Good points, Mary.
And then there is the sticky debate between choosing the lesser of 2 evils in the hopes of preventing a greater evil…or feeling like the lesser of 2 evils is still an evil & do we then choose at all…??

The problem is that neither of the two main parties in this country covers the entire Catholic position.  I am “conservative” when it comes to family values but more “liberal” when it comes to social justice issues like poverty, wage equity, etc. I usually end up voting Democrat because I just cannot stand seeing the rich get richer while the rest of us keep on losing ground.  But I also have my eye on Santorum and if by some miracle the Republicans nominate him, I just might vote for him in November.

fairlady68,
Yes!  I say that it is high time to end the 2-party system monopoly & get some fresh ideas in there!  End the status quo.  Shake things up a bit.  We Catholics are known for being counter-cultural & revolutionary anyhow.  :o)

@fairlady68: Democrats do not believe in making helping the poor and sharing the rich persons wealth. Under Obama’s term and when the Democrats had control of the congress the rich became richer and the poor became poorer.  They SAY they want to help and SAY socialist rhetoric but when it comes to actions they simply give handouts to those who they want to keep under their control.  If there was a real concern for the poor then they would be much more interested in giving the poor skills than in creating another welfare system of dependency.  If democrats wanted to help the poor they would give their own money rather than other peoples money. Helping the poor is simply a front for creating votes by people who want handouts. It is not a sincere concern for people who are less fortunate than themselves, especially when you judge their results rather than their words.

Reading you loud and clear, Patricia!

I agree that we can’t vote for someone who is pro-abortion. The Church teaches it, so I agree. As for the other issues, there are ways to finding out what the Church teaches about those too.

Abortion is the bottom line for me, too.  It’s hard to find a candidate who is completely pro-life, so I vote for whoever comes the closest to being anti-abortion.  I’m not saying that the other issues aren’t important, but the scale of abortion is huge, so that is my voting priority.

Thank you, Regina.  Well said.

Regina,
I wholeheartedly agree!  The right to LIFE is the most basic right of all & the right upon which all other rights are contingent.  Without LIFE, all other rights are essentially without meaning.  To understand this puts all else into perspective.  Additionally, while human life is being attacked on many fronts & in various ways, I think the case can be made that the child in the womb is truly the least among us & the most vulnerable. 

What saddens me is when we start to educate ourselves on other pertinent issues (war/military, economic policies, parental rights, etc.) that may not seem so black & white as abortion—& when we try to understand (& vote accordingly) on these issues in light of our Catholic Faith…we are suddenly seen by some as betraying the pro-life cause if we don’t happen to be voting for the guy with the big endorsements.  Short of having a Catholic monarchy & instituting the social reign of Christ the King…we aren’t likely to ever have the perfect candidate, Catholic or not.  True, things are pretty cut & dry on the abortion issue when we compare our current President with those who are vying for his position.  But between those candidates, there are some big differences on the approach to the issue.  I’d gather that none of us wish to lose friendships over the matter, but it is a possibility.  Still, I imagine that we all plan to put principle over partisan loyalties/politics—though that may mean different things for different people.

Also, about abortion - of course we have to vote pro-life. But it’s not all there is - especially now when this election could well decide if we go to war again. Just to give one example.

I agree that pro-life is the most important issue for this election. 
There are other issues, but I don’t see the current president has anything in line with Catholic teaching.  Some may say that he is for the poor people, but there is no Catholic doctrine that says to force people to give money to poor people.  Somehow still unbeknownst to some, the current president is not anti-war, but there is one challenger who is anti-war and will make changes to the federal reserve and monetary policy that will help the poor without any coercion. I know that most people are confused about ecomomics, and it may require some studying,  but pro-life and pro-choice are 100% clear.

My only problem with this point of view is that a lot of the politicians who are pro-life are also anti-welfare and public education. So they want the poor people to have their babies, but not provide care for and educate the babies once they are alive.

I do appreciate that one-issue voting is easier (and almost wish I could feel the same!), but I ascribe to the consistent ethic of life when thinking about who to vote for.

I love this article and that it encourages us all to come together in peace! <3

Susie, if we were choosing between two pro-life candidates, we would have the luxury of looking into the second tier of issues.  But being pro-choice is a total non-conductor!  Even if the pro-life candidate is a hawk on national defense matters.  It’s possible to wage war justly—maybe that’s not the case in Iran, I sure don’t know—but there’s No Quarter given to abortion. I carries automatic excommunication as a penalty from the Church.  Whereas war is given the benefit of discretion.

Speaking for myself, I’m not a “one-issue” voter because it’s easy or because I’m lazy.  I didn’t used to be a one-issue voter until I saw some very good points made on EWTN.  Mother Angelica pointed out that if there was a candidate who was pro-slavery or pro-Holocaust, there was no way she would vote for them even if she agreed with them on every other issue.  That’s how I feel about abortion.  I can respectively disagree with someone who disagrees about how to handle poverty, welfare,  etc (some feel it’s better to leave funding to the church/private sector, while others feel that the government should provide the primary funding, and many feel that the current Welfare system is flawed and that funding it isn’t terribly helpful).  But it’s very hard for me to respectively disagree with someone who feels that it should be legal to crush the skull of a defenseless baby and then pull it out of its mother’s womb partially alive.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of my relatives support this “right”, so I’ve had plenty of practice with being civil to people who are “pro-choice”.  But I don’t find it as easy to vote for them.

Why would anything that we post here have to do with you choosing to stop going to church?
I’m sorry to hear that your church in florida is about secular issues instead of just the sacraments. Maybe you could shop around for a more traditional church in your area where they don’t praise those two goons.

This isn’t a church service. It’s a public opinion forum. You won’t hear any of this in my parish so come on over.

“LIKE”

I think you are on to something in this way - I voted for the pro life candidate every time and so far abortion hasn’t stopped. Small victories were won and others lost. I think the paradigm is flawed keeping it at the federal level. We can win better in a smaller arena. My home state, PA, is a case in point. We have some restrictions these 20 years now. More than at the fed level. Just saying…

I would never say that democrats are unChristian (I myself am a registered democrat), nor would I ever say that someone is stupid for not voting for my candidate.  I don’t know if Roe v Wade will ever be overturned.  Ideally I would like to have faith that it would, but it’s hard to have that faith in this culture of death that we live in.  But even if it’s never overturned, the more pro-abortion a candidate is, the more harm he can do.  Obama is a perfect example, with forcing Catholic companies to cover abortificaient contraceptives, and vetoing the Babies Born Alive act.

Susie,
You raise a very good point.  The more entrenched the federal government becomes in the regulating of abortion, the harder it is going to be to rid our country of the horror of decriminalized child-killing.  A reflection on these past 40 years of Roe v. Wade (& Doe v. Bolton, & Planned Parenthood v. Casey, ...) should give us pause to rethink our strategy.  As tempting as it can be to promote any & all pro-life legislation, even one that gives us a tiny gain, we have to remind ourselves that this is primarily a spiritual battle (which we obviously have to wage on many fronts).

Susie, It is great to see an author of an article dialoging with the commentors.  Thanks!!

I knew you were saying that, Susie! It’s during the primary season that we get to debate and make sure we have the best overall prolife candidate!

While the topic of a possible impending war has entered the discussion, I offer this letter from Bishop John Michael Botean, Bishop of the Romanian Catholic Diocese of St. George in Canton, OH as food for thought: http://www.jonahhouse.org/archive/boteanRCbishop.htm

To clarify I did not say we should ignore abortion because roe v wade will not be overturned anytime in the near future.  I said that the abortion rate does not go down when we get a republican president in office.  It is put forth sometimes that if we elect a rebuplican president we have somehow taken care of the abortion issue.  We know that this not the case.  If I remember my stats correctly the number of abortions has not risen with obama in the white house.

Many Catholics I know tell people who are democrats that they can’t be Christians.  I am strongly republican but I do like to hear what other faith filled people believe—especially if their opinion is different than mine.

I’ve heard that the number of abortions has increased in recent years.  I don’t know if this is due to Obama or the economy.  I can’t imagine why anyone would think that electing a Republican president takes care of the abortion problem.  Taking care of abortion will take a lot more than one election.  But it certainly seems like choosing someone with more pro-life views would be a step in the right direction.  If one candidate is opposed to partial birth abortion, supports the babies born alive act and doesn’t feel the need to force Catholic institutions to cover abortificatient contraceptives, that seems to be an improvement over our current situation.  I have never heard of someone telling a democrat that they can’t be Christian.  That’s really ignorant.

Additionally, the Republican party is known primarily for endorsing candidates who are barely to the right of center on the issues (because most politicians want to be all things to all people…which oftentimes means standing for very little)—which is why we don’t tend to see anyone with an endorsement who is passionate about the right to life.

The abortion stats have not increases in recent years. They are down form the early 90’s from around 1.5 million per year to 1.2 million per year.  But the stats I looked at showed no big chnage in recent years.  It seems to be that electing a prolife president does not help us make huge progress in decreasing the number of abortions.  The prolife movement needs to rethink something.  We been marching on washing every January for decades (myself included)  yet we so no decrease in the number of abortions.  It is truly the hearts that need to change—changing the law would be great but if the hearts are not changed too I don’t think it gets to the botttom of the issue.

Michelle’s comment below addresses the issue of abortion rate statistics.  The rate of abortions isn’t the only factor here.  Of course hearts need to change.  Of course the pro-life movement could use some new strategies.  But don’t underestimate the dangerous effects of a pro-abortion president that Michelle mentioned, such as nominating pro-abortion judges who will be in place for years to come, and in legalizing things like partial birth abortion, taking away the freedom of Catholic institutions to withold coverage for abortifacient contraceptives, etc.  Furthermore, the laws of the land influence hearts by desensitizing people to evil and making it acceptable.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346113/US-abortion-rate-rise-years-decline-economic-recession-blamed.html

Like I said in my original comment, I wasn’t sure whether this was due to the economy or to politics, but I knew I hadn’t imagined that statistic.

Michelle is right about the repercussions of a pro-abortion president.  Under former Pres. Clinton, the 1st Amendment right of pro-lifers to peaceably assemble & to distribute pro-life literature outside abortuaries was severely restricted by the passage of legislation like FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act) & FACE (Freedom to Access Clinic Act—which actually deals with racketeering…an issue with organized crime & the Mafia).  FOCA, FACE & similar attacks against the 1st Amendment (which only target pro-lifers) essentially killed the Rescue movement, where individuals would peacefully block the entrance to the killing centers in an effort to offer the mothers an alternative to abortion & to save the children who were about to die.

Great points Michelle and Patricia!

I agree Michelle.  This seems to be true not just of the appointment of justices, but in the attitudes of other politicians who are lead by example.  The current President has decided not to defend DOMA and it seems many other politicians are using it as license to follow suit.  As much as they like to argue against it, it matters what these officials think as individuals about morality and it effects how they apply it.

“Abortion rates peaked in the late 70’s and have been falling steadily since.”

Everything I see show abortion rates peaking in the early 90’s and falling by about 15% since then. It seems like a very small decline over the course of 20 years.  I wish it were a decline because everyone is waiting until they are married to have sex and that babies are born to a mother AND a father who want to love and care for them.

I feel less hopeful when I look at the whole picture of the US.  But you definitely made some good points.

To clarify, I considered abortion rates per 1000 live births: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/graphusabrate.html  If the overall number of births drops (if there are fewer pregnancies, in general), naturally there would tend to be fewer abortions.  The percentage of women who opt for an abortion instead of birth is a better indicator of how society feels about abortion.  {Similarly, you couldn’t really compare the overall number of abortions in Wyoming, the least populated state, with that of California, the most populated state, and not expect that the greater the population, the greater the number of abortions.}

Welcome to the discussion, dk.  :o)
You brought up some important points about the various powers of the different branches of the government. As you said, state’s right are a very important issue.  Not only that, but the principle you are referring to—subsidiarity—is a Catholic principle.  The tenet of subsidiarity holds that nothing should be done by a larger & more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller & simpler organization. In other words, any activity which can be performed by a more decentralized entity should be. Essentially, the principle of subsidiarity holds that human affairs are best handled at the lowest possible level, closest to the affected persons.  When the principle of subsidiarity is ignored, governments often overstep their bounds (as is happening at an increasing rate here in the US) in managing matters best handled on a more local or individual level.

Thanks dk for the insight—I learned from this discussion.