AmericanPapist Comments
Are there actually a large number of candidates "who do not care about babies after they are born"? I don't it. It always seems that there is an underlying assumption in all of these discussions on Catholics and voting that Republicans are right only on abortion and Democrats are right on everything else. This is silly. The liberal position is completely unacceptable and cannot be justified in anyway. Yet, it is sometimes implied that the conservative positions on healthcare, poverty, war etc. are in conflict with Catholic teaching. This is absurd. There is nothing in Catholic teaching that requires that all solutions be solved by government programs and government welfare, higher taxes redistrubution. Most of the various life issues other than abortion are more complex. Democrats look superficially like they are more pro-life because there is a knee-jerk reaction that they best way to solve a problem is to have the government throw money at it.
Overall we need to think about it this way.
Conservatives are pro-life on all unambiguous and clear-cut life issues such as abortion, stem-cells, and euthanasia. On the other life issues they have the proper goal but offer solutions involving less government
Liberals are completely anti-life on all the unambiguous life issues. On the other life issues they offer just another set of solutions which look superficially more compassionate because they involve more government involvement
With all due respect to our shepherds, who have represented themselves as leaders to an extent never seen before by these eyes, I am a One-Issue Voter. If abortion is the difference between one candidate and another, I go with the one on the side of the babies. I have been One Issue for many years. It is not likely that I will deviate from that pattern. I burst with joy with one statement after another by the bishops, repeating that all other issues in the social justice basket will be irrelevant if the right to life is not firmly established. Seamless Garment, which has done far more harm than good within U.S. Catholicism, has been permanently torn and tattered. The Catholics For Obama/Catholics For Free Choice/Catholics Bought Off By Soros Crowd and been unmasked as shameless Uncle Toms to the liberal establishment. Babies' lives will be saved from our bishops' statements, which will be translated into actions by the Catholic faithful. To paraphrase a country music hit of about 20 years ago, I was One Issue when One Issue wasn't cool. It is cool today.
I have to weigh in here because there is something I don't understand. Everyone is talking, and rightly so, of voting pro-life. I have no qualms with that at all. But what I DO have a problem with (and it may be because I do not understand Church teaching - will a theologian please help me) is calling McCain pro-life when he is actually FOR abortion in certain cases and FOR fetal stem-cell research (both issues that the Church says we cannot compromise on).
In my understanding, the Church says we must never vote for a pro-abortion candidate unless ALL candidates are pro-abortion and one of them seems more willing to limit the power that abortion has. As it is right now, there is one 100% pro-life candidate running (Chuck Baldwin), so the above argument for voting for McCain is void. Baldwin is on the ballot in enough states to win by electoral votes, if he gets all or almost all of them.
I have heard people say that Baldwin is not a "viable" candidate, but I find no requirement by the Church that a candidate be "viable" nor do I find anywhere where the Church defines "viable." I do see that if a candidate is pro-abortion he automatically disqualifies himself from being considered by Catholic voters.
Can anyone help me find a way to support McCain with my vote without compromising my soul? If you can supply ANY official Church document that answers these questions I would be very grateful.
Kitty:
We should vote according to the teachings of the Church and also with our God given reason.
John McCain is by no means a perfect pro life candidate. To clarify his stance on ESCR, he is only for it for existing embryos, not for creating new ones for research, so it's limited. I disagree with him on this issue, but it is different than you stated. My research shows that McCain came to this stance as a result of his watching his old friend Mo Udall die of complications from Parkinson's. Udall's family apparently persuaded McCain to vote that way. Again, I disagree with his conclusion, but it is still a better stance than Obama's.
I also disagree with McCain on the abortion for rape and incest cases, but it is still better than Obama's position, which has no abortion restrictions at all. Not even for infanticide.
Now, to address your question about voting for Baldwin. This is where the faculty of reason must weigh in.
What does your reason tell you about Baldwin's chances of winning? Be honest. It is almost nil. As it stands, there is no way that Baldwin is going to make it to the White House. A vote for Chuck Baldwin is like throwing your vote away, which will, in essence, help Obama win.
The only person who can beat Obama is John McCain. No one else. Nada. Zilch. Every vote cast for McCain means that Obama needs 2 votes to beat him. It's math, pure and simple.
I urge you to consider voting for John McCain. While Chuck Baldwin may be the Cadillac of pro life votes, it's a vehicle that has no gas. While John McCain may be the Chevy mid size car of pro life votes, at least it runs.
John McCain has promised to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court along the same lines as John Roberts and Samuel Alito. We need just 2 more justices like them to overturn Roe v. Wade, and 2 justices right now are ailing and elderly, and will most likely retire during the next Presidential administration. Voting for a candidate who cannot win will not help the unborn. Voting for a candidate who can win, and will change the face of the liberal Supreme Court WILL help the unborn.
Please pray for our country. And vote according to the reality that faces us. God bless.
Kitty:
It just struck me, in the middle of prayer, that another reason to vote for McCain is Sarah Palin.
What greater example to the world and for the pro life movement than for us to witness little Trig Palin growing up in the White House? Downs Syndrome children are particularly targeted for abortion, and for people, especially young people, to see Trig as a whole person whose life is just as precious and as important as any normal child is a wonderful way to promote the culture of life.
And we all know that Sarah Palin is a firm believer in the culture of life - she lives it! A McCain/Palin victory could pave the way for Sarah to run as President in the future.
Kitty,
I can sympathize. I would love for Alan Keyes to become our next president, but I voted for McCain instead.
Perhaps I am using God-given reason. Perhaps, I am using merely human reason and my lack of faith is preventing God from working the miracle of a 100% pro-life president.
For me, the 'good enough' and 'can win' argument decided my vote.
Thank you for your charitable answers, but unfortunately, no one is answering my questions. The Church does not require that we vote for a candidate who has a chance to win. If it does, PLEASE provide the documentation. I can't find anything.
And, atheling, you are misrepresenting McCain's position on ESCR. He says he is not for creating new human persons for the express purpose of doing stem-cell research, but he IS for using babies created for other purposes (like the "extra" ones made for in-vitro fertilization, that would be frozen indefinitely or thrown away). This is not acceptable, and it does nothing to limit the number of babies killed in this nation today.
I am sorry, but just because McCain's position on any given issue concerning the right to life is "better than Obama's" does not mean it is a good position or that we should vote for him.
The insistence of people to call McCain the "pro-life candidate" betrays the belief that Embryonic Stem-Cell Research is not as important as abortion, even though we have NO IDEA how many babies are killed for this research. How come in 2000 when McCain was running against Bush, everyone was aghast that he would even be considered by pro-life voters, but now he is our savior, even though he is just as NOT pro-life as he was back then?
By failing to address the issue of his position on abortion and ESCR, we, as Catholics, are saying that his position is acceptable and that these issues are not as important as keeping someone worse out of the White House.
If, in 2012, when you have a Democrat with Obama's stance on abortion running and a Republican who holds McCain's position on abortion, plus he thinks it's ok to abort in the first 4 weeks of pregnancy, is it still acceptable to vote for him? What about in 2016 when the Democrat & Republican candidates have almost the same stance, except that the Republican doesn't believe in infanticide - is it still ok to vote for him if he has a greater chance to win than the 100% pro-life candidate in a 3rd party? Where do you draw the line of what is acceptable in the eyes of God and the Church He gave us to guide us?
I understand the fears that everyone has regarding what could happen if Obama is elected. I don't want to see my daughters having to undergo forced abortions. I don't want to see all the small businesses (including our family's)destroyed through taxation or oppression. I don't want to see priests and religious being martyred in the streets like they were in Mexico less than 100 years ago, or like they are in China and other countries. But obeying God's laws is more important.
Read the account of the mother and her sons in Macabbees. The mother refused to eat pork (thereby denying her faith) to save her sons. The sons, with their mother cheering them on, were tortured and executed before her very eyes because they refused to deny their God. In the eyes of the world, the mother was cruel. If
"By failing to address the issue of his position on abortion and ESCR, we, as Catholics, are saying that his position is acceptable and that these issues are not as important as keeping someone worse out of the White House."
We haven't and we aren't.
Commenting by HaloScan
