www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall The Catholic Vote

On EWTN there is a new program:

THE CATHOLIC VOTE (30:00 Each)
Father Frank Pavone, National Director for Priests for Life, presents a six-part series on the relevance of upcoming elections in the United States for the protection of human life. He cites several ways to get further involved in the political process.
EP.2: Without Life, We Have Nothing Else
Friday October 6, 2006 10:00 PM
Saturday October 7, 2006 2:30 AM

I remember some Cardinal say something to the effect that voting for a Pro-Choice politican is a mortal sin. Not sure if this is 100% accurate but I am sure its close.

To vote for a pro-death politician is definitely matter for grave sin if the opponent is pro-life. On the other hand, if you have a choice between two pro-death politicians (not an unusual occurrence), you have an obligation to try and determine who would do the least amount of damage, and vote accordingly. Voting for a third-party pro-life candidate is an option, if such an option is made available.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

Father Deacon Robert,

What if your vote for the 3rd party candidate allows the pro-death candidate to be elected?

Does that rule only apply when both are pro-death?

What about the last election? I would have loved to vote for Keyes, but he wasn't going to win. And Kerry, was for keeping abortion legal, I didn't want him to win. Bush was for things that I'm not for but had/has the chance to put pro-life judges on the Supreme Court.

No matter who wins, we lose.

Bring back a king like St. Louis!

In the immortal words of 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!"

No fool, Debs.

Fr. Serge

Blahoslovy!

Thank you Father, for that quote.

From now on I'll vote for Jesus like Mother Angelica does.

Eugene Debs was a true hero

The present Pope addressed this complicated issue a couple of years back:

If we all want progress politically. All Catholics and Christians should produce their own canidate. Even if he only gets 15% of the vote the voting bloc would create a clear message for the future. Suppose some priest were to run knowing he wouldn't get elected and have to leave his parrish. We could at least win local elections.
The war is a huge issue. We are in the final holy war against Islam. We are not going to win by slowly sliding backwards as a culture.
I personally cringe at the idea of 2 sets of Republicrats that each have half of the Christian values each. It neturalizes the idea of Christ in government.
I will stand up to my values in spite of being homeless with social shame over my head and on my clothes.

QUOTE]Eugene Debs was a true hero [/QB][/QUOTE]

Brian,
as an Orthodox Christian, nay, as an Eastern Christian, who has lost family members to the mines of Kolyma and Magadan, bequethed upon us by socialists like Eugene Debs, I find your idolization of him to be disturbing. Son, wake up, actually talk to someone who has lived in, and under the thumb of a "socialist paradise" as purposed by Mr Debs. Socialism and Christianity are mutually exclusive.

Alexandr

Socialism and Christianity are mutually exclusive.
Alexandr [/QB][/QUOTE]

In 1931, in Quadragesimo Anno , Pope Pius XI said that no one can be a sincere Catholic and a true Socialist at the same time.

Dn. Robert

I find that quote very hard to believe. I can believe it as best Socialism is practiced. Communism did persucute the church between 1920s and the 1990s. But in theory socialism would be the ideal government. As long as greedy and selfish people exist socialism cannot work.
I think the early 1st century church was essentially socialist, but that was under leadership of Christ. I have studied intentional communities that are a house full of roommates living in a micro socialist enviorment.
I have a model of a socialist government that could work. Socialism only seems to work in small groups. My model is a series of groups of groups connected by Internet. However there would have to be world peace too or it would also fail.
Please don't be offended. I am not condoning the sick socialist government that allowed mine accidents and such. Socialism combined with selfish greed is like Christ upside down and reversed.

In 1931, in Quadragesimo Anno , Pope Pius XI said that no one can be a sincere Catholic and a true Socialist at the same time.

Dn. Robert [/QB][/QUOTE]


The Pope said nothing about the tradition of Christian socialism in that encyclical but secular MArxist thought which the great majority of socialist and social democratic parties abandoned long ago. The British Labour party for example grew out of the Churches especialyl Methodism in Wales and the Christian socialist tradition there.

Brian,
as an Orthodox Christian, nay, as an Eastern Christian, who has lost family members to the mines of Kolyma and Magadan, bequethed upon us by socialists like Eugene Debs, I find your idolization of him to be disturbing. Son, wake up, actually talk to someone who has lived in, and under the thumb of a "socialist paradise" as purposed by Mr Debs. Socialism and Christianity are mutually exclusive.

Alexandr [/QB][/QUOTE]

Alex,

you fail to distinguish between Democratic socialism of the moderate left (British Labour Party, Swedish Social Democrats) and Marxism-Leninism- Stalinism which is completely different.

The Pope said nothing about the tradition of Christian socialism in that encyclical but secular MArxist thought which the great majority of socialist and social democratic parties abandoned long ago. The British Labour party for example grew out of the Churches especialyl Methodism in Wales and the Christian socialist tradition there. [/QB][/QUOTE]

The Pope was referring to a Socialism which envisions complete ownership of the means of production by the State, which would violate the human right to own (in the Christian sense of stewardship) property. In that sense, you are correct. Leo XIII, in an encyclical on Catholic Social Teaching (I forget the title), in addition to condemning the above Socialism, also condemned "Laissez-Faire" capitalism. That's why Belloc and Chesterton began to promote the notion of "Distributism", a very interesting and Christian approach to politics and economics.

Dn. Robert

So far as I know, Eugene Victor Debs was not a Catholic and his career - possibly even his life - had come to an end before Pius XI said that. Blaming the horrors of Lenin and Stalin on Debs has no rhyme or reason.

Besides, I quoted Debs on one and only point - and on that point he was quite correct; voting for what we seriously do not want is silly.

Debs, by the way, was certainly a Chistian - the first edition of his biography was titled The Bending Cross, and he insisted that the socialism he was promoting was based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. I'm not enough of a student of his writings to have an opinion on that one way or the other.

There were certainly proto-Communists in the USA before the Russian Revolution; John Reed and Bill Haywood come to mind at once. Reed discovered the dishonesty of the Soviet types before he died; I don't know enough about Haywood.

The really tragic figure is Paul Robeson, who was without doubt a practicing Protestant Christian and who was dazzled by Communist support for the US blacks at a time when nobody else was supporting them (the Communists, of course, were doing this for reasons of their own). He also discovered, quite painfully, the truth about the Soviets and withdrew into self-imposed retirement and seclusion for the last 15 years or so of his life. God be good to him. After the USSR collapsed, people in Moscow found the long-lost tapes of his last concert in Moscow; it's now available as a CD. Well worth listening to.

Fr. Serge

Personally, I'm FED UP with my Church telling me how to vote. I believe in the separation of religion and the state, in order to preserve the independence and purity of religion.

Translation ?

In 2004, I held my nose and voted for Bush. The Church leadership (Catholic and Evangelical) didn't endorse him, but it came really, really close by insisting on the virtually supreme importance of the abortion issue. Well, I'm against abortion; and I recognized that some places on the Supreme Court of the U.S. (which decides the abortion issue) would open up soon; and only the President can nominate members for the U.S. Supreme Court. So, I voted for Bush because I thought he would put some anti-abortion judges on the Supreme Court (and because I thought he had the gonadular grit to win the war).

Two years later ?

Well, George Bush did put two anti-abortion judges on the Supreme Court; and, I give him credit for that.

But, I think the rest of his administration and the Republican dominated government (nationally and here in Ohio) stinks. So, this November, I will be voting for lots and lots of Democrats.

And, I will be doing so regardless of a candidate's position on abortion. There are more issues more than only abortion that our government has to face and solve.

And that brings me back to religion:

I am worried because the leadership of much of the Church (Catholic and Evangelical) has chosen to politically support whoever promises to support the (conservative) Christian code of morality. In other words, the (conservative) leaders of the Church have been making a deal with conservative politicians: we'll help you get elected by motivating our membership (by stressing issues like abortion or gay marriage), if you will seek to enforce our (conservative) moral code in the secular law.

This really has me worried, for two reasons: It makes the Church and its leadership into the political servants of conservative politicians. And it makes Christianity to appear synonymous with conservative politics.

And the politicians agree to the deal not out of faith or devotion, although some of them may well have deep personal faith. The politicians agree to the deal, when it suits them, to gain and keep power.

(For just the latest example, written by someone who witnessed it first-hand in the Bush administration, see the article entitled "Why a Christian in the White House Felt Betrayed" at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546374-2,00.html .)

I do not want the Gospel of Jesus Christ to be equated with any political ideology. I do not want the Church to be equated with any political party. I do not want Church leadership to be servants of political leaders. I do not want the separation of Church and state to be eroded. And, for those reasons, I do not want my Church to tell me --directly or obliquely-- who to vote for.

-- John

Dear John:

I appreciate your frustration. I do believe that the Church should avoid becoming a tool for any particular political party any particular public official. However, I reject the notion that the Church should simply stay out of politics. The Church has a moral obligation to speak out against abortion. In my own opinion, I think a lot of Christians are mislead by politicians on this issue. I also think that there are a lot of people who support the right to an abortion who are misled by politicians. I do think that there are a few politicians who either oppose abortion as a moral evil or support a woman's right to an abortion as a matter of conscience; I also suspect a huge number of politicians are so amoral that they don't really care one way or the other-but they are perfectly glad to use the issue as a way of garnering votes. I think similar claims can be supported with respect to other issues that should matter to Christians. I come from a working class family that has historically voted Democratic because we believe that Democrats care more about the poor and the middle class, while the Republicans are the party of the wealthy and corporate America. This belief has a huge impact on my own choices at the polls-but increasingly, I find myself forced to consider the possibility that this is no longer true. I still believe that most Republican politicans are servants of the wealthy and corporations-but I'm coming to see that this is so often the case with Democratic politicians as well. Another issue that brings similar results is war. The war in Iraq is one of the reasons why I'm so critical of President Bush-I don't think there is any justification for this war from a Christian perspective, but the record of Democratic Presidents is not really any better. We could go on and on, taking issue after issue, and reach similar conclusions. But again, I don't think the answer is for the Church simply to be silent on political questions. In my opinion, if the Church, which is the mystical body of Christ, is to represent Christ to the world, she must give prophetic witness to the moral dictates of the Gospel. In our own political situation in the USA, where both of the two dominant political parties often espouse positions that are opposed to the Gospel, I think the Church should avoid the appearance of prefering either of those two parties. I also think Christians should seriously consider forming another political party that will advocate only for positions that are consistent with the teachings of the Church.

The Church does not tell us how to vote. The hierarchs, as teachers, are bound to teach the principles of Catholic Social Teaching to us. It is up to us, the faithful, to apply those principles, i.e., to "put flesh" on them, and to begin "building the Kingdom of God" here on earth. The government which we erect must participate in facilitating the salvation of it's subjects. We are not Gnostics. We are Catholics, and our world view is "incarnational". Catholic Social Teachings involve a "hierarchy of values". There are certain values which are "non-negotiable". One of them is the question of direct murder of innocent pre-born human beings. This is an act which is inherently evil. It can never be justified. I don't see how any Catholic can morally vote for a Pro-Death politician if his opponent is Pro-Life.I would not want to go before the judgement seat of Christ trying to justify that.
As to "separation of religion and state", this notion, as understood in the U.S.,and promoted by Freemasonry (and the ACLU), creates a false dichotomy. It has a Gnostic "flavor", separating the spiritual and the material. It's as if we are bound to keep our religious values strictly in the "private", "spiritual" realm, and not let them govern our actions in the public marketplace. The Pagans get to control the culture, with us being bound to yield to their more "inclusive" and "culturally diverse" values, while we keep our prayers to ourselves, and strictly within the Church building.
To the contrary, the Church, traditionally, has always held that the functions of governing the Church, and governing the State should be functionally separate, but that the State is bound to obey the Church in the area of morality, esp. when it promulgates it's Social Teachings. Unfortunately, the American Church, following the lead of Abp. John Ireland (the great enemy of our particular Church), NEVER properly passed on Catholic Social Teachings to it's subjects. That's why we have the likes of politicians such as Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Mario Cuomo, Tom Ridge, and a whole host of others, claiming to be good Catholics, while voting and enforcing policies which allow for the destruction of pre-born children in the womb. This must stop. We must, at the very least, make a serious attempt to re-evangelize the culture, and make it Christian once again. We cannot make any progress in this area by enabling the success of pro-Death politicians.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

Amen, Amen. Amen. The Christian Democratic Parties in Western Europe (including the Christian Scial Union in Bavaria)were serious attempts to "put flesh" on that idea. It would be difficult in the U.S., because most State Legislatures have set up strong legal barriers against "third parties", but I would love to see someone make a serious attempt at this. I think it could gain momentum in "fly-over" territory, i.e. , those areas between New York City, and Los Angeles.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

Athanasius, thank you for the commiserations !


Athanasius and Dn. Robert, I disagree about founding a "Christian" party in America. I don't want that, because (in my opinion) that would simply politicize religion (and vice versa) more than it is already. Instead, I would like to see more individuals run for office who have moral positions.


Dn. Robert, I agree that the Church hasn't explicitly endorsed a candidate. However, the Church has come implicitly very close to doing that, by stressing the abortion issue and de-emphasizing the other issues. Yes, the Church needs to preach that abortion is wrong. But it also needs to preach that being anti-abortion isn't all there is to being pro-life. There's a whole Gospel that needs to be considered, including at election time. Hence, in addition to the abortion issue, the Church should also be preaching on charity to the poor, charity to the stranger (i.e., immigrants), and unjust wars, among other matters.


But, this is just my two cents' worth of opinion. Your mileage may vary.

-- John

Dear John:
I'm very sympathetic to your position. It's only recently that I have given serious consideration to the idea of a Christian party in the USA. For most of my life, my thinking on the matter has been basically identical to what you've just stated. I have just become so frustrated. On the whole, my sympathies are with the Democratic Party-but there is the abortion issue. It's bad enough that the so-called pro-choice position has become part of the Democratic Party platform. What's worse, is that oftentimes, the Democrats make people like me (liberal on most issues but prolife on the abortion issue) feel like outcasts. Then there's the Republican Party. Well, the GOP has often taken a pro-life position, but I seriously question the commitment to that position on the part of most politicians-I think there are a few politicians who truly care, but I think most are simply happy to use that issue to gain the pro-life vote. To be fair, I also think that there are lots of Democrats who say they are pro-choice only for the sake of garnerning votes-not because they are committed to the prochoice position as a matter of conscience. Beyond the question of abortion, there is almost no aspect of what the Republican Party stands for that I agree with. So I'm left with Democrats whose positions I support for the most part, but who are usually pro-abortion, or Republicans, who may be pro-life, but who take other positions that I almost always find to be offensive. That doesn't leave me with much of a choice! This is why I've come around to the idea of a Christian political party that advocates for a consistent life ethic (no abortion, no so-called euthanasia, no stem cell research that involves the destruction of life, no capital punishment, no war except when just war conditions truly exist), that calls for an economic system that does not eliminate private ownership but that also requires those who profit from the labor of others to compensate them fairly, and that seeks to promote Christian values in general over a wide range of issues. I have very little reason to think this will happen any time soon-if ever-but IMO, seems to be a welcome alternative to the current situation.
In peace,
Ryan

Ryan,

Kudos, sir, kudos for that post ! I agree and sympathize very much with what you expressed. Especially this:

That says it for me !

My main concern about the idea of a "Christian" party in the U.S. is the name. A lot of good people would be repelled by it just because of the name -- because they believe in the separation of Church and state. Other people --probably not very Christian except in name-- would be attracted to it and try to take it over.

Personally, I like the idea of a centrist or moderate party in the U.S. However, I honestly don't think that a third major political party is viable in America.

So, I'm back to looking for moral moderates in either major party.

Let me ask you this, for your opinion: Do you think it is worthwhile for Democratic-leaning Christians to join the Democratic Party, in order to try to work for change /reform from within ? For example, Bob Casey is a Democrat running for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania; and he seems to be a pro-life Catholic. Is this a sign of the potential for pro-life change within the Democratic party ?

-- John

John:
I think there may be the possibility for change in the Democratic Party on questions of morality that are important to Christians. I don't see the official platform changing on the question of abortion anytime soon, but I do think that the party can move in a direction where there is room for people who are pro-life to run for office as Democrats. In 2004, there was talk at the Democratic Convention about making room for people of faith-listening to what they have to say and possibly even learning from them. This sort of talk even came from Sen. Hillary Clinton-to what extent she was being sincere, and to what extent she is simply trying to gain more support for her party, I don't know. But I do think that Democrats are beginning to realize that it is a mistake to marginalize committed Christians whose political sympathies lie mainly with the Democrats because those people are pro-life. So yes, I do think there is the possibility that good can come from Christians remaining in the Democratic Party and trying to make a change for the good.
Ryan

Dear Athanasius and Harmon,

Both of you have done a good job outlining how difficult it is to be a committed Catholic and a participant in the American political system, at the same time. I would recommend becoming immersed in Catholic Social Teaching. Obtain a copy of the Compendium of Catholic Social Teaching, issued by Rome within the last few years, and work within your parties for a change in the direction of Catholic Social Teaching, if that is your inclination. It's not an easy way to go. I have friends up here that have gone that route, within the Democrat Party, with some limited success. If that is not do-able, the foundation of a new party is a way to go, but extremely difficult. What jumps out when you read the Compendium is that the Republicans "have it right" on some things, as do the Democrats, but both have glaring deficiencies. In terms of the "hierarchy of values", the "life issues" (abortion, in vitro fertilization, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, etc.) presently trump everything, because the direct taking of innocent human life is always inherently wrong, whereas the Church upholds the right of the State to use capital punishment, although counseling for finding an alternate means to protect society, and will acknowledge that waging war can be just, under certain circumstances. Other issues, such as the right to organize labor unions, the right to a living family wage, the right to have a roof over your ahead, are all extremely important, but are overshadowed by the "life isues". This is why I generally vote Republican (depending on the candidates), but I always put my choices through a moral "litmus test", and this is not easy. I have been hearing the Democrats making noises about appealing to people of Faith, but my trust level is very low. On one hand, I moved up here to NE Pa, back in 2000. I was born and raised in N.J., and my family, on both sides had, years ago, been strong Democrats. In recent years, it has been impossible to be pro-life and a Democrat in N.J. Gov. Mc Greevy, the one who ditched his wife for a guy, went to the same Catholic High School I attended. In his last successful election (before he came out of the closet), he ran against a Republican who had been a Presbyterian Minister. The Republican ran on a pro-life platform. Mc Greevy repeatedly referred to him as a "whacko" because of his pro-life stance. I have another friend who belongs to Opus Dei, is a strong pro-lifer, and is a lifelong Democrat activist in Southern New Jersey, near Philadelphia. When he finally got his shot to run for office, the party nominated him to run for State Assembly in a "safe" Republican district. Needless to say, he was trounced in the General Election. Up here in NE Pa, I have been presently suprised to find that most of the local and State-level Democrat office holders stake out a pro-life position (Maybe you guys want to move up here, and run for office?). But, they usually begin to waffle on the life issues if they have a shot at running on a higher level. People up here , in my County, usually vote Democratic, but they make no distinctions on moral issues. The area is heavily Catholic, and they all voted for Clinton, Gore, and Kerry. If Judas Iscariot ran as a Democrat, and Mother Theresa was the Republican, Judas would win. As to Bob Casey, he talks a pro-life line, but it is a very weak pro-life line, with a lot of "nuance". He has accepted money and support from pro-aborts, including Hilary Clinton, and the notorious Moveon.Org. If you want to read more about the Santorum-Casey race, from a Catholic perspective, then read the attached article.

http://ncregister.com/site/article/234

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

I've just had a startling experience - my absentee ballot has been cancelled. I checked what might have caused this, and discovered that it was apparently done "across the board" in that district (and beyond), because someone decided that most absentee voters are Democrats (I've voted for the Democrats exactly once in my life).

Since I rather strenously object to being deprived of the franchise, I shall enlist the aid of a lawyer or two and insist on the franchise being restored to me. It won't be in time for the immediate election, but the presidential vote is only two years off. No prize for guessing who will be the lucky recipient of my vote!

Fr. Serge