Posted on 03/17/2013 9:59:05 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
It’s easy — maybe too easy — for people with progressive political views to dismiss the Roman Catholic Church as a vile anachronism, a nightmarish patriarchy of aging pedophiles, woman-haters, homophobes and/or closet cases that can offer nothing of value to the contemporary world. When it comes to the church hierarchy, and especially the Roman Curia, the corrupt and labyrinthine Vatican bureaucracy that makes the Soviet-era Kremlin look like a model of transparency, that point of view seems more than justified.
But the church is not just the hierarchy, and as the spectacle of the last several days has demonstrated, there are millions or billions of people around the world — Catholics and non-Catholics alike — who wish the newly elected Pope Francis well and yearn to see in him the possibility of hope and renewal for this ancient, powerful and heavily tarnished institution that claims direct succession from the apostles of Jesus. As the first Latin American pope and the first Jesuit pope, Francis represents a break with tradition in several ways. Both the name he has chosen and his personal modesty and humility are meant to recall St. Francis of Assisi, one of the most adored figures in the Christian tradition, and no doubt also St. Francis de Sales, a 17th-century mystic, author and ascetic known for his devotion to the poor.
But the former Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio emerges from a Jesuit order that has been largely purged of its independent-minded or left-leaning intellectuals, and his reputation at home in Latin America is decidedly mixed. While Francis seems to be an appealing personality in some ways — albeit one with a shadowy relationship with the former military dictatorship in Argentina, along with a record on gay rights that borders on hate speech.....
(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...
How about very nearly half? Consistently.
Even the so' called "Affordable Care Act" had wide support --- until certain items of the fine print began to show themselves as consequence --THEN there was opposition. But it seems too late, for the damage is done, in that the Act is not overturned, and the little "adjustments" to placate the dissenting RC'ers (whom could give the Dem party trouble if they could be united in voting, rather than split) are not so much written into law, as the adjustments are more like promises from the mouths of politicians of the worst sort.
Alex:
I assume that you can do simple Math. The Catholic Church in the U.S. represents about 5% of the Catholic worldwide population. Whatever American Catholics think in terms of Polls, or how they vote is “not relevant” to what the Catholic Church teaches “definitively” on Faith and Morals.
We have had legalized abortion in this country since 1973, euthansia is being pushed by many U.S. States, it is legal in some countries, re-defining marriage is an ongoing battle and unfortunately, many U.S. Catholics have wed themselves to the “spirit of the age” [to borrow from G.K. Chesterton] but the Catholic Church in union with the Pope, guided by the Holy Spirit, as not wavered on her teachings and will not.
Whether you admit it or not, Protestantism, with its elevation of each person and his or her Bible as the sole determiner of Truth can not sustain itself, what will happen as groups democratically align themselves together to vote on “stances to take” with regards to moral questions, Protestantism will continue to fragment at the confessional level to more and more different groups.
While there are many dissenting Catholics in this country, that is precisely the point, they are “defacto heretics” in that they are rejecting revealed Truths of the Catholic Church.
Too much of Protestantism and its Individualism, i.e. Me and my Bible and personal relationship with Jesus is in reality me and my Bible and a relationship with his or her on theology which in the end is a relationship with one’s on mind. Yes, there are many good Christian people in many of the various protestant ecclesial communities but that does not change the fact that Protestant ecclesiology, basec on its own principles, will always be subject to democratic forces among its believers who can vote on their own pastor, and its own theological beliefs.
So I am asking for documentation, yes.
Excellent post.
I also assume that you can do simple math. If a majority of any organizations self-identifies with and vote for liberal politicians and liberal causes, the majority position serves to define the identity of the organization. What the Catholic Church teaches “definitively” on the subject of faith and morals is “not relevant” as any proponents of those teachings are in a distinct statistical minority.
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
(You) Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
-- James 2:14,18b
“I’m constantly amazed at those are aren’t even Carholic offering opinions and ideas on how the Church should be..”
Fill in the blank:
Opinions are like ________ everybody’s got one!
Alex Murphy:
Kudos, spoken like a Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. I have to agree with you, many of these dissident Catholics are being blinded by the spirit of the age. You will not get any push back from me on this one. However, one can “hope” as that is among the 3 theological virtues as St. Paul noted in his First Epistle to the Corinthians that these folks will seek God’s Mercy and reform their ways.
So the fact that some Catholics are seeking to be seen as relevant by the “world’s standards” is disappointing and sad, but that is a separate issue from what the Catholic Church clearly teaches. You have been here long enough and have started more Catholic threads than I have so I think if you would be honest with yourself, you have a pretty good idea what the Catholic Church teaches on Faith and Morals and thus realize that these Catholics who are supporting abortion, euthansia, re-defining marriage are “defacto schismatic” Catholics and are dissenters.
Priests and bishops you ask? How many were for Obamacare before they were against it? Investigate such things yourself, and you may find the answers you seek.
Otherwise;
54% for the "R" presidential candidate might be a bit better than the general populace, but not much. Still, that beats out the "progressive" Episcopalian & Unitarian sort, I get the impression.
We know that the members of the Catholic denomination vote for abortion and gay power in almost every election, and that the members of the second largest denomination, the Southern Baptists, vote about 80% pro-life and anti-gay power.
We know that while the Catholic voters are almost always choosing the pro-abortion democrat, Clinton, Al Gore, Obama, that the democrats have only won the Protestant vote 3 times, 2 of those in the 1930s and the last in 1964.
If you want a church that produces pro-life and marriage supporters, the Catholic church isn’t it.
Persoanlly I would like to see the Bidens Pelosi's, Kennedys, Cuomos, etc... all excommunicated, but no one has given me a vote on the matter.
Those politicians are democrats, the Catholic party, the party that Catholics have always preferred over a 150 years of history.
If you want a Christian denomination that produces pro-life voters, the Catholic church isn’t it.
Then the exact same thing can be said of ALMOST every protestant denomination.
How many African American pastors said that they would tell congregations to vote against Obozo over the issues of gay marriage and HHS mandates and yet race trumped faith.
“...Bergoglio emerges from a Jesuit order that has been largely purged of its independent-minded or left-leaning intellectuals...”
Now we know they are out of touch with reality. The Jesuit order, with the exception of maybe a dozen priests, is NOTHING BUT independent-minded AND left-leaning (pseudo)-intellectuals, not to mention active homosexuals.
Why would pro lifers fight to pretend that Catholics are not the back bone of the religious left voters? Does anyone care that the pro-abortion democrats can count on the Catholic vote in almost every election and that the left is counting on it to deliver up America and to once and for all defeat Christian America, that Texas is next on the plate for the Catholic vote to take out, which means the end of pro-life chances in presidential politics?
Since collectively the Protestant vote is pro-life and republican, and has only voted democrat 3 times, twice in the 1930s and once in the 1960s, we know that the Protestant vote vote collectively is still voting for life and conservatism, regardless of how individual denominations vote.
The largest Christian denomination is Catholic and they vote majority pro-abortion, the second largest is Southern baptist and they vote 80% or more pro-life, when all Protestants of all stripes, black, Episcopalian and everything are collectively counted after EVERY election, it still totals up to collectively going republican.
Since we are importing Catholic voters by the millions we know that life and marriage and conservatism is doomed in America, do Catholic Hispanics become more conservative and pro-life when they become Protestants? of course, but that won’t happen frequently enough to save us.
Do you care about defeating abortion and homosexuality and liberalism in politics, do you think that it helps or hurts for conservatives to learn how Catholics vote as they weigh immigration and efforts to reach out and win support for conservatism?
Why would anyone want to conceal such a thing anyway, not only conceal, but pretend the total opposite, continue spreading a permanent myth. That is an anti-life agenda.
You have thrown out a lot of numbers, I am not saying they are wrong, but I want to see your source.
I would prefer to state/believe that anyone can question not just theologians. However, not every question is subject to revision from the truth for answer to the question. There has been much revision as to the Bible’s truth.
Source for what specifically? Surely not that Catholics vote democrat?
Certainly you can question the opinions of theologians they are not infallible. But the Bible is infallible. There are rare exceptions where it can be found that a translation is incorrect. These errors even more rarely lead to a substantial difference in the meaning of the passage.
ALL of the numbers you cited. Thank you.
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.