www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Roman Catholics for Obama '08

Byzantina,

No, there is no need to have to choose between what I like to humorously call the evil of two lessers.

Vote for what you believe in!

Best,
Robster

Exactally...I'm not going to feel guilty this election cycle for what some would call "throwing" away my vote. I will vote for my favorite candidate regardless of party.

A few cycles ago, as I was weighing third party candidates for a protest vote, my ballot arrived and I was happily reminded that "None of the Above" is actually a choice on the Nevada presidential ballot. (Electors are a statewide office, and the choice is mandated by our constitution for all statewide offices. The combined votes for none of the above and third parties is greater than the margin of victory more often than not . . .)

hawk

Reminds me of a famous quote from Eugene Victor Debs: "I would rather vote for what I want, and risk not getting it, than vote for what I do not want, and be sure to get it!".

Me, I plan to vote by secret ballot.

Fr. Serge

Fr.Deacon Robert,

Thanks for your post. As a Pennsylvanian, I was shocked when Sen. Casey endorsed radically pro-abortion Obama.

Being as charitable and open minded as possible I can only think that young Casey truly feels that he can sway Obama away from a radical abortion position toward a less inflammatory left of center. After the Democrat party leadership realized that they were alienating many of the supporters they needed there was a lot of discussion about modifying their radical policy.

I don't buy that it will happen, but if God wills that it happen, and that Sen Casey feels that he has chosen for this call, then I add my prayers for this intention.

May God help my lack of faith. However, Obama will not get my vote without sincere statement rejecting his present views of abortion and the homosexual "marriage."

I can't imagine that Obama's minders would let him get away with the inconsistency of changing his position on abortion. It would damage his brand.

I don't like copy and paste PR advisors; I've almost had enough of Obama's talking points. If he is able to say what he means and explain why he means it, then he would fare better without a script. He's so bound to the script right now it's hard to know what his positions on policy truly are, or would be if he becomes president.

Terry

You paint with a broad stroke. Let's put this into perspective. In his reply to the Theodore Cardinal McCarrick as then president of the USCCB on the question about who is worthy to receive Holy Communion, then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote,

Setting aside the question of receiving Holy Communion, let's just look at remote material cooperation.

"Proportionate reasons" includes an appreciation of the certainty and the gravity of the goods/evils involved.

What little we actually know about Obama's positions tells us that he will not simply permit, but actually require infanticide, lest the concept that any "not yet born fetus" ever be regarded as a person under the law, thus threatening the "right to an abortion". That paraphrases his rationale in the Illinois legislature as reported in the press. It doesn't get more certain than that, and we all know about the gravity of killing.

Balanced against this is what? "Change?" What does that mean?

And if one of the changes is a universal healthcare system run under US Federal statutes, and the 14th Amendment, and they eliminate a right to "conscientious objection", then what? This is not fantasy, it is already being done/attempted at the state level in various places, including NY, MA and NJ.

As others have said in this thread, this man needs to be challenged like he's never been challenged before about his "philosophy" in these areas before I would even consider voting for him. Notice how easy it was for him to switch churches after twenty years when the heat began to rise! Does that augur well for allowing a "conscientious objection"? When the going gets tough, change!

Michael

P.S. I agree with Zarove's characterization of "communism" although I would use the word "socialism". If European socialism is any guide, it is absolutely critical not to allow any exceptions -- no "conscience clauses" -- everybody must toe the party line. I have seen this up close and personal in Spain.

Michael McD-

thanks for the reply. Both major party candidates fall way short vis-a-vis Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life. You've touched upon Senator Obama's position (though I wouldly hardly say his position "requires infanticide.")

McCain is a federalist on this issue. He states he'll nominate justices to the Supreme Court in order to overturn Roe v. Wade so that the issue is decided by state courts. Is this any better from a Catholic perspective?

Overturning Roe v. Wade is not the answer. The government in this instance is failing. IMHO, we, as Catholics and other people of good will, need to address the issues that cause women to seek abortions.

When all is said and done, neither major party candidate can be endorsed as pro-life. As a result, Catholics will vote for the next president based on "the presence of proportionate reasons."

Abortion will not be got rid of by the simple electoral process. We who believe in the traditional moral teaching that abortion is murder must set ourselves to change the present public opinion (yes, it can be done - it was done, after all, in the last fifty years). In my own view ordering people to vote for this candidate or that candidate is counter-productive.

Fr. Serge

Deacon John,

I'm not advocating any candidate, I'm trying to point out, from the standpoint of moral theological principles, that just because there is a matter of "remote material cooperation" does not remove the analysis required by Catholics from the area of serious inquiry into the candidates' real principles rather than going with slogans and political affinities alone.

I've read a bit of "analysis" on the Web, where the writer, having noted that formal cooperation (let's say in procuring an abortion, as an example) is not involved, and that therefore, Catholics are "free" to vote "any way they want". That is not accurate.

As an extreme case, let's say we know that Obama will win in November (or hope he does). Catholics, especially those with influence with him, need to help shape his principles in the direction of being "not so bad" as they might otherwise be (insisting on "conscience clauses" for example). That was the counsel of St. Thomas More for anyone engaged in public life in his day.

I have no personal animus to tell others how to vote, and I am a registered independent.

Michael

P.S. By "infanticide" I was referring to his work in the Illinois legislature to defeat a bill which would have legally protected the life of a baby who survived an abortion procedure. The quote from him indicated the rationale for his (successful) opposition to the bill, as I indicated. Maybe it's just me, but I regard leaving a 9-month old new-born to die as equivalent to killing him.

Michael - I'm curious; how does one register as an independent?

Fr. Serge

Fr. Serge,

When one registers to vote (at the local municipality), on the form there is either a checkbox for "independent", or one simply omits to check Republican or Democrat.

One thereby is registered to vote in actual elections, local, state and national, but not necessarily in party primaries (some states do allow that also).

In Christ,
Michael

Deacon John,


This is, I think, a good example of a prudential judgement in the political arena. Is returning the issue of abortion to the states (presumably the legislatures not the state courts) better than Roe v. Wade? (BTW, the best thing to do to persuade oneself that Roe v. Wade is pretty bad jurisprudence is simply to read the darn thing!)

a) Some have argued that if the people in the states can use the freedom from Roe v. Wade to eliminate or limit abortions, that would be a better thing.

b) Others have argued that Roe v. Wade ought to be resolved by passing a "pro-life" federal amendment to the Constitution, because otherwise lawyers will play off one law vs. another, etc., and there will never be any resolution to the issue (that is the argument of a personal friend who is a prominent lawyer around here, who has done a lot of pro bono work of a pro-life nature.)

IMHO, either would be "better" than our current situation. "b" might be the long-shot, risk the whole kaboodle on one throw, at the risk of accomplishing nothing; "a" might be more certain of achieving some good results, but not an "ideally" good "Catholic" result.

Each Catholic (as each voter, generally) would need to decide which of them (or any other approaches) seemed "better" in the concrete political circumstances. I wouldn't call either a Catholic solution, nor would I label either an Un-Catholic solution. [In other words, it is possible for 2 equally-faithful Catholics to disagree about the proper approach.]


No question about it. I don't see a dichotomy, though.

In Christ,
Michael

Michael-

I whole-heartedly agree with your last post. Catholic voters do need to analyze the candidates positions. That's what the Bishops are advocating in their USCCB publications.

Since both major party candidates are not defenders of life from a Catholic perspective, Catholic voters need to analyze the candidates' position on, say, healthcare issues. How many babies can be saved if a woman has access to adequate prenatal care? At the very least, a woman could not decide to choose abortion based upon the availability (or the lack of availability) to medical care.

I am quite uncomfortable when others (like Zarove above) judge voters who support one candidate over the other.

The Catholic Bishops have spoken out against politicians (and by extension, voters) who support a candidate because of a candidate's position which is at odds with Church teaching.

Example- Voter supports candidate because candidate is an advocate for the use of waterboarding on prisoners.

Because of the myriad of issues we will continue to face, it becomes imperative for us to look beyond the sound bites and slick commercials.