Voting Our Conscience, Not Our Religion [Catholic Prof Says "Vote Kerry"]

South Bend, Ind. — For more than a century, from the wave of immigrants in the 19th century to the election of the first Catholic president in 1960, American Catholics overwhelmingly identified with the Democratic Party. In the past few decades, however, that allegiance has largely faded. Now Catholics are prototypical "swing voters": in 2000, they split almost evenly between Al Gore and George W. Bush, and recent polls show Mr. Bush ahead of Senator John Kerry, himself a Catholic, among white Catholics.

There are compelling reasons - cultural, socioeconomic and political - for this shift. But if Catholic voters honestly examine the issues of consequence in this election, they may find themselves returning to their Democratic roots in 2004.

The parties appeal to Catholics in different ways. The Republican Party opposes abortion and the destruction of embryos for stem-cell research, both positions in accord with Catholic doctrine. Also, Republican support of various faith-based initiatives, including school vouchers, tends to resonate with Catholic voters.

Members of the Democratic Party, meanwhile, are more likely to criticize the handling of the war in Iraq, to oppose capital punishment and to support universal heath care, environmental stewardship, a just welfare state and more equitable taxes. These stances are also in harmony with Catholic teachings, even if they may be less popular among individual Catholics.

When values come into conflict, it is useful to develop principles that help place those values in a hierarchy. One reasonable principle is that issues of life and death are more important than other issues. This seems to be the strategy of some Catholic and church leaders, who directly or indirectly support the Republican Party because of its unambiguous critique of abortion.

"...some Catholic and church leaders, who directly or indirectly support the Republican Party because of its unambiguous critique of abortion."

There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about the fact that abortion is murder, fair and simple. The NYT, in their desperate attempt to convince Catholics to vote for their poster boy - Kerry, have now rationalized how we, as Catholics, should think. BTW, the people at the NYT are not a bunch of Catholics, not even close. Go figure.

"I believe that the overwhelming majority of Catholics abhor this practice."

The sad truth is that many priests, I think more in the North East that are Democrats, support Kerry. I know it seems outrageous to us, but I've seen them during the Homily indirectly say, that the Democrats help the poor, feed the hungry, ect., and somehow that is more important than protecting life. Jesus didn't collect all the people's money to redistribute it to the poor. True compassion is up to the individual. The truth is that the unborn, the sick and the elderly are the most weak and vulnerable, and the Democrats don't care about them.

When values come into conflict, it is useful to develop principles that help place those values in a hierarchy.

Jesus said that a person can demonstrate no greater love than when he lays down his life for a friend. I suggest we ask those risking their lives for friends in Iraq, Afghanistan, the US, and other places around the world to tell us why they do so. It seems that they are the only experts on the question of moral hierarchies.

Jesus didn't collect all the people's money to redistribute it to the poor. True compassion is up to the individual.

This is the key difference between Believers who are Republican versus Believers who are Democrats. Republicans understand that Yeshua's words apply to individuals. Yeshua never said, "Demand that your government take care of the poor." He told them to take care of the poor, as individuals and as representatives of Him.

Since our society has pushed this task on the govenment, two things have happened:

1. Our society has de-personalized and de-humanized those most vulnerable people. If we see people homeless on the street, we wonder why they haven't taken advantage of government welfare and look down on them for not doing so. If they freeze to death on the streets, we blame them for not getting into a government shelter, when our churches should be offering shelter.

2. Our churches have also fallen into the trap of referring the poor to public services rather than taking care of these people ourselves. We no longer see these people as G-d's children in need of their Messiah, we see them as someone to pass off on the government. Now our churches want the government to pay them to take care of the poor. Yeshua never told His people to ask the government to pay us to take care of the poor, hungry and abandonned but that is what many churches are demanding now.

And we wonder why our society (and the chruch) is such a mess?!

This business about taking care of the poor is a red herring. Taking care of the poor is not the highest good. Granted that it is important for us to do so. The question in my mind is can I trust my government to do so. My government is so corrupt that it advocates abortion; some go so far as to advocate the growing of humans for the purpose of experimentation. The implications of an attempt to subjugate the preservation of life to the preservation of the poor is disgusting.

As a catholic high school seinor currently looking at different universities, the Dean's exclamation of his support for Kerry is distressing. However, as an institution, Notre Dame seems to embrace its catholic heritage more than any of the Jesuit institutions i have visited. Both Boston College and Georgetown seem to run away from thier Catholic roots by downplaying the influence of faith in student life. From my own observations, Notre Dame appears to value thier Catholic heritage, as well as its influence on the student body. On a whole, the left wing trend of the Roman Catholic Church's beaurocracy is nothing new...just look at the Vatican's dennunciation of the War in Iraq. These "pacifists" blow the turn the other cheek doctrine way out of proportion and have a hard time advocating millitary action in any situation. Furthermore, regardless of the genocide in the middle east and third world, there is the genocide of innocent unborn children murdered by progressive postmodernists.

In fact the only reason a Kerry win wouldn't force me to relocate to what would be a safer country, more moral country is the fact that I am only 23 and do not have children.

No need to worry. Kerry won't win because Hillary Clinton has her eye on the White House in 2008. A Kerry win would set her back ;-D.

so you won't force a 3rd gen Italian American to immigrate BACK to the village of Syracusa on Sicilly.

You may want to reconsider this idea. Italians adopted a more 'communist' approach to life back in the 70's. They have so successfully reduced their own population that certain towns in Italy are now paying families $35,000 when they give birth and remain in that town Italian town where the mayor pays you to have a baby . In the meantime, the well educated Italians shun menial labor, thus forcing the Italian Gov't to open the doors to immigrants. Yes ... the immigrants are Muslims and they are reproducing like rabbits.

You might do your ancestors a great service by returning to Syracusa and helping to repopulate that town. (I spent many years commuting back and forth to Italy and witnessed this trend first hand. This is not an attack on the Italians; rather it is a cry for help!)

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.