This is a charitable suggestion. Unfortunately many of these 5th column “Cafeteria” Catholics consider themselves “free thinkers” who know better than the Magisterium when it comes to some issues, such as abortion and same sex “marriage.” They will argue that Obama will do more for the poor, and therefore voting for him is a higher moral imperative than voting against abortion and same sex “marriage.” This begs the question, however- what exactly is it that Obama has done for the poor?
Better that the heterodox should leave the Church, if they cannot amend their thinking. The Church can get along just fine without them and their “modernism.”
We’ve heard the nonsense about “getting with the times” for 2000 years. There’s always going to be an elite and a bunch of wannabe-elites who think they know what is best for everyone and really just want to leave their mark in history and/or feel good. They think they have their cake and eat it too, ie rub elbows with hollywood stars and be seen as Mother Teresa.
It’s no wonder why Jesus wasted no time on trying to convince them and reached out to sinners instead.
I think it’s fair to say a lot of the motives for being cafeteria Catholic come more from selfishness than from vincible and invincible ignorance, especially in adults.
I should say it’s quite amazing that so many Christians and Abrahamic faith members throw up excuses and screens thinking people are actually fooled by their real motives and goals, but when you study history, it’s just more of the same.
People who write on the internet aren’t as opaque as they’d like to think and careful, experienced observers will note certain behavioral patterns…
I really can’t say more or give specific examples because of the rules, and I think that each post or case has its own situation.
Voting is a good example of this. I voted for Romney and made no secret of that on here. I voted for him knowing that he was not ideal because some of policies were not exactly in line with RCC teaching, but I also knew that our mission would be more difficult with another four years of this president and this administration. I did vote for Romney perhaps mainly to get rid of ObamaCare, which could be a more or less selfish motive, but I also saw flexibility in Church teaching that voting for Goode or something like WRITE-IN: Timothy Dolan would mean I would be helping Obama win with the gift of understanding how these can turn out, which means zero chance for Third-Party.
However, I also have a prediction that Virgil Goode and Gary Johnson and even some Obama voters won’t be feeling too good after a while, and will find out that purist principles in the voting booth in political races (I’m not talking about amendments and levies) can be quite costly.
And this whole notion of “helping the poor” sounds to me in most cases to be total hogwash and a cover story for other motives. People who want to help the poor just go out and do it. They don’t worry about if they are giving more than their neighbor or how they might look in the faculty lounge, at the water cooler, at a PTA meeting or at Thanksgiving dinner.
It is ridiculous at the priorities that some American voters have, and yes, it shows and I know about it.
And it seems that you and I understand big government doesn’t help the poor. It would be something even to begin to tell you about how “good intentions” from EurAsia and North American made poverty in Africa skyrocket or that the “war on poverty” hasn’t made a dent in the rates (they’ve ticked up) after 16 trillion dollars.
When Reagen cut the marginal tax rates, he doubled the revenue to government, and because people had more of their own money and supreme confidence in the economy, over 16 million new jobs were created and charitable giving soared. Reagen even increased spending on family programs by 18%.
Conservatism helps poor people by flowing along with natural law and human psychology and motive.
Liberalism always, always goes against the grain and requires people to make sacrifices that are often involuntary and forced.