Posted on 09/13/2012 8:28:28 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
....religious-minded Americans also have to reconcile conflicting stances on political views within the church itself.
For example, both Mormon and Catholic doctrines preach anti-abortion and traditional family values that align with the Republican way. At the same time, church leaders also publicly adopted a Democrat-esque, humane approach to immigration enforcement, inccluding a path to citizenship.
[SNIP]
The conversation also is about immigration and church officials' views that politicians should adopt a more tolerant view of the presence of immigrants.
The softer stance stems from a growing number of undocumented immigrants converting to Mormonism — an estimated 70 percent of Latino Mormons are undocumented. In the Catholic Church, where membership is steadily declining, immigrants are offsetting those losses.
A 2012 poll by the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research organization, revealed that 69 percent of foreign-born Latinos identify themselves as Catholic. To maintain membership, religious leaders must tread lightly near these issues.
[SNIP]
Today, about 25 percent of Arizona residents, about 950,000, call themselves Catholic. And the diocese has no problem throwing its weight around.
Olmsted wrote a letter in January to Phoenix-area Catholics blasting portions of "Obamacare," the Affordable Care Act requiring all employers' insurance policies to cover contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.
Priests read the letter at Catholic masses across the Valley.
[SNIP]
The church also easily navigated the Arizona Legislature, where Representative Debbie Lesko, a Republican, sponsored a measure that essentially protected churches and religiously affiliated employers from having to include birth control and related services in their insurance plans.
And yet, members are not always in lockstep with the church.
Despite the bishops' consternation over birth control mandates, 82 percent of Catholics believe that birth control is morally acceptable, compared to 90 percent of non-Catholics, according to a Gallup poll conducted in May.
(Excerpt) Read more at phoenixnewtimes.com ...
Oh, no, no.
We can work to stop abortion without changing laws by changing hearts and minds. After all, if no women decided to have abortions, there would be no abortions.
But it is the law itself that is the problem with immigration. Immigrating is not a sin in itself as abortion is; it is often a positive good that people do for the sake of their families. It is only the law that makes it a crime. So we must do what we can to change the law.
/fuzzy-minded liberal Catholic sarcasm.
Because you don't know what you are talking about, you ninny. I lived in CA when Reagan signed the first abortion law in the US -- before Roe v. Wade. Along with many members of my parish, I composed and sent him a telegram begging him not to sign the bill. I received a letter from him AFTER he signed the bill explaining his position -- a lot of drivel about rape and incest, completely ignoring that the legislation interpreted the phrase "for the health or life of the mmother" as extending to "mental anguish", IOW any excuse for abortion on demand.
I remember when he changed his tune when he ran for President and proclaimed that signing the abortion law in CA was "the worst mistake" he ever made. In the mean time, I watched the number of abortions in CA exceed the number of live births.
But, we accepted Reagan's change of heart.
Romney has now said that he believes in abortion in the cases of rape and incest and for saving the life of the mother. That's not good, but Obama favors allowing the child to die on the delivery table and prohibits any palliative care for the newborn, which is even worse. Not only that, he is forcing all of us to pay for abortions across the board as a substitute for birth control.
I'll take my chances with Romney who appears to have moderated his previous position, backed by a strong pro-lifer, Ryan, who can be very persuasive over the evil one, currently occupying the empty chair. It's easy.
“Mitt Romney has repudiated his stand on abortioin. Says it was a mistake. Ronald Reagan said the same. The American public believed Reagan, why not Romney? Is it because you WANT to reelect Obama?”
“I’m not lying to you this time”. What did he do as governor of Massachusetts? Passed Romneycare. Is he willing to go on the record and repudiate it?
Romney has said and done whatever he believes will help him get elected wherever he’s up for election.
Laws won't change abortion either. Women have to be convinced it is wrong.
You replied: Your ad hominem attacks are repugnant.
Where is the ad hominem attack? I didn't attack Romney. I support Romney, with reservatons. I didn't attack Reagan, I supported Reagan in every election he ran in, even though I was sick at heart at his stance on abortion in 1968 and told him so. He was still better for CA than Brown (a Catholic). Reagan later repented his signature on the Bill.
I didn't attack the poster whom I addressed. I merely asked him a question because it is apparent that to vote against Romney is to vote to re-elect Obama. Where is the attack? I wrote the truth, even if you don't want to believe it.
The majority of women already are convinced that it is wrong. Changing the law would get the providers (like Planned Parenthood) out of the busness because their malpractice insurance would not cover them. We can pray for the rest of them.
That's not technically true. The Mormon Church does discourage abortion, but it is not strictly speaking anti-abortion in the same way the Catholic Church is. The Mormon church says that abortion is ok if your bishop "counsels" a couple that it is ok. (A blanket statement that makes abortion under almost any circumstances alright so long as the local bishop or stake presidency tells you that it's ok.) The Church also states that abortion may be ok in the cases of rape, incest, etc. (That's what the Church's General Handbook of Instructions to Priesthood leader says). So it is true the Mormonism's abortion stance is in line with the "Republican way," but it is not entirely true to say that the Mormon Church is anti-abortion in the same way that the Catholic Church is.
How is this a simple choice? From what I can see the faithful prolife Catholic cannot choose either.
You're right, this is a bit more complicated for Catholics than is being suggested. There are certain sins which are defined by the Catholic Church as "intrinsically evil". Abortion is one of those sins. Immigration is not even in the same category of importance for Catholics. Catholics are bound to do whatever they can reasonably do to stop abortion, but they are not bound to the USSCB's prudential approach to Comprehensive immigration reform.
Romney has also made the choice more difficult by openly endorsing abortion in certain circumstances (such as "health" of the mother, rape, and incest.) All are intrinsic evils to Catholics, unless it is to save a mother's life, and the killing of the baby is not intended.) The health of the mother exception can be used to justify just about any abortion by a mother invoking some frivolous claim about emotional health or whatever. Another problem with Romney, is that he undermines true marriage in practice while verbally claiming to support it. (For instance, Romney endorses Homosexual Adoptions just to name a couple of things.)
These things amongst many other things would make it very difficult for a good Catholic to vote for Romney in good conscience. The only way you could argue that a Catholic may be able to vote for him is that he is the "lesser of two evils" and to vote for him would be to materially cooperate with evil. This raises more complicated moral questions because not all moral theologians agree what circumstances justify a person to materially cooperate with an intrinsic evil to avoid a greater degree of intrinsic evil.
And that’s exactly why I find myself supporting Virgil Goode.
Thanks for your commentary. It’s good to know that some folks out there understand what we are working through.
Reagan was never pro-abortion, we know about the bill he signed for the health of the mother.
Your lie should be easy to prove, show us the public evidence of Reagan espousing his pro-abortion views, and then having a change of heart in later years.
As Mitt boasts, his mother campaigned as a pro-abortion candidate for the Senate in 1970, where are Reagan's pro-abortion statements, positions, writings?
Reagan never had a "change of heart" switching from being a pro-abortion man to being against abortion, you lying scum, because he was never pro-abortion.
You are lying about life long abortion supporter, Mitt Romney, also.
*“My position has been the same throughout my political career, and it goes back to the days of 1970,” he said. “There was a woman who was running for political office, U.S. Senate. She took a very bold and courageous stand in 1970, and that was in a conservative state. That was that a woman should have the right to make her own choice as to whether or not to have an abortion. Her name was Lenore Romney, she was my mom. Even though she lost, she established a record of courage in that regard.”*
The courage that he says she instilled may have been what enabled Mitt Romney to announce a couple of weeks ago that he was returning to his pro-abortion position, and was never anything but, and to say with a straight face, that he had openly campaigned as a ‘health of mother’ abortion advocate.
I’m glad that you pointed out that Mormonism is not really pro-life. Harry Reid for instance, is a fully qualified, Temple Mormon.
As a Bishop, Stake President, and an attorney, Mitt Romney pointed that out to an interviewer.
*”Governor Mitt Romney: I’m proud of my faith. There is nothing I distance myself from. There are Mormons in the leadership of my Church who are pro-choice, and they do not violate that. Your not a lawyer, but you have to read that a little bit more carefully.”*
John Chrysostom (347-407)
Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit? where there are many efforts at abortion? where there is murder before the birth? for even the harlot thou dost not let continue a mere harlot, but makest her a murderer also. You see how drunkenness leads to whoredom, whoredom to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevents its being born. Why then dost thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with His laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she is not backward to do, so heaping upon thy head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the causing of it is thine. Hence too come idolatries, since many, with a view to become acceptable, devise incantations, and libations, and love potions, and countless other plans. Yet still after such great unseemliness, after slaughters, after idolatries, the thing [fornication] seems to belong to things indifferent, aye, and to many that have wives, too.
-Homily 24 on Romans
The ad hominem is accusing the poster of supporting the reelection of Obama because they noted a reservation about Romney. Noting that a non-vote for Romney has that effect is one thing, but accusing of a pro-Obama bias (on FR, at least) is insulting to anyone who is struggling with the distaste they have for the republican candidate.
Phrasing the accusation as a question is merely a rhetorical device.
The reason why Romney is less believable on his change of mind is the history of such position pivots, depending on which audience he has been facing at the time.
Yours is not an egregious example, but it is a very common one. I am a reluctant supporter for Romney - and much more enthusiastic for Ryan. I have been fielding such accusations for months - and I suppose I’m touchy about it.
Down here in north suburbs of Georgia I go to several churches. They are mostly very conservative. The one in this town Woodstock because of prayer vigils in front of abortion center, closed it down last year. Also the bishops letter against Obama Care was read at all churches in June and July.
From my experience the most hardcore conservatives are the ones who I usually pray prayers in chapel Holy hour or before or after mass. I never met a devout prayer who was not conservative.
I hope this can give you an accurate view.
The polls are of Catholics who identify as Catholic, and who have been baptized into the Catholic church.
If they identify as an ex-Catholic but still consider themselves Christian, then they are counted as Protestants, as are Christians that don't have any church, or even baptism.
I beg your pardon. I am NOT lying about Reagan. I was there, & I was tremendously grieved over the results of that Bill. However, I (like many Catholics) believed that it would be over-ruled by Congress. And then we were hit by Roe v. Wade, thanks to the US Supreme Court. I’m still waiting for a change on that front while more than 50 million souls have perished.
To tell the truth, Reagan was probably influenced by Nancy and the sob stories that were floating around CA at the time and never really thought that much about it. He was worrying about his own budget deficit looming over him and the riots on the UC campus every time the Regents held a meeting. He claimed (and I believed him) that he didn’t realize how the “health of the mother” loophole would be used and was sorry for it in the long run.
I don’t know where you lived (or even if you were alive) but I can assure you that these topics were on the forefront in CA in the late ‘60s when he was Governor. Don’t spout off about events you seem to know nothing about.
You are lying, over and over, and it doesn’t matter where you lived, by the way, many of us were alive then, and even lived in California under Reagan, me included, that doesn’t change anything about the fact that you are lying.
Reagan was never pro-abortion, that is why you cannot find him ever speaking or writing in favor of abortion, Reagan was always pro-life.
No matter how devoted you are to your pro-abortion candidate, you need to stop lying about Reagan.
Do you see how the truth bleeds out, even you know that he was never pro-abortion.
Reagan dithered a long time before he signed the bill, which would seem to indicate that, while not "pro-abortion", he certainly didn't hold a non-negotiable, pro-life position. Abortion was only just appearing on the horizon as a national issue at this time and Reagan was a new governor. These two factors can be counted in his favor, as he was undoubtedly swayed by the "life of the mother" arguments.
Two million abortions resulted from his signature on that bill and even the bill's author said he was surprised by the liberal way in which it was interpreted.
As a result, Reagan had what could perhaps best be called an "awakening", rather than a "change of heart" and he lamented signing the bill. He subsequently espoused a pro-life position for the rest of his life. Whether he considered life issues, including abortion, to be the major issues facing America, is another question, however.
In general, the Republican contribution to the sharp end of the abortion conflict has been less than stellar, especially when it comes to nominating Supreme Court justices.
It is a lie when these romneybots parrot Mitt Romney's attacks on Reagan by saying he was pro-abortion.
Romney has been claiming and spreading a new history that Reagan was "adamantly pro-choice".
Back then we didn't even use the language of "pro-life", pro-choice" and we trusted doctors and "substantial health" and the requirement of a medical committee, sounded legitimate.
I have read that the more often a Catholic attends Mass, the more likely said person attends, the more likely said person is politically conservative. I've also been told that only about 10% of Catholics attend Mass at least weekly. Putting the two together, they say that the number of "real Catholics" in this country is no higher than 7 million (i.e. not the 70 million or so that the USCCB reports).
But that's the maximum. If your 20-30% number holds true (and I believe it does), the number of (reliably) politically conservative, observant Catholics actually numbers around 5 million. This doesn't surprise me. It's one way to understand why Crisis Magazine would report this about The Mythical Catholic Vote: The Harmful Consequences of Political Assimilation:
Unfortunately enough, Catholics are largely indistinguishable from non-Catholics and, despite a few pundits, no, there really is no “Catholic vote.” This obvious conclusion—clear enough from the fact that the vote for the winning candidates in the last national election was approximately the same for Catholics and non-Catholics—has serious current implications....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.