Catholic bishop: I changed from Democrat to Republican after ‘awful’ 2012 Democratic Convention

[Sailor_Kenshin]

No, not at all. But it is not seemly for clergy to be involved in partisan politics.

Can. 287 §1. Most especially, clerics are always to foster the peace and harmony based on justice which are to be observed among people.

§2. They are not to have an active part in political parties and in governing labor unions unless, in the judgment of competent ecclesiastical authority, the protection of the rights of the Church or the promotion of the common good requires it.

As I said above, I an not suggesting a prohibition. I am talking about prudence.

You can’t vote in the primary if you’re not registered.

Also…in response to another post: NOT to vote against a pro-abortion etc. candidate, is sheer moral cowardice.

 

[livingwordunity]

IMO advocating for conservatives and Catholics to vote for the third party (there’s no such thing as a perfect 3rd party either) when everyone knows they have no chance of winning could either be false piety, a gross misunderstanding of Catholic teaching on the principles of voting Pro-Life, or a political strategy to help the Pro-Abortion candidate win. But if the person is sincere in their belief that they are doing the right thing by voting a symbolic but useless vote they are not basing their decision on anything that is reasonable or rational. It’s like the parable of the talents when one of them chose to bury his talent rather than invest it wisely.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

IMO advocating for conservatives and Catholics to vote for the third party (there’s no such thing as a perfect 3rd party either) when everyone knows they have no chance of winning could either be false piety, a gross misunderstanding of Catholic teaching on the principles of voting Pro-Life, or a political strategy to help the Pro-Abortion candidate win. But if the person is sincere in their belief that they are doing the right thing by voting a symbolic but useless vote they are not basing their decision on anything that is reasonable or rational. It’s like the parable of the talents when one of them chose to bury his talent rather than invest it wisely.

I appreciate your point of view and respect your opinion but do not agree.

 

[Just_Lurking]

But if the person is sincere in their belief that they are doing the right thing by voting a symbolic but useless vote they are not basing their decision on anything that is reasonable or rational.

“The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.” - St. Paul

 

[grotto]

May God Bless you for removing yourself from the “Democratic Party”. Our country is suffering the results of voting for the Democratic Party office holders, especially the President of the United States. Abortion tolerance, pornography, destruction of the family, denying Christian expression and education, cont’d. It was announced last week that
One half BILLION dollars was awarded to Planned Parenthood. Anyone know why??
Suffering until the next election when I am praying the American people will go against the Democratic Party. Will the IRS begin investigating the Catholic Forums?:frighten:

 

[Ender]

The only reason 3rd party has no chance of wining is because not enough people have the idealism to step outside the machine.

It is not a question of having to choose between following your conscience or compromising it. The belief that there is a possibility of an ideal party is no more realistic than believing in unicorns. There could never be a “Catholic” party for the simple reason that the church advocates no positions on most political issues. You can be for or against raising the minimum wage, for or against building a fence at the border, for or against nationalized health care and not violate any church doctrines.

There are only a handful of issues that actually involve moral choices and on those the church has clear doctrines. As it happens the Democrat party is lined up on the wrong side of all those issues but on all the other issues neither the Democrats nor the Republicans (nor any conceivable third party) could be considered to be in line with church teaching because there are no teachings to line up with.

The church provides objectives: feed the hungry, but she does not specify how that should be done. Food stamps? Agricultural subsidies? We are not only free to choose what we think is best but we are positively obligated to do so.

Ender

 

[livingwordunity]

“The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.” - St. Paul

It is not the wisdom of the world I was advocating. I was advocating the wisdom of God (Pope John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae) for how to vote Pro-Life when living in a society that has practically no limits on abortion. John Paul II also came out with the encyclical Fides et Ratio on how faith and reason work together.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…But if the person is sincere in their belief that they are doing the right thing by voting a symbolic but useless vote they are not basing their decision on anything that is reasonable or rational. It’s like the parable of the talents when one of them chose to bury his talent rather than invest it wisely.

Well, the way I look at it is this…

If a person is sincere in their belief that they are doing the right thing by continuing to vote for mediocre Republican candidates because of their belief that the situation in this country will improve over that of the Democratic option despite the strong evidence to the contrary, so be it. It’s like the parable of the talents that when one of them chose to bury it in the sand (vote Republican because they think it’s the only option) instead of investing it wisely (support a viable 3rd party candidate).

Keep in mind, I do not advocate voting symbolically for a 3rd party candidate that can not win. However, both major parties are lost. The Dems have been infiltrated by evil and the Reps have been infiltrated by clueless leaders who never have a pulse as to what the country needs. And if they do have a clue, they never seem to have a candidate that is strong enough to fight those battles…ever. Dems are more dedicates to their causes than Reps. That’s the fact…and it’s pathetic. I ask myself: Do I really want to vote for a Republican candidate that when the big battles need to be fought, they cower and let the Dems strong-arm them?

A viable 3rd party is needed. In order for it to be viable, it needs local support first, then needs defections of the conservatives in the Republican party and those conservative Democrats (if any exist) who are fed up with the evil that has become Democrat Party.

The two major parties are not reformable IMO.

 

[livingwordunity]

and the Reps have been infiltrated by clueless leaders who never have a pulse as to what the country needs. And if they do have a clue, they never seem to have a candidate that is strong enough to fight those battles…ever.

That’s a baseless broad brush statement. You don’t even give a specific example of what you are talking about. The bottom line is there is nothing in the RNC’s platform that is incompatible with being a Catholic, and most of the Republican candidates are Pro-Life. The Republican party isn’t perfect, but they are good enough according to Catholic principles on voting which Pope John Paul II lays out in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (which I wish all Catholics would read).

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well, the way I look at it is this…

If a person is sincere in their belief that they are doing the right thing by continuing to vote for mediocre Republican candidates because of their belief that the situation in this country will improve over that of the Democratic option despite the strong evidence to the contrary, so be it. It’s like the parable of the talents that when one of them chose to bury it in the sand (vote Republican because they think it’s the only option) instead of investing it wisely (support a viable 3rd party candidate).

Keep in mind, I do not advocate voting symbolically for a 3rd party candidate that can not win. However, both major parties are lost. The Dems have been infiltrated by evil and the Reps have been infiltrated by clueless leaders who never have a pulse as to what the country needs. And if they do have a clue, they never seem to have a candidate that is strong enough to fight those battles…ever. Dems are more dedicates to their causes than Reps. That’s the fact…and it’s pathetic. I ask myself: Do I really want to vote for a Republican candidate that when the big battles need to be fought, they cower and let the Dems strong-arm them?

A viable 3rd party is needed. In order for it to be viable, it needs local support first, then needs defections of the conservatives in the Republican party and those conservative Democrats (if any exist) who are fed up with the evil that has become Democrat Party.

The two major parties are not reformable IMO.

I don’t see how anyone can say this.

Bush did as much as a president could to protect the unborn. Many were the things he did. Some Repubs in the various states have done likewise. Look at Texas recently, for example.

I’m not a Republican. I was “born” a Democrat and held office in the party. I was a true believer until it became clear to me that abortion was the only thing for which the Dem party really stands. They have now added homosexual profanation of marriage to that.

So, in 2012, lots of people who did not approve of the Dem party voted third party of didn’t vote at all because Romney was not “ideal”. And what did they cause by doing that? Well, the repeal of DADT, opposition to DOMA, governmental promotion of homosexual “marriage”, government funding of Planned Parenthood.

And one might consider himself “above the fray”, but those who stood it out bear just as much responsibility for what this government is doing now as the Dems who voted for Obama. For some, more so, because those who sniffed and stood aside, mostly knew what evils the Dems were promoting and likely to promote, while lots of Dem voters didn’t.

If one doesn’t oppose evil when one can, even imperfectly, one bears responsibility for evil. Those who failed to oppose it in 2012 are just as guilty as the “abortion doctor” who holds the knife.

 

[Ender]

Speaking of a third party, what would be its objective? To defeat the Democrats? That obviously could be more effectively done by supporting the already existing Republican party so why the opposition to that approach?

It seems clear that what is desired is something very like the Democrat party without all the immoral baggage that comes with supporting abortion, same sex “marriage”, et al. Suppose the unlikely however and accept that a third party could be created that would wrest control of congress from the Democrats. Would that change Democrat party politics? What would happen is what happens now to all parties: sometimes they win, sometimes they lose, and when the Democrats returned to power they would return with the same policies they have today.

The other approach is to encourage the Democrats to change those objectionable policies and the most effective way to do that is to coalesce behind whoever happens to be their strongest opponent. These people are politicians and would change their positions in a heartbeat if they knew those positions would likely keep them from being elected.

It is not reasonable to set a goal which even if achieved would matter very little. If what you really want is a Democrat party without their moral flaws then you ought to choose the approach that could actually cause them to change.

Ender

 

[Julian_Bashir]

If a bishop were to be a regsitered member of a tennis club, would he be endosring the game of tennis?

Bishops are entitled to opinions and free time activities as much as anybody else. As long as they make clear when they are acting as a bishop and when they are acting in private capacity, I see no need for restrictions on what they can or cannot do, as long as its nothing immoral or contrary to Church teachings.

If you actually think htat his choice of sports is as likely to held against him and the Church as his choice of political parties, I don’t know what to say.

There is no more divisive subject in America today than the choice of political party, and with it, the perceived endorsement of certain beliefs those parties espouse.

No one protests over whether or not some Bishop likes Jimmy Connors more than Bjorn Borg.

I don’t mind him registering one way or another, but fair or not, he had better be prepared to defend himself.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

May God Bless you for removing yourself from the “Democratic Party”. Our country is suffering the results of voting for the Democratic Party office holders, especially the President of the United States. Abortion tolerance, pornography, destruction of the family, denying Christian expression and education, cont’d. It was announced last week that
One half BILLION dollars was awarded to Planned Parenthood. Anyone know why??
Suffering until the next election when I am praying the American people will go against the Democratic Party. Will the IRS begin investigating the Catholic Forums?:frighten:

What makes you think they’re not?

 

[livingwordunity]

I don’t see how anyone can say this.

Bush did as much as a president could to protect the unborn. Many were the things he did. Some Repubs in the various states have done likewise. Look at Texas recently, for example.

I’m not a Republican. I was “born” a Democrat and held office in the party. I was a true believer until it became clear to me that abortion was the only thing for which the Dem party really stands. They have now added homosexual profanation of marriage to that.

So, in 2012, lots of people who did not approve of the Dem party voted third party of didn’t vote at all because Romney was not “ideal”. And what did they cause by doing that? Well, the repeal of DADT, opposition to DOMA, governmental promotion of homosexual “marriage”, government funding of Planned Parenthood.

And one might consider himself “above the fray”, but those who stood it out bear just as much responsibility for what this government is doing now as the Dems who voted for Obama. For some, more so, because those who sniffed and stood aside, mostly knew what evils the Dems were promoting and likely to promote, while lots of Dem voters didn’t.

If one doesn’t oppose evil when one can, even imperfectly, one bears responsibility for evil. Those who failed to oppose it in 2012 are just as guilty as the “abortion doctor” who holds the knife.

And, according to the principles laid out in Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae (which I wish all Catholics would read), Romney was acceptable for a Catholic to vote for. There was a good reason why abortion giant Planned Parenthood was against Romney. It’s because he was about 98% Pro-Life while Obama was (and remains) 110% Pro-Abortion. Obama was even against a law that would have protected the life of a baby that was born alive after a failed abortion, and Obama is Planned Parenthood’s spokesman. It’s not even possible for anyone to be more Pro-Abortion than that. So the Catholics who chose not to vote or vote for one of the losing 3rd party candidates because they thought that Romney wasn’t Pro-Life enough did so without regard to what the Catholic Church actually teaches about Pro-Life voting principles. And all they did by burying their talent was to help the most Pro-Abortion candidate in American history to get reelected. For this, Catholics got to see another Fortnight for Freedom campaign because of Obama’s HHS mandate and the battle on our hands with so-called “same-sex marriage”.

 

[Just_Lurking]

And, according to the principles laid out in Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae (which I wish all Catholics would read), Romney was acceptable for a Catholic to vote for.

It is also acceptable for Catholics to vote for third-party candidates who are actually pro-life.

 

[Hat4]

Plus, a very faithful Catholic from my diocese is my district’s rep in the U.S. House of Representatives. He is a voice for the unborn in congress.

His daughter and mine went to the same Catholic school together and used to have play dates now and again before I moved north of town a year ago. He really is a good guy. In fact that whole family is pretty impressive.

 

[ProVobis]

No, not at all. But it is not seemly for clergy to be involved in partisan politics.

Can. 287 §1. Most especially, clerics are always to foster the peace and harmony based on justice which are to be observed among people.

§2. They are not to have an active part in political parties and in governing labor unions unless, in the judgment of competent ecclesiastical authority, the protection of the rights of the Church or the promotion of the common good requires it.

As I said above, I an not suggesting a prohibition. I am talking about prudence.

Thanks for that.

There are reasons for that bit of canon law most don’t understand.

 

[ProVobis]

It is also acceptable for Catholics to vote for third-party candidates who are actually pro-life.

Of course. And there is no reason one can’t split his ticket to vote for what he considers pro-life. Yes, there are some pro-life Democrats, especially in “Republican” districts, where pro-abortion candidates would have a low chance of winning. Not everyone agrees with his party’s platform. True, on all sides. Even Ron Paul was against the Libertarian Party’s position of “pro-choice” when he ran.

 

[Neofight]

While our voter registration card won’t determine our heavenly entrance,voting for a party that for the most part pushes platforms that are blatenty antithetical to Church teaching,certainly won’t bode well for our salvation.

My point was that Voting a party line is ludicrous. Anyone voting for any candidate as a party member without regards to individual politics is a fool…remember What Ike got when he appointed earl warren (even though not an elected office), and the rationale for the title RINO (republican in name only)?

 

[Usige]

IMO advocating for conservatives and Catholics to vote for the third party (there’s no such thing as a perfect 3rd party either) when everyone knows they have no chance of winning could either be false piety, a gross misunderstanding of Catholic teaching on the principles of voting Pro-Life, or a political strategy to help the Pro-Abortion candidate win. But if the person is sincere in their belief that they are doing the right thing by voting a symbolic but useless vote they are not basing their decision on anything that is reasonable or rational. It’s like the parable of the talents when one of them chose to bury his talent rather than invest it wisely.

The problem is the Rebuplican party has talked about jettisoning the conservative social base. I have a friend who is a war hawk Republican (strong national defense and fiscal policy). He said that moral conservatives are weighing down the party and as long as they (us) keep on banging the antiabortion and anti gay “marriage” drum that Rebuplicans would never win another major national election. As he says, if its a baby or national defense at least i can sell natiknal defense. If the Rebulican party no longer has prolife and pro traditional marriage planks in the platform then a third party might be the only option.