Redstate

All that work by Enlightened Tommy Jefferson and his similarly tolerant Founders to forestall Popish plots was all for naught. Everyone, please follow after me:

Spectacles, [male genitalia], watch, wallet. You'll get the hang of it in no time.

"Infallible" is not just for ex cathedra statements; we were pretending all that time. Really, it's for every last word out of the Pope's mouth. Learn to love it. Or else.

Non-marital, non-procreative sex: Gone. Or else.

You get the idea. Further lessons will be forthcoming.

That's the daily southtown that slaps that stupid headline on the article.

Not the associated press.

People would welcome the fact that he was pointing out Jewish faith.

Sarcasm aside, does it really make a difference? I doubt that he'd become a lackey for the pope. I think most Catholic politicians let the Vatican run their lives. I know I'm over-generalizing, but I really don't see a Catholic on the SCOTUS as a big deal.

What do you think the reaction would be if he was the first Muslim nominated? I'm sure that wouldn't cause much stir.

or at least the bashing of Catholics who actually say they believe and follow the teachings of the church.

If they are nominal or cafeteria Catholics they are good to go.

It is one of the cherished myths of modern liberalism that faith is faith, and faith is the same -- except when faith is Republican, in which case it is the harbinger of whatever dystopia you particularly fear.

The party in power will always draw more heat. When John F. Kennedy was running for president his catholicism was ten times the issue that John Roberts' faith will be.

Check again.

party in power thing.

To some degree yes, since I doubt a liberal president would appoint a committed Catholic to begin with-I suspect they would lean more towards the cafeteria Catholic.

But don't use the "party in power" idea to establish that the issue is about party, when in reality is about Christians who are committed in their lives to the faith they believe in.

which are against current Constitutionally ajudicated rights...The right to use birth control.  The right to have a legal abortion. The right to put some convicted murderers to death.  The right to kill in just wars. The right to assisted suicide (in some states.)

So if any man or woman believes in the strict dogma of the Catholic Church and does not see that there should be a wall betwee church and state, as Thomas Jefferson wrote, it at least merits serious discussion.

Roberts has already indicated that he would have to recuse himself if some ruling was contrary to Church dogma.  So it's certainly worth discussing as everyone considers his nomination.

"The Associated Press"

Posted this link to the wrong comment.

authors don't write headlines. trust me.

yeah, i did the same search on the headline you posted. Comes up a little different.

the original headline. I Was under the impression that he was the fourth Justice ever. Not on the current court. Shows how feeble-minded I am. I still don't see his being Catholic a huge issue, though. I'm not trying to provoke you, but what does it matter? The pope isn't considered infallible in everything he says. I never thought of him that way when, anyway (I was raised Catholic and Armenian Apostolic)

Roberts has already indicated that he would have to recuse himself if some ruling was contrary to Church dogma.

From Durbins office.

Also, while you can talk about Catholic Dogma being in conflict with law, there is this little constitutional rule that says you are not permitted to develop a religious test. By saying that a Catholic's beliefs make them unsuitable for SCOTUS, you have in fact created a religious test.  

That said the problem here is that people ignore the "neutral" POV.  Scalia can and does often decide on the pro capital punishment side, because he believes that the constitution allows for the death penalty.  Scalia and Thomas (both Catholics) if they were inserting their Catholic dogma would actually be in favor of a finding of a right to life of the fetus (which is in fact the position of the Catholic church, that the fetus is a human life), but instead both argue that the constitution does not speak to abortion, and that it is a matter for the states-a neutral position.

Both Thomas and Scalia and Kennedy as well are all committed Catholics, and all of them have have managed to avoid imposing Catholic dogma on the US.  

you see anyone nominated for the court who evern remotely appears to be a Catholic that believes the churches teachings, they are automatically suspect.

Roe is the reason his religion matters, and the media and special interest groups (and by the time it is all over some members of the DNC) are going to mention his faith in order to back door in the issue of Roe.

. . . for "anti-abortion". To the mainstream press, anyway.

A better predictor of Roberts' personal feelings about abortion is his status as an adoptive parent. Don't ask me to back it up with statistics, but in my experience adoptive parents of all faiths skew much more strongly "pro-life" in their views than the rank and file of any faith, Catholics included.

But it's much more palatable nowadays to rally the attack dogs of the Left by highlighting his religious affiliation than it would be to attack him as a card-carrying adoptive parent.

Yahoo just links it as "Roberts Would Be Fourth Catholic on Court"

Dr Samuel Johnson is quoted as saying: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

In this case, I will paraphrase Dr Johnson by saying: "Anti-Catholic bigotry is the last refuge of the morally and intellectually bankrupt secular left."

I can tell you it is not very subtle.

That's the problem with Kennedy, Durbin, and Leahy as point on this: They have axes to grind, and they're not good at hiding them.

What do you think the reaction would be if he was the first Muslim nominated? I'm sure that wouldn't cause much stir.

On the contrary, I think there would a lot of uproar from less tolerant people among us.

I consider RS one of the more thought out, refined conservative sites on the net, but even here was a "we're at war with all muslims" diary. And other sites, such as Protest Warrior or LGF, handle the muslim issue with far less tact.

Was summarily deleted and two of the conservative posters involved in the discussion were banned.

It was ONE article.

"Anti-Catholic bigotry is the last refuge of the morally and intellectually bankrupt secular left."

Many, many on the left have spoke in praise, or at least in moderation, with regards to the Roberts nomination.  I, for one, think it was a good choice.

Excuse while I slip out to make a deposit in my morals and intellect account.

What, are they afraid that Roberts will begin taking orders from the Pope?  That he'll install a bat-phone in his chamber when he needs counsel on how to vote on important court cases.  Oh, no, that's not it.  That relic of bigotry died when JFK was elected.  No, what they're afraid of, and what they're implying in the headline, is that he might act on religious conviction, which as we all know should never ever inform our political or moral views.    

:thumbs up:

Look, I don't see any bigotry in merely pointing out that he his Catholic. But if you want to see some sort of hidden bigotry where Cathloic is a code word for anti-dealth penalty or something go right ahead.

But obviously you could come up with a "more bigoted" headline, couldn't you :)

considerably before Roe.

In my neck of the woods anti-Catholic bigotry comes from both the right and the left.

It has been fourteen years since the then-governor of Virginia, Douglas Wilder, expressed an interest in then-Supreme Court nominee Clarance Thomas's "allegience to the Pope."

At the time, 't was said, Thomas attended an Episcopalean; during the intervening years, though, Justice Thomas is said to have found his way back to what Marcus Grodi calls "Holy Mother Church."

Fourteen-years-ago, Wilder's remark was considered out-of-line, almost un-P.C.  Today, thanks to the exertions accompanying NARAL's last gasp, it's becoming a media-driven "valid concern."

Small correction.

As regards capital punishment ... there is no Catholic dogma, or even doctrine that dictates capital punishment is unjust or wrong. The Church's pre-eminent theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas affirms that capital punishment is not per-se evil in his Summa Theologica. Even the late Pope John Paul II did not ever say capital punishment was unjust or wrong, but felt (prudentially) that it should be used less frequently, and perhaps, given the penal system today, be rarely used, if ever. That is a personal opinion of the late Pope and many Catholics, but it is perfectly legitimate to disagree with this position. That some Catholic, and even priests and prelates try to virtually dogmatize this anti-capital punishment opinion is wrong (Speaking as a faithful Catholic, myself).

although in this case it isn't about somebody who thinks Catholics worship idols or some such, the bigotry is being used by the media, special interest groups and some congress members to find him unsuitable for SCOTUS, which is baloney-somehow they missed that part of the constitution that prohibits religious tests, but they somehow ignore the pretty clearly written part so they can support a ruling that wasn't based on anything clearly written in the constitution.

Bigotry is wrong, but this kind of bigotry bothers me, because it isn't just the opinion of some hick, but is coming from those who control and influence the news, and those who are in charge of making the decision to confirm him.

worried about, and you know it.  It is Roe they are worried about, and if you think this isn't a backdoor way into that subject, then you need to pull your head out of the sand.

and I do not know all the ins and outs of Catholic doctrine-other than that the church has taken some very strong stands on issues of life.

Either way I don't think a person's religion and how committed or not committed they are to its teachings should have any bearing over whether or not one is fit to serve in the SCOTUS.

must be either incredible complex or else so simple as to resemble a seal on a beach.

His dead brothers cannot be pleased with his current state of devolvement.

Are you taking the position that it would be OK for a judge to make a ruling based on his religious conviction?

You were wrong in two of your declarations on Catholic doctrine.

You said the Church denies to civil governments... "the right to put some convicted murderers to death.  The right to kill in just wars."

On the former, the late Pope John Paul II articulated the death penalty as part of the "culture of death" and made clear that he personally wished, with some significant philosophic and theologic heft, that civilized nations would cease and desist with the death penalty, but his statements never bridged the great chasm to the full weight of "doctrinal statements." No council or other pope has either.

Likewise with killing in just wars. By definition, the determination of the "just-ness" of a war that is waged by a civil government* is left up to the several leaders of that civil government -- the pope cannot make that determination infallibly. (An aside: again, JPII never condemned with canonical weight the liberation of Iraq.) And within "just war theory," the right of the soldiers to kill in defense of their just cause has never been questioned, let alone doctrinally condemned. The principle is the same as killing in self defense, or in defense of helpless others.

*"civil government," as regards "just wars," is limited so as to not include unjust governments -- tyrannies, dictators, despots, the like. Since they rule and oppress rather than govern a consenting people, they have no standing to determine the "just-ness" of waging a war.

No, but that is the implication of the headline, is it not?  

Totally agree. Having an anti-Catholic bias is heartily accepted in the most politically correct circles. They are just considered trolls and troglodytes. Roe isn't the only reason they fear too many Catholics (practicing ones)--it's the whole shabang of the liberal social agenda they fear will be overturned or opposed. Even though I have my own disagreements with the RC Church, I know a bias when I see it. Time for liberals to be shamed for their illiberal prejudices.

Are they all Catholic?

Google Result

Results 1 - 10 of about 206,000 for John+roberts+catholic+court+supreme. (0.27 seconds

So you are saying that it isn't Robert's Catholicism specifically that's causing liberal hearts to palitate, but his general committment to Christian principles. If he were a committed Evangelical...there would be just as much of a flutter?

Catholics are one of the only religious groups Dems still have pull with, partly because of so many of us being in MA.  Why would the dems damage it over a SCOTUS nomination that's practically already a done deal?

If he were the fourth Southern Baptist, there would be the same fit thrown by the left.

Seems like too many catholics on the Judiciary Committee (that's a joke folks) :-)

Although an evangelical may be harder to pin down on the issue, since unlike Catholicism evangelical churches are often either independant, or not part of a set church hierarchy where the person at the top sets down church doctrine.  

For instance Jimmy Carter and Jerry Falwell are both Baptists (and Jimmy Carter was at one time a Southern Baptist like Falwell)-and both would be well within Baptist doctrine to have two totally different positions on abortion, and neither could be termed a cafeteria baptist, since a tenet of Baptist doctrine is priesthood of the believer.

But I don't think anyone who even remotely appeared to have conservative religoius values would be well received by the left and the special interest groups that have their carts hitched to Roe.

If Bush had nominated a committed evangelical, say a born again Christian, liberals would be much less subdued in their criticism than they are now.

I don't know how committed Roberts is to Christian principles, but I believe constantly referencing his Catholicism is a direct but indirect way of implying that he is.

perhaps exactly because all those Catholycs in MA are the type of Catholycs who vote for the Catholyc likes of John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy, the Dems know those Catholycs don't take the Catholic Church seriously.

They don't alienate their Catholyc base by holding Roe sacrosanct and opposing all Catholics who would oppose it (on jurisprudential grounds, let alone moral grounds) because they know those Catholycs don't truly give a fig about the True Catholic faith -- the one tied to the pope of Rome rather than the pope of "me" -- and won't be upset when the true Catholic faith is defamed; after all, they defame it by calling themselves "Catholic" all the time.

see my comment on this

I understand the hierarchy thing in reference to Southern Baptists as opposed to Roman Catholics...being raised Catholic myself. But if Roberts were Southern Baptist (especially a public one), I believe their would be pressure on him to publicly state his beliefs although they couldn't also take a swipe at a church hierarchy.

I wonder how this will play hispanics (who are mostly Catholic), and are one of the faster growing voting populations in the US, and who tend to identify strongly with their faith.

If the president were to nominate a Southern Baptist unless they were known to waffle on social issues the attacks would just as bad, if not worse than that for Catholics-probably because the DNC does understand that a large part of their constituency is Catholic, and they don't want to peeve them too bad, I don't think they would feel so constrained if a Southern Baptist or a person from a similar evangelical type denomination was nominated.

They may not be able to appeal to official church doctrines on the subject, but they could start pulling quotes from Jerry Falwell and other well known Baptists to scare the public with.

very much against political correctness.

But there is no doubt, at all, that Democrats and the media are trying to use Roberts' faith against him. Dick Durbin even admitted that to a reporter, and was displeased when it was published.

A lot of these Democrats are very, very sick people... the Durbins, Kerrys, Kennedys, elements of the NY Times, WaPo, etc. There is no lie they won't tell to win... look at Dean the other day. No slander too great.

So am I surprised? No. But I will say this-- I am pretty sick and tired of the GOP going easy on these a-holes. Frist at least bucked up for the gun liability bill... he needs to make that his MO.

I think you have hit the nail on the head.

The Catholic and the Catholyc have two different constituencies they are seeking to appeal to when taking on the Catholic judicial nominations.

Just wanted to say, I was not trying to make an attack over the comments, just point out something that is commonly misunderstood, and understandably so.

I don't expect you to know all the ins and outs of Catholic doctrine, but I'd bet that if things were enunciated by Church authorities more clearly and with more reason things like this would be much more clear.

To clarify, for a Catholic, abortion and euthanasia are clearly inherently evil. Capital Punishment is not inherently evil, but should be used on when necessary. Some try to say it is never necessary, but that is not an argument the Church can or will answer, as it all depends on the situation.

I think a person's personal convictions must necessarily have an effect on their decisions, lest they reject their convictions and principles and start wearing different faces for different situations. I think that's the important thing we should look for: would they stick to their principles?. Do they actually believe them? I'd rather a liberal on the court who would live and decide on principle, than a conservative who would change principles when it suited him.

Liberals are worried about Robers opinions on Roe. We admit it. We are upfront and honest about it. No need for back doors or secret code words. I find the notion that we are using the word "Catholic" as part of some hidden agenda is silly. And I find the notion that we are anti-Catholic or Catholic-bashing to be highly insulting.

traditional Catholic.  If Roberts was a Catholyc (to steal Crowe's term) I don't hardly think his CAtholicism would matter, but because he is a traditional Catholic, it gets brought up and it is definitely a way to backdoor in the idea that Roberts might be anti Roe.

I was an editor at my college paper for a few years, and when wearing the "News Editor" hat, I'd assign stories, but also when people approached me with stories, I'd ask them, "Why should we put that in the paper? Why is it newsworthy?" As the "Features Editor" I'd ask the same question about more lengthy and less hard news articles: "Why will that matter to people?"

Here I ask the same question. Why is this newsworthy?

Maybe I just don't see the point to the story. What makes potentially four Catholics (one who supports Roe and by deduction, also Doe and Griswold) something of interest? Is this really the story, or it is something different? Is the some threat by having Catholics on the bench?

I think the question should be asked as well, if there were potentially four people on the court that shared a different religion, say they were all Greek Orthodox, would the story be newsworthy? Would people be concerned?

Looking at all of this, from an admittedly jaded viewpoint being a more traditional Catholic, I can seem to find any real reason these things are of interest to the general public, except if we suggest that more Catholics, will unduely influence the Court more than four "Originalists" will, or perhaps only one woman, or perhaps only one black man, or perhaps any number of other statistics.

I'd say the reason I'd lean to "Catholic" implying anti-abortion or such, is because that's usually how it's used by the media. Rarely do you here Ted "I thought she was swimming" Kennedy described as a Catholic, first.

Now, I don't take offence at the whole thing, just don't understand the newsworthiness of the statistic.

If Bush were to nominate an evangelical, the Left would be hysterical.  What is happening now to Roberts would pale in comparison.  Charges would be made that the wall of separation between church and state will be demolished, that such a nominee, if confirmed, will attempt to force the country to return to the pre-modern civil liberties Dark Ages (the 1950s and before).  

I also believe you're right about why the Democrats' attacks are muted: they do not want to offend Catholics, which still represent a portion of their base in certain areas of the country, namely the Northeast.  Conversely, evangelical Christians are not, by and large, a Democratic constituency.  After all, according to Howard Dean, the Republican Party is comprised only of white evangelical Christians.  So, if Bush were to nominate one, I believe their treatment of the nominee would be much harsher.  

As a follow up:

News stories or analysis is almost never written on the mere existence of some factoid or statistic. These don't make news. There must be some reason the factoid is intersting or important.

about his being the 4th Catholic?  It is a big deal to the Dems and their friends with the MSM.  I'd love a search back to 1960 to see an AP headline (not just a story) about Kennedy possibly becoming the first Catholic president.  But since we didn't have the internet then, I guess that's wishful thinking.

as sarcasm. My mistake for not clarifying that when I posted.

sarcasm and the internet

terrible combination

:)

But why do you suspect people are using Catholic as a backdoor to the idea that Roberts might be anti Roe? People use backdoors and code words when they are afraid to say what they really mean. As far as I can tell, nobody is afraid to say that Roberts is anti-Roe. (I could get snarky here and say that (some) Conservatives are afraid of saying it, but that's a different issue.)

But we Liberals aren't. We are flat out saying it. We are worried that the guy will be anti-Roe. Some Liberals are even willing to say that we should try and keep him off the SC because he is anti-Roe. Nobody is saying he shouldn't be on the court because he is Catholic (though there are a few saying he shouldn't be on the SC if his Catholic Faith would cause him to recuse himself too frequently).

Again, people use code words when the code word is more PC than what they really mean. It's perfectly PC to go after a guy for being Anti-Roe. It isn't PC to go after a guy for being Anti-Catholic. Why would people be using code words here?

The part that seems to make it offensive is the impact unknown.  Being the 4th Catholic on the court seems informational.  Neutral, even.

It is the "impact unknown" that throws the judgement in.  And that is only in the Southtown Daily or whatever the name of the paper was.

Or do you see it differently?

I have a hard time interpretting the fact that there are about to be 4 Catholics on the Supreme Court, one of the most powerful organizations in the world, as a sign virulent anti-Catholicism.

I guess this is just one of those half-empty/half-full things.

anyone who sits on it to use his Catholicism to prevent him from being nominated to the court.

And Roberts' exact position on Roe is in question-unless you are aware of some document or statement I haven't seen yet, and if you are, then by all means link to it.  Also, contrary to what some may think, Roberts is under no obligation to give his exact opinions on cases, especially cases that may be revisted while he is on the court-so saying "hey John will you vote to overturn Roe" is not a question he is obligated to answer (although I am sure Chuckie is going to ask it).

The fact that he appears to be a committed and traditional Catholic is likely to mean he agrees fully with the churches teaching on life issues.  Therefore in a subtle sense the mentions of his religious faith are intended to indicate that he is going to be bad for the court from the liberal perspective.  

I just got off the phone with Pops, who works at the AP, and he said they would not have hesitated to write a story about the impact of another Jew on the Court. That criticism, at least, seems to be misplaced.

a more entertaining read, however. I much prefer sarcasm without the "lol" "jk" crap afterwards. I laugh at some of the news articles I read online now just because of how rediculous they sound, especially since they're serious...like a cow getting jailed for murder a few weeks ago.

news.yahoo.com Check out the Oddly Enough Section. Some of them are hilarious. Some days are better than others, though.

mean a lot, if their opinion on Roe is influenced by their faith (which is the intimation when they discuss Roberts' faith or that of any other nominee-the SJC did this with Pryor for his appeals court nomination).

The Democrats love a Catholic when they're cut from the same cloth as William Brennan, Dick Durbin or Teddy Kennedy.

Just like every category, the Democrats deal in good and bad Catholics, Hispanics, Blacks, Women, etc.

Here is a link for those interested.

The Catholic Church's historicity, legacy, rich traditions, and sober intellectualism would seem to bode well for the Court.

As an aside, it seems fair to note that historically  the suspicions about Catholic office-holders and Vatican rule do not come from the areligious left, but from other Christians. The happy union of Catholics and the rest of American Christianity is fairly recent.

You're right.  Liberals believe that people of faith and minorities are great as long as they're not conservative.

I learned as an undergrad that liberal ideas about "diversity" and "free speech" only count as long as you agree with their side.

I will.

I certainly hope politicians and judges - along with rest of us - allow religious convictions to inform their actions. As the Constitution forbids a religious test for any office it would seem that the Founders weren't as terrified of this concept as the modern Left is.

1. The Daily Southtown is a suburban Chicago newspaper that serves the southern (capt. obvious!) suburbs of Chicagoland. These neighborhoods make up what could be called the "Catholic corridor" of suburban Chicago: white, Italian or Polish, blue collar, and very, very Catholic. Think White Sox fans...

What this headline says to me is that, recognizing this fact, the editor decided to emphasize the Catholic portion of story. Think of it as a Catholic pride story and the entire meaning of the headline changes. This editor isn't decrying the fact that Roberts is Catholic, he's celebrating it -- and in typical Southside fashion, giving a sort of "What's it to you?" attitude to it.

2. My father was an "old school" Catholic, and one of the most devout I've even known. He knew the mass in its original Latin, was an altar boy until he left for College, and until his dying day was holding out for one of his 2 sons to become a priest. I remember while growing up as a Catholic, our church having some of those Mel Gibson-esque, abortion clinic picketing, 8 kids with no sign of stopping in sight (one of the lesser known doctrines of Catholicism, as earlier mentioned here, is that sex and procreation cannot be seperated) Catholics.

These people were frowned upon as being a little too over the top. I mean, c'mon, practice the rhythm method or something... When, during Monday Catechism (sort of the Catholic version of Bible study, we don't really study the bible...) a group managed to convince our priest to show a anti-abortion presentation... and proceded to show us a full color film of an actual abortion being performed (from the doctor's point-of-view, 30 ft tall), Father was as PO'ed as I've ever seen a priest get. They were never asked back and there were a few parents who wanted to know what part of Catholic Doctrine required a 14-year-old boy to watch a film of a woman, spread-eagle and in stirrups, having her uterus vacuumed out in order to be Confirmed?

That night, on the drive home (my dad was also a CCD teacher as well) my dad and I had a "talk" (no not, "that talk", that happened a few years earlier) that I still remember and was part of the formative beginnings of my future liberal political views.

"What did you think of that?" he asked me.

"It was kind of gross." I said.

"Do you believe its wrong?"

"Yes."

"Do you think it should be against the law?"

"Uhh.." I remember thinking: "Having to watch that should be against the law"

"Just remember, son." my Dad gave me that serious look which meant he was about to make a point "You can't legislate morality."

What's my point? Don't think that you're getting someone who will legislate morality just because your nominating a devout Catholic.

JT

for the gun liability bill alright. So much so that he tabled the defense bill, rather than debate proposed amendments from Thune, Graham, and McCain, so he could get to the gun bill. Nice priorities.

such as "Thou shalt not kill," or "thou shalt not steal," or "thou shalt not bear false witness" (perjury), or until recently in many places, "thou shalt not commit adultery."

but in some cases you should speak for yourself. I'm Roman Catholic, my church has Bible study (7pm Thursdays). So I can't speak for you but for you to say "we" in any sense but your immediate experience is wrong.

Secondly, as someone else noted we do legislate morality all the time. Prostitution. Gambling. Perjury. Some would argue drug laws.

So if you are a Democrat that makes you a "Catholyc" and a non-believer.  Gotcha.  

I guess you follow all the dogma coming from the Vatican.  I guess Trojenz Corp. doesn't get much business from you.  

And of course you must be against the death penalty because, as a true Catholic you adhere to the  True Catholic faith and that True Catholic Faith treats ALL LIFE as sacrosanct.  They don't pick and choose.

A pretty offensive comment.  But I guess since you are only attacking the faith of Democrats it's A-Ok here.  

probably wasted as I'm not sure how you are going to backpedal your way out of this bit of idiocy.

remotely acceptable to say.

You seem to be accusing Crowe of hypocrisy here, and I think you have just stepped into the doo doo.

I would be negligent if I didn't point out that you're arguing with wrong guy. Further, I might point out that you're just plain being unpleasant. By which, I mean, I choose here to not issue a personal insult and violate our own rules.

As a Catholic I found his comments to be offensive.     I guess it's ok to call me a fake Catholic.  

why is offensive to you?  Why do you assume you are one of the Catholyc's?

I know the guy has been around a long time.  And I have never seen anything from him that I found particularly bad.

But let me ask you this.  If I said that you are not a TRUE believer because of your politics and that you don't actually adhere to your religion because of the people you vote for how would you take that?

If you guys want to ban me over this so be it.  But if you look at what he said perhaps you would understand why I might get bothered by this.  

Had he said that Kennedy or Kerry were not true Catholics that would have been fine.  But to say that people that vote for him are not true Catholics is a pretty comment.

you can thank Leon that you're able to make this post.

Perhaps exactly because all those Catholycs in MA are the type of Catholycs who vote for the Catholyc likes of John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy, the Dems know those Catholycs don't take the Catholic Church seriously

you bothered to read Ratzinger's (now Pope Benedict)on the subject you'd see that voting for a pro-abortion politician puts a huge question mark beside your status.

If you think this is an attempt to troll or bait anyone you are mistaken.  

I am very much Catholic and also a person who has voted for Kerry and lived in Mass for several years.  

Broad swipes hit many people you may or may not be attempting to hit.  

I am quite certain that Crowe is devout in his beliefs and I respect that.  

on who did the talking.

And honestly I think he has a point.  If you do not believe in the tenets and doctrines of the church and live your life accordingly, then are you really a Catholic?  I admit I am not a Catholic but this is one of those outside looking in things that I don't get-why exactly do you want to claim membership in a church, if you don't even believe what the church is teaching?  

Deep question I know, but it is one of those burning questions.

And that's my issue to take with the Church, although I am not nearly as Pro-Choice as you probably suspect I am.  

I personally would NEVER ask or want my SO or get an abortion as I think they are wrong.  It would probably end my relationship with them if they did.  However my personal beliefs don't always translate well on a national level.  

about trojenz and the death penalty?

Your implication was that he was being hypocritical, and was likely in violation of those beliefs.

But does ANYONE follow ALL of the tenets of their religion?  And if you aren't willing/able to do so does that mean that you are not a true believer or simply that you are a flawed believer?

The Catholic religion is pretty dogmatic and few Catholics adhere to ALL of its tenets.  But just because someone is unwilling to comply with edits on aboriton or contraceptives doesn't necessarily mean that they eschew the religion.

it isn't really there.

Either it is a baby and always a baby or it isn't.  There isn't a fence.

I probably should have been more circumspect.  However his comments were pretty offensive to a number of people, myself included.  I don't like ANYONE challenging someone's religion based on their politics and I responded back to him in like manner.  Certainly not the most mature way to respond but sometimes I think we all can be over the top when certain sore spots are touched.

makes it okay?  ARe you going to accept that excuse from your kids?

I am a member of a church body that isn't really dogmatic at all, we focuse more on priesthood of the believer, so for me I admit it is pretty easy for me to follow all the tenets of my faith.  But if I disagreed with some aspect of my faith, I likely would be looking for a new denomination that was more in line with my religious beliefs.

Also, I think you should be careful about why you reject certain teachings-is it because you have a heartfelt belief that the teaching isn't Biblically supportable, or is it because you just feel that way?  

As I said personally I am very pro-life.  But politically it is a more difficult issue for me personally, one that I have never really come completely to grips with.  This is why I rarely wade in discussions about the morality of abortion.

I once had that nice little fence erected for myself, and got a lot of splinters in my behind trying to justify the position.

About the time I felt my daughter move in my womb I realized that I was deceiving myself about the issue.  That is when I realized that it is a baby and it deserves to live, and it certainly doesn't deserve the death penalty, because somebody doesn't find having a baby convienient.  Abortion is nothing more than modern day child sacrifice, but this go around instead of offering the baby up to some god, we are killing them on the altars of our own selfishness.

Pro life people get attacked all the time, because we make abortion about the baby, and I don't mind the charge, because in fact the baby doesn't have a voice or a choice, their only hope is that their mother thinks they are worth keeping.

Now that is getting a bit of the topic.

Also, I think you should be careful about why you reject certain teachings-is it because you have a heartfelt belief that the teaching isn't Biblically supportable, or is it because you just feel that way?

It's difficult to answer.  

I believe that the Bible is a wonderful book for anyone to base their life on.  If everyone on the planet actually adhered to the teachings of Jesus we wouldn't be fighting wars all the time.

The Catholic religion has a great many teachings that are valuable for anyone to understand.   But 2000 years also has a tendency to create dogma based more on tradition than on the Bible.  Martin Luther saw this and decided to reject a lot of the REALLY bad edicts of the Catholic church at the time.  

The Pope is a human being.  A human being who has spent his entire life trying to understand the Bible but a human being nonetheless.  I respect what he says and take him seriously but I also realize that the Pope is flawed like any other human.  

That is a brief synposis of my views and I apologize if I am being unclear.  It is difficult to wade into these waters because my beliefs could conflict with someone else's and I really have no desire to offend someone else's beliefs.

For as much as I get whined at (probably not as much as Thomas, I'll grant that), these trolls don't understand that I'm almost always the one playing the apologist for them.

All of you, leave my inbox alone.  

I thank you for defending me.  I try not to whine about anyone here.  

He was right.  Saying that someone's a fake catholic for voting democrat -- when did the vatican say anything about democrats or republicans?  They DID say something about condoms.  Hey, I use condoms too, I'm not stupid, but it doesn't make me, flyerhawk or streiff a fake catholic.  If streiff's catholic.  

Listen I understand that you guys have to ban people who come over here with nothing other than liberal talking points because then it would just be you guys putting posts on the front page and 100 dkos idiots flaming you.  You're a conservative board, fine.  But flyerhawk has had tons of constructive comments and the catholyc thing was way out of line.

rhetorical anyway-one to think about, not neccessarily answer on a blog.  

I felt a need to explain myself at least a little.  

Religion is a touchy matter for most people, regardless of their affiliations or philosophies.

not a "you guys" on this one.

I just thought his response was out of line.

I think to assume that Crowe is in violation of church teachings to indicate hypocrisy was over the line.  If flyerhawk or you don't like the terminology, then by all means explain why you think the comment wasn't fair.  But it is the presumed hypocrisy that bothers me.  

and I can often react and over react to comments about faith that I take wrong.

"Catholyc", eh? Grow up. That's about at the level as Rethuglican or Demoncrat.

you think we'll just skip a year of funding the military?

There is plenty of time left. This is a parliamentary move to get a more controversial bill out of the way before moving to a more consensus bill.

I'll take a liability reform bill and a defense bill over just a defense bill, thank you very much. Obviously you're not very familiar with how Washington works.

to call a spade a spade.

It's more about whether there's a state interest to legislate X, Y, or Z.

We don't have a law against homicide because our Roman Catholic Church tells us it's wrong to kill another human being.  We have a law against homicide because there is a state interest in protecting life.  Depending on your point of view, this could also be the state interest that leads to laws against abortion.

Of course, it's foolish to think that our state interest in life doesn't flow from cultural traditions.  Naturally, the fact that we're a country built first by Protestants and then by we Catholics means that our values' systems would end up coloring our view of the state and its interests.  But those views come from other sources as well.  John Locke and his concept of natural rights, which included the right to life, influenced the Founders as I understand and had little to do with theology and much more to do with philosophy.  And certainly most post-Enlightenment thinkers believed there were unalienable rights that men were just sort of inherently born with that the state couldn't take away.  

The point of all that is just to show that both secular and religious traditions have influenced our views of the state, but permitting the state to take an action to do shouldn't be confused with legislating morality.  Otherwise, we end up with shouting matches between liberals and conservatives over whose values get to be legislated.  Instead, look to whether there's a state interest.  Example: most people feel there's a state interest in preventing even consenting adults from using highly addictive, extremely damaging substances, even though they'll only be hurting themselves.  You can make the case for this state interest a number of ways, such as the health care costs that would be incurred due to the addiction, costs that we'd all have to pay for in many cases, as well as the consequences on innocent third parties.  

Of course, as any good lawyer knows, you can pretty much use this state interest claim to vouch for any gov't action.  It's kind of like the Commerce Clause.  Which is why any such claim should still be able to pass the laugh test.

You invent dogmas that don't exist, make up your own truth out of whole cloth, pick and choose which of the Church's teachings apply to you, but still insist you're "Catholic," then yes, that makes you "Catholyc." (which is just a word I created in the vein of women who call themselves "womyn" so as to rebel from "convention"... after all, those whom I label "Catholyc" are similarly rebelling from that which they insist on holding to: the Catholic Church.)

First, Let's understand a few basic facts (all of which are backed up by the 2000 year history and Tradition of the Church of Rome):

1. The Faith is "one." All teachings that have been defined by the Church in its infallible capacity must be held to by all those who consider themselves Catholic. So yes, I do adhere to all dogma coming from the Vatican, as must all Catholics.
   
   
2. Artificial contraception is wrong. Period. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Take it up with God -- He made us this way. (And to answer your question, no, Trojenz corp. doesn't get much business from me. Lifestyles gives my woman that extra sensation. KIDDING! but I couldn't resist. Neither of them should get any business from anyone.)
   
   
3. Capital punishment has never been wholly and finally condemned. JPII's statements wishing it were reduced to levels well below its current use never bridged the chasm between "strong suggestion" and "canonical teaching."

Since I don't intend for this to be either a) an inquisition on your personal Credo (since it apparently doesn't jibe with that held to by the Church Christ founded upon Cephas); or b) an exhaustive description of all the conditions that render one Catholyc, I'll refrain from both of those.

But I will say that you have an astounding ability to read three levels beyond what a person actually writes, and get their point totally wrong. I feel like we're married and I looked at you askance, which clearly meant I thought you look fat in that dress or something. Your first sentence is emanations from penumbra.

I never said "Democrats." The two whom I mentioned happen to be Democrats, and I mentioned them because they happen to be the Senators in the state mentioned in the comment I responded to. I'm not defending myself any more because your inability to calmly look beyond your immediate rage when someone touches a nerve doesn't warrant any more of an extended response on my part.

But I do find it instructive that rather than try to understand what I mean, you immediately lash out and call me offensive. Check out my tag line. I'm unimpressed with someone being "offended." I believe what I said is true, and worth saying. If it offends you, prove me wrong. If you can't but you persist in your offended charade without looking at why you're offended that says more about you than me. (Perhaps it's a problem within you: the truth only hurts one who is living in opposition to it. I know, I've faced and continue to face my own battles with Truth when it conflicts with what I think I want.)

Just curious as to your answer.

Stanford

And it's a shoe one must put on themselves.

No one said a person must be perfect in order to be Catholic, but one must accept the course toward perfection as taught by Christ and preserved in the Catholic Church in order to call oneself a true Catholic.

Lord knows I'm not perfect, but rather than rationalize my imperfections away and decide various of Christ's Truths as taught by His Church don't apply to me, I work to bring myself in line with them.

And it's astounding how much more peaceful my life has become since I started to do that.

You oughta try it. It's better than giving the Trojenz corp. business.

I didn't question the personal faith of any individual voter in that initial post. (I did question yours personally in a few other posts here; not unwarranted, I don't think, based on your comments).

Is it possible for one to vote for Kerry and/or Kennedy and not incur sin? Sure, if the voter is oblivious to their voting record or if the opposing candidate boasts an even more manifestly evil governing philosophy.

The original point was, "in general," the Catholics who vote for Kerry and Kennedy and their political ilk aren't serious Catholics because they dissent from the Church on dogmatically defined realities: the manifest evil of abortion. Are there good Catholics who vote for them? Perhaps. But for sake of the discussion at hand, my point was that the Dems won't alienate a pro-choice Catholic by drop-kicking a pro-life Catholic because the pro-choice Catholics, by and large, think the pro-life Catholics are "too rigid," or "believe everything Rome says -- the simpletons!" or some other such rationalizing, self-deluding phrase that allows them to sleep at night.

But there's a word for people who protest against the Catholic Church within Christianity. It was coined back in the 16th century. "Protestant." At least the Reformers who dissented from Church teaching back then had the honesty to stop calling themselves "Catholic" since they were, in fact, not Catholic.

In the just prior comment.

if you require further explanation, I'll provide it.

I believe I just hit kinda close to home on that one with Flyerhawk. It's an instructive moment, really.

I suppose I should have deleted the "<nt>" once I decided to put text in there.  ah well.  I guess that makes me a Redstate postyr.

Just admit it.

You don't believe in the infallibility of the Church. You don't believe it's possible for God to preserve Truth in an Institution He founded through means mysterious to us. You believe it's okay to eschew tenets of the Faith because "everyone does it."

And you still call yourself Catholic.

You're something, but it's not Catholic. The Catholic Faith is one, and it is the only one that is Apostolic (claws in, Orthodox brethren). As I said elsewhere, you don't have to perfectly follow all tenets of the faith every moment of your life; that's impossible, we're human. But you have to accept them all as True, and strive like the dickens to live by them. When you fail (as we all inevitably do), and if you are truly sorry for failing, you can get that sin forgiven in Confession, and get back to living the constant struggle to live the life God has in mind for you.

But if you outright dissent from Catholic teaching, you've missed that basic first step and, well, you're not Catholic.

I generally try to avoid outright offending people, but when someone asks for a 2 by 4 across the face to help them see the plain truth of their own words, I'm happy to oblige.

since my distinction between "Catholic" and Catholyc" has caused a bit of a stir, I'll clarify what the offending-to-some comment meant.

The comment to which I responded asked why the Dems would risk alienating Catholics who comprise such a significant part of their base in some states by roasting John Roberts, at least partly because he's Catholic -- REALLY Catholic, not just based on which box he checks off when filling out applications.

Those individuals who call themselves Catholic and who are prone to vote for the likes of Kerry and Kennedy, and who do so knowing full well that those politicians strongly support "a woman's right to choose," and vote for them EITHER in spite of that OR fully approving of that, are in conflict with the teachings of the Church either completely, as in the case of the one who approves of abortion, or obliquely, as in the case of the one who doesn't like abortion, but votes for the "pro-choice" candidate anyhow.

The only mitigating circumstances are if the voter is honestly ignorant of the candidate's position on such an issue, or if the other candidate is even worse. In that case, the only option available to a Catholic is to vote for the candidate of the party that is more likely to protect life in all those stages and conditions in which it is to be defended.

Catholics who are in consistent conflict with the Church on that issue will not likely be offended by a Democrat attack that uses the Catholic faith of the judge, since they would view that judge as "too Catholic" or "too rigid" or some other such dismissive term. They would approve of an attack for three (or more) possible reasons:

1. the judge might vote to overturn Roe (even if on non-religious, jurisprudential grounds, since Roe is bad law apart from having immoral results). This would be a problem if they consider Roe damn-near dogmatic -- at least far moreso than the Church's condemnations of abortion.
   
   
2. the judge, by his strong witness that a successful person can also be truly, strongly, faithfully Catholic, lays bear their own personal failure to hold to what they know, deep down, to be true, and they mourn for themselves in their heart of heart, but are too calloused and weak and possibly in despair (in the theologic sense) to do anything about it. So they cheer for an attack on the judge to give themselves some amount of comfort that such a "rigid" Catholic is, in fact, "out of the mainstream."
   
   
3. they're just ignorant of what the Church teaches and ignorant of most everything, and are quite comfortable in their ignorance, never try to emerge from it, go out of their way to not offend others' faiths because "they're all the same anyhow," and are offended when others dare to point out their ignorance.
   
   
4. some combination of the preceding three

The Democrats do not risk alienating Catholics who fall into any of those categories by attacking Roberts. Since that is a disturbingly large number of those who call themselves "Catholic," my point stands.

I used the term "Catholyc" as an easy way to make the above distinction without typing all this out. I assumed people would know what I meant, and I'm sure most did. But someone whom I believe falls into one of the above categories blew a gasket and then put words in my mouth, so I wanted to make my meaning clear.

 NOTE: I did not say "Catholic Democrats." I said "Catholics who fall into these parameters...." Anyone who thinks I accuse all Catholic Democrats doesn't read well.

Hope that helps.

This is THE QUESTION that "Catholics" like flyerhawk avoid asking with all of their might.

How can one call oneself x if one disagrees with everything x stands for, requires of one, and demands one believes? It's a charade.

One of the real tragedies within Catholicism over the past 30 or 40 years is the number of priests -- particularly in less-orthodox places -- who openly dissent from Church teaching and affirm dissident Catholics in their dissent. Those Catholics have less culpability in sustaining the charade since a negligent priest "gives them cover," but doesn't exculpate their guilt, since, ultimately, each person is responsible for their own faith and no one else's.

Dissident priests will have to answer for their malfeasance -- and I would not wish their fate on my worst enemy -- but dissident Catholics -- those I term "Catholyc" -- will have to answer for theirs as well.

more closely.

It isn't about your beliefs. It's about your actions. If you support politicians who are virulently pro-abortion, like Kerry and Kennedy and most of the remainder of the MA delegation, your personal views are not worth very much.

That is the point of Pope Bendict's statement and that is the point Crowe was trying to make between Catholyc's who are attracted to the smells-and-bells and the cultural anchor of the Church while eschewing its fundamental teachings and Catholics who follow the Church on Faith and Morals in their personal lives and with their actions in the secular world.

Going to Mass doesn't any more make you a Catholic than going to Burger King makes you a hamburger.

is inevitable in any large group or organization. For example, no one would suggest that any Republican who does agree 100% with every last codicil in the GOP national platform must hand in his membership card. The key question is, How much dissent is too much, and are there certain basic axioms against which one cannot dissent and remain a member in good faith?

that you consider this just business as usual.

I suspect you'll be disappointed by the results of the 2006 elections.

I just can't get outraged over the scheduling of an appropriations bill two months before the new fiscal year begins, my dog is yakking on the carpet right now.

but it's apt.

and funny.

Are you catholic?  I'm betting not.  So why don't you shut up.

I am. And I'm going to let the shut up comment slide   this one time. Next time your mouth tries to punch above its weight you're gone. Understand?

Then you probably violate some of the church dogma, most likely quite a bit.  So neither of us are perfect.  Calling someone 'catholyc' based on their voting pattern is reprehensible.  

But don't accuse people of being less of a moral person based on who they vote for.

I've cut you slack once. You seem to be slow on the uptake. Move on or you're gone.

My great-uncle is a priest who votes democrat.  Because he believes in TAKING CARE OF THE POOR.  

Is he a catholyc?

I don't know what virulently pro-abortion means.  John Kerry certainly never advocated abortion although he is adamant in his belief that it is not the role of the State to interfere.  I don't see how I am "eschewing" that belief by not advocating for a secular state law to impose my views.

I completely reject the notion that abortion is the sole litmus test of a politician.  That's fine if other people believe that but I don't.

and he voted against the unborn victims of violence act.

Those two things make me think that he is virulently pro choice, and to some degree anti fetus (just don't see any justification for voting "no" on the UVVA-Catholic, Christian or anything but beholden to the ladies at NARAL and NOW).

Kerry seemed to convieniently don his Catholic suit, when it suited him, but honestly Jesus told us to judge people by their fruits, and the two fruits I listed above make me doubt his sincerity.

If I incorrectly inferred your meaning then I apologize.  

Crowe's term "Catholyc" for those who do not let faith inform their public life as distinguished from Catholic.

Besides abortion, Kerry could have other stances that fall in line with his beliefs and the Catholic Church. I'm only saying that because I've been in the conundrum of supporting things frmo both candidates...I'm very anti-gun restrictions, and think marijuana should be legalized and taxed just like tobacco.

I don't want to get involved in this fray, but I'm just saying I think that's what his point is. You can't always choose based on one issue. Then, one could question the priority of an issue. Perhaps abortion was not as high on his priorities as other issues that are more relevant to him, I have no clue.

Just offering some insight

I can see compromising on something like gun restrictions or other issues, but I just don't see wiggle room when it comes to abortion-especially something like partial birth abortion, which I think is a no brainer.  HOnestly if you can vote against a bill that bans that act, your worldview is in need of some serious reevaluations.

I just can't get past the fact that somebody would find it acceptable to partially deliver a human baby, poke a hole in its skull, remove its brains, then complete the delivery.  Um no, I don't think so, that is outright murder-there is nothing to debate.

I suffered through the same dilema as as you as a Catholic. (I have the Catholic education and all that entails. I even have a lay nun sibling) In my case it became both a question of my own honesty and, believe it or not, my patriotism.  I found that I could not, in good conscience, agree with some of what we are told to believe.  I could not figure out which tenents of the church were really from Christ and which were political creations (for example: Requiring celebate priests, to prevent the passing of church assets to heirs. Frankly, I doubt Christ would have cared.).

I was (am)very concerned by the attitude of priests such as Chaput of Denver. So...I e-mailed him and asked him to explain how a vote for John Kerry might be an act against the church.  He responded by requesting that I read what he said. I did. He said that abortion is the most significant moral issue of our time. He also said that he received questions from Catholics who stressed their high educational attainment, their piety and their activity in the church. These people disagreed with him and asked honest questions about the way that they should consider the issues. When asked what he thought about a Catholic's credentials as a ticket to a voice in the church, he said that a Catholic's education, piety, participation (and other Catholic credentials) mean nothing to him.  He said the Catholic Church is not (basically) a democracy.

I thought about that and discovered that as far as faith and morals are concerned he has a valid, if somewhat arrogant, point.  He is misguided, however, if he thinks his judgement about how I should cast a vote is better than mine.  I submit that I may have education and judgement(and experience) equal to him, and perhaps better, in secular matters. I am an American, BEFORE, I am a Catholic.  So, I quit the church (about three months ago).  It was the honest and patriotic thing to do.

I will be happy to explain it to St. Peter (my confirmation name) at the pearly gates, if Chaput can explain his actions, as Bishop, to him as well.

You quit the Church. You found your personal Credo to fundamentally differ from that of the Catholic Church. So you did the honest thing and quit the Church. I find your reasoning flawed, as you might expect me to, but I am glad that you did not continue in a charade, as folks like Kerry and Kennedy do.

I wrote a term paper in high school (public) on why women can't be priests. My teacher -- a liberal woman -- was nonplussed, but graded my paper fairly (to her credit), while noting that she was Catholic but left the Church due to a disagreement with contraceptive teachings. Again, i think she was flawed in her thinking, but at least she was honest.

On the substance of your beef, the fact that abortion is a political issue is secondary to the moral case of abortion as a manifest evil. Politics enters the realm of the individual's faith when a political issue has a basically moral component -- like abortion. To support a candidate who supports abortion "rights" is to ipso facto support abortion "rights" yourself -- which is incompatible with being Catholic.

Consider a few points:

1. Morality is not just rules and restrictions handed down by people who wish to control others lives. Morality is the way people are made/built to live, based on the way we are made by God -- physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually; to live any other way is to tear at the fabric of what it means to be "human."  
   
   
2. Society is the amalgamation of the individual actions of all those who live in that society; society is not an organism separate from the actions of the several individuals within it.
   
   
3. Since we have rationality, pride, and free will, individuals within a society are free and able to determine "their own morality," if they reject the law of life built into our human-ness. 4)  Within a society and a classically liberal, consensual body politic the people are then able to decide that something which is immoral should be sanctioned by the laws of the land. When this is done, they have, as a society composed of individuals, torn at the fabric of what it means to be a human society.

No one is saying you have to renounce your citizenship and pledge allegiance to the Vatican, but never forget that you are not first an American: you are first a child of God, subject to His laws -- the laws upon which all just human laws are based.

The laws of God put many obligations upon people without giving exact prescriptions on how to handle those obligations. Those areas are left up to the common society to determine how to administer them -- hence "common defense," regulation of commerce, the welfare state, and other "render unto Caesar" areas. However, the laws of man cannot contravene the laws of God and still be just laws. Laws legalizing abortion are illegitimate laws because they seek to do just that: declare that which is immoral -- contrary to the laws of God -- to be acceptable. Supporting a candidate who supports the legal sanctioning of immorality is, by extension, supporting immoral laws, and sanctioning the contravention of the laws of God. Support for a candidate who favors less direct aid to the poor is not objectively evil like support for abortion "rights" because there is no laid-out teaching on "how much" of a hand-out is incumbent upon a society to assist the destitute. An obligation is there, clearly, and to not aid the destitute is immoral, but the levels as which they should be supported is left to the society to determine -- it's like just war theory in that regard. There is no such ambiguity on rank immorality like abortion "rights."

Your other beef, the questions about particular Church positions like celibacy is another issue entirely. I do hope you realize the reasons for priestly celibacy are far more broad and significant than protection of Church property. I also hope you recognize that Christ didn't take a poll when discussing the "hard teaching" in the latter half of John 6; when the crowd murmured against the idea of eating His flesh and drinking His blood, he looked at them and said "Does this offend you?" He didn't ask for a vote on Truth, neither can His Church.

If you truly ever believed the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ, and you truly believed that it, as such, is able to infallibly preserve His Truth, and you also understood the distinction between dogmas and disciplines (like celibacy) and you also understand waht I tried to lay out above, but you still found yourselfin support of legally sanctioned immorality to be more important than regarding God's Truth as preserved in His Church, then that says more about your arrogance than Abp. Chaput's obedience to God and God's Church.

God bless.

You seem to prefer short posts. You might learn something if you read some of my longer posts in this thread.

"Taking care of the poor" means, among other things, not sanctioning the murder of their children.

Your ignorance is palpable, and rivaled only by your arrogance. Dangerous combination, and quite unattractive 'round these parts. Learn more about basic economics, "a rising tide lifts all boats," and the like.

Both liberals and conservatives believe in taking care of the poor, but have starkly different approaches -- libs generally prefer to give them a fish, cons generally prefer to teach them to fish. The latter approach leads to self-sufficiency and rewards hard work; the former has a nasty tendency to discourage hard work and create dependency.

"Voting Democrat" doesn't make one "Catholyc." Supporting candidates who support manifestly immoral laws does, and doing so with full knowledge of their morally-challenged positions, does. Priest or layman.

Voting for Rudy Giuliani -- who is pro-abortion and therefore "Catholyc" -- if he was running against Hillary Clinton in '06 for that Senate seat would not violate a Catholic's obligation to defend life because the party Giuliani is in is more prone to defend life, and therefore a vote for Giuliani is a vote to keep that party in power. But if Giuliani were to face a pro-life Democrat -- a dangerously and depressingly rare breed -- Catholics would be darn-near obligated to vote for the Democrat.

The Catholic Church, if it is what it says it is, is not the sort of organization that can broach dissent on its core tenets. It is either all right, is what it says it is, teaches nothing but Truth, and is owed complete attention and deference on matters of faith and morals, or it is completely wrong and nothing it teaches is worth the parchment its printed on. By its very structure, its divine founding, and its own statements, there is no in between. It cannot be half-right and sometimes credible, with the ultimate decision on those matters resting with the individual, and yet still be God's True Church, and His arbiter of Truth on earth, because God's Truth is not subject to the individual's independent discernment.

If it is not wholly right, it is wholly wrong. Christ was not partially Lord, He was Lord. His Church cannot be otherwise.

in the least. Personally speaking, I just look at all the issues being fought over by a candidate. That's the main reason I'd hate to vote (I missed the last election by a few months). I could vote for someone who would ease gun restrictions, but at the same time I'd get someone trying to expand the Patriot Act. Or someone supporting gay marriage, but then also get shot up the a** with some sort of tax on the air I breathe (an exagerration). Obviously those situations aren't nearly as polarizing as abortion is, and personally I support a ban on PBA as well. Do you see what I'm saying though? I'd still vote for a Democrat if he was against some sort of a federal law banning PBA and just left it to the states. If he wanted to guaruntee the "right" to PBA, then that would call him into question very quickly and I'd simply move on to look at another candidate.