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

[Stylteralmaldo]

We can know by their voting record and by who is against them…

I used to believe this. Then when my local state Senator who had always championed pro-life issues and voted that way and had a 100% pro-life voting record had a situation where he was the deciding vote as to whether to confirm a radically pro-abortion HHS administrator for our state, he voted to confirm her. He sold out. It became clear that he was only giving lip service regarding his position on pro-life issues. It’s easy to say “I’m pro-life” when your vote isn’t the deciding vote on a pro-life issue. That state Senator showed his true colors that day.

 

[Ender]

I must disagree with you on this point; the Republicans would indeed change their positions in a heartbeat in order to get elected, or at least many of them would. However, the Democrats cling to their positions like a barnacle clings to a ship. They would merely lie, change their stories, and obfuscate in order to maintain their hold on power. Quite simply, the current leadership of the Democrat party is irrevocably opposed to Church teachings, and can never be persuaded otherwise.

Without necessarily agreeing with you it is sufficient to recognize that once an incumbent is out of power his chances of reelection are significantly diminished and the opportunity of electing a more suitable option greatly increases. It wouldn’t take more than one or two election cycles to make that point. Look at the impact the Tea Party has had on Republicans.

In the mean time, third party proponents suggest that the best way to overthrow the Democrats is to destroy the Republicans, which seems about as sensible as trying to lose weight by cutting off your legs.

Ender

 

[ProVobis]

All I know is that the 3rd party candidate for president always has no chance of winning. History consistently shows this. That’s why they are called the “spoiler” candidate. If there wouldn’t have been so much to lose I wouldn’t have minded taking a chance on a third party candidate, but I happen to believe that we should not be forced by the government to accept and pay for the aggressive promotion of abortion and homosexual behavior. The stakes for win or lose were way too high for me to play with far-fetched “what ifs”. So I followed the principles for voting that were given by Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae (which I wish Catholics would read). This encyclical gives practical and realistic instructions for voting Pro-Life so that the Pro-Life movement need not be paralyzed in pursuit of perfection. If every Catholic would have voted using the principle for voting Pro-Life given in Evangelium Vitae we would not have had to have two Fortnight for Freedom campaigns for religious liberty. It’s better to travel where you want to go slowly than to have your wheels spinning off the ground and remaining in place.

So you think if only Republicans were to hold office and all the Democrats were voted out, JPII would be most happy?

 

[Kal2012]

Romney was less than “not ideal”, he was a bad choice for candidate. Was Romney truly the best the Republicans had to offer? I just wish I had an option. Unfortunately, Romney already had the nomination sewed up by the time the primary came to my state.

Sadly, yes, Romney was the best of the primary candidates, IMO. However, my ire is more directed towards how we campaigned rather than towards Mitt. As a Christian, I was really turned off by a lot of our local activists (who claim to be Christians). I get why people were angry and frustrated, but the name-calling and venom wasn’t helpful - at all. (It still isn’t helpful or productive.)

Too many people are invested in “my way or the highway” thinking.

 

[Kal2012]

I used to believe this. Then when my local state Senator who had always championed pro-life issues and voted that way and had a 100% pro-life voting record had a situation where he was the deciding vote as to whether to confirm a radically pro-abortion HHS administrator for our state, he voted to confirm her. He sold out. It became clear that he was only giving lip service regarding his position on pro-life issues. It’s easy to say “I’m pro-life” when your vote isn’t the deciding vote on a pro-life issue. That state Senator showed his true colors that day.

Exactly. Too many “public servants” are only interested in serving themselves and giving people lip service.

Like this whole defunding ObamaCare thing. Whether or not you agree that it’s the best tactic, it’s the only one we’ve got at this point. I’m disappointed that Republicans aren’t 100% united on this. Even if it is “only symbolic” or whatever. Most Americans outside DC don’t want ObamaCare and wish they’d do more to stop it. Not just talk about stopping it.

If they have to stop government from running to get rid of this, then it’s really okay to most Americans - given what we know about the bill (now that we’ve passed it to read it!)

 

[Michael_Mayo]

In the mean time, third party proponents suggest that the best way to overthrow the Democrats is to destroy the Republicans, which seems about as sensible as trying to lose weight by cutting off your legs.

Ender

I don’t think so. It is not about “destroying” anybody. It is about providing more competition, more options.

 

[ProVobis]

We can know by their voting record and by who is against them.

Having watch C-Span for many years, I’m not too sure. They put a lot (amendments, ideas, etc.) into those bills only to vote against them in the end. There’s a lot of compromising behind the scenes as well, and it’s not always so cut and dried as looking at someone’s voting record.

 

[Ridgerunner]

My point is that we do not know if Sotomayer (an Obama appointee) is a disaster for the pro-life movement.

ontheissues.org/Court/Sonia_Sotomayor_Abortion.htm

With this information, I want to make it clear that we ought to oppose Obama and should have the past two election cycles. But this does not mean that voting for someone other than Romney means that voter helped assist in continued abortions. For all we know, with the election of Obama, Roe v. Wade may actually be overturned (if Sotomayer becomes the swing vote to overturn once and for all).

Sotomayor voting to overturn Roe? Dream on. The Dems thoroughly vet their appointees for abortion, and NARAL favored her. Not much more to know.

Romney was not my first choice or my second, but I voted for him and contributed to his campaign, because he could not possibly have been worse than obama, and besides, Romney’s constituency would have abandoned him if he had turned pro-abortion.

A “not-against-Obama” vote was a vote for Obama. The Dems know that, and that’s why they encourage conservatives to throw their votes away, even including on CAF.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Sotomayor voting to overturn Roe? Dream on. The Dems thoroughly vet their appointees for abortion, and NARAL favored her. Not much more to know…

I once dreamt that voting consistently Republican could help get Supreme Court justices nominated which would have been enough to over-turn Roe as well…and then Kennedy switched his vote in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey.

You’re probably right about Sotomayer, but the jury is still out until she’s confronted with a case concerning the matter. The same holds true for Roberts, Alito, and Kagan.

 

[livingwordunity]

So you think if only Republicans were to hold office and all the Democrats were voted out, JPII would be most happy?

All I’m saying is that voting for Romney in the context of this past election fit with the principles that Pope John Paul II laid out in Evangelium Vitae, 73 par. 3 since Romney would have supported proposals which would aim to limit the number of authorized abortions. One only needs to read the current news about Texas to see the stark difference between Republicans and Democrats on abortion. It seems like no one is reading what the Pope said about it. Please read Evangelium Vitae and particularly section 73, paragraph 3. One only needs to replace the word “proposals” with the word “politicians”, and the principle will remain the same. I have given the link for it several times in this thread. I don’t think it’s asking too much to ask someone to read just one paragraph. In case people don’t want to click on a link here is the applicable portion of the encyclical:

“A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” - Evangelium Vitae, 73 (par. 3)

 

[ProVobis]

All I’m saying is that voting for Romney in the context of this past election fit with the principles that Pope John Paul II laid out

And you think Pope JPII would have accepted Romney’s pro-war position as well? We know what he thought of Bush’s war in Iraq.

Methinks in this case JPII would have accepted a third-party candidate who was both pro-life and anti-war.

 

[livingwordunity]

And you think Pope JPII would have accepted Romney’s pro-war position as well? We know what he thought of Bush’s war in Iraq.

Methinks in this case JPII would have accepted a third-party candidate who was both pro-life and anti-war.

That’s a non-issue since Obama is “pro-war” and since the Church doesn’t say that we can’t participate in any wars.

Please read what John Paul II said.

.

 

[ProVobis]

All I’m saying is that voting for Romney in the context of this past election fit with the principles that Pope John Paul II laid out

And you think Pope JPII would have accepted Romney’s pro-war position as well? We know what he thought of Bush’s war in Iraq.

Methinks in this case JPII would have accepted a third-party candidate who was both pro-life and anti-war.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I once dreamt that voting consistently Republican could help get Supreme Court justices nominated which would have been enough to over-turn Roe as well…and then Kennedy switched his vote in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey.

Blackmun, Burger, Brennan, Stewart and Powell all appointed by Rupublicans and all decided in favor of Roe v Wade.

White, appointed by JFK dissented.

 

[livingwordunity]

“A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” - Evangelium Vitae, 73 (par. 3)

Have Democrat politicians been trying to pass more restrictive laws on abortion? No.

Have Republican politicians been trying to pass more restrictive laws on abortion? Yes.

.

 

[ProVobis]

Please read what John Paul II said.

Do you have it in Polish? I dislike translations when I can read the original.

 

[livingwordunity]

Do you have it in Polish? I dislike translations when I can read the original.

The translation is done by the Vatican.

Have Democrat politicians been trying to pass more restrictive laws on abortion? No.

Have Republican politicians been trying to pass more restrictive laws on abortion? Yes.

“A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” - Evangelium Vitae, 73 (par. 3)

 

[ProVobis]

Have Republican politicians been trying to pass more restrictive laws on abortion? Yes.

That is true but where were they in 2000-2006 when they had control of the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the Presidency?

Seems to me the Dems fired them up a little.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I once dreamt that voting consistently Republican could help get Supreme Court justices nominated which would have been enough to over-turn Roe as well…and then Kennedy switched his vote in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey.

You’re probably right about Sotomayer, but the jury is still out until she’s confronted with a case concerning the matter. The same holds true for Roberts, Alito, and Kagan.

Kagan was also vetted and approved by NARAL. Planned Parenthood endorsed her. Is there really anything more to know?

NARAL opposed both Roberts and Alito. What did they know that you find difficult to accept?

As Eisenhower regretted later after appointing Earl Warren, appointees can disappoint. But it’s a total certainty that Democrat appointees are going to be abortion supporters. Possibly less certain that Repub appointees are going to be prolife.

But if one looks at the decision on the partial birth abortion ban, every Repub appointee, even including the otherwise disappointing Kennedy, upheld the ban. Every Dem appointee voted to strike down partial birth abortion bans.

There isn’t all that much room to suspect Roberts or Alito of supporting abortion on demand, certainly none with Thomas or Scalia. There is absolutely no room at all to even imagine that a Democrat appointee will be anything other than pro-abortion.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Blackmun, Burger, Brennan, Stewart and Powell all appointed by Rupublicans and all decided in favor of Roe v Wade.

White, appointed by JFK dissented.

That information is deceiving however. The fact is that 100% of Democrat appointed Supreme Court Justices since Roe v. Wade became law of the land have upheld that evil ruling. At least some Republican appointees have been good on the abortion issue since the 1973 ruling.