Archbishop Raymond Burke said (2004) that Catholics who vote for a politician who supports abortion rights were committing a grave sin and must confess before receiving Communion.

Thus as Democratic candidates seem to support abortion is it considered a mortal sin to vote for them? Republican Candidates seem to be not much better. So is it also sinful to vote for them?

Are Catholics left with no option but to refrain from voting or vote for an extreme Protestant fundamentalist no-hoper?

It seems the Church may be turning on its own. In 2004 it turned on Kerry. This time round the Church seems quieter, yet it seemed to have turned on ex-candidate Giuliani.

The Church iis infallible in matters of faith and morals to be held by all the faithful, but not in politics. It seemed to advocate support for Bush in 2004, with disastrous consequences that the whole world is now suffering from. Bush said he would support his billionaire friends and he did. Ordinary Americans have paid the price of voting for Bush.

In fighting an unwinnable war Bush has wasted , not millions, billions or trillions or dollars, but (as he is alleged to have said) Brazilians.

Now the US is probably in recession and in a deficit position. Gone are the days of a surplus. Surely one should remember “It’s the economy, stupid”.

If Catholics refrain from public life, any chance of implementing Catholic Social teaching with its emphasis on helping the poor and marginalized will be lost. Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors condemned democracy. Now is the Church in the US condemning the Democratic Party, as it appeared to do in 2004?

In South America and in many other places the Church has sided with right wing conservative regimes, yet official teaching, eg Rerum Novarum of Leo XIII, Quadragessima Anno of Pius XI and Centesimus Annus of John Paul II, supports the rights of the marginalized. 

In Centesimus Annus JP II wrote:

However, the Pope (Leo XIII) was very much aware that peace is built on the foundation of justice: what was essential to the Encyclical (Rerum Novarum) was precisely its proclamation of the fundamental conditions for justice in the economic and social situation of the time.

However not all Catholics are walking away from their traditional concern for the marginalized and poor and justice for the workers and the unemployed.

Mrs Clinton was strong among both Catholics and Latino-Americans (in Florida). With 23% of Florida Democratic voters self-identified Catholics, Mrs Clinton outpolled Mr Obama 3:1 with 60% of the Catholic vote. Her advantage among Latino voters was 2:1, http://www.catholicdemocrats.org/

God bless,

NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________

PS: Is it ironical tha Romney, the Mormon, has one wife, while Giuliani, the Catholic, had/has three?

PPS: I write this not in any partisan way but as a contribution to our Faith and Life Forum in this roundtable.  NF.

Noel, you have pretty much hit the nail on the head as far as Catholics voting.  Right now I'm leaning toward Donald Duck.  No joke.  There isn't single candidate left I can support.  I won't vote for abortion supporters and I won't vote for anyone who carries water for billionaires. 

Don D. seems like the logical choice.

Peace

Archbishop Burkegoes on to say that if there are no completely acceptable candidates, then we are basically to choose the lesser of two evils.  He also mentions that the candidate must be viable.

As far as voting for Donald Duck, IMHO I believe this is a sin and goes against Church teaching.  I believe Gaudium et spes is the document which addresses Catholics and political process.  We are called to vote for the sake of the greater good.  I read it as vote for the lesser of the two evils.  Voting for Donald Duck may be going through the motions, but only harms our society and is actually withdrawing from the political process.  You may fill out the ballot, but not with a non-answer.

Finally, as we've discussed about a thousand times on this page, voting for a non-viable third party only hurts society.  Let's say John McCain wins the nomination and Ron Paul decides to run as an independent.  This would split the conservative votes, thus handing the Presidency to the Democrat candidate.  If that's what you want, then great.  Rush Limbaugh has mentioned that we couldn't have a Ronald Reagan without Jimmy Carter, or in Catholic terms, you can't have Easter without Good Friday.  However, the last time we had a pro-abortion President, the RICO laws were applied to pro-lifers, thus making a pro-life "mafia" and sending pro-lifers to prison for protesting and counseling outside abortion clinics.  RU-486 was also approved under Bill Clinton.  

Hillary Clinton is just as bad, and Barack Obama wants to teach sex-ed to kindergarteners.  There are also 4 or so liberal supreme court justices who are approaching the end of their careers.  Either of the two Democrats would quite surely appoint liberal justices who will uphold Roe v. Wade, thus setting back the pro-life war 40 years.  We can't really achieve anything if Roe v. Wade isn't overturned.  

Whatever you choose, be serious.  Take an active part of our political system and use your vote for the greater good. In all things, glorify God.

<<As far as voting for Donald Duck, IMHO I believe this is a sin and goes against Church teaching.  I believe Gaudium et spes is the document which addresses Catholics and political process.  We are called to vote for the sake of the greater good.  I read it as vote for the lesser of the two evils.  Voting for Donald Duck may be going through the motions, but only harms our society and is actually withdrawing from the political process.>>>

I doubt very much it's a sin, MMCC.  It's my vote, after all.  And it's not merely going through the motions.  They tally all the votes.  If the two major parties see 1000 votes have been cast and only 650 for them combined, they will have to conclude they are in danger of inviting in a viable 3rd party, which neither of them want.

Peace

Isn't Mike Huckabee the candidate that Archbishop Raymond Burke would say we should vote for to avoid the committing of a grave sin? And that a vote for anyone else would not attempt to limit the evil to the extent that Mike Huckabee's Presidency would attempt to limit the evil,  under the pain of mortal sin. However, I am open, that's just my research.

Just like George Bush was in 2000 & 2004. He is a 100% pro-life candidate and even stated that the reason why he is running is to end abortion. When we consider the other issues the word "I" comes into play. And since we are called to 100% self-donation we should completely sacrifice our well-being ie health care, protection from terrorists, the economy, our disdain for whomever's immigration policy even to the point of death. We are not 100% innocent but all the un-born are 100% innocent.

-The Church iis infallible in matters of faith and morals to be held by all the faithful, but not in politics. -

This is a moral issue that just, unfortunately also is political.

-It (the Church) seemed to advocate support for Bush in 2004, with disastrous consequences that the whole world is now suffering from.-

Not like the 45 million babies that have been aborted.

-Bush said he would support his billionaire friends and he did. Ordinary Americans have paid the price of voting for Bush.-

I don't agree but let's say Yes we are paying a price solely because of Bush. We didn't have to pay the ultimate price that the aborted babies in other countries would have had to pay if George Bush had not denied the Tax payer provided Federal funding to assist in the under priveledge in 3rd world countries with contraception, condoms and abortion. We do have two additional pro-life, Catholic Supreme Court justices etc. He did not veto the Partial Birt Abortion law passed by Congress like Bill Clinton and John Kerry would have. Our battle against abortion is much better off than if John Kerry had been elected. He is definitely not one of our own. However, he could become a great Saint.

In my moral theology book it stated that a Bishop could bind the faithful to follow his stated direction under the pain of mortal sin. In the voting case he would have to mention names in order to be clear. And then the Bishop would have to consider his own willingness to achieve 100% self-donation. Isn't that what life is in the Trinity?

Jesus died on the cross, 100% self-donation, for our sins even while we were in sin. I believe He is now asking us for the same selfless act to  end the murder of His and our unborn 100% innocent children.

Please vote for Mike Huckabee on Super Tuesday or whenever. He has asked for our vote.

I love you, Jesus. I love you, Mary. I love you, Joseph. I want to spend eternity with you in Heaven. Amen

Noel,

Being Catholic does not guarantee that one holds the teachings of the Catholic Church.  Catholics sin, too...even mortally.  And they can refuse to follow the teachings of Christ, eventhough they are Catholic.  I do not claim that there is a single person out there that does not sin.  However, I reject the notion that we are obliged not to "turn on one's own".  Catholic in name-only and otherwise in actions would certainly obligate me to seek elsewhere.

You ask:

Is Huckabee the only candidate acceptable to the Church? 

No.

What happens if one is a Democrat? 

What if?  There can be excellent Democrats.  However, if they would rather hold the party line instead of stand up for what they honestly believe to be right (I'm personally oppsed to abortion, but I cannot force that on people...I'm personally opposed to murder, but I cannot force that on people...I'm personally opposed to rape, but I cannot force that on people...etc), then I just end with "What if?"

If one disagrees with everything a candidate stands for, but (s)he is more pro-life than a candidate one strongly supports,  is one obliged to vote for the former?  

Here's the question that honestly goes through my mind.  If a candidate cannot stand up for what is right regarding the most innocent and most defenseless (the unborn), then how on earth can they possibly convince me that their moral guideline is on-the-mark enough to do what is right in any/all other cases?  They cannot convince me of that.  If they cannot do what is right in the case of abortion, then if they get anything else right - it won't be because of the convictions of their good morals.  It will be due to other circumstances beyond their control.

Issues in the elections are not solitary, fully separable issues that can be judged singly.

How can I be convinced a person has the BEST healthcare plan for EACH person in the country when they cannot even secure the health of the unborn?

How can I be convinced a person has the BEST stand on immigration if they cannot even recognize the dignity and the rights of the unborn?

How can I be convinced a person has the BEST outlook on the poor if they refuse to help the poorest and most defensless in the womb?

How can I be convinced a person ahs the BEST economic outlook for the country if they don't even see the economic ramifications that abortion has on a society in so many aspects?

Do you see what I mean?

Noel, you wrote,

I suppose fundamentally one must follow one's conscience and not be judgemental.  One can lay down principles but one cannot say that any individual who votes in a certain way commits a sin.

That's it in a nutshell! 

Personally, I'm opposed to a two-party system, but I see how it developed out of convenience for the whole election system.  I also am finding myself more and more refusing to identify myself with either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party.  Each person OUGHT to vote for the best person for each given office, regardless of party line.  Too many today shut their brains off and vote the party line because "that's how their parents vote(d)."  I find this method of voting to be more reprehensible than a thoughtful vote that I disagree with.

from NoelFitz.
Archbishop Raymond Burke said (2004) that Catholics who vote for a politician who supports abortion rights were committing a grave sin and must confess before receiving Communion.

In accordance with Archbishop Burke statement: My conscience dictates the following:

In 1992: Bush vs. Clinton: A vote for Clinton is a grave sin 

In 1996: Dole vs Clinton: A vote for Clinton is a grave sin 

In 2000: Bush vs Gore: A vote for Gore is a grave sin.

In 2004: Bush vs. Kerry: A vote for Kerry is a grave sin.

In 2008: Barack Obama vs. Hillary Clinton: A vote in the Democratic Primary is a grave sin.

from NoelFitz: I suppose fundamentally one must follow one's conscience and not be judgemental.  One can lay down principles but one cannot say that any individual who votes in a certain way commits a sin.

My judgement, according to my conscience, I can and do say as Archbishop Burke stated, that someone who votes in a certain way does commit a sin. And should go to confession to avoid eating and drinking condemnation upon himself and will have to answer to the body and blood of our Lord. St. Paul in I COR 11:27

Winslow:If we listen to the Judy Browns and the Fr. Pavones of the world, the answer is 'yes.'  I don't buy it.  Primarily because they would have us vote for Republicans, who are as much in favor of abortion rights as Democrats, though they run on opposition to abortion

My conscience dictates to me that Judy Brown and Fr. Frank Pavone are correct. Your statement according to my conscience defies reason. You have to look no further than the candidates actions on vetoing or passing of the partial-birth abortion legislation.

All three of us are following our consciences and we all can't be correct.

So who is correct here. Help, please

I love you, Jesus. I love you, Mary. I love you, Joseph. I want to spend eternity with you in Heaven. Amen

Steve, you ignored the part about the Republican Congress and the Republican president continuing to fund planned parenthood when they could have stopped it.  They vote against abortion rights only when they know the abortion mongers will win the vote.

They have been playing pro-life voters for suckers for years. 

I agree there's a major difference in Supreme Court nominations, but where the rubber meets the road, Republicans give lip service to abortion politics.

Peace