Catholic Ping List
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 06/08/2008 10:22:04 AM PDT by kellynla
Can a Catholic be for Barack Obama? The question has been raised by a law professor at Pepperdine University, who went from being a Mitt Romney adviser to an Obama supporter. The question is further raised by the appearance of the angry Rev. Michael Pfleger, a longtime friend of the Democratic nominee who recently preached at Obama's former Trinity church.
Since this topic was recently a matter of talking heads' concerns, I was asked, in all seriousness, if Catholics can even vote. After all, war is bad. The death penalty is bad. Abortion is bad. John McCain supports the war on terror and capital punishment, but he is against abortion. Obama is antiwar and anti-death penalty but pro-abortion. So neither wins. Or does Obama win? "Can Catholics vote for anyone?" readers asked.
The answer is not up to me. The individual Catholic derives an answer through reflection on the demands of his or her conscience, informed by the teaching of the Church. Neither of those steps can be glossed over. And there can be no mistaking what responsibilities the Catholic voter faces.
E-mailers have also asked, as the following did: "You are, of course, aware that the Catholic Church also sees contraception as a sin as well. Since means never justify the ends, voting for a candidate that promotes contraception as an alternative to abortion is also wrong. Without researching, I assume all major candidates have no problem with contraception, therefore, no candidate should get Catholic votes by your line of reasoning. I'm sorry for this rant, but I do not like people playing politics with my religion."
It is true that no presidential candidate is going to call for a ban on contraception. That's not a serious consideration. But politics can never be wholly divorced from religion. Our religious morality necessarily informs our political judgments.
Pope Benedict XVI, in a speech to European politicians in 2006, offered some instruction for the Catholic conscience: "As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today: the protection of life in all its stages... recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family... and the protection of the rights of parents to educate their children."
That "not negotiable" is not to be missed.
The thing about abortion is, it's not just any other issue. As serious as so many others are, abortion is not open to debate; it falls into the category of non-negotiable.
So can a Catholic vote for a politician who supports legal abortion? Providing guidance, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver writes that a Catholic voter would "need a compelling, proportionate reason to justify it. ... It's the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life -- which we most certainly will. If we're confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed."
The Catholic Catechism instructs that a child "must be treated from conception as a person." Obama said that he would never want his daughters to be "punished" with the birth of an unplanned baby, as if it were a thing to be disposed of. As an Illinois state senator, he opposed legislation that would protect babies born alive in botched abortion attempts. He explained, "Whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month-old -- child that was delivered to term ... it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute." That would be a child, albeit not a 9-month-old child, whose life he dismissed. This is the Democrats' candidate for president.
Catholics need to know what their Church teaches. Know your candidate. Know abortion isn't just any issue. It's a grave offense and betrayal to protecting the most innocent human life. If you're a Catholic who honestly can see how Obama's election as president won't contribute to or compound that offence, go in peace. I don't see it. I don't see how anyone can see it. And so for those who don't get a vote, for those who have been murdered in the name of "choice," this Catholic will cast hers against him in November.
Some view Catholicism as a smorgasbord, choosing to believe only in what fits their lifestyle. I truly feel sorry for them.
We've got the same problem on the Protestant side of the fence, my friend.
Come to think of it, that's where our side of the fence came from, wasn't it?
Yep. Republican campaigns this season have been infiltrated by Democrats who have no intention of seeing a Republican victorious in November.
Howard Dean’s team supported McCain going as far back as 2006 for his 2008 campaign. They became part of his website team.
Well, I’ll say one thing - he is from the OLD school.
Makes me think of a time years ago I heard some nut on the radio justifying his pro-abortion position and how there was no conflict with that position while being a practicing Catholic. That guy's name was Bernie Ward.
‘nuff said.
Ted Kennedy is a devout Catholic who supports Obama.
Wrong.
Ted Kennedy is a devout DRUNK, a murderer and an enabler of rape. Kennedy, by his own actions and deeds excommunicated himself from the Catholic Church long ago.
And he will soon be burning in Hell for all eternity.
But war and the dealth penalty are?
Those not voting for Bob Barr are giving the election to a liberal.
Depends on one's state. My vote for Bob Barr is unlikely to have any effect, but if it does have some effects I'd say the good ones would outweigh the bad.
I'm no longer going to buy the latest of the crap sandwiches that the GOP has been putting up for the presidency every four years since 1988.
And I don't want Obama to win. So here's an idea: why don't conservatives figure out who really is the true conservative running and vote him/her instead of a geriatric psychotic egotist who has been anointed the heir apparent by the old boys in the GOP country club?
Think how much better our country would have been if real conservatives hadn't thrown their votes away voting for GWH Bush in 1992 and voted for Ross Perot instead.
Here's a novelty for you: why not work for something instead of just against something?Instead of voting against Obama, why don't you actually vote for someone? Vote for a real conservative instead of just against Obama.
I threw my vote away in 1992 voting for GHW Bush, when if I were true to my principles I would have voted for Perot. That was an oppurtunity that many of us real conservatives itching to do the prudent thing wasted.
And don't be so cowardly. Dare to dream. Think how much better off we finally were because we followed the dreams of Ronald Reagan instead of the timorous compromising of Gerald Ford.
And MacCain's history of serial adultery is all of a piece with his history of never ending betrayals and arrogant disregard of the people closest to him. Here's hoping all you MacCainiacs feel better when he plants a shiv between your ribs because he carries the magical "R" after his name.
You know it's no longer the 14th century?
Catholic Ping List
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Are you talking about Lopez or the person who posed the question?
And end up electing Barry Hussein Obama.
You know, Nancy, it's really too bad you and your girlfriends can't actually fight for something.
what's to debate?
Regrettably, abortion is just a “speed bump” for some in consideration of the other social issues where the Democrats more or less align themselves with general Church teachings, such as care for the poor, food pantries, etc.
Of course, the motivations for this support are totally different — in one case, it is a natural outflow from the Faith, whereas in the other instance it’s just a means to political power by garnering as many votes as possible.
The government turning you over and shaking the money out of your pockets to redistribute “for the common good” is NOT charity and actually can be detrimental to its true spirit. A disturbing aspect of this happened once where I had heard a Catholic say, upon being approached by a solicitor from a well-known and respected institution, that “why should [he] give to {the charity}? That’s what my taxes are for!”
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.