Catholic bishops to voters: Your salvation is at stake
posted at 5:25 pm on November 15, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
They’re not saying you’re required to vote a certain way. They’re just saying … think hard.
And not just about abortion, either. One of the other issues God will be in the booth watching for is immigration.
Proclaiming a sense of new energy and empowerment, the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops on Wednesday issued instructions to Catholic voters that their eternal salvation could be at stake when they cast ballots.
Bishops emphasized that voters must consider the church’s teachings on abortion and other moral issues when they select a candidate for the White House or any other office. If they don’t, bishops said, it’s not clergy who will judge them but God.
“It is important to be clear that the political choices faced by citizens have an impact on general peace and prosperity and also the individual’s salvation,” the bishops said in the document, titled “Faithful Citizenship.” “Similarly, the kinds of laws and policies supported by public officials affect their spiritual well-being.”…
Voters are implored not to support abortion-rights political candidates but also advised that views on abortion should not be the sole factor. Catholics should also weigh church teaching on such moral issues as immigration, just war and poverty, bishops said.
The voting guidelines followed a letter issued by outgoing President Bishop William Skylstad of Spokane, Wash., calling for a responsible transition in Iraq.
“Our nation must focus on the ethics of exit than on the ethics of intervention,” Skylstad wrote.
After the document was approved, Cardinal O’Malley of Boston told an interviewer that it sometimes “borders on scandal” that Catholics continue to vote for pro-choice Democrats from Massachusetts. How that squares with the emphasis on not being single-issue voters escapes me. The same Newsmax article fills in a few more blanks about the new voting instructions:
“The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life is always wrong and is not just one issue among many,” the bishops declared in the document, called Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.
The document also states that “as Catholics we are not single-issue voters,” but adds, “a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.”
Given some American bishops’ pronouncements on amnesty, I take it that border enforcement falls under the heading of “promotion of racism.” (And staying the course in Iraq, too?)
My only objection to all this is that it seems not to go far enough. They’re declaring certain behaviors “intrinsically evil” — but not insisting that Catholics vote against them. Why not? I could understand an exception being made in a case where a voter had to choose between two evils, but what’s the excuse in a match-up along the lines of Rudy vs. Fred where foreign policy is basically a wash and the key differences come down to abortion? The bishops’ reluctance to threaten excommunication for Rudy voters in those circumstances seems motivated less by principle than by the fear that many Catholics would bristle at being asked to bow to their own church’s teachings at such an important moment and will walk away. Or have I misunderstood something? I’m asking seriously.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
True.
:-)
I know a particular New York Mets fan at Hot Air who tends to lean Right, despite being an atheist.
Thanks for your above comments.
Personally, I am not a Catholic myself, for reasons of epistemology. Though I have many Catholic friends. I am just a Bible-believing Christian.
You are correct.
Just like the American Left, the new 2035 social engineers “promise the world” but fail to deliver at all. They promise “all the technological benefits”, but fail to ask the hard philosophical questions concerning Bio-ethics.
ColtsFan on November 15, 2007 at 8:11 PM
In 1984, Mario Cuomo gave one of the more thoughtful lay Catholic responses to the American bishops in his “Religious Belief and Public Morality” speech. A lot of points that Cuomo made to the audience at Notre Dame are similar to the ones Rudy has been making on abortion.
Cuomo works through the challenge of integrating church teaching with the responsibilities of public office and the oath taken to a constitution. I wasn’t a fan of Cuomo when he was governor of my state but he is well-versed in Church teaching and takes it seriously.
dedalus on November 15, 2007 at 8:14 PM
I am not used to meeting atheists who are pro-life.
It is not an impossibility. After all, one can be a libertarian, and be concerned about pro-life issues. It is just not very common in my experience.
ColtsFan on November 15, 2007 at 8:17 PM
And thank you for your insight!
geckomon on November 15, 2007 at 8:17 PM
Weight of Glory says:
I know… WAAAY OT, but I can’t resist here. Every reference I have ever seen says the Codex Siniaticus is roughly mid 4th century, and probably slightly later than Codex Vaticanus. 2nd century seems pretty optimistic - can you cite any sources for your date?
HeIsSailing on November 15, 2007 at 8:18 PM
ColtsFan:
I have met quite a few, but you are right, still a minority I think. Call it a vestigial by-product of my old Evangelistic beliefs ;-)
HeIsSailing on November 15, 2007 at 8:23 PM
You are absolutely right, and I was wrong! I just referenced my Greek New Testament (United Bible Societies; Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft) and you are right, Siniaticus is fourth century (300 - 400). Thank you for correcting me! The earliest manuscript we have (just a quick reference) is P-52 (Manchester). It dates to 125 AD and contains the Gospels. Again thank you for correcting me.
Weight of Glory on November 15, 2007 at 8:32 PM
Again, I appreciate your thoughtful comments.
I have wrestled for some time with the Bioethics debate going on in the technical journals.
I see Bio-ethics as first requiring coherent views and clarity on Metaphysics, and then meaningful discussions in ethics come later, after the hard work in Metaphysics is done.
Years ago, I saw all this new technological innovations, new terms, “scientific discoveries”, etc, and I was confused, and perplexed about the complexity of all of it.
Upon reflection, I discovered it really is just “old news” being rehearsed as “new news.”
I really think this guy was correct in sounding the alarm about the future Bioethics explosion.
More and more, I find myself reading and then re-reading
this and
Ecclesiastes 1:9 where it talks about how there is “nothing new under the sun.”
ColtsFan on November 15, 2007 at 8:33 PM
Nietzsche would agree with you, I think. He made a comment about his Perspectivalism, that sounded kinda like the above, in one of his books.
But he predicted that successive, future generations would not have that “problem” as amorality replaces concern for morality.
ColtsFan on November 15, 2007 at 8:35 PM
ain’t that the truth, ain’t that the truth..
HeIsSailing on November 15, 2007 at 8:37 PM
HelsSailing, you may enjoy this Bio-ethics guy. He is pretty solid on Bio-ethics, and breaking down the complex terms, etc.
ColtsFan on November 15, 2007 at 8:43 PM
Weight of Glory says:
Well, I humbly ask if you won’t mind me correcting you again! P52 is indeed probably the earliest we have but it is a mere papyrus scrap, not a manuscript. It does not contain the Gospels, just a mere few verses of John.
Here is a picture of P52 with a little info
Here is another site you may find interesting - a catalog of New Testament papyrus and manuscripts dated between 2nd and 10th centuries, and what each contains. Really interesting stuff.
HeIsSailing on November 15, 2007 at 8:44 PM
Wow, way more than bio-ethics. Nigel Cameron seems to specialize in future technologies risk managment of all flavors. I’ve got it bookmarked - thanks for the sites. Time to retire, ‘night all.
HeIsSailing on November 15, 2007 at 8:56 PM
And this has been my point all along. With all the bashing of non-Catholic Christians for their positions on abortion, no non-Catholic Christian leader has ever said that if you vote for a pro-choice person that you will be condemned to hell.
To me, the Catholic position is much more ‘fundamentalist’ than ANY non-Catholic Christian position, but I still find myself defending some mythical ‘Evangelical group’ that will ‘cost R’s the election’.
Thank you for this balance AP.
ThackerAgency on November 15, 2007 at 9:04 PM
Great site! And it will be helpful, as it is obvious that I need to brush up on some things! In my defense however, I said “quick ref.” above. By that I mean I looked in the UBS for the listing of dates, content, and location of Papyri. In their system they use the letter ‘e’ to indicate the subject matter of the text: ‘e’=gospels, ‘a’=Acts, ‘c’=Catholic or general epistles, ‘p’= Epistles of Paul, ‘r’ = revelation. It doesn’t indicate what portion, or how much of the subject matter is contained. That is why that site you provided is going to be a really neat thing to look through. So, again, thank you. Also, the significance of the Papyri lies mostly in the fact that they reveal the existence of NT transmissions at a very early stage. Thus, though their content may be fragmented, in the discipline of Textual Criticism, they reveal a very important dynamic in piecing together the picture of the development of the NT text. So I wouldn’t call them merely scraps.
Weight of Glory on November 15, 2007 at 9:13 PM
The document Faithful Citizenship does not say nor imply that a vote for pro-choice will condemn you to hell. There is nothing new that is stated that isn’t already understood by the congregation of Catholics. Further, the edification was not directed to non-believers. It is a must needed clarification and reiteration of Catholic teaching of moral and ethical issues.
geckomon on November 15, 2007 at 9:27 PM
Some of the responses on this thread are very odd (but not suprising) to me. I have no intention of starting a flame war with Protestants (although whenever the Church comes up, they are more than willing to “protest”…this Catholic never criticizes Evangelicals whenever they come up in a blog post…but whatever). Basically my problem with this whole debate is some of your indignation that the Bishops dare say that your immortal soul may be at stake. Why is this so suprising? We are all Americans, and hold the right to vote for our leaders as one of the most basic aspects of human life. Why is it suprising that a religious leader would say that this most fundamental right has consequences? I have no desire to respond to the disgusting insults that every Protestant loves to trot out whenever the Church is mentioned, specifically the child sex scandal. You have no interest in reasoned debate. But can we please stop with the feigned righteous indignation (this is not a liberal blog, after all)?
WillBarrett on November 15, 2007 at 9:35 PM
Allahpundit, I don’t know if you’re still reading, but I’ll try to answer your questions.
I think one of the most difficult things to understand here is that despite Catholic theology being very definite on abortion, even American Catholic bishops disagree over it.
One commenter hinted at it above, but I think it is very true that although technically American bishops “answer” to the Vatican, they often don’t fully comply with what they are asked to. The fact that Cardinal O’Malley (from Boston of all places) disagrees with the College of Bishops should be evidence of the dispute.
I think a large part of this conflict among/between American bishops and the Vatican comes from 2 things. First, I think the American Catholic Church has almost always been more liberal/Protestant/individualistic than Rome. I think it’s part of Americans’ nature to spurn any authority who tries to say what you ought or ought not do. As a result, many American Catholics (priests and bishops included) have gotten used to disobeying or disregarding the actual teachings of the church. In practice, they are actually more like Protestants, Deists, or even agnostics or atheists. Ted Kennedy, Pelosi, and Kerry exemplify the kinds of “Catholics” who identify themselves as part of the church but actively disregard its teachings. As a Catholic myself, I would say they are not Catholics.
Second, the American Catholic Church (again, this is all my view) has priests in high places who, since their formation in seminary, have held and continue to hold views contrary to the church’s teachings. These are the priests who probably attended seminary during the 60s and 70s, when liberalism spread throughout American culture, including seminaries.
More liberals were attracted to Catholic seminaries by their misconceptions about the Second Vatican Council (”Oh, now the church is finally joining the rest of the Progressive world!” and other such ideas…), and more liberal teachings were taught there. I personally think that this is partially evidenced by the locations where the molester-priests have come from: Boston, Portland, L.A., etc. This are all liberal communities, which I think not only drew liberal priests but also reinforced their beliefs. Now, in no way is that meant to explain away, defend, or deflect their sexual abuse of children, but I do think that when priests (or anybody, for that matter) become used to disobeying certain authoritative decrees, they are more likely to follow their impulses and continue doing things that are considered taboo or unacceptable.
Your question about excommunication is a good one. I think if the bishops wanted to use that as a threat against people voting for pro-choice candidates, it would be totally acceptable. Like you said, if you want to espouse and support beliefs contrary to what the church teaches, why are you even part of it?
Exactly. It shouldn’t offend any Catholic, but it does. I think this is evidence of the weak American church hierarchy and the typical American attitude of, “Hey you can go sit on it if you think you can tell me what to do.” It’s not a Catholic attitude, but it’s very American.
I hope that helps, sorry it was long. I sure hope you’re still reading these otherwise that was a big waste of time…
By the way, I’m honored that you would jump in on behalf of Catholics. Is that because you were raised Catholic?
PaisleyCow on November 15, 2007 at 9:37 PM
How is it no one gets what the illegal alien problem is all about. Reduced to the basic truth, what is going on is a diapora of the indigineous people of mexico and central America. The decendants of the europeans aren’t sneaking across the border in the middle of the night. It is the decendants of those that were already there. After 600 years of exploitation, abuse and oppression, the native people have become a burden and not a resource and their european conquerers have no more use for them and are sending them north.
peacenprosperity on November 15, 2007 at 9:41 PM
Also, I find it mildly amusing how these threads always turn into self-congratulatory, masturbatory Evangelical theology fests with ColtsFan or whoever bombarding everybody with links to some theologian no one outside of the Protestant circle has ever heard of….Sorry, I’m not in a very charitable mood tonight.
WillBarrett on November 15, 2007 at 9:42 PM
I don’t think any bishop or priest said that anybody is condemned to hell. There is a huge difference between sinning/supporting a mortal sin by voting for a pro-choice candidate and being condemned to hell. The bishops said that voting for pro-choice candidates could “affect their spiritual well-being”. Any sin affects your spiritual well-being; some more than others certainly, but absolutely nobody is condemning anybody else to eternity in hell.
You might call that “fundamentalist,” but I think it makes a great deal of sense and, at the very least, is consistent with Catholic teaching and tradition.
PaisleyCow on November 15, 2007 at 9:45 PM
I also don’t know what the bishops are trying to say about the Catholic view of immigration. Again, I think this is the liberal part of the College of Bishops trying to imply a Catholic policy that in actuality is hardly well-defined. The main yard stick Catholics are supposed to use when it comes to immigration is to be loving and forgiving. That does not in anyway mean that convicted felons cannot be deported, fences cannot be erected, current illegal residents can’t be registered with the government and assimilated, and current immigration laws can’t be enforced.
I think Michelle would agree, too.
PaisleyCow on November 15, 2007 at 9:56 PM
WillBarrett,
I do not understand why you are taking a cheap shot at me, but you are way off track here.
My html links were directed to HeIsSailing, and those links dealt only with Bioethics, not with Protestant vs. Catholicism issue.
ColtsFan on November 15, 2007 at 10:05 PM
BECAUSE THIS IS GOD’S JOB TO JUDGE. It is not the Catholic Church’s authority to condemn people to hell or grant admission to heaven. Jesus got crucified because he was forgiving people - in Jewish theology ONLY GOD CAN FORGIVE.
This is where Jesus’ claim to being God comes from. Jesus forgives, ergo, Jesus is God. Bishops don’t forgive, the Pope doesn’t forgive, Mary doesn’t forgive, Jesus forgives.
This is a quote from the original article. I take ‘eternal salvation could be at stake’ as meaning that you will be condemned to hell.
Again, the hypocrisy of Catholics who cry foul when non-Catholic Christians dare say they won’t vote for a candidate who is pro-choice, but in the same breath reel at the thought that anyone could have an issue with a Catholic doing the same thing.
As I say, I appreciate what the Catholic Church has done for Christianity. However they are the most thin skinned of all the Christian faiths while they have no issue whatsoever bashing non-Catholics for any reason they want. This is the hypocrisy that causes many Christians around the world to distrust Catholics.
And most Catholics vote Democrat. So for all of you Catholics out there saying that ‘Evangelicals are ruining ‘our’ party’, look at history and demographics please before you show your bigotry toward non-Catholic Christians.
Thank you.
ThackerAgency on November 15, 2007 at 10:12 PM
And I love the comments from Catholics saying ‘Oh well they ‘protest” showing that they are ridiculously ignorant of what the term means and where it comes from.
PROTESTANT doesn’t mean we ‘protest’. PROTESTANT means we PROTEST the authority of the Pope. It has nothing to do with doctrines within the church as Catholics ‘protest’ amongst themselves all the time but that doesn’t make them Protestant. But it is the arrogant attitude that dismisses any legitimate argument as ‘oh they are Protestant so they protest’. Meaning, ‘what they say doesn’t matter because my Bishop says they are going to hell anyway.’
And Protestants don’t care what your Bishop says. Protestants care what the Bible says and what Jesus did.
ThackerAgency on November 15, 2007 at 10:17 PM
Because most of them will vote for a Democrat themselves.
That was easy.
I don’t consider the Catholic Bishops to be the Catholic Church, by the way — it’s something other than this historically politically-oriented group of pampered elitists. I sure as heck don’t vote based on their opinions, nor do most Catholics I know.
Nichevo on November 15, 2007 at 10:28 PM
Yea yea yea….I got it ThackerAgency. I’m “ridiculously ignorant” about what the term means. Look, like I said, I have no desire to get into a debate about Protestant/Catholic theology. Obviously there are fundamental differences there. You are right, Catholics debate amongst themselves all the time (which is why I love the Church: one is hard-pressed to find such a wide intellectual tradition in ANY religion). But we have authority…which you do not. You claim the Bible is your authority, but of course that really just means YOUR interpretation of the Bible. Which explains why there are thousands and thousands of different Protestants sects. And one Catholic Church. Look, I consider you my Christian brothers. I never said the Evangelicals are ruining the Republican party (where did I say that?). I just find it amusing that whenever the Catholic Church comes up on a thread on Hotair, it either devolves into cheap shots about the child sex scandal or how much superior Protestantism is to Catholicism. I get it…You are Protestant. I am Catholic.
But back to the issue at hand: Can we please stop acting like what the Bishops said is really that big of deal? I.E. That one’s voting has consequences?!
WillBarrett on November 15, 2007 at 10:32 PM
Bullshit. What you’re saying is a load of piss. There are a billion Catholics in the world but you know they’re all faking it? God will decide, not you. You can’t see into men’s hearts.
aengus on November 15, 2007 at 10:33 PM
The Catholic Church teaches the same.
By original article are you referring to the Chicago Tribune? Could be is not a definitive as will be. You are misrepresenting a paraphrase (and not a quote of the directive stated in the article).
I’m looking really hard at this thread and find no evidence of your above allegations. In fact, the attacks on this thread began with anti-Catholic rhetoric starting with comment #3.
Got statistics to back up that “most Catholics vote Democrat?” Then again, it is wholly irrelevant.
It is my understanding that AP was looking for some insight from Catholics pertaining to the document released by the Catholic Bishops of America. His posting was not an attack on Protestants for this “Call To Political Responsibility” was a directive for Catholics, most specifically for United States Catholics.
geckomon on November 15, 2007 at 10:36 PM
Hmm interesting. Basically the Church is saying that you can’t vote. Since most dems are for abortion and most REPs are againist illegal immigration there is no choice. The church requires you to stay home. Hmm what’s a person to do. On the one hand its murder on the other its racism. which is worse in the church’s book. I wonder…..
unseen on November 15, 2007 at 10:41 PM
Geckomon, I agree with you here that so-called, “professing Protestants” who bring up allegations of priestly sins do not have a basis to do so.
Us Protestants have plenty of sins in the Protestant house.
Engaging in Name-calling, and pointing out individual sins of whatever affiliation serves no valid point. It is actually an example of ad hominem argumentation.
Geckomon, I have enjoyed your posts in the past. I just wanted to quickly signal my agreement with you here, even though there are other substantive disagreements between the two of us. But your charitable spirit and informed posts are welcome by me.
ColtsFan on November 15, 2007 at 10:43 PM
I just have to . . . but when did anti-illegal immigration become racism?
geckomon on November 15, 2007 at 10:45 PM
But Rightwingsparkle, if both candidates are pro-life, then isn’t the issue essentially negated? How does it benefit the world or the country to sit the election out, when one candidate will clearly do more damage than the other. I don’t want to vote for Rudy Giuliani, or any other pro-choice candidate, but if the alternative is Hillary Clinton, I cannot sit it out.
Kensington on November 15, 2007 at 10:52 PM
I’ve found some of the links to Van Til and other apologists enlightening. Since most Americans develop their moral outlook through Christian teaching, it is interesting to discuss the different approaches to Christianity and how it intersects with a pluralistic society. I’m a big fan of ColtsFan.
AP does a good job of mixing it up so I find it easy to skip a thread if it spins off in a direction that’s not interesting.
dedalus on November 15, 2007 at 10:54 PM
A long time ago when Democrats realized they were not capable of offering substantive counter-arguments when people opposed their foolish positions.
The dismaying adoption of this technique by some on the right is both recent, and terribly unfortunate.
Kensington on November 15, 2007 at 10:54 PM
Yeah, imagine that. I’m a little tweaked that the Bishops place voting up there with the Blood of Christ…as in, voting wrong might trump Jesus’ Blood. Ooops. Some folks might just think of that as trampling on the cross.
Also, I’m angered that those who proport to be the teachers of the body would stoop to holding salvation over the heads of those they’re supposed to shepherd. It’s shameful. It’s wrong. Unless the text quoted by AP is wrong in how they characterized the essence of the Bishop’s statement, I’d say they’re blind guides.
TexasDan on November 15, 2007 at 10:58 PM
Thank you, the respect is mutual.
And for a bit of solidarity, my pops keeps himself warm with a Colts fleece throw blanket. It served as his security after last weeks game (I kid!). I remain neutral!
geckomon on November 15, 2007 at 11:02 PM
The American Catholic bishops largely sat out the slavery debate because Catholics were a minority and they felt there would be a backlash. There has been a practical approach by the bishops in America over social issues. From a practical standpoint on the abortion issue I think Rudy would do a fair amount within the constraints that the majority of Americans are in favor of some reporductive rights and there is currently a Supreme Court decision that protects abortion.
He’s not my choice, but I’d find it easy to pull the lever for him over Hillary.
dedalus on November 15, 2007 at 11:05 PM
The Pope just called me, being the well-known good Catholic that I am, to simply clarify the church’s position.
Vote Rudy.
awake on November 15, 2007 at 11:24 PM
You did a good job explaining. I’m sorry I wasn’t up to it.
Connie on November 15, 2007 at 11:28 PM
I really don’t know where you’re getting this from. I almost never hear Catholics bashing others. But I do see everyone else bashing Catholics every chance they get and I’m very tired of it. We have real enemies out there and instead of fighting them Christians fight each other?
What would Jesus say?
Connie on November 15, 2007 at 11:35 PM
I’m a bigger
bigfan of dedalus.:-)
Thanks man, and I will keep reading and learning from your posts.
ColtsFan on November 15, 2007 at 11:36 PM
I remember going through the list of Cardinals over and over with Christian friends (Catholic and non) and praying Ratzinger would be chosen. Something that doesn’t seem to be understood is that there is a left/right split in the Vatican just as there is a left/right split in America and in the world in general. Pope Benedict is on our side.
Connie on November 16, 2007 at 12:06 AM
Fortunately though, most of the arguments over left vs right in the Vatican are on the order of emphasis of important issues, not the issues themselves. That and some heavy theological back and forth on some of the more complicated topics.
Even if the most left-wing Marxist adoring bishop became Pope, the MSM would still paint him as an evil Reich wing conservative because those stooges still haven’t figured out that the Pope is in fact always Catholic.
That’s why I basically ignore any secular news regarding the Church. They have a chronic problem distorting regular news, they get Catholic news wrong nearly without fail every single time.
BKennedy on November 16, 2007 at 4:17 AM
The Pope is the CEO of NAMBLA
TheSitRep on November 16, 2007 at 7:35 AM
This is the most egregious comment on this whole post. It’s absolutely ridiculous the level of hatred some here exhibit.
tizzidale on November 16, 2007 at 9:23 AM
Allah,
What’s your beef? Catholic cardinals come out to say that it abortion is evil and you shouldn’t vote for candidates that support abortion. Your complaint is that they don’t far enough?
It’s not the Church’s job to endorse certain candidates, just stick to the issues. If they threatened to excommunicate a voter, you’d be mad that they were interfering with American politics. It’s a lose-lose situation with you.
Most Catholic voters who vote for pro-choice candidates are “Catholic.”
chris00nj on November 16, 2007 at 9:25 AM
If the conclave elected a Pope who relaxed the restriction on married priests, increased the role of women, and focused more on the poor the media would love him.
They loved JPII because he was better at PR then Benedict even though his views on church teaching were similar, though slightly more ecumenical.
dedalus on November 16, 2007 at 9:40 AM
First of all, the original article wrongly equates intrinsically evil acts with other social ills or issues. That may be the result of the reporter not being Catholic or not knowing the Catholic teachings. As Catholics we are taught that you cannot equate issues that are intrinsically evil to those like immigration, racism, and even war. Intrinsically evil acts are elective abortion, euthanasia, destruction of embryos in stem-cell research, cloning humans. As a Catholic you cannot support candidates who support any of those issues.
Secondly, as another commenter noted, many Priests choose to ignore this distinction because most are extremely liberal and want social justice issues like immigration and their anti-war agenda acted on rather than abortion. They tend to equate racism, poverty, war and immigration with the evil of abortion, etc., and like just like the article preach as if they’re all equally evil. This allows liberal Catholics to justify their vote for pro-choice politicians.
Since these liberal priests make up the bulk of the American priesthood it’s difficult to put out a mission statement on voting since those liberal priests are always working to blur the distinction between abortion, etc., and their pet causes.
Finally, I do believe that the Catholic Church chooses not to endorse candidates for fear of losing its tax exempt status, which, of course, then mutes the message that Catholics should hear.
Sensible Mom on November 16, 2007 at 10:03 AM
Border enforcement is fine with the Catholic church, so long as there is a reasonably easy way to legally immigrate. And considering that Mexicans are spending $5000 (a small fortune) on a coyote and risking their lives on a desert crossing, I think it’s safe to say that legal immigration isn’t the easier option.
No idea here. Catholic church was opposed to the war from the start — it certainly didn’t meet the Christian standard of a just war. No idea if that necessitates a redeployment or not.
Probably because the Catholic church is trying to distance itself from its historical image of being directly involved with politics and governance.
Mark Jaquith on November 16, 2007 at 10:20 AM
In one sense, these threads are tiresome, but they are also instructive. As anti-Semitism becomes more acceptable on the Left, Know Nothings gain traction on the Right.
corona on November 16, 2007 at 10:52 AM
You are a worthless bigoted coward. Go spew your bile at the local snake-handler service….Don’t get bitten while speaking in tongues you redneck.
WillBarrett on November 16, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Allah, will you ban this a-hole?. I’m sick of this bigoted crap whenever you post something on the Church.
WillBarrett on November 16, 2007 at 11:08 AM
Gosh! That to me sounds so hateful
You called me a coward. I posted my # so you can call me.
I may be something vile to you, so you can project your hate.
But I assure you sir I am no coward.
However I must come clean and admit that I am a redneck.
TheSitRep on November 16, 2007 at 7:16 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]