Skip to comments.Time for True Democrats to Start Their Own Party [or, why Catholics can't vote Democrat any more]
Posted on 09/07/2012 10:33:09 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
Its time for Catholics to lead true Democrats to start their own party.
Catholic Democrats are in a terrible quandary. They vehemently disagree with the Republicans approach to policy, so they wont vote for them.
And since the Democratic Partys leaders stand against religious liberty and for taxpayer-funded abortion, as well as support for stripping marriage of its meaning and endless war, they morally cant vote for many Democrats either.
The only viable option for a traditional Democrat is to not vote at all.
Its a terrible travesty that this has come to pass. It is crucially important that we have at least two morally viable parties proposing solutions to Americas problems.
I remember a time years ago when one of my daughters asked me why some Catholics we knew were Democrats and some were Republicans.
Well, usually Catholics vote Republican because the party platform is pro-life, I told her. The Republican Party platform is against abortion. The Democratic platform is all for it.
Well, how can Catholics be Democrats then? she asked.
Many of them are convinced that Republicans are too pro-war, I told her. And the Democrats used to be known for sticking up for the little guy before they became so pro-abortion.
Arent there any political parties that are pro-life and anti-war? she asked.
I winced. No, there isnt, I said.
Well, there should be, she said.
Yes, there should. Catholic Democrats should make it so.
The time for toleration is past. Democratic voters need to step up and found a new Democratic Party that is true to the traditions of the party earlier in the 20th century.
What to call it? Christian Democrats? That term might have too much European baggage. Traditional Democrats? That might sound too stodgy. True Democrats? I like that one.
(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...
....The time for toleration is past. Democratic voters need to step up and found a new Democratic Party that is true to the traditions of the party earlier in the 20th century. What to call it? Christian Democrats? That term might have too much European baggage. Traditional Democrats? That might sound too stodgy. True Democrats? I like that one.
Tom Hoopes is the former Executive Editor of the National Catholic Editor, and was the Press Secretary for U.S. House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer.
Someone is under the delusion that liberal Catholics (Methodists, Presbyterians etc etc) would choose Catholicism over liberalism. Perhaps they don’t listen or hear correctly when Dem leaders say their faith informs their leftist views.
They have chosen Baal over Jesus.
That’s it? This guy taught his daughter not to vote Republicans because they are pro war? So, how did they vote for FDR, JFK and LBJ? These Democratic Presidents would have been seen as pro war today.
Catholic Democrat == Liberal Democrat
Where the heck else are they going to go except the Democrats?!?
“Catholic Democrats are in a terrible quandary. They vehemently disagree with the Republicans approach to policy...”
They believe in a policy of using the force of government to accomplish that which they would consider a sin if they were to attempt the same act without it. It is called theft.
I doubt God will be kind to their judgment that this is some kind of loop hole they can exploit in their faith. That sure sounds like someone trying to protest their innocence when they are guilty.
Everytime a Catholic votes for a Democrat, they sin against God.
Like that little kid caught doing something wrong by their mother trying to explain why they didn’t know what they were doing was wrong....classic.
Those are Protestants, not Catholics. Catholics have to belong to the Catholic church, not a Methodist, church like Bush.
The idea of Democrats who aren’t atheist, baby killers, homosexuals or American haters starting their own party sounds like a great idea. It’s hard to believe family oriented, hardworking, normal people who want a decent world for their children to grow up in could watch that freak show of a Democratic convention, and not think the party has made a wrong turn.
Its not limited to one denomination
Why call non-Catholics, Catholic, what do you call Catholics then?
I didn’t call non-Catholics Catholic, I was trying to show that it’s not just Catholics who have chosen political ideology over their own supposed faith.
I got you now, but you really had me puzzled. I thought that it may be some obscure theological hairsplitting thing that I hadn’t heard of.
Okay, Hoopes, ya got me. I love war, want war, lots of war, war all over the place. War, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, warwarwarwarwarwar....
It takes a stringently distilled stupidity to be as moronic as you, Hoopsie. I hope your daughter has a measureable IQ, and eventually saw through your BeeEss.
Ahhh everytime ANYONE votes Democrat they sin against God being their party platform is pro death for babies in the womb.
Yes, I can see how you would make that mistake since I also do that theological hairsplitting thing on occasion.
Who was the President that chose to bomb Christian Serbs?
Ah, but you see, for them Balkan War doesn’t even show in radar since they didn’t see any American died there.
I didn’t mean you, I didn’t even know that you did that, but of course if you get into theological discussions a lot, there has to be some hairsplitting at times.
Since I had totally misread it, I just couldn’t figure out what it meant.
That isn’t the only reason, I was only addressing this ...policy.... difference these democrats want to support, it is theft.
So even if they had another democrat party, they will still be sinning.
Nah, I should have been clearer.
I haven’t much on the religion threads lately but their headlines used to get my goat.
It really does make one wonder how democrats manage to fool themselves into confusing Ceaser(State) for Jesus(Faith).
But what I find naturally offensive is when democrats like Obama suggest that we don’t want to lift anyone out of poverty, it is precisely the point of our well thought out positions to lift people out of poverty.
By effectively enslaving a fishermen to give other men of your political choosing his fish is not making any of those men wealthy, mealy instead despotically oppressed and depended upon you. This is no more the foundation for property than it is for a free country.
This is the evil and true impoverishment we so righteously and impassionatly fight!
Have you read this?
The time is long since passed when a person who is truly Catholic can vote democrat. There is too much immorality in the democrat platform and has been for a long time. Abortion, perversion, etc., provide the excuse why Catholics can no longer vote democrat or they are not truly Catholic, but just a remnant of what a true Catholic is. There comes a time when a person cannot anymore subvert their conscience and hide from the reality that the democrats are non-religious, non-God, and just a babbling bunch of heathens. Those are the facts. Now, how are you going to vote?
Millions of babies have been aborted via the Democrat pro-abortion policies. Sounds like war . . . no, genocide to me.
Yeah, they ought to form a party that totally focuses on jealousy, envy, covetousness, bitterness and theft. Forget the abortion and sodomy. Stick with fundamentals.
The Democrats are just not pretending as much as they did in the past. Nothing substantively new with the dems.
Don’t be an ass. There is an obviously implied “and” in that sentence.
I hear you. I've been rereading First and Second Kings lately. Baal, Belial, etc. How many times must we humans learn the same lesson? Seems we've been relearning this particular one since the early days of the Jews.
Could you explain your tagline? Thanks.
It is a quote from Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Sapientiae Christianae (On Christians as Citizens). The immediate context of the quote is:
Amid such reckless and widespread folly of opinion, it is, as We have said, the office of the Church to undertake the defense of truth and uproot errors from the mind, and this charge has to be at all times sacredly observed by her, seeing that the honor of God and the salvation of men are confided to her keeping. But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: "Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.'' To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good. Moreover, want of vigor on the part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous opinions, and by always exerting themselves more strenuously they might reckon upon being successful. After all, no one can be prevented from putting forth that strength of soul which is the characteristic of true Christians, and very frequently by such display of courage our enemies lose heart and their designs are thwarted. Christians are, moreover, born for combat, whereof the greater the vehemence, the more assured, God aiding, the triumph: "Have confidence; I have overcome the world." Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace.
I'm sure you are familiar with the historical context of Pope Leo XIII's times: the Masonic attempts to eliminate the influence of the Church throughout Europe (including Italy) in the second half of the 19th century.
It seems that these times are very similar in many ways.
For millions of Catholics though the word “Democrat” is a snyonym for “Catholic” and shall remain so.
There was no need to launch a personal attack and name calling.
Look at mine and GeronL’s exchange, (which was completed before you jumped in with a personal attack), he knew that I had misread his post and that I was truthfully baffled.
For whatever reason, I had honestly missed the implied ‘and’, that kind of thing occasionally happens on the internet, it wasn’t time wasting, hostile, game playing.
Irrelevant hostility did show up from a third party though.
This guy taught his daughter not to vote Republicans because they are pro war?
...i can see a point about the Democrats caring more for the poor, etc.
but Republicans pro-war ?!?
from WW1 to the bombing of Serbia, what war WASN’T with a Democrat for President ?
(and Serbia was responding to Muslim attacks,
just as we did in Afghanistan...
it would seem to me, that even an anti-war Catholic,
could understand the dangers of Islam...)
The people who vote democrat are CINOs, not real Catholics.
Thanks for that.
No, they are real Catholics, you don’t think that democrat voting Priests, Nuns, Bishops and Cardinals are Catholics?
And this guy ran the National Catholic Register until a couple of years ago. Do you think his politics influenced how NCR reported things?
So the National Catholic Register was run by a CINO for ten years, and no one noticed until now?
Right. I try not to take things too seriously but sometimes I go off the reservation. heh. I even had to report abuse on one of my own posts yesterday. heh. seriously.
I see. I misread the tagline. Because of the lack of a space between “good” and “pope,” I'd misinterpreted that you were saying this ABOUT the “good-Pope Leo.”
Makes a lot more sense now that I can see you were attributing a quote to him.