Anyone Not Catholic for Non-Theological Reasons?

[scipio337]

it has always been criminal to Catholics, my issue is projecting that to non-Catholics.

The statement you make above is simply false. The church has never said that being a homosexual is wrong.

And certainly not criminal.

I think we’re conflating the idea here that condemning what some consider an immoral practice is somehow denying basic human rights (such was not the case in CA).

There really is no such thing as a “perfect candidate”. We have to pick what policies are closest to us (and our religious beliefs do have some bearing on our personal ones), and decide from there.

 

[fix]

I’ve read through some of the thread about being Christian but not Catholic and I see that it is mostly comprised of theological arguments. My problems with the Church are not theological, but political. The secular organizations I belong to, my voting record and my firm stance on the separation of Church and State in the US are the main reasons that I no longer feel welcome there.

Anyone else accept the theology but have trouble with the politics?

Part of your issue seems to be seeing the truth of the Catholic faith in a compartmentalized way. Why should your faith not directly effect every single aspect of your life? Should your voting not be influenced by your faith? Should which political positions you hold and which organizations you support not be influenced by your faith?

 

[scipio337]

I agree. But there are stances the Republican platform takes that are also hard to ignore. Immigration, environment, poverty.

You would also have “death penalty” on that list.

I don’t think “poverty” is a valid criticism of Republicans. Most GOP I know aren’t opposed to helping their fellow man, they just think the gubbmint is the least efficient way to do it, and “volunteering” others to do it at the point of a gun is an ethical faux pas. See faith-based initiatives.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You would also have “death penalty” on that list.

I don’t think “poverty” is a valid criticism of Republicans. Most GOP I know aren’t opposed to helping their fellow man, they just think the gubbmint is the least efficient way to do it, and “volunteering” others to do it at the point of a gun is an ethical faux pas. See faith-based initiatives.

You don’t live in Utah, where being poor is a crime, and 80% of the people vote Republican.

Nationally, I agree, it is different.

 

[fix]

However, even if that weren’t the case, I could not be a Catholic because of the issue of their failure to act to protect children from their priests.

How do bad acting priests make Church teaching wrong?

 

[ralphinal]

There is no party for a faithful Christian, Catholic or not.

The Republicans ignore the aiding the poor, they limit help for children and education, they allow mega-companies to run willy-nilly over everything.

The Democrats cater to groups with an agenda that is not according to natural law or God’s law, they wish to re-allocate wealth, even that which was rightfully aquired, and they tend to allow unions too much power.

All that said, let’s look at a few of issues.

Homosexual Marrage: The only reason for a government to regulate marrage is to protect the rights of children and women who have no other recourse. Neither of these is an issue with homosexual unions (rulling out adoption and custody, another topic) so there is no reason for there to be a discussion. If you do not want the government in your bedroom, you should not want them involved in this either.

Abortion: If we do not have the right to live, we have no rights. There is not a “right to Privacy” garanteed in the Constitution.

Children in Poverty: The government has as its role protecting those who cannot help themselves. The number of Children without the things they need is an abomination.

The Environment: We are stewards of the world, not owners. We are to safegaurd it for the next folks.

Now, to me Abortion and Homosexual Marriages, as well as embryonic Stem Cell research, are major issues. I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who thinks that it is ok to kill anyone, no matter if they are 8 weeks old or 80 years old. There is no logical reason to allow homosexual marrage if marrages are about property and child support issues (and they are from a government point of view). Now, I would feel this way if I was not Catholic.

 

[mark_a]

There is no party for a faithful Christian, Catholic or not.

The Republicans ignore the aiding the poor, they limit help for children and education, they allow mega-companies to run willy-nilly over everything.

The Democrats cater to groups with an agenda that is not according to natural law or God’s law, they wish to re-allocate wealth, even that which was rightfully aquired, and they tend to allow unions too much power.

All that said, let’s look at a few of issues.

Homosexual Marrage: The only reason for a government to regulate marrage is to protect the rights of children and women who have no other recourse. Neither of these is an issue with homosexual unions (rulling out adoption and custody, another topic) so there is no reason for there to be a discussion. If you do not want the government in your bedroom, you should not want them involved in this either.

Abortion: If we do not have the right to live, we have no rights. There is not a “right to Privacy” garanteed in the Constitution.

Children in Poverty: The government has as its role protecting those who cannot help themselves. The number of Children without the things they need is an abomination.

The Environment: We are stewards of the world, not owners. We are to safegaurd it for the next folks.

Now, to me Abortion and Homosexual Marriages, as well as embryonic Stem Cell research, are major issues. I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who thinks that it is ok to kill anyone, no matter if they are 8 weeks old or 80 years old. There is no logical reason to allow homosexual marrage if marrages are about property and child support issues (and they are from a government point of view). Now, I would feel this way if I was not Catholic.

 

[Ruthie]

*The secular organizations I belong to, my voting record and my firm stance on the separation of Church and State in the US are the main reasons that I no longer feel welcome there. *

Fitswimmer, I’m sorry for this. I’ve found that Catholics, at least in my parish, are pretty evenly divided between liberals and conservatives. Plus there are some who are liberal on some matters, conservative in others.

This forum seems to have a majority of conservatives - but this forum isn’t the church!

I’m a conservative, and I agree with you on the separation of church and state. But I do allow my faith to influence my politics.

• Anyone else accept the theology but have trouble with the politics?*

That makes me smile, because I think the bishops are too liberal about immigration! The smile is because I’m thinking that you don’t agree.

I don’t want to lose you from the church. I think we need you, my friend.

Ruthie

 

[RobHom]

… I could not be a Catholic because of the issue of their failure to act to protect children from their priests.

By applying that standard, then you would be hard pressed to belong to ANY church, religion, denomination…that has more than one member. I’m not making a bold statement…just one of truth. reformation.com/

Yes…it was a “black eye” for the Church, but it is being addressed, and I believe that it will be more than just “addressed”. Pope Benedict has made it quite clear that things are going to be quite different…

But no matter what church or faith you belong to…for something of that nature to happen is just wrong…and its sad.

I pray that it never happens to any child, anywhere, ever again.

 

[RebeccaJ]

There is no party for a faithful Christian, Catholic or not.

The Republicans ignore the aiding the poor, they limit help for children and education, they allow mega-companies to run willy-nilly over everything.

The Democrats cater to groups with an agenda that is not according to natural law or God’s law, they wish to re-allocate wealth, even that which was rightfully aquired, and they tend to allow unions too much power.

All that said, let’s look at a few of issues.

Homosexual Marrage: The only reason for a government to regulate marrage is to protect the rights of children and women who have no other recourse. Neither of these is an issue with homosexual unions (rulling out adoption and custody, another topic) so there is no reason for there to be a discussion. If you do not want the government in your bedroom, you should not want them involved in this either.

Abortion: If we do not have the right to live, we have no rights. There is not a “right to Privacy” garanteed in the Constitution.

Children in Poverty: The government has as its role protecting those who cannot help themselves. The number of Children without the things they need is an abomination.

The Environment: We are stewards of the world, not owners. We are to safegaurd it for the next folks.

Now, to me Abortion and Homosexual Marriages, as well as embryonic Stem Cell research, are major issues. I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who thinks that it is ok to kill anyone, no matter if they are 8 weeks old or 80 years old. There is no logical reason to allow homosexual marrage if marrages are about property and child support issues (and they are from a government point of view). Now, I would feel this way if I was not Catholic.

I am way ok with your approach, mine is a bit different.

I look at the whole package, as best I can, with the knowledge that people lie and/or employ rhetoric.

In the case of abortion, at the federal level roe v. wade is a constitutional amendment and in 200+ years there has been only one amendment that was overturned. I find it highly unlikely, not even probable, that this will be overturned in my lifetime. The political climate just is not there. So, if a politician is saying they believe the right to choose is up to each individual, this adds nothing to roe v. wade. If a politician is going to include in their pro-choice stance that individuals must go against their own morals, such as dr. are required to perform abortions, etc., well yeah, I’m paying attention and you aren’t getting my vote.

If a federal politician is saying they are going to overturn roe v. wade, while at the same time telling me they are for the death penalty and not educating immigrant children, well, they aren’t going to have my vote because I don’t believe for one second they can overturn roe v. wade, and I see this as nothing but a rhetorical statement meant to garner votes.

At the local level, here, in Utah, the majority work at reversing roe v. wade and/or pushing it to its limits towards pro-life. So, non-issue here, unless again, you have the very wayward (for this state) politician who has gone San Francisco city council.

And, I’ll add, it also depends on who they are running against. Both may be pro-choice but there is pro-choice and there is pro-take-everyone’s-rights-away in order to ensure pro-choice. I look at candidates of all parties, size them up as a whole. I don’t vote single party.

 

[dmelosi]

I am way ok with your approach, mine is a bit different.

I look at the whole package, as best I can, with the knowledge that people lie and/or employ rhetoric.

In the case of abortion, at the federal level roe v. wade is a constitutional amendment and in 200+ years there has been only one amendment that was overturned. I find it highly unlikely, not even probable, that this will be overturned in my lifetime. The political climate just is not there. So, if a politician is saying they believe the right to choose is up to each individual, this adds nothing to roe v. wade. If a politician is going to include in their pro-choice stance that individuals must go against their own morals, such as dr. are required to perform abortions, etc., well yeah, I’m paying attention and you aren’t getting my vote.

If a federal politician is saying they are going to overturn roe v. wade, while at the same time telling me they are for the death penalty and not educating immigrant children, well, they aren’t going to have my vote because I don’t believe for one second they can overturn roe v. wade, and I see this as nothing but a rhetorical statement meant to garner votes.

At the local level, here, in Utah, the majority work at reversing roe v. wade and/or pushing it to its limits towards pro-life. So, non-issue here, unless again, you have the very wayward (for this state) politician who has gone San Francisco city council.

And, I’ll add, it also depends on who they are running against. Both may be pro-choice but there is pro-choice and there is pro-take-everyone’s-rights-away in order to ensure pro-choice. I look at candidates of all parties, size them up as a whole. I don’t vote single party.

There is one thing for certain. The democratic party will further entrench the right to murder on demand.

 

[scipio337]

There is one thing for certain. The democratic party will further entrench the right to murder on demand.

True. I can’t buy into what I believe is a fallacious view: that Roe v won’t be overturned in my lifetime, so any opposition to abortion merely lipservice.

I believe any additional restrictions we place on the barbaric practice is one more child saved, whether the actual decision is overturned or not.

 

[RobHom]

True. I can’t buy into what I believe is a fallacious view: that Roe v won’t be overturned in my lifetime, so any opposition to abortion merely lipservice.

I’m not sure it ever will be. Presently there are FIVE Catholics on the Supreme Court. That’s 5 out of 9. Get the point?

I believe any additional restrictions we place on the barbaric practice is one more child saved, whether the actual decision is overturned or not.

I am not pro-choice, but on the other hand…I also believe that what one does in this life, they must account for later… And lest anyone be confused… I think there should be many, many restrictions placed on it.

 

[dmelosi]

I’m not sure it ever will be. Presently there are FIVE Catholics on the Supreme Court. That’s 5 out of 9. Get the point?

I am not pro-choice, but on the other hand…I also believe that what one does in this life, they must account for later… And lest anyone be confused… I think there should be many, many restrictions placed on it.

Yep the point being that many simply don’t think abortion is killing a human being or they couldnt possibly support it as they do.

 

[RobHom]

Yep the point being that many simply don’t think abortion is killing a human being or they couldnt possibly support it as they do.

You’re right. And people in this nation have grabbed the “Brass Ring” of “It won’t happen to me or doesn’t affect me, therefore…”

When I was a teenager…in the 60’s, it was SOCIALLY UNACCEPTABLE to do many things. But it would seem that many have thrown “morals” out the window and “whatever turns your crank”…is OK.

 

[ralphinal]

I am way ok with your approach, mine is a bit different.

I look at the whole package, as best I can, with the knowledge that people lie and/or employ rhetoric.

In the case of abortion, at the federal level roe v. wade is a constitutional amendment and in 200+ years there has been only one amendment that was overturned. I find it highly unlikely, not even probable, that this will be overturned in my lifetime. The political climate just is not there. So, if a politician is saying they believe the right to choose is up to each individual, this adds nothing to roe v. wade. If a politician is going to include in their pro-choice stance that individuals must go against their own morals, such as dr. are required to perform abortions, etc., well yeah, I’m paying attention and you aren’t getting my vote.

If a federal politician is saying they are going to overturn roe v. wade, while at the same time telling me they are for the death penalty and not educating immigrant children, well, they aren’t going to have my vote because I don’t believe for one second they can overturn roe v. wade, and I see this as nothing but a rhetorical statement meant to garner votes.

At the local level, here, in Utah, the majority work at reversing roe v. wade and/or pushing it to its limits towards pro-life. So, non-issue here, unless again, you have the very wayward (for this state) politician who has gone San Francisco city council.

And, I’ll add, it also depends on who they are running against. Both may be pro-choice but there is pro-choice and there is pro-take-everyone’s-rights-away in order to ensure pro-choice. I look at candidates of all parties, size them up as a whole. I don’t vote single party.

I hate to point out the one factual mistake in your post, because I don’t disagree with you overall. Roe v. Wade was a court decision that created this abortion as a national issue not a state one. It will take either a constitutional amendment or another court decision to change it. Neither is likely. Now, here is the catch. The case was b.s. There was not a rape, as set forth. There was no abortion involved. The court ruled that the mother’s right to privacy, which is not a first amendment right, had to be protected no matter what. Even many pro-choice and liberal Constitutional law folks hold that it was a bad decision but one that they welcome.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I hate to point out the one factual mistake in your post, because I don’t disagree with you overall. Roe v. Wade was a court decision that created this abortion as a national issue not a state one. It will take either a constitutional amendment or another court decision to change it. Neither is likely. Now, here is the catch. The case was b.s. There was not a rape, as set forth. There was no abortion involved. The court ruled that the mother’s right to privacy, which is not a first amendment right, had to be protected no matter what. Even many pro-choice and liberal Constitutional law folks hold that it was a bad decision but one that they welcome.

I understand this. As it is now, states can work out their own laws in regards to abortion. They get weighed against roe v. wade, but the laws range widely, from state to state.

I focus more on state, with this issue, and many others as the national “fight” is to me, awash with so much bs that I can’t see anything being done differently, ever. (I am a skeptical person.)

I vote where I can, as well as I can. And was thinking about this on my drive home from work. You have some folks who focus on a single issue and others who weigh everything. I believe this is good, as it puts us attacking the monster at both ends.

Those are my thoughts today…subject to change without notice.

 

[RebeccaJ]

There is one thing for certain. The democratic party will further entrench the right to murder on demand.

I don’t subscribe to this blanket statement. Maybe because “Democrat” in Utah is to be fairly sane (as far as politics go). And some of the Republicans here are downright scary.

There are good, non-murdering-on-demands dems here. A rarity? Maybe. I see both parties has having been run amok with the extreme end of things. I see myself as more centrist, but then, who can know for sure?

 

[dmelosi]

I don’t subscribe to this blanket statement. Maybe because “Democrat” in Utah is to be fairly sane (as far as politics go). And some of the Republicans here are downright scary.

There are good, non-murdering-on-demands dems here. A rarity? Maybe. I see both parties has having been run amok with the extreme end of things. I see myself as more centrist, but then, who can know for sure?

Both parties clearly spell out their abortion stand on the national websites. That is very hard to argue away.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Part of your issue seems to be seeing the truth of the Catholic faith in a compartmentalized way. Why should your faith not directly effect every single aspect of your life? Should your voting not be influenced by your faith? Should which political positions you hold and which organizations you support not be influenced by your faith?

In fact it is the problem of NOT compartmentalizing my life that is making me question my affiliation with the Church. If I could block out everything non-theological, I would have no problems.