Democrats excluding Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter commenter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Which Catholics are you referring to? My parish has a thriving outreach, making meals and taking them to the home bound, collecting canned food for the food pantry, baby bottle collections for women in crisis pregnancies…

Come to think of it, the Catholic Church is the largest source of charity for the poor in the world?

So what are you talking about?
 
ProVobis said:
Like he didn’t mess with the Ukraine language in the platform?
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you mean in terms of party platforms and Catholic policy.
Were you just trying to deflect my point made?
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
You take an email between two Democrats - not in any sense the party or the DNC - and you put a wicked twist on the contents to conjure up your partisan polemic with reckless disregard for the truth.
Click to expand...
Oh please. I was a Dem activist possibly before you were born. I was there when abortion became the litmus test. I was there when the state committee declared it “divisive” to reach out to prolife Dem candidates. I realize Catholics who want to support the abortion party have to find some rationalization for doing so. But calling me “wicked” and accusing me of a “partisan” polemic when I am not a member of any political party is more excessive than Dems usually are when defending the indefensible.

You should be praying that the Dem party abandons abortion on demand as its primary principle.
 
With the status quo, there is no tolerable choice, other than looking at the individual characteristics of the candidates. There is hope for the center, with legal challenges to winner-takes-all for presidential elections and gerrymandering. Both movements will help in restoring true democracy.

It remains to be seen whether the response will be a multiple-party system or both parties moving towards the center.
 
Ridgerunner said:
But calling me “wicked” and accusing me of a “partisan” polemic when I am not a member of any political party is more excessive than Dems usually are when defending the indefensible.
Click to expand...
  1. I did not call you wicked, please retract that false charge.
  2. I don’t care if you are registered, or if you vote. But I do care that you, in step with the misinformation memes of partisan polemicists, make statements that stretch the truth well beyond the breaking point.
  3. Thank you for your counsel on what I should be praying for; let me suggest that we all pray that for a fervor for truth among all.
 
Last edited:
ATraveller said:
Is the only way of providing for the vulnerable done through government?
Click to expand...
It might not be the only way, but, at least in education, the RCC makes it clear that Catholics have a right for government support ofCatholic schools:
Can. 793 §2. Parents also have the right to that assistance, to be furnished by civil society, which they need to secure the Catholic education of their children.
Click to expand...
 
dvdjs said:
I did not call you wicked, please retract that false charge.
I don’t care if you are registered, or if you vote. But I do care that you, in step with the misinformation memes of partisan polemicists, make statements that stretch the truth well beyond the breaking point.
Thank you for your counsel on what I should be praying for; let me suggest that we all pray that for a fervor for truth among all.
Click to expand...
You did call me “wicked”. You know that was your meaning. You can retract that when it suits you, but I know you won’t.

It’s not “misinformation” that abortion is in the Dem party platform and that there are almost no prolife Dems in congress as determined by both NARAL and National Right to Life. If you don’t want to support it, take it out of your platform.

Gee, you won’t pray that your party abandons its support for abortion? Doesn’t sound very good.
 
Ridgerunner said:
You did call me “wicked”. You know that was your meaning.
Click to expand...
I know that that I pharased my sentence in a way to avoid giving that m(mis) impression.
Please try to stick to the actual facts. As eager as you seem to be to take insult, the reality is that no one called you a swine, and no one said that you are wicked.

It is misinformation - to put it politely - to proclaim, on the basis of one email, between two people, discussing the position of the Catholic Church on birth control, that the Dem party disdains Catholicism and has acted to subvert it.

It is misinformation to say that Lipinski was not supported by the DNCC.
 
dvdjs said:
It is misinformation - to put it politely - to proclaim, on the basis of one email, between two people, discussing the position of the Catholic Church on birth control, that the Dem party disdains Catholicism and has acted to subvert it.

It is misinformation to say that Lipinski was not supported by the DNCC.
Click to expand...
Lipinski was not supported by the DNCC. If he was at the very last minute, and I’m not sure of that, then big deal. He was not supported in favor of the pro-abortion candidate, at least he wasn’t as of about a month ago.


Now and then Dems express what they think out loud, like the “bitter clingers” and “deplorables” and the Church being “backward” and “medieval”. We should not expect them to say anti-Catholic things all the time to be convincing. Nor should we expect them to support every organization that intends to subvert the Church. But now and then they do expose their support of some that do.
 
In my county, the Democratic Party was rebuilt mostly by Catholics so as to surpass the Republicans a few decades ago. One man who helped rebuild the Party into the dominant local Party was the County Chairman, who was and is prolife. He was ousted and is now active in prolife activities. He said essentially they bought the title “Democrat” , and put another party underneath.

The man who helped re establish the Party is now persona non grata in that party locally. Sadly, many of my relatives still have the attitude “I was raised Democrat, and I will always vote Democrat”. They do not realize it is a totally different Party. One can argue that the centralized media took control of the Democrats, or that the Democrats took control of the centralized corporate media; but the end result is the same.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
Lipinski was not supported by the DNCC, …
Click to expand...
Well you are not sure of anything that you read, but the Washington Examiner (conservative enough for your “non-partisan” tastes?) article that updates your information was dated Mar 08. It has been linked here in at least two threads that you participated in.

You might also like to look at the statement from the chair of the DNCC some nearly a year before the primary, linked in post #12.
Ridgerunner said:
Now and then Dems express what they think out loud, like the “bitter clingers” and “deplorables” and the Church being “backward” and “medieval”. We should not expect them to say anti-Catholic things all the time to be convincing. Nor should we expect them to support every organization that intends to subvert the Church. But now and then they do expose their support of some that do.
Click to expand...
Hogwash. If you elevate a rare excited utterance or the memes spun by partisan polemicists to the truth, replacing actual deliberate thoughtful communication, then you can conjure up most any story that you want.
But that is fantasy not reality. Just wishful thinking.
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
In my county, the Democratic Party was rebuilt mostly by Catholics so as to surpass the Republicans a few decades ago.
Click to expand...
Ha. I was involved in that very thing in my county. Got it to where we elected as many Democrats as Republicans. Wasn’t easy, either. But then, abortion took over the party and people abandoned it in droves. Now, no Dems ever get elected. I should mention that this county is very prolife.

Same kind of thing happened in two of our most reliably Democratic areas; “Little Dixie” and the “Delta”. Very Democrat, but prolife. Now, they’re solidly Republican.

It’s not that prolifers are wedded to the Repub party. It’s just that there’s nowhere else to go in elections.
 
dvdjs said:
Well you are not sure of anything that you read, but the Washington Examiner (conservative enough for your “non-partisan” tastes?) article that updates your was dated Mar 08.

Ridgerunner:
Click to expand...
If you read the article, it indicates they were shamed away from giving him the cold shoulder to providing him with some support.

It doesn’t say he is their preferred candidate in the primary, just that they are now supporting all their candidates in the primary.
 
0Scarlett_nidiyilii said:
So what are you talking about?
Click to expand...
Me thinks thou protest too much.

Here’s what I said:

Or is it because many Catholics no longer have the stomach for the gospel message of providing for the poor, caring of widows and orphans, freeing the oppressed? But, I guess they have a convenient scapegoat to avoid the uncomfortable feeling of guilt.

I clearly qualified my statements by saying “many Catholics”, and not the Catholic Church, which as you correctly note is a significant source of charity for the poor in the world.

Those Catholics involved, contributing to, and supporting the causes you cite are a minority.

If you get a chance, pick up a copy of Matthew Kelly’s “4 Signs of a Dynamic Catholic”, where he (arguably) presents that 80% of the efforts of the Church (including charity) is shouldered by a very small percentage of those who consider themselves Catholic.

So my critique was not of the Church, but of a significantly large number of people who are part of the Church, but leave the heavy lifting to others, while being convinced being Catholic absolves them from inaction.

Catholic is not just a noun…its also a verb!
 
Ridgerunner said:
in my county.
Click to expand...
Ditto.
Ridgerunner said:
It’s not that prolifers are wedded to the Repub party. It’s just that there’s nowhere else to go in elections.
Click to expand...
I think that the reality is that there is no place to go.
There is no honest support for the Catholic position, which would requires a Constitutional amendment - in the Republican party - especially after you put aside the Murphy’s who call themselves pro-life and pressure their mistress to have an abortion.
 
Maybe I’m overly optimistic, but I think a lot of this is a matter of communication. As near as I can tell, most Catholics are pretty generous if they just know what to do. Part of the problem is that sometimes there are competing appeals. Right now, for example, our bishop has a moratorium on parish appeals because of a diocesan-wide appeal to raise a great deal of money for seminarians and elderly priests and religious.
People were asked to commit into the future on a schedule, so other charitable programs just get left out.
 
dvdjs said:
There is no honest support for the Catholic position, which would requires a Constitutional amendment
Click to expand...
Or one more prolife Supreme Court justice like the last three Repub appointees were. Seems honest enough for me.
 
Theo520 said:
If you read the article, it indicates they were shamed away from giving him the cold shoulder to providing him with some support.

It doesn’t say he is their preferred candidate in the primary, just that they are now supporting all their candidates in the primary.
Click to expand...
Well that is the kind of storyline that you might expect fro the WE. I have to commend them, however, for not concealing the story.

Contested primaries are messy from the view of the party hierarchy. If the party makes and endorsement of one Democrat over another it appears to be putting its thumb on the scale.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top