Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Catholic Vote?
Standing on my Head / Patheos ^ | September 18, 2012 | Fr. Dwight Longenecker

Posted on 09/19/2012 9:05:44 AM PDT by Alex Murphy

I’m sorry to report that this also seems to be the case amongst the Catholics I work with and meet from around the country. They may call themselves Catholics, and they may even go to Mass, but when it comes to life choices they are virtually indistinguishable from everyone else in America. They don’t live radical Christianity out in any real sort of way. Their lives look just like the lives of their worldly neighbors. They don’t give any more than the average joe. They seem just as likely to divorce their spouses, have only 2.5 children as their non Catholic neighbors and they seem just as materialistic as everyone else. They attend church if they feel like it, but if there’s a weekend football game or the call of the beach house they’re just as likely to respond to that demand. When it comes to voting, they’ll vote as they wish according to wherever they get their opinions from–TV, the newspaper, the mass media–just like their neighbors. The one source they won’t consider when informing their vote is their priests and bishops.

Of course not all Catholics are so complacent, dull and worldly. There are some who will vote according to their Catholic conscience. There are a good number who will stand up for Catholic principles and allow their fundamental convictions to inform their vote. There are some who will vote as if their lives–and the lives of the future generations depended on it. If people want to discover what the ‘Catholic vote’ is they should talk to them. The difference between these informed and convinced Catholics and the other sort is clear to see.

What we are really looking at is the fact that the ‘Catholic Vote’ reflects the same two nation divide that is seen right across our country. You can even give names to the two types of ‘Catholics’ who make up these two voting blocs: Biden or Ryan, Kennedy or Santorum, Pelosi or Boehner. The divide is not just ‘right’ or ‘left’ or ‘Democratic’ or ‘Republican’. It’s those who’s political convictions–no matter how spotty and incomplete or faulty–are informed by the genuine teaching of the Church, and those who believe the Church should be informed by their political convictions.

Have I said it before? Every argument is a theological argument. The real divide is therefore between Catholics who believe their religion is a human and historical construct which can (and ought) to be changed according to the times and circumstances in which they live and those who believe that the times and circumstances in which they live are to be corrected and informed by the eternal, God-revealed truths of the Catholic faith.

If they want to assess the ‘Catholic vote’ they must poll those who believe the latter not the former for the latter is the Catholic faith. The other is called ‘historicism’ which is one of the gals in that brothel called ‘Modernism’.


TOPICS: Catholic; Ministry/Outreach; Religion & Politics; Worship
KEYWORDS:
What we are really looking at is the fact that the ‘Catholic Vote’ reflects the same two nation divide that is seen right across our country. You can even give names to the two types of ‘Catholics’ who make up these two voting blocs: Biden or Ryan, Kennedy or Santorum, Pelosi or Boehner. The divide is not just ‘right’ or ‘left’ or ‘Democratic’ or ‘Republican’. It’s those who’s political convictions–no matter how spotty and incomplete or faulty–are informed by the genuine teaching of the Church, and those who believe the Church should be informed by their political convictions.

Have I said it before? Every argument is a theological argument. The real divide is therefore between Catholics who believe their religion is a human and historical construct which can (and ought) to be changed according to the times and circumstances in which they live and those who believe that the times and circumstances in which they live are to be corrected and informed by the eternal, God-revealed truths of the Catholic faith.

This is in reaction to a Georgetown University poll released yesterday that claims the Catholic vote is currently split 50/50, while the Protestant/Evangelical vote stands at 51/40 for Romney. Also note that Monday's Gallup poll stated similar numbers:

Protestants...support Mitt Romney over Barack Obama by 13 percentage points. Keep in mind that black voters are mostly Protestant. That means that, included in this lopsided Romney vote, is a significant group of black Protestants who opt for Obama over Romney by 89% to 5% (Aug. 1 - Sept 16 data). Among white Protestants, the margin for Romney over Obama is 64% to 30% -- significantly larger than the gap among all Protestants. Catholics are almost precisely at the sample average.

1 posted on 09/19/2012 9:05:51 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Start excommunicating all Democrats and those who identify as such.

I guarantee that might wise a few of these cretins and reprobates up.


2 posted on 09/19/2012 9:15:10 AM PDT by Emperor Palpatine ("On the ascent of Olympus, what's a botched bar or two?" -Artur Schnabel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

You could add that Catholics are just as likely to vote their pocketbooks as other groups.


3 posted on 09/19/2012 9:25:23 AM PDT by ex-snook (without forgiveness there is no Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Archbishop Chaput: I can’t vote for pro-abortion Obama
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/18/archbishop-chaput-i-cant-vote-for-pro-abortion-obama/

There’s a current conversation at hotair on this topic you might enjoy. In the 2010 elections, the Catholic vote turned 20 points for Republicans.

The basic problem Churches are having is the inability to speak politics from the pulpit.


4 posted on 09/19/2012 9:27:39 AM PDT by bronxville (Margaret Sanger - “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
The Works of Mercy for the Liberal Catholic

The Corporal works:
1. Give cell phones to the workless
2. Money to the drug addict
3. Alcohol to the thirsty
4. Shelter the fugitive
5. Condoms to the promiscuous
6. Abortions to the pregnant
7. Bury the nation in debt

The Spiritual works:
1. Admonish the successful
2. Instruct all godlessly
3. Comfort the careless
4. Bear charity impatiently
5. Perceive all things as injuries
6. Resent the employed
7. Pay for the living and the dead

5 posted on 09/19/2012 9:36:11 AM PDT by HapaxLegamenon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HapaxLegamenon
The Spiritual Works of Mercy [Catholic Caucus]
The Corporal Works of Mercy [Catholic Caucus]
Lists Every Catholic Should be Familiar With: The 7 Spiritual Works of Mercy
Lists Every Catholic Should be Familiar With: The 7 Corporal Works of Mercy
Catholic Caucus: Spiritual Works of Mercy
Introduction to the Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy
The Spiritual Works of Mercy
The Corporal Works of Mercy
Lest We Forget - The Corporal Works of Mercy & The Spirtual Works of Mercy
Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy
6 posted on 09/19/2012 9:48:11 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
The last half of the article --

What we are really looking at is the fact that the ‘Catholic Vote’ reflects the same two nation divide that is seen right across our country. You can even give names to the two types of ‘Catholics’ who make up these two voting blocs: Biden or Ryan, Kennedy or Santorum, Pelosi or Boehner. The divide is not just ‘right’ or ‘left’ or ‘Democratic’ or ‘Republican’. It’s those who’s political convictions–no matter how spotty and incomplete or faulty–are informed by the genuine teaching of the Church, and those who believe the Church should be informed by their political convictions.

Have I said it before? Every argument is a theological argument. The real divide is therefore between Catholics who believe their religion is a human and historical construct which can (and ought) to be changed according to the times and circumstances in which they live and those who believe that the times and circumstances in which they live are to be corrected and informed by the eternal, God-revealed truths of the Catholic faith.

If they want to assess the ‘Catholic vote’ they must poll those who believe the latter not the former for the latter is the Catholic faith. The other is called ‘historicism’ which is one of the gals in that brothel called ‘Modernism’.


7 posted on 09/19/2012 9:56:07 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bronxville

All priests can address ISSUES from the pulpit — addressing abortion, euthanasia, contraception, etc.

What they cannot do is endorse a candidate.

Hopefully we will hear more of the issues talk — I know my priest does. He talks about the holocaust of abortion all the time.


8 posted on 09/19/2012 9:58:17 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bronxville
Archbishop Chaput: I can’t vote for pro-abortion Obama

Also posted as a thread here on Free Republic.

There’s a current conversation at hotair on this topic you might enjoy. In the 2010 elections, the Catholic vote turned 20 points for Republicans.

I'd love to hear more about it - why not start/discuss the topic right here on Free Republic? I'd rather do that, than drive traffic somewhere else.

Before I forget (again), there's one more thread I want to bring up that goes along with this discussion: The Mythical Catholic Vote: The Harmful Consequences of Political Assimilation

The basic problem Churches are having is the inability to speak politics from the pulpit.

I respectfully offer another take on it - the basic problem Churches are having is the inability to fund themselves if they should speak politics from the pulpit. They can do it anytime they want, if their congregation would tithe a little more, and they're willing to have a nationwide conversation re the legitimacy of the 501(c)3 designation.

9 posted on 09/19/2012 10:03:44 AM PDT by Alex Murphy (Living rent-free inside the heads of FRoman Catholics since 2006)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
When it comes to voting, they’ll vote as they wish according to wherever they get their opinions from–TV, the newspaper, the mass media–just like their neighbors. The one source they won’t consider when informing their vote is their priests and bishops.

They have only voted republican 6 times in history (those by narrow margins), they are following some common ideology, some guiding force.

10 posted on 09/19/2012 10:15:13 AM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
"They have only voted republican 6 times in history..."

You should be far more concerned about the GOP deviating from Catholic teaching than the degree that Church teaching can be bent to endorse the GOP.

The GOP platform has varied significantly over the period of time you continue to harp about, yet Church teaching on things like abortion, contraception, same sex marriage, pornography, social justice and access to health-care has remained constant.

"Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right” - Abraham Lincoln

Peace be with you.

11 posted on 09/19/2012 10:51:09 AM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

That must be why Catholics voted democrat in 2008, and 2000, and why non-Catholic Christians are praying and hoping that Catholics will vote against the “abortion, contraception, same sex marriage, pornography, social justice and access to health-care” Party, this time, instead of voting like they usually do.

Very deep stuff you posted there.


12 posted on 09/19/2012 11:04:06 AM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
Your "The GOP platform has varied significantly over the period of time you continue to harp about, yet Church teaching on things like abortion, contraception, same sex marriage, pornography, social justice and access to health-care has remained constant"

Highlights the problem. We are not voting on Church teachings alone but for a politician who has zillions of other issues of concern to voters. And really what good are party platforms - candidates don't even read them and if elected will do nothing.

13 posted on 09/19/2012 11:21:18 AM PDT by ex-snook (without forgiveness there is no Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
"instead of voting like they usually do."

I don;t want to analyze your obsession or motivations with the voting patterns of those you define as Catholics, but I reject your persistent demand that you get to decide on who or what is an actual Catholic based upon nothing more than whatever definition suits your anti-Catholic rant dejour. Catholic is as Catholic does. Anyone can call themselves a Catholic, a Navy SEAL or an NFL Quarterback, but that doesn't make them one. When Catholics are limited to those who frequently attend Mass and adhere to Church teachings (i.e.; in Communion) your arguments disappear like flatulence in the wind.

Peace be with you. “The question to ask is this: Are any of the candidates of either party, or independents, standing for something that is intrinsically evil, evil no matter what the circumstances? If that’s the case, a Catholic, regardless of his party affiliation, shouldn’t be voting for such a person". - Archbishop William Lori (Head of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Religious Liberty)

14 posted on 09/19/2012 11:56:49 AM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Catholic’s are baptized members of the Catholic denomination who consider themselves Catholic.

Some here tell me that baptized Catholics remain so for life, even if they no longer call themselves Catholic.

By the way, is it possible for you to post to me without attacking me personally, without being insulting, and seeming to be carrying over a grudge every time you run into me on a thread?


15 posted on 09/19/2012 12:08:24 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
"Catholic’s are baptized members of the Catholic denomination who consider themselves Catholic."

Are you now claiming to be a spokesperson for the Church or the Magisterium?

While I have no sway over what you choose to believe, it is an intrusion for you to insist that Catholics accept your opinion as reality. Those who are in communion with the Church are Catholic. While the indelible mark of Baptism remains, those who have been baptized and to those who have been ordained, so too does Original Sin and our fallen nature. To paraphrase Matthew 7:21, Not everyone who says "I'm Catholic, I'm Catholic" will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who is in Communion with the Church will enter heaven.

Peace be with you.

16 posted on 09/19/2012 1:51:36 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy; wagglebee; Salvation; NYer; narses; little jeremiah; darrellmaurina; STARWISE
Every pastor in our local diocese recently received the following letter from "Americans United for Separation of Church and State." I'd like to know if or how many protestant or black churches received similar warnings:

Letter to Religious Leaders for Election Season 2012

Dear Religious Leader,

As Election Day draws near, candidates and their supporters may seek help or endorsements from your house of worship. Thus, this is a good time to familiarize yourself with the law governing electioneering by nonprofit organizations.

The First Amendment protects the right of all Americans, religious leaders included, to speak out on religious, moral and political issues. However, houses of worship and other nonprofit entities classified under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service Tax Code are barred from endorsing or opposing candidates for public office and may not intervene directly or indirectly in partisan campaigns.

Any activity designed to influence the outcome of a partisan election can be construed as intervention. If the IRS determines that your house of worship has engaged in unlawful intervention, it can revoke the institution’s tax-exempt status or levy significant fines on the house of worship or its leaders.

Contrary to what some may believe, the IRS does enforce the “no politicking” rule. In 1995, the IRS revoked the tax-exempt status of a Binghamton, N.Y., church for buying a full-page ad in USA Today opposing a 1992 presidential candidate. (The federal courts upheld the revocation.) Other churches and religious ministries, including Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network and Jerry Falwell’s Old Time Gospel Hour, have been subject to audits and retroactive tax payments for violating the “no electioneering” rule.
In addition, a special “Political Activity Compliance Initiative” has been created to educate houses of worship about the law and deal with reports of violations. (For more information on pulpit politicking, see the IRS Web site at: http://www.irs.gov/charities/churches/index.html and click on “The Restriction of Campaign Political Intervention by Section 501 (c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations.”)

Houses of worship and other nonprofit groups may sponsor voter registration drives and candidate forums if they are truly nonpartisan, and issue advocacy is broadly protected. But remember, tax law prohibits 501(c)(3) groups from supporting or opposing candidates.

I urge you to be especially wary of so-called “voter guides.” Such guides are often thinly veiled partisan materials. If the IRS finds that a violation has occurred, it may be the house of worship, not the organization that produced the guide, that is penalized.
This letter is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice, and I urge you to consult with your legal advisor on specific questions. To learn more about issues surrounding religion and politics, visit our Web site: http://ProjectFairPlay.org.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter.

Sincerely,

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn
Executive Director


17 posted on 09/19/2012 1:56:43 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM (Sin Makes You Stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
The GOP invented demographic warfare.

I'm an independent. No party represents my beliefs as a pro-life conservative Christian.

18 posted on 09/19/2012 2:01:46 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM (Sin Makes You Stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

You need to notify the political world and the Vatican, and, and convince them that you are the defining authority for who gets counted as Catholic in election studies.

Also you can give them your new total for the Catholic population in the US.


19 posted on 09/19/2012 2:04:31 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

I’m a lifelong Independent, but I wish that Catholics were not so devoted to the democrat party.


20 posted on 09/19/2012 2:07:15 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Comment #21 Removed by Moderator

To: ansel12
"Also you can give them your new total for the Catholic population in the US.

Do we get to include all of the bitter ex-Catholics who currently describe themselves as Evangelicals, OPC'ers, Mormons, Buddhists, etc. or just those too lazy or intellectually dishonest to recalibrate their self-identifications?

22 posted on 09/19/2012 2:49:51 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Just count the Catholic’s who are baptized members of the Catholic denomination who consider themselves Catholics.


23 posted on 09/19/2012 2:58:11 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; ansel12
Do we get to include all of the bitter ex-Catholics who currently describe themselves as Evangelicals, OPC'ers, Mormons, Buddhists, etc. or just those too lazy or intellectually dishonest to recalibrate their self-identifications?

Nope - just the 70+ million that the bishops report as (still) being Catholic. Or are you accusing the bishops of being intellectually dishonest and lazy?

24 posted on 09/19/2012 3:17:36 PM PDT by Alex Murphy (Living rent-free inside the heads of FRoman Catholics since 2006)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
I respectfully offer another take on it - the basic problem Churches are having is the inability to fund themselves if they should speak politics from the pulpit. They can do it anytime they want, if their congregation would tithe a little more, and they're willing to have a nationwide conversation re the legitimacy of the 501(c)3 designation.

I think this is an important point. To the extent that Christian congregations are constrained in their witness by financial considerations, they are enslaved by Mammon. I don't believe that, in most cases, it is necessary to support or oppose an individual, named candidate in order to identify (to be blunt) those who are God's and those who are Satan's. However, if the government goes after a congregation for "excessive" political specificity, they must be prepared to deal with the financial consequences.

A lot of Christians seem to think of their church as a "free" service, like a library or public school. You just show up, and everything is provided for you, "somehow." It should just "be there," with no responsibility on their part. I think that "Where your treasure is, there your heart will be," and so if your church is important to you, then you should prioritize its financial needs.

25 posted on 09/19/2012 3:43:40 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Use the nukes, Bibi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Only 27 percent of the Catholics surveyed support President Obama. Of those surveyed, 74 percent of Catholic men over the age of 50 do not support Obama, while Obama support among Catholic men under 50 years is only 25 percent. With Catholic women over the age of 50, the president’s support is only 23 percent, with just 31 percent among Catholic women under 50 years.

Among the Presbyterians (mind that you can preach to your own) it's more like 70% for Obama

26 posted on 09/19/2012 9:09:03 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
ALL Christians - regardless of denomination - must cease being “functional” atheists and start representing the faith in every area of our lives. It is not something we take down off a shelf and put on to go to “church” one day a week for an hour or two. It is what we ARE, what makes us tick, it informs ALL our thoughts and motivates our actions. Unless we ALL stick up for what we KNOW is right, our country will be taken from us and we may NEVER get it back again. This election is a fundamental test, I believe from God, and it is up to us to make a stand. If we blow it off or imagine it won't make any difference, then we only have ourselves to blame when our beloved America ceases to be the land of the free and the home of the brave and we find real atheists as our masters.
27 posted on 09/19/2012 10:27:09 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
I respectfully offer another take on it - the basic problem Churches are having is the inability to fund themselves if they should speak politics from the pulpit. They can do it anytime they want, if their congregation would tithe a little more, and they're willing to have a nationwide conversation re the legitimacy of the 501(c)3 designation.

That IS the only reason why churches hands are tied and, believe me, it was not unintentional. No matter who or what you are, if you take money from the government they can dictate anything they want to you. Religious groups should take a stand and be free of government control about anything. Like you said, if it means paying taxes, so be it, it will be well worth it to be rid of the godless intrusion.

28 posted on 09/19/2012 10:34:52 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

I like the idea of unregistered churches and house churches.

Just don’t do anything taxable and your fine.


29 posted on 09/19/2012 10:46:23 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; ansel12; Natural Law; Dr. Brian Kopp; P-Marlowe; wagglebee; Antoninus; AmericanInTokyo; ...
26 posted on Wed Sep 19 2012 23:09:03 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by Cronos: “Among the Presbyterians (mind that you can preach to your own) it's more like 70% for Obama”

Definitions count.

I believe Ansel12 and Natural Law are talking past each other to some extent, and it's because of differing definitions.

Cronos’ point shows that this isn't just a Roman Catholic problem. (I'm pinging this to the “Great Reformed Ping List” since it deals with Presbyterianism, and it's not just the PC(USA) — read to the end regarding problems in our own conservative PCA and OPC circles.)

I haven't seen the poll cited by Cronos, but if it surveyed people on the membership rolls or who claim to be affiliated in some way with the Presbyterian Church (USA) — the rapidly declining mainline liberal denomination — what that poll says may very well be true. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, the PC(USA) is liberal and although the PC(USA) has conservative opposition groups, we would expect many of its leaders and active members to be liberal.

Very different numbers would likely result in a survey of members of the Presbyterian Church in America or Evangelical Presbyterian Church, and even more radical differences in the more conservative Presbyterian bodies like the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Those denominations are strongly conservative and open liberalism on issues like abortion and homosexuality won't be tolerated for long.

Someone will point out, correctly, that the PC(USA) is far larger in total members and claimed adherents. PC(USA) numbers start looking much different when actual attendance is compared to the PCA and EPC, not the claimed membership numbers.

Similar issues exist with regard to the different numbers that show up when we consider baptized Roman Catholics, people who are on parish membership rolls somewhere, and people who actually attend Mass on a regular basis.

This threefold division between “self-identified” adherents of a religion, people on membership rolls, and people who are regular attenders needs to be considered in any serious demographic study of religion. It would be nice if that weren't necessary, but too many liberal churches (and a fair number of broadly evangelical churches as well) have grossly inflated membership rolls which do not reflect reality, and often have pastors or priests who don't care about church discipline or actually want large membership numbers to make themselves look good.

There's a bigger problem, however. Roman Catholics have their magisterium and as long as the Pope and the bishops remain solid on abortion and homosexuality, the church's position won't change. For Protestants, if we don't remember that church discipline is the third mark of the true church, our denominations will quickly collapse.

There are exceptions in the PCA and even the OPC to what is otherwise a firm stance on issues like abortion and homosexuality.

Note, for example, my posts on the problems with Misty Irons, the wife of a former OPC minister, Lee Irons, who is now a PCA ruling elder. Lee Irons views are unclear, but there is no question that his wife supports homosexual marriages and even spoke publicly to a homosexual Christian conference on her husband's experience in the OPC and how it compared to her much "better" treatment in a PCA congregation. Misty Irons will (or should) have major problems as her views become better known. Here are some links to Free Republic posts on this problem, along with other websites where I've been criticized even by some Orthodox Presbyterians who don't have a problem with Misty Irons:

“Old Reformed” views and “Escondido 2K” views of politics
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2916768/posts

“Should We Oppose Same-Sex Marriage?” (Westminster prof “could affirm domestic partnerships”)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2919093/posts

Pushing All Those Buttons, Making All That Noise
http://presbyterianblues.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/pushing-all-the-buttons-hearing-all-the-noise/

Talking About Talking About 2K
http://presbyterianblues.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/talking-about-talking-about-2k/

Reformed Journalist Calls for the Conservative Presbyterian and Reformed Community to Understand the Realities of “Radical Two Kingdoms” and “Escondido Two Kingdoms” Theologies
http://presweek.blogspot.com/2012/08/15-august-2012.html

The 2 Kingdoms Debate
http://www.weswhite.net/2011/02/the-2-kingdoms-debate/

Here's a clue to what you'll find over at those links, quoting an Orthodox Presbyterian member who doesn't seem to have a problem with Misty Irons and homosexual civil marriage: “Give him credit: culture warrior Darrell Todd Maurina sure knows which buttons to push. Now he’s made three listserves (OPC, URC, and the Warfield List) blow up over 2k and civil unions. Not content to merely push the “gay” button, he’s just started pushing all of them.)”

Here's my response:

People like Teddy Kennedy aren't anywhere near as much of a problem to the Roman Catholic Church as people like Misty Irons are to us. We need to deal with her, and deal with her now. The PC(USA) shows what happens when church discipline does not happen. The refusal to discipline liberal Auburn Affirmationists in 1924 when they had the chance led directly to the 1929 liberal takeover of Princeton Seminary and then the 1936 discipline of the conservative leaders who subsequently left to found the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

We forget the lessons of history at our peril.

30 posted on 09/20/2012 6:27:05 AM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina

the problem is among us all. At the end it is conservatives v/s liberals


31 posted on 09/20/2012 7:00:09 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; wagglebee; little jeremiah; Dr. Brian Kopp; Diamond; napscoordinator; Antoninus; ...
31 posted on Thu Sep 20 2012 09:00:09 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by Cronos: “the problem is among us all. At the end it is conservatives v/s liberals”

Agreed, with some qualifications.

J. Gresham Machen, a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary who was regarded as one of the intellectual leaders on the conservative side of the American fundamentalist-modernist fight a century ago, wrote a helpful book entitled “Christianity and Liberalism” in which he argued that the differences between millennial views (a major issue then, less so now), the Arminian-Calvinist divide, and even the Roman Catholic-Protestant divide were far less important than the division between liberalism and historic Christianity.

Machen argued that while the other differences were important, liberalism not only is not Christianity, it is in an entirely different class of religions from Christianity. Liberalism, in Machen’s view, has more in common with non-revelatory religions which do not rely on propositional truth and an authoritative Scripture than it has in common with either Christianity or Judaism.

Machen is now known primarily as the founder of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and of Westminster Theological Seminary. That's a fairly narrow sphere of influence. In the days when he was fighting the fundamentalist-modernist battles, he had a much greater influence, and while he was certainly a conservative Calvinist, he was willing to work with others in the shared fight.

One of the most interesting points about Machen is that in his day, when cooperation of conservative Protestants (or even liberal Protestants) with Roman Catholics was almost unheard of, Machen attended speeches of leading Roman Catholic apologists and clearly admired the Roman Catholic stance for truth on key issues. It is unfair to say that he believed in co-belligerency — that had to wait another half-century for Francis Schaeffer — but the level of evangelical and Catholic cooperation we see today in the pro-life movement simply did not exist until the chaos of the 1960s and 1970s.

Put bluntly, as traditional Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants we need to recognize that we have important differences, but to realize that it is entirely possible to demand strict adherence to orthodoxy within our own confessional boundaries in our own churches while cooperating together to fight wickedness in the civil realm.

As a Calvinist, I find Abraham Kuyper's doctrine of sphere sovereignty to be helpful, i.e., that God had established separate and distinct governments in the sphere of the family, the church, and the state, and has tasked enforcement of His standards to different authorities in each sphere. Fathers have certain roles in the home into which neither the church nor the state may intrude, pastors and elders have certain roles in the institutional church into which neither the family nor the state can intrude, and the civil magistrates have certain roles in the state into which neither the family nor the church can intrude. For example, a father whose daughter has been raped may not take the law into his own hands and kill the rapist, the state may not decide who can and cannot come to communion, and the church may not wage war.

In the civil realm, the standards are those of Romans 13. That allows for a great deal of cooperation between traditional Roman Catholics, evangelical Protestants, Orthodox Jews, and even secularists who value the American Constitution or some other system of law based on external authority rather than individual and subjective personal feelings. All of us have far more in common with each other than we have with liberals, and we need to cooperate. If we don't do so, the liberals most certainly will exploit that division between us.

32 posted on 09/20/2012 9:31:14 AM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina

Polling is useless compared to actual voting, or else republicans would often do great with Jews and Catholics because during democrat administrations, they often are angry at their president.

I don’t recall anyone here defending how Presbyterians vote, or denying how they vote, or denying that it is even possible to know how they vote, or even denying that the people being identified as Presbyterian are Presbyterian.

Those are the 4 angry attacks directed against political discussions of the devastating Catholic vote in America, in an attempt to shut off discussion and analysis or even awareness of it by conservatives.

Nobody here defends the Presbyterian denomination producing liberal, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual voters.

We don’t know how Presbyterians vote, they are small, and no one is fighting to pretend that they are not liberal anyway, most conservative interest is directed to where it should be, telling it’s members to change it, or leave it, and there is no push back from conservative, Presbyterian freepers on that, in fact, they always agree and want to discuss options and strategies of what they can do to make their denomination more conservative, and less friendly to the abortion and gay movements.


33 posted on 09/20/2012 1:30:51 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina
Thanks for the ping.

and as long as the Pope and the bishops remain solid on abortion and homosexuality

I would take issue with this statement. It's my recollection that a few years ago during a controversy surrounding Notre Dame, only about half of the U.S. bishops were willing to take a strong, public, pro life stand. And a few have taken fairly strong stands for unBiblical positions. So I wouldn't describe the American bishops as 'solid'.

Of course, I'd rather spend my energies at this point trying to clean up the PCA.

34 posted on 09/20/2012 4:44:31 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: PAR35

Thanks, PAR... we definitely agree that the PCA needs to be cleaned up, and despite the level of problems, it would be much easier to clean up the PCA than a lot of other denominations.

BTW, I’m ARP. My wife and the rest of my Korean-speaking family attend a Korean PCA where the pastor speaks virtually no English.


35 posted on 09/22/2012 5:06:27 AM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson