Catholics must keep in mind that they must stand with illegal aliens when voting or they could go to hell. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops have released a statement called “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” (PDF) with 90 or……

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

That to me sounds so hatefull

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.

The US Council of Catholic Bishops released a document (“Forming Consciences For Faithful Citizenship”) meant to be a guide for Catholic voters on ……

TheSitRep on November 16, 2007 at 7:35 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.

Given some American bishops’ pronouncements on amnesty, I take it that border enforcement falls under the heading of “promotion of racism.”

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.

(And staying the course in Iraq, too?)

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.

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?

Probably because the Catholic church is trying to distance itself from its historical image of being directly involved with politics and governance.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

The Pope is the CEO of NAMBLA

This is the most egregious comment on this whole post. It’s absolutely ridiculous the level of hatred some here exhibit.

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.

PaisleyCow on November 15, 2007 at 9:37 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.

I’m a big fan of ColtsFan.

dedalus on November 15, 2007 at 10:54 PM

I’m a bigger big fan of dedalus.

:-)

Thanks man, and I will keep reading and learning from your posts.

ThackerAgency on November 15, 2007 at 10:12 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?

PaisleyCow on November 15, 2007 at 9:37 PM

You did a good job explaining. I’m sorry I wasn’t up to it.

Vote Rudy.

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.

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.

ColtsFan on November 15, 2007 at 10:43 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!

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?

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.

I just have to . . . but when did anti-illegal immigration become racism?

geckomon on November 15, 2007 at 10:45 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.

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

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.

In my view, in my faith, it is wrong to vote for a pro-choice candidate. Always. It’s not that it is the only issue, it’s just such a grave one. Which is what will make a Rudy/Hillary matchup so difficult for all of us that feel that way.

Rightwingsparkle on November 15, 2007 at 6:51 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.

Since most dems are for abortion and most REPs are againist illegal immigration there is no choice. On the one hand its murder on the other its racism
unseen on November 15, 2007 at 10:41 PM

I just have to . . . but when did anti-illegal immigration become racism?