# Catholics: Voting for a Pro-Choice candidate is a "grave sin" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 4, 2004, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-voting-for-a-pro-choice-candidate-is-a-grave-sin/248654 "2004-06-04T17:24:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![B.Serum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/b.serum/32/14266_2.png) [@B.Serum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/B.Serum)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2004, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-voting-for-a-pro-choice-candidate-is-a-grave-sin/248654/21 "2004-06-06T07:56:59Z")
**Munch,** I suspect you saw a prime example of Dogmaganda. ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2004, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-voting-for-a-pro-choice-candidate-is-a-grave-sin/248654/22 "2004-06-06T15:43:15Z")
If the church’s big -wigs are correct and it is a sin for Catholics to vote for Kerry, then it follows that it is also a sin to vote for GWB, since the Pope himself said that GWB’s Iraq invasion was an unjust and unnecessary war. I guess Catholics are supposed to vote for Ralph Nader. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2004, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-voting-for-a-pro-choice-candidate-is-a-grave-sin/248654/23 "2004-06-06T16:55:43Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > If the church’s big -wigs are correct and it is a sin for Catholics to vote for Kerry, then it follows that it is also a sin to vote for GWB, since the Pope himself said that GWB’s Iraq invasion was an unjust and unnecessary war. I guess Catholics are supposed to vote for Ralph Nader. Umm…Nader is pro choice. [http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Ralph\_Nader\_Abortion.htm](http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Ralph_Nader_Abortion.htm) ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2004, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-voting-for-a-pro-choice-candidate-is-a-grave-sin/248654/24 "2004-06-06T17:13:49Z")
> [@beagledave](#): > > Umm…Nader is pro choice. > > [Ralph Nader on Abortion](http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Ralph_Nader_Abortion.htm) Hmmmm. I guess there isn’t any way that the religious, and not just Roman Catholics, can vote without violating at least one of the tenets. That’s the goal of all shamans I guess. Make the system so complex that it is impossible to live without sinning so there is always a need for the shaman. ---
**Author:** ![laigle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ce7236/32.png) [@laigle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/laigle)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2004, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-voting-for-a-pro-choice-candidate-is-a-grave-sin/248654/25 "2004-06-06T17:37:37Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > What struck me was that these pamphlet would refer to voting pro-choice as a “grave sin”, but the only evidence or citation they provided was of another bishop saying what the consequences of committing a grave sin were (not receiving communion, etc.). At no point in the pamphlet did they make the argument or provide evidence that voting pro-choice was, in fact, a “grave sin”. And this is different from normal religious practice… how? ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2004, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-voting-for-a-pro-choice-candidate-is-a-grave-sin/248654/26 "2004-06-06T22:36:18Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Hmmmm. I guess there isn’t any way that the religious, and not just Roman Catholics, can vote without violating at least one of the tenets. Since this thread is soley about the opinions of “some” Catholic bishops…and hasn’t addressed the teachings of other religions, I assume you can back up that claim with some evidence? IOW…I’ll be waiting here for proof that **all** religious people “and not just Roman Catholics” can’t vote without “violating at least one of the tenets”. I’ll make it easy…I’ll start with two: Reform Judaism and the ELCA…please provide evidence that members of those faiths can’t vote “without violating at least one of the tenets”. (Uhh…unless that was just just a cheap shot against all people of faith?) ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2004, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-voting-for-a-pro-choice-candidate-is-a-grave-sin/248654/27 "2004-06-06T23:33:26Z")
> [@beagledave](#): > > Since this thread is soley about the opinions of “some” Catholic bishops…and hasn’t addressed the teachings of other religions, I assume you can back up that claim with some evidence? > > IOW…I’ll be waiting here for proof that **all** religious people “and not just Roman Catholics” can’t vote without “violating at least one of the tenets”. > > I’ll make it easy…I’ll start with two: Reform Judaism and the ELCA…please provide evidence that members of those faiths can’t vote “without violating at least one of the tenets”. > > (Uhh…unless that was just just a cheap shot against all people of faith?) Oh I suppose I could find plenty of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson or Orel Roberts cites about the subject but you know, I just don’t give that much of a shit. If you choose to be offended, go ahead. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2004, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-voting-for-a-pro-choice-candidate-is-a-grave-sin/248654/28 "2004-06-07T00:48:12Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Oh I suppose I could find plenty of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson or Orel Roberts cites about the subject but you know, I just don’t give that much of a shit. > > If you choose to be offended, go ahead. No…just fighting ignorance. Since your reply to a request about Reform Judaism and the ELCA brought mentions of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Orel (sic) Roberts… **none** of whom are members of those said faiths… I guess the fighting continues. Nice backpedal…you claim that NO member of ANY religion"can vote without violating at least one of the tenets." When called to back up such a ridiculous assertion…you name preachers that don’t even BELONG to the examples I questioned you about. You had a chance to actually back up your assertion. You punted. Lovely. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2004, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-voting-for-a-pro-choice-candidate-is-a-grave-sin/248654/29 "2004-06-07T03:54:49Z")
> [@beagledave](#): > > No…just fighting ignorance. > > Since your reply to a request about Reform Judaism and the ELCA brought mentions of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Orel (sic) Roberts… **none** of whom are members of those said faiths… I guess the fighting continues. > > Nice backpedal…you claim that NO member of ANY religion"can vote without violating at least one of the tenets." When called to back up such a ridiculous assertion…you name preachers that don’t even BELONG to the examples I questioned you about. > > You had a chance to actually back up your assertion. > > You punted. > > Lovely. > > :rolleyes: My scoff, as you would probably call it, addressed the point you made in response to another poster saying that Nader is an alternate choice but you pointed out that Nader is pro-choice leaving a no choice position for voters. There are enough differences in the doctrines of various religions, all of which are true by their own definition, to make voting for anybody by anybody pretty chancy. Your complaint about my not answering your specific question about two specific cases is your attempt to direct an answer down specific directions. Why should I fall for it? However, Leviticus makes so many demands that it is impossible not to violate one a day. Maybe Reform Jews ignore most of Leviticus, choosing which to ignore by a method unknown to me. As to ELCA I never heard of it before and hope never to again. Y’know, some people are so confident of their religion that the pray for scoffers in hopes they will see the light. Others are confident that the scoffer is going to burn in the lake of fire for eternity. You are surrounded by scoffers. Get used to it. I’m through with the subject. Let other posters get back to the subject of the OP from which I admit I strayed. \* Mea culpa,\* OK? ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2004, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-voting-for-a-pro-choice-candidate-is-a-grave-sin/248654/30 "2004-06-07T13:24:36Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > My scoff, as you would probably call it, addressed the point you made in response to another poster saying that Nader is an alternate choice but you pointed out that Nader is pro-choice leaving a no choice position for voters. > > There are enough differences in the doctrines of various religions, all of which are true by their own definition, to make voting for anybody by anybody pretty chancy. I have no idea what this means relative to either the OP or my comments about Naders position. > [@](#): > > Your complaint about my not answering your specific question about two specific cases is your attempt to direct an answer down specific directions. Why should I fall for it? Your claim was that members of ALL religions would face the same voting scenarios as outlined in this thread. Namely, that every candidate would present a GRAVE SIN to vote for, based on some teaching. It’s a ridiculous assertion…that you neglected to support. Asking for evidence seems like a legitimate request for an absurd statement( I thought I was being helpful in narrowing it down to two…if you DON’T want it narrowed down…fine with me. I’ll wait for supporting evidence for all of the hundred or so belief systems in the U.S. Knock yourself out, dude). > [@](#): > > However, Leviticus makes so many demands that it is impossible not to violate one a day. Maybe Reform Jews ignore most of Leviticus, choosing which to ignore by a method unknown to me. Hmmm. So yu’re saying that (1) Jews are violating some of their teachings every day, but (2) you don’t know about Reform Judaism…and what they believe? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > As to ELCA I never heard of it before and hope never to again. > **[Home](https://www.elca.org/)** > > The ELCA is one of the largest Christian denominations in the United States, with about 4 million members in nearly 10,000 congregations across the 50 states, Caribbean and U.S. Virgin Islands. Oh. So the blanket statement you made about religions and voting applies even to the religions you know nothing about? Huh. > [@](#): > > Y’know, some people are so confident of their religion that the pray for scoffers in hopes they will see the light. Others are confident that the scoffer is going to burn in the lake of fire for eternity. You are surrounded by scoffers. Get used to it. That’s a nice little sermon you gave there bucko. Of course it has nothing to do with your initial claim about religions and voting, or my response. But hey…if it gives you a warm feeling inside to type it…Have fun! > [@](#): > > I’m through with the subject. Let other posters get back to the subject of the OP from which I admit I strayed. \* Mea culpa,\* OK? Uh huh. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2004, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-voting-for-a-pro-choice-candidate-is-a-grave-sin/248654/31 "2004-06-07T13:45:22Z")
David Simmons: > [@](#): > > However, Leviticus makes so many demands that it is impossible not to violate one a day. We Orthodox Jews disagree with this statement. “Difficult,” yes, “impossible,” no. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2004, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-voting-for-a-pro-choice-candidate-is-a-grave-sin/248654/32 "2004-06-07T14:39:54Z")
And, just to add one more whack at this particular moribund equine, the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America), of which I am a practicing member, does not define voting for or against any of the current candidates for President as a sin. The bishops of the ELCA don’t have that authority. Most of the ELCA leadership is squishy-soft liberal by American standards, so if they were going to try to influence voters, it would probably be in the pro-choice direction. But if they explicitly made a stab at it, they would be laughed at or ignored. As I tend to do anyway when they come out with another Social Policy statement. Or perhaps the political dissenters would split off and form another organization, as they have done in the past. Many or most Protestant churches in America are not nearly as strictly hierarchical as the RCC. Doctrine in the ELCA in particular is not handed down by the bishopric, and Lutherans owe no duty of obedience to their bishops. Fortunately, at least for me, who is a right-wing extreme reactionary by ELCA political standards. 🙂 Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2004, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-voting-for-a-pro-choice-candidate-is-a-grave-sin/248654/33 "2004-06-07T14:45:38Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Many or most Protestant churches in America are not nearly as strictly hierarchical as the RCC. Doctrine in the ELCA in particular is not handed down by the bishopric, and Lutherans owe no duty of obedience to their bishops. Fortunately, at least for me, who is a right-wing extreme reactionary by ELCA political standards. 🙂 > > Regards, > Shodan Thanks for the data point. I knew that about the ELCA (and for that matter, most if not all, protestant religions) before throwing out the challenge, but if someone is dumb enough to generalize that much…they’re begging to be called on it. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2004, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-voting-for-a-pro-choice-candidate-is-a-grave-sin/248654/34 "2004-06-07T15:11:54Z")
**cm:** > [@](#): > > We Orthodox Jews disagree with this statement. “Difficult,” yes, “impossible,” no. This then raises the question, do you expect others to? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2004, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-voting-for-a-pro-choice-candidate-is-a-grave-sin/248654/35 "2004-06-08T00:41:55Z")
> [@](#): > > This then raises the question, do you expect others to? No. As has been mentioned on this board in previous discussions, the rules found in Leviticus (and Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, the 613 _mitzvot_ of the Torah) are part of the covenant between Jews and God. Others are held only to the seven Noachide laws: The six broad categories of laws that God forbids all of humanity: 1. _Shefichat Damim_: Murder is forbidden: The life of a human being, formed in God’s image, is sacred. 2. _Gezel_: Theft is forbidden. The world is not ours to do as we please. 3. _Gilui Arayot_: Incestuous and adulterous relations are forbidden. Human beings are not sexual objects, nor is pleasure the ultimate goal of life. 4. _Ever Min HaChay_: Eating the flesh of a living animal is forbidden. This teaches us to be sensitive to cruelty to animals. (This was commanded to Noah for the first time along with the permission of eating meat. Genesis 9:1-17. The negative laws were imposed at the Garden of Eden.) 5. _Avodah Zarah_: Idolatry is forbidden: Man is commanded to believe in the One God alone and worship only God. 6. _Birchat HaShem_: Cursing the name of God is forbidden. Besides honoring and respecting God, we learn from this precept that our speech must be sanctified, as that is the distinctive sign which separated man from the animals. There is also derived one positive category of laws: 1. _Dinim_: Mankind is commanded to establish courts of justice and a just social order to enforce the first six laws and enact any other useful laws or customs. While it is possible that a person may violate one or more of these laws (number 5 will probably be a problem for atheists), it is also possible for many (not all) people to keep all of these with little effort. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-voting-for-a-pro-choice-candidate-is-a-grave-sin/248654.md?page=1)