Replies

No, it's perfectly logically -- if you are asking why 50% of Catholics (many hispanic Catholics) voted for Obama, why not answer why 20% of evangelicals did as well -- if you say "t evangelicals are more conservative", then why is there this 20%? your posts are accusative yet not giving a response for why evangelicals, white evangelicals with no historical baggage of Democrats vote for them -- do you have any reason for why evangelicals voted for OBama?

The major reason for why this is even an issue is NOT because we are pitting Evangelicals against Catholics to determine which is more Conservative, but because it is the Catholic Church which insists that "faithful" Catholics give full and obedient faith to ALL the dogmas and doctrines established by the Church.

Evangelical churches, as Daniel1212 has explained, are independent churches and there IS no overall Pope or human overseer who can demand full adherence in areas that are in the realm of extra-Biblical beliefs. There is an understood set of beliefs and organization that set-apart Evangelical churches from the mainstream Protestant churches, even though on the major tenets of the Christian faith, there is agreement as well as similarity with all other Christian denominations, including Catholicism. But none of them threaten "excommunication" on someone if they don't vote a certain way. Are Evangelicals pro-life? Yes, usually. Are they against homosexual marriage? Yes, usually. Evangelicals usually can be depended upon to vote for the Conservative candidates and causes - without someone hanging the threat of exile from the church over their heads.

But the Catholic Church is different. They DO demand fealty to everything that comes down the pike to their members and DO hang the threat of exile from the church (and the subsequent denial of sacraments) upon all those who disobey. That's why the fact that over 50% of these same Catholics, who failed to follow the demands, calls into question both the effectiveness and the power of the hierarchy to actually do what they say they will do. Kind of like your child when you tell him if he does a certain thing he will get punished, and he does the thing but is not punished. What does that say about your authority? What does that say about the Church's authority and the respect and unity it claims to have? It's no wonder why non-Catholics question such claims. It appears to be all bark and no bite - hardly something the early church was guilty of doing, Paul made sure of that!

Maybe if Christians had a genuine, Christ-centered relationship with God and their fellow Body of Christ members and they understood the responsibility each one had to the other and to the world, it would filter down to their voting habits and there would be no need for an overlord to control them and tell them what they can or cannot vote for with empty threats. I don't know why such a large percentage of Catholics go against the dictates of their church and continually put in office people that, in the long run, harm that very church and its work. It could very well be that they are missing a personal walk with Christ which would result in a disconnect in what they really believe and how they vote. I don't know, but I think it is sure something the Catholic Church should figure out.

>Maybe if Christians had a genuine, Christ-centered relationship with God ..<

That is where it begins. And the fact that those of evangelical denoms (which is the basis upon which most surveys classify evangelicals) manifest as being far more conservative in almost everything than their institutionalized counterparts, Catholic or Protestant, without a single centralized leadership, testifies to regeneration being the cause.

But as we become more like the society in which we exists, and preach a gospel the minimizes the absolute holiness of God and His perfect justice of Almighty God, in which light mercy finds its value, then we are and can expect to see increasing compromise. But the church has always been a remnant. May we strive to fully be so. And i actually would support threatening “excommunication” on someone, who, after considerate counseling, continued to make manifest their support for clearly liberal versus conservative candidates as in the last election. “..neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure. “ (1 Timothy 5:22)

The church of Rome herself increasingly took on the form of the empire in which she found herself, becoming a vast hierarchical system with its own Caesariopapacy (Boniface VIII even is said to have exclaimed: “It is I who am Caesar; the Sovereign Pontiff is the only King of the Romans”, as he rode thru the city, carrying sword, globe and sceptre [”Rome and its story”, p. 241, by Welbore St. Clair Baddeley, Lina Duff Gordon], and with temporal rulers taking an oath of obedience to the Catholic Church, and with Rome using the sword of men to deal with theological dissent*, in contrast to the NT church.

That unScriptural use by the church being taken away, and most RCs becoming members by proxy faith and mere assent to a form of conversion - not thru conviction leading to personal faith in the Lord Jesus to save one as a damned and destitute sinner - then rather than risk losing a majority her members, Rome has come to effectually practice a policy of accommodation, with formal public excommunication of even unrepentant manifest public sinners being rare, and instead even showing the world a basic affirmation of such (like as with Ted Kennedy, though officially such are supposed be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals), and with few priests preaching in such a way as to convict the liberal members.

But again, this level of accommodation is certainly present in Protestantism, and even exceeded in some, which evangelicals separate from, though that term is increasingly losing its distinctive meaning (as did “Christian,” “born again”) , but the fact is that we can separate from liberal churches and its members, whereas the RC is stuck with a church which treats such as members in life and in death, and in which church is substantial dissent, and much is allowed. And while she is one church among other sola ecclesia-type churches who claim they particularly are the supreme authority (over Scripture) as the One True Church.

And which spiritual declension becomes a larger issue in the light of the constant exaltation and promotion of Rome by herself and members, while disallowing evangelical denoms as even being worthy of being called churches, along with the unreasonable attempts that some of Rome’s reactionary members will go to in attacking anything that impugns their nonobjective view of the object of their devotion.

*I also wanted to note that while you are correct that Rome does require fealty to all her teachings, implicit sacred assent of faith is only required for so-called “infallible teachings” of the “Sacred Magisterium,’ versus non-infallible teachings (dogmas versus doctrines)which require ordinary assent, which may allow for some dissent. Yet what all falls under the each category is a matter of interpretation, as is how much dissent is allowed to the latter (if any), and how.