A gut check for American Catholicism

[Catholic_Press]

Also: A good run for Vatican PR, Obama’s Catholic roots and the 'economy of communion’

A broken wrist notwithstanding, Pope Benedict XVI is relaxing in Valle d’Aosta in northern Italy from July 13 to July 29, winding down after the exertions not only of the past year, but just the week before his vacation began. In fact, when the definitive history of Benedict XVI’s papacy is written, the first week of July 2009 might well deserve a chapter all by itself.

More…

 

[Neil_Anthony]

This quote seems particularly relevant here:

Put differently, the real “losers” from Caritas in Veritate are Catholics who operate as chaplains to political parties, cheerleaders for political candidates, and spin doctors for either the Bush or Obama administrations, cherry-picking among church teachings to support those positions. Needless to say, the American Catholic landscape is dotted with prominent examples of all the above.

 

[Della]

This quote seems particularly relevant here:

Put differently, the real “losers” from Caritas in Veritate are Catholics who operate as chaplains to political parties, cheerleaders for political candidates, and spin doctors for either the Bush or Obama administrations, cherry-picking among church teachings to support those positions. Needless to say, the American Catholic landscape is dotted with prominent examples of all the above.

I don’t think we need be any of those things to support candidates that come closest to supporting essential Catholic teaching, especially that of abortion. It’s our duty as citizens to vote, so I see nothing wrong, as a Catholic and a citizen, in being open in my support of a candidate. Does the author want us to put our heads in the sand or worse yet, allow American Catholics to be put in a political ghetto of irrelevancy through our inaction? We need to be engaged in our world to try to amend it. If we aren’t supposed to support political candidates, we may as well hide behind locked doors and pulled down shades.

 

[gardienbleu]

Be advised that National Catholic Reporter is unapologetically cough progressive (i.e. heterodox) and is a vehicle used by modernists to travel down the infernal road paved with good intentions. I would say merrily travel, but such is not the case. Though still physically alive, many of its contributors are already wailing and gnashing their teeth in the darkness.

 

[andrewagill]

I don’t think we need be any of those things to support candidates that come closest to supporting essential Catholic teaching, especially that of abortion. It’s our duty as citizens to vote, so I see nothing wrong, as a Catholic and a citizen, in being open in my support of a candidate. Does the author want us to put our heads in the sand or worse yet, allow American Catholics to be put in a political ghetto of irrelevancy through our inaction? We need to be engaged in our world to try to amend it. If we aren’t supposed to support political candidates, we may as well hide behind locked doors and pulled down shades.

I think this has been a terrible strategy for the Catholic Church for the past few years.

From 2003 to 2007, we had Republicans in control of the US presidency, US House, US Senate, and at least 5 of the 9 seats of the Supreme Court had been filled by Republican presidents. This party had made opposition to abortion a large part of its platform since at least 1980. I doubt we’ll ever see such control by one party that claims to be pro-life (or at least anti-abortion) again.

What laws were passed in opposition to abortion during that time?

The point as I see it (which may be neither Benedict’s nor John Allen’s) is that we cannot simply say that since we agree with a political party on one issue, we must not criticize them (or give them weak criticism) for other reasons. I see this strategy taken far too often by sources like World Net Daily.

Doing this has made the Republican Party very strong on rhetoric (though weak on policy) about abortion, but thoroughly rotten on both policy and rhetoric about war, torture, the death penalty, deportation, and possibly working conditions as well.

This has not helped us to save anyone from the evils we claim to decry.

 

[pnewton]

It amazes me the volume of material on this encyclical. I can tell some people who write about it never even read it, although I think this blogger did. I would recommend spending a few hours reading it before anyone judges it. Yes, it is heavy on social morality, but the Holy Father pretty much backs up all he says.

 

[RoncalliM]

Do not hope for Republicans to overturn abortion. It is merely a platform they use to woo votes. Neither political party is “more virtuous” than the other. Trust not in man.

 

[Della]

Okay, I never said that the Republican party is the end all and be all and only hope for stopping abortion. However, facts are facts. The Democrats have done zippy-do-dah to stop abortion in any form. They openly support it in their platform and have done all they can to promote it. I could NEVER vote for any Democrat because of it.

And what about 3rd party candidates? You mean the ones that don’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected and so just take votes away from other candidates who are pro-life that can get elected? I for one will not tilt at windmills.

The Republicans haven’t ended abortion but they have passed legislation that limits it and try to protection vulnerable young women from those who would convince them abortion is their only option. They may not be perfect and of course they have an agenda–ya think the Democrats don’t have an agenda?–but at least they’ve done some things about it and don’t campaign to support abortion.

If you people want perfection you’ll have to wait for the Second Coming because you sure ain’t gonna see it before then!

 

[andrewagill]

Okay, I never said that the Republican party is the end all and be all and only hope for stopping abortion. However, facts are facts. The Democrats have done zippy-do-dah to stop abortion in any form.

You are right. Facts are facts.

The Republicans have done little more than ``zippy-do-dah’’ to stop abortion as well.

The Republicans haven’t ended abortion but they have passed legislation that limits it and try to protection vulnerable young women from those who would convince them abortion is their only option.

They passed the partial-birth abortion ban (I forgot about that), but that’s about it. How many abortions that actually stopped rather than simply forced to change to other procedures is debatable.

George Bush told people that they could keep molesting the unborn for stem cell research, but if they wanted federal money, they could only keep molesting the ones they had molested before.

I’m not aware of any nationwide law regarding informing women of alternatives.

It is very unlikely that we will ever get a set of circumstances this theoretically favorable to the pro-life movement again.

This is not to say that we should vote for the pro-choice candidate. I just think that we need to try to think less in terms of party and more in terms of people. Promote pro-life Democrats. Put real pressure on Republicans who do not conform to the pro-life message, regardless of whether that is abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, or unjust war.

As to voting for a third party, I would ask how you would have voted in the 1933 election in Germany. The most popular party were the Nazis, the second were the Leninists, and the third were the Communists. I could not have voted for any of those in good conscience. The Centre (Political Catholic) party made up only 11% of the vote.

(is this too off-topic for News? If a moderator wants to move it, I wouldn’t object)

 

[cyberwolf001]

This quote seems particularly relevant here:

Put differently, the real “losers” from Caritas in Veritate are Catholics who operate as chaplains to political parties, cheerleaders for political candidates, and spin doctors for either the Bush or Obama administrations, cherry-picking among church teachings to support those positions. Needless to say, the American Catholic landscape is dotted with prominent examples of all the above.

Wasting your time man it’ll be explained away.

Do not hope for Republicans to overturn abortion. It is merely a platform they use to woo votes. Neither political party is “more virtuous” than the other. Trust not in man.

That’s what I’ve been saying forever.

Catholics want to run the field instead of fight yard for yard. If abortion ended tomarrow the Conservative movement wouldn’t know what to do with itself.

 

[maggiemay2u]

Catholics want to run the field instead of fight yard for yard. What does this mean?

If abortion ended tomarrow the Conservative movement wouldn’t know what to do with itself.

There are social and fiscal conservatives, strict and mushy constructionists, not to mention the hybrids…trust me, if we were blessed with an end to the horror and holocaust of abortion, then stopping the march towards the decline of civilization as we know it, AKA, secularism, hedonism, socialism, and a bunch of other evil isms, would continue in the forefront of the American conservatives.

 

[cyberwolf001]

Football analogy Maggie?

Many conservaives want a total utter outlawry right now vs. going a little bit out a time.

 

[jimmy]

That was an excellent article. It explains exactly the problem with American Christians: they put their politics ahead of their faith and let their political views determine their faith. It should be the other way around. In essence liberals and Conservatives in America are the same thing, individualists. The difference is in its manifestation. The individualism of liberals is manifested as moral relativism and that of conservatives is manifested as libertarianism. Liberals want no limits on their consciences and the conservatives want no limits on capitalism. They both lead to the degradation of man. Neither of them actually understand the human person.

 

[SIb4G]

Do not hope for Republicans to overturn abortion. It is merely a platform they use to woo votes. Neither political party is “more virtuous” than the other. Trust not in man.

Personally, sorry to say, I don’t think either party will “overturn abortion”. The procedure has become acceptable and entrenched on Main Street America. With the importance the culture has given to the ‘sexual revolution’, abortion is just one more pragmatic way of dealing with any “inconveniences” this liberation may occasion.

Back in 1972 this was not so. Even though the ‘sexual revolution’ of the 60s had occurred, the general population was not in favor of abortion. It took some rogue justices on the Supreme Court to rule this “bad law”—and the rest is history.

For this reason, judicial appointments are crucially important to me when choosing elected officials. Say what you will about Bush, I’d much rather he appoint my justices than Obama.

That being said, perhaps Sotomayor will surprise. There are precedents.

 

[Janet_S]

This is not to say that we should vote for the pro-choice candidate. I just think that we need to try to think less in terms of party and more in terms of people. Promote pro-life Democrats.

The Democrats are the ones responsible for politicizing abortion since they have shut out pro-lifers from their party. Maybe this isn’t true on the local level, but it is on the federal one. Since the '70’s, there has been no Democratic presidential contender who has been pro-life. And only a handful of Democratic senators and representatives have been moderately (at best) pro-life. The Democrats are so much intertwined with and obligated to the feminist and birth-planning special interest groups that there is no way they can accomodate pro-lifers.

And by pro-lifers, I mean people who believe (among other things) that abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research should be against the law. Recently I’ve noticed people who call themselves “pro-lifer,” but when you get down to it, they are “pro-choicers”. I suspect these may be the type who call themselves pro-life Democrats.
Changing the terminology will not change the reality.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

That was an excellent article. It explains exactly the problem with American Christians: they put their politics ahead of their faith and let their political views determine their faith. It should be the other way around. In essence liberals and Conservatives in America are the same thing, individualists. The difference is in its manifestation. The individualism of liberals is manifested as moral relativism and that of conservatives is manifested as libertarianism. Liberals want no limits on their consciences and the conservatives want no limits on capitalism. They both lead to the degradation of man. Neither of them actually understand the human person.

You put it so well here!

I think we should be ready to criticize either party for its bad policies, even the party that is overall the best. That shows honesty, and puts our faith before our politics.

We should also recognize the good in the “other party”.

 

[BobCatholic]

Do not hope for Republicans to overturn abortion.

Agreed.

They had a republican white house, and a republican majority from 2001 until 2006. They could have easily done this:

1. Passed a law outlawing abortion AND
2. Taken away jurisdiction from all federal courts for abortion cases.

Done. No judge could touch the federal law, and it would have stood.

Heck, even the Right to Life Act didn’t stand a chance.

 

[cyberwolf001]

Agreed.

They had a republican white house, and a republican majority from 2001 until 2006. They could have easily done this:

1. Passed a law outlawing abortion AND
2. Taken away jurisdiction from all federal courts for abortion cases.

Done. No judge could touch the federal law, and it would have stood.

Heck, even the Right to Life Act didn’t stand a chance.

This is what I’ve been saying forever!

 

[Della]

Yes, the Republican party hasn’t done all it could to end abortion. I never said otherwise. I notice that my statement about expecting perfection in this present age was ignored, but it is relevant to this discussion.

I cannot vote for a Democrat because no Democrat I can vote for, locally or nationally comes any where near being pro-life. And I won’t throw away my vote by voting for a 3rd party candidate when neither the Democratic nor Republican parties is equivalent to the either the Nazis or the Communists, for crying out loud!

We have to face realities here, people.:banghead: We can’t pretend that we’re going to get perfection out of any political party–it’s just not possible/going to happen. Unfortunately, we can only choose between giving power to those who not only have no interest in limiting abortion, but actively promote it and another that at least has tried to limit this, the greatest evil of our times, from being as bad as it could be.

I am not a rabid conservative nor a zealous liberal. I know perfectly well that neither party’s agendas are completely compatible with Church teaching. I’d be greatly surprised if they were! I just calls 'em as I sees 'em as a faithful Catholic, and vote accordingly–that’s all.

 

[andrewagill]

Yes, the Republican party hasn’t done all it could to end abortion. I never said otherwise. I notice that my statement about expecting perfection in this present age was ignored, but it is relevant to this discussion.

The Republican Party had nearly perfect control over the government.

And they did nothing.

That is why your statement is irrelevant–or rather moot.

We may not be in the age to come, but if they can’t do anything even when presented with power the likes of which we have not seen for the better part of a century, when can we expect them to do something?

Someone tried a football analogy. Let me try a basketball analogy now. It seems that whenever the Republicans get ahead on the scoreboard, they try to run out the clock on moving forward on abortion.