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.