If a Catholic becomes a politician in the US, which party should he associate himself with?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zynxensar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nowadays, that’s true. However, that wasn’t technically the case back then. Take John F. Kennedy. He was not only a Democrat with conservative (Republican) stances, but he was a Roman Catholic. In this sense, it’s not a question of which party; it’s a question of which stances to take, and we vote based on that, not solely based on party.
 
MaryEstelle2 said:
I will backtrack a little by stating that an active priest should really not consider politics. If he is active he hardly has time for anything else other than the priesthood. There was a Jesuit that went to Congress 30 years ago but I think he at some time left the priesthood. You"can’t serve two masters."
Click to expand...
Fr Robert Drinian, SJ, served in Congress in the 70’s and 80’s, as the Democratic representative from Massachusetts. But in 1980, Pope John Paul 11 demanded that all clergy cease serving as elected governmental officials, so Fr Drinian served out his term and did not run again.

He never left the priesthood. He instead left politics for a life in academia at Georgetown University.

Another RC priest also served in the House until the expulsion, Fr Robert Cornell, from Wisconsin.

Just a note about Fr Drinian… he was adamantly pro-choice. An interesting article from 2009 speaks of Catholic clergy, ethicists, and politicians coming together:

" Mr. Jonsen writes that the Hyannisport colloquium was influenced by the position of another Jesuit, the Rev. John Courtney Murray, a position that “distinguished between the moral aspects of an issue and the feasibility of enacting legislation about that issue.” It was the consensus at the Hyannisport conclave that Catholic politicians “might tolerate legislation that would permit abortion under certain circumstances if political efforts to repress this moral error led to greater perils to social peace and order.”

https://web.archive.org/web/2009010...086375678148323.html?mod=rss_Leisure_and_Arts

Anyway, that is just a sidetrack. The point is that there were clergy in the House of Representatives until the Pope pulled them out and both were Democrats.
 
Thanks for the information. I didn’t know some of that and was trying to rely on my memory. Peace.
 
I’d take on the plight of being a pro-life moderate Democrat. I agree with them on economics, foreign policy, the environment, and immigration.
 
How do you and others on this thread who are advocating for being a Pro-Life Democrat in order to run for public office, justify joining a Party with a written platform that is not only Pro-Choice, but decidedly Pro-Choice?

The Democrat Party written platform does not give the option of being pro-life, and in recent months, leading Democrats have announced that there is no room in the Party for those who are pro-life. When listening to or reading articles by the leading Democrats who currently hold office or who have held office in the past, it is blindingly obvious that the Party is totally, completely pro-choice.

Not only is the Party pro-choice, but some of the most extreme pro-abortion policies have been touted by the Democrat Party. In our State, Sen.Barack Obama was the ONLY one to vote "yea’ for the odious Partial-Birth Abortion bill! And he was still selected by the Party as the Democratic Party candidate for two terms! There was no condemnation of Sen. Obama by his Party or indeed, by any Democrats who have a public voice.

Back when my husband and I were Protestant (1970s-1990s) and therefore, often on a “church search,” we visited a lot of churches that were very involved with helping the poor, advocating for peace in the world, and supporting educational policies that helped minorities. These were all fine and we felt comfortable. Even divorce was something that, back then, we could find it in our hearts to sympathize with. (Even today, we would be extremely hesitant to say anything negative about someone’s divorce.) We were uncomfortable with statements supporting feminism, but we could go along with it as long as the church did not have women senior pastors (the pastor in charge).

Then we would study the churches’ Statements of Faith and find written statements supporting pro-choice laws, pro-homosexual relationships, and even pro-homosexual marriage.

And that was it. We would not join in churches wit these statements. We would not attend these churches or get involved with any of their ministries, even if we felt comfortable with the ministries (e.g., teaching children). We would continue to be friendly with their members, but we ourselves would not be formally associated with these churches.

We could not associate in a formal way with any organizations that supported abortion and that justified homosexual activity.

Yet you and others seem to be saying that it would be OK for a Catholic to join (not just vote for candidates, but actually JOIN) a political Party that advocates, in their written platform, the practice of abortion.

I don’t understand this. Could you and/or the others please explain? Thanks.
 
Since neither of the two major parties has much respect for freedom or the Constitution I would stay far away from either of them.
 
Horton said:
What evidence do you have to back up this claim? Not thoughts or feelings but evidence. And please don’t quote leftist liberal news as a source of evidence. Use unbiased research to prove your claim Republicans are only pro-birth.
Click to expand...
Healthcare, welfare, other social program cuts…just for starts.
 
I think it is rather clear that from an authoritative point of view there simply is no right answer to this question. The Church teaches morality, not politics. Therefore, joining any party is going to come with its own set of moral obstacles. I do not mean that it will be immoral to join either party, only that there will be issues on which you must take a stand that will make you distasteful to some of the people of your party.

My own opinion is that the road of a Catholic Democrat would be more difficult. There are too many parts of the country where that party is “all in” on abortion. Nationally, the party is also dedicated to this immoral issue, at least at this time.
 
Last edited:
Both parties in the US are dysfunctional. Both’s only real platform is that I’m not the other guy. If you lean Republican, you should be worried that a man like Trump can eviscerate them. That nearly happened to the Democrats with Bernie.

As for my opinion the the original question, parties should not guide your experience. Want guns and pro-life? vote Republican (®). Pro-abortion and pro LGBT? Vote Democrat (®). We’ve been taught to vote McDonald’s or Taco Bell; both are quick and require little thought. The additional problem today is that we’re being told to only order value meal 1 or 2.

We need to look for better restaurants and demand better food. In the current context we need to demand better than reality TV and the cheap feelings they engender.
 
I agree 100%. What is required is conversion to people back to Christ.
 
I would run as a Democrat. The Democratic party, at least in principle, does a wonderful job looking out for the poor and minorities but needs a greater infiltration of pro-lifers.
 
The problem is that it is hard to tell what will be taken as “liberal” and what will be taken as “unbiased”. Presumably, I could cite an academic source (not saying that there is one), but that may be taken as “liberal bias” from “academic elites”. Yes, I’ve had these conversations.

Besides, the “pro-life vs pro-birth” argument is mostly one of semantics, not academia. When I originally started seeing it, it was basically, “You say you don’t want abortion, and one way to get rid of abortion is to use contraceptives to prevent the pregnancy, but you are against contraceptives. You aren’t so much pro-life as pro-birth. Otherwise, you would support this way of preventing abortions.”

Catholics, obviously, are in fact against abortion and contraception, and there are still plenty of Evangelicals who are as well. (I actually first came across this through a group of pro-life Evangelicals who were against contraception.) The point isn’t a matter of research but semantics. Is it fair to say that we are “pro-birth” rather than “pro-life”? To some extent, it is barely worth responding to. It’s just the result of some pro-choicer(s) throwing a term and its underdeveloped argument into the liberal echo chamber to boost their prestige. Alternatively, we could own it, since birth is beautiful and, obviously, not mutually exclusive from life. It’s also not exactly hard to show how contraception fits within a life-focused framework, and failing that, we could always point out that we are against committing evil to prevent evil. That’s, of course, just a start.

But to move it to what Sister Chittister originally meant, that is a problem for a lot of pro-lifers today, especially in the Republican Party. Granted, I think saying they’re “pro-birth” is a bit much, since many still back other pro-life initiatives like resistance to stem-cell research, physician-assisted suicide, and euthanasia. But compared to the aforementioned Democrats for Life or American Solidarity Party, the Republican party doesn’t really have as consistent a pro-life stance if you take “pro-life” as meaning much more than just “anti-abortion”, which Catholic social teaching seems to do.
 
Pro-life Democrats are on the rise again. It’s a small start, but they’re fighting their way into prominence within the party. They’re the key to reform in the Democratic Party.
 
You pretty much answered your own question. Another option would be to become a politician in a more conservative third party, but you really wouldn’t have much political influence that way.
 
American Independent Party, Constitution Party, or one with a similar platform. Hopefully they’ll all merge real soon and put some pressure on the Republican Party.
I’m a paleoconservative. And if somebody doesn’t like that, tough! 😄
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top