Do you have to be a Republican to be Catholic?

[seekerz]

Dear seekerz,

you have yet to know that abortion occurs less frequently where it is illegal???
You must be very young, seekerz.

Relax, I’m simply stating the obvious. In order to justify the importance that is placed on legal remedies, we should be able to prove that these are in fact remedies. I am not making the argument that abortion should remain legal to prevent women from dying due to illegal procedures. I am just questioning the assumption that the abortion rate is related to the legality of abortion. Looking at these statistics from Guttmacher institute, it seems that the relationship is not as straightforward as is assumed.

Yet, while it may seem paradoxical, a country’s abortion rate is not closely correlated with whether abortion is legal there. For example, abortion levels are quite high in Latin American countries, where abortion is highly restricted. (In fact, 20 million of the 46 million abortions performed annually worldwide occur in countries with highly restrictive abortion laws.) At the same time, abortion rates are quite low throughout Western Europe, where the procedure is legal and widely available. Also, Eastern and Western Europe have the world’s highest and lowest abortion rates, respectively, yet abortion is generally legal throughout the Continent.
If legality is not the determining factor, what drives the rates at which abortions occur in a given country?

Read the article and tell me what you think. I’m not endorsing the use of contraception to prevent abortion, simply illustrating the state of things today. I’m sure the situation was different in the 1970s, but we have to deal with today’s realities.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**(In fact, 20 million of the 46 million abortions performed annually worldwide occur in countries with highly restrictive abortion laws.) **

Very impressive-sounding, but be careful, here, seekerz.
First, consider the source: The Guttmacher institute is an arm of
the abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. Be very skeptical of ANYTHING
they say, as they are COMMITTED to furthering the cause of the legality
of this evil practice. For that, they are in mortal sin and their minds are darkened thereby.

20 million of the 46 million abortions…are from countries with tough abortion laws?
Sounds VERY impressive!!! Outlawing abortion would accomplish nothing, eh?
Guttmacher Inst. doesn’t REALLY believe that, seekerz, or they wouldn’t fight as hard as they do to keep it legal HERE and PROMOTE it’s legalization ELSEWHERE,. and in fact they fight for that VERY HARD.
20 million of the abortions, eh? Again, that’s half of 'em. Sounds impressive.
Is it? WHICH countries are they referring to, and WHAT are the total populations of those countries??? If their total population is very large, then this 20 million figure means NOTHING and in fact would be further proof that outlawing abortion DOES keep the killing rate down. 20 million divided among, say, 2 or 3 billion people would mean a very small percentage of people those countries are having abortions. IRAN has about 100 people alone, and abortion is illegal there. You can bet that 20 million Iranian women are not having abortions. Same with Saudi Arabia and many other Islamic nations.

The fact that Latin America, which is still 90% or more NOMINALLY Catholic has such a high abortion rate, indicates that a) Guttmacher is possibly lying about this OR,
b) Catholics worldwide, and not just in America, are apostasizing in MASSIVE NUMBERS, which further indicates that the long-prophesied (by the Holy Spirit) and final
Great Apostasy is, in fact, occuring right now. It is not an indication of any change of heart on the part of God about the morality of abortion or whether it should be legalized.

As to contraception, it frustrates deliberately, through artificial means, the reproductive powers God gave to our male and female bodies. Even worse, it makes mortal sin easier to commit and “get away with” (via no pregnancy in many cases). The problem with THIS is that this easy-sin mentality HARDENS people in their sins, and then these willful sinners, including nonCatholic willful sinners, forget or fail to use contraception (“it can’t happen to me” mentality), end up pregnant, to their inconvenience, and have an abortion to kill the baby. Problem solved. The contraceptive mentality, publicly accepted, leads TO more abortions. True, some fundamentalist Christians use contraception and hate abortion, and many evangelicals too, but that is because they do not know any better and invincibly-ignorant they do not realize that using artificial contraception is a sin.
Catholics have known better for 2,000 years. By the way, ALL of the Protestant Reformers also opposed Birth Control (the most popular methods back then were spilling the seed outside the body or use of potions to prevent pregnancies, most of which were wive’s tales and did not work!). Most protestants today are SHOCKED to learn that all of their 16th century Reformers absolutely CONDEMNED all contraception in the strongest possible language, by the way. (( Not to mention, as an aside, that they all, the Reformers, all of them, believed in Mary’s Perpetual Virginity and in her Assumption all throughout their lives, right til they day they died)).

 

[christofirst]

All the people who have voted Republican strictly on the basis of the abortion issue for the past 35 years have not made abortion illegal. However in my opinion those who did so created the stage for a long list of horrible, immoral things to be done instead (war, torture, anti-immigration, death penalty, making it harder for the poor to survive…)

If I believed that voting Republican would result in abortion becoming illegal I might do it, but I honestly don’t believe at all that they will ever overturn it. Being able to get votes simply on the basis of that one issue is too valuable of a tool for the Republicans and they don’t want to give that up. I feel like the Republican party is essentially using all of us who are anti-abortion as pawns while ushering in many other things we shouldn’t accept.

This is how I see the current situation as well.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I don’t know but personally, millions of innocent children being ripped apart in the sanctuary of their mothers womb is on the top of my list of issues. If we we can’t get this one right…then we can’t get anything right

:sad_yes::clapping:

 

[seekerz]

**(In fact, 20 million of the 46 million abortions performed annually worldwide occur in countries with highly restrictive abortion laws.) **

Very impressive-sounding, but be careful, here, seekerz.

I appreciate the warning and you make some valid points. However, I have lived in different parts of the Third World (mostly Catholic areas, where abortion remains illegal) and the situation is so bad that the general attitude is that women reporting a miscarriage are really lying about an abortion that was induced. I find that attitude very unfair myself - obviously, many real miscarriages do occur naturally - but it will give you a sense of how pervasive abortion is.

The reasons I have found for the push to make abortion universally legal and acceptable, are mainly ideological and associated with misguided efforts to improve the lot and the health of women. It is true that an unacceptable number of women die in childbirth on a global scale but what is needed is development and better services (that’s what made childbirth safer in advanced countries). The ‘shortcut’ however, is to decrease childbearing through contraception and abortion.

So the numbers may be presented in a way to make the case for such a strategy but I don’t doubt they are at least somewhat accurate. Since pregnancy is a hidden condition until a woman makes it known, there is really a limit on what laws can do if she is determined not to have the child. Human beings are highly creative: sometimes in very dark ways.

My point is not that it’s hopeless, but rather than we have moved past the point where reversing Roe v Wade could have been expected to impact the problem in a substantial way. Abortion has too much acceptance in the medical field now…creativity must be employed to come up with new strategies that will preserve unborn life.

 

[Carlan]

I’m not saying that abortion is less morally reprehensible than pedophilia - what I am saying is that abortion is legal and less morally reprehensible to society. Does that mean that majority counts with regard to what is moral and what is not? In the Church, no. In secular life, unfortunately, yes. And it is in the secular realm that politics and elections unfold. Stating the realities does not imply agreeing that things should be so.

Right, and that should be common sense reckoning. It is not,though, in any of these political Catholic forums:shrug:
Peace,Carlan

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I do not get this at all. By saying that you cannot vote Democrat you are essentially saying that yes, you have to be conservative.

All the people who have voted Republican strictly on the basis of the abortion issue for the past 35 years have not made abortion illegal. However in my opinion those who did so created the stage for a long list of horrible, immoral things to be done instead (war, torture, anti-immigration, death penalty, making it harder for the poor to survive…)

If I believed that voting Republican would result in abortion becoming illegal I might do it, but I honestly don’t believe at all that they will ever overturn it. Being able to get votes simply on the basis of that one issue is too valuable of a tool for the Republicans and they don’t want to give that up. I feel like the Republican party is essentially using all of us who are anti-abortion as pawns while ushering in many other things we shouldn’t accept.

No, there are plenty of moderate Republicans to vote for, or I suppose you could go Libertarian.

We have seen this same argument many times in the last year, “Well Democrats may support abortion, but Republicans haven’t done anything about it and they also support war.”

Nonetheless, we cannot continue to vote for a party that includes abortion, birth control, euthanasia, homosexual marriage, etc. in its party platform. The end.

 

[NSFrame]

Echoing previous posters:

If I believed that a pro-life candidate was actually going to stop any number of abortions, I would absolutely, 100% vote for him or her. Pro-life is my #1 political issue, not specifically because the Church has said so, but because that is what my conscience believes. Respect for life spills over into so many other aspects of society as well.

However, after living through 12 years of Reagan/HW Bush plus 8 years of GW Bush with this country’s views and policies on abortion and other respect-for-life issues still in the potty, I have no faith that voting for a “pro-life” candidate simply because he lists that as his position on abortion will do a darn thing to actually protect unborn babies.

So, when I vote, I think about what issues actually will be impacted by the candidates if elected and vote my consience. Simply checking the “pro-life” box in the newspaper’s list of issues does not mean that the candidate will implement pro-life policies. The candidate would need to be an actual pro-life activist for me to use his/her pro-life views as the deciding point.

 

[Nate13]

I appreciate the warning and you make some valid points. However, I have lived in different parts of the Third World (mostly Catholic areas, where abortion remains illegal) and the situation is so bad that the general attitude is that women reporting a miscarriage are really lying about an abortion that was induced. I find that attitude very unfair myself - obviously, many real miscarriages do occur naturally - but it will give you a sense of how pervasive abortion is.

The reasons I have found for the push to make abortion universally legal and acceptable, are mainly ideological and associated with misguided efforts to improve the lot and the health of women. It is true that an unacceptable number of women die in childbirth on a global scale but what is needed is development and better services (that’s what made childbirth safer in advanced countries). The ‘shortcut’ however, is to decrease childbearing through contraception and abortion.

So the numbers may be presented in a way to make the case for such a strategy but I don’t doubt they are at least somewhat accurate. Since pregnancy is a hidden condition until a woman makes it known, there is really a limit on what laws can do if she is determined not to have the child. Human beings are highly creative: sometimes in very dark ways.

My point is not that it’s hopeless, but rather than we have moved past the point where reversing Roe v Wade could have been expected to impact the problem in a substantial way. Abortion has too much acceptance in the medical field now…creativity must be employed to come up with new strategies that will preserve unborn life.

So you support pushing condoms for teenagers? I think your argument could be applied much more readily to premarital sex than it could to abortion. Premarital sex is even more widely accepted now than abortion. Might as well as throw in the towel right?

Evil always sounds reasonable. If someone doesn’t stand up for the Truth when its difficult they don’t stand up for Truth at all.

The problem I have with all of this is that very few people are qualified to comment on the kind of economic system that is best for society or what kind of tax system we should have. Very few people are well informed enough to know all the details that go into the decision to go to War. Abortion though is something that everyone can be easily informed on, and know is wrong. You don’t have to be a top medical scientist to be able to know everything that is necessary to make a decision on whether abortion is right or wrong.

 

[christofirst]

Nonetheless, we cannot continue to vote for a party that includes abortion, birth control, euthanasia, homosexual marriage, etc. in its party platform. The end.

There are pro-life democrats.

democratsforlife.org

We should not give up on them.

 

[seekerz]

So you support pushing condoms for teenagers? I think your argument could be applied much more readily to premarital sex than it could to abortion. Premarital sex is even more widely accepted now than abortion. Might as well as throw in the towel right?

Evil always sounds reasonable. If someone doesn’t stand up for the Truth when its difficult they don’t stand up for Truth at all.

The problem I have with all of this is that very few people are qualified to comment on the kind of economic system that is best for society or what kind of tax system we should have. Very few people are well informed enough to know all the details that go into the decision to go to War. Abortion though is something that everyone can be easily informed on, and know is wrong. You don’t have to be a top medical scientist to be able to know everything that is necessary to make a decision on whether abortion is right or wrong.

Were you meaning to respond to my post? Because nothing in your response seems to relate to the points I was making.

 

[Nate13]

Were you meaning to respond to my post? Because nothing in your response seems to relate to the points I was making.

I was responding to this:

My point is not that it’s hopeless, but rather than we have moved past the point where reversing Roe v Wade could have been expected to impact the problem in a substantial way. Abortion has too much acceptance in the medical field now…creativity must be employed to come up with new strategies that will preserve unborn life.

Premarital sex has too much acceptance now and thus we should stop opposing condoms for teens in the legal realm. Of course we still oppose it morally, but legally its a necessary evil we just have to ignore. We just have to accept that and find other ways to combat it. You could form the same argument for homosexual marriage legalization ambivalence.

 

[JimG]

Echoing previous posters:

If I believed that a pro-life candidate was actually going to stop any number of abortions, I would absolutely, 100% vote for him or her. Pro-life is my #1 political issue, not specifically because the Church has said so, but because that is what my conscience believes. Respect for life spills over into so many other aspects of society as well.

However, after living through 12 years of Reagan/HW Bush plus 8 years of GW Bush with this country’s views and policies on abortion and other respect-for-life issues still in the potty, I have no faith that voting for a “pro-life” candidate simply because he lists that as his position on abortion will do a darn thing to actually protect unborn babies.

So, when I vote, I think about what issues actually will be impacted by the candidates if elected and vote my consience. Simply checking the “pro-life” box in the newspaper’s list of issues does not mean that the candidate will implement pro-life policies. The candidate would need to be an actual pro-life activist for me to use his/her pro-life views as the deciding point.

And yet, electing Obama has given him the golden opportunity to put in place supreme court justices who can be counted upon never to reverse Roe v Wade. If he is re-elected he will no doubt appoint more, thus cementing the pro-abortion status of the country for a generation or more, a calamity from which the nation will never recover.

And not only supreme court justices. Presidents put into place federal judges at every level. Democratic presidents tend to put into place pro-abortion justices, and these are the ones who eventually elevated to appellate courts and the supreme court.

GOP presidents have taken many actions to reverse the number of abortion. G.W. Bush had in place many pro-life regulations which Obama reversed his first week in office. Keep in mind that for 40 years, pro-life groups have worked to put into place legislation limiting abortion, and mostly Democratic legislators and lobbyists have worked ceaselessly to counteract such and to make abortion more available.

 

[sw85]

Sorry for this being my first post, I’ve been lurking here for a couple years though (as you’ll notice by the date my account was created.)

One thing I’ve grown concerned about in the past couple years is that it seems like you now have to be an extremely conservative Republican if you’re Catholic. I understand the abortion issue, but I’ve noticed that in these forums in particular there’s not a lot of support for any forms of politics that could be considered “liberal.” I grew up in a very blue-collar Catholic family with very liberal views, in a liberal community.

By “liberal” I should explain: premarital sex, abortion and divorce aren’t ok, but the hallmarks of the faith I grew up with were all about social justice issues of caring for the poor, being against all aspects of the culture of death including death penalty and war, etc. It feels to me like the Catholic culture in this country has taken a hard right from what it was 30 years ago.

I am pro-life, which makes voting sometimes difficult because I believe my faith calls me to be anti-war, anti-death penalty, pro-caring for the poor, pro-caring for the earth, etc. and the pro-life party also seems to be the most pro-war and anti-welfare. I don’t understand why being Catholic has to mean that we agree with all of the Republican platform about climate change, taxes, war, welfare, etc., especially when their stances on those issues often seems opposed to what I read in the Catechism.

I am not intending to fight with anyone here. I am just wondering if there is room here, both on this site and within the Catholic faith, for more liberal views, or if you believe it’s true that you have to be a conservative Republican to be Catholic.

I self-identify as reactionary. I want a confessionally Catholic state, a Catholic king, and laws against usury, heresy, and scandal. Clearly I’m not a “conservative Republican.” Insofar as I give full assent of faith to all the Church’s teachings and will (when able) live a prayerful and sacramental life, I like to think I’m a “good Catholic.” So, clearly, no, you don’t have to be a conservative Republican to be a good Catholic.

You do have to assent to certain immutable moral truths, including the (literal) kingship of Christ and the sinfulness of sexual impurity.

You have to maintain a sense of proportion here. As a country we are doing a far better job caring for the poor then we are battling sexual impurity. Therefore battling sexual impurity is a bigger deal and one that needs to be taken very seriously. If it were the case that the government banned contraception and formally prohibited homosexual acts but actively forced people into poverty, then it’d be right to be angrier and aggressive about economic issues. But that’s not the case.

 

[Leontes]

Although gay marriage will never be valid within our Church, I don’t understand why we have the right to tell non-Catholic same-sex couples that they have to be play by our rules. What the state allows in terms of “marriage” (or civil union) doesn’t require US to recognize those same marriages, any more than we allow divorced couples to remarry without annulment. The state’s rules regarding marriage already are different from our rules about it. We didn’t change our religious views on divorce just because society loosened theirs; why is the gay marriage issue any more threatening?

First of all, there’s a lot of non-clear thinking being expressed here.
Marriage was ordained by God for ALL humans, for males and females. By GOD,
NOT by the Catholic Church!!! ALL human beings are required to play by God’s rules.
These are called the Natural Law. Jews refer to it as the “Noahide” laws, those Jews that don’t condone these modern evil behaviors, that is, which is most of the Orthodox Jews and many, still, of the conservative Jews.

Gay sex and “gay marriage” are wrong for the same reason that STEALING is wrong,
because they are SINFUL acts, whether one is “catholic” or “christian” or NOT.

If we Catholics sit back idly and LET society legislate these satanically-inspired Sins into LAW, we are, definitely, going to be attacked by those who are FOR these things, and they ARE, mark my word, they ARE, going to try to FORCE the Church to perform same-sex marriages. The HHS mandate PROVES that the government, when run by Liberals, apostates and infidels, WILL try to FORCE the church to violate it’s own teachings (which amounts to the government Blaspheming/Sinning Against the Spirit of the Lord (Who is the Author of our Church’s moral teachings) , by the way, and the fall of unimaginably-ferocious Divine Supernatural Wrath upon this nation will probably not be far behind for such daring arrogance. God will NOT be treated “in your face” by ungodly human beings like that and let them get away with it indefinitely).

You’re right that lax divorce laws did not change Catholic teaching against Divorce.
True. But these new, lax divorce laws DID EMBOLDEN many Catholics to mortally sin by divorcing and then REMARRYING after that divorce. So these lax laws DO affect the church and DO affect the salvation of Catholics. IF WE KNOWINGLY VOTE FOR those who are going to pass wicked laws, then we ARE participating in the SPIRITUAL DEATHS of many people, who would otherwise feel somewhat restrained by those now-abolished laws against their immoral tendencies, and emboldened to sin those sins,
INCLUDING many Catholics. The penalty for us, from God, for such behavior, will be extremely severe, and that’s something we fail to reflect upon or realize.
CONTINUED IMMEDIATELY BELOW. Thanks.

A few things need to be corrected here:

1. The Church has changed its rules about granting annulments. They are much easier now, than previously. Pretty much a rubber stamp event. Compare that to the political power struggles over marriage between the papacy and the English monarchy in earlier times.
2. Marriage was not ordained originally by a supernatural being called God in the Christian tradition. Marriage existed long before Christianity existed, or Judaism existed. Therefore, marriage could not have been ordained by something which had not been invented yet. Even if you reject that God is a human construct, you still must concede that Judaism does not go back infinitely in time, and also that there are perfectly legitimate marriages in other traditions, both religious and secular. This is a red herring which is trotted out to support a position against this particular social change which is occurring right now. It is important not to use religion to try to curtail universal human rights, even when it is convenient to do so in order to resist change.
3. Gay marriage is said to be a sin by the Church for a variety of reasons, but it is not similar to stealing, as there is no victim. While gay marriage is accepted in many societies now, stealing is not. Keep in mind that morality precedes religion. Religion is, among other things, a way to codify and explain a moral code which already exists. At least, this has been the historic context.

 

[seekerz]

I was responding to this:

Premarital sex has too much acceptance now and thus we should stop opposing condoms for teens in the legal realm.

You are misrepresenting my post and I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on whether this is deliberate.

Of course we still oppose it morally, but legally its a necessary evil we just have to ignore.

Have I said we should stop opposing abortion legally or ignore it?

We just have to accept that and find other ways to combat it.

How can we simultaneously accept something and find other ways to combat it?

Your argument is conceivably confusing even yourself.

 

[JimG]

It’s true that the institution of marriage goes back to the very beginnings of civilization.
Yet, no society, throughout those past millenia, has ever recognized marriage as other than between man and woman. Until now.

Many societies have tolerated homosexual behavior. None have recognized it as marriage. It’s obvious; marriage can’t be marriage when no marital intercourse is possible. Homosexual marriage generates no future citizens, no taxpayers. And societies do have an interest in continued existence.

 

[Nate13]

You are misrepresenting my post and I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on whether this is deliberate.

Have I said we should stop opposing abortion legally or ignore it?

Most of your comments have been geared towards undercutting the importance of making it illegal. I see it being used as justification for not considering it the important issue when voting. If I’m wrong here just tell me and I’ll apologize. In my opinion I’m seeing it being used as justification for voting pro-choice and holding a position that undercuts that of the American Bishops.

How can we simultaneously accept something and find other ways to combat it? Your argument is conceivably confusing even yourself.

People try to say they accept the legality/promoting of it while still opposing it morally. People do it all the time as they site separation of Church and State and not thrusting their morals on other people and so on. I find this position to be absurd and essentially the same as living a double life. While we may permit evil to exist we cannot ever in good conscience be ok allowing evil to be promoted.

 

[3xblessed]

It’s true that the institution of marriage goes back to the very beginnings of civilization.
Yet, no society, throughout those past millenia, has ever recognized marriage as other than between man and woman. Until now.

Many societies have tolerated homosexual behavior. None have recognized it as marriage. It’s obvious; marriage can’t be marriage when no marital intercourse is possible. Homosexual marriage generates no future citizens, no taxpayers. And societies do have an interest in continued existence.

But do you really believe that if you continue to make gay marriage illegal, all those people currently identifying as gay will marry opposite-sex partners instead and produce children? I don’t, and therefore that argument doesn’t really make sense to me. Even the Catholic church acknowledges that people are born gay and should lead chaste lives, which is why I don’t expect our church to ever accept gay marriage. But for the rest of society, who doesn’t believe in chastity in general, I don’t see any benefit to prohibiting gay marriage. True Catholics will never want to be in a gay marriage, so we have nothing to worry about in that regard. But if you agree with our church that gay people are born that way, which I do, prohibiting them from getting married will do nothing to increase the birth rate. It would just decrease the likelihood that they would be promiscuous in their behaviors.

 

[sw85]

Society ought to be structured in such a way that accepts and mirrors reality.

Gay “marriage” is an ontological error, just like divorce – there are no such things.

Therefore, society ought to structure itself in such a way that absurdities like gay “marriage” and divorce are not tolerated.

The point is not about saving souls. It’s about having a sound and healthy social order.