Catholic and Democrat?

[runner554]

I adopted 6 kids. So I talk the talk and walk the walk. I dont beleive in the death penalty at all, but given a choice I would save the life of the unborn as opposed to some criminal. Democrats would rather kill a baby and save a murderer. Real easy for me which way to go. I wish there was an alternative to both parties. To be honest I’m not entirely happy with the Republican party. Next election I’ll probably not vote at all.

 

[pira114]

There are alternatives to both parties. They will probably never get anyone elected due to the way the Dems and Reps have set things up for themselves, but they’re there.

I have no problem with the death penalty. Many of you have said that they have children, or several children. You’re telling me that if someone came along and kidnapped, raped, tourtured, and killed those children, you wouldn’t want them put to death? I don’t think we use the death penalty enough! And no, I don’t think it conflicts with being a Catholic, or any type of Christian.

For whoever sheds the blood of man, shall by man his blood be shed.

 

[PLAL]

WarriorForJesus:

Martin Luther wanting to abdicate the Catholic Church instead of reforming it from within.

Look, there is nothing evil about being Democrat. Not EVERY Democrat is into murdering the unborn.

Not EVERY Republican is into saving the lives of the unborn.

Not EVERY Democrat is for the little people. Not EVERY Republican is for big business.

We need to look at people and not at labels.

With that said, it does seem weird that those who care about people once they are born are not necessarily for those of us who are unborn, yet.

But it is just as weird that those who are so pro life care diddly squat about people once they are born.

Think Bush and the death penalty. Ho hum.

Janice

Do Catholics Enjoy Dems Bashing Their Faith, or Are They Just Plain Stupid?

illinoisleader.com/letters/lettersview.asp?c=2476

On Bush:

Bush’s Daily Pro-Life Record as of 5-18-04 by Fr. Peter West

freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1140835/posts

Note President Bush elected what looks like 2 Pro-Life Supreme Court Justices (Roberts, Alito) which is HUGE since they are LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS.

In not sure what your position is on the war (justified or not) but I am not going to debate over it but please read Fr. Frank Pavone’s Abortion vs. War

priestsforlife.org/columns/columns2004/04-06-14abortionvswar.htm

On Capital Punishment/Death Penalty

Please read your Catholic Catechism on these topics. Also there was a great discussion on this topic on another thread. It’s 2 pages long. Please take a look at it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=79615&page=2

 

[PLAL]

runner554:

I have an older brother that is Catholic and a Democrat. I do my best not to talk politics with him for the reason that a person can’t pick and choose as a Catholic what to beleive in. To me that’s being a cafeteria Catholic. You should beleive and accept all the teachings of the Church or none. You might not always understand the reason for this or that but you need to have faith the Church knows better than us.Dont Protestants do the same. They couldn’t accept all the teachings of the Church so they made up their own rules. I just dont understand it.

Well said. I agree.

 

[koda]

BLB_Oregon:

If only bad grammar were his only fault.

George Bush, put in a position where he could personally prevent executions, failed to do so. In fact, he failed to sign a bill into law that would have made it against the law to execute the mentally retarded. He refused. Our catechism states “if bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means…” which both the State of Texas and the United States of America have the ability to do.

In other words, Mr. Bush may be anti-abortion–and frankly, even there I am not terribly impressed–but it is a stretch to consider him pro-life.

Currently, he is in a position to forbid torture. He won’t do that. He wants the option. Our catechism teaches that “Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.” It goes on to say that working to end it is necessary. We need to be opposing this.

He will not go down in history as one of the great Presidents. He will rank well behind his father. He routinely ignores the advice of his military commanders. He openly seeks ways to circumvent the Geneva Conventions. He failed to plan appropriately for resistance after the change of regime in Iraq. The photo-op in front of the “Mission Accomplished” banners–and don’t think I don’t remember how proud a moment that was at the time!–will go down in history as ample evidence of that bout of short-sightedness. “Bring 'em on”, indeed. Even if one agrees that Iraq need invasion, one would be hard-pressed to imagine that there wasn’t a more intelligent, prudent way to have done it. He could not have even secured the infrastructure and government buildings from looting? Please.

Instead of spending his “political capital” after the election, as he said he intended to do, he has squandered it. He has run up a new deficit in a fantastically short time, yet clings to tax cuts, shifting our spending onto our children’s shoulders. He promise to fix Social Security proved absolutely impotent. (For which I am thankful.) I am at a loss to think of a domestic initiative he has executed well.

He has utterly squandered the world-wide support he had after 9/11. He has answered objections to his strategies not with well-reasoned arguments, but with demands that we equate blind loyalty with patriotism. He has treated our allies with similar disrespect. There could not be a greater contrast to the masterful way in which his father orchestrated the first Gulf War than the ham-handed manner in which he has chosen to execute the second.

He has placed his political supporters in high positions, even if they had no resume to back up his choice. They have failed him, and he has rewarded them more often than he has chastened them. His nomination of Harriet Meiers for the Supreme Court will go down in history as one of the most inexplicable choices ever made, unless you cynically mark it down as mere cronyism.

In matters of national defense and security, I cannot think of a President in my lifetime that I trust less to tell the truth and do what morality dictates over that whispered by expediency, including Mr. Nixon and Mr. Clinton.

So if you’re ready to give Mr. Bush carte blanche and kudos as being among the great Presidents for his having given lip service to abortion prevention, have at it. I think we could have done far better, had we other choices among the living than the last two elections gave us.

Excellent points! Pro-life covers a lot of issues, including access to pre-natal care, health care for the mom and newborn (and everybody else), decent housing, decent schools, decent job opportunities. It doesn’t involve tax cuts for the rich, the gutting of the EPA (anti-life as it pollutes the only planet we have to live on), spending billions on war, supporting torture, cronyism, the attempt to provatize SS to give his wall strett buddies a lift, being pro-death penalty (I’ve heard that audio clip where he does his impression of the woman who was executed in TX when he was gov - the one who’d found God and repented “please don’t kill me”) - one word for that: “sick”. I may not always vote Dem but I’ll never vote Rep (historically the party of the rich).

Also, someone mentioned in another post the fact that a lot of Black babies are aborted. If you really want to do something about it, work for the establishment and funding for social programs that are the life lines these women need. Abortion doesn’t happen in a vacuum.

 

[Elizastaci]

I’m very Catholic, and also a Democrat…and while of course I am very pro-life and fight for the pro-life cause at every opportunity, it’s also not the only issue we have to be concerned about.

I am horrified & disgusted that Mr. Bush suppports keeping the option of torture around. And he calls himself pro-life??? Um, there’s more meaning in that phrase than anti-abortion, at least in my book.

 

[LaurainSunset]

This was a really tough one in our family. Traditionally, I was a democrat and my husband was republican. Our beliefs have been the one true thing that have made us vote the “right” way. Because we are dead set against abortion, we could not support democrats. We are also dead set against the death penalty, we could not be republicans. So, we are pretty much independants and go with the lesser of the two evils. Who will promote our values and morales in our everyday lives. Our priest gave an excellent homily on this right before the presidential election last year. That is what helped us make our choice.

 

[aimee]

koda:

Excellent points! Pro-life covers a lot of issues, including access to pre-natal care, health care for the mom and newborn (and everybody else), decent housing, decent schools, decent job opportunities. It doesn’t involve tax cuts for the rich, the gutting of the EPA (anti-life as it pollutes the only planet we have to live on), spending billions on war, supporting torture, cronyism, the attempt to provatize SS to give his wall strett buddies a lift, being pro-death penalty (I’ve heard that audio clip where he does his impression of the woman who was executed in TX when he was gov - the one who’d found God and repented “please don’t kill me”) - one word for that: “sick”. I may not always vote Dem but I’ll never vote Rep (historically the party of the rich).

Also, someone mentioned in another post the fact that a lot of Black babies are aborted. If you really want to do something about it, work for the establishment and funding for social programs that are the life lines these women need. Abortion doesn’t happen in a vacuum.

Bless you Koda…you do try. Social programs?? How bout personal responsibility…seems only right to try it since all the programs haven’t worked…

Well either way…

 

[aspawloski4th]

I thank God my family history is not one party of the other. so there isnt anything to blindly follow. in the 20th century most of the family preceding me mostly were people in some kind of repair profession, from auto body, to nursing(human repair). so my family history is people who wanted low taxes, and governemt to leave them alone. Independent people. with that in mind Im an independent conservative now. the republican party has moved to the left, and the democrat party is so far left its off the deepend. in the voting booth on most offices I vote for who I think is most unborn friendly, even if it means a thrid party.

 

[jslup5]

Do social programs really work? I mean when you look at the hurricane that hit the south, the people looked to the government to come in and take care of them because that is how they live their lives. The Government is expected to do that. When the blizzards hit South Dakota hard in late November-early December they did not wait for the government to come in. Many people were without electricity for weeks in freezing weather. This was a life or death situation for many, many people. They took care of each other! You didn’t see news coverage of anyone stealing from empty homes, etc. The difference to me is these people aren’t dependent on the government and take care of themselves.

Maybe these seems like a strange comparison but I just think of the saying about teach a man to fish and he will not go hungry. (however that saying goes.) They need to be dependent on themselves and the social programs make it to easy not to do that. I’m not totally sure they are the answer or the cause of the problem.

Sandi

 

[smartblkchick]

jslup5:

Do social programs really work? I mean when you look at the hurricane that hit the south, the people looked to the government to come in and take care of them because that is how they live their lives.

The problem wasn’t that they waited for the government to help them. There are many stories about people helping elderly neighbors make it to shelters because they didn’t have any other family. There were many stories of people looking out for small children who had gotten separated from their parents. The problem is that there were extremes in New Orleans–extreme wealth and extreme poverty. Poor people didn’t have cars to evacuate. Our lack of a comprehensive mass transit system was fully on display with Katrina, and then Rita… if, for example, we had a mass transit system like Europe, we would have been able to efficiently evacuate people who had no other means of transportation. Poverty is the problem, not government dependence. New Orleans had an unemployment rate that was typical of large urban areas after the white-flight phenomenon.

The Government is expected to do that. When the blizzards hit South Dakota hard in late November-early December they did not wait for the government to come in. Many people were without electricity for weeks in freezing weather. This was a life or death situation for many, many people. They took care of each other! You didn’t see news coverage of anyone stealing from empty homes, etc. The difference to me is these people aren’t dependent on the government and take care of themselves.

Another difference is that a blizzard and flooding are two very different things. In a blizzard, as long as you can get somewhere warm and a place where you can burn firewood you can warm up. You can somewhat safely walk in the snow to your house or a neighbor’s house to retrieve food and other necessary items. In a flood you can’t do that. Many of those people didn’t know how to swim. Even if they could swim, the environmental hazards in that water were deadly. Not to mention the alligators washed in with the tide.

Also, the geography of New Orleans was such that you could be walking in knee high water on one block and end up completely under water in the next (BTW I grew up in New Orleans and did both my BA-Xavier and MA-Tulane there). Because New Orleans is below sea-level, we frequently had flash flooding in parts of the city with heavy rains. The first thing people were cautioned against doing in these situations is driving around because the geography of the city made it difficult to know how deep the water was in any part of the city. There was an underpass near my parent’s house that could get six feet of water very quickly while the street leading to that underpass remained un-flooded.

Maybe these seems like a strange comparison but I just think of the saying about teach a man to fish and he will not go hungry. (however that saying goes.) They need to be dependent on themselves and the social programs make it to easy not to do that. I’m not totally sure they are the answer or the cause of the problem.

Sandi

Not only is it a strange comparison, it is a faulty comparison because the circumstances are not comparable. But it is a lot easier to find something faulty in the victims of this tragedy so we can assuage our consciences and tell ourselves that the extreme economic inequality—on full display in New Orleans—in our society is just fine!

 

[jslup5]

I was only trying to point out that the people in South Dakota did make it through without anyone from FEMA or the government showing up. (And just to point out-you do not walk to the nearest neighbor in a blizzard. You do not even leave your car in a blizzard unless you want to freeze to death. Not everyone lives in a city. South Dakota is very rural. Some don’t have neighbors for miles.)

But what I was really asking is if the social programs work. Do they help you or make a person dependent on them? I know it really helps some people when they fall on hard times but when a person is living on social programs for a long period of time-to me-than something is not working.

 

[turboEDvo]

DiZent:

I have reached a point where I cannot support either political party. I will abstain from voting for a presidential candidate if I have no better choice than what we had in 04.

I would have to agree with that statement.

I think too many people vote on parties rather than issues.

Eamon

 

[mary_bobo]

turboEDvo:

I would have to agree with that statement.

I think too many people vote on parties rather than issues.

Eamon

Or perhaps they vote for the party who handles the issue more to their liking. One candidate alone cannot accomplish anything without a party behind him/her. Think about it.

 

[smartblkchick]

jslup5:

But what I was really asking is if the social programs work. Do they help you or make a person dependent on them? I know it really helps some people when they fall on hard times but when a person is living on social programs for a long period of time-to me-than something is not working.

Yes. What’s not working is that we have no EFFECTIVE social supports for people living in areas with a decimated economy. One simple thing the government could have done following Katrina, for example, is start a WPA-type program using the displaced citizens of New Orleans to help rebuild their city. Instead, they shipped them off to parts unknown and gave Haliburton multi-million dollar to hire undocumented workers.

The last round of welfare reform legislation (signed by Clinton lest you think I am opposed to criticizing Democrats) made it more difficult for people to move for jobs because it allowed states the freedom to deny welfare benefits to migrants. So, unless someone moves and finds a job right away, they are out of luck.

We fund schools based on local property taxes so that those living in wealthy areas reap the benefits of the educational system while those in poor areas do not (even though people in poor areas often tax themselves at higher rates).

There was a situation in Chicago about ten years ago where a woman crossing a busy highway to get to her job at a mall was run over by an 18-wheeler. The reason she had to cross a busy highway to get to the mall was because the mall had a policy of not allowing busses from her area (a poor black area) to stop on the mall property despite the fact they they allowed busses from other parts of the city to stop on their property.

Now, you live your life facing a sucky educational system, discrimination in employment, housing, and transportation and then come back and talk to me about dependence.

 

[PLAL]

Do Catholics Enjoy Dems Bashing Their Faith, Or Are They Just Plain Stupid? (From 10-15-02).

---

What is there about Catholics that they don’t know when Democratic politicians ridicule them and their Christian faith? They will even go so far as to vote for these same people, who trash their religion and their God.

For instance, there is Catholic, Jim Ryan, a Republican, who is running for governor of Illinois. He is a good man and adheres to the Doctrine of the Catholic Church. He believes God, when He says, “Thou Shalt Not Kill.”

He is running against Democrat, Rod Blagojevich, who accepts the proposition that a woman should have the right to have her unborn child killed, if she so chooses. Not only does Blagojevich condone the killing of unborn children, BUT, he even does not want partial-birth abortions banned.

For those, who are not familiar with this gruesome and barbaric procedure, read carefully and if you have just one fiber of common decency left in your entire body, you will NOT vote for Blagojevich.

In these late term abortions, the entire baby is delivered except for the head. Otherwise it would be murder. Then the abortionist stabs the back of the viable baby’s heads with a pair of scissors. He then opens the scissors to enlarge the hole and introduces a catheter. The baby’s little arms and legs which have been flailing away, then suddenly stop as the baby’s brains are sucked out with a powerful suction machine.

How could such a compassionless man who condones the above be fit to lead the great state of Illinois?

The American Medical Association says that partial-birth abortion is NEVER needed to save the mother’s life, nor to ensure her health. It is not an emergency procedure. The cervix has to be dilated over a 24-48 hour period prior to the abortion.

No reputable doctor would use this method, unless he/she wants to be sued for malpractice. Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath “to first do no harm.”

Democrats receive large sums of money from the abortion industry, and the industry does not want partial-birth abortions banned. It is just a way for a woman to have her child killed in late term if she changes her mind and does not want the child.

It seems the only way to climb the Democratic political ladder is on the backs of dead children. But as is the custom of Democratic politicians - so be it - more votes and money that way.

It is a scientific fact that human life begins at conception. We now have DNA for the ultimate proof, which was not available when the killing of unborn children was legalized.

But the Democratic party will have no part of the truth. The vote is their God, and the children be damned.

Catholic candidates have even had to write to thousands of Roman Catholics in various states, soliciting their support for their campaigns and stressing that they share the church’s viewpoints on abortion, school vouchers, and homosexual “partnerships.”

Why would Catholic candidates even have to plead with Catholics to vote for them instead of their pro-choice [to kill unborn children] rivals?

 

[PLAL]

continued…

Why can’t Catholics just choose life over death? Why can’t Catholics honor God and His commandment, “Thou Shalt Not Kill?”

The reason they have to do this is because Catholic bishops are sitting in their ivory towers and doing little, or nothing to get their flocks to vote for pro-life candidates.

Illinois is a heavily Catholic populated state, so why is the race in Illinois so close? If Catholics voted their faith, but more importantly, if they voted for God and His commandment, “Thou Shalt Not Kill,” Ryan would win easily.

How is this humanly possible? Are Catholics stupid, or do they really enjoy being the beneficiaries of name calling by Democrats, who call all people of faith, “the religious right.” If you attend church every week, you are a religious fanatic. Catholics not only accept this, but even vote for these very same people who ridicule and trash their faith.

Fifty-one percent of Catholics voted for Democrat Al Gore for president. Not only is he a pro-abort, but, as Blagojevich, even did not want the barbaric partial-birth abortion banned.

Gore is also a man who would like to see the only protectors of unborn children in the United Nations kicked out - the Vatican. Thus silencing not only Christians but pro-life views of all faiths.

Gore also endorsed World Pride 2000, the world’s first international homosexual “pride” event, held in Rome from July 1 through July 9. even sending them an encouraging letter after the Vatican expressed its displeasure about the week-long event that would culminate in a massive street demonstration, where they flooded the city, which surrounds the Vatican, with hundreds of thousands of homosexual activists engaging in parody of the Church and overtly sexual displays.

The fact that millions of pilgrims were to visit Rome due to the millennial Jubilee celebrations did not sway Gore. This is the reason homosexuals chose Rome for their first international flaunting of their perverted and deadly lifestyle, which is clearly admonished in the Bible.

Yet, 51% of Catholics rewarded Al Gore with their vote. His bashing the Vatican made no difference to them.

Just what would it take for Catholics to say, “we are tired of Democrats constantly attacking our faith and calling us names.”

Here’s another example of Catholic bashing by Democrats. (Maybe this will be what it takes.) A spokesman for the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has written a letter to Democrat National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe protesting the DNC’s listing of a virulently anti-Catholic group on the Committee’s web site.

According to The Catholic League, the Rev. Msgr. William P. Fay, the USCCB’s general secretary, wrote to McAulffe at request of the Most Reverend Wilton D.Gregory, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) protesting the DNC’s listing of the anti-Catholic group Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC) in the “links” section of the DNC’s website.

This comes at a time when the Catholic League has been conducting an ad campaign for several weeks against the DNC for its association with the bigoted pro-abortion group.

In his letter to McAuliffe, Msgr. Fay stressed that the bishops’ conference has publicly said that CFFC is not a Catholic organization and that indeed it works against the teachings of the Church. He cited the May 10, 2000, statement by Bishop Joseph A. Fiorenza, then head of the bishops’ conference, taking CFFC to task for misrepresenting itself as a Catholic group. Msgr. Fay not only asked McAuliffe to remove CFFC from its website, he requested that the DNC add the USCCB’s website ( www.usccb.org ) to its “links” section.

 

[PLAL]

continued…

"Its head,(CFFC) Frances Kissling, has long been an open enemy of the Catholic Church. Were it not for the largesse bestowed upon her by wealthy adversaries of the Church, CFFC would collapse tomorrow. It is the Warren Buffetts of this world that keep her afloat. The Buffett Foundation is one of Kissling’s most generous donors.

“Our ad campaign will continue and we will not quit until the DNC breaks all ties with Kissling. If the DNC wants to try to stiff the bishops, as well as millions of Catholics, it will pay a dear price,” Bill Donahue, the President of the Catholic League, warned.

Again, I ask, why do Catholics have to beg the Democratic party to disassociate itself from CFFC? They are not Catholic, they just use the name to induce Catholics to condone the killing of unborn children.

You would think that the Democratic party would do this without being asked. They cannot, because the billion dollar abortion industry is one of their primary donors, and the latter and CFFC are peas of the same pod.

Even though the Democratic party is in bed with Planned Parenthood, the leading killers of unborn children in the world and NARAL, the leading boosters of these killings, shouldn’t they have some sense of common decency? Silly question – they kill human beings.

These things are so mind boggling that I just cannot find the right words. Catholics have just got to start using their God-given brains. If they really don’t know how to use their brains, they should ask God if they should vote for someone who would sign the death warrants to kill His precious children, or someone who would save their lives.

This is a “no brainer,” so Catholics don’t really have to think.

Is it possible that Catholics do not fear going to hell, because of their condoning and propagating the killing of unborn children? When you say you are pro-choice (to kill unborn children), you are condoning the most serious of sins – the killing of a human being. When you accept evil – you propagate evil.

Is it possible that Catholics are masochists and enjoy being called names by the Democratic party, and enjoy their faith being trashed and unborn children being killed?

This must be it. How else does one explain their voting for the very same people who mock them and their faith and propagate the killing of God’s children?

A normal person of faith, without masochistic tendencies would NEVER, EVER vote for a Democrat.

I am a Catholic, but I am ashamed of 50% of my fellow Catholics and most of the priests and Bishops for their pitiful attempt to end the American holocaust.

You would think that every week from now until the November elections, the oratory emanating from the pulpits every Sunday would have as the number one subject - “Vote for pro-life candidates, so the killing of unborn children ends and if you don’t know who they are - in the back of the church, you will find pamphlets, which will list the pro-life candidates.”

Naturally 90% on that list will be Republicans. Could this be the reason Catholic bishops do not do this?

If the bishops had more “guts” they would tell the pastors to identify pro-life candidates by name, starting NOW. But, they will not, because they are afraid of losing their tax status.

This will NEVER happen, because black churches actually name names, and you know they will never lose their tax status. The Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson even mention specific names on national television shows, as do most black ministers. This is why the Democrats have the black vote in their hip pocket.

 

[aspawloski4th]

I think it was in the 80s, that the archbishop of vancouver british columbia Adam Exner simply stated that it is a mortal sin to vote for someone who is proabortion when you have the choice of an anti abortion candidate. Until amercian bishops start prepetuating that teaching, dont look for anything good soon. American Catholics as a whole to too American and not enough Catholic anymore.

 

[PLAL]

continued…

Clinton and Gore actually went to black churches to get their vote and their money.

This is a MORAL ISSUE - not political - and it is the duty of bishops to educate their flocks and forget about money and practice what they preach: “What does it profit a man, if he gains the whole world, but suffers the loss of his soul,” It is obvious, bishops have forgotten this - NO - ignored is more accurate.

Bishops should also remember, the American Holocaust is not about abortions. It is about the KILLING OF UNBORN CHILDREN.