Can Catholics be Democrats?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Victorygirl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, back when I was just a normal Republican, my thought process was essentially, “I disagree with most of his policies but it is pretty cool that we can elect a black man as president. It shows we are ending our problems with race in this country.”
 
SuperLuigi said:
And @edtaylor51, we’ve had our differences, but I don’t think you need to waste your likes on that dribble.
Click to expand...
How Millennial of you to inspect and criticize other members’ likes.
 
Last edited:
josh987654321 said:
x2

God Bless
Click to expand...
Haven’t you already posted this. Okay. He is a priest in Phoenix, so I guess those in his parish listen up. He showed his own opinions when he drew the false comparison between open borders and what he called “law in order,” when those wanting immigration reform want both, that is, that the law itself is changed. So I quit.
 
LittleFlower said:
It is not helpful to suggest that one candidate is the answer to American Catholics prayers, in this instance Trump is often cited. His immigration / border closure of refugees and immigrants from the Middle East results in direct deaths of Catholics and other Christans. Please feel free to read more about their horrible plight on the Aid to the Church in Need website.
Click to expand...
your website doesn’t link to a story about how the direct result is death

vetting needs to be done. in times past when someone fled war or an oppressive regime they didn’t go half way around the world. they got out of harms way and stopped. why are these refugees bypassing safe zones and going into the heart of europe? you don’t need to guess they will tell you! it is to colonize europe. they expect it to be muslim in a very short time.

why would refugees who are safe in australia need to be relocated here? is australia unsafe for refugees? we could send money to support them there? what is the rest of the story.

the left claims the vetting is anti-muslim until they want it to be anti-christian. which is it?

the religion of peace denies the deity of Christ. they deny he died and rose again. they deny he is the son of God. it is an ideology with world submission at its core.

europe needs to wake up before everyone there is praying to mecca.
 
daca is nonsense these so called kids(?) even though they are much older are taking opportunities away from legal immigrants. no one is against immigration just illegal immigration. why should legal immigrants suffer for the illegal ones? how many legal residents are denied jobs because a daca kid(?) is accepted. the problem is that the daca kid(?) isn’t always the best qualified; they just fit the subjective morals of the company: the quota.

the 2nd article states that they haven’t committed crimes recently. this means that they are criminals. why is the left so protecting of criminals? should we ignore cold cases because time has gone by and the perp wasn’t caught?

it isn’t a moral issue. it is a law and order issue

if people want to come to america all they to do is follow the rules.
 
LittleFlower said:
Has anyone voted someone in who has keeping the death penalty on their agenda? If so, please leave the communion line.

Have a hardline stance, but then have it all the way. Pro life means no executions, no abortions, not allowing anyone to be persecuted and killed for their faith (regardless of their faith), increase in mental health services (a lot of people commit suicide), etc.
Click to expand...
the death penalty is allowed under certain circumstances in the church. the pope wants to change it but can he? it is up to debate but the death penalty is biblical.

what is pro-life? the left only defines it as all life and redefines it to fit their agenda. it was originally used to mean anti-abortion. a term i prefer. innocent versus the guilty; it is different.
 
josh987654321 said:
The Church basically teaches that we can only kill in self defense, today when we can lock criminals up, it is an extremely difficult case to make that someone in handcuffs and safety detained can be executed, which is why I am also against the Death Penalty, fortunately here in Australia we do not have it and I will not and have never voted ‘for’ it.
Click to expand...
what about third world countries that do not have a system to support a prisoner for life. should the guilty be eventually allowed to go free to kill again?
 
Victorygirl said:
Hi. I am in RCIA so what I don’t know could fill the ocean. Anyway, I just got torn a new a-hole in a Catholic forum when I mentioned I was democrat. I was told that since democrats support abortion, it is therefore evil and blah blah.

This is what it felt like when I was voting, a party with values I agreed with except abortion. Versus a candidate I felt was going to destroy the earth but supports non-abortion.

This post is not per se to argue whether the President is a good person or not, but just how difficult it was to make a decision.

If there are any democratic Catholics on here, can you explain how you justify your position?

Thanks, Rose
Click to expand...
I’m a Catholic and a democrat. I think most of the Catholics in my state are.

Virtually no one in either party supports the entire plank without exception or some sort of qualification or specification.

Enjoy RCIA.
 
Victorygirl said:
This is my thinking - supporting a party that poo poos global warming and
denies access to health care for the poor is inevitably going to cause more
deaths than any abortions ever would. So voting for Republican is just as
morally reprehensible as voting Democrat. I know what I just said is going
to produce a s-storm of ranting, but that is my opinion. And thanks for
sharing yours.
Click to expand...
they don’t deny global warming just that it was man made and that man can stop it. which the left doesn’t really do either since china will build new coal plants through 2030 instead of clean energy now.

they don’t deny healthcare for the poor just a poor system that was passed with a lack of transparency and the stupidity of the american people per gruber (o’care consultant). there are many still not covered. many of those that the left claim will lose coverage will voluntarily drop it because they were forced to purchase it and don’t really want coverage. it is a farce.

do you know how many have been killed via abortion? how many have died for lack of insurance? where i am from those without coverage just walk in to the emergency room and are cared for.

you are entitled to your opinions as i am to mine.
 
RandomAlias said:
When you restrict your vote to the two major parties, you are settling for the lesser of two evils, which is still evil. When there is an alternative party which stands up and speaks out for good, you should support it.
Click to expand...
which third party candidate was in full cooperation with the views of the church? i must have missed this candidate.
 
Gertabelle said:
you have more courage
Click to expand...
what is courageous about expressing an opinion on a forum?

many come on just to stir the pot. not judging the op just stating a fact.

if you want to type something type it, let the pot swirl.
 
Neither of the two main parties in the US satisfy me at this point. I wish third parties would become more popular and give the two more of a challenge. We all might see candidates we like better if that were to happen. Someone mentioned JFK/RFK earlier in this thread. If either were alive today I doubt very much they would recognize their own party. Both were pro-life advocates, just to give one example. Nor do I believe that Hoover, or Eisenhower would recognize the republican party if they were alive today.

To the original poster, In my opinion, you should research the candidates in elections and pick the one who most closely aligns him/herself with catholic teaching (even if third party) and vote accordingly. So of course, that means you have to understand where the church stands on all the issues. The catechism of the Catholic Church is the best place to find that information.

Best wishes to you as you complete RCIA and join the church!
 
Cath13 said:
he’s mentally and morally incompetent and a laughing stock to the rest of the world, but at least he’s anti-abortion . . . and that’s all that matters to Catholics–any time, all the time, absolutely nothing else
Click to expand...
yes he probably is, has to be to even want the job; but, he won anyway. what should this tell you about hillary?

we have been the laughing stock for so long; a little longer doesn’t matter.

the voters rejected both parties. he is the closest thing to a third party we ever had.

for all of you arguing over dem and gop look at their donors. they are all big business. these are two wings of one party. neither cares about the poor or middle class. they are no better after obama than under bush who was a progressive tax and spend rhino.

the left is even praising john boehner and boehner is praising obama.

trump won on a promise to drain the swamp; let’s see if he keeps it.

maybe we can start again.
 
The problem with voting third party:
  1. You’ll be ignored
  2. You’ll be used by the campaigns you really don’t want to win to split the vote
  3. I have to wonder if people vote 3rd Party to avoid being called a racist, bigot, sexist, poor-hating granny-off-the-cliff tosser.
    If so, all you are doing is feeding the crocodile hoping it eats you last.
 
SuperLuigi said:
The problem with voting third party:
Click to expand...
The reasons to vote third party:
The major parties must be responsible for reprehensible nominations.
More candidates mean more choice of a morally superior candidate.
The need to break the bipartisan death grip the two parties have on our country.

Most arguments against third party voters, like the old split-the-vote saw, reply on faulty assumptions and bad math. Usually the assumption is that everyone who voted for a third party would have been either a Republican or Democrat. Also, it does not account for multiple third parties, which may siphon voted that might have been for either party. If 1% vote for candidate Smith, and Republican Bob Murica loses by 0.8%, then saying that Smith split the vote must assume that more than that 0.8% would have voted for Murica, as opposed to his opponent, another third party, or not voting at all.

I have an easier answer. Don’t have such an awful candidate, and I will vote for him or her. I will not be a “hold my nose” voter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top