Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[Crossbones]

Well, I am fairly confident that the Supreme Court will be faced with abortion in the next few sessions, so I guess we’ll find out then where Justice Roberts and Alito stand definitively.

 

[ishii]

Well, I am fairly confident that the Supreme Court will be faced with abortion in the next few sessions, so I guess we’ll find out then where Justice Roberts and Alito stand definitively.

You mean the supreme court will face the issue soon - with the current lineup? If so, I’d imagine most of the pro-abortion rights laws would be upheld, unless Kennedy does an about face.

Ishii

 

[Crossbones]

You mean the supreme court will face the issue soon - with the current lineup? If so, I’d imagine most of the pro-abortion rights laws would be upheld, unless Kennedy does an about face.

Ishii

Probably, but it’ll give us a chance to see where Justice Alito and Roberts stand and if the Court opens the possibility of more restrictions.

 

[steve_b]

Well, I pointed out how the Republicans have failed miserably on this issue, how the support from their candidates for the highest offices in the land have been lukewarm at best, how they failed to select Supreme Court justices who don’t take the same view as their ‘platform’, how they failed to pass meaningful legislation when they had the opportunity…

Wrong!

Look at The “Mexico city policy” (the internal abc news link) #1559 , where our president by “executive order” iow he needs no approval from ANYBODY on this order, can in his decision and his decision can’t be challenged or overturned by anyone but him, can approve or reject funding to Mexico to the tune of $500 million / year for their abortion industry.

IOW, since Reagan, a Democrat President funds the policy, a Republican rejects it. And by party line. As you can see, It’s been this way since Reagan.

abc is a lefty organization. In bed with the Democrats. They reject Republicans for their pro life position. And when Republicans can, without being blocked by Democrats, you see what they DO. With the stroke of a pen, they immediately effect this issue in a positive way.
C:

It’s funny how President GW Bush can get his war with Iraq and tax cuts, but can’t pass meaningful pro-life legislation. It shows where the priorities have been, and it hasn’t been on pro-life issues

I think the right to life folks whose job it is to follow this issue carefully, ought to know about each candidate they follow. I also think they would be all over him and his record if he was a disappointment to them.
nrlc.org/uploads/records/bush43record0109.pdf
C:

Kind of like being the Washington Generals playing the Harlem Globetrotters. It’s like the Republicans agree to lose on the issue. But I guess the Democrats are just really, really good politicians then.

Make no mistake, everyone who directly does abortion or by vote supports it, is involved in this murdering spree, and WILL get what’s coming to them if they die in this sin.
Revelation 21:8 , Revelation 22:15

 

[CrossofChrist]

So if your only two options at the local level are the Nazi Party and the Communist Party, it’s okay to belong to the Nazi Party?!?!

Of course not. When a political party has gone so far down the trail in its support and cooperation with evil, it is simply inexcuseable to belong to that party. There is no acceptable reason why you belong to the party.

I want to go back to this. It’s one thing that the Nazi Party and the Communist Party were since their founding antithetical to the Catholic Faith, and it’s another with the Democratic Party which until recently was in many parts of the country an ally of the Catholic Church. That goes back almost 150 years. So we’re dealing with something different here.

The issue now is, do those ties still hold in some parts of the country? Or are the ties strong enough, even if not strong, to allow a Catholic to be a Democrat? Certainly I would agree that no Catholic can (if so, how???) support the Democratic Party as it acts on the national level. But in some parts of the country is there hope for a turn-around and for cultural reasons would it still be acceptable to be a Democrat? One could argue that the Republican Party reputation is still associated with WASP’s to some extent, Democrats are still promoting pro-life candidates, and that there is the possibility of them coming around on abortion, in some parts of the nation.

One would have to be lying or out of touch to think this is true for most of the country except maybe a state like Alabama, a state in the south where there has historically been a disconnect between national and local politics, and I think it is true that Catholics should vote Republican 99% of the time. The reason I bring up the Alabama Democratic Party is because after briefly reviewing the principles they say they hold on their website (aldemocrats.org/about) I see nothing contrary to the Catholic Church’s beliefs. And they also use language such as “sacred obligation” and “God-given potential”.

 

[Crossbones]

Wrong!

Look at The “Mexico city policy” (the internal abc news link) #1559 , where our president by “executive order” iow he needs no approval from ANYBODY on this order, can in his decision and his decision can’t be challenged or overturned by anyone but him, can approve or reject funding to Mexico to the tune of $500 million / year for their abortion industry.

IOW, since Reagan, a Democrat President funds the policy, a Republican rejects it. And by party line. As you can see, It’s been this way since Reagan.

abc is a lefty organization. In bed with the Democrats. They reject Republicans for their pro life position. And when Republicans can, without being blocked by Democrats, you see what they DO. With the stroke of a pen, they immediately effect this issue in a positive way.

I think the right to life folks whose job it is to follow this issue carefully, ought to know about each candidate they follow. I also think they would be all over him and his record if he was a disappointment to them.
nrlc.org/uploads/records/bush43record0109.pdf

Make no mistake, everyone who directly does abortion or by vote supports it, is involved in this murdering spree, and WILL get what’s coming to them if they die in this sin.
Revelation 21:8 , Revelation 22:15

1. Why is abortion legal in Mexico anyway?
2. You are considerably more impressed with the pro-life accomplishments of President GW Bush than I am. I consider his accomplishments to be relatively minor and, as others, I am worried about Justice Roberts on this issue, but I am trying to take a wait and see attitude. If that’s all that can be expected of a Republican administration to accomplish, than many pro-life voters will choose their vote based on other issues.
3. It’s always nice to be threatened with hell. Are you God?

 

[CrossofChrist]

I want to go back to this. It’s one thing that the Nazi Party and the Communist Party were since their founding antithetical to the Catholic Faith, and it’s another with the Democratic Party which until recently was in many parts of the country an ally of the Catholic Church. That goes back almost 150 years. So we’re dealing with something different here.

The issue now is, do those ties still hold in some parts of the country? Or are the ties strong enough, even if not strong, to allow a Catholic to be a Democrat? Certainly I would agree that no Catholic can (if so, how???) support the Democratic Party as it acts on the national level. But in some parts of the country is there hope for a turn-around and for cultural reasons would it still be acceptable to be a Democrat? One could argue that the Republican Party reputation is still associated with WASP’s to some extent, Democrats are still promoting pro-life candidates, and that there is the possibility of them coming around on abortion, in some parts of the nation.

One would have to be lying or out of touch to think this is true for most of the country except maybe a state like Alabama, a state in the south where there has historically been a disconnect between national and local politics, and I think it is true that Catholics should vote Republican 99% of the time. The reason I bring up the Alabama Democratic Party is because after briefly reviewing the principles they say they hold on their website (aldemocrats.org/about) I see nothing contrary to the Catholic Church’s beliefs. And they also use language such as “sacred obligation” and “God-given potential”.

I believe Alabama was also the state with Republicans supporting immigration policies that bishops spoke out against.

 

[steve_b]

1. Why is abortion legal in Mexico anyway?

The question is, why do Democrats when they are in the presidency, fund Mexican abortions with U.S. taxpayer dollars to the tune of $500 million / yr?
C:

1. You are considerably more impressed with the pro-life accomplishments of President GW Bush than I am.

I quoted the pro life folks whose job it is to follow candidates. It is their stats that I quoted
C:

I consider his accomplishments to be relatively minor and, as others, I am worried about Justice Roberts on this issue, but I am trying to take a wait and see attitude. If that’s all that can be expected of a Republican administration to accomplish, than many pro-life voters will choose their vote based on other issues.

Those accomplishments listed weren’t minor.
C:

1. It’s always nice to be threatened with hell. Are you God?

I would not be doing my job if I avoided addressing that. Quoting scripture is not playing God. God is telling EVERYONE, those who ignore that warning and die in that sin, hell is in their future. It’s God’s warning not mine.

 

[estesbob]

The question is, why do Democrats when they are in the presidency, fund Mexican abortions with U.S. taxpayer dollars to the tune of $500 million / yr?

I quoted the pro life folks whose job it is to follow candidates. It is their stats that I quoted

Those accomplishments listed weren’t minor.

I would not be doing my job if I avoided addressing that. Quoting scripture is not playing God. God is telling EVERYONE, those who ignore that warning and die in that sin, hell is in their future. It’s God’s warning not mine.

Steve: you and Cross are confused about what the Mexico City policy is. It has nothing to do with funding of abortions in Mexico. It is a policy that prevents federal funds from being given to international organizations that fund abortions . The very first act Obama took as President was to recind this policy . Romney had promised to keep the Mexico City policy and affect . It is very sad that the first black president is so invested in limiting the number of brown and black babies born into the world .

 

[ishii]

. It is very sad that the first black president is so invested in limiting the number of brown and black babies born into the world .

Yes, sad and ironic that the first “president of color” would preside over policies that kill so many “people of color” - including the unborn. Then again, I was never fooled into thinking that the whole liberal/left concern about the plight of minorities and “people of color” was anything more than a means to gain power.

The left does not care about minorities.

Ishii

 

[steve_b]

Steve: you and Cross are confused about what the Mexico City policy is. It has nothing to do with funding of abortions in Mexico. It is a policy that prevents federal funds from being given to international organizations that fund abortions .

A good point. I should have been clearer. Mexico is just one country recipient out of the international community.
e:

The very first act Obama took as President was to recind this policy . Romney had promised to keep the Mexico City policy and affect . It is very sad that the first black president is so invested in limiting the number of brown and black babies born into the world .

If we completely remove Obama’s race from this discussion, this issue can really be reduced to a political “party” issue.

For example

nchla.org/issues.asp?ID=1 the link is pre-set for the “hyde” ammendment but that can be changed to any other issue in the list of options

To see how each state voted by incumbant, go to the bottom of the page. See how each member (by party) voted on the “Hyde ammendment” for example. Then you can search among alot of issues on any other life issue to see how a an incumbant, by party, voted . [Click here to view Congressional Votes (http://nchla.org/keyvotes.asp?ID=1) for speed, just identify the state, and life issue, (already set for the “hyde” ammendment) then hit search for how each office holder voted.

Key To Votes:

• (X) Pro-Life Vote
• (O) Pro-Abortion
• (p) Voted “Present”
• (S) Speaker —
• (nv) Did Not Vote
• (I) Did not hold office at time of vote, or otherwise ineligible

Republicans aren’t perfect but are a majority pro life (for all races) vs Democrats who are awful on the life issue.

 

[steve_b]

Further example, from the previous site.

I chose “California” then the issue I chose from the list, was “partial birth abortions” a truly horrible procedure

This is how incumbants voted on partial birth abortion (by party line)
nchla.org/keyresults.asp?locale=checkstate&state=5&congper=&zip=&plusfour=&year=2014&year2=1973&vote=checkissue&issue=8&terms=-1&bills=-1&displaysize=10&displaystarts=1&displaystarth=1&submit=Search+Key+Votes

 

[zz912]

I want to go back to this. It’s one thing that the Nazi Party and the Communist Party were since their founding antithetical to the Catholic Faith, and it’s another with the Democratic Party which until recently was in many parts of the country an ally of the Catholic Church. That goes back almost 150 years. So we’re dealing with something different here.

The issue now is, do those ties still hold in some parts of the country? Or are the ties strong enough, even if not strong, to allow a Catholic to be a Democrat? Certainly I would agree that no Catholic can (if so, how???) support the Democratic Party as it acts on the national level. But in some parts of the country is there hope for a turn-around and for cultural reasons would it still be acceptable to be a Democrat? One could argue that the Republican Party reputation is still associated with WASP’s to some extent, Democrats are still promoting pro-life candidates, and that there is the possibility of them coming around on abortion, in some parts of the nation.

One would have to be lying or out of touch to think this is true for most of the country except maybe a state like Alabama, a state in the south where there has historically been a disconnect between national and local politics, and I think it is true that Catholics should vote Republican 99% of the time. The reason I bring up the Alabama Democratic Party is because after briefly reviewing the principles they say they hold on their website (aldemocrats.org/about) I see nothing contrary to the Catholic Church’s beliefs. And they also use language such as “sacred obligation” and “God-given potential”.

If a party began as contrary to the Faith, or evolved to the point where it was contrary to the Faith really doesn’t matter. What matters is they are contrary to the Faith.

 

[Luke6_37]

Also, I just have to address this:

You don’t want the state to play God by outlawing murder?

What, exactly is the state there for if not to outlaw, prevent, and punish murders? That is the NUMBER ONE duty of government: to elevate us above that nasty, bloody, brutish, and short life of constant war of each man against each man.

The reason God doesn’t prevent murder is not because He’s giving tacit approval to the practice. God doesn’t prevent murder because that’s OUR job. God knows that it is in the nature of humanity to find murder so repellent that we will invariably band together to protect those who can least protect themselves.

This instinct is so firmly ingrained in our psyche that it can only be overcome by trying to convince yourself that the person you kill or allow to be killed is somehow less than human. Even then, you can’t fool all of the people all of the time, and those you don’t fool will invariably rise up against the person who tries to rob his fellow man of his humanity.

I give you credit for addressing my point. The person I was responding to couldn’t seem to be able to put together any sort of coherent argument against it.

You make some pretty big claims about God. How do you know they are true? You mix natural law arguments with a Hobbesian world view - but that is all pure human rationality, none of it comes from divine revelation.

Divine revelation provides us with a God who prohibits murder, “Thou shall not kill”, but also with a God who forbids retributive justice and demands passive provocation in response to violence (i.e., Mt 5:38-39). How does that fit with your view of government?

It matters, because the United States is a liberal democracy. We are not ruled by Kings who claim authority by divine right. The authority of our government is limited to what is granted to it by the people, and the people are not God. Maybe that is why the Popes were opposed to liberal democracies for all of the 19th century. From a religious perspective, the system is inherently flawed.

 

[CrossofChrist]

If a party began as contrary to the Faith, or evolved to the point where it was contrary to the Faith really doesn’t matter. What matters is they are contrary to the Faith.

Yep. But it’s not the mere act of being a party member that’s the problem. The problem is the will to be a party member. People didn’t sin by becoming members of the Hitler Youth.

If someone wants to be a Democrat, the question is why? I say either from a romanticist conception, thinking the party is something that it is not, perhaps the same as the party of the past. Ignorance about the parties is another possible reason.

And, AFAICT at least, the Alabama Democratic Party holds nothing contrary to the Faith.*

*I have only briefly looked at their website, but I’ve seen no endorsement for the national party or any support for platforms that are unChristian.

 

[Lapey]

Sounds like the answer you want is that only God has authority over human life and death. OK - but God doesn’t prevent people from killing each other, does he? He lets them murder and then punishes them later for it in Hell.

I’m OK leaving it in God’s hands. What I do not want is for the state to play God.

I give you credit for addressing my point. The person I was responding to couldn’t seem to be able to put together any sort of coherent argument against it.

You make some pretty big claims about God. How do you know they are true? You mix natural law arguments with a Hobbesian world view - but that is all pure human rationality, none of it comes from divine revelation.

Divine revelation provides us with a God who prohibits murder, “Thou shall not kill”, but also with a God who forbids retributive justice and demands passive provocation in response to violence (i.e., Mt 5:38-39). How does that fit with your view of government?

It matters, because the United States is a liberal democracy. We are not ruled by Kings who claim authority by divine right. The authority of our government is limited to what is granted to it by the people, and the people are not God. Maybe that is why the Popes were opposed to liberal democracies for all of the 19th century. From a religious perspective, the system is inherently flawed.

My name is Deacon Gary Lapeyrouse, or Gary, or as my nickname shows, Lapey. You fail to address me by name just as you fail to make a coherent point thus deserving a coherent answer.

In your model of society, unless your lack of ability to articulate your point prevents it, you would leave all people to abide by Natural Law by their own choices and inner conscience. In other words, your words, “but God doesn’t prevent people from killing each other, does he? He lets them murder and then punishes them later for it in Hell.”

Society has a duty to govern, and the Church requires us to be subordinate to that governing with and by just law. In your description, we shouldn’t have laws preventing crime and allow God sort it out later.

Teaching about Retaliation. Matt. 5:38-42

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. 40 If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. 41 Should anyone press you into service for one mile,* go with him for two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow.

I believe you misinterpret this quote from Matthew’s Gospel. Do you see this as telling us, society, that there should be no laws or punishment for crime? There is a huge difference between retaliation and punishment. Vengeance is prohibited, not law and order. Capital punishment is acceptable by Church law in situations where the only way to protect society from a danger is death. Capital punishment in a country like ours where we do have the means to safeguard society is not acceptable. It can only be seen as vengeance. But none the less, incarceration is necessary.

But in your arguments you make the case for not giving government the authority to regulate and enforce societal guidelines. That in itself is not in line with the teachings of Christ, nor His Church.

Abortion, the main issues when thinking of candidates, is killing of an individual life created by God. How do we have the authority to justly decide to choose to end that life? Many places in the Gospels Jesus teaches on protecting and speaking for the most vulnerable among us, who is He speaking of to provide that protection? Who is He asking us to protect? How do we accomplish this task without laws and enforcement? How is it that by laws and enforcement of those laws the state is playing God? Please make that connection for me.

 

[zz912]

It matters, because the United States is a liberal democracy. We are not ruled by Kings who claim authority by divine right. The authority of our government is limited to what is granted to it by the people, and the people are not God. Maybe that is why the Popes were opposed to liberal democracies for all of the 19th century. From a religious perspective, the system is inherently flawed.

The United States is a constitutional republic. It is NOT a democracy, and was specifically structured NOT to be a democracy.

 

[zz912]

Yep. But it’s not the mere act of being a party member that’s the problem. The problem is the will to be a party member. People didn’t sin by becoming members of the Hitler Youth.

If someone wants to be a Democrat, the question is why? I say either from a romanticist conception, thinking the party is something that it is not, perhaps the same as the party of the past. Ignorance about the parties is another possible reason.

And, AFAICT at least, the Alabama Democratic Party holds nothing contrary to the Faith.*

*I have only briefly looked at their website, but I’ve seen no endorsement for the national party or any support for platforms that are unChristian.

It was not a sin to belong to Hitler Youth, because it was not an option. All children were forced to belong.

And it’s a false notion to try to separate the Alabama Democratic Party from the national party. They support the national party,run under its banner and platform, fundraise for, and serve as a starting point for their members to become involved in the national party.