Skip to comments.Catholic Democrats: Is Their Support for Obama Fraying?
Posted on 04/10/2009 12:24:20 PM PDT by reaganaut1
Barack Obama [was elected] with the help of a majority of Catholic voters, but it didn't mean that Catholics, who in recent years had mostly sided with the GOP because of social issues, had any illusions about Obama's stance on such sensitive matters.
[I]t didn't come as a surprise to Catholics when, on the morning of March 9, the President signed an executive order allowing research on embryonic stem cells to go forward after an eight-year halt. Obama's forceful explanation for his decision, however, took them aback.
The previous ban on research, Obama declared, was "a false choice between sound science and moral values"; Americans, he argued, should "harness the power of science to achieve our goals."
An editorial in the liberal Catholic magazine Commonweal accused Obama of "obfuscat[ing] the moral dilemma by resorting to imprecise talk about the supposedly self-evident authority of scientific 'facts' and the alleged ideological agenda of those opposed to embryonic stem-cell research." At the website Beliefnet.com, Religion writer David Gibson labeled the decision "Obama's Stem Cell Flop."
[R]eligious advocates, led by Catholic health care organizations, hoped to have some input into the Administration's eventual decision about the [conscience clause]. They submitted proposals during the 30-day comment period that ended on midnight on Friday. And they were encouraged earlier this week when the director of Obama's faith-based office [...] repeatedly stressed that the White House wanted open communication and feedback from religious leaders.
The White House, however, has strongly hinted to abortion rights advocates that the comment period was merely a formality, and Obama is expected to rescind the rule as early as next week. That has some religious leaders privately grumbling about whether their input is only welcome for those topics on which they agree with the White House.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
People who think Obama has an open mind on the issues are kidding themselves (but are now waking up). He will change his policies only if resistance threatens his popularity, as happened for example with his plan to charge veterans' private insurers for service-related care.
I would think Catholics will be perpetually split - in favor of social programs but opposed on abortion.
The Catholics that voted for Obama know exactly how he stands on the issue of abortion.
The only way this could be possible is if a person was "studiously" ignorant. Most Catholics who actually believe in and practice the Catholic faith are not Obama supporters. Many who call themselves Catholic but have about as much in common with Catholics as Ted Kennedy does with teetotalers, support Obama and support abortion. They were not fooled.
There are PINO’s and there are CINO’s and it took more than the CINO’s to get him elected. It’s really not hard to figure out.
“RCs knew exactly what they were getting. RCs voted in Biden, Kennedy, Kerry, and Pelosi didn’t they? Union bosses and membership, socialized medicine, confiscation of wealth by taxation from the coveted rich, and a cradle-to-grave welfare state take precedence over any concern for the unborn!”
Unfortunately, I think you are right. Catholic Dems that I know seem to value “social justice” over the right to life.
Absolutely, there was no illusion on anyone’s part about Obama’s limitless promotion of abortion. So-called “Catholics” who voted for Obama knowingly supported a baby butcher.
>>Unfortunately, I think you are right. Catholic Dems that I know seem to value social justice over the right to life.<<
That, my friend, is the result of a 1960’s Catholic school education. Morals and ethics were flavor of the month and the freshly ordained tried to outdo each other in outrageous behavior.
My parish saw one pastor run away with a nun so he could race his horses; while another spent his time praising Communism and driving people away. The bishop was no better, not once intervening - except against traditional Catholics.
I agree this was generally true but am not convinced that they had ANY idea how radical he has been on issues like the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. His sycophants in the media really covered up for him.
I just have my doubts that the typical Catholic Obama voter realized that this man has the most radical abortion voting history of anyone on the national scene.
I’m thoroughly convinced that “Catholics” — and most everyone else who voted for Obama — voted for him, not because of their knowledge of the issues but precisely because of their profound ignorance of them. When I went to vote in November there were more young people at the polls than I had ever seen before. And what were many of them doing? Taking pictures of their ballots.
Why would they do this? I’ll tell you why: because their whole reason for voting was just so they could say they voted for the first black President of the United States. In other words, is was a faddish, trendy thing to do with no more substance to it than voting for class president in high school — a juvenile popularity contest; no more and no less.
Like it or not, that’s the intelligence level of voters today. Thank you popular media; thank you educational system.
The tendency toward liberation theology (the philosophy behind socialism) won over pro-life sentiments in Catholic voting booths in '08.
If you honestly believe that load of crap I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Incorrect. The Church recognizes the right of the state to employ capital punishment but teaches that it should be for all intents and purposes a last resort.
2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]
You apparently have made the mistake of confusing the prudential statements made by some members of the episcopacy with the teaching of the Church. They are not one in the same.
In the future it would behoove you to not attempt to authoritatively opine on topics you are ignorant of.
Gee! I'd like to have sympathy for you but if you were too dumb or too lazy to see that 0bama is being 0bama then I'm plumb out of compassion. Enjoy carrying your responsibility for the continued murder of innocents.
If more people knew about the Born Alive Act, they would view Obama differently. Right now the public is mostly clueless.
Whenever I tell people about Obama and the Born Alive Act, they don’t believe me. My brother is a Republican, and even he didn’t believe me. I had to show him an article that gave the history of Obama not willing to vote for a bill that offered water, food, or warmth to babies that had survived abortions.
Oh, you don't have to tell me that...the EUSA (my church) is the most liberal of them (Protestant) all! However, more RC's have been cautioned from the pulpit about electing pro-abortion candidates while the very left protestant church members have been more-or-less urged to vote for them.
But not, alas, to be accurate.
Intentional half-truths are lies.
That policy would substantially silence Mr.Dogz
I suspect the truth is most of the people who respond to this survey have not been to church in years.
This is what the Catechism states:
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
My point is that the prohibition against the intentional killing of the innocent is an exceptionless norm (it is always morally wrong) but the teaching on the death penalty is based on assumptions and conditions (the "ifs") which make it a prudential judgment. It can be done under certain circumstances.
I myself very much appreciate the Church's anti-death-penalty predeliction, but I also have come to realize how far society actually is from being able to guarantee life imprisonment for murderers. I read that 500 people are murdered annually in California alone, by ex-cons who had already been convicted of an earlier murder. When murderers are put back on the street (through parole, sentence overturned on a technicality, sentence reduction on appeal or for good behavior, etc) it is a grave injustice to society, which is subjected to an increased incidence of murder.
Pope John Paul II taught that the death penalty is not necessary if and when societies have other means by which to protect innocents from those who have previously murdered. In our country, we have a judicial and prison system that can keep these violent offenders away from the public.
In fact, on January 27, 1999 Pope John Paul II said that the death penalty is “both cruel and unnecessary.”
From the: Encyclical Letter on the Value and Inviolability of Human Life
His Holiness Pope John Paul II
March 25, 1995
“In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person””
From these statements, it is clear that Pope John Paul II and the Church opposes the death penalty except in cases where the society cannot protect its citizens against murderous offenders. Fortunately, we do not live in a society that lacks the means to adjudicate and incarcerate such offenders.
As for me, I support the death penalty but have great admiration for those fellow Catholics who are truly Pro-Life and abhor abortion and the death penalty.
I knew (can actually say I was friends with) an armed robber who was doing time at Attica in NY. In some ways a remarkble man, witty, funny, intelligent, even idealistic; in other ways deeply self-deluded.
Highly articulate, he made full use of all the opportunities he had to be a jailhouse lawyer. The strange thing is that, while we are actually friends, I was alarmed by his ability to con prison/judicial officials and argue his way into early release, and so forth. I knew that for society’s sake, and even for his own sake, he needed to stay in prison.
If I knew our legal system could actually keep violent felons off the street, I would oppose the death penalty on the grounds set forth in the Catechism. I sometimes think that if penal colonies could be brought into operation, with escape quite impossible, this would be by far preferable. I hate to see a man in a cage. But I hate to see a violent felon on the street.
This reminds me to pray for my friend “Yusuf”. I haven’t seen him for years. I don’t know if he’s living or dead. Christ have mercy.
The quotes cited do not indicate anything like a blanket anti-death-penalty stance by the Catholic Church. Certainly our court system does not protect its citizens against murderers, in fact just the opposite. In accordance with the marxist principle of chaos, our black-robed tyrants release murderers every day, especially if they are illegal aliens, in order to keep the populace in fear. Anyway, moot point. Our lib-fascist court system has made death penalty discussions academic as it is almost never used. Death penalty cases are merely vehicles for lib-fascist lawyers to enrich themselves at the public trough, so for that reason the DP should be abolished.
I’m talking about abortion, not the death penalty. To attempt to draw moral equivalence between an innocent unborn baby and a convicted murdering sociopath to me shows a level of mental depravity that is suspiciously close to that of your typical liberal fascist.
As a Catholic who is against abortion, but favors the death penalty, I understand that I am not in full compliance with the teachings of the Church.
Pope John Paul II did voice his opposition to both abortion and the death penalty.
As Pope John Paul II wrote in the “Evangelium Vitae” in 1995:
“It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”