About Those Unthinking Backward, Catholics

[Michael68]

For those countries where women are severely oppressed by their culture, reproductive health is many things, including prenatal care. But I see you conveniently ignored all the other issues Clinton raised in her talk.

Yes and Clinton takes money from all these regimes that oppress women. So where are her loyalties?

 

[stevegravy]

Yes and Clinton takes money from all these regimes that oppress women. So where are her loyalties?

Follow the money.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Given this, it makes me wonder if some of the posters on this board are at all who they claim to be.
Perhaps they are political operatives sent to spread lies.

Perhaps, but I doubt it

 

[Ridgerunner]

Perhaps, but I doubt it

The last two presidential elections, it got very intense before the end, with new people coming onto CAF to support Obama, and quite a few of them. I expect we’ll see that again. As to Clinton supporters who have been here a long time, one doubts they’re paid; they just believe in Clinton and her objectives.

That doesn’t make it any better, of course. There was a time when it would have astonished me to see Catholics supporting someone like her; pro-abortion, anti-Catholic, disdainful of the populace, openly corrupt. But it no longer does. We have seen dissident “Catholic” organizations and publications for years now, as well as politicians who are no better than Clinton.

What one needs to think through is whether some Catholics support Clinton DESPITE her promotion of abortion and homosexual “marriage”, or whether they do so BECAUSE of it.
Things like the Podesta revelations and the 'change your religion" speech are so awful to a non-dissident Catholic that one is inclined to think the latter is the motivation.

 

[Michael68]

The last two presidential elections, it got very intense before the end, with new people coming onto CAF to support Obama, and quite a few of them. I expect we’ll see that again. As to Clinton supporters who have been here a long time, one doubts they’re paid; they just believe in Clinton and her objectives.

That doesn’t make it any better, of course. There was a time when it would have astonished me to see Catholics supporting someone like her; pro-abortion, anti-Catholic, disdainful of the populace, openly corrupt. But it no longer does. We have seen dissident “Catholic” organizations and publications for years now, as well as politicians who are no better than Clinton.

What one needs to think through is whether some Catholics support Clinton DESPITE her promotion of abortion and homosexual “marriage”, or whether they do so BECAUSE of it.
Things like the Podesta revelations and the 'change your religion" speech are so awful to a non-dissident Catholic that one is inclined to think the latter is the motivation.

I believe the answer really is despite. I can’t imagine an informed Catholic being pro-death

 

[DeniseNY]

The last two presidential elections, it got very intense before the end, with new people coming onto CAF to support Obama, and quite a few of them. I expect we’ll see that again. As to Clinton supporters who have been here a long time, one doubts they’re paid; they just believe in Clinton and her objectives.

That doesn’t make it any better, of course. There was a time when it would have astonished me to see Catholics supporting someone like her; pro-abortion, anti-Catholic, disdainful of the populace, openly corrupt. But it no longer does. We have seen dissident “Catholic” organizations and publications for years now, as well as politicians who are no better than Clinton.

What one needs to think through is whether some Catholics support Clinton DESPITE her promotion of abortion and homosexual “marriage”, or whether they do so BECAUSE of it.
Things like the Podesta revelations and the 'change your religion" speech are so awful to a non-dissident Catholic that one is inclined to think the latter is the motivation.

Ridge, I’m really starting to believe it’s the latter. It’s very disturbing.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I believe the answer really is despite. I can’t imagine an informed Catholic being pro-death

They wouldn’t call it that. They call it “pro choice”. Same thing, though.

There is an unacknowledged schism in the American Church. There are those who remain faithful to the teachings of the Church, and there are those who don’t, and support things like abortion on demand and homosexual “marriage”. I’m not sure which part has the greater numbers.

One can hope the children and grandchildren of the dissident will return to the Church, but my guess is they’ll become high-end evangelicals, if anything; mega-churchers. If the parents don’t respect the Church or believe in it, how can we expect the children to do so?

 

[shockerfan]

What one needs to think through is whether some Catholics support Clinton DESPITE her promotion of abortion and homosexual “marriage”, or whether they do so BECAUSE of it.
Things like the Podesta revelations and the 'change your religion" speech are so awful to a non-dissident Catholic that one is inclined to think the latter is the motivation.

I know a number of Catholics who are “all-in” with the Democratic party. These people do their best to push the narrative that “abortion is a done deal” and that we can’t really do anything about it, so why not support the party that will get other things done (for social justice). The quickest way to anger them is to quote the Catechism.

 

[gilliam]

Clinton campaign emails don’t just smear Catholics, but religions and women

The breathtaking insults contained in the Clinton campaign emails about the Catholic Church reveal a conviction that everything in life must be reduced to politics, and for extra measure, they smear all religious believers and especially women of faith.

cruxnow.com/commentary/2016/10/14/clinton-campaign-emails-dont-just-smear-catholics-religions-women/

 

[Ridgerunner]

I know a number of Catholics who are “all-in” with the Democratic party. These people do their best to push the narrative that “abortion is a done deal” and that we can’t really do anything about it, so why not support the party that will get other things done (for social justice). The quickest way to anger them is to quote the Catechism.

One would be self-deceived to think the Dem party does anything for “social justice” in any true sense of the term. It does absolutely nothing for the most needy, and hasn’t for a long, long time. The Dem version of “social justice” is redistributing wealth from one part of the middle class to woo another segment of the middle class. Not a whole lot of “social justice” in that.

I truly think the “social justice” most of the Dem leaders (including some leaders in the Church) wish, is simply achieving their unquestioned dominion over the rest of us.