Catholic senators?

  • Thread starter Thread starter estesbob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

estesbob

Guest
Here is a list of those senators who claim to be Catholicyet voted to overturn the Mexico City policy. This policy forbids the use of taxpayer funds for international organizations that provide abortions:

Robert Casey, Jr. (D-PA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT). Ted Kennedy (D-MA), John Kerry (D-MA), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Susan Collins (R-ME), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Ken Salazar (D-CO), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Christopher Dodd (CT-D), Claire McCaskill (D-MO).

Note all of them but one are Democrats.
 
Are the Catholics in spirit, or do they just claim to be Catholic? 🤷

As for politics, I think it is safe to say that both sides of the political aisle share guilt, but the platform of the Democratic Party has historically held many anti-Catholic tenets. I do not believe it is possible, with a good conscience, for a Catholic to vote for anyone who supports the platform of the Democratic Party.
 
melensdad said:
Are the Catholics in spirit, or do they just claim to be Catholic? 🤷

As for politics, I think it is safe to say that both sides of the political aisle share guilt, but the platform of the Democratic Party has historically held many anti-Catholic tenets. I do not believe it is possible, with a good conscience, for a Catholic to vote for anyone who supports the platform of the Democratic Party.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately this is true.The sad fact is up until early 70s they truly were the party that upheld Catholic beliefs.
 
estesbob said:
Unfortunately this is true.The sad fact is up until early 70s they truly were the party that upheld Catholic beliefs.
Click to expand...
Early to 1970’s to 2007 is an entire generation of people who have not seen the Democratic Party, at least on a national level in the US, support Catholic belief.
 
melensdad said:
Early to 1970’s to 2007 is an entire generation of people who have not seen the Democratic Party, at least on a national level in the US, support Catholic belief.
Click to expand...
And yet so many Catholics continue to support them. It baffles me.
 
estesbob said:
Unfortunately this is true.The sad fact is up until early 70s they truly were the party that upheld Catholic beliefs.
Click to expand...
This was the party that I believed in. I’m having a hard time defending my fellow Democrats any more. 😦

Problem is, I don’t see eye to eye with a lot of Republicans, either. I think I’m just going to start voting for my parish priest.🤷
 
mommyof4 said:
Problem is, I don’t see eye to eye with a lot of Republicans, either. I think I’m just going to start voting for my parish priest.🤷
Click to expand...
I don’t see eye to eye with a lot of Republicans either. But as posted by another poster, I do not see it as the “lesser of two evils.”

The Democratic national platform supports things that strongly are opposed by church teaching AND could get someone excommunicated.

The Republican national platform is one that many argue is not supportive of “social justice” but others argue that it is, so it becomes a matter of interpretation on that broad swath of issues.

Still, the Republican Platform is not in direct opposition to the teachings of the Church. The Democratic Platform is in direct teachings of the Church. That alone is reason not to support Democrats today.

One could argue that the Republicans, by opposing “minimum wage” increases are not catering to the needs of the working poor . . . others argue that raising the minimum wage moves jobs to other nations and there is no “social justice” in totally eliminating our current job base. Similar arguements can be made about national health care programs, etc. Again, we are to show compassion to the poor, the question here is HOW are we showing compassion, not IF we are showing it. So there can be honest disagreement on this type of issue. There can be no honest disagreement on issues like abortion, human cloning, human embryonic research, etc.

I know some members of the Clergy are members of the Republican party, some are members of the Democratic party but have serious issues with the Democrats and oppose many policies. But what I see as the overwhelming thing is that being a Democrat and following the National Pary Platform is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the teachings of the Church and further, if someone actually supported the platform ideals, could be excommunicated. That is not true with the Republican Party platform, therefore, the Republicans are the “lesser of 2 evils” to put it into terms some might suggest.

Clearly there are politicians in BOTH parties that are worthy of scorn, but the overall party of the Democrats, as represented in their National Platform, is simply evil.
 
Here is a list of those senators who claim to be Catholic
Click to expand...
If any of them are Freemasons, they can claim whatever but they’re not Catholic.
Unfortunately this is true.The sad fact is up until early 70s they truly were the party that upheld Catholic beliefs.
Click to expand...
Then came Roe vs Wade during the Nixon administration. And that wouldn’t have happened had not some “Catholics” in the New York state senate forced the issue.
 
BobP123 said:
Then came Roe vs Wade during the Nixon administration. And that wouldn’t have happened had not some “Catholics” in the New York state senate forced the issue.
Click to expand...
Please enlighten us on with more specifics.

I’m ignorant of which you speak and you have piqued my interest. Who are these “Catholics” who forced the issue?
 
estesbob said:
And what evils would that be?
Click to expand...
Well, maybe one has a choice between two candidates who aren’t Pro-life. One may be “more pro-choice” than the other.

If those are one’s only two choices…you get the point.
 
Newbie2 said:
Well, maybe one has a choice between two candidates who aren’t Pro-life. One may be “more pro-choice” than the other.

If those are one’s only two choices…you get the point.
Click to expand...
The Church says you vote for the one who is less pro-choice. Personally i wouldnt vote for either.
 
Abortion had become legal in two states prior to 1973. I know it became legal in New York when several Catholic Senators wanted to “show up” abortion advocates by bringing the issue up for vote. Very much to their surprise, the vote passed and abortions became legal. Remember George Michaels?

jfklibrary.org/NR/rdonlyres/BD9E94E6-7743-477A-A635-4E886BB0E808/33558/2002WinningEssaybyEmilyUllmanGeorgeMichaels.pdf

I’m still trying to find the article that leads New York into the Supreme Court’s decision.

I do have some interesting 1972 numbers however. Republicans favored abortions over Democrats and Catholics favored abortions by 56%. (Roe vs Wade was a 1973 ruling.)

time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910379,00.html

More when I find them.
 
BobP123 said:
Abortion had become legal in two states prior to 1973. I know it became legal in New York when several Catholic Senators wanted to “show up” abortion advocates by bringing the issue up for vote. Very much to their surprise, the vote passed and abortions became legal. I’m still trying to find the article that leads New York into the Supreme Court’s decision.

I do have some interesting 1972 numbers however. Republicans favored abortions over Democrats and Catholics favored abortions by 56%. (Roe vs Wade was a 1973 ruling.)

time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910379,00.html

More when I find them.
Click to expand...
Roe V Wade was a challenge to texas abortion law
 
estesbob said:
The Church says you vote for the one who is less pro-choice. Personally i wouldnt vote for either.
Click to expand...
Then couldn’t you potentially be helping the “pro-choice” cause by not helping to elect the less pro-choice candidate? :eek:

I understand why you would not want to vote, but one of them is ***going ***to be elected, so why not have your say? You can’t complain later on…well, I guess nobody would stop you;) …but if you don’t have your say at the voting booth, your complaints about who gets elected and what they do falls on deaf ears.
 
estesbob said:
Newbie2;2736446:
Then couldn’t you potentially be helping the “pro-choice” cause by not helping to elect the less pro-choice candidate? :eek: //quote]

Yes-which is why i am so conflicted about this

Either way I get the blood of the innocents on my hands. Does it make it better that one results in a little less blood?

Perhaps in the long run sending the Republican party the message they cant win without the pro-life vote would be worth it. If Catholics who vote democrat had done this both parties would be pro-life and Roe v Wade would have been gone a long time .ago
Click to expand...
I disagree about either way having blood on your hands. Either way, one of them gets elected whether or not you vote. At least if you elect the one who is likely to promote abortions, you’ve done something to help. Once elected, you can then write them and ask them to vote pro-life.

I also disagree about sending a message by voting Democrat vs. Republican. The last time a message was sent that way, Clinton was elected. If you think by electing Democrats, “both parties would be pro-life and Roe v Wade would have been gone a long time .ago”, you’re mistaken. In theory, maybe…but this is politics.

It’s a tough decision, but not voting is a serious matter and IMHO is like leaving the decision to someone else…and if that someone else wants the more “Pro-choice” candidate, have you done the Pro-life movement any favors?

Granted, this situation may or may not come at the voting booth, at least in your district, but if it does…carefully and prayerfully consider the options and vote your conscience. 👍
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top