Father James Altman: You cannot be Catholic & a Democrat. Period

[Ridgerunner]

Some will argue for a different method of getting to the goal, but I almost never see anyone (on this forum as opposed to in real life) saying that abortion is just fine and shouldn’t even be an issue.

Nobody ever says they like abortion, though Obama came close. But the endless excuses for doing nothing are a pretty good indication that a lot of people, including a lot of Catholics, aren’t really opposed to abortion as a practical matter.

I do think we have been failed by a lot of Catholic churchmen. What an embarrassment that in the Bush vs. Kerry election, protestant Bush was the prolife candidate and Catholic Kerry was the pro-abortion candidate. How, one might wonder, did it ever come to that?

Truthfully, I think it resulted from the soft-pedaling of the issue done by churchmen or sometimes the outright countenancing of it. Yes, one may think laymen shouldn’t speak of abortion supporting as a mortal sin. But when the churchmen don’t though they know it is, they have left it to laypeople by default.

But when most people know what abortion is, (and I believe most do) the only appeal left is to conscience.The truth can be put more appealingly or less so, but it will always be an offense to the comfort of one who supports abortion and its politicians.

 

[Ridgerunner]

And that is my point. How much actual control does the President have on abortion, versus what control he/she has on other issues, such as setting the tone of the country, following laws, working within the confines of checks and balances. How much does personal character weigh in this?

One’s judgment of a candidate’s personal character is of no relevance. What matters is what the person does in office. The president has perhaps the most control of anyone when it comes to abortion because a Supreme Court ruling is what stands in the way of much more significant limitations or, in some states, outright banning of the practice.

And the president appoints the justices. So yes, it matters a lot. A vote for Biden is a vote for a pro-abortionist next Supreme Court appointment, and perhaps more than one. Consequently a vote for Biden is a vote for abortion.

 

[whatistrue]

One’s judgment of a candidate’s personal character is of no relevance.

On that we absolutely disagree. A person with no character cannot be trusted to even follow the oath of office, much less do what they promised during the campaign.

 

[fide]

Nobody ever says they like abortion, though Obama came close. But the endless excuses for doing nothing are a pretty good indication that a lot of people, including a lot of Catholics, aren’t really opposed to abortion as a practical matter.

How about our Democrat Speaker of the House, who shepherds the House Democrats into one voice in unison against anything Trump? To quote an article, showing how her “faith” guides her “conscience”:

Asked why she refuses to support a bill banning late-term abortions, Pelosi said: “As a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me…. This shouldn’t have anything to do with politics.”

Right. Of course. A common point in liberal theology: complete separation of morality from life. Makes perfect sense (for anyone with no morality at all).

 

[billsherman]

There should seriously be a moratorium on this topic. At least limit it to one thread.

 

[Ridgerunner]

On that we absolutely disagree.

Actually we probably do agree. Since you know nothing of Trump’s personal character, your assertion is completely abstract. I agree with it as an abstract principle as well.

I don’t doubt Trump at least attempted to do what he promised in the campaign. A great deal of it has been accomplished.

 

[whatistrue]

Since you know nothing of Trump’s personal character,

I go by what I have seen and I do think I have an idea of Trump’s character based on his public behavior.

 

[Baho]

I think the event of a Catholic priest speaking out in such a way and subjecting himself to potential disciplinary action is separate from CAF members discussing whether or not you can be Catholic and a Dem. This thread is specifically for this event, which I personally feel is one of the most uplifting and morally courageous things I’ve seen since coming to faith, and therefore worth of being individually recognized.

 

[Victoria33]

The demographics of abortion would seem to be very much against the poor.

Planned Parenthood clinics more prevalent in minority neighborhoods.

As long as life is seen as disposable, these communities will not improve and some signs say it will get worse.

45 years, where is the improvement?

 

[DisorientingSneeze]

Does it matter who we vote for? Yes.

Is political policy the only angle to take in the fight against abortion? No

The prolife movement isn’t just votes and protestors and marches. It’s car seats and formula for those who can’t afford it. It’s food pantries and adoption agencies. It’s healing retreats for those whose hearts are scarred by what they did. It’s job placement programs for people who feel trapped in the abortion industry and counseling for the scars they carry in their hearts. It is Love.

The battleground is individual hearts. The Kingdom is hearts! There is a huge difference between voting for a democrat because you felt that was the better choice that particular election and saying that abortion is in any way acceptable.

 

[Baho]

They could not reasonably conclude that. Sorry.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I go by what I have seen and I do think I have an idea of Trump’s character based on his public behavior.

Oh, because he’s rude to people who want his head? Harry Truman was the same way, threatening to punch out reporters who were critical of him. LBJ was a thousand times more rude in every way there was to be rude.

You don’t know the character of the man.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Is political policy the only angle to take in the fight against abortion? No

But according to the U.S. bishops, it’s the “preeminent” issue. So…

It’s car seats and formula for those who can’t afford it. It’s food pantries and adoption agencies. It’s healing retreats for those whose hearts are scarred by what they did. It’s job placement programs for people who feel trapped in the abortion industry and counseling for the scars they carry in their hearts. It is Love.

Not one of which the government provides or will.

There is a huge difference between voting for a democrat because you felt that was the better choice that particular election and saying that abortion is in any way acceptable.

Not really. If you support abortion with your vote, you’re supporting abortion. Period.

 

[whatistrue]

Oh, because he’s rude to people who want his head?

No, because he lies blatantly and repeatedly and is vindictive to people who simply don’t give him the abject submission he appears to crave. Seems like I might have a pretty good handle on it after all. Can’t speak to Harry Truman on those matters, but I remember LBJ and I would never have voted for him either.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No, because he lies blatantly and repeatedly

The MSM says this mostly when there is a mere difference of opinion. And the MSM lies about Trump all the time.

He is vindictive? In what way other than verbally, and to whom other than to the powerful? We could use more “vindictiveness” if that’s the case.

Seems like I might have a pretty good handle on it after all

you have a very good handle on what the media liberals tell you.

 

[DisorientingSneeze]

Not one of which the government provides or will.

No. My point is that the people who vote for this candidate or that one may still be personally and purposely very involved in charities and boots on the ground actions and ministries that reduce abortions.

 

[MikeInVA]

All this just comes down to whether one wants to be a single-issue voter, or choose their candidate in a variety of ways.

So, would it be acceptable to vote for a white supremacist who wants to reduce crime, improve public education, safeguard individual freedoms and lower taxes?

For the record, I am not endorsing any such person, this is a hypothetical question.

 

[whatistrue]

The MSM says this mostly when there is a mere difference of opinion

I am talking about verified fact checking, not mere opinion, and the fact that DJT has a new category all to himself where he has repeated 14 blatant lies more than 20 times each, even after being called on it. Odd that the one who cries “fake news” the most generates the most of it.

And of course the use of MSM is telling all by itself. You can’t honestly tell me that the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post are always on the same page editorially, at least not with a straight face. And remember that editorial opinion and news reporting are separated at the good papers.

He is vindictive?

Trying to get a reporter for Fox fired because she told the truth in a report? Yes, vindictive.

media liberals tell you.

I look at solid verifiable fact, not liberal or conservative hit pieces.

 

[DisorientingSneeze]

So, would it be acceptable to vote for a white supremacist who wants to reduce crime, improve public education, safeguard individual freedoms and lower taxes?

For the record, I am not endorsing any such person, this is a hypothetical question.

I’d have a hard time voting for that candidate, but I tend to explore third parties when I just can’t get behind my main choices.

For people who insist you must vote for one of the two big parties, the answer to your hypothetical is probably it depends just how bad the other guy is.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Fr. Altman also has the problem that the Dem candidate is a practicing Catholic, goes to Mass, receives Holy Communion (at least in his own diocese), and was just captured on video/ photos last week visiting his parish church located about 5 minutes from his house where his former wife and two of his kids are buried in the church’s Catholic cemetery.

I don’t think the American Communist Party has such a candidate in the public eye.