes against the Faithful Citizenship concept of forming one's own conscience in such matters. The fact is that we have to engage all the issues—and it isn't easy in the least.

Personally, I'm used to weighing the pros and cons of things and making comparisons. I tend to analyze with a critical eye toward just about everything. Also typically, when it comes to politics, I'll list what I support and what I oppose in the candidates and then ask myself how much I'm willing to work to change what is morally unacceptable in the candidate whom I choose to support—so it also includes a question of quantity. Will it be one issue only or two dozen issues that I'm going to be morally liable to do something about after I cast my vote?

When it comes to voting, keep in mind that the bishops tell us, "A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter's intent is to support that position." (My italics for clarity)

I would never say who I'm going to vote for here or from any other public forum—to do so would go against my role as a deacon and would be taken as my offering public support for a candidate--essentially, I would be telling you who to vote for—something that I cannot do nor desire to do. However, if you asked me privately--and in person--who I like I'd have no problem telling you. I'd also probably tell you exactly what I don't like about the candidate as well.

You see it's one thing for me as a deacon to say who I support (publicly) and another for you as a private citizen to do it (especially given that you are basically anonymous here); however, both of us—clergy and laity—need to avoid saying "You can't vote for so-and-so because it's wrong." A well formed conscience tells us that we, as individuals in dialogue with the issues, must make such decisions for ourselves and, if we want to be moral about it, we need to consider all the issues and what we plan to do in addition to voting.

In summary, I do indeed plan to vote—you can bet on it, and I think that everyone ought to vote this time. There's a lot at stake when you look at the big, multi-issued, world of woe. There's something else that's true as well. My candidate of choice (as is true with yours) will support something that there's no way I could ever support in any possible universe. I'm going to vote for him anyway because I've looked at the issues; I've formed my conscience; I prayed about it, and I know that I'll be obligated to work to change what I cannot accept in the candidate for whom I will cast my vote. The bottom line is that support/opposition isn't so much what you do at the polling place as it is what you do afterward.

Click here for resources.

Comments

[Pia]

Thank you for the clarification and the link to resources.

[Carol]

If the Pope comes out with a clarification that these politicians who support the most intrinsic evil should be denied the Holy Eucharist until their hearts are converted, then what more do we need to hear? Aren't we hearing what ought to be heard in that? Do we think it is wrong for Catholics to vote for pro-abort pols only because they are practicing Catholics? Is it alright to vote for Obama because he isn't Catholic and has no idea of just how much an evil it is?

What's wrong is wrong because it goes against God's own will and commandment (and this knowledge we Catholics have from the Church).

There were at least 23 bishops (so far) who spoke to both Pelosi's and Biden's errors. Archbishop Nieiderauer will be meeting with Pelosi for one reason this time: to ask her to refrain from receiving Communion. What more do we need to hear about any Catholics who make up the Church as they go along?

Pia, I can only presume that there aren't 1.5 million abortions yearly in Italy or elsewhere, but we here are pretty much like Pharaoh whom I at first thought stupid to keep testing God by opposing His will again and again and again. Pro-aborts are an abomination standing in the place of desolation, so to speak. We must understand that voting for a pro-abort of any party of any nation is to also stand there with him with a metal pan in our hands, waiting to catch His new deposition..

And I think it's all of a piece -- if we had stopped allowing Democrats to declare war on wombs --AND on the unfortunate fathers-not-to-be who've entered them, we'd have had less of a warmonger in office whenever a Republican was there.

It's perhaps time for the Church in America to join the universal Church: lose its tax-exempt status if talking plainly is muted by it, if that is what is confusing Catholics.

[Carol]

PS.. I'd have lost my belief in the Democrats as a decent human vehicle irregardless of abortion. I'm not a political analyst, but I've read them. The Dems heard the nation on war, and acted; they had a chance to shut down an illegal war a year ago, but they couched their admonitions / demands in such a way as to give Bush exactly the same status quo. None need take my word for it; we've tried many a "surge" (amidst the *stimulus* paid out of our own taxes and deficit to keep us numbed), and we find out after the fact that there's been an incursion into Pakistan, there've been threats against Iran, threats against Russia, and at least the two "insurgents" I've read of having recently been sent to Algeria (rendition) --- so the Dems changed what? I don't know how all this works, but what's the point of voting for anyone these days? They all wash their hands, but there aren't any candidates who are clean.

That's why I'm Catholicly voting for the babies' advocates. It's the only valid criteria that is left. Right to life organs have always said the same: It's what we do after an election that's important, but they put it as: Elect the babies' advocates, and work on the other issues after. As an American, that only seems fair. As a Ron Paul-less Catholic not prepared to dismiss the word "intrinsic," then voting to keep Obortion out seems our only Catholic option.

[Jason]

I think this statement from Kansas City, Kansas Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann and Kansas City – St. Joseph Bishop Robert W. Finn back-up my previous points.

"Could a Catholic in good conscience vote for a candidate who supports legalized abortion when there is a choice of another candidate who does not support abortion or any other intrinsically evil policy? Could a voter’s preference for the candidate’s positions on the pursuit of peace, economic policies benefiting the poor, support for universal health care, a more just immigration policy, etc. overcome a candidate’s support for legalized abortion? In such a case, the Catholic voter must ask and answer the question: What could possibly be a proportionate reason for the more than 45 million children killed by abortion in the past 35 years? Personally, we cannot conceive of such a proportionate reason."

You can read the rest of the statement here.

[Deacon DW]

Jason-I try to be respectful of everyone's opinion and their right to express it, especially those opinions that come from individual bishops. However, please understand I quoted directly from the bishops' statement Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.

Therefore, it is not my personal opinion per se being expressed in the statement, "A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter's intent is to support that position."

It is the clear logical implication of the statement that one may, in fact, vote for a candidate who supports a position contrary to Catholic teaching provided that his or her intention is not to support such a position. Futhermore, the statement comes from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in an attempt to provide pastoral guidance for the faithful rather than being merely the opinion of one or two individuals.

Moreover, it is overwhelmingly clear in the document that the faithful must form their own consciences, and therefore telling the faithful which candidates they may or may not vote for, even indirectly in the form of a statement such as "You may not vote for a candidate who supports position x" runs contrary to the principle of forming one's own conscience, and, in my opinion, betrays the spirit of the document.

[Carol]

Let's see the Rome documents that flesh out what the USCCB only began. As a Catholic forming my conscience on how to vote, I don't see 50,000,000 killed in a death penalty, here. I don't see 50,000,000 killed in war (yet) even adding in the deaths from economic sanctions which have caused poor standards of living but never for those in palaces whom we later set up for an appointment with a crane -- and presumably, we'd stop all this idiotic warring before we got that far.

Fine, Catholic folks who want to vote for Mr. Send The Still Gasping Victims of Abortion to a Utility Closet to Die as They Ought to Have, The Little Punishments, go right ahead. SOSDD, eh?

But don't anyone tell Catholics that abortion can be equated with other evils. It cannot. The Incarnation alone ought to speak to all of us on that.

[Carol]

Jason, unfortunately, your link leads to a Trad dandy who has always reminded me of the magician mentioned in the Bible. I'll be seeking the rest of the article at the Bishops' site(s), but thank you for the elaboration.

DDW, all disagreements aside for a sec, tho' they be matters of life and death, know that many are praying for you and your hurricane-threatened area.

[Jason]

Carol,

You can read the full article here at The Catholic Key Blog from the staff of the newspaper for the Diocese of Kansas City - St. Joseph in Missouri

http://catholickey.blogspot.com/2008/09/could-catholic-in-good-conscience-vote.html

[Carol]

Thank you, Jason. I should've looked back in here yesterday, as I went looking for it last night. As they say, what could possibly be proportionate an intrinsic evil with abortion, which is, the last I looked not 45, but 48.6 million. And how many other nations have taken their abortion lead from us, as well as funding via our monies via UNFPA. If we think 50 million is a horrendous figure (keeping in mind there are no limits on it..there's no ceiling on it), can we imagine what such an amount of human carnage looks like from God's side? If He heard one man's (Abel's) blood crying from the ground, what does He hear from American ground? We really shouldn't even dare plant here anymore, nor even feed any of our abused slaughter-food here.

Imagine hiring a murderer to enter one's core, the same locus that Jesus chose for His incarnation, to violently rid one of what God has called Good. Then, imagine calling that someone's right. This is how it got to the point of pulling a fetal head down to where one can insert a cutting tool to collapse a skull--and we STILL don't understand. The fact is, one can find and hire a murderer to do this even up to the very moment of natural labor. This is proportionate only with a similar lying to a people since it results in some poor soul being pre-emptively de-limbed, or de-breathed in a nursing home bed. Speaking of which, perhaps you know of whom I speak in saying that I came across a video of a Jewish pro-life Amherst professor addressing a gathering of pro-life bloggers, who details exactly what a pro-life President might've done all along the way, but didn't. I believe it would be different with this new pro-life President, even tho' I am well aware that he and his VP are deadly in other ways. This time, many more eyes are open.

I (and my family) will work for Ron Paul if he wants to run again someday. But right now, he's out of it, as are his libertarian choices. Or should a genuine Democrat-for-life run someday, we'll see. At this point, however, if he/she bore any crazy ideas like Obama on a paid youth culture, indentured service for a year, mandatory voluntary military.. (and much more which reeks of socialism), it'd be questionable. I don't know what's happened to the platforms, but we aren't in Kansas anymore.

DDW, I've been more the Ugly Anti-abortion-er than a gentle pro-life-er. I apologize. I can't change it--I think it's dangerous to be calm about abortion, now, but I apologize for any undue upset here.

[Deacon Pat Kearns]

Nice post. You are very right in regards to people needng to form their own conscience. They also however, need to understand our faith, realizing that is a part of formation as well.

[Deacon DW]

Thanks, Pat. Indeed forming one's conscience and understanding the faith are inseparable.

[Carol]

The Bishop of Scranton on the right to be a one-issue voter:

Another argument goes like this: “As wrong as abortion is, I don't think it is the only relevant ‘life’ issue that should be considered when deciding for whom to vote.” This reasoning is sound only if other issues carry the same moral weight as abortion does, such as in the case of euthanasia and destruction of embryos for research purposes. Health care, education, economic security, immigration, and taxes are very important concerns. Neglect of any one of them has dire consequences as the recent financial crisis demonstrates. However, the solutions to problems in these areas do not usually involve a rejection of the sanctity of human life in the way that abortion does. Being “right” on taxes, education, health care, immigration, and the economy fails to make up for the error of disregarding the value of a human life. Consider this: The finest health and education systems, the fairest immigration laws, and the soundest economy do nothing for the child who never sees the light of day. It is a tragic irony that “pro-choice” candidates have come to support homicide -- the gravest injustice a society can tolerate -- in the name of “social justice.”

Full article at Zenit:

http://www.zenit.org/article-23793?l=english

[Deacon DW]

Well, I guess we know who the bishop of Scranton is voting for.

[Carol]

So, he's giving counsel to himself? Really, why'd he bother? I think multi-issue Catholic voters, when the main platform issue is yes or no to abortion, must have some wicked problem with pride. Better to have no vote at all from them, than a pro-abortion vote. Actually, I think Catholics looking for some way to vote for Nobama should be in on an abortion first --they should put the little severed pieces together for the nurse to make sure they got it all, and/or maybe apply the stethoscope out in the linen closet to make sure the little nuisance died.

[Pia]

??? Why do comboxes have to take this kind of tone? I've not heard the Pope say a word against either candidate, and I'm sure that when either one of them goes to visit him in Rome, he will welcome that person with open arms and I doubt seriously that if it happened to be Obama, he'd say "no entrance to you, you baby killer".
There is a wonderful thing called freedom of conscience, something that no one has a right to infringe on no matter how right he or she feels about an issue. But that's just my opinion. I hope it doesn't make me the equivalent of a baby killer.

********
I had to smile when I saw a little old (106 yrs) nun living in a convent in Rome was on the news because she had trouble registering (her year of birth didn't come up among the options online, so she had to fax it in). She had a big Obama '08 pin on her, and didn't seem the least bit perturbed about her choice. She in fact said "he's a fine young man". I don't think she's going to burn in hell for it, but in any case it's her choice, freely made. Just like I don't think any one will burn in hell for voting McCain, and if they do, they certainly don't deserve to be told that maybe they should go to Iraq and gather together all the pieces of a person blown up by a cluster bomb, or go out to the Arctic circle and watch the polar bears drown...

[Carol]

I'm sorry if my tone is harsh. I get pretty upset when folks ignore (and/or misrepresent) the Church from whom they receive God's grace, but this is a matter of life OR death. Obama has clearly stated "F.Y." to God; Obama proponents need to wake up and smell the little cadavers. Certainly Abbot Joseph can say it much better:

NObama

[Pia]

Anti abortion democrats do exist, and are an indicator that things are changing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/us/politics/26abortion.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=anti%20abortion%20democrats&st=cse&oref=slogin

[Carol]

I am afraid this is the "change" that increasingly earless *Catholic* Americans have instituted.

[Deacon DW]

Really, identifying any one person--living or otherwise--as being *the* Antichrist isn't part of what I believe or value. It's not a part, as far as I can reasonably tell, of my religion and certainly--beyond doubt--it's not part of my personal faith expression.

With all due respect to everyone, I've decided that it's time to close comments on this particular post.