Things Fall Apart - How Democrats gave up on religious voters

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not quite. The Church tells us that we are to form our conscience according to its teachings, and the teaching on abortion is quite clear. If we violate the Church’s teaching it means our conscience has not been properly formed no matter how much we have prayed about it. Deluding ourselves is the easiest thing for us to do since, as fallen creatures we have wounded consciences. If we ignore Church teaching we are setting ourselves above Christ and his Church and that’s not the action of a well-formed conscience but of one formed by the opinions of the world. There are several important issues in any election, but the life issues of abortion and euthanasia trump them all.
As I stated I have informed my conscience. But when it comes to voting I can think for myself and don’t need my vote to be controlled. I thank you for the judgment of the state of my conscience though. And God bless you along your faith journey, in your voting discernment, and peace.
 
Not quite. The Church tells us that we are to form our conscience according to its teachings, and the teaching on abortion is quite clear. If we violate the Church’s teaching it means our conscience has not been properly formed no matter how much we have prayed about it. Deluding ourselves is the easiest thing for us to do since, as fallen creatures we have wounded consciences. If we ignore Church teaching we are setting ourselves above Christ and his Church and that’s not the action of a well-formed conscience but of one formed by the opinions of the world. There are several important issues in any election, but the life issues of abortion and euthanasia trump them all.
In political threads whenever a catholic starts talking about primacy of conscience you know two things.
  1. They are poorly cathecized
  2. They vote Democrat
Eventually they are going to find out that “primacy of conscience” is not a “get put of hell free card”.
 
We live in a democracy of plural faith beliefs and views on all sorts of issues.

And yet, you quote the gospel of Matthew to justify why you vote for Democrats who vote for liberal domestic programs. This is in opposition to your saying that we live in a “plural democracy of many beliefs” and that we shouldn’t impose our morality on others. You are doing exactly that.

As with many issues, on the single issue you refer to, reasonable and thinking people can and do have differing views when weighing the rights of the unborn with the rights of women.

Do you think its reasonable to allow babies’ heads to be crushed by a forceps or sucked out of the womb by a vaccuum? Your party does.

And I just think the Church should return to a greater emphasis on many of the issues Christ actually specifically spoke about and not emphasize a single issue to the degree She does and on a word not even found in Scripture.

So its about what you think the Church should emphasize? The Church clearly states the priority of the sanctity of life as the foremost issue. Yet you disagree with the Church. I appreciate your honesty - it reveals a lot.

Thereby showing that indeed despite perhaps protests they are not single issue voters, that abortion in the end is the single issue on which many Catholics appear to vote. 🤷

No CMatt, and I would appreciate it if you did not distort or misrepresent what we are saying. Abortion is not the only issue. However, it is the most important issue. Let me frame it this way: Which is more important, seeing that kids get frozen pizza during the summer school or that we quit crushing the skulls of babies’ skulls? You seem to prefer the former.

And that’s fine.

No, its not fine for the unborn.

It’s everyone’s right in America to vote as they see fit. And it’s my right too as a Catholic (I’ll trust I don’t also again at this time have to explain who the Church counts Catholic), but that it’s my right living in this attempt at democracy in a country we call America, to think for myself, inform my conscience, but weigh many issues, as a religious voter to pray over them, often repeatedly pray over them, and then in the privacy of my voting booth vote my conscience. The Church Herself states in the catechism that to not follow our consciences is to condemn ourselves.

YOur conscience is misinformed. You are wrong.

Ishii, I understand your view and I truly hope this again helps my friend in understanding another view. Though I of course am under no pretences of us being in agreement on this issue. So in the end we may merely have to agree to disagree. God bless and all the best. And of course peace. :hug1:
Sorry, no peace and hugs while the unborn continue to get slaughtered.

Ishii
 
In political threads whenever a catholic starts talking about primacy of conscience you know two things.
  1. They are poorly cathecized
  2. They vote Democrat
Eventually they are going to find out that “primacy of conscience” is not a “get put of hell free card”.
Well actually no, one does not know about everyone’s degree of being catechized, nor whether they always vote Democratic, and especially one does not know another’s heart and conscience and who gets put into hell. Nevertheless God bless on your journey of faith. Peace.
 
Sorry, no peace and hugs while the unborn continue to get slaughtered.

Ishii
🤷 As you wish Ishii. But at least I can find directly mentioned in Scripture words such as the poor, peacemakers, and the sick whom we are told to care for. Issues many Christians, including some Catholics, and persons of various faiths, all as religious voters, emphasize in our voting. Many believe not only individuals and the Church and various private faith-based institutions but also govt can play a role. And believe govt has a role in picking up the slack. But thank you too for judging my conscience near the end of your post.
 
In political threads whenever a catholic starts talking about primacy of conscience you know two things.
  1. They are poorly cathecized
  2. They vote Democrat
Eventually they are going to find out that “primacy of conscience” is not a “get put of hell free card”.
Of the 2 major political parties in the US, are you and others saying Catholic Democrats who are unrepentent of their secular election voting decisions go to hell and otherwise only Catholic Republican Party voters preside in heaven? Do you believe the Church is home only to the latter voter?
 
Of the 2 major political parties in the US, are you and others saying Catholic Democrats who are unrepentent of their secular election voting decisions go to hell and otherwise only Catholic Republican Party voters preside in heaven? Do you believe the Church is home only to the latter voter?
i don’t think so but you should never vote for someone who is very clearly anti life sometimes the GOP is as well and sometimes the dems are more catholic then the GOP counter parts
 
i don’t think so but you should never vote for someone who is very clearly anti life sometimes the GOP is as well and sometimes the dems are more catholic then the GOP counter parts
Deciphering who is very clearly anti life is part of the problem as I see it because as you know I see a magnitude of life issues. I do hope Jesus does not welcome only Republican voters. But in any case God bless you and peace if you don’t mind me offering it to you.
 
Deciphering who is very clearly anti life is part of the problem as I see it because as you know I see a magnitude of life issues. I do hope Jesus does not welcome only Republican voters. But in any case God bless you and peace if you don’t mind me offering it to you.
yes it is difficult this is why I think we should make a bigger push to have more candidates who see eye to eye with the church on next to all the issues.
 
40.png
CMatt25:
Ishii, we have been over this countless numbers of times. We live in a democracy of plural faith beliefs and views on all sorts of issues. As with many issues, on the single issue you refer to, reasonable and thinking people can and do have differing views when weighing the rights of the unborn with the rights of women. On what occurs at the moment of conception. On ensoulment. And society attempts to come up with some sort of law of the land. Perhaps imperfect and not everyone is always going to be pleased with the results but in this instance Roe is the law of the land. Catholic teaching on every issue can not always be forced upon the people in a democracy. And I just think after going on 40 yrs now, the Church should return to a greater emphasis on many of the issues Christ actually specifically spoke about and not emphasize a single issue to the degree She does and on a word not even found in Scripture.
That there are a plurality of views on a given moral issue is irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of any position in such an issue. Just because there were a plurality of views in Nazi Germany about what to do with the Jews does not mean that those who vocally opposed the treatment of Jews should have been expected to simply tolerate the exterminationist anti-Semitism of the ruling regime. One may even note that the Nazi party had many other successful policies. They greatly reduced unemployment, they improved the standard of living, heightened national solidarity, improved public health; but today most would agree that Nazi policy toward the Jews alone would justify repudiating the totality of the Nazi party platform.

To be sure, the Holocaust analogy is a hyperbolic (and probably overused) analogy in the abortion debate. But you can see that, if one sees abortion as an overwhelming issue that generally outweighs the others in significance, you “weigh all the issues rather than just one” argument is moot.

Also, you give me the impression (correct me if I’m wrong) that you think the case against the legality of abortion is based entirely on the belief that Catholic teaching should be grafted onto all American legislation. Now maybe I’ve been misled by my Jesuit high school theology teachers, but I was taught (and believe) that there is a strictly logical and juristic argument against the legality of abortion, the supporters of which have inconsistent definition of what constitutes a legal person. You seem to present a view on abortion that seems typical of pro-choice liberals: that it is an issue of whether or not to legislate Catholic or Christian morals and impose them on everyone; I, I suspect most Catholics (perhaps even most on this forum), and my old theology teachers would insist that one need not invoke any religious teaching or dogma to argue convincingly that a fetus should constitute a legal person and abortion should be illegal. The “to legislate morality or not to legislate morality” dilemma is a false one.

More on the topic at hand, I think Republican politicians have fairly consistently let down the pro-life cause. It wouldn’t be much of an exaggeration to say that while the Democratic party is outspokenly pro-choice, the republican party is tacitly pro-choice. Much to the chagrin of many conservatives on this forum, the most effective way to turn the tide of American politics against the status quo would be for pro-life democrats to change their party from within. So long as the Republican party has a monopoly on “the abortion card,” it only has to pass itself off as more pro-life (or less pro-choice) than the Democratic part to win the pro-life electorate. Introducing a little competition over the substantial pro-life electorate would go a long way.

It should be noted, i think, that as many Catholics put there liberalism before their Catholicism or Christianity, many do the same for their conservatism. For example, I’ve seen numerous conservatives on these forums, supposedly anathema to pro-choice politicians and activists, praise conservatives like Charles Krauthammer and his policy opinions. Charles Krathammer, however, is outspokenly pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and irreligious. Nor is he the only one. A surprising number of the conservative elite are liberal in every respect except on economic and foreign policy. Many of them get passes from conservatives even though they possess the very traits that they find repulsive in liberals.

I honestly wish we had European-style parliament in the US, with coalitional governments rather than single-party dominant governments formed with each election. There are far more political positions represented in this country than can possible fit under two tents.
 
As I stated I have informed my conscience. But when it comes to voting I can think for myself and don’t need my vote to be controlled. I thank you for the judgment of the state of my conscience though. And God bless you along your faith journey, in your voting discernment, and peace.
I know nothing whatsoever about the state of your conscience and said nothing about it. No one who truly knows what the Church teaches could possibly vote pro-abortion on the pretext that other issues are as important when the Church has clearly stated otherwise. I’m not in the voting booth with you and know nothing about your voting record nor do I care to know. I’m am only informing you and others, if you need informing (which is appears you do from the things you’ve written) of the truth about these things. If the truth hits home, that’s perfectly fine (again not saying you need to have it hit home, that’s not for me to decide).

The very things Catholics that vote Democratic wish to end, such as poverty and other social issues, would all evaporate if people didn’t have the contraception/abortion mentality. Most people living in generational poverty in America do so because they are in one parent families brought about from sex out of wedlock and men abandoning women who get pregnant. That is what should end, not innocent lives.

We all know the truth here. We all know what abortion is. The absolute horror of it should speak for itself. And at the core of it is fear, not freedom–fear that no woman ought to have if society were formed according to God’s law. And society can be formed according to God’s law even in a pluralistic society that embrace life instead of believing the heinous lie that death is the best way to deal with people’s problems.
 
To be sure, the Holocaust analogy is a hyperbolic (and probably overused) analogy in the abortion debate. But you can see that, if one sees abortion as an overwhelming issue that generally outweighs the others in significance, you “weigh all the issues rather than just one” argument is moot.

Also, you give me the impression (correct me if I’m wrong) that you think the case against the legality of abortion is based entirely on the belief that Catholic teaching should be grafted onto all American legislation. Now maybe I’ve been misled by my Jesuit high school theology teachers, but I was taught (and believe) that there is a strictly logical and juristic argument against the legality of abortion, the supporters of which have inconsistent definition of what constitutes a legal person. You seem to present a view on abortion that seems typical of pro-choice liberals: that it is an issue of whether or not to legislate Catholic or Christian morals and impose them on everyone; I, I suspect most Catholics (perhaps even most on this forum), and my old theology teachers would insist that one need not invoke any religious teaching or dogma to argue convincingly that a fetus should constitute a legal person and abortion should be illegal. The “to legislate morality or not to legislate morality” dilemma is a false one.

More on the topic at hand, I think Republican politicians have fairly consistently let down the pro-life cause. It wouldn’t be much of an exaggeration to say that while the Democratic party is outspokenly pro-choice, the republican party is tacitly pro-choice. Much to the chagrin of many conservatives on this forum, the most effective way to turn the tide of American politics against the status quo would be for pro-life democrats to change their party from within. So long as the Republican party has a monopoly on “the abortion card,” it only has to pass itself off as more pro-life (or less pro-choice) than the Democratic part to win the pro-life electorate. Introducing a little competition over the substantial pro-life electorate would go a long way.

It should be noted, i think, that as many Catholics put there liberalism before their Catholicism or Christianity, many do the same for their conservatism. For example, I’ve seen numerous conservatives on these forums, supposedly anathema to pro-choice politicians and activists, praise conservatives like Charles Krauthammer and his policy opinions. Charles Krathammer, however, is outspokenly pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and irreligious. Nor is he the only one. A surprising number of the conservative elite are liberal in every respect except on economic and foreign policy. Many of them get passes from conservatives even though they possess the very traits that they find repulsive in liberals.

I honestly wish we had European-style parliament in the US, with coalitional governments rather than single-party dominant governments formed with each election. There are far more political positions represented in this country than can possible fit under two tents.
I agree the Nazi comparison is hyperbole and probably overused.

And if you and others believe abortion outweighs everything else, then as I have stated, you have that right just as I and others have the right to weigh the issues and come to another conclusion when all are taken in total. So hopefully you and others can understand, while perhaps moot to you, it is not moot to us.

The abortion issue, not unlike others, is not black or white to me nor to many other Americans who wrestle with this as well as with other issues which can be difficult matters. If everything was so clear and black and white there would be no disagreement in politics nor on anything. Now sure before anyone says so, certainly it might be easier for us to simply allow the Church to think for us on these matters. And many of us give credence to Church teaching on voting and inform our consciences. But we might also think for ourselves. Along with informing my conscience of current Catholic thought and doing some thinking of my own, I personally add a whole lot of prayer as I suspect many do. And then we do the best we can to the best of our understanding to then follow in the end how our consciences lead us to vote. And I believe God knows the heart.

The only impression I wish to leave is society wrestles with these matters and arrives at a law of the land. Those however who advocate a complete denial of any choice on this matter whatsoever on whatever grounds, would not even be satisfied with choice even minimally beyond conception nor with exceptions for rape and incest. But only that everyone come their way.

And that simply is not the way it works in a democracy. We have been rehashing the same debate for nearly 40 yrs. I for one have tired of it. All of you can vote to outlaw it all you want. But abortion will still be here. So I believe in keeping it safe and legal in a democracy as ours, but striving to put those programs and such in place to make it rare. And moving on. God bless each of us and for those who do not object to me offering it to you… Peace.

PS BTW I totally agree there are far more political positions than represented by the 2 majors FWIW.
 
I know nothing whatsoever about the state of your conscience and said nothing about it… I’m am only informing you and others, if you need informing (which is appears you do from the things you’ve written) of the truth about these things.
.
True you may know nothing whatsoever about the state of my conscience nor my heart. But nevertheless here’s what you said in reply to me. “If we ignore Church teaching we are setting ourselves above Christ and his Church and that’s not the action of a well-formed conscience but of one formed by the opinions of the world.” Then now you add I apparently need to be informed of truth. So if I mistakenly read your words as saying I am setting myself above Christ, then pardon me. As to the rest, we’re merely going in circles. That is why I pray as a Church and a society that after 40 yrs we can move on. God bless you on your walk of faith. Peace.
 
I agree the Nazi comparison is hyperbole and probably overused.

And if you and others believe abortion outweighs everything else, then as I have stated, you have that right just as I and others have the right to weigh the issues and come to another conclusion when all are taken in total. So hopefully you and others can understand, while perhaps moot to you, it is not moot to us.

You keep talking about rights. Of course you have the right to vote as you wish when did I say you don’t have the right to vote as you wish? To say " I have the right to vote as I wish because I’m an American" is to confuse what we are discussing. I am talking about the morality of voting a certain way in light of Catholic teaching.

The abortion issue, not unlike others, is not black or white to me nor to many other Americans who wrestle with this as well as with other issues which can be difficult matters. If everything was so clear and black and white there would be no disagreement in politics nor on anything. Now sure before anyone says so, certainly it might be easier for us to simply allow the Church to think for us on these matters. And many of us give credence to Church teaching on voting and inform our consciences. But we might also think for ourselves. Along with informing my conscience of current Catholic thought and doing some thinking of my own, I personally add a whole lot of prayer as I suspect many do. And then we do the best we can to the best of our understanding to then follow in the end how our consciences lead us to vote. And I believe God knows the heart.

I believe the abortion issue is not clear because so many catholics have refused to ackowlege its evil and vote accordingly. Catholics need to be leaders on moral issues. On the abortion issue, many Catholics get caught up in liberal politics " its my choice" “we live in a pluralistic democracy” instead of calling evil, “evil”. Do you not think abortion is evil?

The only impression I wish to leave is society wrestles with these matters and arrives at a law of the land. Those however who advocate a complete denial of any choice on this matter whatsoever on whatever grounds, would not even be satisfied with choice even minimally beyond conception nor with exceptions for rape and incest. But only that everyone come their way.

Now you’re proposing a straw man. All I’ve been saying (and I would hope most Catholics who support the sanctity of life would agree) is that we need to overturn the terrible decision of Roe V. Wade which would leave it up to the states. I don’t know any pro-life person who wouldn’t welcome the overturning of Roe V, Wade. Some would then work to change the law in states. Some states would have stricter laws against abortion than others: some might allow abortion in some cases, others would restrict it more, but make no mistake, if Roe V. Wade were overturned, there would be a lot fewer babies being aborted in this country and it would be a step in the right direction. I agree with you that as a country, we are far away from having the unborn protected from conception to natural death. However, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do what we can to protect the unborn does it?

And that simply is not the way it works in a democracy. We have been rehashing the same debate for nearly 40 yrs. I for one have tired of it. All of you can vote to outlaw it all you want. But abortion will still be here. So I believe in keeping it safe and legal in a democracy as ours, but striving to put those programs and such in place to make it rare. And moving on. God bless each of us and for those who do not object to me offering it to you… Peace.

I am sorry you have tired of the debate and want to move on. Well, to echo what you’ve been saying, " I have every right to debate this issue in this pluralistic democracy of ours". Theft, murder, etc. are all outlawed but we still have them. Is that any reason to favor their legality? Slavery was legal in this country for a long time - I am glad the abolishonists kept fighting to abolish it. Imagine if they had listened to people who said, “its been legal for so long, lets just keep it safe and legal, but rare”. What if MLK had listened to those who said, " the south is racist. Its pointless to try to change the system down there." ? No, we must keep up the fight because abortion is a grave moral evil that has had serious repercussions on society. As Mother Theresa said, “if a mother can kill her unborn child, then I can kill you and you can kill me.” We must keep up the fight. I truly hope you will join the fight someday.

PS BTW I totally agree there are far more political positions than represented by the 2 majors FWIW.
Ishii
 
🤷 As you wish Ishii. But at least I can find directly mentioned in Scripture words such as the poor, peacemakers, and the sick whom we are told to care for. Issues many Christians, including some Catholics, and persons of various faiths, all as religious voters, emphasize in our voting. Many believe not only individuals and the Church and various private faith-based institutions but also govt can play a role. And believe govt has a role in picking up the slack. But thank you too for judging my conscience near the end of your post.
CMatt, I might not have worded my response in the best way, with regard to your conscience. If I offended you I am sorry. The Diocese of Albany put out a useful guide called “voting with a Catholic conscience”. Here are some excerpts:

*“We must weigh these issues in a fashion that neither treats all issues as moral equivalents (for example, giving abortion and racism the same moral status as the federal standard for the minimum wage or the best policies to combat global warming) nor reduces Catholic social teaching to one or two issues. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil.” *

As Faithful Citizenship teaches, “those who knowingly, willingly and directly support public policies or legislation that undermine fundamental moral principles cooperate with evil. Voting for candidates who hold such an unacceptable position would be permissible only for grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or position preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.”

In other words, voting for a candidate who supports legal abortion because you agree with that candidate on the issue of school lunches for children, gay marriage, or increasing tax cuts on the rich, is to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/hubbard-voting.htm

CMatt, vote for candidates who see a govt role in helping society all you want. But if those candidates favor abortion rights, then you are contributing to a grave moral evil.

Ishii
 
That there are a plurality of views on a given moral issue is irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of any position in such an issue. Just because there were a plurality of views in Nazi Germany about what to do with the Jews does not mean that those who vocally opposed the treatment of Jews should have been expected to simply tolerate the exterminationist anti-Semitism of the ruling regime. One may even note that the Nazi party had many other successful policies. They greatly reduced unemployment, they improved the standard of living, heightened national solidarity, improved public health; but today most would agree that Nazi policy toward the Jews alone would justify repudiating the totality of the Nazi party platform.

That is a very good point, and, far from being hyperbolic and overused, it is very illustrative to those open to seeing the truth.

To be sure, the Holocaust analogy is a hyperbolic (and probably overused) analogy in the abortion debate. But you can see that, if one sees abortion as an overwhelming issue that generally outweighs the others in significance, you “weigh all the issues rather than just one” argument is moot.

Also, you give me the impression (correct me if I’m wrong) that you think the case against the legality of abortion is based entirely on the belief that Catholic teaching should be grafted onto all American legislation. Now maybe I’ve been misled by my Jesuit high school theology teachers, but I was taught (and believe) that there is a strictly logical and juristic argument against the legality of abortion, the supporters of which have inconsistent definition of what constitutes a legal person. You seem to present a view on abortion that seems typical of pro-choice liberals: that it is an issue of whether or not to legislate Catholic or Christian morals and impose them on everyone; I, I suspect most Catholics (perhaps even most on this forum), and my old theology teachers would insist that one need not invoke any religious teaching or dogma to argue convincingly that a fetus should constitute a legal person and abortion should be illegal. The “to legislate morality or not to legislate morality” dilemma is a false one.

More on the topic at hand, I think Republican politicians have fairly consistently let down the pro-life cause. It wouldn’t be much of an exaggeration to say that while the Democratic party is outspokenly pro-choice, the republican party is tacitly pro-choice. Much to the chagrin of many conservatives on this forum, the most effective way to turn the tide of American politics against the status quo would be for pro-life democrats to change their party from within. So long as the Republican party has a monopoly on “the abortion card,” it only has to pass itself off as more pro-life (or less pro-choice) than the Democratic part to win the pro-life electorate. Introducing a little competition over the substantial pro-life electorate would go a long way.

Competition would be great but let’s be realistic. The Democrat party is bought and paid for by the abortion lobby. Have the Democrats progressed at all from the 1992 convention when the pro-life gov. Casey was refused a speech because of his pro-life views? That said, anything is possible through prayer and evangelization.

It should be noted, i think, that as many Catholics put there liberalism before their Catholicism or Christianity, many do the same for their conservatism. For example, I’ve seen numerous conservatives on these forums, supposedly anathema to pro-choice politicians and activists, praise conservatives like Charles Krauthammer and his policy opinions. Charles Krathammer, however, is outspokenly pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and irreligious. Nor is he the only one. A surprising number of the conservative elite are liberal in every respect except on economic and foreign policy. Many of them get passes from conservatives even though they possess the very traits that they find repulsive in liberals.

I think your Krauthammer analysis is flawed. Krauthammer’s political analysis is often spot on, and his foreign policy and economic views are often very insightful. There is nothing wrong with acknowleging a good column or article by someone like Krauthammer - that doesn’t imply an endorsment of his liberal social views, and I don’t think he has ever run for anything. Liberal catholics, on the other hand, routinely vote for candidates who are for abortion rights, gay rights, etc.

I honestly wish we had European-style parliament in the US, with coalitional governments rather than single-party dominant governments formed with each election. There are far more political positions represented in this country than can possible fit under two tents.
I wish Catholics in America would take into account Catholic moral teaching when considering who to vote for. If Catholics in America woke up, then we’d easily overturn Roe V. Wade.

Ishii
 
I wish Catholics in America would take into account Catholic moral teaching when considering who to vote for. If Catholics in America woke up, then we’d easily overturn Roe V. Wade.

Ishii
amen

how can this be done?
 
Do you not think abortion is evil?

The only impression I wish to leave is society wrestles with these matters and arrives at a law of the land. Those however who advocate a complete denial of any choice on this matter whatsoever on whatever grounds, would not even be satisfied with choice even minimally beyond conception nor with exceptions for rape and incest. But only that everyone come their way.

Now you’re proposing a straw man. All I’ve been saying (and I would hope most Catholics who support the sanctity of life would agree) is that we need to overturn the terrible decision of Roe V. Wade which would leave it up to the states. I don’t know any pro-life person who wouldn’t welcome the overturning of Roe V, Wade. Some would then work to change the law in states.
Ishii, I believe it is killing to electrocute, lethally inject, or to kill a living, breathing, born with a soul human being by firing squad too. 🤷 However I know plenty of Catholics who hold to what is considered the more politically conservative view on the death penalty and certainly advocate for greater use of the death penalty than the “very rare, if not practically non-existent” cases as taught in CCC 2267.

Yet for some reason I sure don’t see the Church stressing capital punishment today anywhere near She does abortion. She is so consumed in abortion and gays I am afraid, that She appears to me to look the other way and allow many Catholics to support killing thru an expanded, general use of the death penalty than what our CCC teaches. I don’t see the same cries to rein them in. I don’t see nearly the effort on behalf of the Church to push for outlawing capital punishment except in those “practically non-existent” cases.

You might believe it is strawman for me to say the no choice folk would not be happy until there is no choice whatsoever from the moment of conception. But you yourself admit some would then work to overturn abortion in the states as well. Of course they would. Because even with an overturn of Roe v Wade they would not be happy still until each state outlawed all abortion. We have seen this sort of involvement in states regarding gay marriage. So like you I have no doubt the same efforts would take place on the state level regarding abortion.
 
You forgot to add not all Democrats voted as a block because of it’s bigger tent and under Senate rules the Republicans were able to just say no until things were watered down to get passage. Otherwise for instance we would have a public option in healthcare and no tax cuts for the wealthy which have proven to be of no avail other than to the wealthy while adding to the deficit. No argument from me on the Wall St and so called too big to fail bank bailouts. Although much of that money has supposedly been paid back. Many of the proposed Medicare cuts were to the private Medicare Advantage programs due to excess payments to them. Most ppl are on traditional Medicare however. Doctors need to suck it up and provide care for Medicare patients. But of course it seems no discussion can be had here without the single issue of abortion being brought up.

As an aside, it’s the Democratic Party. Democrats don’t go around saying Republic Party. And frankly the Democratic Party is center, center left at best. While the Republican Party is far right conservative. The Democratic Party really hasn’t been all that liberal for yrs. That’s part of the problem. We’ve tried conservative. We’ve tried center/center left. Haven’t really tried liberalism and the corporate lobby has a grip on both major parties. Peace.
I am not persuaded by your first assertion. The Democrats had what they needed to pass total socialized healthcare, they just didn’t. The Republicans couldn’t have stopped them. It isn’t a matter of a “big Democrat tent”. Lots of them walked the plank knowing they were walking it, and they have been in nearly perfect lockstep on most things, whether the public favored them or not. Some in the Senate, it appears, probably feared voter wrath with the house socialized medicine bill, just as a lot of house members failed to do. So, the Democrats who had to run statewide (Senate) “compromised” with the Democrats who didn’t (house).

TARP 1(b) was probably necessary. That’s the money, much of which has been paid back; the part paid (and sometimes forced on) solvent banks. Some was handed to insolvent institutions like AIG, which handed enough of it to Goldman to make Goldman solvent when it wasn’t. Much of it will never be paid back, including the GM money.

“Excess payments for Medicare advantage”? That’s an administrative issue just like reimbursement rates. Whether doctors “suck it up” due to Medicare reimbursement rates depends on where you are. In this part of the country, the healthcare organizations do very well on Medicare rates. You do know insurers’ rates are about the same or less than Medicare rates, do you not?

The issue of abortion is relevant whenever, as with Obamacare, they’re spending public money on it.

I have explained before why I say “Democrat party”. It’s out of respect for the old Democrats. When I was a very young man, first getting involved as a Democrat party worker, I was told by the old timers that it’s “Democrat Party”, not “Democratic Party”. Possibly that was a localism, but it was explained to me that the party was a “party of Democrats”, thus “Democrat party”, bespeaking the individualism yet mostly shared values of Democrats. “Democratic party” to them suggested a unitary organization of followers. Those old timers were very proud of their independent-mindedness, and of a party they did not believe required them to be in lockstep on every last thing. Anyway, even around here, most Democrats now say “Democratic party”, but some of the few oldsters who are left say “Democrat party”. I was a Democrat all my life, but I no longer support the party or its candidates because it’s almost impossible for a Democrat now to get party support if he doesn’t support abortion, and I can’t support a party that has abortion-on-demand in its official platform. I’m not a Republican either. I’m just me. One of the last of the Democrats of the now-disappeared party of John F. Kennedy and Sam Nunn and Hubert Humphrey and Stuart Symington and Scoop Jackson; the ones who represented the Democrat party when I was still wet behind the ears.

So, I still say “Democrat party” out of respect for those old-timers who used that term when I first joined the party. Most are dead,now, I’ll grant.

Likely you’re younger than I am. The Democrat party of my youth was about like the Republican party of today. Center/Center pretty much. For every true right-winger the Repubs have now, the Democrat Party back then had three in the Deep South. The Democrat party of today most resembles the “Rockefeller Republicans” of long ago.

I know. I was a party worker for years and years and held office in the party, as did my wife.
 
Yet for some reason I sure don’t see the Church stressing capital punishment today anywhere near She does abortion. She is so consumed in abortion and gays I am afraid, that She appears to me to look the other way and allow many Catholics to support killing thru an expanded, general use of the death penalty than what our CCC teaches. I don’t see the same cries to rein them in. I don’t see nearly the effort on behalf of the Church to push for outlawing capital punishment except in those “practically non-existent” cases.
That’s because abortion is an intrinsic evil whereas capital punishment isn’t. The CCC statement is totally based on the statement of JPII, but not on traditional Catholic doctrine. I am personally opposed to Capital punishment solely because of JPII’s statement, but nothing else, because there is nothing else to base it on. Capital punishment is a matter of prudential judgment, upon which it is permissible to disagree. Abortion is not a matter of prudential judgment.

It couldn’t be more obvious that imprisonment alone does not deter, e.g., murders and rapes by all individuals adjudged guilty of those crimes. It just doesn’t. I can’t help but think JPII’s statement included the thought that modern societies could, if they wished, truly prevent recidivism if they elected to establish and maintain, say, “supermax” prisons. But in the absence of doing that, life imprisonment does not protect others. It manifestly doesn’t.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top