Should Catholics vote for the BNP?

The British Nationalist Party (a far-right race-hate group) want to make abortion illegal (to encourage White British people to reproduce) and to make homosexual sex a crime, ‘encourage’ married women to stay home and be full-time mothers, and ban the construction of any more non-Christian places of worship.

They are also a bunch of nutcases, neo-Nazis and petty thugs. A vote for the BNP would be:
a) a vote for pure Fascism
b) a vote wasted, as they will never (I hope) be in power.

As a Catholic, the BNP are probably the only UK party that agrees 100% with the non-negotiable aspects of Catholic moral theology (abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality). All the same, they are evil. They also hate the Catholic Church (in fact, Catholic churches may fall within their definition of the ‘non-Christian’ places of worship they’d ban the building of).

Everywhere the BNP goes, they leave a trail of rioting, fithy abusive language, racist attacks, vicious threats and heightened tension.

These people represent an objective moral evil. The fact that they happen to agree with bits and pieces of Catholic doctrine is purely accidental. They would also probably pursue policies of murder, enforced sterilisation and imprisonment of political and religious dissenters, but that’s not on their official manifesto for obvious reasons.

To take another example, Islamist extremists would also be opposed to abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality. Should a Catholic support Islamist extremist governments over liberal democracies for that reason?

I hope everybody agrees that to support Nazis or Islamists just because they happen to agree with us on abortion is lunacy. So where do we draw the line? Clearly pro-life issues cannot be the one and only political issue that affects how we vote as Catholics?

It seems like to me that you are trying to make the case that it is ok to vote for pro choice politicians by stating the extreme.

There is no way that I would vote for a candidate from such a party.Certainly not if they hate me,as a Catholic.


Yup, that’s exactly what I’m doing. It’s called reductio ad absurdum it means if a statement is made like:

“Abortion and Euthanasia are non-negotiable issues for Catholic voters.”

together with another statement like:

“Other social justice issues are relative, but the right to life is absolute.”

Then you put the two together, and see whether there is a case where the statements can be false.

Clearly, in the case where the damage done to social justice by voting for a Fascist out-weighs the benefits in terms of making abortion illegal, the statement appears to be false.

That means that there must, sometimes, be a case for voting for a pro-choice candidate over a pro-life candidate.

Where does that leave us? In exactly the same position as a non-Catholic with a moral conscience, in the position of having to choose between the lesser of two evils or the greater of two goods.

Does this mean that you are a Democrat making a case that it is ok to vote for Democrats even though the national Democratic platform is pro choice?

Actually, I’m from the UK. If I were American, I would almost certainly vote Democrat.

As it is, I am a member of the UK Liberal Democrat party, which are generally pro-choice, but who are also in favour of reducing the upper limit at which an abortion can be had from 26 weeks to 20 weeks, based on purely pragmatic, scientific reasons, as there are now children born at 24-26 weeks which survive.

UK politicians have freedom of conscience when voting on abortion issues though, so party policy is less important. I am pro-life, but believe that Liberal/Democrat policies are generally more conducive to social justice.

Also, by giving people better education and employment opportunities, and a decent safety-net of social security, by respecting individual people more than their money, people would be less likely to feel that they couldn’t afford to have a child, or didn’t know how to cope with one. This seems a better way to avoid abortions than forcing people to raise children they can’t afford to support.

I cannot see your point? Any group like Nazis would not, by definition, be pro life. That their platform may claim that would contradict their actions and words. They would not be consistent with any Catholic teaching. Their platform would be a sham.

It seems you want to bind Catholic teaching to be interpreted as you claim, not as it is really taught.

In the first place, you are fooling no one but yourself that you are pro life.

In the US there are many so called Catholic politicians who are pro choice. They have sold their soul to the devil for power.

What they are doing that is even worse is that they are leading other people who are pro life down the path of accepting pro choice people in power by making arguments like you do. I say that may be even worse because now they are building an army that accept being pro choice is ok.

You tried to disguise your real reason for posting, like a wolf in sheeps clothing. The same as the pro choice Catholic politicians. Twist things enough and they seem to be not too bad. Your entire post was to make the case for voting for abortion.

You need to wake up and realize that you are trying to lead others down that path. Try and disguise it as you may.

You’re right. I’m sorry.

Can someone close this thread, or even delete it, as my argument is disingenuous and verges on slandering the Church’s position on political matters and on pro-life policy in particular.

This argument assumes there’s only one way to accomplish these things. That’s a mistake the left often makes. I know of no politician who doesn’t want to help the poor. The politically left and the politically right just have different opinions on what’s the best way to help them. The left wants more taxes and more social programs, while the right wants less tax and an environment where businesses can thrive, thus creating more jobs. Both have some merit. So, to justify voting for a candidate who supports abortion, etc…, just because you say they what to help the poor and so forth, is disingenuous, since most political parties want to help the poor. To admit that you agree with one view on how to help the underprivileged, is much more honest than to say one party doesn’t want to help the them.

By the way. Using absurdity to make a point is usually very effective, because it forces you to see where the extreme case can lead. The problem is, you can’t make most decisions based on the the extreme example. Those are the kind of situations you have to deal with on an individual basis. That’s just my humble opinion.

At least the BNP are honest thugs-unlike most of mainstream policicians who are dishonest thugs.

The reason we have landed ourselves with laws which are against Church Teachings is because people from the 1960’s onwards
failed to realize that the British Labour and Liberal Parties were not the Parties our grandparents voted for.Back then,those Parties
were more concerned about making sure people didn’t go hungry
or go without medical treatment or education because they didn’t have a job.The Welfare State only started in 1948,the year i turned 6 years old.
I wrote to Tony Blair before 1997,when he was Leader of the Opposition.I accused politicians of only being interested in a
Referendum when they think they will win it.We never got the chance to vote in a Referendum as regards Abortion in 1967.I’m
convinced that was because they knew they would lose it in those days.
The OP spoke about how the Liberals are trying to restrict abortion because some babies have been surviving in spite of it.
I’m afraid i am rather cynical about their sincerity here.They have also been talking tough on crime.Very unusual for them.I think it is linked to the fact that there are Parliamentary Elections in Scotland on 3rd.May and they need votes.
I do sometimes feel sympathy for the Liberals on the abortion issue.Although it was a Liberal,David Steele,who proposed it,there were only 6 Liberals in Parliament at the time.If the Labour Party had not wanted it,it would never have reached the
Statute Book.
My advice to the Original Poster is to stay in the Party but to stick to his/her own catholic principles.Know the Faith so as to be able to answer any hostility by other party members.Finally,
don’t be put off by the"one issue politics"taunt.These people are only too eager to play that card when they think a particular policy of the Government is very unpopular.For example,the Iraq War,Council Tax.

If you want this thread closed or deleted you should send a private message to the moderator. I believe the moderator for Social Justice is Ferdinand Mary. You should explain why you want the action taken.

I have to say I’m a little confused on the way the OP’s assumptions on the BNP have simply unchallenged. I don’t want to subvert this thread into one merely debating the acceptability of the BNP (though perhaps that’s a conversation that needs to happen, given the kneejerk reactionism against them one sees so much of these days) but I do think it’s worth asking exactly how this point is justified.

I’ve looked into various parties and have even gone so far as to read the BNP manifesto. I’ve looked pretty hard at their manifesto, their writings, and the writings of their members, and haven’t been able to find anything in the way of ’ a trail of rioting, fithy abusive language, racist attacks, vicious threats and heightened tension.’

As to charges of ‘fascism’, could someone please explain to me exactly what’s meant by this term? I’ve looked for a definition of this, too, and haven’t yet found a definitive explanation of it, though that hasn’t stopped my seeing it in many places fulfilling the traditional role of an expletive.

Of course, I may have missed something. If anyone would like to educate me on this, please do. I’m still working all this out as I go along.


Perhaps a little background may help:

Thank you, that’s very informative. My concerns about the accuracy of a vox populi information source aside, I have heard that Griffin has changed the BNP a good deal more than Wiki allows for, and I have seen footage of an interview (via YouTube) in which Griffin appears to have changed his stance on the Holocaust also.

Background is well and good, but I’ve been looking into these things as they are. I’d be very worried, for example, if I met a Jewish person who had a prejudice against Catholicism on the whole because some Christians (and some Catholics) used to believe in what I’ve heard called ‘the blood libel’ against the Jews as a people, when today’s Christians are (to my admittedly limited knowledge) rather vehement in their own reactions against anti-semitism. Dealing with people, groups, and actions today rather than with their positions of yesterday would, I think, be an idea, especially if they’ve changed from the old ways.

Unless I’m missing something.**

As a Jew(ess), I’d say that my position on ‘the past’ is ‘never again’.

I’m sure that, if you wish, you could strain yourself to make the BNP seem a bunch of lovely, cuddly patriots who rather rue the follies of their pasts.

My guess is that you’d really, really be searching for an excuse for supporting them though.

Cuddly? Oh no. I’ve seen socialists and liberals present themselves as cuddly, and I’ve seen them cuddle up to the most abominable of people. Cuddly’s not for me.

Something might surprise you, I’ve run across a blog by a BNP member who supports Israel and the sentiment doesn’t appear to be solely held by that one blogger. ‘Never again’ is a position many non-Jews hold, as well, but unless something is done about various factors, we might not have a say in it for long. When Israel considers Paris as unsafe for Jews and a report into the causes of rising anti-semitism is suppressed because it doesn’t draw the appropriate conclusion of blaming the Right, something’s wrong.

Given the bad press the Right’s gotten lately, and the out-and-out vilification of the BNP, I’m not surprised that they’re merely assumed to be racist, anti-semitic, and various -phobics. I’m just wondering why my own research into the current reality of things doesn’t seem to bear that out.

Perhaps you really, really want a good excuse for supporting them.

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