The shift in Catholicism (Wash Times)

[trailblazer]

If one looks at statements by the Bishops, Catholic Answers Voters Guide and other things, he/she will find that **ABORTION is in a category by itself **as a primary issue. To say otherwise goes against Catholic values. It is called non-negotiable. To try to water it down by rhetoric of “wider life issues” seems morally reprehensible since this has already been addressed by our Bishops in their publication on political responsibility and Catholic Answers Voters Guide.

Both parties care about the poor, but take a different phylosophical approach to it. These approaches are arguable and defensable from both. However, one is constantly saying statements without backup because it seems to be depending on ignorance and gullibility of people to accept what they hear without proof.

Although this is TOTALLY seperate from the key Abortion issue, I will briefly address it short and sweet on this thread…but only once because this thread is about the shift of Catholic vote, mostly due their strong faith stance for non-negotiable faith issues! Yes, the Replublican Party can legitimately claim to care for poor, yet implement tax breaks for everyone. The greater the economy, the greater the jobs and opportunities. What is a fair tax for everyone? 50% of income? 75% of income? 90% of income? It is a myth that Republicans do not tax the rich…they do…but also they are interested in helping businesses grow in order to get more jobs for others. Personally I am for a flat purchase tax…another discussion for another thread perhaps.

Love & peace in Christ,
Bob

 

[Philip_P]

jlw:

BONEHEADED!!

Forgive me, Philip. “Wider ethic of life”???

I’m praying for you man, because you are deluding yourself. Abortions should go completely unchecked, and working FAMILIES (Of which, you don’t have?) should keep less of what they EARN for their WORK??? Sounds compassionate to me.

Don’t give me “tax cuts for the rich” garbage either. Alot of “rich” people EMPLOY working families. A post-9/11 economy of consumer inactivity folded quite a few “rich” employers who didn’t have the money to keep the doors open AND keep all their employees.

This is getting a little off-topic, so unless you have something you want to say in reply, we can get back to the original subject.

I don’t have much to add within topic, just the reiteration that I think we have a historic opportunity here with Catholics making up a significant constituency in both parties. The vast majority of people on this site are politically conservative and well aware of the pro-life failings of the Left, but often are far too complacent about those of the Right. Unless we push a consistent ethic of life through both conservative and liberal political circles, and also among the wider culture, we will lose. That’s pretty much all I have to say on this thread, unless someone posts something I find really interesting.

 

[jlw]

Philip P:

I don’t have much to add within topic, just the reiteration that I think we have a historic opportunity here with Catholics making up a significant constituency in both parties. The vast majority of people on this site are politically conservative and well aware of the pro-life failings of the Left, but often are far too complacent about those of the Right. Unless we push a consistent ethic of life through both conservative and liberal political circles, and also among the wider culture, we will lose. That’s pretty much all I have to say on this thread, unless someone posts something I find really interesting.

If we had a culture of life that demanded that we treated our sexuality with reverence and had sex within a marriage (thereby eschewing contraception) and the number of teen and single mothers dropped significantly, the current democratic party would cease to be relavant politically because modern liberalism wouldn’t be needed anymore.

 

[Philip_P]

jlw:

If we had a culture of life that demanded that we treated our sexuality with reverence and had sex within a marriage (thereby eschewing contraception) and the number of teen and single mothers dropped significantly, the current democratic party would cease to be relavant politically because modern liberalism wouldn’t be needed anymore.

I don’t agree that sex is the essence of the Democratic party. Seems to me our society as a whole has a very messed up attitude toward it. I grew up in a conservative state and I can’t say I was terribly impressed with my peers attitudes toward sexuality (and in the Catholic school system, too). I now live in a liberal state and find attitudes about the same. It’s an American problem, not a partisan one.

Dang, I just made a further contribution to thread drift.

 

[jlw]

Philip P:

I don’t agree that sex is the essence of the Democratic party.

Well, which party is most for sex ed (how-to seminars, passing out contraception etc) in grade schools??

Well, which party is most pro-homosexual agenda??

Which party is most pro-abortion (sweeping irresponsible sexual activity under the rug)

Well, which party gets most of the porn-industry’s political contributions???

Which party is most endorsed by population (reproductive) control lobbyists??

 

[miguel]

jlw:

Well, which party is most for sex ed (how-to seminars, passing out contraception etc) in grade schools??

Well, which party is most pro-homosexual agenda??

Which party is most pro-abortion (sweeping irresponsible sexual activity under the rug)

Well, which party gets most of the porn-industry’s political contributions???

Which party is most endorsed by population (reproductive) control lobbyists??

And as you point out, all the social problems created by this lunacy require liberal (i.e., democrat) “solutions”.

 

[miguel]

miguel:

And as you point out, all the social problems created by this lunacy require liberal (i.e., democrat) “solutions”.

…courtesy of Joe Taxpayer.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

We went through this same thing up here in 2000. There was a March for Women in Ottawa. Many of the bishops were supportive of work against poverty, subjugation, and so on. Thing is that the M4W is pro-abortion on the international level. At the Canadian level the pro-abortion position was spelled out in crystal clear terms. Six bishops ended up participating in the march. Even though Cardinal Ambrozic said clearly that no Catholics could participate.

Eventually the six bishops ‘got it.’ Bishop Henry in fact became a fierce champion of the Culture of Life. But now we are going through exactly the same thing with Bishop Fabbro in London where they awarding two abortionists. Dr Killan, Principal of a Catholic college, thinks he can balance an award to Notre Dame President Rev Mally with two awards to abortionists. And then play ropey dope and say nothing about the resolutions his college adopted re Ex Corde Ecclesiae.

This is not a balancing act. The Catholic Church teaches always and everywhere that the lives of the unborn cannot be balanced with social programs. To do so is remote material cooperation with an intrinsic evil. Please do not make up your own doctrine and call it Catholic. If you insist on making up your own doctrine then consider this: it is better that the Church get smaller before going one step further.

And consider this: “in the Catholic world of our time, Jesus Christ is too often simply an excuse to talk about something else,” (Fr. Divo Barsotti, a mystic and spiritual director, founder of the Community of the Children of God)

We have just passed through a tremendous period of conversion which saw people coming into the Church in droves, hungry for the faith. Perhaps it is now time to show some nominal Catholics the back door.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Philip P:

Unless we push a consistent ethic of life through both conservative and liberal political circles, and also among the wider culture, we will lose. That’s pretty much all I have to say on this thread, unless someone posts something I find really interesting.

The Church is neither liberal nor conservative. These are political terms. For the Church to marry itself to the World and do real good, then she must not subscribe to the limitations of these terms. Separation of Church and State is rubbish. ( I used to believe in it, but I saw the light.) The Church is the conscience of the State.

For the Church to have a political body, that body must be transformed by the Eucharist. We cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, which is exactly what the existing political parties are – both south and north of the 49th parallel. We need a whole new international political movement. The trouble with contemporary Catholics is that they have been subjugated too long to submit to visionary thinking. Catholicism is visionary thinking! Pull out the stops!

 

[Brad]

Ani Ibi:

The Church is neither liberal nor conservative. These are political terms. For the Church to marry itself to the World and do real good, then she must not subscribe to the limitations of these terms. Separation of Church and State is rubbish. ( I used to believe in it, but I saw the light.) The Church is the conscience of the State.

Ain’t that the truth!!! Too bad this nonsense is drilled into our schoolchildren and it takes a real “enlightenment” to escape it. Separation of Church and State was NEVER intended by the founders of the United States as evidenced by lack of any governmental documents supporting it in the first 75 years. Of course, so many think that the courts are God and therefore what some of the judges have opined must be what the constitution really says.
Ani Ibi:

For the Church to have a political body, that body must be transformed by the Eucharist. We cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, which is exactly what the existing political parties are – both south and north of the 49th parallel. We need a whole new international political movement. The trouble with contemporary Catholics is that they have been subjugated too long to submit to visionary thinking. Catholicism is visionary thinking! Pull out the stops!

The only vision that provides true freedom, even of religious expression - and yet so many oppose it as binding. How foolish.

 

[Ahimsa]

Abortion is “a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women,” said Clinton. Then she went further: “There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances.”

*Does not ever have to be exercised. *I searched Google and Nexis for parts of that sentence tonight and got no hits. Is the press corps asleep? Hillary Clinton just endorsed a goal I’ve never heard a pro-choice leader endorse. Not safe, legal, and rare. Safe, legal, and never.

Once you embrace that truth—that the ideal number of abortions is zero—voters open their ears. They listen when you point out, as Clinton did, that the abortion rate fell drastically during her husband’s presidency but has risen in more states than it has fallen under George W. Bush. I’m sure these trends have more to do with economics than morals, but that’s the point. Once we agree that the goal is zero, we can stop asking which party yaps more about fighting abortion and start asking which party gets results.

 

[trailblazer]

The following is an exerpt from this week’s Priest for Life newsletter:

"And in the end, we cannot be content to reduce the numbers of abortions. We have to acknowledge that laws permitting even a single abortion undermine the very fabric of our freedom and our republic. Abortion is an act of violence that no nation has the right to permit. But when anyone in our great nation, Democrat or Republican, wants to advance the Culture of Life to any degree, that deserves an “Amen!” from us all."