Can a Catholic be Democrat?

  • Thread starter Thread starter saintlouisblues19
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ridgerunner said:
If that’s true (and having grown up in the Ozarks, I’m sure the “Dixiecrats” had plenty of opposition) at least they didn’t insist that Catholic chaplains “change their religion” like Hillary Clinton insisted that we do in order to accommodate abortion, or threaten them with ruinous fines like Obama did to the Little Sisters and other religious orders if they didn’t provide abortifacients to their employees and themselves.
Click to expand...
Do you know how many religious sisters support Obamacare? I guess they don’t feel threatened.

If what you say is true, then Hillary and Obama had policy related objections. Conservatives and the GOP objected to a Catholic priest as a chaplain based on religion. That is a major difference.
 
Mindblown said:
At the end of the day the democrats even at local levels are all controlled. It couldn’t be more obvious what their agenda is. It’s really disturbing.
Click to expand...
You know all of the Democratic Party local candidates across this country? You must know a lot of people. 🤣
 
The military. Do you not understand how it works? You join. And then they train you and they call you if you have to go to war otherwise you are sent to diffrent bases. They call them. They call. They cant just go.
 
Im sorry. From the title I cannot read this. I know it will hurt me. Thank you for sharing
 
Dan123 said:
So then, yes? I don’t know anyone who follows their party platform 100%.
Click to expand...
Undoubtedly there were those ISIS members who didn’t go along with everything Baghdadi preached. But that doesn’t take away the moral guilt for being otherwise supportive of the organization.
Nepperhan said:
If what you say is true, then Hillary and Obama had policy related objections. Conservatives and the GOP objected to a Catholic priest as a chaplain based on religion. That is a major difference.
Click to expand...
Yes. The GOP (if it’s even true) deprived a chaplain of the ability to be the chaplain for congress. The Catholics in congress could, however, still practice their religion freely. Obama and the Dems employed the coercive power of government to prevent the Sisters from faithfully practicing their religion.

Agreed. It’s a huge difference.

And killing innocent children reallty can’t be defended as a policy. One remembers that SS general in “Schindler’s List” telling Schindler the Jews would all be killed because “…it’s policy now…”
 
Ridgerunner said:
Obama and the Dems employed the coercive power of government to prevent the Sisters from faithfully practicing their religion.
Click to expand...
They were not required to use contraception. They were not required to dispense contraception. They weren’t even required to pay for contraception, only to pay for an insurance plan which would pay money from a risk pool if one of their employees requested those services. Quite frankly I’d be more upset about my tax dollars being spent on stuff I don’t agree with, there’s fewer degrees of separation.
 
Their approval was (quite unnecessarily) required in order for insurers to provide coverage for chemicals with which women could kill their babies. Among those covered were the sisters themselves.

That wasn’t even in the Obamacare law. Obama cooked that one up himself to impose on religious objectors to force their complicity with abortion.
 
Ridgerunner said:
You don’t have to pull the trigger to participate in a murder. If you’re the one who knowingly brought the bullets to the killer, you’re just as guilty as the shooter.
Click to expand...
First, the government does not provide any bullets or abortions. Second, it seems that all the emphasis is on politicians who allow abortion, but no culpability is attached to the primary killer - the mother who chooses abortion. Why is that?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
but no culpability is attached to the primary killer - the mother who chooses abortion. Why is that?
Click to expand...
I do not agree with the premise. If you’re talking about criminal prosecution, I couldn’t say for sure but have seen it said that women were not prosecuted for it because they were deemed to be victims as well. But I think culpability is definitely attached in a moral sense and a social sense by many.
 
Anrakyr said:
40.png
JSRG:
That by itself instantly disproves your entire claim and explanation.
Click to expand...
We are talking about the American voting system. Other countries like the UK or Germany have different proportional representation.
So it’s not applicable here.
Click to expand...
It is applicable because the countries I cited used first past the post voting. You can’t pull this “they have different proportional representation” claim when that isn’t the case.

Also, the UK does not use proportional representation, if you mean the system in which someone votes for their preferred party and the parties are allotted representatives in accordance with the vote percentage (Germany partially does, though). The UK on the national level uses first past the post, just like the US does.
 
Last edited:
whatistrue said:
if, in your judgement, their other positions are at least as important as the “bad” ones. That is the clear statement you ignored in your analysis and why I said what I did regarding context.
Click to expand...
the bishops have prioritized abortion as the premier issue,

there have been 60 million babies killed, what other issues are at least as important as the purposeful death of these babies?

yet, abortion is just the tip of the iceberg of democratic anti-catholic policies. It isn’t just a single issue now

the bishops did say abortion must always be opposed, this is clear and certain issues are non-negotiable
“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the -application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia” (WRHC 3). Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion, General Principles
Click to expand...
Nepperhan said:
Did you know that conservative Republicans blocked any Catholic priest from being chaplain of the House until about 2000? That’s a fact.
Click to expand...
that is history, currently, it is the Democrats who are guilty of using the catholic test to protect Democratic anti-catholic policies,
 
upant said:
the bishops have prioritized abortion as the premier issue,
Click to expand...
But they did not say one could not vote for a pro-choice candidate.
there have been 60 million babies killed, what other issues are at least as important as the purposeful death of these babies?
Click to expand...
We can’t vote for issues. We can only vote for people. If there was a direct vote for issues then your observation might have some relevance.
the bishops did say abortion must always be opposed, this is clear and certain issues are non-negotiable
Click to expand...
No, they did not say one must do everything possible to oppose abortion. What they did say is the abortion can never be accepted as normal.
“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the -application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia” (WRHC 3). Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion, General Principles
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The same Cardinal Ratzinger also said that one may vote for a pro-choice candidate for serious proportionate reasons. I think saving the nation from the most corrupt President in history and an existential threat to our nation is a proportionate reason.
 
I’m an Independent and have voted Republic and Democrat in the past. I have a couple of things to say – Abortion is huge, but it is not the only reason I’m voting Republican this next go around. Take a look at religious freedom. School children (Christian and Muslim) get chastised for praying together in a cafeteria while other students can talk about their agnostic or atheistic views. Take a look at religion and speaking in the public square overall. We are losing a lot of our religious freedom. Look at what the schools are teaching our kids, especially on the LGBT agenda – explore who you are even in grade school. I think there are about 78 new identifies for a person’s identity when it used to be only 2 – male and female. This is insane because how can kids distinguish a fad between biology. I could go on and on about how we refuse to acknowledge these issues that bring moral decay to our society. Please keep abreast of the issues that pertain to religion and watch EWTN news from time to time which gives the news with a Catholic slant. I think Trump has some psychological issues, but as far as religion, I think his platform will serve us far better. By the way, most studies show abortion continues to decline.
 
upant said:
that is history, currently, it is the Democrats who are guilty of using the catholic test to protect Democratic anti-catholic policies,
Click to expand...
Not at all. Tell me when if a person was Catholic or not changed how they were approached by Democrats. As we have seen, to Republicans being Catholic meant a person could forget about being a chaplain.
 
I have heard Catholics say they cannot vote on just pro life. Then I have to ask them, what subject is more important, more pressing and urgent than the protection of life itself? All other issues pertaining to government policy can only be important within the bounds of understanding and defending the sacredness of life. All things must proceed from this intrinsic reality. That all life proceeds from God, who has created all things. Who has made us in his own image and likeness. Where his divine Will longs for all to live in him. That every life has immeasurable worth. And if we cannot defend life, then what else is there to live for? If we do not make life the priority, then all other issues within the proceedings of man become trivial. To defend God’s divine Will, who is life itself, takes precedence over issues on economic policy, foreign policy, education, and the likability of a candidate. That is the truth. If you cannot recognize and defend the life of an existing human person, the very source and start of our humanity, then how can you even have a coherent debate about any other issue that effects living people?
 
Nepperhan said:
Not at all. Tell me when if a person was Catholic or not changed how they were approached by Democrats. As we have seen, to Republicans being Catholic meant a person could forget about being a chaplain.
Click to expand...
it is quite clear ( bold mine )
What Kamala Harris is suggesting is that membership in a 2-million-strong, 136-year-old Catholic social organization disqualifies an individual from the federal bench. She was joined in this line of questioning by Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii. The even worse news is that plenty of Senate Democrats agree with them. They’ve adopted a strategy of interrogating President Trump’s judicial nominees about Catholic beliefs and associations. It began in September 2017 when Dianne Feinstein told Amy Coney Barrett, now confirmed to the Seventh Circuit, “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s a concern.”

My concern is the anti-Catholic sentiment manifest in the Democratic party. Last March, Feinstein demanded to know if Michael Scudder, now confirmed to the Seventh Circuit, worked with his parish “to establish a residential crisis-pregnancy center.” Last May, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island asked Peter J. Phipps, now confirmed as a district-court judge, about the Knights. Last October, Feinstein, Harris, and three other Democrats wanted to know about the relationship between Fourth Circuit nominee Allison Jones Rushing and the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian nonprofit that supports religious liberty. Last November, Feinstein asked Third Circuit nominee Paul Matey, “If confirmed, will you recuse yourself from all cases in which the Knights of Columbus have taken a position?
Click to expand...

Anti-Catholic bigotry is alive and well in the U.S. Senate (bold mine)
Hirono regards the traditional moral views of the Knights as “extreme positions.” The difficulty with this line of reasoning is that they are exactly the same positions of the Catholic Church itself. So why wouldn’t a judge’s membership in the Catholic Church — with its all-male clergy, opposition to abortion and belief in traditional marriage — be problematic as well?
Click to expand...
https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/syndicated-columnists/article224782985
 
Last edited:
. . . . As a Catholic, you may not vote for any person who supports, directly or indirectly, abortion. Period. It is against our religion. You may not vote for anyone who denies God’s creation of Man and Woman. Period. It is against our religion. It is not about how you “ feel” about a politician or even a topic. . . .
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top