Major stumbing block for prolife protestants

[Daniel_Marsh]

It is my impression that many catholics are demon-crats which is a major stumbling block to me.

How can a church that claims to be prolife not excommuicate demon-crat politicans who are pro-abortion?



The NT demonstrates that church discipline should not be as slow as the catholic church. So, I don’t buy the slow argument.

 

[1ke]

It is my impression that many catholics are demon-crats which is a major stumbling block to me.

Political party affiliation is not necessarily an endorsement of being pro-life or pro-abortion. Groups like “Democrats For Life” exist and there are pro-life Democrats in Congress.

Conversely, there are pro-abortion Republicans-- including front-runners like Rudy Guiliani. There are many Republicans who do not have a pro-life ethos even though their party claims to. And, what is more, the Republican party, who has had both houses of Congress AND the Presidency for 6 years has done NOTHING to help the pro-life cause. They could have done many MAJOR things, including pushing through the Human Life Amendment or legislation declaring life begins at conception-- but NO, they haven’t done a thing.

How can a church that claims to be prolife not excommuicate demon-crat politicans who are pro-abortion?

Excommunication is the last step in an juridic process-- review Canon Law for the specifics. It is meant to be a last resort, and the expectation is that it is so serious it will cause the person to repent and be reconciled to the Church.

The current climate of moral relativism, I believe, makes this once powerful tool of the church less relevant to todays dissenters and heretics. They don’t recognize or believe that excommunication condemns them.

Bishop Bruscowitz excommunicated several groups almost 20 years ago-- and those groups are still fighting it within the judicial system of the Catholic Church. They are not one bit repentant or remorseful and have made no steps to be reconciled to the Church. They also continue, business as usual, and call themselves Catholics.

The NT demonstrates that church discipline should not be as slow as the catholic church. So, I don’t buy the slow argument.

I disagree.

Protestant denominations have fared no better-- a large group of Protestant denominations now themselves embrace abortion, advocate for it, and support abortion politicians.

Protestantism is far from the pure, united pro-life powerhouse.

A pro-abortion Catholic is an example of dissent and heresy and personal sin.

A Protestant pro-abortion person, on the other hand, can actually be endorsing their denomination stand on abortion.

 

[joshua_b]

Part of this situation, too, is a result of the lack of orthodoxy and laxness of many bishops over the last 50 years or so. I think the Catholic Church is starting to see a “renewal” of sorts, and a return to enforcing it doctrines. We have seen lately (and I’m sure this is just a start) bishops refuse Holy Communion to pro-life “Catholic” politicians in their diocese. I know for a fact this happened to John Kerry when he visited the Archdiocese of St. Louis, and I think it happened in a few other places too.

 

[christianley]

It is my impression that many catholics are demon-crats which is a major stumbling block to me.

How can a church that claims to be prolife not excommuicate demon-crat politicans who are pro-abortion?



The NT demonstrates that church discipline should not be as slow as the catholic church. So, I don’t buy the slow argument.

This troubled me as well, but I became Catholic anyway. I am sure the Catholic Church will never change its stance on abortion and other life issues. I’m not so sure that is true of Protestants. I do wish they would tell Nancy Pelosi and other Catholic politicians (Democrat and Republican) that she is barred from the Eucharist until she changes her political stance on abortion, but that is not my call.

 

[Genesis315]

Traditionally, Catholic immigrants became Democrats for a lot of reasons. This was before the Democrats adopted all their wacky immoral social stances. Sometimes people just adopt the party of their parents. For the ambitious in the party, this means accepting the party-line on stuff like abortion. Thye sacrifice faith for political gain.

On the other hand, many Catholics who are democrats aer loyal to the Magesterium. My father regeistered as ademocrat basically because his parents were. He is still one, but honestly, he tends to vote Republican all of the time because they are moer in line with Catholic teaching on the non-negotiable moral issues.

 

[Allweather]

On the other hand, many Catholics who are democrats aer loyal to the Magesterium. My father regeistered as ademocrat basically because his parents were. He is still one, but honestly, he tends to vote Republican all of the time because they are moer in line with Catholic teaching on the non-negotiable moral issues.

I’m a very conservative Catholic who votes almost 100% Democrat all the time. Naturally, I’d prefer candidates who are solidly pro-life, but our political world is a lot more complex than can be allowed for by single-issue voting. Moreover, many, if not most, of the so-called “pro-life” Republicans allow for many exceptions to the rule, ie for rape and incest, which the Catholic Church finds offensive and indefensible, and so do I. So, when you get right down to it, there are almost no truly “pro-life” politicians in this country. Therefore, I look carefully at the candidates and select the ones that have a Catholic view of social issues, such as on poverty, war, education, corporate welfare, etc.

I do think that we should work hard in all available ways to get the laws changed, but we’ve got to be realistic: we live in a secularized society that isn’t going to gladly give up its abortion and stem cell research. There are other ways to provide a Christian witness than stomping our feet and insisting on laws. Voting for officials who say they are “pro-life” yet would still allow the murder of rape or incest babies is not being pro-life, it is being the pawn of murderous coalitions that want us at perpetual war, among other things.

 

[gam197]

originally posted by Daniel Marsh
It is my impression that many catholics are demon-crats which is a major stumbling block to me.

This is also an issue for conservative catholics. I was raised a democrat but switch in the 1970’s when I couldn’t find pro-life candidates for office. I also went to the statehouse and saw how th democrats voted on life issues. They vote as a block and 90% of democrat representatives vote against life issues in my state.

Many catholics have not witnesses this voting and when you tell them how democrats are responsible for things like putting the morning after pill over the counter, they want to blame Bush. Yes, he didn’t help one bit but it was the Hillary crowd who kept pushing and pushing till they got what they wanted. Misinformation is a big factor.

originally posted by** allweather**
I’m a very conservative Catholic who votes almost 100% Democrat all the time. Naturally, I’d prefer candidates who are solidly pro-life, but our political world is a lot more complex than can be allowed for by single-issue voting.

I have constantly been labelled a single issue voter but to me being born first is the most important issue, then we will worry about feeding these babies.

originally posted by allweather
I do think that we should work hard in all available ways to get the laws changed, but we’ve got to be realistic: we live in a secularized society that isn’t going to gladly give up its abortion and stem cell research.

No we don’t have to be realistic, we have to be Godly and believe that if we make the right choice, God will honor that and make a way.

For years, I have fought my democrat family. They hit me with justice usually and I hit back and life first then justice. I also try to educate by telling them what really is going. An example is the minimal wage. Yes, it went to $7.50; most people were already making that so now we will see what happens. Also the territory Guam was not included in the bill because of Nancy Pelosi’s district; Star Kist Tuna corporation is in California and does it operations out of Guam.

I’d love a third party like th Constitutional party but currently it has no ability to win. It is not even close. So I try to do the best I can trying to get more conservative Republicans elected

The Protestants may have harm people in ways but I think on voting for life, they have it right and been there even if it wasn’t intentional as many may have been business people voting their wallets.

 

[Legal_Eagle]

One thing that y’all seem to be overlooking is that life, while it begins at conception, does not end at birth. Everyone tends to focus on the “easy” pro-life issues like abortion and assisted suicide and then gloss right over the “hard” issues like unjust economic systems, the death penalty, war and third world debt, I could go on and on but you get the picture. There is a lot of life that takes place between the womb and the hospice. What is a faithfull person to do when faced with two bad choices? Not vote at all? Hold your nose and do your best? Write in Mother Teresa? Pray for guidance? It’s a tough position to be in.

Your use of the term “demon-crats” says a lot. Do you really believe that Democrats are evil and that you can know the state of someone else’s soul? Do you really believe that the Republicans are committed to life? Their actions don’t seem to confirm that at all. Do you really believe that Christ takes sides in American politics?

What to do with Catholic politicians that support abortion, the death penalty, militirism and unjust economics, unjust housing and health care systems? I don’t think the majority of us who sit and say “the Bishops ought to do X” really apprecieate the difficult position that they are in. These politicians have souls too. They have to be pastored too. You can’t very well lead someone to the truth with a baseball bat. The Bishops, I think, have chosen to try to teach and touch souls instead of kick behinds. None of them to my knowledge have said “don’t sweat it.” Some have taken more radical steps, and as Bishops that’s their perogative.

The idea that political affiliation should be an easy black or white choice or even that a Christian, Catholic or otherwise, can be closely linked to one party or the other is, I think, overly simplistic.

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by Daniel Marsh
demon-crats

STOP using that word!
We are not permitted to insult fellow members (and there are several Democrats as members here) and you have been a member of this forum long enough to know that.
I have many family members who are DEMOCRATS and I love them. DO NOT refer to them as demons.]

Back to your discussion, which I will now ignore because of the above reason.
I’m quite sure I will not be missed.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

It is my impression that many catholics are [democrats] which is a major stumbling block to me.

It is my view that democratic party is a organization which plots against the Catholic Church (according to the official published platform of the party). I don’t see how they are any different than Freemasonry with respect to canon law.

The 2004 Democratic Party Platform states,

we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose,
consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right.

If they stand firmly against efforts to oppose the right to abortion, then it is clear that the Democratic Party formally and officially plot against the Catholic Church in this regard.

Canon 1374 - A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; however, a person who promotes or directs an association of this kind is to be punished with an interdict.

This is not to say that it would always be a sin to vote for a democrat (eg. lesser of two evils). However, since the official platform of the Democratic Party openly declares their intent to plot against the Church, to join the Democratic Party or promote it seems to me to be in conflict with canon law.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…Bishop Bruscowitz excommunicated several groups almost 20 years ago-- and those groups are still fighting it within the judicial system of the Catholic Church.

The Vatican has upheld the 1996 excommunication of Call to Action Nebraska by Lincoln Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz. Whether or not they repent has more to do with the hardness of their heart than anything else. The excommunications were appropriate.

St. Catherine of Siena, on a shepherd’s failure to give correction when needed…

For he sees his subjects commit faults and sins, and pretends not to see them and fails to correct them; or if he does correct them, he does it with such coldness and lukewarmness that he does not accomplish anything, but plasters vice over; and he is always afraid of giving displeasure or of getting into a quarrel. All this is because he loves himself. Sometimes men like this want to get along with purely peaceful means. I say that this is the very worst cruelty which can be shown. If a wound when necessary is not cauterized or cut out with steel, but simply covered with ointment, not only does it fail to heal, but it infects everything, and many a time death follows from it.

[St. Catherine of Siena, *Letter to Pope Gregory XI, ca. AD 1375].

 

[1ke]

The Vatican has upheld the 1996 excommunication of Call to Action Nebraska by Lincoln Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz.

Yes, and they are appealing it up another step to the Apostolic Signatura.

Whether or not they repent has more to do with the hardness of their heart than anything else.

Yes, in part. But, they have found a canon lawyer who agrees that Rea’s proclamation is not a decree of the Holy See and they are free to pursue their case to the Apostolic Signatura.

They don’t believe they’ve done anything wrong. Therefore, no repentance is likely. That is my point.

The excommunications were appropriate.

I never said it wasn’t.

I only gave an opinion on why it is no longer effective– moral relativism.

 

[gam197]

originally posted by 1ke
There are many Republicans who do not have a pro-life ethos even though their party claims to. And, what is more, the Republican party, who has had both houses of Congress AND the Presidency for 6 years has done NOTHING to help the pro-life cause

We have two new Supreme Court justices. Do you really believe that if Catholic Kerry had gotten elected we would have two new conservative Supreme Court justices to help overturn Roe vs. Wade?

 

[gam197]

Catholics also remember their history and during the 1920’s through the 1950’s, it was the republican representatives in Connecticut that were initiating bills for Margaret Sanger. At that time, it was the democrats who were fighting for moral values. Some probably hope to see this again but I don’t think it will happen because the woman have taken over the democrat party.

 

[1ke]

We have two new Supreme Court justices. Do you really believe that if Catholic Kerry had gotten elected we would have two new conservative Supreme Court justices to help overturn Roe vs. Wade?

You do not know with certainty what these justices will do when on abortion questions. Republican presidents gave us O’Conner and Souter.