Replies

"Catholics" who vote for Obama, for instance, have abandoned Catholic values and Catholicism itself. They have instead, adopted the prevailing values of current American culture. In what sense are they "Catholic" then?

That is a standard reply, as it is a very convenient means of dealing with the majority of Western RCs being liberal, however, the problem is that Rome counts and treats them as members in life and in death, by which actions she interprets her laws on excommunication as meaning that impenitent souls as Teddy K. remain members.

Meanwhile,

"America is, and always has been, a liberal project. That's its fundamental problem. The "pursuit of happiness" is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and is the major driving force behind the progressivist, liberal agenda.." "The pursuit of happiness" to increasing numbers of modern Americans, Catholic, non-Catholic, agnostic and atheist, means the pursuit of unrestrained sexual gratification and the disposal of its unfortunate products in the form of abortion, for instance.

This is a skewed understanding of what "pursuit of happiness" originally meant, which was not unrestrained sexual gratification etc., and in fact it was contrary to that.

"Without virtue, happiness cannot be." --Thomas Jefferson to Amos J. Cook, 1816. ME 14:405

"To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea." James Madison

"The diminution of public virtue is usually attended with that of public happiness, and the public liberty will not long survive the total extinction of morals." Samuel Adams

...we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (From a letter John Adams wrote on 11 October 1798 to the officers of the First Brigade, Third Division, of the Massachusetts Militia).ion of the Militia of Massachusetts,” October 11, 1798)

There is no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists in theeconomy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness. -GEORGE WASHINGTON, First Inaugural Address, Apr. 30, 1789

"The aggregate happiness of the society, which is best promoted by the practice of a virtuous policy, is, or ought to be, the end of all government" -George Washington

Washington's Farewell Address, 1797 — Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. . . . And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. (Farewell Address, 1797; http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp)

As another Catholic said,

The Founding Fathers did say the "pursuit of happiness" is an unalienable right. I often like to point out they did not say the "pursuit of pleasure". (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=521055)

The "pursuit of happiness" is seem as coming from Locke in a 1690 essay "Concerning Human Understanding" and used by Jefferson, with the Greek word for “happiness” being "eudaimoniam" which invokes "Greek and Roman ethics in which eudaimonia is linked to aretê, the Greek word for “virtue” or “excellence.” In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle wrote, “the happy man lives well and does well; for we have practically defined happiness as a sort of good life and good action.” Happiness is not, he argued, equivalent to wealth, honor, or pleasure. It is an end in itself, not the means to an end." (http://hnn.us/articles/46460.html)

In any case, the founders did not interpret the "pursuit of happiness" as hedonism, but in contrast to the oppression of England, it meant freedom to pursue happiness by lawful virtuous means .

"Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain." (1 Corinthians 9:24)

This is no to say that the Founders were wholly Biblical in thier ideology, but while the motive for this pursuit must to be to please God according to His Word, yet the founders did not intend the "pursuit of happiness" to be that of immorality, and instead passed laws against such.

However, just as antinomians misconstrue Scripture to justify lawlessness, so modern revisions supposed the founders meant to sanction porn under the 1st Amendment, and were hostile to any sanction of religion.

Marsh: "Catholics" who vote for Obama, for instance, have abandoned Catholic values and Catholicism itself. They have instead, adopted the prevailing values of current American culture. In what sense are they "Catholic" then?

FWIW, I do not believe there is a "Catholic Vote". We've seen in the last couple elections that no matter what the leaders of this church do, or say, a majority in the 52-55% range will vote for the liberals. I think in the last election the RCC leadership was pretty clear that they did not support obama and it really didn't alter his vote totals. A better way to look at the "Catholic vote" is by breaking it down into different ethnic or economic groups. Their church leadership has had little or no influence over how their members vote.

Evangelical Christians are a clear example of a religious group that is solidly conservative even though most Black Americans are identified with Evangelical churches and they vote in the 90%+ area for the liberals. I suspect that part of the more conservative view is because of the belief in Sola Scriptura rather than tradition and organizational authority.