Posted on 09/01/2006 8:35:39 PM PDT by dukeman
I can always count on any thread with "Catholic" in the title will bring out you guys in the white sheets.
Ask Joe Lieberman - Can a JEW be a Democrat?
which is a heresy and the cause of it's great proponent, Fr. Matthew Fox, SJ, being excommunicated (and virtually next day ordained as episcopal priest).
If a person's ethics are based on heretical theories clearly condemned by the Church (it would be different if the verdict were still out), how can they claim they are "Catholic" at all?
They reject the tenets of Catholicism, but still want to be in the Church. Whereas most people who don't believe in their religion would join another one. Is there something about the "one true faith" that a person cannot abandon it even though they say they disagree with it?
Why don't you find out for me, okay. Let me know what you find.
BINGO! The Jesuits are the problem. They need to be kicked out again. There is hardly a commie revolution they aren't right in the middle of. When ever I hear about a preist or some nuns getting whacked, I can usually depend on somewhere in the story they were Jesuits. These dictators in Latin American countries won't put up with their crap. They are usually moving guns, ammo, or money against the government.
I was a Liberal who thought abortion took a human life and I realized that the Libs attacked Thomas because they perceived a threat to their beloved slaughter houses (abortion facilities).
Their continuing smears of him only reassure me that I did the right thing.
If I were to take out giant scales and weigh the serious Democratic errors on the left side and the serious Republican errors on the right side, the scale on the left would be so heavy that it would be resting on the table.
As a registered Independent, I have had this discussion many times with Republicans who routinely assert that I should vote for Republicans because they aren't as bad as Democrats...in other words, they'll still take the country to hell in a handbasket, only they'll do it more slowly than the Dems would.
And they expect my vote for that. In good conscience, though, I can only cast a vote that will reflect the Lord's will as I understand it; I must vote for the candidate who would make my world most consistent with how the world is supposed to be.
Jeremiah was commissioned to spend a lifetime preaching repentance to a nation who wouldn't listen...and he knew they wouldn't listen...yet disobedience was never an option. Likewise, you and I must still vote for the right thing, even though achieving it may be politically impossible.
My advice is, if you have to write in the name of someone you trust, do so, and consider your duty well done. For this attitude, we will probably both get flamed.
Yes, if the Democrat is a nun. There was a thread in here yesterday on the issue.
I asked my mother, a Catholic and a pseudo-conservative-union-democrat, this same question a couple of years ago.
She responded, "Well what have the republicans done to stop abortion?"
Admittedly, the republicans have done disappointingly little. The partial-birth abortion ban was something, but was a politically safe thing to support. Abortion doesn't even seem to be a campaign issue this year.
My brother-in-law is a priest and a liberal-democrat. I asked him the same question. His response: "Well, I consider 'pro-life' to encompass a whole set of life issues." Which, of course, is dilusional and dilutes the fact that abortion is murder.
Because the democrats blatently support abortion, it is difficult to be a democrat-Catholic. The ones that I know have to do a lot of mental twisting to make the two belief systems compatable. However the lack of action from the republicans (and a growing pro-abortion element in the GOP) significantly weakens the argument and helps with the moral anguish of the democrat-Catholics.
Dear kidd,
Until Roe is overturned or otherwise nullified, politics can only achieve so much on the issue of abortion. The political branches of our government, at both the federal and state levels, are prevented by Roe/Doe from doing more than nibbling around the edges of abortion.
And the Republican Party has done that. Especially at state levels, the Republicans have been very active in passing parental notification laws, informed consent laws, conscience clauses, attempts at partial birth abortion bans, preventing government funding of abortions, etc. At the federal level, Republicans have worked for decades to prevent government funding of abortion, prevention of abortions being provided by the military to personnel overseas, etc.
And frankly, on all of the above issues, most Democrats have been on the wrong side on most days.
But until Roe goes, we aren't able to strike at the root of the abortion issue.
The most important thing that Republicans can do in the long-term is to try to change the composition of the Supreme Court, so that some day, Roe will be made null.
The current President Bush has likely done a good job on that front, to date. If we're able to preserve a Republican Senate, it's likely that "justice" Stevens will go before the end of Mr. Bush's term, and we may just be able to get a fifth Roe-must-go vote on the Court.
After that, the entire battle changes.
sitetest
Yes, really yes!
and the “Rev” J. Wright!
You totally ignored the basic question of the article, which is: can a practicing Catholic support a party that is for abortion and gay marriage, for example. Please don’t resort to stereotypical rote unintelligent questions but try to read the article and then attempt a rational comment.
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.