If you actually read what I posted-you would see this:

Religious leaders may speak out from the pulpit or in other forums on moral and political issues

It’s just like the rules here-issues YES, candidates NO. Pretty simple.

It is never licit to vote directly for abortion, however, it can be licit to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. The voter’s guide issued by the USCCB has said the same.

"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. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

  1. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would
    be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

  2. 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."

What blows me away is how any serious practicing Roman Catholic could actually cast a vote for someone who is pro-choice. I just cannot understand the thought processes that occur in someone’s mind to come to the conclusion that voting for a pro-choice candidate is the way to vote. God Bless.

Again, *where is the mention of any candidate? :confused: *

The question then arises, What are “other” important moral issues involving human life and dignity? Could this be referring back to the list of non-negotiables? For instance, one local candidate stands against abortion, but for embryonic stem-cell research. In this case, a vote for him would be against one moral evil, but in favor of another (even if the favor is unintentional). I sincerely believe “grave moral reasons” concerining “human life and dignity” refer to just the ones we’ve been discussing.

Unfortunately, this has been left to interpret by anyone wishing to advance a cause. How many times have I heard right here on CAF that environmentalism and socialized healthcare are “grave moral reasons?” I suppose if left up to the mal-formed conscience of Voter X, just about anything could be called “grave.”

That’s why I always refer back to the Holy Father’s words in Evangelium Vitae. There is no issue more important than respect for all human life. NONE.

If there are two candidates and only one is claiming to be pro-life…it really isn’t that hard to figure out now, is it? Wink, Wink, Nudge, Nudge…

Thanks for the UCCB posting Ron… I knew I had read it but forgot the exact source.

It is not the fault of the Church that in the American political arena there are only two candidates, nor is it the Church’s fault that one chooses life, the other death. It sounds as though you would have us further muzzled by not speaking of the sin of participating in another’s evil, for politically correct reasons.

You seem highly interested in following the Letter of the Law when it comes to restricting free speech in churches. Very well, then. The Letter of the Law has been followed precisely. If the IRS doesn’t take issue with our Catholic voter’s guide, when what makes you the arbiter? Or do you support abortion?

Actually, that’s not true. There is at least one other Pro-life candidate running that is NOT a Republican. There were two, but I think one dropped out.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I’m not for abortion. I volunteer for a pro-life charity and donate to a couple of others.

I’m actually quite encouraged that you’re pro-life, although generally those wanting to muzzle other Catholics do so from a standpoint of political disagreement.

And if what you are saying is that there is more than one pro-life candidate, then how in the world can the voter’s guide (or the Holy Father) be interpreted as supporting one individual?

Who says I’m trying to muzzle anyone? I’m merely suggesting that the discussions of issues can easily be interpreted as favoring one party or another or one candidate over another-which is not the place of the Church.

I’m glad there is more than one pro life candidate out there, but I’ve been Catholic long enough to know that when the discussion turns to issues and elections-what people hear is: “you must vote Republican because they are pro life”

Perhaps that is what you hear. But it is best not to put words into the mouth of the Church or other pro-life organizations. Why do you think CAF has to be so careful about discussions of a political nature? Because there are those in this country who do very much want to muzzle Christians, and they will use whatever legalese they can find to do it.

People, once informed, are free to draw their own conclusions about whom to vote for. But the Church has a clear responsibility to educate in matters of morality, which is what Pope John Paul II did when he wrote his encyclical. I’m sure he wasn’t thinking, “I’d better be careful not to upset the American IRS,” when he penned those words.

From the catechism


2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74 

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76 

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82

This is from the catechism. How can someone vote for a pro-choice candidate and consider themselves a devout Roman Catholic following all of the teachings of the Church? I would also make the choice to follow what the church teaches instead of a political party or a politician. I do not see any argument any Christian could make for voting for a candidate that is not pro-life. I pray for any Catholic that votes pro-choice to come to their senses. God Bless. :bowdown:

More power to you who can vote single issue.

Single, in this case, is monumental. One wouldn’t call voting against the Holocaust “single issue voting,” would they? Why should 5,000 lives a day be any different?

For me, it is above all and most important. I cannot even consider other issues because this one seems so much more important than all other issues combined. I do not fully agree with either party platform but I just cannot see any issue equal to or even close to murder of innocent children. When I am giving an account of my life I do not want to say I supported individuals that were not pro-life. God Bless. :signofcross:

and there have been that many lives lost every day under Pro Choice AND Pro Life administrations…pardon my cynicism but I have lost faith in politicians on this issue. I truly have come to feel that it is window dressing to get in office and it’s forgotten by the time they enter the Oval.

YMMV-and I really am happy for you if it does.

Could it be that the party “tacitly” favored is the party that most agrees with the principles set? And could it be that you “tacitly” dislike that party and are doing a little mental gymnastics to convince yourself that it is okey to vote in favor of abortion?

The ban on partial-birth abortion has been and continues to be challenged by members of congress. If we elect a president who is pro-abortion, and the House and the Senate manage to overturn the ban, then the most hideous form of human evil will go back into regular practice. I’d call that a major distinction between candidates.

What is “YMMV”?

Would it be considered window dressing if the votes of one candidate or another through some number of years had always been in favor of pro-life?

I agree. It is so tough for me to trust politicians because they will say whatever they have to in order to get elected. I personally would not vote for a party that is pro-choice just because the party that is pro-life is not as effective as we want them to be regarding pro-life issues. I feel a pro-life party would at least try to make more headway than a pro-choice party and a politician that has received a 100% rating from NARAL.

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