Indeed. Probably the indeed political candidate from the current ideals of the Holy See would be a socially conservative Democrat of the populistic variety (as opposed to the Rockefeller Republican/New Democratic type). It rather troubles me that seemingly the only reason why the U.S. Bishops’ Conference was opposed to Obama’s health care bill was that it would likely fund abortions. Does not the idea of living in a socialistic state bother anyone anymore?
Not at all. Judging by the invective directed toward Catholics on this Forum who don’t vote GOP, the notion that the Republican Party is the only acceptable one and that the other parties lead to hellfire seems to be the common “wisdom.”
For many on this Forum this is true, fortunately this is not the viewpoint of the Church. Many, many responsible and faithful Catholics made the reasoned judgment that supporting Obama was the better course in the last election, including many clergy. Doing so did not violate any Church teaching. This forum and a few equally conservative blogs are the only places you will see people say otherwise. It is just like all the threads complaining that the Pope and the bishops are “refusing” to excommunicate certain politicians - some folks are determined to use the Church as just another weapon in their political frays. But the Church is capable of withstanding the current attempt to make it an arm of the GOP, just as it withstood attempts in the 20th century to make it into an arm of the Democratic party.
Meh, who needs a Pope and the Magisterium of the Church when you have your own wisdom and ambition to rely on?It’s called “Progessive Catholicism.” In other words, not TRUE Catholicism.
Thanks for the red herring. Got any blue ones?Not at all. Judging by the invective directed toward Catholics on this Forum who don’t vote GOP, the notion that the Republican Party is the only acceptable one and that the other parties lead to hellfire seems to be the common “wisdom.”
Supporting unrestriced taxpayer funded abortion on demand is not mitigated by vague promises to lower unplanned pregancies. This is not just another politica issue. we are talking about a country that allows the slaughter of 1.2 million children a year. As Catholics we can not support this evil either directy or indirectly-no matter how much we may like the pro-abortion canidates stand on other issues.
Give me a break. Practically speaking, for most of the 20th the Catholic Church in America was one of the pillars of the Democrat Party, with all their nonsense about supporting “the little guy and the underdog.” As it turns out, they just twisted the language to make voting for pro-extortionist unions and pro-abortionist politicians theologically acceptable, and most of the bishops fell right into that hole. Even the USCCB org chart looks like the org chart of Think Progress. Democrats may be getting jsut a little upset that sensible Americans are seeing through the lies of both the DNC and the RNC and actually voting more in line with the dictates of their conscience and the teachings of the Church.
Considering how strongly the current pope and his predecessor have come out against socialism (via Centesimus Annus) and the culture of death, it still surprises me how rogue the USCCB seems to be. Coupled with the fact that many in Obama’s inner circle are avowed eugenicists and forced population control people, I can’t imagine how any bishop in good conscious could advocate a vote for the “President”.
Another strawman. Rather than acknowledge that the Democratic Party long ago rejected the core moral teachings of the Catholic Church Catholic Democrats instead rail against the evil Republicans and come up with wild conspiracy theories about how the Republican Party is trying to co-opt the Catholic Church. The solution is very simple. The Democrat party needs to drop its support of unrestricted taxpayer-funded abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, cloning, fetal stem cell research and euthanasia. When they do that a Catholic can in good conscience support them.
I agree, Mr. Lafrance.
I don’t think the Republican party is trying to co-opt the Church, but I do think that some Republican Catholics are trying to co-opt the Church, just as some Democrat Catholics tried to do in the 60’s and 70’s. Neither party follows the Catholic Church’s teachings. Some candidates in each party are better than others. I know your view is that no Catholic can support a Democrat, but that is not the Church’s stance and many good Catholics sometimes support Democrats, just as many good Catholics sometimes support Republicans.
It even invites the slanderous accusation by Republican party loyalists that the only reason a person would be opposed to the Republican Party and its odious right-wing ideology is to “justify their vote for pro-abortion Democrat candidates.”Not at all. Judging by the invective directed toward Catholics on this Forum who don’t vote GOP, the notion that the Republican Party is the only acceptable one and that the other parties lead to hellfire seems to be the common “wisdom.”
As I do.
I don’t carry water for Obama. But, what’s the choice for me who finds the GOP repulsive?
The GOP is not the Hezbollah, which means “The Party of God.”It’s all good in the name of the One True Catholic and Apostolic Political Party.
Ask Rand Paul. He says he supports civil rights but that the Civil Rights Act is bad law. Now, can someone be against abortion but recognize the general applicability of Roe v. Wade? I think so.
Poinitng out the obvious-that the Modern Democrat party stands in direct oppostion to the core moral teachings of the Catholic church is not trying to Co-opt the Church for the Republcian party. Again I wish I had the choice to consider voting Democrat but the paty of my ancestors has so embraced the culture of death that a Democrat Canidate a Catholic can support are few and far bewteen
Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg publically admits that* Roe* is bad law, but wouldn’t vote to overturn it because she likes the outcome. So much for stare decisis and “super precedent”. Stare decisis essentially means that the fundamental legal underpinings of a law or court decision are sound and uphold under scrutiny. Since one of the most liberal jurists the SCOTUS has ever seen has scrutinized the legal underpinnings of the bill, but would keep in it place due to personal preference, means that it is not a “super precedent” and can be overturned if someone with enough guts were to challenge it appropriately.
She was also brutally honest about the purpose Roe limiting the number of "undesireables born :
Ya, Ginsberg is another one of those Progressive elitist eugenic population control freaks. Weird how that type keeps finding their way into the upper levels of government. They’re like cockroaches.
Yes and no. Brown was based on equal protection in the 14th amendment. Constitutional rights do not need to be affirmed by federal law.
Since Congress has the Constitutional authority to determine the scope and range of what the Supreme Court has jurisdition over (other than the original jurisdiction established in teh Constitution), yes, Constitutional rights not expressed in the Constitution or Amendments do need to be affirmed by federal law. It is Congress that passes law and therefore give “new” rights, not the Supreme Court. In Roe, they created the right to an abortion out of thin air, using language from a Constitutional amendment in a way that it was never intended.