>2/3 Mormons & <1/2 Catholics Republican?

[lax16]

continued -
In the Family

1. The family’s catechetical activity has a special character, which is in a sense irreplaceable. This special character has been rightly stressed by the Church, particularly by the Second Vatican Council.(118) Education in the faith by parents, which should begin from the children’s tenderest age,(119) is already being given when the members of a family help each other to grow in faith through the witness of their Christian lives, a witness that is often without words but which perseveres throughout a day-to-day life lived in accordance with the Gospel. This catechesis is more incisive when, in the course of family events (such as the reception of the sacraments, the celebration of great liturgical feasts, the birth of a child, a bereavement) care is taken to explain in the home the Christian or religious content of these events. But that is not enough: Christian parents must strive to follow and repeat, within the setting of family life, the more methodical teaching received elsewhere. The fact that these truths about the main questions of faith and Christian living are thus repeated within a family setting impregnated with love and respect will often make it possible to influence the children in a decisive way for life. The parents themselves profit from the effort that this demands of them, for in a catechetical dialogue of this sort each individual both receives and gives.

Family catechesis therefore precedes, accompanies and enriches all other forms of catechesis. Furthermore, in places where anti- religious legislation endeavors even to prevent education in the faith, and in places where widespread unbelief or invasive secularism makes real religious growth practically impossible, “the church of the home”(120) remains the one place where children and young people can receive an authentic catechesis. Thus there cannot be too great an effort on the part of Christian parents to prepare for this ministry of being their own children’s catechists and to carry it out with tireless zeal. Encouragement must also be given to the individuals or institutions that, through person-to-person contacts, through meetings, and through all kinds of pedagogical means, help parents to perform their task: The service they are doing to catechesis is beyond price.

At School

1. Together with and in connection with the family, the school provides catechesis with possibilities that are not to be neglected. In the unfortunately decreasing number of countries in which it is possible to give education in the faith within the school framework, the Church has the duty to do so as well as possible. This of course concerns first and foremost the Catholic school: it would no longer deserve this title if, no matter how much it shone for its high level of teaching in non-religious matters, there were justification for reproaching it for negligence or deviation in strictly religious education. Let it not be said that such education will always be given implicitly and indirectly. The special character of the Catholic school, the underlying reason for it, the reason why Catholic parents should prefer it, is precisely the quality of the religious instruction integrated into the education of the pupils. While Catholic establishments should respect freedom of conscience, that is to say, avoid burdening consciences from without by exerting physical or moral pressure, especially in the case of the religious activity of adolescents, they still have a grave duty to offer a religious training suited to the often widely varying religious situations of the pupils. They also have a duty to make them understand that, although God’s call to serve Him in spirit and truth, in accordance with the Commandments of God and the precepts of the Church, does not apply constraint, it is nevertheless binding in conscience.

But I am also thinking of non-confessional and public schools. I express the fervent wish that, in response to a very clear right of the human person and of the family, and out of respect for everyone’s religious freedom, all Catholic pupils may be enabled to advance in their spiritual formation with the aid of a religious instruction dependent on the Church, but which, according to the circumstances of different countries, can be offered either by the school or in the setting of the school, or again within the framework of an agreement with the public authorities regarding school timetables, if catechesis takes place only in the parish or in another pastoral center. In fact, even in places where objective difficulties exist, it should be possible to arrange school timetables in such a way as to enable the Catholics to deepen their faith and religious experience, with qualified teachers, whether priests or lay people.

 

[campeador]

There all important issues.

Thanks for making my point.:bighanky:

 

[Murdock]

lax16: I am responding to the very end of your post #44 of August 22, 2010. I know that this thread has gone way beyond that by now. However, I have just now looked at this thread and, while I am sorry to interject a week later, I feel that I need to.

You say that the LDS that you know personally are not “anti-abortion/anti-contraception”. Although I have a very, very general understanding of why you put abortion and contraception together, and I respect your doing so, I am going to address abortion and contraception separately because that is the only way to discuss intelligibly LDS belief as to this subject/these subjects.

I do not know your LDS acquaintances so I can only address the teachings of my Church and the available social science data as to the views of the Mormon people.

My understanding as to Catholic teaching as to abortion (if I mistate, that is just my ignorance) is that abortion is allowable only if necessary to save the life of the mother. The teachings of my Church are different. LDS teaching also allows abortion in cases of rape and incest – although this is NOT automatic and must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. You can get a more detailed explanation by looking up the small book “True to the Faith” available to be read online at www.lds.org and reading the entry for “Abortion”. I do not know what criteria are to be applied for the case-by-case decision. I have heard Catholic criticism that abortion in such circumstances only adds another sin to the sin that has already occurred. Sometimes that sounds right to me, but the best that I can do is to trust the leaders of my Church. I do stress, and you will see in “True to the Faith”, that my Church teaches that abortion is a sin of the utmost gravity. “If you encourage an abortion in any way, you may be subject to Church discipline.” TttF at 4. That could be excommunication. “Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it.” D&C 596.

( next post will be what rank and file LDS believe about abortion)

 

[Marc_Anthony]

My understanding as to Catholic teaching as to abortion (if I mistate, that is just my ignorance) is that abortion is allowable only if necessary to save the life of the mother.

This is incorrect. The Church NEVER allows abortion, even if it is to save the life of the mother.

 

[Murdock]

lax16

The Pew Forum Religious Landscape Survey can be found easily with a Google search. It presents the results of an enormous (35,000 telephone interviews) 2008 survey. It presents an enormous amount of statistical data about the religious membership, practices and beliefs of adult Americans. That includes data, by religious denomination, as to views of abortion. The survey asked about legality (not morality) of abortion. Specifically, it asked whether abortion should be: (a) always legal, (b) usually legal (c) usually illegal or (d) always illegal.

Mormon responses were (a) 8% always legal, (b) 19% usually legal, (c) 61% usually illegal and (d) 9% always illegal. It appears likely that 61% of Mormons simply believe the Church’s teachings while 9% take a stricter view. For what it is worth, 6.5% of adult American Mormons are converts from Catholicism and, of course, some number of Mormons born in the covenant were raised by converts from Catholicism. Just a guess, but maybe those Mormons are the 9% who are stricter than the Church. Lastly, one cannot automatically assume that those Mormons who support the legality of abortion necessarily agree with the morality of abortion. Of course, the same thing could be said about members of other faiths.

Americans as a whole gave the following responses: (a) 18% always legal, (b) 33% usually legal, (c) 27% usually illegal and (d) 16% always illegal.

Catholics gave the following responses: (a) 16% always legal, (b) 32% usually legal, (c) 27% usually illegal and (d) 18% always illegal.

Catholics are extremely close to the national average which makes sense as nearly one-fourth of adult Americans are Catholic.

Totalling the two “illegal” categories, 70% of Mormons believe that abortion should usually or always be illegal. That is exceeded only by Jehovah’s witnesses (77%) who gave the following answers: (a) 5% always legal, (b) 11% usually legal, (c) 25% usually illegal and (d) 52% always illegal. I don’t know a thing about their religion, but based on this, and much other information in the Pew Survey, they sound like very moral people.

 

[Murdock]

lax16 and others

If you read the entry “Birth Control” in True to the Faith, you might at first be a bit puzzled, because that entry does not say one word about contraception. You will see also that the Church teaches that procreation is only one of the two purposes of sex. Clearly, the Church does not forbid contraception in itself or as a matter of principle.

Here is some of what TttF DOES say: “When married couples are physically able, they have the privilege of providing mortal bodies for Heavenly Father’s spirit children. . . . If you are married, you and your spouse should discuss your sacred responsibility to bring children into the world and nurture them in righteousness.”

It also says that one should “consider the sanctity and meaning of life” and “ponder the joy” of having children and “consider the eternal blessings” of having childen.

As you can see, there are both duties and rewards involved.

We do not have large families for the purpose of increasing the membership of the Church. There are still a vast number of premortal spirits waiting in preexistence for the opportunity to experience the exercise of agency, in mortal life, as part of Heavenly Father’s Plan of Salvaton. For that, we must create mortal bodies, or “tabernacles”, for their mortal lives.

“It is the duty of every righteous man and woman to prepare tabernacles for all the spirits they can.” Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, new ed. p. 197.

It is so often remarked that my Church teaches that Jesus and Lucifer are spirit brothers. Of course they are, because all people are spirit children of our heavenly parents.

All people.

Good night brothers and sisters.

Murdock

 

[Geremia]

Mormon responses were (a) 8% always legal, (b) 19% usually legal, (c) 61% usually illegal and (d) 9% always illegal. It appears likely that 61% of Mormons simply believe the Church’s teachings while 9% take a stricter view.

That “stricter view” is the Church’s teaching. Abortion is an intrinsic evil. Never is it morally justifiable, even to save the life of the mother. If an operation on a sick mother, in order to preserve her life, results in the death of her unborn child, that is not abortion. Abortion is the direct killing of an unborn human.

 

[zerinus]

That “stricter view” is the Church’s teaching. Abortion is an intrinsic evil. Never is it morally justifiable, even to save the life of the mother. If an operation on a sick mother, in order to preserve her life, results in the death of her unborn child, that is not abortion. Abortion is the direct killing of an unborn human.

That is a hypocritical statement. What is the difference between an “operation to save the mother,” and an abortion (which saves the mother)? Abortion is also an operation which, under some circumstances, will save the mother.

 

[Catherine_D]

That is a hypocritical statement. What is the difference between an “operation to save the mother,” and an abortion (which saves the mother)? Abortion is also an operation which, under some circumstances, will save the mother.

It is rare, but there are times where an operation to save the mother’s life, totally unrelated to an existing pregnancy, inadvertently results in a spontaneous miscarriage despite anyone’s best effort to prevent such an outcome.

This is demonstrably different from a planned abortion.

There is no hypocrisy.

 

[Izdaari]

At my church (Assemblies of God), I have not the faintest clue how the majority would vote. We never hear a word about politics from the pulpit (and I like that). On the rare occasions I’ve talked politics with any of them, they’ve ranged from Greens, to Democrats, to Republicans, to Libertarians (which I am myself).

 

[PopeBono]

The LDS Churchs official stance from the pew is that we are to participate in the elections. It never endorses a candidate or a policy but as witnessed with proposition 8 will take a stand on moral issues, usually along with our friends from the Catholic Church.

Harry Reid is a mormon as well as Glen Beck so talk about differences!

I believe most tend to align themselves with conservative principles there is growing miscontent with the republican party within Utah. I see it very likely that a 3rd party will be a legitimate party. One that keeps to conservative values but at the same time is filled with compassion for those less fortunate. We strongly believe in self reliance and believe in teaching a person to fish rather than always taking care of them.

Interestingly many LDS people are very anti-illegal immigration despite the church’s pleading to be compassionate on this group of people. it is one of the few break aways that local political leaders have had against the church.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Much of what you say here is dead-on. But I think it’s even more complicated. And I think many in here draw a direct correlation between REPUBLICAN and CATHOLIC. Like they’re birds of a feather? Republicans are more pro-life and against gay marriage and stem cell nonsense (thank God to all!) but they’re also very hostile to labor, very much “hey buddy, you’re on your own!” when it comes to unemployment or health care and quality of life issues as well as the environment as well as VERY pro-war.

A “good” Catholic cannot really totally fit into either of these disgusting parties, in my humble opinion. I happen to be a union worker and, in fact, a union rep at my school site. And I’m proud of that. I also happen to care that my father and mother, who lost around $350,000 in their retirement stocks on September 11th, have their social security and medicare (that THEY paid into!) to survive. I also care that people have health insurance and that we take care of people (not permanently as Obama seems to want) for a while when they lose their jobs.

Republicans are extremists in their own right. They are strictly for management and the business owner and the corporate CEO and the workers, not so much. Hence their hatred for unions and labor in general. They hate pensions, hate to see people in labor get to negotiate so much and have rights. Republicans are hawkish and since the neo-cons hijacked the party they’ve become nation-building adventurers. They love to wave the flag and tell us all we’re either patriotic or not patriotic enough, etc. YET they outsource jobs to the Philippines and India and China. Outsourcing is not patriotic. NAFTA was not patriotic either. So the GOP has a credibility gap with patriotism and sending American jobs to the developing world. They’re hypocrites.

Then the Democrats patronize sinful lifestyles and try to “normalize” them. They are great about taking care of labor and pensiona and unions BUT they punish small businesses with unreasonable taxation and regulations go off the deep end. They’re a one-trick pony party whose only solution is “have the government run it!” They, in the end, lean toward socialism and an order in which they define what is P.C., inappropriate and appropriate. They create their own rules that they themselves break on a whim and yet when the GOP does it, it’s racist. They want open borders and chaos, abortion, and they’re naive about our Muslim enemies.

I hate 'em both actually and think they’re both evil in their own right. I hear few people in here denounce both their negatives. I usually hear patronization of Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush, Hannity, and trashing of Dems. I say trash 'em BOTH because neither of them cares about this country. One is out for $$$ at all costs, the other is out for power and social domination. Both are diabolical. A plague on both their houses I say

I say there is no reason for someone to be a member of EITHER of these parties to repond to your last statement!

One of the best posts I’ve ever read here, Gurney! Neither party has a monopoly on morality or ethical standards. A vote in the U.S. is usually a vote for the lesser of two evils. And unless I’m mistaken, even a vote for the lesser evil is still a vote for evil. So many people these days are confusing political parties with moral correctness. I read one theologian who said, “If the Democratic or Republican plank has become your Gospel, why do you still need the Church?” It’s a good question, I think.

All of the political talking heads are entertainers - and it is about what makes $$$. I at least have some respect for Glenn Beck in that he admits he’s an entertainer, although the latest ratings shows that he’s entertaining less folks than he used to.

I certainly don’t have an answer when it comes to governments and the Faith. I do know that Christ calls us first to be, above all, Christian, and that there is no compromise when it comes to our faith. It may well be that a Christian needs to think twice before casting ANY vote. I know some who go to the polls, sign that they came to exercise their vote, and leave. That may be the vote of integrity for some.

A theocracy, or even a Christian monarchy, might be best. But I doubt that Americans would go for it. Even Catholic Americans. We Americans LOVE our individualism and the right to be our own King or Queen too much.

 

[mackbrislawn]

The parties were basically the opposites of what they are now until the Civil Rights movement. Then southern Democrats, who were extremely racist, went to the Republican party. Republicans left for the Democratic party after all the racist Democrats ruined the Republican party.

I, personally, don’t vote Republican or Democrat. Neither represent Catholic morals. The Republicans are just as bad as Democrats, with their anti-social services and pro-death penalty, pro-capitalism stance. The two-party system is a sham. Catholics need to form their own party.

Yep, the parties have turned upside-down. They used to talk of the “solid south,” meaning the south was solidly democrat. Now it seems to be solidly republican!

My dad told me that the reason so many Irish were democrats, was that when they came over, they were asked what party they wanted to belong to. They responded, “what party is in power now?” “The republicans are in power.” “Well, I’m agin it!” So they became democrats.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Why do the Mormons seem to be unified politically much more than Catholics (cf. this)? A higher percentage of them are Republican, a party more in-line with Catholic teaching on numerous issues, i.e., Republicans as a party are more against homosexual “marriages,” abortion, stem-cell research, euthanasia, contraception, big government, etc., than Democrats, whose party platform includes, inter alia, the “right” to abort one’s child. How do the Mormons unify themselves better in this regard and turn out to the polls in proportionately greater numbers than Catholics when they do not have a strong episcopal hierarchy like we Catholics do? How do the Mormons unify themselves politically? Whatever their key, we must learn from them in this way, not that the true Church Church is flawed but because all of us have original sin. Thanks

Could it be because Mormonism is a cult? Mormonism has taken over the Republican party, which is one of the reasons I want absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

But there was a platform switch since then; the “Democrats” and “Republicans” then were not at all what they are now.Maybe in a very narrow definition of “social justice” as synonymous with government welfare for all. I see the Republican’s opposition to homosexual “marriage,” stem cell research, abortion, comprehensive sex education, and support of traditional marriage, education vouchers, state / local government power, etc., as very socially-minded.

And that’s how they get you to support their corporatist rape of the public treasury on a Federal, State (i.e., Schwarzenegger’s California) and local level. The people in charge of the Republican party give the religious right a seat at the table because they know that without those votes, there is no Republican party to speak of.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I read one theologian who said, “If the Democratic or Republican plank has become your Gospel, why do you still need the Church?” It’s a good question, I think.

.

I think it is a good question, too.

The more government, the less the Church is needed, and the less relevant she becomes.
The government takes over more and more of the functions of the Church, so she becomes more and more marginalized. Government becomes the new Church.

Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s.” Now we are rendering unto Caesar more and more what is God’s. God gets less and less.

You can have your private religious beliefs, but make sure you keep them to yourself!

 

[Geremia]

Could it be because Mormonism is a cult?

Roman Catholicism is technically a cult, too, but I think you mean “cult” in the sense of “idolatry,” right?

 

[Vixit]

Yep, the parties have turned upside-down. They used to talk of the “solid south,” meaning the south was solidly democrat. Now it seems to be solidly republican!

My dad told me that the reason so many Irish were democrats, was that when they came over, they were asked what party they wanted to belong to. They responded, “what party is in power now?” “The republicans are in power.” “Well, I’m agin it!” So they became democrats.