Election Confusion

As usual every time an election comes around I get confused.

The question: is it a matter of prudence to not vote or vote third party or vote for anyone or are these questions decided by the hiearchy according to the magisterium?

I ask only because I can see myself either not voting or voting for someone besides Romney and certainly not obama.

I personally could not bring myself to vote 3rd party. I understand why people do, as neither candidate is in line with all that we believe as Catholics. However, in my opinion, a vote for a 3rd party candidate is a vote for Obama. With Obama’s record on abortion, and several other issues, I cannot imagine having him around for another four years. I voted Romney, though without much enthusiasm. :shrug:

:gopray2:

=fakename;9973507]As usual every time an election comes around I get confused.

The question: is it a matter of prudence to not vote or vote third party or vote for anyone or are these questions decided by the hiearchy according to the magisterium?

I ask only because I can see myself either not voting or voting for someone besides Romney and certainly not obama.

PRUDENCE and FACTS make it clear to the unpolitical; even like me, that this election may well be the MOST IMPORTANT for issues of Morality and Religious Freedom in OUR LIFE TIMES.

**To choose a third party candidate would FACTUALLY be in this TIGHT race, a wasted VOTE and therefore a WASTED opportunity to SERVE GOD"S INTEREST!:**eek:

Surely this is NOT a WWJD choice!

Religious Freedoms, Aborting, and SAME SEX unions ALL are on the line here and NOW.

MAKE THE CHOICE CHRIST WOULD HAVE YOU MAKE!:gopray2:

www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/upload/Forming-Consciences-for-Faithful-Citizenship-2011.pdf.

Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, political life, 2012 election, Archbishop Timothy Dolan, USCCB, U.S. bishops, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

I have excerpted several paragraphs which seem to address your question specifically.
However, you should read the entire document since there are at least five issues which are intrinsincly evil and morally grave under every circumstance. 1. directly induced abortion, euthenasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, forcing citizens to violate their conscience in grave matters through unjust laws or bureaucratice rules and regulations. And you may see other equally grave issues.

From the text:

  1. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the
    conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the
    extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation,
    may decide to vote for the candidate
    deemed less likely to advance such
    a morally flawed position and more
    likely to pursue other authentic
    human goods.

  2. In making these decisions, it is
    essential for Catholics to be guided
    by a well-formed conscience that
    recognizes that all issues do not
    carry the same moral weight and
    that the moral obligation to oppose
    intrinsically evil acts has a special
    claim on our consciences and our
    actions. These decisions should
    take into account a candidate’s
    commitments, character, integrity,
    and ability to influence a given issue.
    faithful citizenship
    11
    In the end, this is a decision to be

  3. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the
    conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the
    extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation,
    may decide to vote for the candidate
    deemed less likely to advance such
    a morally flawed position and more
    likely to pursue other authentic
    human goods.

  4. In making these decisions, it is
    essential for Catholics to be guided
    by a well-formed conscience that
    recognizes that all issues do not
    carry the same moral weight and
    that the moral obligation to oppose
    intrinsically evil acts has a special
    claim on our consciences and our
    actions. These decisions should
    take into account a candidate’s
    commitments, character, integrity,
    and ability to influence a given issue.
    faithful citizenship
    11
    In the end, this is a decision to be

  5. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the
    conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the
    extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation,
    may decide to vote for the candidate
    deemed less likely to advance such
    a morally flawed position and more
    likely to pursue other authentic
    human goods.

  6. In making these decisions, it is
    essential for Catholics to be guided
    by a well-formed conscience that
    recognizes that all issues do not
    carry the same moral weight and
    that the moral obligation to oppose
    intrinsically evil acts has a special
    claim on our consciences and our
    actions. These decisions should
    take into account a candidate’s
    commitments, character, integrity,
    and ability to influence a given issue.
    faithful citizenship
    11
    In the end, this is a decision to be

  7. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the
    conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the
    extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation,
    may decide to vote for the candidate
    deemed less likely to advance such
    a morally flawed position and more
    likely to pursue other authentic
    human goods.

  8. In making these decisions, it is
    essential for Catholics to be guided
    by a well-formed conscience that
    recognizes that all issues do not
    carry the same moral weight and
    that the moral obligation to oppose
    intrinsically evil acts has a special
    claim on our consciences and our
    actions. These decisions should
    take into account a candidate’s
    commitments, character, integrity,
    and ability to influence a given issue.
    faithful citizenship
    11
    In the end, this is a decision to be

  9. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the
    conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the
    extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation,
    may decide to vote for the candidate
    deemed less likely to advance such
    a morally flawed position and more
    likely to pursue other authentic
    human goods.

  10. In making these decisions, it is
    essential for Catholics to be guided
    by a well-formed conscience that
    recognizes that all issues do not
    carry the same moral weight and
    that the moral obligation to oppose
    intrinsically evil acts has a special
    claim on our consciences and our
    actions. These decisions should
    take into account a candidate’s
    commitments, character, integrity,
    and ability to influence a given issue.
    faithful citizenship

Note: You cannot rely on anyone elses opinion, you must decide for yourself. You are under a moral obligation to become informed. :thumbsup:

But that doesn’t answer my question. I especially ask because the Catholic press turned pro-Romney really quickly as though being pro-Romney was de fide. But is it?

I think that elections deal with very empirical and as such, complex facts and so who to vote for will be controversial and not clear cut.

The question is “is who to vote for, a matter of opinion on is it a matter of faith?” If it is a matter of opinion then one could vote for anyone non-obama (since the latter is by definition evil) but if it is a matter of faith then inspite of contrary appearances only 1 defined person ought to be voted for.

Candidate A = Evil Chance of success = 47%

Candidate B = Less Evil Chance of success = 46%

Candidate C = No Evil Chance of success = 7%

Your voting for option C effectively put Candidate A over the finish line.

You are AS responsible as the ones that voted for Candidate A.
Because you should have known that voting for the 3rd candidate would not allow the Less Evil to success.

But NOO your holier that thou attitude could only allow you to vote for a Non Option!
Shame on you :mad:

Then what is a vote for Obama? I don’t really understand it when people say that not voting or voting 3rd party is a vote for Obama.

PJM your comments seem to indicate that you are privy to information that the rest of us are not privy to. So please enlighten me because I just want to make sure… Is it God’s interest is to have a Mormon running the country? And is it also Christ’s choice to vote for a candidate that condones abortion in certain circumstances?

I still don’t get why Catholics feel that Romney is the candidate to vote for. We should not be voting for any of them because both of them condone abortion. In my heart faith comes before politics. I will continue to pray for a candidate that is in line with Catholic beliefs and will refrain from voting until that happens… even if it means never getting the opportunity to vote in my lifetime.

No shame on you!

Limit the evil.

politicalresponsibility.com/votingstatement.htm

Peace,
Ed

Here’s a link to a thread in World News which explains this exact thing.

One of the things it talks about is limiting evil.

As a Catholic, one is certainly not required to vote, but as a citizen it is a duty that should be taken seriously. And if you choose to vote, you must vote according to a well-formed conscience based on the teachings of the Catholic Church rather than adherence to a political party.

I am reminded of something Cardinal George wrote last month regarding the election. He said (catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2012/1021/cardinal.aspx)::slight_smile:

"…The present political campaign has brought to the surface of our public life the anti-religious sentiment, much of it explicitly anti-Catholic, that has been growing in this country for several decades. The secularizing of our culture is a much larger issue than political causes or the outcome of the current electoral campaign, important though that is.

…An earlier Archbishop of Chicago once tried his hand at reading the signs of his times. On May 18, 1937, Cardinal Mundelein, in a conference to priests of the archdiocese, called the then-German chancellor “an Austrian paper-hanger, and a darn poor one at that, I am told.”Why did Cardinal Mundelein speak in a way that drew applause from the New York Times and local papers and brought the German government to complain bitterly to the Holy See? The government of Germany, declaring its ideology the wave of the future, had dissolved Catholic youth groups and tried to discredit the church’s work among young people through trials of monks, priests and religious sisters accused of immorality. Cardinal Mundelein spoke of how the public protests of the bishops had been silenced in the German media, leaving the church in Germany more “helpless” than it had ever been.

He then added: “There is no guarantee that the battle-front may not stretch some day into our own land. Hodie mihi cras tibi. (Today it’s me; tomorrow, you). If we show no interest in this matter now, if we shrug our shoulders and mutter … it is not our fight, if we don’t back up the Holy Father when we have a chance, well, when our turn comes, we too will be fighting alone.”

“When our turn comes …” Was Cardinal Mundelein a prophet as well as an administrative genius? Hardly. At his death in 1939 he was well known as an American patriot and a friend of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, but he also had a Catholic conviction that no nation state has been immaculately conceived. The unofficial anthem of secularism today is John Lennon’s “Imagine,” in which we are encouraged to imagine a world without religion. We don’t have to imagine such a world; the 20th century has given us horrific examples of such worlds.

…God sustains the world, in good times and in bad. Catholics, along with many others, believe that only one person has overcome and rescued history: Jesus Christ, Son of God and Son of the Virgin Mary, savior of the world and head of his body, the church. Those who gather at his cross and by his empty tomb, no matter their nationality, are on the right side of history. Those who lie about him and persecute or harass his followers in any age might imagine they are bringing something new to history, but they inevitably end up ringing the changes on the old human story of sin and oppression. There is nothing “progressive” about sin, even when it is promoted as “enlightened.”

Again, the question is not “who to vote for?” but rather “Is Romney qua the magisterium, the Catholic candidate? That is, can one not vote for Romney and not for Obama and still be with good standing in the Church?”

Altho the entire article (quite short) is well worth reading and in fact so are some of the comments, I want to quote a bit and comment.

St. Thomas Aquinas enunciated this principle in the Summa Theologiae, where he noted that the object of the will’s choice is the possible good, not the impossible good (ST I-II q13, a5). Applying this principle, Blessed Pope John Paul II taught in Evangelium Vitae (73) that it is legitimate for a legislator to vote for a more restrictive law regarding abortion over a less restrictive law. He wrote: "This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects, in order to prevent worse legislation from being adopted."

So those who believe that it is important to work towards at least limiting the evil of abortion believe that it is important to pick a person who is against at least some abortions if not most, over a person who has no chance whatsoever of winning who is against all abortions. And when oje considers that the probabbility is high that whoever wins will be choosing Supreme Court justices, because at least 2 are very old (one is or sonn will be 80, iirc)…

It depends. It depends on why you vote third party. Read the article in its entirety in the first post of the thread I linked to above. He talks about all this.

You have to understand, tho, the the Church will only give you guidelines to morality in assessing your action. There are some things the Church will say are intrinsically immoral, their wrongness is embedded in the act itself. But in other instances, we have only guidelines.

For example, a man attacks a woman. She shoots him dead. It’s ruled self-defense, but in reality, she planned it that way because she wanted to kill him. The fact that she wanted to kill him means that she sinned. Even tho no one else knows this, in her heart, she had the intention of killing him, and so, she is not in good standing with God, which is, when all is said and done, all that really matters.

I’m not just interested in voting for the person who best represents what I believe; I’m interested in electing the person who best represents what I believe (not that there’s anyone left who completely fits that bill this year). Third parties are the ones that raise the issues that no one wants to raise and in the process they change the political debate and even policy, but they themselves as a political force disappear.

Republican Theodore Roosevelt ran as the “Bull Moose Party” (Progressive Party) nominee in the 1912 election. Roosevelt won 27.4% of the popular vote and carried six states totaling 88 electoral votes. Incumbent Republican President William Howard Taft finished third, taking only 23% of the popular vote and 8 electoral votes. The split in the Republican vote gave Democrat Woodrow Wilson victory with 42% of the popular vote, but 435 electoral votes. That was 100 years ago.

Since then, third-party candidates have won electoral votes only three times: once in 1924 (i.e. 88 years ago), once in 1948 (i.e. 64 years ago), and once in 1968 (i.e. 44 years ago). In fact, American voters have not elected a third party president since Abraham Lincoln when the then-minority Republican Party beat the Whigs and the Democrats in 1860 on the anti-slavery platform.

Of course, past performance is not indicative of future results, but if I were a betting man my money would be on no third-party candidates winning any states (much less enough states to win the election). And, almost all of the times that one party’s votes were split, it was the other party which went on to win the election. Odds are that a third-party candidacy would split the Republican vote and guarantee the re-election of Barack Obama – who emphatically does not represent anything I believe.

The Church is telling us to limit the evil. And what does being a Mormon have to do with anything?

nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/cardinal-dolan-mormon-faith-no-reason-to-vote-against-romney-20120408

Peace,
Ed

=pr0digal_s0n;9973852]Then what is a vote for Obama? I don’t really understand it when people say that not voting or voting 3rd party is a vote for Obama.

PJM your comments seem to indicate that you are privy to information that the rest of us are not privy to. So please enlighten me because I just want to make sure… Is it God’s interest is to have a Mormon running the country? And is it also Christ’s choice to vote for a candidate that condones abortion in certain circumstances?

I still don’t get why Catholics feel that Romney is the candidate to vote for. We should not be voting for any of them because both of them condone abortion. In my heart faith comes before politics. I will continue to pray for a candidate that is in line with Catholic beliefs and will refrain from voting until that happens… even if it means never getting the opportunity to vote in my lifetime.

GIVEN THE REALITY; THE MORALITY AND THE PROTECTIONS TO WHAT GOD AND WE MUST HOLD TO A THE SINGULAR TRUTH: YES IT IS!

mormon.lds.net/mormon-beliefs/abortion

WE MUST VOTE WITH GOD AND THE PROMISED PROTECTION TO AMERICAS MORAL RIGHTS. MORMONS WHILE NOT CHRISTIAN NEVERTHELESS SHARE OUR VIEWS ON MORALITY AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS.

THE DEMOCRATS DO NOT [AND I’M A FORMER DEMOCRAT!]

VOTING FOR ANY DEMOCRAT GIVEN THEIR PARTY PLATFORM IS A MORTAL SIN!

=Erich;9974285]I’m not just interested in voting for the person who best represents what I believe; I’m interested in electing the person who best represents what I believe (not that there’s anyone left who completely fits that bill this year). Third parties are the ones that raise the issues that no one wants to raise and in the process they change the political debate and even policy, but they themselves as a political force disappear.

Republican Theodore Roosevelt ran as the “Bull Moose Party” (Progressive Party) nominee in the 1912 election. Roosevelt won 27.4% of the popular vote and carried six states totaling 88 electoral votes. Incumbent Republican President William Howard Taft finished third, taking only 23% of the popular vote and 8 electoral votes. The split in the Republican vote gave Democrat Woodrow Wilson victory with 42% of the popular vote, but 435 electoral votes. That was 100 years ago.

Since then, third-party candidates have won electoral votes only three times: once in 1924 (i.e. 88 years ago), once in 1948 (i.e. 64 years ago), and once in 1968 (i.e. 44 years ago). In fact, American voters have not elected a third party president since Abraham Lincoln when the then-minority Republican Party beat the Whigs and the Democrats in 1860 on the anti-slavery platform.

Of course, past performance is not indicative of future results, but if I were a betting man my money would be on no third-party candidates winning any states (much less enough states to win the election). And, almost all of the times that one party’s votes were split, it was the other party which went on to win the election. Odds are that a third-party candidacy would split the Republican vote and guarantee the re-election of Barack Obama – who emphatically does not represent anything I believe.

That friend is Exactly the RIGHT point. :thumbsup:

Abortion, same sex Unions, Religious Freedoms EXCEED OUR personal preferences. ALL and EACH of us has a GRAVE Moral obligation to do EVERYTHING we can [AND VOTING A 3TD PARTY IS A WASTED VOTE!] under peanalty of MORTAL SIN to vote to PROTECT these God Ordianed things.

VOTE to PROTECT what God Commands!

God Bless,
Pat

From the sticky post at the top of the forum, on posting political threads here:

"The only forum where discussions of current news events, including news events in the political realm, is allowed at CAF is in the World News sub-forum of the In the News forum.

Please do not discuss politics, candidates or political parties in this forum.

To start a thread in the World News sub-forum, find a news article on the subject of interest and reference the article in the first post.

More information is posted at the top of the World News sub-forum.

Thank you for your cooperation."

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.