They wrote a book, you know: 
Posted on 09/17/2012 11:38:54 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
PHILADELPHIA, Sept. 17, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - As the November general election approaches, America’s Catholic bishops have been walking a fine line as they strive to avoid appearances of partisanship while at the same time they wage a high-profile battle against the Obama administration over religious freedom.
Earlier this month, one of the leading lights in the U.S. episcopate insisted he “certainly” could not vote for Obama, while not specifically endorsing his Republic opponent Mitt Romney.
Asked whether a Catholic could vote for Obama in good faith, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia replied: “I can only speak in terms of my own personal views. I certainly can’t vote for somebody who’s either pro-choice or pro-abortion.”
In a wide-ranging interview with John Allen, Jr. of the National Catholic Reporter, published Friday, the archbishop drew a sharp distinction between a candidate’s “prudential judgments” about how we care for the poor, and his position on an intrinsic evil like abortion.
Responding to concerns over the budget proposed by Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, which some Catholic bishops and other critics had called immoral because it cut programs to the poor, the archbishop pointed out that people of good faith can legitimately disagree over the role of government in providing aid to the poor.
“Jesus tells us very clearly that if we don’t help the poor, we’re going to go to hell,” he insisted. “But Jesus didn’t say the government has to take care of them, or that we have to pay taxes to take care of them. Those are prudential judgments.”
“You can’t say that somebody’s not Christian because they want to limit taxation,” he continued. “To say that it’s somehow intrinsically evil like abortion doesn’t make any sense at all.”
The archbishop, while noting he is a registered independent, said he has “deep personal concerns about any party that supports changing the definition of marriage, supports abortion in all circumstances, wants to restrict the traditional understanding of religious freedom.”
Chaput also said the bishops’ Fortnight for Freedom campaign in the summer was a success in raising greater awareness among Catholics about the grave threat to religious freedom facing America.
“The history of the world demonstrates that if we aren’t always on guard about religious freedom, we’ll lose it. It happens everywhere, and it could happen in the United States,” he observed.
“I would never have thought, even ten years ago, that we would be dealing with it so quickly,” he added.
On the HHS mandate, Chaput said he “can’t imagine” the courts would not overturn it. “If we don’t win, I’ll be astonished, and I’ll be even more worried about the future of religious freedom in our country,” he said.
“Those who oppose us on the mandates are very insistent. I thought they would back down by now, but they haven’t,” he continued. “We have to fight as vigorously in opposing them as they are in imposing them. Who’s going to win? I don’t know. It will be whoever fights the hardest and wins the hearts and minds of the people.”
The only times the democrats won the Protestant vote was in 1932, 1936, and 1964.
The Protestant vote doesn’t go democrat.
The Protestant vote always goes Republican. You're telling us that Protestants who traditionally vote Republican do so principally because of the Republican candidate's position on abortion?
Is that what you're calling the "pro-life vote"?
Or are you saying that a Protestant who votes Republican because he prefers lower taxes and smaller government is making "a pro-life vote"?
My point is that the Catholic vote matches up with Catholic politics, the Catholic voter is more pro-abortion, and homosexual marriage than the Protestant voter. That is why they vote for the democrat party.
Enjoy the underwear, you pest.
You compared the Mormon cult vote to all things called Protestant.
Now compare that strongly authoritative/single leader cult vote to strongly authoritative/single leader Catholic voters and none authoritative/no leader, Southern Baptists.
You think that social conservatives vote democrat? That is absurd.
Social liberals vote democrat, social conservatives vote republican, that is why Romney is causing problems with the republican Protestant base, (by the way, he will do better with Catholics).
They wrote a book, you know:
In 1952, there was no pro-life candidate. Abortion was illegal, it was not an issue and nobody was talking about legalizing it.
You're claiming that those Protestants who voted for Eisenhower were voting "pro-life"?? Likewise for Nixon in '68?
Is that your definition of a "pro-life vote". Even when abortion is not an issue?
“A big difference is that the Protestant vote always goes pro-life, including in 2008, and when getting into various denominations the differences are astounding.”
Depends very much on the denomination. Baptists do not vote the same way as Episcopalians. We should call out those denominations which do vote prolife and distinguish them from denominations that do not do so.
My apologies if that point was not made clear in my first post.
There are many folks at church who were for Obama in 2008, even though they knew of his position on abortion, who will not vote for him now. The only thing that has changed since then is the HHS mandate and the USCCB’s opposition to it.
Again, it is just my opinion, but I am of the belief that if the USCCB had come out this forcefully against Obama in 2008, we might be in a different position today.
You are absolutely correct, and people should stop comparing the single denomination Catholic vote with all other churches collectively.
The two largest churches in America are the Catholic, and the Southern Baptist for instance, I imagine that Southern Baptists get tired of their good, pro-life voting being lumped in with other denominations.
It is powerful though, that as incredibly diverse the catch phrase Protestant is, that it still is to the right of Catholics.
As far as calling them out, there are so few of the liberal Protestant church members here at FR, and the few that we do have are fully on board with conservatism, they never defend their churches liberalism, or deny that their denomination votes democrat, if it does.
Let us hope that Cardinal Dolan does not kiss Obama’s ring at the Al Smith Dinner.
JCBreckenridge after you read post 31, then read post 28 for an example of what I was saying.
“It is powerful though, that as incredibly diverse the catch phrase Protestant is, that it still is to the right of Catholics.
As far as calling them out, there are so few of the liberal Protestant church members here at FR, and the few that we do have are fully on board with conservatism, they never defend their churches liberalism, or deny that their denomination votes democrat, if it does.”
If you’re willing to call out Catholics, than you should also be willing to call out Episcopalians. Some of us left these denominations and get irritated with the constant praise for ‘protestants’.
As I said.
“”As far as calling them out, there are so few of the liberal Protestant church members here at FR, and the few that we do have are fully on board with conservatism, they never defend their churches liberalism, or deny that their denomination votes democrat, if it does.””
We don’t have many Episcopalians here at FR, if any, how do we call them out, ask for their help in winning conservative votes, in fighting immigration, in stopping the importation of tens of millions of liberal, democrat voting Episcopalians into America?
That’s a double standard. :)
But, then, we already knew that to be the case.
Why are you giving cover to liberals?
Until you make some sense, I can’t know what you are trying to say.
What is your question?
Two thirds of the Protestants I know, many of whom I've known for decades, stay home and don't even vote.
What they belive doesn't matter. They sit out elections because they don't think Christians should care about politics, they think the rapture is just around the corner so it doesn't matter, or they think neither candidate isn't perfect enough for them to vote for. It must not be just the folks I know, either, because if two thirds of those who claim to be Protestant Christians gave a damn enough to vote rather than whine we'd have never had King Barry in the first place.
What does that say about the Catholics who claim they make up 20-35% (depending on who you ask) of the USA? Are they responsible for voting Barry in?
Why do you have one standard for Catholics and another standard for Episcopalians?
I’ve been both. Believe me, Catholics are far more conservative than Episcopalians.
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.