Do you have to be a Republican to be Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 3xblessed
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
3xblessed said:
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.
Click to expand...
First, gay marriage is simply not marriage. It cannot be marriage, since no marital relations are possible. It would simply be the conferring of state benefits upon an alternative lifestyle, and there is no benefit to society in that.

There is a benefit to society in recognizing and promoting actual marriage, from which comes the next generation of citizens and taxpayers. Society depends upon families to raise the next generation of children, and no, two dads are not as good as mom and dad.

The more the state devalues real marriage–and recognizing gay marriage does do that–the more it finds itself taking on the role of parent, and Uncle Sam is not a great dad. Real marriage builds up society. Fake marriage–including cohabitation–tears it down.
 
Nate13 said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...
Stick with me long enough and you will find that my views are my own. The post you were responding to was addressing specific points raised by another poster after I’d questioned the evidence for effectiveness of legislation in curbing abortion. The point is not whether those statements undercut any position but whether they are, to the best of my knowledge, true. That they are.

You will find that I’m fond of seeking the evidence behind things that are commonly assumed, as experience has taught me that ‘common wisdom’ is sometimes not so wise.
 
christofirst said:
There are pro-life democrats.

democratsforlife.org

We should not give up on them.
Click to expand...
Thank you for that link. You are right. 🙂 But I don’t see any politicians named on that website.

Also, what about the Democrat party platform inclusion of embryonic stem cell research, artificial birth control and technologies, and euthanasia? Is this group working to get legal abortion and all of the other issues OUT of the Democrat party platform?
 
Hi 3xBlessed,

To be honest, I find my faith struggles come most often after sparring with conservatives on CAF for a while. *They often provide useful advice but many provide poor example of what a true spiritual life looks like. *I say this mainly to give you faith that you are in the right church instead of believing their example represents the only acceptable way one can act in Catholic faith. *I find that sometimes I have to detach from CAF for a few days. *In doing so I always find the peace that drew me to Catholicism in the first place.

What I’m seeing from several others is mostly their own opinion political opinions drawn from church teachings. *For example, doctrine is against the act of homosexuality and homosexual marriage in a religious context. *After that, the church would like us to agree with their political stances against homosexuals but there’s no sin if you hold a different view. *Many conservative Catholics favored war in Iraq despite anti-war non-infallible teachings by the Pope. *They didn’t go to confession over it.

In the case of abortion, we all seem to agree that we want to see abortions end. *The doctrine makes it a sin to vote for a “pro-abortion” candidate. *This is to say we shouldn’t support those who actively want them to continue in society. *The reality is that nobody is really doing that because that would be pretty heartless. *The democratic party supports the right to chose which is different than being pro-abortion. *They are saying the choice is a difficult one and one must search their own heart. *Yes there are flaws to the idea of letting people make their own choice when the result is 1 million aborted babies a year but it’s a noticeable difference from “pro-abortion”? *On the flip side it’s very reasonable to be concerned about what “pro-life” would mean in the real world i.e. how many of the 1 million would not occur and what are the other consequences of such a path. *It’s an especially good concern to have that pro-life politicians wont follow-through on their promises. *We’re not encouraging abortions by voting against them, we are simply choosing which candidate we believe will most uphold the values we care about. *We are trying to boil down many complex. sensitive issues to a simple choice between two political candidates/parties.

As the election draws nearer, many on CAF will tell you you’re committing a sin by voting for Obama. *I’d bet very few Church officials will say that. *Instead they will encourage us to vote with our hearts, just like my RCIA director did in 2000.

Cheers
 
seekerz said:
Stick with me long enough and you will find that my views are my own. The post you were responding to was addressing specific points raised by another poster after I’d questioned the evidence for effectiveness of legislation in curbing abortion. The point is not whether those statements undercut any position but whether they are, to the best of my knowledge, true. That they are.

You will find that I’m fond of seeking the evidence behind things that are commonly assumed, as experience has taught me that ‘common wisdom’ is sometimes not so wise.
Click to expand...
There is a point at which a person becomes like Thomas and needs to stick their hand in Jesus’ side before they believe him.
 
TheRealJuliane said:
Thank you for that link. You are right. 🙂 But I don’t see any politicians named on that website.

Also, what about the Democrat party platform inclusion of embryonic stem cell research, artificial birth control and technologies, and euthanasia? Is this group working to get legal abortion and all of the other issues OUT of the Democrat party platform?
Click to expand...
There are more than you might think (certainly more than I ever thought!)

democratsforlife.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=45&Itemid=227

As to all of the other important issues you bring up, I can not say. But its a start in the right direction. It will not help with the presidential election we are now facing, I know. That said, I’m none too impressed with the current frontrunner (Romney)'s pro-life record thus far. He says he has changed. Politicians say a lot of things.
 
3xblessed said:
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.
Click to expand...
No you don’t have to be Republican, and no, the Church hasn’t taken a hard right. What’s happened is that society has taken a hard left, which makes it appear as though the Church has taken a hard right. What you have to do is look at Papal Encyclicals and the Catechism, along with what the USCCB has on their website, and agree with those (although the USCCB isn’t required to believe, but I find it helpful). Those views are often more toward the center of the political spectrum than what you’ll find here. This site is much more conservative than what I’d expect is average for a Catholic. So yeah, you can keep your views, but you just can’t be against Church teaching. The problem is Democrats as a whole have taken a 180 for the worst, which is why many faithful Catholics seem to be Republican.
 
Nate13 said:
There is a point at which a person becomes like Thomas and needs to stick their hand in Jesus’ side before they believe him.
Click to expand...
No need to stick my hand in His side. The testimony of reliable witnesses is enough for me, emphasis on “reliable” and “witnesses”.
 
I see that a resident Liberal / Atheist lurker showed up and posted the usual
nonsense about religion having “made up” God.

I will not even dignify that person’s remarks with replies.

I take seriously, and agree 100% with the scripture that states boldly,

Only the fool sayeth, THERE IS NO GOD.

And “fool” in this context isn’t referring to somebody who makes
really dumb mistakes, no matter how many.
The original Hebrew term, I learned many years ago when studying,
connotes a person who has become morally worthless.

I hope that our lurker hasn’t stooped that low.
But arguing for any ol’ “social change” is rather specious.
And yes, both men indulging in sodomy are victims.
They are MISUSING each other’s bodies in ways that are contrary to nature.
An organ intended solely for solid waste elimination, and very very easy
to damage and cause internal hemorrhaging of, is being used as a substitute
for the vaginal canal.
They may be doing it with “mutual consent,” but what they are doing,
whether willing to face it or not, is molesting each other.
 
sw85 said:
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.
Click to expand...
My take on “ontology” is that it concerns itself with the nature of existence, so these things could not be “ontological errors” because they do, in fact, exist. Please, explain what you mean by your statement.
 
I believe that a Catholic should be Catholic. Not Liberal or Republican; because neither concentrates on the true doctrines of Catholicism, thus, it makes them flawed.

If we are to say we had a political ideal, we should say Catholic. My :twocents:.

-Karl
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
I see that a resident Liberal / Atheist lurker showed up and posted the usual
nonsense about religion having “made up” God.

I will not even dignify that person’s remarks with replies.

I take seriously, and agree 100% with the scripture that states boldly,

Only the fool sayeth, THERE IS NO GOD.

And “fool” in this context isn’t referring to somebody who makes
really dumb mistakes, no matter how many.
The original Hebrew term, I learned many years ago when studying,
connotes a person who has become morally worthless.

I hope that our lurker hasn’t stooped that low.
But arguing for any ol’ “social change” is rather specious.
And yes, both men indulging in sodomy are victims.
They are MISUSING each other’s bodies in ways that are contrary to nature.
An organ intended solely for solid waste elimination, and very very easy
to damage and cause internal hemorrhaging of, is being used as a substitute
for the vaginal canal.
They may be doing it with “mutual consent,” but what they are doing,
whether willing to face it or not, is molesting each other.
Click to expand...
Ahh… but you did reply. So you contradict yourself. Not that it matters.

Something else needs correction, a “lurker” in blog and internet parlance is someone who lurks, which means someone who just reads posts and hangs out, but does not post or participate in discussions.

It may be that there is a supernatural being that Catholics call God. This can neither be proved, nor disproved. But the concept of this God, is purely a human invention, which is why it differs from one religion to the other.

The burden is on you to show that your version of God is somehow better, or more accurate, or more relevant, than any other religion’s, or of the perspective which rejects the notion entirely. I say that you can’t do it.
 
Leontes said:
Ahh… but you did reply. So you contradict yourself. Not that it matters.

Something else needs correction, a “lurker” in blog and internet parlance is someone who lurks, which means someone who just reads posts and hangs out, but does not post or participate in discussions.

It may be that there is a supernatural being that Catholics call God. This can neither be proved, nor disproved. But the concept of this God, is purely a human invention, which is why it differs from one religion to the other.

The burden is on you to show that your version of God is somehow better, or more accurate, or more relevant, than any other religion’s, or of the perspective which rejects the notion entirely. I say that you can’t do it.
Click to expand...
Errr… That nearly slipped past me. NO. Same sex activity between consenting adults is not victimization. It is consensual sex/

Now… priests raping boys, that is victimization, not because is was sodomy, but because it was a person in authority using that authority to victimize a child. An institution which hid and enabled the behavior, and refused to cooperate as recently as last year with legal authorities is victimization. Do you understand the difference? The Catholic Church is on quicksand if it wants to bring up the topic of sexual victimization. Even after it all came out and was exposed, the Church continued to behave in the same manner by claiming “diplomatic immunity” against prosecutors who were trying to help children, and to prosecute perps in the Church.

We must all sadly concur that Benedict XVI has enabled child rapists. He has taken measures to discriminate against gay priests, which is not a solution to the child rape problem. But he has failed when it comes to accepting responsibility in the secular world. This would mean doing things like cooperating with law enforcement, paying victims restitution, rather than fighting them, and so on. The Church spirals into its own oblivian as it spurns the actual world.

If the Church hopes to become significant again, then it must reject conservatism, bigotry, and denial. It must become a morally upstanding influence, as challenging as that may seem as low as it has sunk. Redemption is possible for the Church, as implausible as that sounds.
 
Leontes said:
My take on “ontology” is that it concerns itself with the nature of existence, so these things could not be “ontological errors” because they do, in fact, exist. Please, explain what you mean by your statement.
Click to expand...
I suppose it depends by what you mean with respects to “exists.”

If by “divorce exists” you mean “there are individuals who claim to be divorced,” then yes, “divorce exists.”

If, on the other hand, you mean “it is possible to dissolve the marital bond,” then no, it does not exist. Because no such thing is possible.

Divorce is an ontological error. It is a metaphysical impossibility. Marriages are by nature incapable of dissolution by anything short of the death of a partner. (Even annulment is not dissolution of marriage, simply the recognition that there was no marriage in the first place). You can go to the courthouse and get a slip of paper saying you’re “divorced” and move out and never speak to one another again but the marital bond is, by definition, lifelong. If it isn’t, it was never a marriage in the first place.
 
3xblessed said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don’t think either party is anti war or anti death penalty.

Republicans do care about the poor, they just have different ideas on how to care and lift people out of poverty, than Democrats do. Democrats talk about caring for the poor, but what have they actually done to help the poor? Most Democrats oppose school vouchers, which Republicans support, which have helped inner city kids get a better education.

Catholics can have varying opinions on tax, climate change, welfare. But not on protecting life from conception to natural death; protecting marriage between a man and a woman - these are not principals that the Democrat party supports. Look at Obama and most Democrats trying to force Catholic and other religious institutions to pay for birth control, sterilization and abortificants in the HHS mandate.
 
One fact to point out is that it was a republican supreme court who passed Roe v. Wade. Now a days the republican party stands against abortion, but one has to wonder if that is just a forum candidates run on. Bush was in office for 8 years. Did he try overturning abortion?? He did lead us into wars that we couldn’t afford into places that we shouldn’t have been.

One thing I have also realized is that the democratic party of my parents is gone. The democrats now a days are way to liberal. I am way to conservative in my views to consider myself democrat, however I do believe in helping the poor by way of social programs though I also know those are abused.
 
Nope, you don’t have to be a republican. The republican party makes me sick rather often. But you can’t be a Democrat anymore. Seriously. Abortion and sexual license are their most sacred principles, ones that they will cast ANY of their other supposed constituencies aside for. The Obamacare debacle is a prime example: they are more interested in making it a Trojan horse for their abortion contraception base than actually increasing access to real health care.

If you think voting Dem is helping with social justice, you’re falling for some really shallow PR. Vote independent, vote Green, vote libertarian. But don’t vote for the party of death. I say that sadly as someone who is open to New Deal type government policies, but nobody runs on a plank like that anymore. It’s all subordinate to the culture of death.
 
3xblessed said:
Although I don’t know hazmat, I’m inclined to agree. I think that the Republicans know that millions of people vote for them solely because of the abortion issue, and if abortion is overturned, then they are no longer guaranteed all those votes. Keeping that ability to say they’re “pro-life” is a very powerful bargaining chip, and I think the reason they haven’t tried hard to overturn Roe v. Wade yet is because they don’t want to give up those votes.

However I do have to also say that this tangent kind of ties into my whole point: abortion is truly a very important issue, but it bothers me that it seems to be all we talk about as Catholics. There have to be other issues that we stand for, too.
Click to expand...
I usually think this with the homosexual argument, not the abortion one, but I know what you mean. I wish Catholics would fight against human trafficking / child soldiers / abject poverty / etc. as they do other issues! And I don’t mean with the special collections at church - but in their daily lives!

Also - I never realized how much of the strength of the Republican Party lies in being pro-life - this make a lot of sense. Thanks for pointing it out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top