C
CathCentrist
Guest
Nope, sorry, wrong. Only if a Catholic votes for a Dem BECAUSE they the Catholic agree with that Dem if he/she is pro abortion.
- Status
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
This topic was discussed in great detail on this forum especially during the 2004 elections and if you look at past threads, you’ll see supporting references that those who vote for those who support abortion are also guilty of the sin. The only exception is if the official’s position on the matter was not publicly known. Otherwise, as educated voters, we have an obligation to know where they stand on major issues.
D
Dale_M
Guest
SK, could you suggest a thread? I’m thinking that it would be easier for you to find what you are referring to, rather than us who have less of an idea.
G
gam197
Guest
Geoge Bush has given us two conservative(I hope) Supreme Court Justices.
The war in Irag came at a time when we had just seen the twin towers go down. Was it a good move. Not sure, but I certainly wasn’t sad to Saddam gone.
The Vietnam War was in a different era. We felt we were under a threat. Kruschev with on our major tv stations with “We will bury you.” For those of us with family who fought in the Vietnam, it was to stop the spread of communism. We had seen Stalin’s death camps.
Not true about the disrespect for authority and family values. That was prevalent in the culture well before the Vietnam war. It came in with contraception which became more public in 1937(diaphragms)(Time magazine and AMA in favor of.). The baby boomers for the most part were rebellious against any authority well before Vietnam.That what Elvis in the 1950’s was about.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Being on a slow dial-up connection, I presently do not have time to go looking back through 2+ years of threads, but I present the following for your consideration … (in keeping with the board’s new policy against quoting entire articles, I am making selected quotes which make the point – you are encouraged to follow the link and read the entire article) …
… Source.
As I said earlier, those who have voted for those that support abortion have placed their souls in serious jeopardy.
R
Ruthmary
Guest
“The Republicans and George Bush need to bear the responsiblity for their poor decisions. The American people have spoken.”
It’s the pre-born babies and the vulnerable that are going to be payiing for this decision on the part of the voters. Seems to me it only showed that the people aren’t sure which of the issues is the most important to them.
Of course there are people in the parties who are wicked. There was a traitor in Jesus’ group of apostles and the rest of them were no great shakes either, but he didn’t kick out the whole bunch. We can’t even have a perfect Church, so why do we think we can somehow have a perfect party? We’re all human and subject to sin. God knows that, but hasn’t yet zapped the Church. That’s why we have the confessional. But the general direction of the administration was at least toward life, and now that momentum will be hampered or downright stopped. That is not progress toward the goal.
If we don’t have the foundation of the non-negotiables, the other issues won’t matter, because the whole thing’s gonna fall down.
It’s the pre-born babies and the vulnerable that are going to be payiing for this decision on the part of the voters. Seems to me it only showed that the people aren’t sure which of the issues is the most important to them.
Of course there are people in the parties who are wicked. There was a traitor in Jesus’ group of apostles and the rest of them were no great shakes either, but he didn’t kick out the whole bunch. We can’t even have a perfect Church, so why do we think we can somehow have a perfect party? We’re all human and subject to sin. God knows that, but hasn’t yet zapped the Church. That’s why we have the confessional. But the general direction of the administration was at least toward life, and now that momentum will be hampered or downright stopped. That is not progress toward the goal.
If we don’t have the foundation of the non-negotiables, the other issues won’t matter, because the whole thing’s gonna fall down.
D
davy39
Guest
Would you explain your post? Are you saying you are in favor of embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
All discussions of “the Catholic Vote” are flawed by the assumption that there is any such thing as a “Catholic Vote”. There isn’t, and there hasn’t been for a long time. There are reasons for that.
First, of course, Catholics live in all regions; are in all social classes and have secular interests that are affected by both, as well as other secular things.
Second, the teaching authority of the Church as been severely undermined since Vatican II and the election of John F. Kennedy. When Kennedy felt himself obligated to say he would not allow religious belief to determine his actions as president, (and he might have meant it) he effected a change of thinking among American Catholics who had always assumed that religious belief SHOULD affect politics at all levels.
Third, the post-VII excesses, including overemphasis on “social justice” and de-emphasis of the importance of personal morality created moral confusion among Catholics and severely undermined the moral authority of Catholic bishops. The bishops, by undermining the authority of the Pope and the teaching authority of the Church within their own dioceses, thus undermined themselves as moral voices. In the Catholic schools, religion texts that emphasized personal morality and a keen, objective sense of “right and wrong” were tossed out in favor of very vague texts emphasizing “niceness” and “concern for the unfortunate” that really never informed students what, exactly, either of those things truly meant. Into this, then, was injected Cdl. Bernardin’s “consistent ethic of life” concept that more or less leveled all “Catholic concerns”, so that the relative merits of one Social Security system over another seemed to be on equal footing with abortion as moral issues. As a consequence, one could, as far as one knew, vote for a pro-abortion candidate, so long as he/she said the right things about “social justice”. In my own diocese in the 2004 election, the diocesan newspaper was obviously encouraging people to vote for Kerry, and equating the abortion issue with issues like Medicaid coverage, though it didn’t directly say so, and my diocese was not unique in that.
Fourth, moral catechesis is so lacking and so vague in so many diocese and parishes (and schools) that if a Catholic wants to know what the Church teaches, he/she has to resort to self-education, which can be a hit-and-miss affair…
Thus, there is no “Catholic vote”, since Catholics have been told for a very long time that all issues are equal; that no one has a right to tell them what they ought to do or not do, and that they should “vote their (utterly uninformed) consciences”. Catholics vote the way everyone else votes, and analyzing changes in voting patterns of Catholics is simply meaningless.
The irony of all this is that if Catholic bishops in the U.S. really made a concerted effort to educate Catholics in the faith from top to bottom, (a long-term proposition now, after years of neglect) and to concentrate on the most imperative moral issues, clearly going at one thing at a time, it might be possible to recreate a “Catholic vote” that would actually accomplish all goals. But right now, we’re a long way from having a majority of bishops who place importance on educating Catholics in the faith, or being bold in proclaiming the truth. Without getting into a debate over whether Abp Burke ought to have said he would not serve communion to John Kerry, it was worthy of note that Burke no sooner said that than he was bitterly, and openly, criticized by my own bishop for taking that stand. So, was Burke right in St. Louis, but wrong here? Well, step up to the cafeteria, folks.
It may be that Pope Benedict might disrupt and change the “old boy, go-along-to-get-along network” that the bishops of the U.S. have become, and there are signs that he is doing that. Pope Benedict is an inspiration to most Catholics who know what he is saying. But without the genuine support of the bishops, it isn’t going to change too many minds any time soon.
First, of course, Catholics live in all regions; are in all social classes and have secular interests that are affected by both, as well as other secular things.
Second, the teaching authority of the Church as been severely undermined since Vatican II and the election of John F. Kennedy. When Kennedy felt himself obligated to say he would not allow religious belief to determine his actions as president, (and he might have meant it) he effected a change of thinking among American Catholics who had always assumed that religious belief SHOULD affect politics at all levels.
Third, the post-VII excesses, including overemphasis on “social justice” and de-emphasis of the importance of personal morality created moral confusion among Catholics and severely undermined the moral authority of Catholic bishops. The bishops, by undermining the authority of the Pope and the teaching authority of the Church within their own dioceses, thus undermined themselves as moral voices. In the Catholic schools, religion texts that emphasized personal morality and a keen, objective sense of “right and wrong” were tossed out in favor of very vague texts emphasizing “niceness” and “concern for the unfortunate” that really never informed students what, exactly, either of those things truly meant. Into this, then, was injected Cdl. Bernardin’s “consistent ethic of life” concept that more or less leveled all “Catholic concerns”, so that the relative merits of one Social Security system over another seemed to be on equal footing with abortion as moral issues. As a consequence, one could, as far as one knew, vote for a pro-abortion candidate, so long as he/she said the right things about “social justice”. In my own diocese in the 2004 election, the diocesan newspaper was obviously encouraging people to vote for Kerry, and equating the abortion issue with issues like Medicaid coverage, though it didn’t directly say so, and my diocese was not unique in that.
Fourth, moral catechesis is so lacking and so vague in so many diocese and parishes (and schools) that if a Catholic wants to know what the Church teaches, he/she has to resort to self-education, which can be a hit-and-miss affair…
Thus, there is no “Catholic vote”, since Catholics have been told for a very long time that all issues are equal; that no one has a right to tell them what they ought to do or not do, and that they should “vote their (utterly uninformed) consciences”. Catholics vote the way everyone else votes, and analyzing changes in voting patterns of Catholics is simply meaningless.
The irony of all this is that if Catholic bishops in the U.S. really made a concerted effort to educate Catholics in the faith from top to bottom, (a long-term proposition now, after years of neglect) and to concentrate on the most imperative moral issues, clearly going at one thing at a time, it might be possible to recreate a “Catholic vote” that would actually accomplish all goals. But right now, we’re a long way from having a majority of bishops who place importance on educating Catholics in the faith, or being bold in proclaiming the truth. Without getting into a debate over whether Abp Burke ought to have said he would not serve communion to John Kerry, it was worthy of note that Burke no sooner said that than he was bitterly, and openly, criticized by my own bishop for taking that stand. So, was Burke right in St. Louis, but wrong here? Well, step up to the cafeteria, folks.
It may be that Pope Benedict might disrupt and change the “old boy, go-along-to-get-along network” that the bishops of the U.S. have become, and there are signs that he is doing that. Pope Benedict is an inspiration to most Catholics who know what he is saying. But without the genuine support of the bishops, it isn’t going to change too many minds any time soon.
D
Dale_M
Guest
Sir Knight, I sympathesize about the dial-up connection. I live in a rural state, and one of the big changes here was the arrival of broadband internet. I would hate to go back.
I seem to remember reading about Cardinal Lozano’s statement, but wasn’t it considered newsworthy because it represents a departure from the standard?
Cardinal Ratzinger, a couple years ago, wrote a memo to Cardinal McCarrick, in which he seemed to give approval to voting for a politician who supports abortion… so long as the voter is not supporting the candidate because of his abortion support.
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm
G
gam197
Guest
Cardinal Ratzinger did what? This needs correction!!
There have been other threads on this but German Cardinal Ratzinger admonished Cardinal McCarrick for giving communion to pro-abortion candidates as I remember it.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=73874&highlight=cardinal+mccarrick
(Do you think the Pope Benedict XVI has anything to do with the German government stating that they should help in Iraq?)
There have been other threads on this but German Cardinal Ratzinger admonished Cardinal McCarrick for giving communion to pro-abortion candidates as I remember it.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=73874&highlight=cardinal+mccarrick
(Do you think the Pope Benedict XVI has anything to do with the German government stating that they should help in Iraq?)
G
gam197
Guest
This really need correction. I hope other will step in with the truth on what happened. Here is another forum thread link on Cardinal Ratzinger. He thought pro-abortion candidates should not receive communion and said so. Apparently someone altered what he said when they translated it to English.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=50520&highlight=cardinal+mccarrick
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=50520&highlight=cardinal+mccarrick
E
estesbob
Guest
Can you give us some examples of polices of the GOP that are fundamentally at odds with Church teachings.?
The following are areas where Democrat policies are specifically at odds with Church teachngs:
abortion
homosexuality
euthanasia
fetal; stem cell research
cloning.
I
S
system
Guest
Well, none of those is a democratic policy, is it?
But if the rules are that vague, I’ll jump into the game!
Here’s some GOP “policies” that are unChristian, IMHO:
corporate welfare
Class warfare, with the difference between rich and poor greater than ever in modern history.
Taking us from a healthy middle class to a middle class hanging by a thread.
allowing coprporations to use illegal immigrants for labor,saving the huge bucks on salary and health care. IF anyone gets caught, punish the alien, not the company
Measuring our country’s financial health on stock market numbers, when the bulk of that money in the market is held by top 1% of the very rich- just because our market is doing well, doesn’t mean the average American is doing well.
Being the richest nation in history and allowing millions to go to sleep hungry every night.
Creating a society where almost every city will have people, usually elderly, often without heat, choosing between buying food or their medicine or paying rent.
Allowing phramaceutical companies to charge over triple what they are charging north of our border in Canada.
Borrowing money recklessly from people (say China) who don’t really have our best interests at heart.
Removing the “fairness doctrine” that used to exist so both sides could be heard on any broadcast. After they stripped that law of common decency, the airwaves filled with the one-sided hate speech people call talk radio, and millions have fallen for it.
appointing hard core right wing judges who protect large companies in lawsuits. Sure they’ll get fine 300 million, but on appeal, big tabacco will actually pay a fraction…
this can go on and on. Let’s just say, there is no interest in socials justice and love of neighbor in the GOP.
M
MikeinSD
Guest
I think you are missing the point here. Everything you pointed out concerns money. You are treading on sacred ground. What you do to get money and how you use money is beyond moral reproach in early 21st century America. Although poverty and the responsibilities of wealth is found in one out of every 10 verses in the first three Gospels, and in one out of seven verses in the Gospel of Luke, God doesn’t think that way anymore. Because that’s socialist thinking. The poor have to pull their weight now.
God endorsed the Republican platform in 2004.
Now when Jesus says “Pay back Caesar’s things to Caesar and God’s things to God.” Jesus is actually protesting the capital gains tax.Jesus was just expanding on Isaiah 25:4.
“For you have been a stronghold to the poor, a stronghold to the needy in his distress, a refuge from the storm, a shade from the heat, when the blast of the dreaded ones is like a storm against the wall.”
Isaiah was discussing divinely appointed tax shelters for oppressed taxpayers with annual incomes of $1 million or more, about one-tenth of 1 percent all taxpayers, who reaped 43 percent of all the savings on investment taxes in 2003. The savings for these taxpayers averaged about $41,400 each.
See these teachings clearly show God likes cash. That’s why his real followers do not discuss such sacred issues.
D
David_Paul
Guest
No. I am opposed to them. George Soros and others who fund the Democratic party are trying to make this a Christian or Catholic issue because they find that a easy route to take to achieve their goals.
Natural law itself is enough to decide the issue. You don’t kill life.
Seems simple to me. Don’t kill the unborn, don’t encourage the dying to off themselves.
But then I don’t run the type of operations Norman Lear, David Geffin, George Soros, Lewis, Bing, Eychaner, Pelosi, Kennedy , DeLauro, Durbin, Rangel, Conyers and others on the left do.
I oppose making this a “Catholic” issue not because it isn’t. It is. It is also a Protestant issue. And an issue of common sense. An issue of natural law. One can even make a utilitarian argument. If kids and the elderly are expendible, who is next?
What the left does is make a boogey man out of this or that person or Christian group. Today it will be a Catholic. Look at this priest! Tommorow a protestant. Look at Haggard! The next day somebody else. Anything to maintain their profit margins and drive the culture into the sewer.
D
dmelosi
Guest
I would like to think that most in this thread feel that abortion is the most important issue for Catholics voters. But that would sure be wrong thinking.
These are facts;
over 43 million abortions (murders)
The republican party has a track record for being anti abortion (with so many Catholics voting for murderers, that record is sure to change as most politicians will sell their souls for power)
The democratic party will not support a pro life democratic candidate, you MUST be for abortion to be a demcratic candidate. (except in very very rare cases)
What is more important than this?
Every other issue in this thread can be debated, both sides can be argued.
How can any Catholic argue with the murder issue?
These are facts;
over 43 million abortions (murders)
The republican party has a track record for being anti abortion (with so many Catholics voting for murderers, that record is sure to change as most politicians will sell their souls for power)
The democratic party will not support a pro life democratic candidate, you MUST be for abortion to be a demcratic candidate. (except in very very rare cases)
What is more important than this?
Every other issue in this thread can be debated, both sides can be argued.
How can any Catholic argue with the murder issue?
D
dmelosi
Guest
Can it be anymore of a black and white issue on what the Catholics who voted democrat have done?
If the link does not work…it basically says that Bush’s future nominations are doomed.
nytimes.com/2006/11/12/us/12judicial.html?ei=5090&en=1743de8ff43b2268&ex=1320987600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
If the link does not work…it basically says that Bush’s future nominations are doomed.
nytimes.com/2006/11/12/us/12judicial.html?ei=5090&en=1743de8ff43b2268&ex=1320987600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
J
Julianna
Guest
it is so refreshing to hear the moderate/independent POV…love it! Agreed.Just think how better off society would be if the GOP had lived up to all their promises. Then maybe the Catholics and evangelicals wouldnt have had to send a message.
J
Julianna
Guest
Just yet another MORTAL being who “knows” what God wants. I can think for myself, and I know good and well that in Jesus’ time the only Republicans were the Romans…hence where the word comes from. But, hey, everyone has a right to intrepret accordingly.I think you are missing the point here. Everything you pointed out concerns money. You are treading on sacred ground. What you do to get money and how you use money is beyond moral reproach in early 21st century America. Although poverty and the responsibilities of wealth is found in one out of every 10 verses in the first three Gospels, and in one out of seven verses in the Gospel of Luke, **God doesn’t think that way anymore. Because that’s socialist thinking. **The poor have to pull their weight now.
**God endorsed the Republican platform in 2004. **
Jesus was just expanding on Isaiah 25:4.
“For you have been a stronghold to the poor, a stronghold to the needy in his distress, a refuge from the storm, a shade from the heat, when the blast of the dreaded ones is like a storm against the wall.”
Isaiah was discussing divinely appointed tax shelters for oppressed taxpayers with annual incomes of $1 million or more, about one-tenth of 1 percent all taxpayers, who reaped 43 percent of all the savings on investment taxes in 2003. The savings for these taxpayers averaged about $41,400 each.
Please let me know what the name of Isaiah’s brokerage firm is…sounds like a good lead. (NOT!) Didn’t know there was a Wall Street in BC times.
**See these teachings clearly show God likes cash. **That’s why his real followers do not discuss such sacred issues.
E
estesbob
Guest
Actually every single one of them is supported in the Democrat Party Platform.
Now all you have to do is give us links to where you “opinion” are validated by any teachings of the Church.
- Status