Political Party in Re: to Catholicism

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

But you are obliged to look beyond the effects of your vote. There are many ramifications – are you voting to put a pro-abortion politician in a position of extraordinary power? Or perhaps you have weighed that and decided the your vote will show that party that a pro-choice candidate can win?

I would hope the if I voted for a person that was a member of a party that was pro choice it would show them that a pro life candidate can win. It would also show a vote for fiscal conservatism as well as a desire for limiting the scope and power of government.

Peace in the Lord

Scott

 

[mary_bobo]

estesbob;3146565:

I am afraid that is how it is received. If you intent is to persuade, then it doesn’t work. People are offended mightily. Now I know that you don’t care about that, but if your true intent is actually to persuade rather than simply shock, then a better way is needed. To suggest that adults need to see this to somehow understand is, well, it suggests a lack of intellectual ability on the part of people. They generally resent it.

And for those of us engaged in discussion, it is as we used to say, of no evidentiary value but is offered merely to inflame the passions. Problem is they are inflamed in the wrong way.

evidentiary value means not being able to provide me with any facts that aid my decision. In case anyone is unfamiliar.

It depends on where you are to start with, I think. If one is pro-choice, it would be offensive to hear the particulars of some abortions. It is grisly I have not seen an abortion performed and I would not have stayed if I had had the opportunity, but I have seen many spontaneous abortions and stillborn babies and sometimes it is not a pretty sight. No one will ever convince me that those were not tiny humans. I am not speaking of you in particular, but some people do not want to know the consequences of being pro-choice.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I would hope the if I voted for a person that was a member of a party that was pro choice it would show them that a pro life candidate can win. It would also show a vote for fiscal conservatism as well as a desire for limiting the scope and power of government.

Peace in the Lord

Scott

Which is why I say those who consider themselves Democrats should “educate” their party by denying the nomination to “pro-choice” candidates, and even working against “pro-choice” candidates once nominated.

There is no reason both parties can’t be pro-life – and they would be if only pro-life candidates could win in either party.

 

[estesbob]

SpiritMeadow;3147628:

It depends on where you are to start with, I think. If one is pro-choice, it would be offensive to hear the particulars of some abortions. It is grisly I have not seen an abortion performed and I would not have stayed if I had had the opportunity, but I have seen many spontaneous abortions and stillborn babies and sometimes it is not a pretty sight. No one will ever convince me that those were not tiny humans. I am not speaking of you in particular, but some people do not want to know the consequences of being pro-choice.

The unanswerd question is why would anyone ever vote for someone who supports this carnage??? A person who supports abortion is so morally flawed as to be unfit to hold any position of leadership

 

[alessandro]

@Ridgerunner,

all Popes who spoke of it spoke in favor of Distributism, with a “safety net” for those who truly are dependent on the charity of the commonwealth. They also favored “Subsidiarity”; that social programs should exist at the lowest possible level of capable action.

I’m going to have to read more about distributism. I’ve always wanted to, and I guess now is the time.

 

[SoCalRC]

To point out the obvious it is, among other things, idolatry to assert that a particular political party is inherently more ‘Catholic’ or ‘Christian’. Political parties are human inventions, not reflections of the divine. The are products of frail and flawed humans with no Gift of Authority.

Consider this:

wdbj7.com/Global/story.asp?S=7411021&nav=S6aK

If you are living in Virginia and wish to vote in the Republican primary, you will be required to sign a loyalty oath. That is, you will be required to give your word to support whoever is the GOP nominee in the general election.

Since several of the contenders are demonstrably pro-abortion, VA Catholics are automatically in a moral dilemna. You either sign an oath saying you will put aside your moral obligations to your faith in favor of allegiance to an earthly power, or you sign an oath in bad faith.

This is actually something of a GOP trend. Kansas has adopted a loyalty oath system to prevent cross party endorsements, and the Bush adminstration frequently has used loyalty oaths at public events.

One could argue that the use of the oaths themselves is a serious problem for all Catholics affiliated with the GOP, but that is not my point. I just think it is a clear indication that political parties are, inherently, geared towards the pursuit of earthly power. As such, they are never a suitable surrogate for one’s individual Christian obligations (see the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Doctrinal Note on Catholic obligations in public life for more details).

The bottom line appears to be that the Church understands the need to hold one’s nose and make pragmatic decisions in earthly politics, but professing that any party is a surrogate for the Mother Church or inherently closer to the divine is an entirely different matter. It is actually anathema, since it attacks the dogmatic constitution of the Church on several fronts.

To be clear, as an American I accept the right to free speech. If one wants to assert that they unequivocally know the mind of God and it is partisan, so be it. But as Roman Catholic I have to note that, simply by assuming a position of divine moral authority that supercedes that of the Magisterium and the Pontif, you have seperated yourself not just from the Body of the Faithful but, per my faith, from the Body of Christ (see First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church).

 

[Engineer1]

I’d like to address a particular comment by one poster (back on page 1 or two…my eyes glazed over after that) that the Democratic Party is more friendly to Catholic social justice values than the Republican Party.

I submit the reverse is true.

First of all, the GOP has an impressive civil rights record…why this is not a drumbeat by the GOP is beyond me, but submitted for your perusal (quoted from ccrgop.org/CivilRights.htm):

*- Founded by Abolitionists to combat slavery…ultimately succeeded in electing Abraham Lincoln in 1860. Today, students are taught that Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was an eccentric individual act, and that Lincoln rose above politics in issuing it. In fact, the opposite was true. This was a profoundly political act, which had been expressly authorized by the U.S. Congress in a hotly debated law. Both the House and the Senate had solidly Republican majorities, which – over strong Democratic opposition – had passed the Confiscation Act.

That law stated very clearly that slaves belonging to rebels were free. By signing the Emancipation Proclamation, President Lincoln was implementing that statute. Freeing the slaves was thus a political question that every Republican in Congress voted for, and every Democrat voted against.

• Today, students are taught that Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was an eccentric individual act, and that Lincoln rose above politics in issuing it. In fact, the opposite was true. This was a profoundly political act, which had been expressly authorized by the U.S. Congress in a hotly debated law. Both the House and the Senate had solidly Republican majorities, which – over strong Democratic opposition – had passed the Confiscation Act.

That law stated very clearly that slaves belonging to rebels were free. By signing the Emancipation Proclamation, President Lincoln was implementing that statute. Freeing the slaves was thus a political question that every Republican in Congress voted for, and every Democrat voted against.

Want something recent? How 'bout:

• 2004, is the 50th anniversary of the modern civil rights movement, which most people date to the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision. That opinion was written by a Republican Chief Justice appointed by a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower. And of course that Republican Chief Justice had been our three-term Republican Governor here in California, and he’d been our Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States in 1948: Earl Warren.
• Another great Republican, U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois, authored and introduced the 1960 Civil Rights Act. It was also he who was most responsible – more than any other individual – for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. As Republican Leader in the Senate, even though his party was in the minority, Dirksen crafted the strategy that overcame long odds and tenacious Democratic opposition.

The Democrats weren’t just internally conflicted about the 1964 Civil Rights Act; a significant number of them actually filibustered it – preventing an up or down vote on the bill. Eventually, however – thanks to Dirksen’s leadership – this landmark legislation did get the vote it deserved. As with all of the previous civil rights legislation in our nation’s history, it passed with significantly more support from Republicans than from Democrats. The same was true for the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which became law the following year.

• It was President Ford who, in 1976, repealed FDR’s notorious executive order interning 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II.

We can be proud of Republican appointments such as Justice Clarence Thomas, the former Chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Colin Powell, the first African American to be National Security Advisor or Secretary of State; Condoleezza Rice, the first woman to serve as National Security Advisor and the second black American to serve as SecState; and Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, the first Asian American woman in any president’s Cabinet.*

The reason I am a registered Republican is because the values the party espouses reflect, in my opinion, most closely my Catholic faith. We believe in individual liberty, we beleive in the sovereignty of God, we believe in Christian morality…and we believe the words of the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal.”

I hasten to add one more point…I don’t believe the Democrats are “evil”, I just believe their socialist approach to the world is not effective at supporting the poor and defending life.

Perhaps if the Dems abandon their stance on abortion, support of homosexual “marriage”, euthanasia, and the nanny state, I’ll give them a look. Until then…

Your humble servant…

 

[SoCalRC]

mary bobo;3147943:

The unanswerd question is why would anyone ever vote for someone who supports this carnage??? A person who supports abortion is so morally flawed as to be unfit to hold any position of leadership

So, why do you? Based on its candidates and the conduct of its current leadership, the GOP is overtly pro-abortion. It is also at odds with Rome on everything from IVF and stem cell research to the the death penalty, the war in Iraq, and even the use of fetal cells in vaccines.

I know that half way through that paragraph you were already well into shout-and-denial, but the very existance of this discussion is anathema.

If you follow the Church’s Sunday obligation you are presumably familiar with the Pauline Mass. Each week we announce as one body that we are unworthy. Around the world we make it clear that we understand that we are all sinners. It is a reaffirmation of a central tenant of our faith. We are all to humbly attempt to follow Christ’s perfect example. And, each week we acknowledge that we have failed.

We are made equal by our unworthiness. That equality is the first step in achieving the Unity and Peace that we jointly pray for and actively demonstrate to each other before receiving the Eucharist.

Your constant assertion that a particular party affiliation represents the only reasonable path for a Catholic is, first and foremost, a rejection of Jesus’ express teachings. Rather it is the wayward and dutiful sons or the Pharisee and the Tax Collector, Christ’s message was the same, it is wrong and misguided to relish one’s moral superiority over others. Salvation rests in acknowleding one’s own sinful nature, ‘Love God with all your heart and treat your neighbor as yourself’.

Second, it rejects the Apostolic nature of the Church. By using absolutes you are asserting a moral authority in excess of the Pope’s. Think about it. The Church’s current position on the death penalty has appeared both in a Papal Encyclical and is included in the Catechism of the Church, yet you feel that there is room in the faith to reject it. On the other hand, you assert that in spite of the express statements of the Magesterium otherwise, only one party affiliation and vote meets the criteria of our faith.

So, for better or worse you are declaring yourself as a moral authority that supercedes the Pope. This is a rejection of our Dogmatic Constitution.

It is not my place to judge rather your path is leading away from salvation or not. As Jesus noted, it is a narrow opening and subject to God’s criteria, not mine. But I do feel comfortable pointing out that your fealty to an earthly political party is a lot clearer to me than your fealty to the Catholic Faith.

 

[SoCalRC]

Which is why I say those who consider themselves Democrats should “educate” their party by denying the nomination to “pro-choice” candidates, and even working against “pro-choice” candidates once nominated.

There is no reason both parties can’t be pro-life – and they would be if only pro-life candidates could win in either party.

I’m not sure this is true. The Evangelical Right has been a key component in the GOP coalition for a generation, but pro-life credentials among GOP presidential hopefuls are amazingly weak.

I’d say only two have any legitimacy at all. One gets hammered by right leaning media folks because his poor track record of supporting big business, the other because he is at odds with the neocon portion of the coalition on foreign policy.

This is the problem with using political parties as surrogates for Christian obligation. You can’t embrace your faith as a coherent whole. Instead you have to use an incredibly narrow definition of ‘values’. For example, you cannot say that you won’t support pro-abortion candidates, you have to use an even narrower definition - something like, ‘OK, if they profiteer from human trafficing and forced abortion, fine - but they better say they oppose Roe v. Wade…’

Once you have started compromising infallible teachings, like euthanasia and stem cell research, you have to start rationalizing it. Things like ‘well, yes we allow stem cell research and yes, we even use Federal funds for it, but only on some lines…’ The ultimate rationalization is that we have to use political parties as a surrogate because voting candidate by candidate dillutes our political power.

But that is obviously a myth. A generation of carrying water and the GOP puts up a parade of serial philadering por-abortionists for leadership of the party and the nation. Further, having substituted “GOP” for the specific values, a lot of supposedly values based PACs and interest groups are going to find themselves in the cold with the GOP this fall. I’m not much on political predictions, but when you combine an upopular war, arguably the most unpopular President in US history, a weak economy, inflation, and, say, a values imparied candidate at the top of the ticket, the prospects for the GOP look pretty bleak.

Out in the cold is actually a good thing if you are interesting in money and power. When a party controls all three branches of government it is hard to continue to justify a lack of progress on social issues. But if you have ‘then enemy’ in charge, you can assign blame and raise money. But if your true interest is in actual political results, it is a disaster.

I think the key is in your first statement: “consider themselves…”.

I consider myself a Catholic, and I vote my entire faith every time. Once you consider yourself a ‘’, you have already dilluted your faith in your voting choices. We should not be the least surprised at the GOP’s seeming lack of respect, Jesus specifically told us what happens when one serves two masters.

When we say it isn’t practical to vote our faith, that we have to be pragmatic to have power aren’t we, in fact, putting our faith in men instead of the one true source of all power? Early Christians placed their faith in God against seemingly impossible odds, and many suffered dearly for it. But in just a few centuries, Rome became a Christian nation, all without resorting to the myth of redemptive violence.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m not sure this is true. The Evangelical Right has been a key component in the GOP coalition for a generation, but pro-life credentials among GOP presidential hopefuls are amazingly weak.

Which is why it is incumbent on the Republican Party to reject pro-abortionists.

This is the problem with using political parties as surrogates for Christian obligation.

Ah, I see your problem.

You don’t use political parties as surrogates for Christian obligation (although many of those who seek to “help the poor” do exactly that.) You use political parties as political parties. That is, as instruments to influence government.

You can’t embrace your faith as a coherent whole. Instead you have to use an incredibly narrow definition of ‘values’. For example, you cannot say that you won’t support pro-abortion candidates, you have to use an even narrower definition - something like, ‘OK, if they profiteer from human trafficing and forced abortion, fine - but they better say they oppose Roe v. Wade…’

Again, you seem to think political parties are something they are not.

Once you have started compromising infallible teachings, like euthanasia and stem cell research, you have to start rationalizing it.

Now you’re going to have to explain that one!!

If we have a party that is a bit leaning toward the pro-life position, supporting that party is “compromising infallible teachings,” so we should vote for the party that forthrightly wants abortion on demand, paid for by the taxpayer?!?!

Things like ‘well, yes we allow stem cell research and yes, we even use Federal funds for it, but only on some lines…’ The ultimate rationalization is that we have to use political parties as a surrogate because voting candidate by candidate dillutes our political power.

So the moral thing to do is to vote for the party that wants unlimited embryonic stem cell research?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think it is acceptable to be a Dem or Rep or what ever political party you chose to belong and Be Catholic. the important thing is to not just vote the party ( no mater what party it is) vote the person. Use the measuring sticks given to by God Christ and his Church. Also my personal advise from experience is to just state that is vote the person when asked about which party i belong to. Great thing about this counrty is that its no ones business.

God bless and Good luck in you Bible study group I am sure things will return back to normal.

Peace in the Lord

Scott

Good advice for all of us!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

mary bobo;3147943
It depends on where you are to start with, I think. If one is pro-choice, it would be offensive to hear the particulars of some abortions. It is grisly I have not seen an abortion performed and I would not have stayed if I had had the opportunity, but I have seen many spontaneous abortions and stillborn babies and sometimes it is not a pretty sight. No one will ever convince me that those were not tiny humans. I am not speaking of you in particular, but some people do not want to know the consequences of being pro-choice.

You may be right. I make this offering: As a criminal defense attorney, I was called upon to examine in great detail sometimes piles of “homicide photos”. Now i knew the consequenses of killing, and I surely did not need to see the gore to know that someone was dead and from diagrams of bullet wounds, I knew pretty much how. Yet it was my obligation as an attorney to look at every single one and to do so thoroughly no matter how disgusting, since there was always a chance I would see something that would play into my defense, and I can say with certainty that once it actually did.

Most everyone has seen pictures or actual situations of dead animals and dead people. We all have seen the horror on the concentration camps in Germany after WWII, and the unspeakable horror of Heroshima and Nagasaki. People generally have a good idea what death looks like. Additionally, as some one pointed out, children sometimes pop up at the most inopportune times and witness or read this stuff. I merely suggest such language does not persuade and in fact I think it tends to be counterproductive.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

estesbob;3147998] The unanswerd question is why would anyone ever vote for someone who supports this carnage??? A person who supports abortion is so morally flawed as to be unfit to hold any position of leadership

You make you feelings quite clear. I don’t know why most Americans don’t address this issue to your satisfaction. As you say, apparently most of America is morally flawed. Perhaps one day we can turn it all over to you, and you can help everyone understand things correctly.

The probable answer to your question would no doubt be that apparently the majority of Americans see the issue somewhat differently than you do. They apparently think they are right as well, but they are not here telling you that you are morally flawed.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

@Ridgerunner,

I’m going to have to read more about distributism. I’ve always wanted to, and I guess now is the time.

There is something JPII said on this that was profound. He claimed in talking of poverty issues and social justice that private property carries a “social mortgage” owed to those who still lack the basics of life. Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, and Centesimus Annus.

We are sadly lacking in our understanding of the role the Church undertakes on behalf of all those steeped in institutional poverty and injustice.

 

[estesbob]

You make you feelings quite clear. I don’t know why most Americans don’t address this issue to your satisfaction. As you say, apparently most of America is morally flawed. Perhaps one day we can turn it all over to you, and you can help everyone understand things correctly.

well, but they are not here telling you that you are morally flawed.

But why would you support someone who supports the gruesome procedure you described?. The excuse of “everybody does” doesnt cut it,

 

[SoCalRC]

Now you’re going to have to explain that one!!

Take the example of Saipan. The Catholic Church, via several colleges of Biships (including the US) specificly identified Saipan with regards to human trafficing, modern slavery, and widespread forced abortions.

Based on multiple criminal convictions we now know a great deal about the political influence peddling and profiteering involved. To me, any politician who uses his/her political clout to protect a system of slavery and forced abortions in exchange for money is an abortionist.

Further, we are talking about a grave moral dillemna specifically identified by the Princes of the Church. To me, the obligation is clear. But others here will (and have) argued that protecting a system of vile aboriton and profiteering from it is not relevant to rather or not a politician is “pro life”.

Similiarly, take euthanasia, another inviolate teaching. Did it escape everyone’s notice that the Terri S. legislation was specifically worded to apply to a single individual? Great steps were taken to insure that no one else was effected. This is called political theatre - exploiting personal tragedy for political gain. However, when it came to changing Federal law to make it easier for hospitals to stop nutrition in hydration (which we believe is direct euthanasia) in response to financial inability to pay, or the continued use of fetal tissue in vaccines - the legislation was quite inclussive.

The Church has explained that our faith is a coherent whole. It is “detrimental” to vote wholly on single issues. If you vote on a narrow definition of ‘abortion’ at the expense of euthanasia, you undermine the basis for our belief in both.

If we have a party that is a bit leaning toward the pro-life position, supporting that party is “compromising infallible teachings,” so we should vote for the party that forthrightly wants abortion on demand, paid for by the taxpayer?!?!

So the moral thing to do is to vote for the party that wants unlimited embryonic stem cell research?

No, the moral thing to do is to vote for candidates who support our values as completely as possible, regardless of their party affiliation. The reason people do not do this are the reasons you give.

You vote with a party to increase your political power. You compromise on your values because you believe that doing otherwise will dilute your power. Notice that you do not even see voting for a third party or a write in candidate as a possibility - the ‘alternative’ is the other major ‘party’…

Again, not voting for a major party is seen as throwing away your ‘power’. However, the Lord tells us that earthly power is a myth, and reality would seem to bear that out. We are arguing about ‘values’ between what? A party whose platform includes abortion and a party who has people say they oppose abortion while they personally profiteer from it?

The Church has noted that the situation is complex and we must follow our concience, but I believe that all my past “pragmatic” voting was idolatry. After all, what was I really saying? It is impractical to follow Christ? I have more faith in the power struggles of people than God? I believe that the Church is right, our faith is a coherent whole. Just because the Mother Church leaves room for pragmatic voting does not mean that it is, in of itself, the right path. I think it is better to stand with God, the one true source of power.

Rather that results in short term earthly victory is irrelevant. I feel called to try to do what is right, not what seems expedient.

 

[estesbob]

Which is why it is incumbent on the Republican Party to reject pro-abortionists.

Ah, I see your problem.

You don’t use political parties as surrogates for Christian obligation (although many of those who seek to “help the poor” do exactly that.) You use political parties as political parties. That is, as instruments to influence government.

Again, you seem to think political parties are something they are not.

Now you’re going to have to explain that one!!

If we have a party that is a bit leaning toward the pro-life position, supporting that party is “compromising infallible teachings,” so we should vote for the party that forthrightly wants abortion on demand, paid for by the taxpayer?!?!

So the moral thing to do is to vote for the party that wants unlimited embryonic stem cell research?

I am sure he will soon drop the “GOP supports forced abortion and slavery” claim on you .

 

[gkroeger]

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.

I agree with this statement, however, one could substitute the word Democrat for Republican and it would be just as true.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I agree with this statement, however, one could substitute the word Democrat for Republican and it would be just as true.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I am sure he will soon drop the “GOP supports forced abortion and slavery” claim on you .

As sure as the sun rises in the morning.