Can a Catholic be Democrat?

  • Thread starter Thread starter saintlouisblues19
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As Catholics, yes you can vote for whoever you want. You should vote according to your Catholic beliefs. If you vote for one democratic candidate, it does not make you a democrat.

Should Catholics be democrats? Should Catholics be republican? Should Catholics identify themselves with a political party instead of by their faith? If someone claims to be Catholic, shouldn’t it be no question how they would vote on key issues? How can one register with the state to either political party that does not uphold those key values & beliefs?

That’s all I’m saying. I meant no disrespect to the true democrats out there.
 
“In that sense, yes, a Catholic could of course register as a Democrat or a Republican or a Libertarian or anything else, because you’re still free to vote your conscience”

Great point! Maybe vernacular is my problem. I do think Catholics should vote their conscience too! That’s a freedom in the church, that we’re not forced to all vote the same way. However, my issue is being a registered democrat, OR a registered republican. My identity should be defined by my faith, not by a political party that i register to that disagrees with my faith on major key issues.

When someone asks, “Are you a Democrat? Are you a Republican?” The response should be, “I am Catholic.” With all that it implies.
 
Can a Catholic be Democrat. The title of this threat seems to indicate that Democrats can’t be Catholic.
All I am saying is that there are other issues beside abortion. As I said before, I do not like abortion, but I will use my vote going towards how I feel that candidates stands on a variety of issues.
 
1cthlctrth said:
Another good thing is that we have a Republican President who appears to be good on the environment.
Click to expand...
I disagree with the thought that the Trump administration is good for the environment, He has eviscerated the EPA.
 
Ridgerunner said:
It is, therefore, not the same yardstick as with a reduction in abortion, which the Dems have done nothing to achieve, even as a secondary effect.
Click to expand...
That’s not accurate. The Democratic party has been active in reducing the incidence of abortion. That’s not even debatable.
 
LovelyLadybug said:
I once saw on a Catholic website that it is considered a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Since abortion is murder, voting for someone who supports abortion is like supporting murder. That is wrong.
Click to expand...
You know, stating that under our Constitution abortion is legal is not killing anyone or being pro-abortion. Many folks refuse to remember this.
 
Ridgerunner said:
As you know, Kennedy was a pro-abortion Republican. As far as I know, he did vote for states’ ability to ban late-term abortions. That was too much even for him. Every Dem appointee voted to make late term abortion a “constitutional right” that could not be banned.
Click to expand...
Where? When?

The original Roe v. Wade said that the government could regulate abortion to its heart’s content in the third trimester, so long as it included exceptions for a woman’s life. That’s the strictest the Supreme Court has ever ruled in regards to abortion, and even that one allowed for the banning late-term (third trimester) abortions, with the life/health exception. I suppose someone could say that that means a full ban isn’t possible, but let’s face it, any abortion law passed (even after a complete Roe v. Wade overturn) is going to include that exception, so it doesn’t really matter.

The later Planned Parenthood v. Casey scaled this back, setting the point not at the third trimester, but viability. So abortion is a constitutional right prior to viability, but not afterwards. This is the standard that has been maintained since. (it also permits regulation prior to viability so long as it does not constitute an “undue burden”, a somewhat arbitrary standard, but at any event those aren’t what we’re currently talking about here)

So I am confused by what definition of “late-term abortions” you are using here. Further, what do you mean by “all the Dem appointees”? Starting at what point? One of the dissenters in the original Roe v. Wade, Justice White, was a Democrat appointee, who also dissented in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (he urged an outright overturn of Roe v. Wade). Perhaps you mean the current Democratic appointees on the Court. But none of them have, to my knowledge, indicated any desire to return to the rules of Roe v. Wade over Planned Parenthood v. Casey, meaning all of them find it acceptable for the government to regulate abortion after the point of viability.
 
Last edited:
Nepperhan said:
The Democratic party has been active in reducing the incidence of abortion. That’s not even debatable.
Click to expand...
Produce the evidence and we’ll look at it. Support of abortion is even in your party’s platform.
Nepperhan said:
You know, stating that under our Constitution abortion is legal is not killing anyone or being pro-abortion
Click to expand...
Nowhere does the constitution say that. Legalizing it was invented by the Supreme Court. Supporting politicians who want to keep it legal is being complicit in killing.
JSRG said:
Where? When?
Click to expand...
Gonzales vs. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007)
JSRG said:
so long as it does not constitute an “undue burden”,
Click to expand...
In other words, “abortion on demand”.
 
Nepperhan said:
You know, stating that under our Constitution abortion is legal is not killing anyone or being pro-abortion. Many folks refuse to remember this.
Click to expand...
Abortion is unconstitutional. It violates the right to life stated in the constitution, plus Jane Roe or Roe v. Rade lied in order to make the law. The whole abortion industry is based on a lie.
 
@Fauken Read article V of the constitution.

“And every person has certain unalienable rights, such as LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

That’s where it is. 🙂
 
Last edited:
LovelyLadybug said:
@Fauken Read article V of the constitution.

“And every person has certain unalienable rights, such as LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

That’s where it is. 🙂
Click to expand...
I’m pretty certain you are actually referring to the Declaration of Independence.
 
@Fauken Okay, sorry, you might be right about that, but this is in the constitution.

“nor shall any person be deprived of life” 🙂
 
Last edited:
LovelyLadybug said:
@Fauken Okay, sorry, you might be right about that, but this is in the constitution.

“nor shall any person be deprived of life” 🙂
Click to expand...
That’s not quite the full quote though:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Click to expand...
If what you said was a blanket statement, then the death penalty would be unconstitutional, and considering that certain forms of capital punishment were only ever deemed unconstitutional by the 8th Amendment and not the 5th, then that’s not necessarily the case. The 5th Amendment is talking about a trial, not a general right to life.
 
Last edited:
Even if Roe v. Wade isn’t unconstitutional, it contradicts God’s laws and that’s infinity times more important the the US constitution. 🙂
 
LovelyLadybug said:
Even if Roe v. Wade isn’t unconstitutional, it contradicts God’s laws and that’s infinity times more important the the US constitution. 🙂
Click to expand...
I have no disagreements with that! But we don’t want to be arguing for something using false premises either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top