President Obama to Speak at Catholic Xavier U

[DawnInTexas]

Scandalous!

 

[George_2007]

I am strongly pro-life, and am a supporter of Obama. Pro-life is from womb to tomb, including abortion, ending war, taking care of the sick and poor, and ending the death penalty. While I disagree with his stance on abortion, I feel Obama strongly supports pro-life causes that Bush did not.

Abortion is an unconditional evil, never to be justified. One million deaths per year of the most innocent, almost always for selfish reasons. War is a conditional evil and its justification can be debated. And, the Left’s anti-life positions go from womb to tomb, make no mistake.

As for taking care of the sick and poor, are we really getting what we think we are getting when we trade off abortion for other social issues? Do we really want the government in charge of caring for the poor? One of the worst tragedies for the family in recent memory was the welfare system that rewarded fatherlessness in low-income families. We have the conservatives to thank for putting a stop to it (Clinton got credit for signing it, but it would never have happened had the Dems not lost their majority - the GOP tried to pass these reforms for years while in the minority; Clinton gets credit only for bi-partisan cooperation).

More public dollars spent on the poor is not necessarily a good thing.

Do we want the poor cared for with a secular-humanist, culture of death, Godless ideology? That’s exactly what you get when you put the government in charge. We have shifted from a society that values the church, the family and the local community in caring for people to one that looks to the government.

If we Christians really wanted to de-politicize social issues, we would not trust either party with caring for the needy; we would do it ourselves. I saw a figure recently where a single labor union spent $50 million in one year supporting political candidates. One senate campaign costs tens of millions of dollars to run. How many Catholics are spending large amounts of money and time trying to get Dems elected so that maybe the poor will get more public dollars spent (ostensibly) on them? If all that time and money were spent more directly on helping people, think what could happen.

So, not only is it morally corrupt to support a pro-abortion politician because of other social issues, it’s debatable whether those other social issues are being better served in the bargain.

 

[canadianguy1143]

Bush gave us Roberts and Alito, which brought the composition of the SCOTUS to near where it would need to be to overturn Roe v. Wade. Then Obama gave us Sotomayor and Kagan, ensuring that such a reversal is another 20+ years off at best.

That is exactly what we feared (and expected) Obama would do when he was elected.

I don’t think its THAT far off. Right now its 5-4 Pro choice and the next person to step down is a Pro-choicer. However, if McCain got in then it could have been 6-3 Pro life possibly (optimistic).

 

[Tsuwano]

Bush gave us Roberts and Alito, which brought the composition of the SCOTUS to near where it would need to be to overturn Roe v. Wade. Then Obama gave us Sotomayor and Kagan, ensuring that such a reversal is another 20+ years off at best.

That is exactly what we feared (and expected) Obama would do when he was elected.

You may be right, but the truth is we really have no way of knowing how any of the Supreme Court justices will vote on any particular case concerning abortion once it comes before the court. They are supposed to listen to arguments without ideological bias. The presence of the new Supreme Court justices on the court ensures nothing as yet.

 

[George_2007]

More on the idea of how much sense it makes for Catholics to support the Democratic party and its candidates.

See Archbishop Chaput’s recent address here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?threadid=487988

Even if you think he is exaggerating the threats somewhat, ask yourself, on the issues the Archbishop discusses (much broader than the one issue of abortion, if that weren’t enough), how much sense does it make to trust the Democrats to lead our society in the right direction?

 

[Alan55]

Bush gave us Roberts and Alito, which brought the composition of the SCOTUS to near where it would need to be to overturn Roe v. Wade. Then Obama gave us Sotomayor and Kagan, ensuring that such a reversal is another 20+ years off at best.

That is exactly what we feared (and expected) Obama would do when he was elected.

You’re counting heads. Five pro-life/anti-abortion justices = overturn Roe v Wade. However, the law doesn’t work like that. Justices tend to honor well-established legal precedents. Even with an anti-abortion majority, it would be unlikely that Roe v. Wade would be overturned.

 

[Tsuwano]

More on the idea of how much sense it makes for Catholics to support the Democratic party and its candidates.

See Archbishop Chaput’s recent address here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?threadid=487988

Even if you think he is exaggerating the threats somewhat, ask yourself, on the issues the Archbishop discusses (much broader than the one issue of abortion, if that weren’t enough), how much sense does it make to trust the Democrats to lead our society in the right direction?

The problem for me is that I don’t trust either political party to lead our society in the right direction. Neither party has done a very good job since the Watergate Scandal. There are individual politicians in both parties whom I trust, but I’m not convinced that individuals can make much headway against entrenched party interests in our present time.

 

[George_2007]

The problem for me is that I don’t trust either political party to lead our society in the right direction. Neither party has done a very good job since the Watergate Scandal. There are individual politicians in both parties whom I trust, but I’m not convinced that individuals can make much headway against entrenched party interests in our present time.

Exactly right. So, why can the Dems count on Catholics to such an extent? Catholics, probably a slim majority of them, adding up to a huge number of votes, see the Dems as either the lesser of two evils or as a force for good. Yet the agenda of the hostility to the Church and radical, relativist secularism that the Archbishop describes is absolutely rooted in the Left and enjoys a comfortable home, perhaps tamed a bit, in the Dem party.

Seems like a no-brainer to me that the Dems are NOT the lesser of evils for the Catholic who follows church teaching and heeds to warnings of Archbishop Chaput. Start with the right to life for the most innocent. Then, the right to full freedom of religion, not watered-down freedom of worship. As for economic issues, we can much better trust the GOP to leave us alone in how we care for the poor, and to leave the anti-church, anti-life, anti-family ideology out of the government programs. As for war, that’s a debatable, case-by-case issue (check your catechism), not the absolute evil that abortion is.

The GOP is not precluding the care of the poor - it’s a question of the government’s role. The Dems ARE precluding the right to life for the unborn. It’s a category error to treat these as equivalent.

I’m NOT saying let’s all become Republicans, which is what some folks seem to be hearing me say. I’m saying there is a clear choice of lesser of evils and it’s not the Dems. The millions of Catholics who habitually vote Dem should give them a wake-up call, not aid and comfort. We can force them to change because they won’t be in power if they lose the Catholic vote. Banish them to the wilderness for a few cycles and I bet they will shed some of their godlessness. The status quo is unacceptable, and as long as the Dems can count on the Catholic vote, we will have the status quo - collaborating with the killing of the unborn and with the demise of our Church in society.

 

[Joe_5859]

You’re counting heads. Five pro-life/anti-abortion justices = overturn Roe v Wade. However, the law doesn’t work like that. Justices tend to honor well-established legal precedents. Even with an anti-abortion majority, it would be unlikely that Roe v. Wade would be overturned.

Yes, you’re right, I am counting heads. I agree it is far from a certainty that a pro-life majority would have the opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade, and it is even more of an uncertainty that a Republican President would appoint a truly pro-life Justice; however, there is a far greater chance than the present alternative which is approximately a zero percent chance. I’ll take anything over zero.

 

[Tsuwano]

Exactly right. So, why can the Dems count on Catholics to such an extent? Catholics, probably a slim majority of them, adding up to a huge number of votes, see the Dems as either the lesser of two evils or as a force for good. Yet the agenda of the hostility to the Church and radical, relativist secularism that the Archbishop describes is absolutely rooted in the Left and enjoys a comfortable home, perhaps tamed a bit, in the Dem party.

Seems like a no-brainer to me that the Dems are NOT the lesser of evils for the Catholic who follows church teaching and heeds to warnings of Archbishop Chaput. Start with the right to life for the most innocent. Then, the right to full freedom of religion, not watered-down freedom of worship. As for economic issues, we can much better trust the GOP to leave us alone in how we care for the poor, and to leave the anti-church, anti-life, anti-family ideology out of the government programs. As for war, that’s a debatable, case-by-case issue (check your catechism), not the absolute evil that abortion is.

The GOP is not precluding the care of the poor - it’s a question of the government’s role. The Dems ARE precluding the right to life for the unborn. It’s a category error to treat these as equivalent.

I’m NOT saying let’s all become Republicans, which is what some folks seem to be hearing me say. I’m saying there is a clear choice of lesser of evils and it’s not the Dems. The millions of Catholics who habitually vote Dem should give them a wake-up call, not aid and comfort. We can force them to change because they won’t be in power if they lose the Catholic vote. Banish them to the wilderness for a few cycles and I bet they will shed some of their godlessness. The status quo is unacceptable, and as long as the Dems can count on the Catholic vote, we will have the status quo - collaborating with the killing of the unborn and with the demise of our Church in society.

I think those Catholics who vote for Democratic candidates obviously don’t see the Democratic Party or those candidates as being hostile to the Church or as representing “radical, relativist secularism.” I don’t think they recognize the Democratic Party as a leftist organization and tend to dismiss such labels as extreme right wing political diatribe. In your post above you compare the right to “full freedom of religion” as opposed to a “watered-down freedom of worship,” but I find your comparison confusing. I’m not sure what you mean and I doubt many Catholics who vote for the Democratic Party do either. Furthermore, they are suspicious of such language, especially when the only alternative being offered seems to be “vote Republican.” These Catholics are also suspicious of Republican claims that individuals can care for the poor more effectively than government, especially when the Republican Party is associated in the public mind with wealthy business corporations and individuals who seem to be more interested in finding tax loopholes than in feeding and housing the poor. I’m not saying you’re wrong in your description of the Democratic Party, though I do think the distinctions between Democrats and Republicans are much more subtle, but language which seems too ideological for Catholics who vote Democrat will only isolate them. I agree that the Democratic Party tends to take the Catholic vote for granted in many areas, but I don’t think the Republican Party offers a viable alternative for these Catholics. I won’t vote for a Republican candidate as opposed to a Democratic candidate merely because of party labels. I’ll look at all the issues the individual represents and decide my vote on these. If I was to vote a straight party ticket, either Republican or Democratic, both parties would have to radically change to win my vote. I seriously doubt that will happen.

 

[Adeodatus]

Anyone who votes for Obama or works to promote his candidacy/re-election is cooperating in abortion. Such a person has the blood of dead babies on his hands.

It’s as simple as that.

 

[Tsuwano]

Anyone who votes for Obama or works to promote his candidacy/re-election is cooperating in abortion. Such a person has the blood of dead babies on his hands.

It’s as simple as that.

Well, it’s not quite as simple as that. After all, even after President Obama disappears from the political scene abortion will still be a significant issue in American politics and society. Also, voting for Barak Obama for President isn’t the only way by which one participates in the guilt associated with the sin of abortion. Arguments have also been made that participating in the Girl Scouts helps promote abortion. I can’t say if this is true or not, but the point is that abortion is not simple and the many paths which may lead a society to accept abortion in its midst or which may lead a person to procure an abortion are diverse and cannot be boiled down solely to which candidate one supports in an election. I agree that we should examine each politician’s position on abortion and allow that information to inform our vote, but no individual politician lies at the heart of this serious sin in our culture. At the heart of abortion, I believe, is our failure to recognize that all life is sacred. I do not believe this failure is simple at all.

 

[georgewithfaith]

Catholics who emphasize peace and justice issues tend to favor democrats. But this group of Catholics seems to like to pick and choose on the teachings of the Faith. There seems to be a correlation that many of the Catholics who believe peace and justice issues prevail over others tend to also be opposed to Church teaching on abortion, celibacy, gay acts and marriage, female ordination and on the use of contraception.

Democrats support abortion, gay acts and marriage and contraception which the Church opposes. Conservative Republicans are opposed to these issues but there are elements in the Republican party who are in line with Democrats. As Catholics we have to side with Conservative Republicans because they favor positions that are in line with Church teaching. Conservatives are not known for the peace and justice issues but at least they support positions that allow Catholics to be in line with the truth of our faith.

 

[Tsuwano]

Catholics who emphasize peace and justice issues tend to favor democrats. But this group of Catholics seems to like to pick and choose on the teachings of the Faith. There seems to be a correlation that many of the Catholics who believe peace and justice issues prevail over others tend to also be opposed to Church teaching on abortion, celibacy, gay acts and marriage, female ordination and on the use of contraception.

Democrats support abortion, gay acts and marriage and contraception which the Church opposes. Conservative Republicans are opposed to these issues but there are elements in the Republican party who are in line with Democrats. As Catholics we have to side with Conservative Republicans because they favor positions that are in line with Church teaching. Conservatives are not known for the peace and justice issues but at least they support positions that allow Catholics to be in line with the truth of our faith.

I don’t think this is necessarily true. After all, the U.S. Bishops have consistently emphasized peace and justice issues in their teaching, and yet they also oppose abortion, support a celibate priesthood, traditional views of marriage, and have taught that homosexuality and the use of contraception are sins. I think Catholics should look at particular issues themselves to see if they are in line with Church teaching and shouldn’t give support to either political party without question. Catholics do not have to side with Conservative Republicans on every issue, but should instead ask if the individual candidate asking for support has views in line with the Church. Not all Republicans do, as you have mentioned, just as not all Democrats do. By the way, from my point of view, abortion is an issue of social justice.

 

[George_2007]

In your post above you compare the right to “full freedom of religion” as opposed to a “watered-down freedom of worship,” but I find your comparison confusing. I’m not sure what you mean and I doubt many Catholics who vote for the Democratic Party do either.