Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Pause Switch to Standard View Catholic and a Democrat?
Show More
Loading...
Flag Jwbidwell September 6, 2008 5:48 PM EDT
[QUOTE=malanga;744972]... We need to convince people to stop having abortions because they are wrong.  Changing the law is worthless, except as a placebo to make pro-lifers feel they did something without getting their hands dirty.[/QUOTE]

Amen!

If we're truly going to be "pro-life", then the only question that really matters is which candidate and/or party is most likely to reduce the number of abortions, regardless of their opinion on its legal status.  This approach takes into account the totality of their domestic policy positions, especially on education, health care, and the economy.  It may be too complex for talk radio and partisan rallies, but the standard should be results, not rhetoric.

The idea that we can legislate our way out of the abortion problem is farcical at best and dangerous at worst.  Politicians and advocacy groups that focus overwhelmingly on a legal solution should give us pause.  Is their agenda primarily about ending abortion, or is it more about enshrining their particular moral code into American civil law?  If the latter, what else is on their agenda?  My enemy's enemy is NOT necessarily my friend.
Flag Mareczku September 6, 2008 6:30 PM EDT
Well that was interesting propaganda by the abortion industry.  I comment on the one statement about how abortion workers are afraid of being killed by pro-life extremists.  Exactly how many were killed by pro-life extremists last year?  This is a very rare occurrence.  Almost no pro-life person supports this type of violence.  The lives ended in abortion clinics are the unwanted children. We need to fight the philosophy that unborn children are the property of their mothers, who can do with them what they wish.  I see abortion as violence against a mother and her child.  And yes, I read that article, Planned Parenthood gets a lot of government money.  It would be nice if we could live in a pro-child society but sadly we do not.  In our society it seems that to many money is more important than life itself. 

Peace - Mareczku
Flag Mareczku September 6, 2008 6:30 PM EDT
Well that was interesting propaganda by the abortion industry.  I comment on the one statement about how abortion workers are afraid of being killed by pro-life extremists.  Exactly how many were killed by pro-life extremists last year?  This is a very rare occurrence.  Almost no pro-life person supports this type of violence.  The lives ended in abortion clinics are the unwanted children. We need to fight the philosophy that unborn children are the property of their mothers, who can do with them what they wish.  I see abortion as violence against a mother and her child.  And yes, I read that article, Planned Parenthood gets a lot of government money.  It would be nice if we could live in a pro-child society but sadly we do not.  In our society it seems that to many money is more important than life itself. 

Peace - Mareczku
Flag pistons58 September 6, 2008 6:37 PM EDT
Brooke,
I was born, adopted and raised Catholic but in all my years I firmly believe that a president should stand for what we believe in.  I jumped the gun and had an abortion - not proud but at the time......came to find out I hadn't been pregnant....but based on what happened I assumed I was.  I also had a misscarriage and a healthy baby boy years later and I still say - Abortion is murder and a quick fix.  I truely believe if more people would realize there wasn't a quick fix to a one night stand - they might think twice about it.
Personally, I hate Obama and have no intentions of voting for him - not trying to spark a debate but also remember I am not a Bush fan (either time around Sr or Jr) and not big on McCain.  I will vote for whoever stands for what I believe in.
Flag pistons58 September 6, 2008 6:37 PM EDT
Brooke,
I was born, adopted and raised Catholic but in all my years I firmly believe that a president should stand for what we believe in.  I jumped the gun and had an abortion - not proud but at the time......came to find out I hadn't been pregnant....but based on what happened I assumed I was.  I also had a misscarriage and a healthy baby boy years later and I still say - Abortion is murder and a quick fix.  I truely believe if more people would realize there wasn't a quick fix to a one night stand - they might think twice about it.
Personally, I hate Obama and have no intentions of voting for him - not trying to spark a debate but also remember I am not a Bush fan (either time around Sr or Jr) and not big on McCain.  I will vote for whoever stands for what I believe in.
Flag Mareczku September 6, 2008 6:38 PM EDT
I am a man and I cannot imagine how a woman could be so filled with hate that she would want to terminate the life of her own child.  I have never in my life felt this kind of hate.  It is truly frightening to me.  To have your body violated, have your child dismembered, sucked out of your body and thrown into the garbage, to me this is beyond evil.  I can't imagine the torment that one would feel after going through such a nightmare.  I think of the women in China who are forced to have abortions, many against their will, I think of all the young girls there that lose their lives for the crime of being female.  How it must break the hearts of their mothers.  Even in this country many women are forced into abortions by abusive husbands and boyfriends.  Some are forced against their will into having abortions by uncaring parents.  So many, maybe a majority of these women are victims too.  We talk about choice but sadly many of these women didn't really have a choice. 

Peace - Mareczku
Flag Mareczku September 6, 2008 6:38 PM EDT
I am a man and I cannot imagine how a woman could be so filled with hate that she would want to terminate the life of her own child.  I have never in my life felt this kind of hate.  It is truly frightening to me.  To have your body violated, have your child dismembered, sucked out of your body and thrown into the garbage, to me this is beyond evil.  I can't imagine the torment that one would feel after going through such a nightmare.  I think of the women in China who are forced to have abortions, many against their will, I think of all the young girls there that lose their lives for the crime of being female.  How it must break the hearts of their mothers.  Even in this country many women are forced into abortions by abusive husbands and boyfriends.  Some are forced against their will into having abortions by uncaring parents.  So many, maybe a majority of these women are victims too.  We talk about choice but sadly many of these women didn't really have a choice. 

Peace - Mareczku
Flag Mareczku September 6, 2008 6:45 PM EDT
Thank you for sharing your story Pistons.  That is sad, they gave you an abortion and you weren't even pregnant.  I voted for Bush twice in large part because he is pro-life.  Right now I am for Obama.  I am not happy with his pro-abortion record.  But I feel that because of this support for the middle class that hopefully he will institute programs that will reduce the number of abortions.  I could see the number of black people having abortions going down if he is elected but this is only my opinion.  I see the rich getting a higher and higher percentage of the national income and more and more power at the expense of the middle class.  Something needs to be done to help the middle class and not just more and more for the richest Americans.  I think most rich people are pro-choice anyway as they would like to see less of us and have more for themselves. 

Peace - Mareczku
Flag Mareczku September 6, 2008 6:45 PM EDT
Thank you for sharing your story Pistons.  That is sad, they gave you an abortion and you weren't even pregnant.  I voted for Bush twice in large part because he is pro-life.  Right now I am for Obama.  I am not happy with his pro-abortion record.  But I feel that because of this support for the middle class that hopefully he will institute programs that will reduce the number of abortions.  I could see the number of black people having abortions going down if he is elected but this is only my opinion.  I see the rich getting a higher and higher percentage of the national income and more and more power at the expense of the middle class.  Something needs to be done to help the middle class and not just more and more for the richest Americans.  I think most rich people are pro-choice anyway as they would like to see less of us and have more for themselves. 

Peace - Mareczku
Flag angpuppy September 6, 2008 9:51 PM EDT
[QUOTE=malanga;744972]Nope.

People made the choice to have abortions, it was never forced on anyone.  Put the blame where it belongs my friend. To "blame" the law is quite short-sited an inaccurate.  As I stated before, illegal abortions are not included in those numbers you posted, so they cannot be used for any valid assessment.  We need to convince people to stop having abortions because they are wrong.  Changing the law is worthless, except as a placebo to make pro-lifers feel they did something without getting their hands dirty.[/QUOTE]

I think he has a point though.  He wasn't giving you the numbers of any abortions, legal or illegal.  He was given you solely the number of births and comparing that to the number of women of child bearing age.  You can also take into account the change in sexual behavior that came as a result of the sexual revolution.  Now granted you have the legalization of contraceptives in the 60's and the birth control pill, so that can come into play at all.  But overall the birth rate in comparison to the changes of the times and cultures is probably the best statistics you're going to get on the issue, as we don't really have an accurate record of how many abortions were taking place (what was stated at Roe V Wade was later admitted to have been fabricated).  So it is reasonable to believe that legalized abortion has encouraged abortion.

But even beyond this, you also need to realize that the pro choice movement has been working not only to keep clinics open, but to close crisis pregnancy centers, has been standing in the way of allowing pregnancy crisis centers to become pro life clinics where women can get prenatal care (either claiming that the clinic is just being deceptive, or that doctors cannot be anti-abortion and refuse to give a woman a referal to get an abortion).  Meanwhile, the democratic party has changed its stance from "safe, legal and rare abortions" to simply "safe and legal."  And then I hear ridicules things, for instance on talk radio, a man called in saying Palin would lose votes because she didn't abort her down syndrome child.  I've also had people tell me that it is an issue solely on the woman's right to choose what goes on with her own body, and that therefore if a mother did not want to nurse her child and was in a situation where there was no other way to feed her child, she would have the right to starve her already born child.

Even those in advocating for gay rights understand that changing law does matter in changing people's minds and attitudes toward things.  You taboo one position by doing so, thus enculturating it.  It is the reason why same sex unions isn't enough even with all the rights.  To be called "marriage" is to force the government and thus the culture to embrace homosexual relationships as the same and thus to label those with differing opinions as bigots.

Thus its not merely about access to abortion.  Its about what that legally means when the culture enculturates people.  It means the concept of "abortion rights" is taught to the culture, that it overall is encouraged to accept, that people's attitudes ought to be that its strictly a personal decision between a doctor and the woman and that whatever decision she makes is ok.  That ultimately there is no wrong one and thus that its not wrong for her to have an abortion.

Both the laws and the culture needs to be changed and both affect each other.
Flag Mareczku September 7, 2008 2:40 PM EDT
I totally agree with what you said in the first two paragraphs, Angpuppy.  You have made valid points.  The comment about Sarah Palin was thought provoking.  I have heard that the Emily's List group has criticized her.  They are supposedly for women but not this woman.  They probably wouldn't like you either.  If Palin was pro-choice, had only 2 children and had aborted her Downs Syndrome son the Emily's List ladies would probably be more amenable to her.  In regard to your comment about labeling those with differing opinions as bigots.  It depends on what the person says.  I have many times at Beliefnet seen people say that homosexuality was a sin.  It is not, it is an orientation,.  Some also think that gay people are intrinsically evil and disordered.  Unfortunately many Catholics feel this way.  To me this is prejudiced thinking.  To refer to people that one dislikes as evil and disordered is hate speech to me and I'm sorry but I think that people that think this way are bigots.  If the shoe fits...

Peace - Mareczku
Flag Laura78 September 7, 2008 5:36 PM EDT

Mareczku wrote:

I am a man and I cannot imagine how a woman could be so filled with hate that she would want to terminate the life of her own child.



Hi Mareczku,

It is my experience that most women who do get an abortion are filled with fear, not hate.

I recently moved to DC, and the poverty and the state of public schools and public health is abysmal. It is a segregated city. White folks live in the suburbs or fancy neighborhoods, black folks are left in the slums. Innocent children grow up in misery without access to health care. Many suffer of chronic toothache or other chronic diseases. A lot more children die to poor black families than white families.  It is heartbreaking and yet, this gets less attention than abortion issues. I know that the official teaching of the Catholic Church is to support life from conception to death, but why conception and death always get more attention than the rest of the life?

Is that perhaps because that requires less work on our part? less taxes, less sacrifices?
Republicans are "killing babies" too. It is just a bit less ' visual', but every bit as real.
Regardless of where one stands on the abortion issue, I strongly recommend the book "SAVAGE INEQUALITIES". It is an eye-opener.

Will we be held held responsible for turning this sweet children into jaded cynical violent adults? How much of their guilt will we be called to share on  Judgment day?

Flag Mareczku September 7, 2008 9:35 PM EDT
I just looked up Washington DC and found some interesting facts.  These are 2004 figures.  In 2004, the average teacher pay for DC teachers was $58,456., this was higher than any state, the national average was $47,750, the average for Utah was $39,965, the lowest was South Dakota at $34,040.  Expenditures per pupil were $12,959, this was second only to New Jersey's $13,338, the national average was $8,310, Utah was the lowest at $4991.  Pupils per teacher were 14.2, California was 21.1, Utah was 22.6, the national average was 15.8.  DC's enrollment at 76,714 was lower than any state, Wyoming had 84,733 enrolled and Vermont had 98,352 enrolled.   DC however had the worst high school graduation rate at 51.5%.  It was worse than the worst state,  South Carolina at 51.7%.  Utah, with far lower teacher salaries, far lower per pupil expenditures and far larger class sizes had a graduation rate of 82.1% ranking them 5th among the states.  It seems that DC's biggest problem is that most of their school students come from single parent families.  The biggest help for DC schoolkids would be to encourage men to marry women when they get them pregnant.  Kids from 2 parent families do a lot better in school.   

Peace - Mareczku
Flag Laura78 September 8, 2008 7:08 AM EDT

Mareczku wrote:

I just looked up Washington DC and found some interesting facts.  These are 2004 figures.  In 2004, the average teacher pay for DC teachers was $58,456., this was higher than any state, the national average was $47,750, the average for Utah was $39,965, the lowest was South Dakota at $34,040.  Expenditures per pupil were $12,959, this was second only to New Jersey's $13,338, the national average was $8,310, Utah was the lowest at $4991.  Pupils per teacher were 14.2, California was 21.1, Utah was 22.6, the national average was 15.8.  DC's enrollment at 76,714 was lower than any state, Wyoming had 84,733 enrolled and Vermont had 98,352 enrolled.   DC however had the worst high school graduation rate at 51.5%.  It was worse than the worst state,  South Carolina at 51.7%.  Utah, with far lower teacher salaries, far lower per pupil expenditures and far larger class sizes had a graduation rate of 82.1% ranking them 5th among the states.  It seems that DC's biggest problem is that most of their school students come from single parent families.  The biggest help for DC schoolkids would be to encourage men to marry women when they get them pregnant.  Kids from 2 parent families do a lot better in school.   

Peace - Mareczku



You figures are right, but there are several things that they do not take into account.
The major things are:

1) As you say, kids that come from struggling families are in a worse position that kids who come from a well-educated well-adjusted family.
That means they need more from us, way more, not less.

Article from Newsweek;
Nothing could have prepared me for the dysfunction and tragedy of working at one of Washington, D.C.'s failing schools.

It was my first day as a part-time journalism teacher at Washington, D.C.'s Cardozo Senior High School in the fall of 2006, and as I came through the front door, I was greeted with so much noise that I assumed the kids must be switching classes. But after passing through the metal detector, I realized the uproar was emanating from the dozen or so students ditching class just outside the principal's office. I looked around, naively assuming that an administrator or at least the security guard I'd just passed would intervene to quiet this hullabaloo. But—no. I was clearly the only person who thought something unusual was going on. As I soon learned, the halls of Cardozo High were quiet only once a day: during the daily hall sweep, which was announced via the intercom before it commenced.

...

Cardozo had hundreds of students, yet the administration decided to lock all the student bathrooms except one girls' and one boys' on the first floor, as a security measure.

...

On the day before I returned to my regular job, I assured them that I would come back when I could. "You won't come back," one student told me bluntly. "No one ever comes back." Clearly, that challenge couldn't go ignored. But I wasn't prepared for the reception I got when I showed up a few weeks later. When two of my toughest students spotted me coming down the hall, they let out a scream and threw their arms around my neck. I was surprised and touched, but also realized how little they had come to expect. >>


2) the school system is so failing apart that revamping is going to need millions of extra-dollars. There is new lady here in Washington, featured in Newsweek here, who comes from Teach for America. She has asked 40 million dollars to repair shabby dangerous building, provide school supplies, etc.

"Not long after Michelle Rhee took over as head of the Washington, D.C., public schools a year ago, she announced a plan to shut down almost two dozen schools in D.C.'s decrepit, shrinking, public-education system.
...
She says she wakes up every morning with a "knot in my stomach," and that she is "angry," though "angry in a good way." She is angry at a system of education that puts "the interests of adults" over the "interests of children," i.e., a system that values job protection for teachers over their effectiveness in the classroom. Rhee is trying to change that system.
...
" Not sure what she wanted to do with her life as she graduated from Cornell in 1992, Rhee joined Teach For America, a then brand-new organization, created by a Princeton student, to get Ivy Leaguers to work in poor inner-city schools for a couple of years. The experience, she says, "has shaped every single day of my life since then."           Rhee was placed in one of the lowest-performing schools in Baltimore as a second-grade teacher. "It was a total culture shock for me," she recalls. While she was talking to her students as they lined up for lunch, one of the students fell down on the floor. "Each kid, as they were walking by, kicked the kid that was down," Rhee says. "I was, like, 'What are they doing?' But it was like second nature to them. The kid is down. Kick him."



3) In many affluent suburbs PTA raise money "under the table" to support art and music programs and extra-curricular activities. They do it under the table so that the money is not re-directed  to those districts who are poorest. I  understand they want it spent for their kids, but that doesn't change that kids from poor families do in fact get less.


In addition, although we can not change what happen to these kids-being born out of wedlock, which I agree with you makes a huge difference- there is something we can change. here and now, for the kids who already here.
It scientifically proven that programs like pre-school education-see a recent study published in Science last week- do work.

Not surprisingly, these programs make the biggest difference for kids who are from "at risk" backgrounds, with parents having had a poor education themselves.
I mean, I was lucky, my family was great, i would have been successful in school regardless...even when I had bad teachers, I was fine because I had support at home....but more money has to be spent for kids who do not have a supportive family...
Yet, the federal funding for these programs in the US has been cut since Regan.

Are we saying that, we are pro-life at conception and death, but we are pro-choice the rest on the time? i.e. leave the parents to make their own choices about how their kids are going to be left on their own and uneducated?

Flag johnnyjoe September 8, 2008 6:46 PM EDT
IF you vote for Barack Hussein Obama, you are voting for a man who stanchly believes not even an aborted child who survives the process has a right to live.

Voting for Obama could, and I think will, mean voting for a man who will materially cooperate in the deaths of children inside and outside of the womb.

Do you want to vote for a man who gives every indication of being willing to MATERIALLY COOPERATE with abortion?
Flag Mareczku September 8, 2008 7:21 PM EDT
That was an excellent post Laura.  It is surely hard work for the teachers in those schools.  The big problem that I see is how do we get dads to love their kids.  How many kids in DC schools don't have a dad in their home that loves them and cares for them.  A lot of their dads are gone and don't care.  Look at Utah, they have the largest class sizes, the lowest spending and one of the lowest teacher's salaries but most of the kids live with their moms and dads so this is the big difference.  All the government spending in the world can't force a dad to love his kids.  It is hard for many schools because the teachers have to try to parent their students and they end up with one hand tied behind their back because they aren't supposed to talk about God or morality or right and wrong.  Many of the teachers are real heroes. 

Peace - Mareczku
Flag Laura78 September 12, 2008 10:01 PM EDT
Hi Mareczhu....there are heroes...and then there are slackers as well who sleep in class or don't show up ever or let the kids watch movies...they can hardly be fired so they get moved around until they hit a district so crappy and so low performing that the principals are  either forced to take those kind of teachers or no one...guess who goes to school in those districts?

Kids born from single mothers on welfare who would need the best and the brightest teachers in order to have a real chance :(
Flag azulsea September 18, 2008 7:30 PM EDT
Laura, I agree with all you have said. I am a cradle Catholic who is so frustrated with the only issues that my conservative parish seems to feel are important-abortion and euthanasia.  Voting conservatively seems so easy.  You vote for the person who says they are prolife but doesn't do anything to give people better options, ie healthcare, better education, more support to have an unwanted baby and to give the baby up for adoption.  Your taxes don't go up for things such as healthcare, better schools in poor areas.  AS a Catholic growing up in the 50's and the 60's, I loved that Catholics cared about the poor, the elderly, children, education etc.  When programs to help the disadvantaged were cut, the Catholic Church protested.  Yes churches and other organizations can help but we also need the help of government to make this a better country.  Not everyone was born with marvelous parents like I was, whose life was centered around their children and our education, (including the Catholic Faith) and our future.   The children that we are saving if we are prolife, do we care about whether they will have healthcare, whether they have a roof over their head and a safe, loving environment to live in?   I am not saying that we need to support everyone from cradle to death but we need to try to improve their lives.  IF your Dad is in jail and your Mom is a junkie and a hooker, your life is just survival on the streets.  We have to care about this too.  We need to care about the elderly person who is living solely on Social Security and has to choose between food, heating and the drugs they need for their heart, lungs or diabetes.  Isn't this being prolife too?


A comment on the number of births going down.. about the time Roe VS Wade went into effect, birth control also made huge gains.  How many of the statistics of lower births were as a result of birth control?  I know Catholics who are fervently prolife as a single issue, but use birth control and decide not to have children.
We also don't know how prevalent abortions were before Roe VS Wade.  the wealthy could find and pay a doctor to do a D & C, the poor had back alley abortions sometimes the Mom and Baby died.  No one is for abortion or the killing of babies- lets give people more options and support to have their babies not just vote prolife and feel we are prolife.  I want to vote for the person who I feel is going to make the lives of people better.  Who once again cares for the middle class and the poor. 

Comment to JohnnyJoe.  The email that is going around about Obama being for infanticide isn't true.  It was already on the books in Illinois that if a baby, for any reason- was born alive they were to begin medical treatment and be cared for.  Voting against this do not change that.  What Obama was voting against was wording that would have begun to overturn Roe VS Wade.  Now you may say that you would like to have it overturned and that is fine but to say that he is for infanticide is a lie.  I'm not saying you are lying, I'm saying that what is being sent as true is a LIE.
Flag Laura78 September 19, 2008 8:26 PM EDT
Yeah, it is hard...I think the official position of the RCC, to safeguard life "from conception to death" is the right one. It means at all times, including DURING the lifetime!

No party is going to do that. You can also make the claim that voting republican you will be a complice in letting poor children from uncaring parents die spiritually and often physically (look at the statistics).

What Maretzku said, it is true. The family is crucial. But WE are their family as well. That child from a single mother IS my brother. I AM just every bit responsible for him or her as the father who walked away. So if the father is not there it is our MORAL responsibility to take care of that child. Leaving that child to his/her destiny is JUST AS BAD as having that child aborted, IMO.

The reason why I am for Obama is this: I feel that I have more power in fighting abortion by counseling and spreading the Gospel, than I will ever have by acting on those big things such as health care, social security and welfare. I just don't have enough money for that.

So those are my reasons.
Flag Laura78 September 19, 2008 8:34 PM EDT
My Catholic upbringing was in the school founded by Santa Maria Giuseppa Rossello...she went around poor neighborhood picking up little girls on their way to destitution and founded a free school for them...I feel very strongly about those sorts of things.
Flag Tamayo September 21, 2008 3:43 PM EDT
Cheers for Laura!

Also Azulsea!
Flag redroses098 October 15, 2008 6:37 PM EDT
Kay, I haven't read every single post, but it doesn't seem has though anyone has stated the obvious. Our government may be a democracy, but the Catholic Church isn't. Believing that abortion is murder, homosexual sex is disordered, that to end a life before natural death is evil, and that we must live (and that includes vote) these beliefs are NOT options.

Separation of Church and State isn't "let's get rid of all the religious people in government because not everyone shares their views"; it's ONLY a constitutional promise that the federal government will not FORCE anyone to belong to a religion, i.e. to have a state religion. THAT'S IT!! The term "separation of church and state" isn't even in the Constitution by the way. It was ripped from a letter of somebody (I think it was Jefferson) trying to explain it to somebody else and slapped on a bumper sticker.

Now, you can be registered Democratic, in that way you will of course be a Democrat, but to vote like one simply isn't acceptable. I don't like everything about the Republican party either, but at least they don't further the evil that's being pushed by democrats. So I do the only thing I can do in an that instance, I vote for the only slightly more reasonable candidate there is and pray, pray, pray!

(Hi everyone! I'm new, by the way!)
Flag derose107 October 22, 2008 9:24 AM EDT
I am taking RCIA now.  I refer to a  website, www.catholicdemocrats.org, whenever I wonder about the faith and my political stance
Flag johnnyjoe October 22, 2008 11:24 AM EDT

Tmarie64 wrote:

I never said anyone could not speak their mind. By all means, they really should speak up.
But, the church does not have to live my life, pay my bills, or raise my kids. My husband and I have to do that. And we vote the way we feel will best benefit our children. If that happens to be the same as the church, fine, if not, that should be ok too.



Voting for any candidate who promises to elliminate any existing restrictions that protect the lives of unborn children, and who promises to sponsor legislation that specifically endangers the future lives of unborn children is MATERIAL COOPERATION WITH EVIL.

There - it needed to be said. 

Those of you who think you can vote for candidates based on the "seamless garment" concept, or a "plurality" of issues the you believe "out-weighs" the basic and humane right to life are just fooling yourselves. 

It is not about preference, for indeed whom a catholic would prefer is rarely ever a choice.  It is about protecting the lives of the least among us.  If you cannot stand up for them, then your opinion about all other matters that pertain to the governing of this republic, quite frankly, don't really matter.  A vote is a priviledge - a right to life is not "optional" in God's eyes, it continues to be the greatest test of our society, and I fear we are going to fail this test most seriously this year.....

Flag johnnyjoe October 22, 2008 11:37 AM EDT

derose107 wrote:

I am taking RCIA now. I refer to a website, www.catholicdemocrats.org, whenever I wonder about the faith and my political stance



I believe that is the very defintion of a "viral campaign".

This website - and organizations like them - are designed to obfuscate authentic Church teaching.

The right to life, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research are not to be held on the same judgemental plain as justice for the poor, anti-war positions, or even the death penalty.

To equalize them is to lower the importance of the right to life issues, and that is willful dissention - it cannot be described in any other way.

There are "forums" being held all over the country - organized by so-called "catholic democrats" to offer "cover" for voting a certain way  in this election.

HERE is a Bishop's response to one of those "forums".

Flag malanga October 23, 2008 9:59 AM EDT
[QUOTE=johnnyjoe;842337]Voting for any candidate who promises to eliminate any existing restrictions that protect the lives of unborn children, and who promises to sponsor legislation that specifically endangers the future lives of unborn children is MATERIAL COOPERATION WITH EVIL.

There - it needed to be said. 



Well, you don't know what you are talking about then.

Those of you who think you can vote for candidates based on the "seamless garment" concept, or a "plurality" of issues the you believe "out-weighs" the basic and humane right to life are just fooling yourselves. 



You are entitled to an opinion, even if it is wrong.  This is just your opinion.

It is not about preference, for indeed whom a catholic would prefer is rarely ever a choice.  It is about protecting the lives of the least among us.  If you cannot stand up for them, then your opinion about all other matters that pertain to the governing of this republic, quite frankly, don't really matter.



Nonsense.  We have to look at the whole picture, not just one particular issue.  To focus only on the unborn, and blissfully ignore all the other harm and injustices done is makes, in my opinion, a poor Christian.  I wonder, do you protect the rights of people on death row so strongly?  Are their lives worth less in God's eyes?

A vote is a privilege - a right to life is not "optional" in God's eyes, it continues to be the greatest test of our society, and I fear we are going to fail this test most seriously this year.....[/QUOTE]

That is for God to decide, not you.  You really need to get off your high-horse, its legs are short enough.

Flag johnnyjoe October 23, 2008 11:57 AM EDT

malanga wrote:

Well, you don't know what you are talking about then.



And you are bathing in lukewarmness.
"The belly of the dragon is warm and dry."
Malcolm Muggeridge

Nonsense. We have to look at the whole picture, not just one particular issue. To focus only on the unborn, and blissfully ignore all the other harm and injustices done is makes, in my opinion, a poor Christian. I wonder, do you protect the rights of people on death row so strongly? Are their lives worth less in God's eyes?



You would rather ignore the quiet genocide of millions of Amercians and make yourself feel empathic and charitable toward the poor.  It is a false choice, for if we cannot have empathy and compassion for the unborn, what ever we think we have for the poor is hollow and empty.

I would wish we could choose from candidates who BOTH support limiting or eliminating the killing within the womb, but that is not the choice we are offered.

Why would you presume I would be FOR the death penalty if I wanted to protect the innocent in the womb?  EVERY life is of infinite worth in God's eyes, and EVERY life has an indestructable soul.  ONLY God gives Life, and we face a somber judgement for our silence if we turn our backs on the most silent and hidden of our brothers.

I'm sure you are familiar with Dororthy Day, America's modern first lady of Peace and Justice.

" To me, birth control and abortion are genocide. I say, make room for children, don't do away with them." 

"I have long since come to believe that people never mean half of what they say, and that it is best to disregard their talk and judge only their actions."


~Dorothy Day from "The Long Loneliness" 1952, US Editor and Reformer

You need to stop fooling yourself. 
There is NO more important issue in this election. 
All the rest is smoke and mirrors.

Flag malanga October 23, 2008 12:40 PM EDT
[QUOTE=johnnyjoe;845090]And you are bathing in lukewarmness.
"The belly of the dragon is warm and dry."
Malcolm Muggeridge{/quote]
  LOL  Good response!


You would rather ignore the quiet genocide of millions of Amercians and make yourself feel empathic and charitable toward the poor.  It is a false choice, for if we cannot have empathy and compassion for the unborn, what ever we think we have for the poor is hollow and empty.



Who said anything about ignoring?  Don't jump to conclusions what are not supported by facts.  Many of us voters are looking at all the issues, and how to reduce abortions overall, not with the placebo that Roe v. Wade being repealed would change much.  The mindset of Americans needs to be changed, not laws.

I would wish we could choose from candidates who BOTH support limiting or eliminating the killing within the womb, but that is not the choice we are offered.



Agreed.

Why would you presume I would be FOR the death penalty if I wanted to protect the innocent in the womb?  EVERY life is of infinite worth in God's eyes, and EVERY life has an indestructable soul.  ONLY God gives Life, and we face a somber judgement for our silence if we turn our backs on the most silent and hidden of our brothers.



Never said you were.  My point was how much emphasis is placed on the death penalty, compared to abortions? On a guess, I would say less than 1%.

I'm sure you are familiar with Dororthy Day, America's modern first lady of Peace and Justice.

" To me, birth control and abortion are genocide. I say, make room for children, don't do away with them." 

"I have long since come to believe that people never mean half of what they say, and that it is best to disregard their talk and judge only their actions."


~Dorothy Day from "The Long Loneliness" 1952, US Editor and Reformer



I am familiar with Dorothy Day.  She had an abortion once if I recall correctly, so naturally this is the attitude she would take.  I'm not saying this is a bad thing, just that in her case (unlike you or I being men) it was personal.

You need to stop fooling yourself. 
There is NO more important issue in this election. 
All the rest is smoke and mirrors.[/QUOTE]

And I would say the same to you, and stop fooling yourself.  Most people do not see it as you do, and that is how they will vote.  That is the reality of the situation, and we must deal with it as it is among the people, and not from shouting down from an ivory tower.  That doesn't help anyone (the unborn or the born) but it does give you a feeling of moral superiority.   You have received your reward.  Peace.

Flag johnnyjoe October 23, 2008 2:24 PM EDT
So the words of Dorothy Day should be ignored because she had an abortion?

Should the testimony of all women who have had abortions be ignored so you can feel righteous in voting the way you prefer?

You appear to want to continue ignoring this grave injustice to pacify your conscience.

And Jeremiah, and John the Baptist, and Isiah..... were they all shouting "from an ivory tower".

Just what is that supposed to mean?  Accept lukewarmness - dispassionate disregard for the least of our brothers as "the way it is'?  Could you offer that explanation without shame before Christ?

Pray tell, who is living in an ivory tower? 

A vote can keep the real incremental change that has occurred, and allow for a hopeful future, OR, it can be spent on promises not backed with a track record.

Sophistry is no match for looking at deeds, and the deeds of the two people we have to choose from stand in stark contrast on this issue.  It requires MUCH work to blind oneself to the realities here.  One has a track record of sympathy to the plight of the unborn, one has a track record of hostility to the plight of the unborn, and even the new born.

It is not "foolish" to vote on this main issue alone, it is all we have, if we are spiritually honest with ourselves.
Flag young_Catholic1220 October 23, 2008 8:04 PM EDT
In 2004, my priest endorsed John Kerry.  How 'bout THAT?
Flag young_Catholic1220 October 23, 2008 8:04 PM EDT
In 2004, my priest endorsed John Kerry.  How 'bout THAT?
Flag malanga October 24, 2008 10:02 AM EDT
[QUOTE=johnnyjoe;845478]So the words of Dorothy Day should be ignored because she had an abortion?

Should the testimony of all women who have had abortions be ignored so you can feel righteous in voting the way you prefer?



That was never said JJ. You really need to stop reading in to what people say.

You appear to want to continue ignoring this grave injustice to pacify your conscience.

And Jeremiah, and John the Baptist, and Isiah..... were they all shouting "from an ivory tower".



No, they were not.  You on the other hand... ;0)


Pray tell, who is living in an ivory tower?



See my last comment.

One has a track record of sympathy to the plight of the unborn, one has a track record of hostility to the plight of the unborn, and even the new born.



I know your not talking about McCain!  He is definitely not Pro-choice.  Here is a side by side comparison: http://www.obama-mccain.info/compare-ob … ortion.php

If your going to make such claims, please back them them up with something if you wish to be taken seriously.

Flag TemplarS October 24, 2008 11:43 AM EDT

johnnyjoe wrote:



It is not "foolish" to vote on this main issue alone



It is not foolish to vote pro-life. But neither is it foolish to weigh the issues and decide on another priority, or conclude that the political process is not the most effective means to deal with the problem.

But we ought to at least be clear on the facts: it is foolish to deny the reality that McCain is clearly ahead on pro-life issues.

Flag etsryan October 27, 2008 5:13 AM EDT
[QUOTE=Tmarie64;697560]I've never known any republican Catholics.
My church has NOTHING to do with my choices for government, and should have nothing to do with running it.[/QUOTE]

Tmarie, i assume you are Catholic since this is the Catholic discussion area.  I wonder if  you haven't read the Faithful Citizenship document from the USCCB.  Our beliefs/faith inform our choices, frame our stands on most everything especially moral issues.  I am appalled that I am reading what you just wrote.  Flabbergasted.  How can you say such a thing??
Flag etsryan October 27, 2008 5:44 AM EDT
[QUOTE=malanga;845183][QUOTE=johnnyjoe;845090]

Never said you were.  My point was how much emphasis is placed on the death penalty, compared to abortions? On a guess, I would say less than 1%.

[/QUOTE]


I believe there are far more lives destroyed by abortion than the death penalty.  hence the focus on that right now.  when the dike is leaking, plugging a hole isn't going to help when the water is overflowing the top.
Flag etsryan October 27, 2008 5:47 AM EDT
[QUOTE=malanga;845183][QUOTE=johnnyjoe;845090]

but it does give you a feeling of moral superiority.   You have received your reward.  Peace.[/QUOTE]

that seems like a snotty remark if you ask me.  saying something is foolish or that someone's choice(s) are is less haughty than presuming someone else's 'moral superiority' when in fact it would seem to be time to look in the mirror.
Flag etsryan October 27, 2008 5:57 AM EDT
[QUOTE=RoMaIn;730471]You could have morality and still have no faith, as I learned from several good Atheist friends I have. Religion and your political beliefs are entirely different things, and I have to bring up Seperation of the Church and State, as it is entirely relevant to this issue.  Why shouldn't people bring and implement their faith in making laws or running the government?  Simple.  They exclude other people of different beliefs from our society.  Why should they be excluded from laws, even protection laws?  If religion was implemented in our government, America would be no different than Iran.  Another point is that many people do not agree with EVERYTHING that their church teaches or believes.  In fact, some faiths/religions advocate for their believers to disagree with their values, as it brings a different perspective into the picture, hence, revisions to the church's doctrines are made.  As a Catholic Democrat, I make my point here, as I was born into the faith and did not choose it in the first place.[/QUOTE]

by continuing to practice the faith, you do have a choice.  do i detect some moral relativisim here? 

we do seem to have a Catholic identity crisis going on.  Left, right and center.  Being of one mind and one heart seems to have gone out the window.  compromise. 

Does anyone really think that The Lord of Hosts likes seeing a developing human baby destroyed in the womb?  With (possibly ill informed, compromised) consent from his/her own mother?  If The Lord of Hosts was concerned about Abel's blood crying out from the earth, how much more the blood of the unborn screams out.

I feel/believe other issues pale in comparison to this moral atrocity and lukewarm/compromised/cold response on the part of those who claim to be believers/followers/faithful.  This 'issue' possibly more than any other shows where exactly where a person's heart is at when it comes to matters of utmost importance.  Do not be deceived.  Vote for those who cannot vote for themselves.  The preborn.  Pray our nation and the world and the candidates for office work for the common good.  First, work to save those who are being dragged to death.  Daily.  Legally.  Mercilessly.  Outrageously.

Awake O Sleeper - Christ will give you light.  Christ - who lived in the womb of Mary.  thankyouverymuch
Flag etsryan October 27, 2008 6:17 AM EDT
[QUOTE=Tamayo;736048]I'd just like to point out to everyone here that Catholics are historically Democrats. In fact, before Roe v. Wade, you'd be hard-pressed to find a non-Democrat Catholic! This one single issue has so much gravity that it has for some warped reason made many Catholics leave the party and join the other side. I'm an independent but I have to say, that's really, VERY sad.

Honestly the Church should never ever tell you who to vote for. No church should do that. Just as no government should tell you what religion to follow. I'd just as soon my church not speak a WORD about politics (abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, or any of that crap) just as I'd like my government to stay as far away from religion as humanly possible.[/QUOTE]

how can you pretend that politics/morality and faith are divorced from one or the other?  i guess you think living in occupation like the jews with the romans is ideal then?  no wonder there is so much trouble these days.  so many folks of faith have bought into the illusion that you can check your politics at the door of the church and your faith at the door of the statehouse.  the corruption of 'separation of church and state' these days is appalling.  it isn't don't bring your faith and morals into your politics... or think politics has nothing to do with faith...  it's the government must allow folks to worship, pray, believe and to bring their concerns to their elected officials rather than forcing beliefs on folks in an official capacity.  The founding fathers and mothers are rolling over in their graves I am sure.

So if your church is burning, you don't want your civic fire department to come with the truck and hoses to dowse the flames?  Things the church speaks about get politicized because moral issues are part of politics and religion.  How to live in peace, treat one another fairly, share and share alike, confront oppression, etc.
Flag etsryan October 27, 2008 6:30 AM EDT
[QUOTE=Tmarie64;713941]Why would you think there can be no moral choices without religion?  That's just an asinine idea.
Morality is not about who is in what church.  It's about doing the right thing.  One does not have to have religion to do the right thing.
I MOST DEFINITELY do NOT want the Catholic church to have a say in government.  I have nightmares about the horror this country would become if it did.  Think of all the rights we'd lose if the Church ran things here....  I get chills just thinking about it.[/QUOTE]

so you are on the Catholic discussion board because you don't think the church is a good idea/better than government? 

Who needs "rights" when we have God?  This idea that we have "rights" or control of them by any other source than God is a seduction.  Being a child of God is far better/greater than having some political/national "rights".  We have free will from God.  We have a choice to obey and live or disobey and die.  Bottom line.  Like it or lump it.  The church/people of faith as citizens have a right to voice their opinions and live in peace and confront evil - even if it is 'legalized'. 

What 'rights' are you worried about 'losing' if 'the church ran things'?  What rights will you have when/if murderous dictators take over?  I would much rather have God's benevolent rule/Kingdom over me than some other imperfect and often unfair/indecent system.  The church is often doing the hard work of improving people's lives all over the globe.
Flag malanga October 27, 2008 12:00 PM EDT
[QUOTE=etsryan;852848][QUOTE=malanga;845183]

that seems like a snotty remark if you ask me.  saying something is foolish or that someone's choice(s) are is less haughty than presuming someone else's 'moral superiority' when in fact it would seem to be time to look in the mirror.[/QUOTE]

Um... could you clarify what you said?  I can't figure it out.
Flag Tamayo October 27, 2008 12:07 PM EDT
[QUOTE=etsryan;852869]how can you pretend that politics/morality and faith are divorced from one or the other?  i guess you think living in occupation like the jews with the romans is ideal then?  no wonder there is so much trouble these days.  so many folks of faith have bought into the illusion that you can check your politics at the door of the church and your faith at the door of the statehouse.  the corruption of 'separation of church and state' these days is appalling.  it isn't don't bring your faith and morals into your politics... or think politics has nothing to do with faith...  it's the government must allow folks to worship, pray, believe and to bring their concerns to their elected officials rather than forcing beliefs on folks in an official capacity.  The founding fathers and mothers are rolling over in their graves I am sure.

So if your church is burning, you don't want your civic fire department to come with the truck and hoses to dowse the flames?  Things the church speaks about get politicized because moral issues are part of politics and religion.  How to live in peace, treat one another fairly, share and share alike, confront oppression, etc.[/QUOTE]


Here's where your logic doesn't make sense - when elected officials then take those religious concerns and make them into laws for the entire land, effectively forcing beliefs on people by proxy. As Americans we should strive to make laws that appeal to everyone across every religion, race, economic status, and age. And because we are a country of many, we must translate concerns that started as religious concerns into language that even nonreligious people can relate to and agree with. That goes for abortion as well as a host of other social issues. If it can't be translated into nonreligious language, it doesn't belong in law, because it is a RELIGIOUS issue, NOT a political issue. Political issues are issues that everyone, no matter what situation, can relate to and understand.

The issue of abortion hasn't been reconciled this way - there are just too many people of all walks of life that see the common good, for ALL people, of giving women a choice. Personally, it's about my right to make my own decisions for my own body. For others, it's about being able to help the children in the foster and orphanage systems who are crying out for help NOW before trying to help the unborn who may or may not repeat the cycle. For others, they see the illegality of abortion as a slippery slope towards not allowing women to have elective sterilization, or to only allow women to carry a pregnancy and give birth a certain way, rather than her own way. If Roe v Wade really affected every person in this society the same way, it might be easier to argue against it - but the truth is, it only affects roughly half the population. The half of the population that has experienced discrimination and repression since the dawn of time. Roe v Wade was an attempt to give women control of their bodies instead of making them slaves to their circumstances. I understand many would say that there's another life involved, but to me, I care most for the life already here - because if we take care of that one, we have the potential for MORE life in the future.



Anyway Etsryan, I think at some point you're going to have to go to the abortion section of this forum. This is the Catholic area... abortion is an issue, but as many have tried to show you, myself included, it is far from the ONLY one, and if you are only going to talk about abortion, then please go somewhere else.
Flag Tamayo October 27, 2008 12:16 PM EDT
[QUOTE=etsryan;852880]so you are on the Catholic discussion board because you don't think the church is a good idea/better than government? 

Who needs "rights" when we have God?  This idea that we have "rights" or control of them by any other source than God is a seduction.  Being a child of God is far better/greater than having some political/national "rights".  We have free will from God.  We have a choice to obey and live or disobey and die.  Bottom line.  Like it or lump it.  The church/people of faith as citizens have a right to voice their opinions and live in peace and confront evil - even if it is 'legalized'. 

What 'rights' are you worried about 'losing' if 'the church ran things'?  What rights will you have when/if murderous dictators take over?  I would much rather have God's benevolent rule/Kingdom over me than some other imperfect and often unfair/indecent system.  The church is often doing the hard work of improving people's lives all over the globe.[/QUOTE]


I'm just going to jump in here and make one quick point.

You're equating God with the Church here, and that's distressing. Tmarie is talking about the CHURCH, which is run by MEN, not God. I'm not sure where you got confused along the way but the Church definitely is controlled and run by men (and really just men, not even humans, but that's another bag of worms). So when she says she doesn't want the Church men getting involved in government, that's what she's refering to.

God is apart from government, or any other real organization we can come up with as humans. We as humans are social creatures, so we are ruled by other humans. God is not running a government, HUMANS are. Therefore government will always be inherently flawed. However, it's the best we can do right now given what we have and what we know. So don't equate what the Church is doing to what God would do - we're only human, we don't really KNOW what God would do or does. We can only hope to glimpse God in the least of humanity and learn as best we can.
Flag lenats November 15, 2008 6:10 PM EST
[QUOTE=Tamayo;853341]I'm just going to jump in here and make one quick point.

You're equating God with the Church here, and that's distressing. Tmarie is talking about the CHURCH, which is run by MEN, not God. I'm not sure where you got confused along the way but the Church definitely is controlled and run by men (and really just men, not even humans, but that's another bag of worms). So when she says she doesn't want the Church men getting involved in government, that's what she's refering to.

God is apart from government, or any other real organization we can come up with as humans. We as humans are social creatures, so we are ruled by other humans. God is not running a government, HUMANS are. Therefore government will always be inherently flawed. However, it's the best we can do right now given what we have and what we know. So don't equate what the Church is doing to what God would do - we're only human, we don't really KNOW what God would do or does. We can only hope to glimpse God in the least of humanity and learn as best we can.[/QUOTE]

Tamayo, you are right on the mark, here. As a Catholic AND a Democrat (not a Catholic Democrat!) I certainly know where you're coming from. Attempts by the Church to tell its parishioners how to vote is certainly not the church's role.  Certainly it seeks to guide us...but direct intrusion into politics has some consequences for tax exempt entities.
Flag scooter1 November 17, 2008 8:38 PM EST
[QUOTE=Anyway Etsryan, I think at some point you're going to have to go to the abortion section of this forum. This is the Catholic area... abortion is an issue, but as many have tried to show you, myself included, it is far from the ONLY one, and if you are only going to talk about abortion, then please go somewhere else.[/QUOTE

I'm having lots of trouble understanding how abortion, which is by definition the destruction of a human being, has become so sanitized that it could be considered a political rather than a moral issue. Etrsyan, you are absolutely right to equate Catholicism with being pro-life, and make no mistake, the Church is the great defender of human rights, not the Democratic Party. There are many very good people in the Democratic Party, I'm sure, but they have become incredibly hostile to the pro-life movement, and there is no way to reconcile that with Catholicism. There is no way to reconcile that with Jesus dying on a cross for each and every human being, including those in the womb and also including those in the abortion industry. I think that we would be better served by taking back the Democratic Party from the pro-abortion lobby, rather than try to justify the Party's stand.
Flag Tamayo November 27, 2008 12:08 PM EST
[QUOTE=scooter1;902700]
I'm having lots of trouble understanding how abortion, which is by definition the destruction of a human being, has become so sanitized that it could be considered a political rather than a moral issue. Etrsyan, you are absolutely right to equate Catholicism with being pro-life, and make no mistake, the Church is the great defender of human rights, not the Democratic Party. There are many very good people in the Democratic Party, I'm sure, but they have become incredibly hostile to the pro-life movement, and there is no way to reconcile that with Catholicism. There is no way to reconcile that with Jesus dying on a cross for each and every human being, including those in the womb and also including those in the abortion industry. I think that we would be better served by taking back the Democratic Party from the pro-abortion lobby, rather than try to justify the Party's stand.[/QUOTE]

Scooter, welcome to these forums... I see you haven't posted anywhere but here, so I suspect you won't even see this reply, but I hope you do!

You quoted the last paragraph of my post #77, but you did not appear to have read the entire first 3/4s of my argument for why religion should stay out of government. Please read back here: http://community.beliefnet.com/forums/s … post853341 since I don't think c/ping would be appropriate. Thanks.
Flag Greenman November 29, 2008 1:36 PM EST
I believe that there is more to being pro-life than being anti-abortion.
The Republican candidate for President was open to the war in Iraq continuing for another hundred years and he's considered "pro-life". The Democratic candidate is anti-abortion but supports a woman's right to choose and he's considered "pro-abortion".
The current President supports capital punishment, the torture of political prisoners, a war of unprovoked aggression. This is NOT pro-life.
If a person or nation is "pro-life" they want to see the poor fed, the naked clothed, the sick provided with good, affordable health care, the imprisoned cared for humanely. If a nation cannot uphold these basic human rights they are neither Christian or pro-life.
Flag cove52 November 30, 2008 10:46 AM EST

Greenman wrote:

I believe that there is more to being pro-life than being anti-abortion.




I believe you hit the nail on the head.

Welcome, Greenman.

Flag cove52 November 30, 2008 10:46 AM EST

Greenman wrote:

I believe that there is more to being pro-life than being anti-abortion.




I believe you hit the nail on the head.

Welcome, Greenman.

Flag THSWarrior November 30, 2008 10:02 PM EST
[QUOTE=BrookeC;696183]Can a person not betray their Catholic faith and support the democratic candidate for president at the same time?  I am currently not a Catholic yet but I am about to start RCIA classes soon.  I just wondered does being a Catholic mean that I must vote republican from now on or can I disagree with some stances that the democratic candidate has, mainly his view of abortion, and still support him?  I am struggling with this issue.[/QUOTE]
Political labels do not matter to God; nor should they matter to you.
Flag THSWarrior November 30, 2008 10:08 PM EST
[QUOTE=Greenman;925647]I believe that there is more to being pro-life than being anti-abortion.
The Republican candidate for President was open to the war in Iraq continuing for another hundred years and he's considered "pro-life". The Democratic candidate is anti-abortion but supports a woman's right to choose and he's considered "pro-abortion".
The current President supports capital punishment, the torture of political prisoners, a war of unprovoked aggression. This is NOT pro-life.
If a person or nation is "pro-life" they want to see the poor fed, the naked clothed, the sick provided with good, affordable health care, the imprisoned cared for humanely. If a nation cannot uphold these basic human rights they are neither Christian or pro-life.[/QUOTE]
Congratulations. As Pogo once said:   "We have met the enemy, and it is us." Political slogans and silly labels are intentionally divisive. Think for yourself.
Flag patricius1 December 17, 2008 5:45 PM EST
It is an interesting question, of course, and we can never judge anyone since only Christ, and really only the person themselves know whether they know what they are doing.    It is becoming impossible though to distinguish essential or fundamental differences between the Democratic Party and the positions of historic communiists.  We see that the democrats deny moral norms even related to life and support what teh Church calls in the Catechism "collectivism", which the Church explicitly rejects as wrpmg in favor of "subsidiarity. " The fundamental confusion seems to come in when people justify voting Democratic based on "social justice" teachings of the Church.  But social justice in the Catholic faith works through the localizing principle of "subsidiarity" and recognition of the universal laws of God. Moroever, the atheistic character of the democratic party--which refuses to even posit on the issue of euthanasia, for example,and seeks to keep religion from any serious influence on public policy--the question becomes: given the truth of subsidiarity and the moral anarchist positioning of the Democratic party, do we further want to put social justice in the hands of the communists of our day?  Again, I repeat though, I judge no democrat.  I only see how the democratic party favors collectivism, when the Church explicitly loves what is local and rejects "big government" theories like the Dems endorse constantly as they claim to know how to save us without recourse to orthodox Christianity or natural law principles.
Flag patricius1 December 17, 2008 5:45 PM EST
It is an interesting question, of course, and we can never judge anyone since only Christ, and really only the person themselves know whether they know what they are doing.    It is becoming impossible though to distinguish essential or fundamental differences between the Democratic Party and the positions of historic communiists.  We see that the democrats deny moral norms even related to life and support what teh Church calls in the Catechism "collectivism", which the Church explicitly rejects as wrpmg in favor of "subsidiarity. " The fundamental confusion seems to come in when people justify voting Democratic based on "social justice" teachings of the Church.  But social justice in the Catholic faith works through the localizing principle of "subsidiarity" and recognition of the universal laws of God. Moroever, the atheistic character of the democratic party--which refuses to even posit on the issue of euthanasia, for example,and seeks to keep religion from any serious influence on public policy--the question becomes: given the truth of subsidiarity and the moral anarchist positioning of the Democratic party, do we further want to put social justice in the hands of the communists of our day?  Again, I repeat though, I judge no democrat.  I only see how the democratic party favors collectivism, when the Church explicitly loves what is local and rejects "big government" theories like the Dems endorse constantly as they claim to know how to save us without recourse to orthodox Christianity or natural law principles.
Flag TemplarS December 18, 2008 8:47 PM EST

patricius1 wrote:

do we further want to put social justice in the hands of the communists of our day?



Uh, well, seeing what has happened to social justice under the party of unfettered capitalism, it might be worth a try.

Flag Irishguy December 30, 2008 5:45 PM EST
It is not possible to support a democrat (or republican) politician that also supports abortion and still be a Catholic.  Look at it this way, would you claim your against "rape" and support an individual that supports rape?  Then how can you claim you are against the murder of the unborn when you support somebody that actively works to keep it legal?  The tenets of Catholicism are clear, abortion is murder - case closed. 
    You cannot pick and choose what part of a religion you wish to follow....  You believe, and follow, it all or you find something else.
     BTW....  Abortion is only one of the many evils supported by democrats.  Racism and sexism, in the form of affirmative action, is another.
Flag Emmanuelle110 January 11, 2009 9:52 PM EST
[QUOTE=Greenman;925647]I believe that there is more to being pro-life than being anti-abortion.
The Republican candidate for President was open to the war in Iraq continuing for another hundred years and he's considered "pro-life". The Democratic candidate is anti-abortion but supports a woman's right to choose and he's considered "pro-abortion".
The current President supports capital punishment, the torture of political prisoners, a war of unprovoked aggression. This is NOT pro-life.
If a person or nation is "pro-life" they want to see the poor fed, the naked clothed, the sick provided with good, affordable health care, the imprisoned cared for humanely. If a nation cannot uphold these basic human rights they are neither Christian or pro-life.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you 100%.  People are too quick to use the terms "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" interchangeably.  Like you said, being pro-life means protecting the unborn as well as people in all walks of life.

There have been other posters on here saying that outlawing abortion won't solve the problem.  It will just mean that women will be having illegal abortions which are extremely unsafe.  I agree that outlawing abortion won't put an end to the problem.  In fact, I doubt anything will end abortion except prayer but apparently not enough people are praying.  However, I can't support legalizing abortion.  In my opinion, that is like saying we want to make murders safe for the killer.  Abortion is taking a human life so how could it ever be safe?  I think that we need to outlaw abortion and then work on helping pregnant women find alternative options.

I also think that we need more follow-up on the women who have had unwanted babies to help both mother and child.  With more support, I think we'll see a drastic reduction in the number of abortions, whether legal or not.  In otherwords, our country needs to focus less on abortion and more on alternative options.
Flag Justly January 30, 2009 2:01 AM EST
Reading some of this thread reminded me of a priest at a church I attended at the time who made it clear in a homily we should vote Republican in 2000 because of the single issue of abortion.
   
  A book I would recommend is Pastor Jim Wallis's "God's politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't get It".

  IMHO 2 terms of GWB did not necessarily result in our nation moving in a more Christly manner... 

  War, poverty, health care, the economy, the rich getting richer, the poor poorer...

  I forget the number but I saw once how many times Jesus mentioned the poor in the Bible.  I'm not sure how many times He spoke of abortion or gays.

  It also often amazes me how the Church has become so 2- issue oriented (abortion and gays).  The Church also supposedly opposes capital punishment but you rarely hear about that.  I sometimes wonder how many Catholics favor the death penalty?  Considering such a large majority of Americans have, I would venture a guess a good number of Catholics have as well.  But to "work around" this I know they have done so under the guise of gulity life vs innocent.  But nonetheless seem perfectly willing it would appear to play God on ending someone's life in that instance.

  So I personally look at a candidate in totality in relation to God's politics, in prayer as my conscience leads me. And do not base my vote on a single issue or two.
Flag PMG January 30, 2009 2:00 PM EST
I understand why some sincere people are confused about this sort of thing, particularly with some U.S. Bishops who are GOP lobbyists in everything but name.   

In fact if you look at social issues upon which the Hierarchy has taken an issue (at least on paper), the Democratic Party supports the Church's position more often than the Republican Party.  So perhaps the question should be put the other way around.

The Hierarchy has dug its heels in on issues pertaining to women and sexuality e.g. abortion, women's
ordination, contraception,  as a way of maintaining its power over people.  It is not an appeal to conscience.  It is an attempt at spiritual blackmail.    But in the final analysis, when we stand before God, not a single, solitary priest, bishop or Pope will have the slightest voice in our eternal destiny.
Flag Justly January 30, 2009 2:54 PM EST

PMG wrote:

I understand why some sincere people are confused about this sort of thing, particularly with some U.S. Bishops who are GOP lobbyists in everything but name.   

In fact if you look at social issues upon which the Hierarchy has taken an issue (at least on paper), the Democratic Party supports the Church's position more often than the Republican Party.  So perhaps the question should be put the other way around.

The Hierarchy has dug its heels in on issues pertaining to women and sexuality e.g. abortion, women's
ordination, contraception,  as a way of maintaining its power over people.  It is not an appeal to conscience.  It is an attempt at spiritual blackmail.    But in the final analysis, when we stand before God, not a single, solitary priest, bishop or Pope will have the slightest voice in our eternal destiny.


PMG, your comment about GOP lobbyists brought a smile to my face.  Good post.  I have struggled immensely with many of these things for many yrs.  Sometimes I'm to the point of considering trying the Episcopal Church...  I've heard it described as a Catholic church in love with freedom.  :)

Flag PMG January 30, 2009 5:58 PM EST
Hello Justly,

I can understand your temptation to try the "Catholic Light" religion (no offense intended.)  I've considered it myself, but I've concluded that I cannot in good conscience go that way for several reasons.  One, I am born and raised a Catholic and a Catholic I will always be, whether anybody else likes it or not.{smile}  Two, I am personally put off by the smugness of those few Catholics-turned-Episcopalians I know.   There really seem to feel morally and intellectually superior--snobbishness has long been part of the image of the Episcopal Church anyway--and I find it insulting.  Third, Catholicism NEEDS people who don't always march lockstep with the current winds from the Vatican.  Despite the Church's "Central Government" to consider everything it says to be at least quasi-infallible, the historical fact is that the Church has undergone many, reformations and modifications.  That's why it alone among the world's governments or institutions has lasted 2,000 years.
Flag cove52 January 30, 2009 6:48 PM EST

PMG wrote:

IThe Hierarchy has dug its heels in on issues pertaining to women and sexuality e.g. abortion, women's ordination, contraception, as a way of maintaining its power over people. It is not an appeal to conscience. It is an attempt at spiritual blackmail. But in the final analysis, when we stand before God, not a single, solitary priest, bishop or Pope will have the slightest voice in our eternal destiny.


Your articulate very well what I have felt for a long time.

Flag Justly February 3, 2009 10:20 AM EST

PMG wrote:

Hello Justly, Catholicism NEEDS people who don't always march lockstep with the current winds from the Vatican.  Despite the Church's "Central Government" to consider everything it says to be at least quasi-infallible, the historical fact is that the Church has undergone many, reformations and modifications.  That's why it alone among the world's governments or institutions has lasted 2,000 years.


Hi PMG, thanks for that.  Do you mind if I use it?  I never really looked at it that way.  But you're right.  Change has required progressive looking reformers or dissenters to get the ball movng.  The Church might take a very, very, very, VERY long time to change.  And at times might appear to take 2 steps backward and one forward.  But it  has changed.

Flag TemplarS February 3, 2009 5:36 PM EST
In the complex world of politics it is not reasonable to expect any one party to reflect all the teachings of the Catholic Church.

The best course in my view is for the Church to recognize this, and not attempt (either openly or by various strategies of misdirection) to promote the political success of either or any party.

This leaves the Church free, whoever wins, to be forceful about advocating the policies it sees as important, without carrying any political baggage such as might come along with any sort of perceived actions against the ultimate winning side.

The proper strategy for the Church on the abortion issue is not to throw their lot in with the Republicans, but to work to influence Democrats to become more pro-life. Conversely, on the other side, they should be pushing recognition of economic and social justice issues among Republicans- not giving a blank check to any Republican simply because they are pro-life.

Work the right issues with both parties.
Flag ConanTheLibrarian February 3, 2009 10:45 PM EST
To paraphrase political activist Jim Carville: my life has been shaped by the two most progressive factors that this country has every known -- the Catholic Church and the Democratic Party.

Like Carville, I am a practicing Catholic and a progressive Democrat. I won't let my poltiical party tell me how to pray and I won't my parish priest tell me how to vote. By my own admission, I am a cafeteria Catholic and a cafeteria Democrat. There parts of the Democratic tparty which i disagree; ; and there is lots in the Catholic Church with which I disagree. However, I -- and only I  -- will make the final decision on how to vote.

There are people who find comfort in simple answers for difficult question. I am not one of those persons.

In my experience, I have learned that it isnt so much who one votes for, but rather, the simple act of voting that makes the difference.

Like most people, I wish that the volume and venom could be toned down when discussing such matters as abortion, gay rights, reproductive health, stem cell research, capital punishment, war, peace, poverty. Such discussions create only heat,  not light.
Flag MADAML1890 February 11, 2009 11:44 PM EST
Can you be Democrat and be Catholic ?  What does the phrase "pro life" mean to you?  OK, you are against abortion.  But you would support murder in the form of capital punishment? Do you support murder in waging war?  Do you support torturing prisoners in Guantanamo Bay?  (If you think they "deserve" it, let us not forget Nuremburg or our Constituiton).  Would support terrortis activity by your "allies" or because you are afraid to say anything bad about someone's religion?  Would you would promote hate against  "foreigners"?  Deny undocumeteds' children health care?  (since we all are Native Americans, we can hate these "foreigners," because none of us could possibly have immigrants in our past, right?)  You would support tax credits to support the rich and the heck with everyone else?  Would you deny families food stamps because they are "too lazy" to support their families?  Would you deny the elderly heating assistance? If you can answer "yes" to many of these questions, then don't worry about being Catholic.  Just because you are anti-abortion does not mean you are even a decent human being.  Supporting the right to life is WAY more than being anti-abortion.   In fact, what the Democrats (and others) have been condemned for has been their "liberal" thinking--which many times embraces human rights, justice, and the real meaning of the right to life.
Flag Justly February 12, 2009 10:07 AM EST
Wow MADAML 1890, great post!
Flag j_Rob February 13, 2009 7:11 PM EST
I agree heartily with the above poster, and with Conan.  I want to cry when I think about aborted babies, but I can't stomach the idea of the government making laws against it (mostly because its probably unconstitutional... that whole document is going to give us a lot of trouble...)

I think that it is worth noting that the time the rate of abortions in the US began to drop was around 1993; the biggest decrease came from 1993-2000 or so, and has remained relatively static since.  This was during the administration of a Democratic president, who felt that abortions should be "safe, legal and rare".  To call the GOP the pro-life party is way off; it is a political tactic used to gain votes and then discarded after the election.  Name one notable thing GWB or his daddy did to decrease abortion rates?  Did they make a commitment to reducing poverty? NO.  Did they advocate any meaningful level of sex education for kids? NO.  Did they increase access to contraceptives that might have saved lives? NO.

Being pro life shouldn't just mean outlawing it; it should mean doing EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to decrease the need for abortions.  On balance, Democrats are more committed to that than Republicans. 

j_Rob
Flag septrich@yahoo.com February 15, 2009 12:14 PM EST
I am an teacher, survey analyst, Health Care giver and for 40 yrs study politics and the Office of the Presidency. You really must study candidates and find those who are true to their word and beliefs in their faith. In the past 35 years, majority of Republicans have been truer to their word and faith than Democrats. I have many examples but will tell you my father started as a Democrat, but quickly pointed out to me that they were not true to their words. Yes, their are some Repuclicans who are the same way, that is why you should study the canidates.  My example, Our Senator from my state is supposedly to be Catholic, but he is for so called pro choice and even voted for Third term abortions. Our new Vice-President also, has done the same. So please correct the error of saying both parties have done the same. The proof is out their for you find. We had also, a Republican Canidate who ran for Senator who was against war, but refuted the abortion stance of his opponent and lived up to his beliefs 9  adopted two would be abortion babies, but Pro-life didn't do their homework to find this out. They apoligized after the fact.  So please tell the people to study their candidates.  Pray and study the people who run for office.
Flag Doodlebug02 February 16, 2009 5:02 AM EST

BrookeC wrote:

Can a person not betray their Catholic faith and support the democratic candidate for president at the same time?  I am currently not a Catholic yet but I am about to start RCIA classes soon.  I just wondered does being a Catholic mean that I must vote republican from now on or can I disagree with some stances that the democratic candidate has, mainly his view of abortion, and still support him?  I am struggling with this issue.


You can be a Catholic and a Democrat though I would personally find it difficult to be so because of the Democrat's position on abortion.  The Catholic Church is unequivocally against abortion.  Therefore, I try to vote for the most pro-life party which is usually either the Republican Party or the Constitution Party.  However, I don't usually vote for the Constitution Party because they are an independent party and have very little chance of one of their politicians getting elected.

Flag Tmarie64 February 16, 2009 7:35 AM EST

Doodlebug02 wrote:

You can be a Catholic and a Democrat though I would personally find it difficult to be so because of the Democrat's position on abortion.  The Catholic Church is unequivocally against abortion.  Therefore, I try to vote for the most pro-life party which is usually either the Republican Party or the Constitution Party.  However, I don't usually vote for the Constitution Party because they are an independent party and have very little chance of one of their politicians getting elected.


Does it REALLY matter what the "stated" position is?  I mean, the repugnicons have done NOTHING to stop abortion...
Isn't it better to go for the honest person than the one who thinks you're so stupid you won't check their voting record on abortion?  Really... they think you are stupid and will swallow ANYTHING they say.

If abortion was the ONLY problem in the U.S. today, I might vote differently.  But, it's not.  I have children who are already born, as are millions of others, and they need to be cared and provided for.  Abortion isn't even one of the biggest problems we have.

Flag Pamelajoanne February 13, 2010 11:12 AM EST

Can you be a Democrat and Catholic at the same time?  Well, can you be Republican and Catholic at the same time?  Since neither party supports all of Catholic teaching, can you be Catholic and vote at all?


 Catholic pro-life doesn’t have the same meaning as the “pro-life” of non-Catholics.  Pro-life for Catholics means protecting Creation, all of Creation.  The earth, the elderly, families, convicts, immigrants, laborers, the unborn, the poor, the sick….Catholic pro-life isn’t a one issue slogan.  Republicans fall short when you look at all of Creation, Democrats fall short when you look a single issue slogan.  The list of intrinsic evils, for Catholics, includes adultery, abortion, deportation, using another’s labor without giving them dignity, racism, killing innocents in wartime (what is called “collateral damage”) and abusing the environment.  So, it isn’t as simple as one might make it out to be.


 In the last election, which was the worse evil?  Obama’s pro-choice support or Palin’s racist code words and the mob mentality that they whipped up?  What about McCain’s adultery? It was a hard choice.


 To me, the Republican Party doesn’t embrace the majority of Catholic values, even in the area of pro-life.  So, I assert that what we Catholics need are more anti-abortion Democrats.  

Flag Fraggle February 19, 2010 11:27 AM EST

there are pro-life Democrats: www.democratsforlife.org/

Flag Fraggle February 19, 2010 11:29 AM EST

there are pro-life Libertarians too: www.l4l.org/

Flag Rebecca February 20, 2010 6:43 PM EST

It seems we all hold different views.  As for myself, I don't see how you can be a Catholic, or Christian and vote for a candidate who is "pro choice."   Research will attest to the fact that our leader today is aligned with Planned Parenthood.   I am a 7 year convert, and it disturbs me that I don't hear enough from the pulpit as to abortion being totally anti Catholic.   Maybe some Priests feel that if they are outspoken on this delicate matter, that they may lose members.  Bottom line is that abortion is a sin, and the greatest sin of the century is the loss of the sense of sin.  Bky

Flag AnonymousCatholic February 22, 2010 8:28 PM EST

I'm a Catholic who is a Democrat.  There is no problem with being both.

Flag David March 3, 2010 9:26 PM EST

Personally I am a very conservative guy who has voted Republican since college.......I along with my family were Democrats growing up....but the Democratic Party left me...and so I moved on....believe in very limited government, personal freedoms, and the right to life....and lower taxes!!

Flag Melia March 30, 2010 2:22 PM EDT

Of course one can be a Catholic and a Democrat.  No polical party is going to present a fully Catholic Christian approach to issues.  If you agree with the Democratic Party in more ways than you disagree, it is incumbent upon you  to join or stay with the party and work from within to change it.  If a large enough number of pro-life people join the party, there will be more pro-life canidates in the party.  If enough of us are in the party we can change it.  The reason some Catholic senators and representatives vote pro-choice is that that is what their constituents tell them they want.  They are elected to represent the people.  The way to win is to join or stay with the party, be active, make your beliefs known and invite others to do so.  We will not eliminate all choice canidates, senators or representatives, but we may be able to remove abortion as a plank in the platform.  Let us work together to make a place in the party of civil rights, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security a party of pro-lifers!

Flag Jim April 2, 2010 11:01 PM EDT

of course one can be both a Democratic and a Catholic.  The probkem  is that the current    hierarchy, all of whom supported John Kennedy. have now decided that Kennedy was not a good enough Catholic

Flag Garden_lady April 5, 2010 8:55 PM EDT

I voted for Obama and my democratic representative and senator.  I am a Catholic and agree with the church's position on abortion and say so publicly.  But I am not willing to use a constitutional republic to impose my religious views on others. 

Flag Bezant April 12, 2010 8:13 PM EDT

Aug 16, 2008 -- 6:37PM, BrookeC wrote:

Can a person not betray their Catholic faith and support the democratic candidate for president at the same time?  I am currently not a Catholic yet but I am about to start RCIA classes soon.  I just wondered does being a Catholic mean that I must vote republican from now on or can I disagree with some stances that the democratic candidate has, mainly his view of abortion, and still support him?  I am struggling with this issue.



Whenever politics and religion meet they too often assume very rigid or very fluid lines, and either case isn't good. You'll have one party that's overly-promoted, or you'll have religion as just another marionette to puppet around in the elections.


The more "conservative" (whatever that means) party doesn't always = Catholic. What you should do when election times come around, weigh and prioritize views according to the Church's official position (e.g., abortion, great example, but by no means the only one). Meanwhile do what everyone else should do, keep abreast with the political weather & current events, and be sure you dig around for the ones you don't hear. Match up your faith priorities with candidates wisely, and whoever fits that profile best, choose him/her.


Happy Easter and best of luck as a catechumate.

Flag Dave April 30, 2010 9:58 PM EDT

Many of my parishioners are democrats.  Some parish communities are more liberal or conservative than others.  Mine has a very liberal atmosphere.  We even had a known gay member of the parish portray Jesus in the passion play, two years in a row.


As a Christian you have a duty to vote according to your conscience, wherever that may lead you.  Catholicism doesn't stand in the way of this at all.


Of course EVERY denomination has its share of fundamentalists.  Bless 'em and love 'em...  just don't belabor certain points with them, such as evolution.

Flag Ashe May 10, 2010 4:03 PM EDT

Apr 5, 2010 -- 8:55PM, Garden_lady wrote:


I voted for Obama and my democratic representative and senator.  I am a Catholic and agree with the church's position on abortion and say so publicly.  But I am not willing to use a constitutional republic to impose my religious views on others. 




I voted for Obama, I'm a registered democrat.  I am also a Catholic and agree with the Church's position on abortion (more or less) although I don't think abortion wrong because of religion, I think it wrong because it's taking the life of another biologically distinct and very alive human therefore I think it necessary to be defined in the law of a constitutional republic but not on religious grounds.


 

Flag Bill June 15, 2010 11:40 PM EDT

I went through RCIA about 3 tears ago and have had many great success's and insights with my relationship with God and I also remember feeling the need to apologise for voting Democrat. But that really is not the point for me now. The point is my personal relationship with my God and trying to be a good Catholic. Don,t fall into the political trap. Vote how you wish and it is nobodies business anyway. Peace be with you.

Flag Katekiwi September 23, 2010 12:35 PM EDT

I don't see how you can be a good Catholic and vote Republican.  In reality I do not think either party truly represents Catholic values and morals.  I believe 1000% in the the Republicans anti-abortion pro-life stand and 1000% percent in the Democrats social justice initiatives without which can cause loss of life.  I voted Democratic in the past, but this year I may prayerfully opt out of the voting process.  To me it's become like voting to have your right hand cut off or your right foot.  Neither are good, both are life changing and so much could go wrong with each procedure.  Both parties have become diseased and corruption ridden and we need to have some new parties come out with Conservative and Social Justice values. 

Flag winky October 6, 2010 11:16 AM EDT

Lets be honest many Catholic have used abortion issue to vote republican, but the real issue in race, poor people and money.  Just think before the voting rights act in the 1960's the entire south was democrat. After that act past, the entire south turned Republican.


 


The most serious issue with Americans is the inability to be honest about the real issues and the real questions.  They can only be discussed behind closed doors with people of like minds.


 


The most crucial and most devasting issue for American's survival is our inability as a nation to truly believe that all people are given those divine given Rights from God of justice, equality and freedom.

Flag Catholicboy518 November 10, 2010 9:24 AM EST

 People lets be honest alot of catholics today are republican becuase republicans always vote  Catholic. Ill tell you this YOU SHOULD NOT GET YOUR RELIGOUS VIEWS IN THE WAY OF YOUR POLITICAL VIEWS. If you want to vote domeocrat then go ahead and vote democrat

Flag Absolutely_josie December 3, 2010 3:18 PM EST

Nov 10, 2010 -- 9:24AM, Catholicboy518 wrote:


 People lets be honest alot of catholics today are republican becuase republicans always vote  Catholic. Ill tell you this YOU SHOULD NOT GET YOUR RELIGOUS VIEWS IN THE WAY OF YOUR POLITICAL VIEWS. If you want to vote domeocrat then go ahead and vote democrat





I have to disagree with you.  Religion teaches us morality...what is right and wrong.  If we ignore our beliefs, our morals, when we vote, we make a poor choice.


I believe that however one chooses to vote...Democrat, Republican, Independent...they should vote for the person who best represents what they believe in.  I don't think party affiliation matters.  There have been pro-life Democrats, there have been pro-choice Republicans.  The party doesn't matter as much as the person.


We shouldn't abandon our Catholic beliefs when voting.  We should choose the person who best represents them.

Flag lulu2 December 13, 2010 8:59 AM EST

 As a Christian, I can never support any government, person or party who sees nothing wrong with using the Machevilian creedo of "the ends justify the means". It allows for no principles, rules, or ethical concerns, as long as you come out a winner in the end! Many on the far left, support this way of doing business. As for supporting the death of an innocent life, as with their acceptance of abortion, I can in no way, as a Christian, be in support of that, therefore, the Democractic postion, for ME, isnt acceptable. Now as to their idea of holding the moral high ground, upon what moral principle do they stand on, when it comes to taking more money from us, while not being good stewards of that money? Strike three!  

Flag Bob10 December 28, 2010 11:12 AM EST

Acts 5:29, NRSV -- 


But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than any human authority.

Flag Called2holiness January 1, 2011 2:41 AM EST

There are very few Democrats who take a pro-life position.  The Democratic Party platform is pro-abortion.  The Republican Party, for all of its faults, has a pro-life platform.  When you are voting for an individual, that individual is controlled by his or her party.  If you vote for a Democrat, don't expect that individual to vote pro-life no matter what their personal take is on the issue.  As far as specific candidates, I don't see how any Catholic could vote for President Obama, who is vehemently pro-abortion and has no problem killing families in Pakistan and Yemen via Predator Drones. 

Flag Derekj February 12, 2011 8:37 AM EST

Dec 3, 2010 -- 3:18PM, Absolutely_josie wrote:


Nov 10, 2010 -- 9:24AM, Catholicboy518 wrote:


 People lets be honest alot of catholics today are republican becuase republicans always vote  Catholic. Ill tell you this YOU SHOULD NOT GET YOUR RELIGOUS VIEWS IN THE WAY OF YOUR POLITICAL VIEWS. If you want to vote domeocrat then go ahead and vote democrat





I have to disagree with you.  Religion teaches us morality...what is right and wrong.  If we ignore our beliefs, our morals, when we vote, we make a poor choice.


I believe that however one chooses to vote...Democrat, Republican, Independent...they should vote for the person who best represents what they believe in.  I don't think party affiliation matters.  There have been pro-life Democrats, there have been pro-choice Republicans.  The party doesn't matter as much as the person.


We shouldn't abandon our Catholic beliefs when voting.  We should choose the person who best represents them.




Well stated. While Catholic Teachings promote the moral and the ethical, public policy can reflect a range of choices. The Church opposes abortion but should all providers be closed down and prosecuted for murder? How about making it harder to happen than getting a building permit or giving all that Planned Parenthood money to organizations looking for adoption couples for the infants we already have? The Church advocates against gay marriage and defends its sacrament but does this mean we as Catholics oppose all marriage -- what about civil unions? There are no clear cut answers (although Nancy Pelosi has a knack of stating some things that are obviously wrong) but the choice rests with us to choose the best person for the job and that is never a party choice.


 


dj

Flag RGallag448 February 15, 2011 3:02 PM EST

Dear Friend--I am so sorry to note that someone has led you to believe  Caholicism is a one-issue religion, sadly without nuanced positions on important questions of a pluralistic society.


If you were hoping for a religion with one "right" answer for all the important questions, this is not it.  As a thinking person, you will come to appreciate there is room for your own fine mind and loving spirit.  Bless you in your quest.  RGallag448@aol.com


 

Flag TemplarS February 16, 2011 5:26 PM EST

Jan 1, 2011 -- 2:41AM, Called2holiness wrote:


There are very few Democrats who take a pro-life position.  The Democratic Party platform is pro-abortion.  The Republican Party, for all of its faults, has a pro-life platform.  When you are voting for an individual, that individual is controlled by his or her party.  If you vote for a Democrat, don't expect that individual to vote pro-life no matter what their personal take is on the issue.  As far as specific candidates, I don't see how any Catholic could vote for President Obama, who is vehemently pro-abortion and has no problem killing families in Pakistan and Yemen via Predator Drones. 






Well, gee, if one looks only at the objectionable positions the candidates take (don't get me started on Bush's foreign or economic policies), you would never be able to vote for anybody.  Which is a perfectly okay option, BTW, though it might preclude one from later bitching too much about the person who won.


In any election, there are apt to be pros and cons to each candidate, which every voter must balance and analyze for himself/herself.  Some people feel so strongly about one or two issues that these issues alone will swing things clearly one way or another; that is certainly their right.  But other people might have different opinions, and that is their right. 


As far as being Catholic goes, a person's faith is an integral part of who they are, and nobody is saying anyone must check their faith at the door to the polling place.  By all means, apply your faith to the way you vote. But recognize that others might do this differently.


And also recognize that the way you apply your faith on the 1,465 days between elections is just as important as the way you apply it on Election Day. 

Flag Pamelajoanne April 21, 2011 10:59 AM EDT
I think it's all backwards re: Republicans/Democrats.  To be a Catholic pro-lifer extends well beyond abortion and morning after pills. Catholics believe that all life is sacred, from conception to natural death.  Catholic Social Justice documents what that means; the God Given human right  to dignity includes rights to give honest labor, to education, to health care, to housing, to food, to no death penalties in the US.... Democrats tend to minister to humans after birth, in many different settings. I don't call one-issue-pro-life platforms a true pro-life platform at all. Google "Catholic Social Justice 10" for more information.   The racism alone gives me pause. Just yesterday I received another email from a Republican that contained a photo of a monkey in a suit as our president. Racism is an intrinsic evil, you know. As is abortion and deportation. Our Bishops are in favor of immigration reform, the DREAM Act and environmental priorities. They are against the death penalty in the US.   Guess how many Catholic Republicans walked away from the leadership of their faith in order to advocate for those policies and conditions that are NOT endorsed by the Bishops? It's (sadly) a large number.

We vote our morals. If we are active Catholics, then our morals have been shaped by our faith. There is no place in anyone's life where our morals don't accompany us. So, our faith lives within us 24/7. The voting booth is just one small space where we go with our morals.
Flag Fallingleaf99 May 5, 2011 3:29 PM EDT

             Hi my name is Linda. I jost got baptized catholic in March and confirmed in April. It has been a long journey for me . A search really for truth that has taken me from my early roots in Mormonism,I was baptized when I was eight to finally after ten years of looking to where I am now. What I like about the catholic religion is all the saints and the rosary to. Having so much inspiration right at your finger tips is nice anyway talking about State and religion first of all I just want to say that I believe it is possible to make America better as silly as it sounds I feel if we all do our part we can. I had an inspiration one day just thinking about things and I thought what would happen if we started solar farms in places with lots of sunshine such as death valley for instance and the profit for such a venture could be used to improve the grammer schools ext. and have homes for unwed mothers thus helping to save lives from the abortion mill. I am currently on social security soon to profit from my home based business but at the moment not a lot of money to begin a solar farm even if I wanted to. I wonder if the catholic faith would ever consider such a venture as it could possibly be used to enormous good for America?

Flag Holly3278 June 25, 2011 1:30 AM EDT

In my opinion, the only way a Catholic could do this is if the Democrat was strongly pro-life and not likely to bend under pressure.

Flag EmpressHelena June 29, 2011 1:35 AM EDT

I am a Catholic and a Democrat. Being "pro-life" is about a whole lot more than just being "anti-abortion", which most Repulicans (in particular) seem to overlook. Or maybe they just don't care--once you're born, you're on your own. That attitude is not my idea of what Christianity/Catholicism are about. We should care about people from the cradle to the grave--not just make certain they're born and then forget about them.


Most of the movements in this country which have benfitted the poor (who Jesus certainly seemed to praise a lot!) and the oppressed have been instigated by Democrats and opposed by Republicans. Which side do you think Jesus would take?

Flag nnn123 July 12, 2011 10:55 AM EDT

abortion is only one of many issues involved in politics.


If one is to make a moral choice about which party best fulfills God's will, one has to judge the entirety of their agenda.


 


To my mind, it is quite clear that the Republican Party is the party of Big Business and the rich and is involved in a huge range of issues which are a clear violation of God's will of compassion to the poor and sick.


That being said, I don't think the Democrats are significantly better.


 


One must discriminate between a politician's claim that they stand for family values and the actual practices of their party and its agenda.


 


To be precisely clear, politicians lie with almost every word that comes out of their mouths.


 


America has become the land of business, not democracy.  Democracy is a value of equality and fairness.  That is divine.  Business is a value of competition for the biggest dollar.  That is directly opposite to the divine intention, that we live for what is beyond materialism.


So, when people say, tax the rich to help the poor and some politician tries to spin it to protect the rich...who exactly do you think they serve?  God or business?


Don't be deceived.  Religion is always about caring, compassion and helping people.  Policies which are for that are divine, policies which oppose that come from Satan, not God.


 


 


 


 


 

Flag muldo7 July 22, 2011 10:02 PM EDT

I have read a number of responses to the question of whether a person can be a Catholic and a Democrat?  I have been a Democrat all of my life and a Catholic.  I have wrestled in my conscience more with being a Catholic than with being a Democrat.  I have studied theology and the scriptures in great detail all of my life, and have followed the happenings in the Church since Vatican Council II.  The brutal recentering of all power within the Vatican in clear denial of the doctrine of collegiality and the ruthless crushing of all theological reflection that does not agree with current Vatican and papal teachings, especially in the area of open questions and in the area of the "reform of the reformation" of the liturgy promulgated by the late great, though vilified, Pope Paul VI, that has been rammed down our throats by Benedict XVI, have made it very difficult for me to continue to call myself a Catholic.  As for the politico-moral questions revolving around membership in the Democratic or the Republican party, no one, despite the bishops' almost telling us that we must vote for Republican candidates, can cast her/his vote based on one issue alone.  The opposite of "pro" life is not "pro choice," but "anti" life, or "pro" death.  The"culture of death" does not exist except in the minds of those who created the concept--Catholic hierarchy and clergy, who rightly were morally outraged by Dr. Kavorkian, "Dr. Death"--and in the minds of those who have let themselves being swayed by this distortion of reality.   When I read the Letter of James and the First Letter of John, I do not see how one can call herself/himself a Christian and at the same advocate policies detrimental and hurtful to the poor, the disabled, and the elderly in an effort to destroy Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Disability Insurance, Workers Comp, Unemployment Insurance, and the rights fo workers to organize into Unions for their own best interests.  We have had too much of the rich getting tax breaks that enable them to get richer and richer at the expense of the poor, the middle class, and the unemployed, while they send jobs over seas, and claim that their tax breaks contribute to greater employment in our own country.  It must be clear that one may not base her/his vote on a single issue only when there are moral issues involving love and justice for one's neighbor that are clearly opposed by so-called "born again" "Christians" of an unnamed party which includes in its numbers the Tea Party.  Clearly we are not in a situation demanding that we dump all the tea in Boston harbor.

Flag muldo7 July 22, 2011 10:38 PM EDT

Malanga, I want to commend you for your consistent position.  You have clearly given much thought to all the issues involved in whether one can or should vote for a particular candidate or a particular party, and you are one of the few who I find has clearly articulated the meaning of the separation of church and state, as articulated by Thomas Jefferson and many of the Founding Fathers, though not stated in those specific terms in the Constitution.

Flag lulu2 August 13, 2011 12:20 PM EDT

I can say, as a someone raised in the RC, the fight for Life, is paramount in the Church. Because of that, the Republican party at least, keeps the issue ALIVE.  I also believe, Roe vs Wade, was another harmful law, written at the time, with the best intentions. While it gave a women equality of a man, when it came to convience . It split those who believe in support of life, at odds with its country and its church. Oddly enough, it took science to develop the ability to see into the womb, for some folks to finally acknowledge: " the unborn as a human life!". Again relgious belief, was proven by scienctific knowledge. As for abortion, I believe the next generation will understand better when life begins, and support it, making an opening for the Democratic party to get on board..if only for more votes, rather than principles. 

Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook