Political Party in Re: to Catholicism

[estesbob]

This is the premise of the Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics. The five non-negotiable issues (six, in my addendum) are of equal value.

There is room for argument that not all of the criteria are of equal importance. Should “gay marriage” be as important as “abortion”? Catholic Answers’ Voter’s Guide says yes. (Violation of even one of these standards excludes the candidate from consideration for office.) But many people would disagree with this.

Agreed. This is a huge problem.

But why can’t there be truly Catholic democrats? In theory, there should be – the original democratic party’s ideals were very much aligned with the Catholic theory of social justice. The problem is that the democratic party (as well as others) has been perverted by atheistic/secularist agenda.

That is why I wish it were easier for independent (non-partisan) candidates to run.

Me too! The current situation realy puts catholics in a bind-especailly those who beleive the Democrat Party is better on health care, support of the poor, etc. The problem is no matter how great ones thinks they are on these issues you sill cant get around 1.2 million dead children.

 

[frankadams]

Me too! The current situation realy puts catholics in a bind-especailly those who beleive the Democrat Party is better on health care, support of the poor, etc. The problem is no matter how great ones thinks they are on these issues you sill cant get around 1.2 million dead children.

It is also fair to ask what “pro-life” presidents (19 of the last 27 years) have done to end or even lower that 1.2 million number.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I grew up Southern Baptist, and for many reasons, could not handle the apparent elitism especially in regard to Social Justice I experienced during my Active years as a Church going Bible Thumping Baptist. Thank God and our Blessed Mother, and a series of Miraculous events, I was guided back to the Mother Church and became confirmed Catholic the year 2000. I cannot get enough or learn enough about our Blessed Faith. I am like a child who has been starved and now am seated before a beautiful Banquet Table and just can’t get enough. However, I recently had a discussion with the leader of a Catholic Bible Study, and Prayer Group that I have faithfully attended for a couple of years. He ask me what Political Party I belong to, and I made the Big Mistake of telling him I was inclined to vote Democrate. I am not by the way Prochoice, I am very much Pro Life, however, I am a firm believer that you cannot pick your candidates based on ONE issue. I now feel “the vibes” from most every one at my Bible Study Group and have pretty much been shunned. My heart is broken. I talked to my Prienst about it and he reassured me that I had the freedom of choice of Political Parties without being shunned by the group, however, the attitudes remain, and I have about decided to just leave the group. I am very sad about this. You would think I said “I believed in Murder” and believe me I don’t. This is my first post to CAF and I need to find others, if there are any out there, to help me to digest and understand this. I really thought I had left this mentality behind when I left the “Southern Baptist” It is beginning to feel alot like it did when I was in the Protestant Faith. I do live in Texas, and am aware of the extremely Conservative Republican majority, but I was hoping the Catholic Church would have a place for me. For all of you who would like to respond, remember, the issue is free choice of Political Party, NOT my stand on Roe vs. Wade. I am not for abortion. Neither am I for the Death Penalty, Unjust War, Genocide, or Euphanasia.
Please Help
In Christ Holy Love,
Sciansdaughter
P. S. I am 61 years

I pray that you don’t leave the Bible study group. i pray that you are only imagining the a vibe between you and the rest of the group. I am a person that grew up with one side of me family DEM and the other side GOP fun fun times. My parish tends to be more DEMS than GOP. I on the other hand Tend to vote GOP on the National level and Dem on the Local. the key is to remember to vote the person and not the party. As with i think all that have posted on here I can not support a candidate that is pro choice. I often say that the choice was made when that person decide to have sex. Now if we are only given choice that neither party nor an independent can meet the litmus teat that other have quoted on how to decide for who to vote then it becomes a choice of the lesser of evils. I pray every elections that the Dems will put forth a candidate that i can support just so I don’t fights with family about them, and try as I might I allow them to bait me into them.

You and your fellow Bible study members need to remember that political parties are not Church organizations. How you vote is really between you and God no one else.

Peace in the Lord.

Scott

 

[alessandro]

All of this has caused me to study the old “Distributist” writings of people like Belloc, Chesterton and at least three Popes. If we’re all going to be “on our own” in a not-too-charitable society, which is where both parties tend to put us, then we need to understand the philosophical approaches to it, and work to create the hopefully productive and charitable “mini-societies” that are our own families and circles of associates. That’s not so easy, and one has to adapt to the economics of our time, but I don’t suppose it ever was easy.

I agree with you. I think distributionist theory has a lot of worth. (See wikipedia synopsis here.) But it too is an ideal – much like the ideal of a theocracy under a truly just and moral, Catholic monarch would, in many ways, be ideal. (I’m sure non-Catholics would disagree.)

But each of these ideals, when applied to the Real World (i.e., Culture of Death) gets distorted. Much as the communist manifesto of Marx becomes atheistic/totalitarian socialism in reality, and much like the “invisible hand” free-market system of Adam Smith becomes the Darwinian capitalistic world economy we all know and love today

Distributism is a wonderfully Catholic socio-political ideal. But would it hold in the Real World? Or would it degrade into either socialism or capitalism (as it is designed to be the best of both worlds)?

The United States is almost 232 years old, already, and well entrenched in its modernist ways. Can such revolutionary change occur in the present era?

Complicating factors, in my opinion, is the two-party system we are left with. It wasn’t always so – Early in the development of this great nation, there were many parties. But now, we are left with the “Democrats” and the “Republicans” from which to choose. And neither of these parties are what they once were. The democrats are a far cry from the great party of the 1940s. And the GOP is anything but grand nowadays.

Practically speaking, for a politician to win a major election, he needs to join one of these parties. But that usually requires espousing the entire “party platform,” whether he personally wants to or not. And so, every candidate loses his uniqueness and becomes plain-old “democratic” or “republican.”

To complicate things further, the parties are, in many ways, growing more and more “moderate” and more and more similar. Sure, there are some differences (e.g., taxes), but these are not at the same level as more important moral issues.

So, yes, I agree with you. There are many ideals, and I wish we had the option of effecting such ideals in actuality. But as that won’t work, we have to make due with what we got. That’s why Catholic Answers issued the Voter’s Guide, and why I added the sixth criterion for social justice. Also, I recommended that we choose the candidate with either the most Catholic positions or the fewest violations of the non-negotiable issues.

Sigh.

These are difficult times we live in.

 

[estesbob]

It is also fair to ask what “pro-life” presidents (19 of the last 27 years) have done to end or even lower that 1.2 million number.

Heres Bush’s accomplishments for a start:

1. Banned Partial Birth Abortion — by far the most significant roll-back of abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade.
2. Reversed Clinton’s move to strike Reagan’s anti-abortion Mexico Policy.
3. By Executive Order (EO), reversed Clinton’s policy of not requiring parental consent for abortions under the Medical Privacy Act.
4. By EO, prohibited federal funds for international family planning groups that provide abortions and related services.
5. Upheld the ban on abortions at military hospitals.
6. Promoted and then Signed the born alive act.
7. Roberts
8. Alito
   9 Made $33 million available for abstinence education programs in 2004.

 

[vern_humphrey]

To those who consider themselves Democrats, I say you don’t have to vote Republican. But you should assume the responsibility for controlling and directing your party. Vote the pro-abortionists out. Vote pro-life candidates in.

Make support for abortion the third rail of the Democratic Party.

 

[frankadams]

Originally Posted by frankadams It is also fair to ask what “pro-life” presidents (19 of the last 27 years) have done to end or even lower that 1.2 million number.

Heres Bush’s accomplishments for a start:

1. Banned Partial Birth Abortion — by far the most significant roll-back of abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade.
   Outlawing one particular kind of late-term abortion which is easily replaced by others.
2. Reversed Clinton’s move to strike Reagan’s anti-abortion Mexico Policy.
   Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will research it.
3. By Executive Order (EO), reversed Clinton’s policy of not requiring parental consent for abortions under the Medical Privacy Act.
   And we both know parental consent contains loopholes that render the teeth of this order dull.
4. By EO, prohibited federal funds for international family planning groups that provide abortions and related services.

I am happy if others are paying for the abortions in foreign countries, rather than my own tax dollars. I don’t know, however if this has reduced abortion. Nor does this speak to my original question about "1.2 million."5. Upheld the ban on abortions at military hospitals.

Tax dollars withheld is, again, a positive. Has it prevented abortions? Likely not. 6. Promoted and then Signed the born alive act.

Likely to have zero impact.7. Roberts
Sorry, I’ve heard this one too many times before with apointees from Reagan and Bush 41. Bush did not make opposition to Roe a lithmus test the way Clinton did. All I know about Roberts is that he’s a legal genius.
8. Alito
Ditto. 9 Made $33 million available for abstinence education programs in 2004.

How has this impacted the abortion number? Research suggests it has not.
All in all, I asked what has 19 years (out of 27) done to lower the 1.2 million number. I still don’t believe I have been provided with an answer.

 

[frankadams]

Originally Posted by frankadams It is also fair to ask what “pro-life” presidents (19 of the last 27 years) have done to end or even lower that 1.2 million number.
How has this impacted the abortion number? Research suggests it has not.
All in all, I asked what has 19 years (out of 27) done to lower the 1.2 million number. I still don’t believe I have been provided with an answer.

Sorry for the bad formatting! I was trying to respond to each claim individually.

 

[frankadams]

Originally Posted by estesbob Heres Bush’s accomplishments for a start:1. Banned Partial Birth Abortion — by far the most significant roll-back of abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade. Response: Outlawing one particular kind of late-term abortion which is easily replaced by others. 2. Reversed Clinton’s move to strike Reagan’s anti-abortion Mexico Policy. Response: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will research it. 3. By Executive Order (EO), reversed Clinton’s policy of not requiring parental consent for abortions under the Medical Privacy Act. Response: And we both know parental consent contains loopholes that render the teeth of this order dull. 4. By EO, prohibited federal funds for international family planning groups that provide abortions and related services. Response: I am happy if others are paying for the abortions in foreign countries, rather than my own tax dollars. I don’t know, however if this has reduced abortion. Nor does this speak to my original question about "1.2 million."5. Upheld the ban on abortions at military hospitals. Response: Tax dollars withheld is, again, a positive. Has it prevented abortions? Likely not. 6. Promoted and then Signed the born alive act.Response: Likely to have zero impact.7. RobertsResponse: Sorry, I’ve heard this one too many times before with apointees from Reagan and Bush 41. Bush did not make opposition to Roe a lithmus test the way Clinton did. All I know about Roberts is that he’s a legal genius. 8. AlitoDitto. 9 Made $33 million available for abstinence education programs in 2004. Response: But has it done anything to reduce abortions? Research suggests it has not.

 

[Arnobius]

On the other hand, when we see how the Democratic agenda promotes the abortion issue, sometimes all we have is to avoid losing ground.

I don’t believe either party is in the best interest of Catholics. I remain a Republican because they at least stand in opposition to the policies of the Democratic party on the most non-negotiable issues for Catholics.

That may change of course. If the Republicans abandon these issues, they do lose the reason for Catholics to support them.

Unfortunately with the 2 party system, it seems a vote for a candidate brings support for all the issues their party supports, and I fear that even with a pro-life democrat it may allow the Democratic party to act in a pro-abortion manner.

Neither party is good for Catholics, so I think the best we can do is to support the party most likely to prevent or reduce the spread of the non-negotiable issues.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Originally Posted by frankadams It is also fair to ask what “pro-life” presidents (19 of the last 27 years) have done to end or even lower that 1.2 million number.
How has this impacted the abortion number? Research suggests it has not.
All in all, I asked what has 19 years (out of 27) done to lower the 1.2 million number. I still don’t believe I have been provided with an answer.

That’s kind of like asking how did the defense of the Philippines, or of Wake Island win World War II?

We have a war here of pro-life versus pro-abortion. The fact that the pro-life side cannot win the war in a single battle does’t mean we should surrender!!

 

[Ridgerunner]

To those who consider themselves Democrats, I say you don’t have to vote Republican. But you should assume the responsibility for controlling and directing your party. Vote the pro-abortionists out. Vote pro-life candidates in.

Make support for abortion the third rail of the Democratic Party.

The problem is, Vern, that in some places there ARE NO prolife Democrats for which one can vote. That’s the situation where I am, and has been for decades. But I agree that if all Catholics voted “single issue” on abortion in even one election cycle, we would see a change.

Alessandro:

I agree Distributist thinking has to be updated. In its heyday, its focus was on small shopkeeping and agriculture. Both would be intensely difficult now because mega-operations are able to “upstream” costs so effectively and obtain governmental subsidies of one kind or another. Still, some can find specialized “niches” and can make it work.

Rather, I think it’s more a matter of how one thinks, and the economic pattern one follows. One of the things the early Distributists talked about, but which often goes unnoticed, is the emphasis the individual and the family should place on its approach to consumption. Let’s face it, among most of us, there is little emphasis on conserving the “fruits of one’s labor”, and we opt for the momentary comforts and conveniences of the products of big business. It may not seem significant to forego the big screen tv here and the Ipod there; the purchased meal, the new car, the fashionable clothing, and keeping one’s children as “immune” from that as possible is a big task, but it is significant. I have read that television alone, when one considers the blandishments of advertising to buy things we don’t really need, the enhancements and updates one rents and buys, and “opportunity loss”, costs a couple with a family about a million dollars in a lifetime, on average. And with that money, couldn’t we perhaps make big down payments on our childrens’ houses when they are starting out, so they can form families? Couldn’t we help with our grandchildrens’ educations so their parents don’t limit themselves to one or two children out of fear of being unable to pay?

What Distributism was about was not so much getting a little farm or brewing one’s own ale and operating a country tavern as such, but maintaining the independence of the family from physical (and spiritual) dependence on the “bigs” (business and government) that enhance their own interests by making us dependent upon them, then slowly “sell” us notions we would not otherwise choose to adopt. I’m not saying Walmart, Humana and Nancy Pelosi get together to make us dependent on them so they can sell abortion to us. It’s just that when power becomes ever more concentrated in the hands of the few, and people more dependent on those few, the fundamental unit of society, the family, pays the price, whether anyone intends it or not. To me, the “seamless garment” argument is an almost perfect case in point. Because we think ourselves irreversably and necessarily dependent on government for so many things, we tend to accept the equivalency of something like abortion to something like the details of Medicaid.

We tend to accept the inevitability of granting “most favored nation” status to an awful state like China, and the inevitably of virtually everything in Walmart being “made in China”, and we buy it without giving it a second thought because we think it’s inevitable. Meanwhile, lots of folks lose their jobs, and childrens’ toys are laced with lead. But, again, that’s all “inevitable”, and we buy the stuff anyway because, well, gee, isn’t the government protecting us from lead paint in the toys on the shelves now?

(too long. Continued)

 

[Ridgerunner]

(continued. I’ll quit after this)

I was greatly amused this Christmas when the overwhelmingly favorite gift of one of my grandsons was a “used” rodeo lariat that cost $9.00. He was so taken with it, he laboriously built himself a wooden “cow” to lasso, out of scrap wood, all on his own, so he could develop his roping skills. His chances of ever roping an actual animal in his life is pretty close to zero, his being a town kid. The fact that it had been used by an actual rodeo cowboy (they have to replace them frequently, it was practically pristine) only enhanced its attractiveness in his eyes. His mother bought him a paperback book for less than $10 in which the “secrets” of Will Rogers’ rope tricks are revealed, along with a lot of Will Rogers’ humor. I expect he’ll learn both things, given time. He does practice a lot.

So that was an inexpensive “hit” that wasn’t the “latest thing” advertised on tv and straight from China. The skill is perhaps economically worthless, but the hand-eye coordination he’ll develop may be worth it, all by itself, along with the very rough carpentry skills he had to acquire in order to build the “cow”, and the realization that he actually could build something if he thought it through and worked hard. To me, that’s a very small example of what I’m talking about. We squander so much, and there’s actually very little reason to do it except our conviction that we need to, born of our failure to realize we don’t have to do it, and shouldn’t. There’s nothing easy about any of this and, except for occasional messages from the Popes, the Church doesn’t seem to “get it” either. But, as I get older, the more I think the proper exercise of intergenerational responsibilities is the thing, and that the role we all have in the family; the “fundamental unit of society” is more important than all the politicians put together. I’ll grant I’m still learning. Connected to that is my responsibility to tell them, e.g., that there really is no more important political issue in the U.S. right now than the lives of the unborn.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

There are many many Catholics torn by this issue, and others not torn at all. Many, perhaps most here believe that the life issues trump every other issue and even all other issues added together. That is their right. This site is very conservative and mostly Republican as best I can discern. You need to realize that the actual state of the Church nation wide is substantially different. There simply is no Catholic vote that is a bloc. Each of us is called to work these issues out as best we can with respect and guidance from the Church of course. But no you are not alone in favoring Democrats on some issues certainly. But I warn you, for some here, to even suggest that there is any alternative than voting republican will raise rather some extreme anger.

I tend to agree with those who state that not much is really forthcoming from the republicans anyway. They say what they say to get your vote, but do little if anything except casual statements and weak legislation they know has no chance. Then its business as usual until they need your vote again. If you look historically, you can surely find that certain big wigs in the Republican party recognized an untapped source of votes and deliberately retailored their platform to secure that vote.

SpiritMeadow, this is about the third or fourth time I’ve seen you refer to “some on this forum” in a negative light because their opinions don’t jive with yours. Please refrain from that; it’s not terribly charitable.

I, for one, dislike BOTH major parties, but I still firmly stand by the notiont that “life issues” do, in fact, trump everything else – but I resent being lumped in with Republicans.

In fact, in light of other posts you’ve made on this general topic, the above comments reflect your disdain for those who believe as I do, and it sounds as though you are dismissing our beliefs as too “hardcore” for the average Catholic. If this is not your intent, please know that it is nonetheless the perception you are generating, and I ask that you refrain from this in the future.

Peace,
Dante

 

[vern_humphrey]

The problem is, Vern, that in some places there ARE NO prolife Democrats for which one can vote. That’s the situation where I am, and has been for decades. But I agree that if all Catholics voted “single issue” on abortion in even one election cycle, we would see a change.

Then, if you will pardon me (I don’t mean to be offensive) that is the fault of the rank-and-file Democrats. They have pro-abortion Democratic candidates because they tolerate pro-abortion candidates. They do not recruit, work for, and push pro-life candidates.

To change the situation, get active. Join your local county committee. Find and support a pro-lifer – or offer yourself as a candidate.

 

[estesbob]

SpiritMeadow, this is about the third or fourth time I’ve seen you refer to “some on this forum” in a negative light because their opinions don’t jive with yours. Please refrain from that; it’s not terribly charitable.

I, for one, dislike BOTH major parties, but I still firmly stand by the notiont that “life issues” do, in fact, trump everything else – but I resent being lumped in with Republicans.

In fact, in light of other posts you’ve made on this general topic, the above comments reflect your disdain for those who believe as I do, and it sounds as though you are dismissing our beliefs as too “hardcore” for the average Catholic. If this is not your intent, please know that it is nonetheless the perception you are generating, and I ask that you refrain from this in the future.

Peace,
Dante

He follows the usual mental mastrubation of those catholics who try and rationalize voting for pro-abortion canidates. it goes like this “since “I” dont trust people who claim to be pro-life therefore i am going to vote for people I KNOW are NOT pro-life. Of course this is coupled with " the Catholics who do vote for pro-life canidates are too stupid to know these canidates arent really pro-life.”

 

[jflare29]

I’d say your getting a pretty decent overview of the “Catholic voice” in America. We don’t generally present a cohesive, firmly directed voting block, do we?

In all honesty, I’ve been a Democrat, a Republican, and a Non-Partisan (the Nebraska version of Independent), but I’ve reached the general conclusion that I don’t easily fit into either mold. Regrettably, going Independent doesn’t help much because Nebraska doesn’t allow Independent votes in primaries.

I think part of the problem may be historical. This nation bore a distinctively Protestant view at it’s founding and only very reluctantly gave way as Catholic immigrants began arriving. In challenging the nation with society’s moral obligations to the poor, the Church tended toward a relatively socialistic idea of how government and public law ought to address the needs of all the people.
While this was necessary, I would suggest that it helped to lead toward a mutually antagonistic attitude between the Catholic Church and the US as a whole.
Catholics, then and now, tend toward viewing money as evil to a degree, so we don’t learn much about handling money or the world of finance. Nor do we challenge the schools to teach us or anyone else about how finance works, so we “instinctively” fall back to what we’ve used before: Increased welfare programs.

Then too, we all too often don’t know our faith well enough to know either why our faith is important, as opposed to other faiths, nor understand how our faith can be compatible with the uses of money.

Because of the general lack of mutual understanding about both of the above, money and doctrine, we wind up with vastly differing views of how best to approach any public policy.

Regrettably, I don’t expect that situation to change any time soon, so neither political party will likely pay attention.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Then, if you will pardon me (I don’t mean to be offensive) that is the fault of the rank-and-file Democrats. They have pro-abortion Democratic candidates because they tolerate pro-abortion candidates. They do not recruit, work for, and push pro-life candidates.

To change the situation, get active. Join your local county committee. Find and support a pro-lifer – or offer yourself as a candidate.

I’m not offended, Vern, but I don’t think you quite understand. Sorry. I could get elected to the county committee without a lot of difficulty, because that’s a “local contact thing”. I learned long ago that if your name is reasonably good and if you take the trouble to ask people to vote for you, person-to-person and door-to-door you stand an excellent chance of being elected. Been there, done that, and more. The problem is that beyond your own arms’ reach, there is a “concrete ceiling” that totally prevents prolife people from having any influence in the party. My own wife was ousted from the congressional district womens’ committee chairmanship because she made a prolife speech before the committee, precisely advocating what you’re saying; that room should be made, and support given for Democrat prolife candidates. Couldn’t have that.

There are NO prolife Democrats trying to get elected. They know as well as they know their own names that the abortion lobby people will spend whatever they have to spend to defeat them; both within the party and in elections; and if they stay true to their prolife position and still get elected, the abortion people will be there next election with redoubled efforts to take them down, and the party organization will groom primary opponents to help them do it, and provide no support even if they win the primary. The abortion lobbyists are determined to keep the party “pristine”, and are remarkably successful in that endeavor. You can’t support prolife Democrats if they’re not there. On the other hand, there are prolife Republicans whom one can support.

In the last election, I refused to support a Democrat legislator for whom I had worked long ago. I refused to support him because he “sold out” to the abortion lobby during his term. I told him that to his face when he came to ask for my support. Instead, I supported and worked for his Catholic Republican opponent who was openly prolife. The Republican won. I don’t know how much I contributed to his victory, but I did my part. During his term he has, in his actions, remained true to his prolife convictions. If he continues to do so, I’ll support him again, and I won’t shrink from calling my prolife friends, both Democrat and Republican, to support him in doing so next time, anymore than I did last time.

I’m sorry, and I mean you no disrespect, but I’m not sure you realize how profoundly “sold out” the Dem party really is. I know what you’re saying, but there just comes a point when you have to accept it that there’s no room for prolife politicians in the Democrat party, and, given that the Democrat party doesn’t do any more for the unfortunate than does the Republican party nowadays anyway, the party you once belonged to and worked for just doesn’t exist anymore.

So, I guess I’m one of those “single issue” people you hear about. And, I’m beyond caring what either party thinks about it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m not offended, Vern, but I don’t think you quite understand. Sorry. I could get elected to the county committee without a lot of difficulty, because that’s a “local contact thing”. I learned long ago that if your name is reasonably good and if you take the trouble to ask people to vote for you, person-to-person and door-to-door you stand an excellent chance of being elected. Been there, done that, and more. The problem is that beyond your own arms’ reach, there is a “concrete ceiling” that totally prevents prolife people from having any influence in the party. My own wife was ousted from the congressional district womens’ committee chairmanship because she made a prolife speech before the committee, precisely advocating what you’re saying; that room should be made, and support given for Democrat prolife candidates. Couldn’t have that.

I understand that – you’re playing catchup from way behind if you’re a Democrat.

But if you’re Catholic and you want to stay Democrat, then you must take up the burden of changing your party, regardless of the difficulty.

There are NO prolife Democrats trying to get elected. They know as well as they know their own names that the abortion lobby people will spend whatever they have to spend to defeat them; both within the party and in elections; and if they stay true to their prolife position and still get elected, the abortion people will be there next election with redoubled efforts to take them down, and the party organization will groom primary opponents to help them do it, and provide no support even if they win the primary. The abortion lobbyists are determined to keep the party “pristine”, and are remarkably successful in that endeavor. You can’t support prolife Democrats if they’re not there. On the other hand, there are prolife Republicans whom one can support.

Which is why many sincere Catholics have come to the Republican party, or at least become independent.

But if you are a sincere Catholic and want to stay in the Democratic Party, then you must take up the burden of changing your party, regardless of the difficulty.

In the last election, I refused to support a Democrat legislator for whom I had worked long ago. I refused to support him because he “sold out” to the abortion lobby during his term. I told him that to his face when he came to ask for my support. Instead, I supported and worked for his Catholic Republican opponent who was openly prolife. The Republican won. I don’t know how much I contributed to his victory, but I did my part. During his term he has, in his actions, remained true to his prolife convictions. If he continues to do so, I’ll support him again, and I won’t shrink from calling my prolife friends, both Democrat and Republican, to support him in doing so next time, anymore than I did last time.

I’m sorry, and I mean you no disrespect, but I’m not sure you realize how profoundly “sold out” the Dem party really is. I know what you’re saying, but there just comes a point when you have to accept it that there’s no room for prolife politicians in the Democrat party, and, given that the Democrat party doesn’t do any more for the unfortunate than does the Republican party nowadays anyway, the party you once belonged to and worked for just doesn’t exist anymore.

So, I guess I’m one of those “single issue” people you hear about. And, I’m beyond caring what either party thinks about it.

I appreciate and sympathize with you – and support your decision.

But to Catholics who say, “I’m a Democrat and will always be a Democrat,” I say, “Then you must take up the burden of changing your party, regardless of the difficulty.”

 

[Scians_Daughter]

I am glad there is someone on this thread that heard the point of my post, as Jesus says"for those who have ears to hear" It seems the rage of self-righteousness is so loud it drowns out the sound of one that feels totally rejected at this point. Thanks for understanding and making me feel like I do have a place in the Holy Church.
May you and your family be blessed by the good and kind Jesus.
Sciansdaughter