Catholics with strong conservative positions

[SoCalRC]

SoCalRC, I said this:

Whether you like it or not the church’s stance on abortion and the death penalty are not exactly the same.

Then you spent two pages explaining all sorts of stuff to me and telling me I was wrong and in it you said this:

The point remains, it is convenient, from a ‘I really want to vote X, but like to believe I am Catholic’ point of view to pretend that parts of the faith are irrelevant. But the Church clearly states otherwise.

I’ve given you a Doctrinal Note, from Rome, prepared by our current pope, approved by the last, that states otherwise - that more than just pick and choose issues are non negotiable, and pick and choosing is a danger to the faith.

There is no doubt what is meant, it is reiterated in Pope Benedict’s Post-synodal apostolic exhortation regarding the sacrement of communion.

Yet still, somehow, you believe that it is suitable for you to focus on a speicfic distinction and use it to rationalize being at odds with Rome on various matters. This remains a remain a rejection of fundemental Catholic Dogma.

I’m sorry, you can’t be more Catholic than the Pope, nor can you be a better judge of proper application of Catholic doctrine. Claiming otherwise remains heretical, no matter how much we try to shift focus or scream about dead babies.

I have to vote and live my entire faith, not just those portions which are convenient to me. Clearly others here feel differently.

 

[SoCalRC]

BSHoop96;3954097[COLOR="Blue":

Where is this coming from???

Actually, the simplest way to answer this is, I can’t be a US conservative because they are at odds with the Church on non negotiable moral principles, including abortion.

This is the same reason that I can’t be a US liberal.

Most argue, ‘you are wasting your vote’. But frankly, if the Gospels teach us anything, it is that standing with God is never a waste. Reality seems to bear this out, since the ‘pragmatists’ seem to be accomplishing nothing with regards to the values they hold dear.

However, I believe most aren’t even pragmatists, but simply rationalizers. They really serve their politics first and just try to make their faith fit what they already believe.

 

[maggiemay2u]

Conservative politics in the US overwhelming promotes Evangelical Protestantism. Look at how many bottom tier law school graduates have been stuffed in the Justice Department - a law school, btw, that teaches we Catholics are polydiests who worship Mary.

This should be no surprise, every national conservative politician must make a pilgramage and pay homage to Bob Jone’s, et. al, who professes that we are not even Christians, but a pagan cult. Think about it, the current ‘conservative’ candidate for President spent a year wooing the endorsement of a leader in the ‘religious base’ that has repeatedly professed the same thing.

Look at your own statements about “interpretation” and “opinion”, that is a wholly Protestant concept with regards to Catholic Doctrine and Dogma. Look at the body from the Holy See I quoted:

“Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith”

And look at the nature of the document:

“Doctrinal Note”

Again, it is impossible to be more Catholic than Rome. We reject Sola Scripture, we acknolwedge that our Bishops, in communion with the Pope, teach with the authority of Christ. If you reject that, fine, it is a free country. But think about the exact words of the Nicene Creed that we profess.

Just curious, what happens when it becomes obvious the local bishop is not in full communion with Rome? Resistance to the Tridentine, failure to protect the sanctity of the liturgy, utilizing the churches into town halls with whooping celebrations instead of joyous, failure to protect children from predators, and adherence to (what I call) a Land of Lakes mentality.

 

[SoCalRC]

Just curious, what happens when it becomes obvious the local bishop is not in full communion with Rome? Resistance to the Tridentine, failure to protect the sanctity of the liturgy, utilizing the churches into town halls with whooping celebrations instead of joyous, failure to protect children from predators, and adherence to (what I call) a Land of Lakes mentality.

Let’s look at the Dogmatic Constitution:

"Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

So, Bishops are not ‘Vicars of the Pope’, but utlize a power delegated solely by him. If a Bishop is out of sync with the Pope, he no longer is teaching with the authentic authority of Christ.

In the primary context of this thread, this is moot. We are talking about a political ideology which directly conflicts with the Holy Father. When it comes to issues like war, torture, the death penalty, obligations to a socially just economy, etc., we have little doubt where Rome stands and the bulk of Bishops, particularly when organized in Conferences, agree.

But in your case, you are giving a litany of issues. The question then becomes, who is to judge? For example, you mention the Tridentine Mass. A Bishop is responsible for his flock and must take all factors into consideration. For example, the Tradentine Mass has been the focus of some direct dissent, leading to seperation from Rome. We also not only have a chronic shortage of priests in most diocese in the US, most active priests were ordained post Vatican II, so they lack the training in Latin and the Missive. So, a Bishop that seems to ‘resist’ might be doing everything from responding to a faction of dissent to dealing with logistical realities.

No priest should take liberties with liturgy, but again, a Bishop has to balance many factors.

As to what is ‘whooping’ and what is ‘suitable’, that is a highly subjective call. I tend to go to a 7:30 Mass because it is less crowded and easier for my disabled son. We have a lone cantor and all our Sunday supply of priests for that hour are very conscious of strict observance of the Pauline Mass, which is what is used. But when one of my daughter’s classmates died of a rare form of cancer, the service was quite different. At first glance, you might have been mortified. Most of the students were in their uniforms, but his class, a group of Jr. High children, were not. They looked like quite a motley bunch.

Further, the boys had their heads shaved smooth and most of the girls had very mannish short hair. The entire service included a number of selections of modern rock music. The Horror!

But look closer, the children had all cut their hair in solidarity when their classmate had lost all his to radiation and chemo. They also were strangely attired because they had all, as a group, honored a dying request the boy had made to his closest friends on the day of his service.

The song “Tears in Heaven” was requested by the family…

Frankly, I have never been to a more moving and appropriate Catholic funeral. We tend to forget that our faith begins first and foremost as a community - when two or more of us meet in His name… I understand that change can strike some as disrespectful. Unlike my younger days, I seldom wear a suit to a regular Sunday Mass anymore. But even when I did (and I did until jeans were far from unusual), I tried never to tut-tut at the clothes people wore. To me, the important thing was that they were there. So I can’t fault parishes for experimenting with contemporary music, or whatever. They are, after all, compelled to spread the word of God. We have an obligation to uphold the faith, but ultimately, it is souls, not trappings, we are trying to save.

Remember, the “communal meal” (going waaaay back) has changed many times over the years. Some of the things we have become foundest of, like incense and robes, are not only not that old, they have pagan origins. So when we criticize, we need to try to make sure we are being Church faithful, not the “Church Lady” of Saturday Night Live fame.

Protection of children is a subject onto itself. First, I think it is worth noting that abuses were never statistically out of sync with the population as a whole. It is unfair to paint all priests as possible pedophiles. Second, while I agree with the Pope, and do not condone this vile evil in any form, I have some sympathy for the Bishops and Cardinals involved. They are trained in religion, not organizational administration, and I think that most were motivated by love, sympathy, and compassion for the sad and sick individuals committing abuses, and/or a miguided desire to protect the Church.

I liken it to a family. If you live as long as I have, you will eventually know someone with a child or immediate family member with a real problem. Substance abuse, brushes with the law, whatever. Viewed from a distance, it is easy to say, ‘that’s stupid, they should…’ But up close, motivated by love and other strong emotions, nothing is simple or easy.

If it seems like I am dodging your question, I am sorry. The way I see it, it isn’t my place in the heirarchy to judge and manipulate the decisions of the Princes. I might go so far as to switch parishes if I was seriously uncomfortable with a priest. I have, in one instance, raised some concerns about something with my Cardinal (as humbly and respectfully as I could). But mostly I would just strive to recognize the massive sacrifices and committments my local ordinary have made for the Church and pray for them to get strength and guidance from God.

Peace

 

[BSHoop96]

The point remains, it is convenient, from a ‘I really want to vote X, but like to believe I am Catholic’ point of view to pretend that parts of the faith are irrelevant. But the Church clearly states otherwise.

I’ve given you a Doctrinal Note, from Rome, prepared by our current pope, approved by the last, that states otherwise - that more than just pick and choose issues are non negotiable, and pick and choosing is a danger to the faith.

There is no doubt what is meant, it is reiterated in Pope Benedict’s Post-synodal apostolic exhortation regarding the sacrement of communion.

Yet still, somehow, you believe that it is suitable for you to focus on a speicfic distinction and use it to rationalize being at odds with Rome on various matters. This remains a remain a rejection of fundemental Catholic Dogma.

I’m sorry, you can’t be more Catholic than the Pope, nor can you be a better judge of proper application of Catholic doctrine. Claiming otherwise remains heretical, no matter how much we try to shift focus or scream about dead babies.

I have to vote and live my entire faith, not just those portions which are convenient to me. Clearly others here feel differently.

Have I somehow given you the impression that I support abortion in the smallest little way???

My point was that someone could very possibly think that the death penalty is appropriate for…let’s just say a raping, murdering, pedophile repeat offender who could be a danger to society in the future, and at this point anyway… it doesn’t make them against the official teaching of the Church.

However, if someone supported abortion it would make them against the official teaching of the Church. I’m not picking and choosing. That’s the way it is.

You’re certainly judgmental.

 

[SoCalRC]

Have I somehow given you the impression that I support abortion in the smallest little way???

If your political ideology is in line with either major US political party you most assuredly do politically support abortion. Look at the Presidential race, neither presumptive nominee holds a position which is in line with Catholic teaching, both have been publicly supportive of upholding Roe since 2000.

Similiarly, look back at the situation in Saipan, an American Protectorate. The USCCB identified Saipan, by name, as a problem spot for human trafficing and modern slavery. We now know that there was a widespread practice of using forced abortions on Chinese ‘guest’ garment workers - who just happened to live in armed camps.

In the numerous convictions related to corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramof, we learned that millions of dollars flowed from this foundation of slave labor, sexual abuse, and forced abortions into US politics. In return, political leaders, like Tom Delay (who resigned in anticipation of his own corruption and money laundering problems) blocked bipartisan legislation to close the loopholes that allowed Saipan to use slave labor and forced abortions. Remember, garments made this way were legally marked “Made in the USA”.

I, personally, would never support a politician who would protect a system of abuse against the inalienable rights of the human person, regardless of what lip service he/she gave to something like abortion rights.

But I also won’t support ‘just a little’ abortion either. Exceptions for rape, incest, health may sound acceptable, but accepting them means rejecting the underlying principle upon which our Catholic position rests.

My point was that someone could very possibly think that the death penalty is appropriate for…let’s just say a raping, murdering, pedophile repeat offender who could be a danger to society in the future, and at this point anyway… it doesn’t make them against the official teaching of the Church.

It does not nec. make them a bad person, but it does put them at odds with the Pope and the Bishops. The Church teaches that the death penalty, as we apply it, is a causal factor in a culture of death. That is, it promotes abortion and euthanasia. The Vicar of Christ stood in St. Louis and called for its abolition here. Rather you have personal doubts or not, it ultimately comes down to - do you accept that the pope is, truly, the Vicar of Christ, teaching with Christ’s authority, or not?

The Church teaches that the proper way to deal with such dissenting beliefs is to continue to strive to obey, and to continue to seek understanding and accord with the Mother Church. We are supposed to obey. But if we cannot, because of the absolute moral certainty of our own conscience, we are instructed to never forget that our own moral conscience can be in error, and to seek reconcilliation with the Church and its gift of authority.

When we not only dissent from a teaching, but strive to assign it legitimacy above that of the one, true, Catholic and apostolic Church, we are engaging in grave moral sin, since we are both attacking the primacy of the Church (even its Holy nature) and trying to prevent others from proper obedience and understanding.

However, if someone supported abortion it would make them against the official teaching of the Church. I’m not picking and choosing. That’s the way it is.

Probably US conservatism’s biggest appeal is its utter simplicity. Black and white. But the simplicity is superficial. As we have noted, US conservatives are, by and large, supporting political positions on abortion which are intrinsically evil. This is not a fluke, no major party has provided a presidential candidate who publicly supports a licit (in Catholic teaching) position on abortion in the last 24 years.

Having elevated abortion to special status, it always strikes me as peculiar that self described pro-lifers are so quick to compromise on it. Personally, I think that our teaching on abortion is absolutely correct, but much more difficult in practice than people realize. Consider, the Church spoke definitively on the termination of ectopic pregnancies back in 1902. That teaching is still reflected in the Directives to Caregivers in the US today. But many self described ‘pro lifers’ here would howl and gnash their teeth (I know, they have) if you were to suggest that the convoluted sophistry of, say, double effect, might not apply.

Like with most matters of faith, it is easy to project - stop those irresponsible sluts from using abortion as birth control, but hard to sacrifice (risk becoming sterile or possibly even dying for a child who almost certainly won’t reach term?!)

So, small wonder that it is easy to call one political party the party of abortionists, while ignoring the intrinsic evil regarding pro-life issues of the other…

You’re certainly judgmental.

Of course, I’m human. It is a failing, but it is part of our nature we must work very hard to resist. For example, I volunteered for a war that I did not, personally support. I saw combat close up for 23 months. So, to this day, I pray regularly for the strength to see every loudmouthed preening chickenhawk from my generation as something other than a guttless, loudmouthed, coward.

But in matters of faith I do make an effort. For example, I served as a combat medic and did not carry a weapon. I was wounded multiple times, once quite seriously (I still carry bone fragments from another human being in my body). I had to balance my need to serve my country in a time of war, and my own moral conscience with regards to my faith. I have no malice or sense of judgment towards fellow Catholics whose conscience led them differently. And I know some who fought and killed, and others who, for reasons of conscience, not only did not serve, they were engaged in open civil disobedience.

In this particular instance, I think you are confusing ‘conservative Catholic’ with judgement. I am not judging anyone for selecting their ‘conservative politics’ over my faith. But I strenously object to attempts to redefine the Faith to match. To me, the pope is the Vicar of Christ. When Rome takes a stand I recognize that the stance is being taken with the proper authority of Christ. Claiming otherwise, that it is just another interpretation among equals, is a direct attack on the Holy and Apostolic nature of the Church. I have a Christian obligation to the truth, and that includes the Church’s true nature.

If that brissles against someone’s political agenda, I can’t help that. I’ll answer a call to defend the Constitution and protect the existance of a free and pluralistic society, but I cannot place the politics of man ahead of my obligation to God.

 

[BSHoop96]

If your political ideology is in line with either major US political party you most assuredly do politically support abortion. Look at the Presidential race, neither presumptive nominee holds a position which is in line with Catholic teaching, both have been publicly supportive of upholding Roe since 2000.

Similiarly, look back at the situation in Saipan, an American Protectorate. The USCCB identified Saipan, by name, as a problem spot for human trafficing and modern slavery. We now know that there was a widespread practice of using forced abortions on Chinese ‘guest’ garment workers - who just happened to live in armed camps.

In the numerous convictions related to corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramof, we learned that millions of dollars flowed from this foundation of slave labor, sexual abuse, and forced abortions into US politics. In return, political leaders, like Tom Delay (who resigned in anticipation of his own corruption and money laundering problems) blocked bipartisan legislation to close the loopholes that allowed Saipan to use slave labor and forced abortions. Remember, garments made this way were legally marked “Made in the USA”.

I, personally, would never support a politician who would protect a system of abuse against the inalienable rights of the human person, regardless of what lip service he/she gave to something like abortion rights.

But I also won’t support ‘just a little’ abortion either. Exceptions for rape, incest, health may sound acceptable, but accepting them means rejecting the underlying principle upon which our Catholic position rests.

It does not nec. make them a bad person, but it does put them at odds with the Pope and the Bishops. The Church teaches that the death penalty, as we apply it, is a causal factor in a culture of death. That is, it promotes abortion and euthanasia. The Vicar of Christ stood in St. Louis and called for its abolition here. Rather you have personal doubts or not, it ultimately comes down to - do you accept that the pope is, truly, the Vicar of Christ, teaching with Christ’s authority, or not?

The Church teaches that the proper way to deal with such dissenting beliefs is to continue to strive to obey, and to continue to seek understanding and accord with the Mother Church. We are supposed to obey. But if we cannot, because of the absolute moral certainty of our own conscience, we are instructed to never forget that our own moral conscience can be in error, and to seek reconcilliation with the Church and its gift of authority.

When we not only dissent from a teaching, but strive to assign it legitimacy above that of the one, true, Catholic and apostolic Church, we are engaging in grave moral sin, since we are both attacking the primacy of the Church (even its Holy nature) and trying to prevent others from proper obedience and understanding.

Probably US conservatism’s biggest appeal is its utter simplicity. Black and white. But the simplicity is superficial. As we have noted, US conservatives are, by and large, supporting political positions on abortion which are intrinsically evil. This is not a fluke, no major party has provided a presidential candidate who publicly supports a licit (in Catholic teaching) position on abortion in the last 24 years.

Having elevated abortion to special status, it always strikes me as peculiar that self described pro-lifers are so quick to compromise on it. Personally, I think that our teaching on abortion is absolutely correct, but much more difficult in practice than people realize. Consider, the Church spoke definitively on the termination of ectopic pregnancies back in 1902. That teaching is still reflected in the Directives to Caregivers in the US today. But many self described ‘pro lifers’ here would howl and gnash their teeth (I know, they have) if you were to suggest that the convoluted sophistry of, say, double effect, might not apply.

Like with most matters of faith, it is easy to project - stop those irresponsible sluts from using abortion as birth control, but hard to sacrifice (risk becoming sterile or possibly even dying for a child who almost certainly won’t reach term?!)

So, small wonder that it is easy to call one political party the party of abortionists, while ignoring the intrinsic evil regarding pro-life issues of the other…

Of course, I’m human. It is a failing, but it is part of our nature we must work very hard to resist. For example, I volunteered for a war that I did not, personally support. I saw combat close up for 23 months. So, to this day, I pray regularly for the strength to see every loudmouthed preening chickenhawk from my generation as something other than a guttless, loudmouthed, coward.

But in matters of faith I do make an effort. For example, I served as a combat medic and did not carry a weapon. I was wounded multiple times, once quite seriously (I still carry bone fragments from another human being in my body). I had to balance my need to serve my country in a time of war, and my own moral conscience with regards to my faith. I have no malice or sense of judgment towards fellow Catholics whose conscience led them differently. And I know some who fought and killed, and others who, for reasons of conscience, not only did not serve, they were engaged in open civil disobedience.

In this particular instance, I think you are confusing ‘conservative Catholic’ with judgement. I am not judging anyone for selecting their ‘conservative politics’ over my faith. But I strenously object to attempts to redefine the Faith to match. To me, the pope is the Vicar of Christ. When Rome takes a stand I recognize that the stance is being taken with the proper authority of Christ. Claiming otherwise, that it is just another interpretation among equals, is a direct attack on the Holy and Apostolic nature of the Church. I have a Christian obligation to the truth, and that includes the Church’s true nature.

If that brissles against someone’s political agenda, I can’t help that. I’ll answer a call to defend the Constitution and protect the existance of a free and pluralistic society, but I cannot place the politics of man ahead of my obligation to God.

I didn’t get in this to have a political discussion with you. I simply said I disagreed with your statement on the abortion/death penalty issue.

Apparently this was said by the Pope (when he was still a Cardinal) to Cardinal Cardinal McCarrick.

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment.* There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.***

That’s the point I was trying to make. That you could have an opinion on one (death penalty) and not the other (abortion) and still be in the good graces of the Church.

I’m done.

 

[SoCalRC]

Apparently this was said by the Pope (when he was still a Cardinal) to Cardinal Cardinal McCarrick.

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment.* There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.***

That’s the point I was trying to make. That you could have an opinion on one (death penalty) and not the other (abortion) and still be in the good graces of the Church.

I’m done.

Funny, everyone grabs a snippet from a letter, that was never officially released and which the author has warned is not properly understood without considerable supporting material, then runs away.

The Cardinal was only explaining why support of the death penalty does not, in of itself, rise to the level if CIC 915 (denial of communion) as some Bishops had asked. The distinction is in aboslute vs. possible. Look at the text you quoted, it “may be possible…”

Disagreement on the teachings is still dissent, which must be handled appropriately. Presenting it as a more licit interpretation of Catholic Doctrine, in contrast to the direct instructions of the Vicar of Christ, is not a suitable form of dissent (as the same Cardinal explained in another document).

The same letter, btw, gives an example of a Catholic, in good faith, voting for pro abortion policies. Should we then extrapolate that it is legitimate Catholicism to support these policies?

The best way to understand what the Church teaches is to read and listen to what officially comes from the Pontif and the offices of the Holy See. Taking snippets of unreleased letters, from a different context, is almost certainly rationalizing. Think about it, one is applying an interpretation to personal correspondance from a Cardinal and then extraoplating rights as a Catholic to defy the Pope!

Wouldn’t it be more reliable to read what I linked to? For example, a Doctrinal Note, prepared by the same cardinal in his capacity as Prefect and approved by the then Vicar of Christ and addressed to the lay faithful on the subject at hand?

The problem, of course, is once we go direct and on topic, room for expansive personal interpretation goes away and we are forced to either obey, or accept our dissent for what it is.

 

[BSHoop96]

Funny, everyone grabs a snippet from a letter, that was never officially released and which the author has warned is not properly understood without considerable supporting material, then runs away.

The Cardinal was only explaining why support of the death penalty does not, in of itself, rise to the level if CIC 915 (denial of communion) as some Bishops had asked. The distinction is in aboslute vs. possible. Look at the text you quoted, it “may be possible…”

Disagreement on the teachings is still dissent, which must be handled appropriately. Presenting it as a more licit interpretation of Catholic Doctrine, in contrast to the direct instructions of the Vicar of Christ, is not a suitable form of dissent (as the same Cardinal explained in another document).

The same letter, btw, gives an example of a Catholic, in good faith, voting for pro abortion policies. Should we then extrapolate that it is legitimate Catholicism to support these policies?

The best way to understand what the Church teaches is to read and listen to what officially comes from the Pontif and the offices of the Holy See. Taking snippets of unreleased letters, from a different context, is almost certainly rationalizing. Think about it, one is applying an interpretation to personal correspondance from a Cardinal and then extraoplating rights as a Catholic to defy the Pope!

Wouldn’t it be more reliable to read what I linked to? For example, a Doctrinal Note, prepared by the same cardinal in his capacity as Prefect and approved by the then Vicar of Christ and addressed to the lay faithful on the subject at hand?

The problem, of course, is once we go direct and on topic, room for expansive personal interpretation goes away and we are forced to either obey, or accept our dissent for what it is.

Abortion is held to be a moral absolute, without exception, the death penalty is not.

Excuse me, maybe I looked at the wrong link. I didn’t see anything in it concerning the death penalty or changing this church teaching.

Now I AM done. If I looked at the wrong link, post it again and I’ll look it over but further discussion between us is fruitless.

 

[peary]

Hey. I’m Christina, and I recently joined this site because I felt like I had to talk about this. I’m a Protestant but leaning more towards Catholic all the time.

A lot of people with strong conservative positions call themselves Catholic but ignore what the church teaches. They are probably Catholic because they agree with the Church about things like abortion, gay marriage, and religious freedom. However, they also ignore what the Vatican has said about the Iraq War, illegal immigrants, and affirmative action. Many of these people (Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, etc.) act as if Catholicism lends itself to support of everything America does. If they examined what the church has said about these things, would they accept that by their definition Catholicism is anti-American and globalist, or would they excuse themselves by saying they are not ex cathedra teachings or something like that?

**I am not exactly sure as to what you are saying here. I am a Republican but am also directly involved in union matters. I believe that unions are important.

I don’t think I ignore what the Church teaches. I was not for the Iraq War, but I wasn’t against it, either. We have illegal immigrants in our country and we have to deal with that reality, but I also believe that, at some point in time, all immigrants will have to go through the legal process of entry.

I think you have a lot of misperceptions about Catholics who are politically conservative, and you need to explain yourself better.**

 

[fix]

Funny, everyone grabs a snippet from a letter, that was never officially released and which the author has warned is not properly understood without considerable supporting material, then runs away.

Funny, the bishops ask the authentic authority in the matter how things are to be understood. The answer is given. Many reject it or minimize it for their own agenda.

We have a living magisterium to help us see what is true. Let us humbly accept the magisterium and not set ourselves up as a type of separate magisterium.

 

[ribozyme]

Here is a wonderful strain of conservatism predicted by The Bell Curve (the book that claims that many people are too stupid to live independent and responsible lives):

" new kind of conservatism is becoming the dominant ideology of the affluent - not in the social tradition of an Edmund Burke or in the economic tradition of an Adam Smith but ‘conservatism’ along Latin American lines, where to be conservative has often meant doing whatever is necessary to preserve the mansions on the hills from the menace of the slums below."

Does anyone support this? Well, at least it respects property rights.