Exactly!I have mentioned this before,that the glaring difference between the two parties was reflected in those they chose to represent the party at the their respective Conventions…It should have been blatetnly clear to even the most bleeding heart Catholic,that the Dems were proudly the party of immorality.
Why are you focusing on 04? The recent past elections in08 and12 are far more relevant to this discussion as it pertains to prudential judgement.You seem to have no interest in addressing the fact that Obama was and is guilty of supporting and promoting,not one,not two,not three but four of the non negotiable biggies.This should have been and still should be a huge determining factor in prudential judgement.
Okay. Have I stated that? If so, when? And, why would I find it disturbing? I tried to engage you regarding the evils from JPII’s encyclical, and this is your response? Odd.
Yes. I realize that three years out, many Democrats are convinced of HRC’s invincibility within the Democratic Party. I think they will be surprised, as we get closer to 2016. A lot can change in three years.
It was an example. In the context of applying prudential judgement, why is it more significant to discuss '08 and '12? I haven’t taken issue with anyone who voted for McCain or Romney and I haven’t advocated for Obama.
Um…did you notice what this thread is all about?
If you really are going to stick to that, I guess we will all expect you to withhold any opinions about any candidates for the next couple of years.
Oh, Augustine – there is much that’s odd about this conversation. But if your original comment above isn’t evidence that you find those who refrain from voting now for the 2016 election disturbing, fantastic!
On another thread I was reading about Catholics under fire in Quebec. And I believe it was you Jeanne that said that the persecution that’s underway on Canadian Catholics will soon be coming here to the U.S. if we’re not vigilant. And we know full well what party here in the U.S. mirrors Canada’s increasingly secularist government!..HHS Mandate?
Oh, gracepoole - I said no such thing. If you are actually being truthful and won’t discuss candidates and moral issues until 2016 when both are current, then I just plan on holding you at your word. It will be interesting to see if you actually abide by your own statements. I’m not disturbed by them…just skeptical.
I hope you’re wrong about that, as well. But, since you won’t engage on such issues, I guess we’ll never know.
Seriously? The debate isn’t about whether you,personally voted for Obama.It is about prudential judgement in determining ,specifically,a Catholic’s vote.I have brought forth over and over the reasons why I feel any Catholics used poor judgement n voting for Obama.
I have zero interest in guessing at the wisdom of Catholics who voted for Obama. You have at it, if you like. But I guess it needs to be said again that there are more than five non-negotiables…
There other issues to consider than just abortion. I don’t remember reading anywhere that one issue reigns over all the others.
I think I actually said “Of course we can speculate on candidates.” What we don’t and can’t know yet, however, are all the grave moral issues that will demand our consideration.Again:
For the same reason as I provided above.I’m starting to think there is far too much emotion present in this conversation…
You’re right that it’s usually Republican Catholics who call non-Republican Catholics “less than,” and you’ve even provided your own example of it. But why is it problematic to evaluate candidates according to the full spectrum of intrinsic evils in each new election cycle? Why is it legitimate to consider oneself a Republican Catholic and not simply a Catholic?
Uh huh…
I think we can discuss the issues and candidates now - given what we know about them its strange to think that there are too many unknowns to judge anything now. For example: its a given that the Democrat nominee will be a pro-abortion rights liberal. Also a given that the GOP nominee will be pro-life and conservative. What we can’t predict is what foreign policy events will occur - but we can’t predict that on election day either - and we still make our choice. So again, I think its a stretch to say you’re withholding judgement because you’re not sure what the grave issues are. They will likely be the same grave issues that we faced in 2012.
Who called themselves a Republican catholic? Why do so many catholics continue to support the Democrat party even though it supports so many of the intrinsic evils?
Obviously you haven’t bothered to read my comments.Just for clarity…
I recognize that the finger pointing goes both ways, but you can certainly prefer to only see it on one side, if you like.
When have I ever claimed it isn’t?
That’s an odd question. What makes it illegitimate? I’m a Catholic. I’m also a registered Republican. That makes me a Republican (adjective) Catholic (noun). It is a legitimate description, and I don’t see a reason to be ashamed of it.
I have. I don’t have a problem with it. My faith is always first and forms my conscience when I vote, but I am a Republican. It is a fact, and I don’t see a reason to be ashamed. It doesn’t mean I have to agree with every Republican Party viewpoint on every issue, nor does it mean that I have to vote for every Republican candidate.
Well-played, Jeanne.
