How can you be Democratic and also be Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter itstymyguy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rau said:
The church’s condemnation of governments for “failing to declare abortion illegal“ is a prudential judgement about the better policy choice. A journey needs to start from the present location, and more than a wave of the arm is required to arrive at the destination.
Click to expand...
It is true that a legislator may vote for a law that restricts abortion if no law banning it is possible, but this is in no way a prudential judgment. This is the necessary distinction to understand about what the church does and does not teach as it pertains to civil laws.

Support for a less restrictive law against a more restrictive one is not an option if our belief is simply that it is better policy. That prudential choice regarding abortion is not allowed.

Laws which authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia are therefore radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but also to the common good; as such they are completely lacking in authentic juridical validity. (EV 72)

Such explicit a prohibition is not applied to most other political issues where prudential judgments are not only permitted but are in fact demanded.
There is no doubt that the law ought move in a direction more compatible with the respect owed to human life. How to bring that about is a very challenging question.
Click to expand...
The “how to” of any issue is a problem. The difference with abortion is that certain solutions are prohibited. Laws may legitimately be enacted increasing or decreasing the minimum wage, increasing or decreasing immigration…but not increasing or decreasing the availability of abortion. Whatever we may think of the usefulness of laws we may not support laws maintaining the status quo with regard to abortion.
There is no question that Democrat convictions around abortion should be unacceptable to Catholics. This does not itself demand a vote a vote for Republicans as some believe.
Click to expand...
And that’s the question, to which the common answer seems more rationalization than explanation. It is undeniable that voting for a pro-abortion candidate constitutes remote cooperation with grave evil, cooperation that admittedly can be legitimate. LeafbyNiggle gave the example of opposing what one considered an existential threat to the nation, which I agree would seem to be valid justification. What was not presented was any explanation of what such a threat would look like today.
 
Ender said:
Whatever we may think of the usefulness of laws we may not support laws maintaining the status quo with regard to abortion.
Click to expand...
The question I highlighted was whether it would be wise for the law to make abortion illegal - logically to equate it to murder. I am not so sure that in 2020, that law change would be wise.
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
Support for a less restrictive law against a more restrictive one is not an option if our belief is simply that it is better policy. That prudential choice regarding abortion is not allowed.
Click to expand...
This might be true at the low end of restrictiveness. But I don’t this this holds as a generalization all the way into the high end of restrictiveness. What I mean is that if you have hypothetically two proposals, both of which make abortion illegal. But one of the proposals makes it punishable by a $1000 fine, while the other one makes it punishable by death for anyone complicit, including the mother. I think a reasonable person and a faithful Catholic could, in this instance, actually support the less restrictive proposal.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
I think a reasonable person and a faithful Catholic could, in this instance, actually support the less restrictive proposal.
Click to expand...
And tying things back into the OP, there is no Democrat currently running for office federal office that supports any legislation on restricting access to abortion, much less the legality. Indeed, they are proposing its expansion including federal funding.

Even a thoroughly red state like Idaho, the Democrat nominee is stridently pro-“choice.” She is proud of the pro-abortion Emily’s List endorsement and her state voting record is strongly pro-“choice.”

Or what about a state that hasn’t gone blue in since before Nixon–Kansas. Barbara Bollier has an even more extreme pro-“choice” position. Her very own campaign website considers “choice” a priority issue asserting that access to abortion is basic healthcare.

Even in strong red states, the Democrats are not moderating their positions. The Democrats–nationwide!–are all in for abortion. There’s not a hint of any restrictions.
 
Last edited:
Lol, covetousness…whilst I have many, many faults, this isn’t one of them. And I don’t need to see individual tax documents; the collective loss of tax dollars from changes to the tax system for the wealthy is enough. I understand you disagree. But the wealth gap and oligarchy we’re currently experiencing has been decades in the making.
 
farronwolf said:
Women argued for the right to have abortions. Not the government. Women will continue to get abortions whether or not the government allows it to remain legal. To say that the government or a political party is to blame for these sins is absolute nonsense.
Click to expand...
When murder is a crime - especially when justice is not delayed, and is commensurate with the crime - murders are at least minimized. When murder is not a crime, murders increase. (witness Nazi Germany, gov. approval of mass extermination of Jews, and murders of uncooperative religious people, and homosexuals, and any other enemies of the state. Now, witness the “modern” Neo-barbaric “civilized” world, legalizing murder of the unborn and just-barely-born.

Take this into prayer with you. Ask God what He thinks of our “justice” to the children He HAD entrusted to us. Innocent little human babies are being killed. Add this to your time in prayer.
In 2017, approximately 18% of U.S. pregnancies (excluding spontaneous miscarriages) ended in abortion.1
According to the United Nations’ 2013 report, only nine countries in the world have a higher reported abortion rate than the United States. They are: Bulgaria, Cuba, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Romania, Russia, Sweden, and Ukraine.*
*Though the UN lists China’s official abortion rate at 19.2, China’s actual abortion rate is likely much higher. According to China’s 2010 census, there were approximately 310 million women of reproductive age in the country. An estimated 13-23 million abortions happen annually in China, resulting in an adjusted abortion rate of 41.9-74.2. The abortion rate is the number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44.
> In 2017, the highest percentage of pregnancies were aborted in the District of Columbia (37%), New Jersey (32%), and New York (31%). The lowest percentage of pregnancies were aborted in Idaho (5%), South Dakota (4%), and Wyoming (2%). (AGI abortion data + CDC birth data).
In 2016, approximately 34% of all pregnancies in New York City (excluding spontaneous miscarriages) ended in abortion (CDC).
…
Click to expand...
 
phil3 said:
I dont know about you, but most people have x amount of dollars to spend on entertainment
Click to expand...
But there are many people who would never darken the door of, for example, a movie theater (or even attend a minor league baseball game), but will spend hundreds of dollars a month or even week to attend a live MLB game or other professional sporting event if it is near enough to where they live. So no there isn’t actually a fixed “entertainment” budget for all forms of entertainment for all people in a given area that can only be shuffled around from one venue to another.
 
NevermoreLenore said:
Lol, covetousness…whilst I have many, many faults, this isn’t one of them. And I don’t need to see individual tax documents; the collective loss of tax dollars from changes to the tax system for the wealthy is enough. I understand you disagree. But the wealth gap and oligarchy we’re currently experiencing has been decades in the making.
Click to expand...
The middle class also got a tax cut. But regardless, the biggest “tax cut” of all is the exportation of jobs to foreign countries and the loss of income resulting from it. Trump has turned some of that around, but it’s going to take a lot more.

The Democrats are “globalists” who don’t mind exporting American jobs. Can you really expect Biden, who has sold this country out to China more than once before, to change that?
 
I think at this point we are beyond Republican/Democrat. We are talking about the survival of our democracy.
 
27lw said:
Yeah, we’re not a democracy. We’re a democratic republic.
Click to expand...
So, your own link says we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy. In common parlance, we are a democracy.
 
PaulinVA said:
40.png
27lw:
Yeah, we’re not a democracy. We’re a democratic republic.
Click to expand...
So, your own link says we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy. In common parlance, we are a democracy.
Click to expand...
Representative democracy we are, “pure” democracy we ain’t. I wonder which one Shakuhachi meant when he said he is worried about "our democracy’?

 
Last edited:
27lw said:
Representative democracy we are, “pure” democracy we ain’t. I wonder which one Shakuhachi meant when he said he is worried about "our democracy’?
Click to expand...
I think in everyday conversation the difference is more pedantic than useful.

Yes, if you know your Pledge of Allegiance you know it’s a Republic. But, I generally overlook the distinction between the terms and look to what the speaker is trying to convey . @Shakuhachi could have just as easily said, “…the survival of the American experiment” and I would have gotten the point.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I found this to be helpful.

A republic is a type of democracy.
 
Shakuhachi said:
I think at this point we are beyond Republican/Democrat. We are talking about the survival of our democracy.
Click to expand...
I think at this point we are beyond Republican/Democrat. We are talking about the survival of our republic.

I think @Shakuhachi had it right, but I can accept republic as long as it is understood as a republic “conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.“ and that it is “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” That is how Lincoln described our country in the Gettysburg Address, and it sounds like democracy to me.
 
If it excites the left to get out and vote, and to make sure the votes are counted fairly, then that’s a good thing!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top