Is the Catholic hierarchy moving toward the GOP?
Tags
Related Posts
About the author
A series of recent developments are renewing questions about the Catholic bishops’ alignment with the Republican Party, with much of the attention focusing on comments by Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput, who said he “certainly can’t vote for somebody who’s either pro-choice or pro-abortion.”
In a wide-ranging interview published last week (Sept. 14), Chaput also echoed the views of a number of prominent bishops when he praised Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan for trying to address the “immoral” practice of deficit spending through his libertarian-inflected budget proposals.
“Jesus tells us very clearly that if we don’t help the poor, we’re going to go to hell. Period. There’s just no doubt about it,” Chaput told National Catholic Reporter.
“But Jesus didn’t say the government has to take care of them, or that we have to pay taxes to take care of them. Those are prudential judgments. Anybody who would condemn someone because of their position on taxes is making a leap that I can’t make as a Catholic.”
Chaput stressed that he is a registered independent “because I don’t think the church should be identified with one party or another.” But he said that the Democratic Party’s positions on abortion rights, gay rights, and religious freedom “cause me a great deal of uneasiness.”
He added that economic issues are “prudential judgments” open to a variety of legitimate approaches. Abortion, on the other hand, is “intrinsically evil” and must always be opposed.
That is a talking point voiced by many Catholic conservatives, including Ryan himself. Last Friday, Ryan told the Christian Broadcasting Network that opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage, and support for religious freedom, are all “non-negotiables” for a Catholic politician while “on other issues, of economics and such like that, that’s a matter of prudential judgment.”
The debate over Catholic social teaching has become an unanticipated focus of the presidential contest, and has exposed growing divisions within the church. [More]
SOURCE
Leave a Comment
Photo Archive
-
Jun 19, 2013 5:55
Poll: Catholic Church view on same-sex marriage causing parishoners to flee
-
Jun 19, 2013 5:52
Man arrested in shooting during Catholic church service in Utah
-
Jun 19, 2013 5:45
Scituate parishioners taking dispute to highest Vatican court
-
Jun 19, 2013 5:41
Local clergy abuse survivor testifies before the United Nations
-
Jun 19, 2013 5:38
Alleged victim of clergy sexual abuse files lawsuit
-
Jun 18, 2013 10:28
Chaos as gunfire erupts at Utah Father’s day Mass
-
Jun 17, 2013 4:51
Obama names former CRS head ambassador to the Vatican
-
Jun 17, 2013 4:46
Addressing U.S., global child malnutrition a top priority for advocates
-
Jun 17, 2013 4:42
Female priests risk excommunication to be ordained
-
Jun 14, 2013 5:04
Catholic League president: ‘Nest of homosexual priests’ should be ‘rooted out’
38 Comments
The Catholic hierarchy has no choice but to move toward the GOP. The demon-crats favor continuation of the right to kill a baby; they favor gay marriage, which undermines all of society by disrespecting the nature ofa family; and, they are removing the right of Catholics to practice their faith. Any “Catholic” who votes for Obama is not a true Catholic — they are an ignorant and stubborn as*, unwilling to change their long-standing habit of voting for demon-crats, making their political views trump their alleged religion.
Romney is not pro-life. He thinks it’s perfectly ok to murder a baby to save the life of the mother or if the baby had the misfortune of being conceived through incest or rape.
Further, this has been the position of every president since 1973 (Roe), including every Republican president.
A Knights of Columbus poll of a couple years ago showed that only 13% of Americans want to ban all abortions. There is no reason at all to think that electing Romney would change anything at all.
i have heard at K of C meetings after a couple of beers knights say….I’m against abortion but you can be damn sure if my daughter gets raped shie is gonna have an abortion.
It is intrinsically to refuse to feed the starving when one has the means to feed them. Public is the most significant means to fulfill that and Catholic social gas recognized that fact. To say that the the contrary is to be less than honest. For Dolan and Chaput sexual morality contains all the absolutes: to be a Catholic one must reproduce and the authority of the Church must control the sexual lives of the faithful to preserve orthodoxy. This is not even Christianity; it is below the level of the Gospels. Thinking people are going to see this for what it is: a lie.
The bishops aren’t moving toward the GOP, the move-in happened years ago, if anyone hasn’t noticed. Chaput sounds more like Rush Limbaugh, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan than a successor to the Apostles. What exactly DID Jesus say about public support of those in need?
Limbaugh, Romney and Ryan are a lot more empathetic toward the poor than Obama and the big government progressives. For one, these men and conservatives like them as studies have shown, are much more generous with charitable donations than their liberal and progressive critics (google joe Biden charitable donations). Second of all, what liberals don’t want is for the poor to succeed. Conservatives do: we want those who are struggling to rise up and make it like millions of Americans have done since the nations founding. Look at what welfare, food stamps and housing projects have led to: fatherless families, victim hood mentalities, dropout students, violence, promiscuity, etc., etc. This country was much better off before all the entitlement programs.
Hey Andrew get your head out of your behind and look at all the rich and middle class who are leading amoral, and immoral lives, on fatherless families, on druged up people, on promiscuous children and adults. Don’t blame the poor for these vices, even “good” conservatives have these types in their families.
You obviously did not read my post or you chose – as you usually do – to spin it into something it’s not. I am no blaming the poor for anything, I am blaming the rich liberal progressive elected officials who are doing everything they can to keep the Democrap voting poor mired in a permanent state of poverty and ignorance so they will falsely believe that big government is not only their baby daddy but their sugar daddy and their god. As for the rich who live immoral lives: I couldn’t agree more: the Kennedy’s and their friends in Hollywood and the Upper West Side are truly pathetic.
The Democrats are for helping a person advance as much as he or she can. After school programs, breakfast in schools are all in place to help ensure gids are properly nourished and cared for to succeed in school and life.
To Tony and Andrew,
I am a new reader to this website; I gather by your comments to each other that you are frequent adversaries. You both realize, don’t you, that you will NEVER agree with each other. What you both are doing is pontificating and venting, not communicating. Just saying. . .
Cheryl you are absolutely correct
Cheryl — not entirely true. In Heaven (if he makes it — and I pray he does), Tony will agree with Andrew, because Tony will then be able to see the truth. Until then, there always is hope that God will bless Tony so that he comes to know the truth before he dies.
“For one, these men and conservatives like them as studies have shown, are much more generous with charitable donations than their liberal and progressive critics (google joe Biden charitable donations).”
Yes, because a completely unverified, uncited generalization is completely equivalent to a request to find information on one person in the opposing party.
Or, as Wikipedia puts it:
[citation needed]
“Look at what welfare, food stamps and housing projects have led to: fatherless families, victim hood mentalities, dropout students, violence, promiscuity, etc., etc.”
I don’t think you finished your sentence, let me finish it for you: “…these government projects have removed the burden from the most undeserving victims of these things: the children, and placed them squarely on the shoulders of society because, as a society, we want these people to grow up healthy, strong, and smart and have as many opportunities as children who did not have to go through similar childhoods.”
“This country was much better off before all the entitlement programs.”
Again, [citation needed], and I disagree, because the people who put these programs into place thought that the US would be better if these programs existed, which means that the people who experienced these conditions before thought their situation was not as good.
God bless Bishop Chaput! This is a holy man who speaks the truth and Catholics need to listen and follow his lead. First of all, abortion is murder, period! There are two choices to be made in an abortion: the parties can choose to kill the unborn baby or let the unborn baby live. There is no third choice. Abortion is the ultimate intrinsic evil in our country and Chaput is right when he tells the Faithful that we can’t as Catholics, say we’re Catholic and yet vote for politicians who support the murder of unborn children under the ruse of “choice”. Now, on to this “social justice” ruse of the poor in the context of Paul Ryan’s budget and the government entitlement programs. For CENTURIES, the Church has looked out for the poor and marginalized. And, the Church is a helluva lot better at it than the government. Big government entitlement programs have only led to a permanent state of poverty to the people these programs were supposedly designed to help. Jesus said Himself, render into God what is Gods and to Ceaser what is Ceasers. It’s time for Catholics to unite and vote against Obama and the intolerant progressives who are 200 percent against the Catholic Church in America.
You may understand abortion to be murder, other people of different faiths do see it as murder. They have the legal right in our country to terminate a pregnancy.
Whats next, the Hindus wanting to legislate against the consumption of Beer, or the Jews and Muslim legislated against the consumption of pork? Or how about the Jehovah Witnesses against the use of blood transfusion?
Tony, thank you for understanding the premise of Roe v. Wade.
The premise of Roe v Wade is legalized murder. In case you haven’t read your Bible lately, one of the commandments is: thou shalt not kill.
Andrew you may believe the pregnancy tissue in the Womb is a human being but other good faithful people don’t believe this matter is anything more than potentially human.
Their clergy agree with them. The should not be denied the right to a safe abot ton because of your religious beliefs.
Tony — with all due respect (you always know something bad is coming after that phrase) — your post is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Whether or not someone believes abortion is murder, it IS murder. Therefore, Catholics should be trying to influence the public square. We are not supposed to be Catholics just in church; we are supposed to carry our faith out into the public square and influence the culture. Abortion is not on the same level as, say, not eating meat on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. Catholics are not asking for a law to ban the sale of hamburgers at McDonalds on those two days — we are asking for a ban on killing babies, and we should continue — forever — to ask for such a ban. Get your head in the game, Tony, and out of your …
Thank you Jim, you rock! It’s amazing that so many CINOs continue to make excuses for the evil people on this world who persecute the Church.
Thanks, Andrew. Like you, I too am amazed at the posts on this website from others who consider themselves Catholic. It has been a real education for me — even more so the illogic and irrationality of the posters.
Jim, there are good people who after prayer, and with consultation with their clergy, do not believe that the pregnancy tissue is ensouled. the believe that they are not committing murder, in their heart of heart. They are sincere good people, like you and your wife, until they come to agree with us they should have evey right to a ‘SAFE” abortion.
Work to edjucate these people, but don’t deny them their right. Sometimes they think they are doing a praise worthy thing by aborting a child to save a mother life.
Why should a good devout well educated non Catholic have to abide by your viewpoint. You might want to get your head out of where ever it is.
Tony — NO ONE has the “right” to kill a baby — such a proposition is preposterous, even if the person doesn’t believe they are killing a baby. Further, as Jesus told us, “Seek and you WILL find, knock, and it SHALL be opened unto you.” Thus, if a person truly seeks, they will find the truth, that abortion is murder. No one has the “right” to murder anyone else.
“pregnancy tissue in the womb”? Excuse me? If you truly believe that then may God have mercy on your soul!
I don’t believe it is pregancy tissue in the womb, but that is what other very good, devout people of other religions believe. They don’t believe that ensoulment takes place at conception. For example the most orthodox Jews,
This is there religious thought.
It goes without saying there are good orthodox Jews and people of other religions who believe that it is a human from the first moment of conception.
And you do not understand the premise of Roe v. Wade. There are people (some sects of Judaism) that do not believe the unborn fetus to be considered human life, and still more people do not believe that a small group of cells should be considered human life. The fact that you believe differently does not allow you to dictate your beliefs to others, even if you believe it is murder.
Furthermore, while I do remember that one of the commandments is “Thou shalt not kill”, you cannot rule the entirety of the US on the Bible, you have to have legal philosophies back up your laws. What the Supreme Court said with Roe v. Wade is that there is no legal philosophy that allows the government to dictate to every citizen the definition of life, even though there are religious philosophies to guide individuals towards moral judgments for those individuals. But because of the First Amendment, the US government cannot enact laws that establish a state religion, which is why religious arguments fall flat in the face of the judicial system.
Do not was excluded from my first sentence above
Hey Andrew look at all the rich and middle class who are leading amoral, and immoral lives, on fatherless families, on druged up people, on promiscuous children and adults. Don’t blame the poor for these vices, even “good” conservatives have these types in their families.
Mr Ryan’s “budget” is a thinly disguised attempt to shift responsibility for the burgeoning national debt onto the shoulders of the working poor and the vanishing middle class.
By blessing this misbegotten manuever, Archbishop Chaput is in effect snatching the poor man’s pet lamb to feed to his rich friends. Even the great King David missed this one until a prophet got right smack in his face and told his king YOU ARE THAT EVIL RICH MAN!
The government should not legislate the morality of abortion. There are many people of faith, who according to their religious traditions don’t believe in ensoulment of the fetus untill 40 days after conception, others, even later. Many clergy of other faiths permit abortion for their faithful. Abortion should be between a woman, and her doctor and no business of our government.
This Catholic is caused a great deal of uneasiness over the Republican attitude toward the working poor who struggle to feed their faimy and put a roof over their heads while the bisops live like princes and kings and support the republican platform.
I feel that the GOP should provide us with a plan of what they would do to end abortion. We have had republican administrations, majorities in congress, etc., and we still have abortion. If Roe v Wade was overturned, the abortion laws would be returned to the states and most of
them would allow abortion. I really don’t think abortion is going anywhere and I feel like the republicans drag the issue out at election time and earn votes, and then shelve it till the next election. If I am incorrect, please advise me as I have gotten rather cynical about the whole thing.
I agree, but the only way to make it stop is for people to understand the issues surrounding Roe v. Wade besides their own beliefs about the beginnings of life, and accept it is improper for the government to impose any religious-based views of life on the entire country.
And, when it comes down to it, most people don’t want to let other people live differently, they want everybody else to live exactly the same way that they do. And unfortunately those people vote to suppress the rights of others.
Hey blag, the government imposes their belief on me by restricting how fast I can drive on the street, because they don’t want me to hurt or kill anyone. The government has the right to stop abortion even more than they have the right to regulate the speed at which we drive. Yes, murder is a moral issue, but again, the government is imposing morality on me by telling me I can’t drive as fast as I want because I might kill people. Did you leave your logic bat at home today, blag?
What non-religious legal justifications do you have to enact legislation defining the beginning of life? Because that is what is required to enact anti-abortion legislation.
The argument underlying abortion is not whether murder should be legal or not, it is a step behind that: the argument is whether or not it is murder or not, and what constitutes human life. If it is, then of course the government can stop it, but if it isn’t, then the government cannot. And if there are no legal justifications either way, then the government cannot simply dictate based on the majority’s religious definitions of life (due to the First Amendment).
Blag — you said that the government can stop murder — but why should they be able to do that? Applying the logic bat to your assertion, one finds that there is only a religious reason to prohibit murder. You cannot scientifically prove that murder is bad; in fact, I can adduce facts to show that murder is good — e.g., let’s murder all disabled and mentally defective people — that would actually HELP society. So, you can’t have it both ways, blag — you allow the government to prohibit murder, but the government’s prohibition is based on moral priniples. Likewise, prohibition of abortion by the government also should occur, also for moral reasons.
Also, blag, since no one can prove that life begins at birth — not even the pro-abortion folks — then the argument against abortion is very simple. Even if I am uncertain when life begins, then that implies that I am conceding it COULD begin at conception. Since it could be life at conception, then we need to err on the side of caution and not abort what could be life. This is so straight-forward and obvious, blag, that it is ridiculous that I even would need to post these comments. The reason you don’t get it is not because you don’t have adequate information, but because your heart is not disposed to the truth.