Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
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.”
Here’s a pretty good article from First things.
On a site of conservative activists? Of course, this the kind of thing that we discuss and analyze, voting and elections.
To keep posting stuff like this "You’ve already admitted that you will not call out Episcopalians for their support of abortion and homosexuality, but you will call out Catholics." seems to call for moderator interjection.
That isn't true, it has no basis, in fact I told that I want to see the denomination disappear, while you actually were Episcopalian, in fact isn't the Catholic church where they tend to go when they want something a little different from, yet similar to Episcopalian?
You never told me how your Episcopalian denomination voted, do you have the figures, is it similar to the Catholic 54% for Obama? Higher, lower?
However you should prefer to define it. :)
It's better than "pretty good", which is why I posted it as a thread four years ago:
The Death of Protestant America: A Political Theory of the Protestant Mainline. But after the analysis of decline, it doesn't say anything different than Francis Schaeffer did several decades earlier:
| "...Ours is a post-Christian world in which Christianity, not only in the number of Christians but in cultural emphasis and cultural result, is no longer the consensus or ethos of our society. Do not take this lightly! It is a horrible thing for a man like myself to look back and see my country and my culture go down the drain in my own lifetime. It is a horrible thing that sixty years ago you could move across this country and almost everyone, even non-Christians, would have known what the gospel was. A horrible thing that fifty to sixty years ago our culture was built on the Christian consensus, and now this is no longer the case..." |
“while you actually were Episcopalian, in fact isn’t the Catholic church where they tend to go when they want something a little different from, yet similar to Episcopalian?”
I left the Episcopalian church over their support for homosexuality, and their support for abortion. I joined the Catholic church because they stand firmly against both of them.
Are you asking me why I did not become an Evangelical Protestant if I left for those reasons? :)
The difference between conservatives and Catholics is, that we want people to abandon liberal churches, and become more conservative, we don’t want more pro-abortion, democrat voters.
Look at Hispanics, everyone knows that they vote democrat, but what people don’t know, is that Hispanics that become Protestant, become more conservative voters than the Catholic vote.
Bush got 56% of their vote in 2004, and McCain got 48% of their vote in 2008.
Catholic Hispanics, will never become republicans.
No, if I was asking something, then I would ask.
Isn’t it true that when Episcopalians want to move out of their church to something similar, that they go Catholic?
“But after the analysis of decline, it doesn’t say anything different than Francis Schaeffer did several decades earlier”
Well, I’m sorry to steal your thunder. I found it a fabulous article.
“Serious, believing Presbyterians, for example, now typically feel that they have more in common with serious, believing Catholics and evangelicals—with serious, believing Jews, for that matter—than they do, vertically, with the unserious, unorthodox members of their own denomination.”
Is the money quote.
“Isn’t it true that when Episcopalians want to move out of their church to something similar, that they go Catholic?”
I can’t speak for others. The Episcopalians that I knew have either left altogether or remain.
“The difference between conservatives and Catholics is, that we want people to abandon liberal churches, and become more conservative, we don’t want more pro-abortion, democrat voters.”
Ok. I’m Catholic. I want people to abandon liberal churches, and become Catholic, or evangelical.
The argument between us isn’t that we want different things, but you remain firmly assured that Catholicism = Liberalism. And this is not so.
“Look at Hispanics, everyone knows that they vote democrat”
I live in Texas, and I assure you this is not the case.
“is that Hispanics that become Protestant, become more conservative voters than the Catholic vote.”
Ahh, so you believe they should give up their faith in order to assimilate into America? Is that it? To vote Republican?
What is a hispanic supposed to think when all of the republican nominees to the supreme court are Catholic? That the presidential ticket contains no protestants?
“Catholic Hispanics, will never become republicans.”
Nonsense, again I live in Texas, and we have plenty of republicans who are hispanic, and plenty of white folks that are moonbat liberal.
I don't know why you post things like that, of course Texas Hispanics vote democrat, or else the left wouldn't be depending on Catholic immigration to turn Texas democratic and end conservatism.
Texas Hispanics went 63% for Obama.
Catholic Hispanics will never leave the democrat party, but the Protestant Hispanics are already about 50/50.
“I don’t know why you post things like that, of course Texas Hispanics vote democrat, or else the left wouldn’t be depending on Catholic immigration to turn Texas democratic and end conservatism.”
Then why is a Catholic hispanic like Ted Cruz running for the Senate here?
If the Republican party is going to become the party of white people - then it will die. And it deserves to die.
You’ve got two choices - one, stick to the loser plan of nominating moderates like Romney and getting your teeth kicked in year after year.
OR
Work your butts off to figure out what the hispanic people want.
They want prolifers. They want people who support traditional marriage. They are willing to fight hard from these things.
What message does the Republican party send to them, when they dump Santorum for Romney? It speaks to them loud and clear.
“Prolifers are extremists - we do not want them in the party”
When they read your posts, what do you think they see?
“Catholics are evil - if you are Catholic in America - we see you as anti-american”.
Oh wait - only hispanic Catholics - not Paul Ryan, excuse me.
Would you listen to someone with that ‘message’. I sure as hell wouldn’t.
Why are you so bound and determine to fight your allies?
Same thing over in the Spokane area. The only weekend Mass that is not completely full is Saturday afternoon at 5:30. 3/4 full. We have two Masses on Sunday, both packed. And of course we also have Mass every weekday. Every day is covered.
That was not making sense at all.
How does a guy being Hispanic and Catholic and a republican candidate change the facts of the Hispanic vote in Texas???
Who said anything about the GOP becoming the party of white people?
Catholic Hispanics want pro-abortion democrats, while Protestant Hispanics are willing to vote pro-life republican, with the “white people” to quote you.
Your post was baffling, I found it incoherent.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Indeed it is - and it's true of my own feelings on the matter.
Too bad reality differs from that fantasy.
Hispanic Catholics will not vote conservative, they don’t even come close, in any election, they are what ruined California.
The republican party does better with Hispanic Protestants than it does with the normal Catholic vote, why do Protestant Hispanics think the party wants them, yet the Catholic Hispanics don’t think that the GOP party wants them, is it related to Catholic politics?
Why are we getting a conservative reaction from Hispanics that become Protestants?
This was a huge deal to Catholics, and many have since remained democrat simply beacuse of that.
JFK, were he to be alive today would be considered a right wing extremist for his views.
He would be appalled at the present democrat party, and even wondering how the Republicans moved so far to the left.
One of my Catholic cousins even has a shrine to JFK in his house.
He wasn't too happy when I mentioned JFK was a second generation Irish bootlegger, hardly American "royalty", when the Bush family descends from at least 6 Mayflower folks and is related to at least 7 presidents.
Not that I like the Bushes, just the way it is.
Sorry, but that isn't accurate.
JFK got 82% of the Catholic vote, but before him, republicans had only won the Catholic vote once in our history.
Catholics actually became less democrat during the 50 years since JFK. Today you are living in the least democratic voting period of Catholic history.
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.