Which Senators are the most Catholic? According to conservatives, liberal Democrats are insufficient Catholic to justify even using that label, but a study done by Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois indicates that Democrats’ voting record more closely matches the standards and value set by the Catholic hierarchy.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports:
The study, compiled by Durbin's staff, looked at two dozen issues cited as legislative priorities by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Abortion-related stances were included. But so were issues as widely varied as the death penalty, immigration, gun control and increasing the minimum wage. "Unfortunately, recent media attention has focused on one or two priorities of the Catholic Church, while obscuring others," Durbin, D-Ill., said. "This has made it more difficult for Catholic voters to understand the full range of issues that have been identified by the (U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops as priorities for public life."
The survey's findings: Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, D-Mass., and Durbin topped the list of 24 Catholic senators as supporting the Catholic agenda more than 60 percent of the time. The survey prompted an angry conference call by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn., a Catholic who stood with the U.S. Conference of Bishops' issues listed in the survey just 40 percent of the time.
Amy Sullivan comments:
An outraged Santorum took to the phones yesterday to charge that the study was "a selective attempt to make John Kerry and a bunch of liberal Democrats who disagree with the church's teaching look like faithful Catholics." Well, imagine that. Totally different from a selective attempt to make John Kerry and a bunch of liberal Democrats look like unfaithful Catholics. Because Lord knows Santorum is okay with that.
Conservatives don’t appreciate the politicizing of this. Of course, they probably shouldn’t have started politicizing this in the first place. Conservatives simply don’t have a good record when it comes to a large number of Catholic principles — just about the only one that they consistently support is the criminalization of abortion. That’s why Catholics have traditional voted Democratic, not Republican. The move of so many Catholics to the Republican Party is not just a sign of the growing importance of abortion but, in fact, may be another sign of how the Catholic hierarchy is losing control of individual Catholic voters.
Read More:
While the author here attempts to write an articulate and thoughtful article, he falls short of this goal. While his statement that Democrat votes match with more (quantity) Catholic principles, this may or may not be true (I personally have not researched this fact), he deceives himself in his final speculation that the fact, Catholic voters are becoming more Republican because of the issue of abortion, suggests a lack of influence of the Church hierarchy upon its flock. Indeed, it is the opposite, a sign of the Church’s growing influence upon its people. This shows a greater alignment of the flock’s priorities with the hierarchy’s priorities. For, in any circumstance, it must be noted that the Church favors the fact of life over the quality of life. Abortion, according to the Church, is a fundamental evil (I try to tread carefully here, for, it is true that a person involved in abortion should not be hated, in the truest sense of the word, but rather, his actions). Indeed, abortion is one of the most important, if not the most important, issue a Catholic voter must consider in today’s society.
Yet, Catholics in America are as pro-choice or more pro-choice than Protestants. This evidence is exactly the opposite of what you describe.
You attempted to write an articulate and thoughtful comment, but by asserting as true the opposite of reality, you fall quite short.
“The move of so many Catholics to the Republican Party is not just a sign of the growing importance of abortion but, in fact, may be another sign of how the Catholic hierarchy is losing control of individual Catholic voters.”
My previous statement was based on my understanding that of what you were saying in this portion of the article. I see in this article that you are saying Catholics are moving to the Republican Party because of its support for pro-life, if this is the case, my previous statements are, then, justified. Please correct me if my understanding here is wrong.
Your first error is in equating “many Catholics are moving to the Republican Party” for voting and “Catholics are becoming more Republican.” The former merely entails that a bunch of Catholics are registering as and voting Catholic for no other reason than abortion; the latter entails a wholesale shift in political ideology and orientation. Catholics who vote for an anti-choice Republican simply because they are anti-choice are not, thereby, “becoming more Republican.”
Your second error lies in the fact that just because a lot of Catholics have shifted votes to the Republican Party solely because of abortion doesn’t change the fact that Catholics, as a whole, are at least or more supportive of legal abortion than Protestants.
Thank you for addressing my last comment. Now, in regards to the fact that many Catholics vote pro-abortion, I submit that these are not really Catholics, in the fullest sense, but, rather, only Catholics in name, for example: Nancy Pelosi and Patrick Kennedy.
So you think you can determine a person’s “true” religion based upon a single vote?
Oh, and it’s “pro-choice” — a person can be opposed to abortion, but not think that it should be a crime. The term “pro-abortion” is favored by dishonest anti-choice activists who want to portray supporters of legal abortions as people who advocate abortion.
When a person goes so profoundly against the Church by voting ‘pro-choice’ he can no longer call himself a Catholic or a Christian, for the killing of innocent life in the womb is so hated by Christ and the Church. So yes, if a person is ‘pro-choice’ he gives support to the industry which denies millions of unborn babies the chance at life, and so forfeits his ability to represent the Church or Christianity.
And I will not call it by the politically correct term, ‘pro-choice’, because you cannot possibly say it is a woman’s choice to take innocent life.
Yes, that’s what the Catholic Church teaches, but not every Catholic accepts 100% everything that they are told they must accept. And it’s a simple fact that the majority of Catholics in America are pro-choice. The majority of Catholics in America believe that abortion should be legal, not a crime.
And it’s also a simple fact that you are in no position to deny that all those people aren’t “real” Catholics. Not even the Catholic hierarchy has made such a declaration, and they are at least in a position of some authority. You, a mere seventeen year old, are manifesting an unbelievable degree of personal arrogance to presume that you can make a declaration that not even the pope has chosen to do.
So I’m just going to dismiss your declarations because you do not represent your Church with any sort of relevant authority. The most that might be truthfully said is that you wish they weren’t Catholic — that you wish the label “Catholic” were more narrow and limited than it currently is. This comes with its own problems, though, because it would mean that are possessed by a strong desire that your religion become so narrow and exclusive that it would kick out more than half it’s current American membership.
It’s not a positive sign when a person demands that much ideological purity. I recommend reading up a bit on religious and political movements which have demanded or imposed high degrees of ideological and behavioral purity on their members. None of them turned out well and none of them can be held up as positive role models.
That’s precisely the question: should a women be legally allowed to choose what happens to her own body, whether she will be able to decide who or what has access to her body and organs. The debate is over whether abortion should be legal or illegal and thus over whether it should be a legal choice or not. The term “pro-choice” is the only one which applies to all those who support the legality of abortion because not all of them hold the same views about the morality or appropriateness of abortion. Perhaps “pro-legalization” would be slightly better, but that term is already applied to those who would like to see drugs legalized, so it’s simply not available.
Insofar as this is a political and legal debate over whether there should be a legal choice to have an abortion, “pro-choice” is not so much “politically correct” as it is simply “correct.” Trying to designate it as “politically correct” is an attempt to score political points without having to debate substantive issues. Put another way, it’s an attempt to deny that women should have a legal choice without shouldering any obligation to make an argument for why that must be so. This is why not using the term is ultimately dishonest.
Yes, I am a seventeen-year-old with no authority in the Church, but you are adult who is so drawn up in his own arrogance and bombast that you think you have the ability to speak on an issue which you have no understanding of. I may not be a bishop or a priest, or a pope for that matter, but I have studied my Faith, Catholicism, for a little more than twelve years, I know my Faith and I know that Christ, from the accounts in the Gospel, never made concessions to people, He never changed his teachings because they were inconvenient to others. Neither has the Church. It is always comforting to hear of Church leaders holding to this and reminding the people that the Church is not simply a club to join, but a life, in which ALL (100%) of the teachings MUST be accepted, if this is not the case, then they are not Catholic. One such case, is Bishop Tobin’s recent remarks to Congressman Kennedy. Another is when the Catholic bishop of Corpus Christ, back in 1990, excommunicated a woman because she ran a facility which offered abortions. Still also, an Bishop Olmstead excommunicated a priest in Arizona for his open support for homosexual activity. The Church does not need to bend, nor should it bend, to those who find its teachings ‘inconvenient’.
Now, I am not saying I am perfect and without sin, but I accept the Church’s teachings, and when I fall into sin, I admit that I have done wrong and then go to confession to repent. It is when people like Congressman Kennedy refuse to admit their wrong that they forfeit their communion with the Church. And, as acknowledged by the Church, if one seeks to enter heaven, one must be absolutely and perfectly pure. Such high standards I have not set, but these are the standards of God, which is why there is Purgatory, where the soul is purged of sin.
If so-called Catholics cannot accept the teachings of the Church in their entirety, they should seriously re-evaluate themselves as Catholics. Also, when people like Nancy Pelosi, pretend that they can speak for the Church on issues such as abortion, they are seriously delusional. Especially when what they say is so gravely wrong.
The legality of abortion should unquestionably be out of the question. You say the issue is whether the woman should have the legal choice to have an abortion. I ask in response: “Should the murderer be given the legal choice to murder?” You also say the issue is “whether she will be able to decide who or what has access to her body and organs”, I ask: “Should not the child in the womb also have the right to life?”
So don’t use the fact that I am merely seventeen to condemn what I say as unimportant or null and void.
“…that you wish the label “Catholic” were more narrow and limited than it currently is.”
It is that narrow, it is that limited. If you require a member of the Catholic hierarchy to say this in order to make my statement applicable here it is fro Bishop Tobin: “Well, in simple terms – and here I refer only to those more visible, structural elements of Church membership – being a Catholic means that you’re part of a faith community that possesses a clearly defined authority and doctrine, obligations and expectations. It means that you believe and accept the teachings of the Church, especially on essential matters of faith and morals; that you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish; that you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly; that you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially. (Letter to Congressman Kennedy)” Also his statement: “Your rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion falls into a different category – it’s a deliberate and obstinate act of the will; a conscious decision that you’ve re-affirmed on many occasions. Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an “imperfect humanity.” Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church.” If you want authority, there it is.
“The majority of Catholics in America believe that abortion should be legal, not a crime.”- Your statement
How is this relevant to whether or not they are just Catholics by name?
“Not even the Catholic hierarchy has made such a declaration…”
In response to this I refer to the statements by Bishop Tobin I have already posted. The Church may or may not have made such declarations to the lot of these “Catholics”, but they have made such declarations to a number of these “Catholics”.
“…strong desire that your religion become so narrow and exclusive that it would kick out more than half it’s current American membership.”
The Church is not simply a club who’s rules can be ignored and gone against, the Church is very clear with this. I give, in my defense, one of the baptismal promises which every member commits to by their baptism and in the renewal of those promises, this is: “Do you believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting?” to which the member would say: “I do.” By belief in the Holy Catholic Church one takes on the responsibility to uphold and abide by its teachings.
“It’s not a positive sign when a person demands that much ideological purity. I recommend reading up a bit on religious and political movements which have demanded or imposed high degrees of ideological and behavioral purity on their members.”
Not just one person is demanding this. The Church requires that its members uphold its teachings. And, might I add, that while the number of the members of the Church might go down if these “Catholics” left, the spirit of the Church would burn ever brighter, not dampened by the blatant defiance by its so-called “members”.
“Put another way, it’s an attempt to deny that women should have a legal choice without shouldering any obligation to make an argument for why that must be so.”
I believe I alluded to the fact that a woman should not be given the legal choice because of the simple reason that abortion is murder in an earlier statement. So I am taking on the obligation to make an argument for why that must be so.
Oh, I would also like to point out that I made to comments here, this and the one above so please address both.
Then don’t presume to speak for the church and declare who is and who is not a “real” Catholic.
Feel free to show how. I explained unambiguously that it is arrogant to proclaim who is and is not a “real” Catholic, so you might have the decency to point out specifically what you think I have said that is so arrogant.
Then you should know that once someone is baptized a Catholic, they basically remain a Catholic unless and until they are excommunicated. They may become a lapsed Catholic or even a bad Catholic, but they remain Catholic. Since you lack the ability to excommunicate all the Catholics you don’t like, you have to accept that they do indeed remain valid Catholics.
That’s false. The Church leaders may expect adherents to accept all teachings 100% but the fact remains that people who don’t fully accept this or that teaching are not thereby excommunicated and, hence, do not cease to be Catholic. What you are expressing is something you wish were true, not something that is actually true.
Good, so you are aware of the fact that excommunication is necessary for a person to cease being Catholic. This means that you know that all the people you declare to not be Catholic are still Catholic since they have not been excommunicated. This means that you are aware that what you’re saying is false.
So now you acknowledge, it seems, that it’s your desire that they voluntarily renounce their Catholicism. Obviously if they already weren’t Catholic, there would be no need for them to “re-evaluate themselves as Catholics.” That only makes sense if they are in fact still Catholics. So once again, you implicitly admit that your claims that they aren’t Catholic have all been false.
This is a logical fallacy known as “begging the question.” You see, “murder” is defined as an illegal killing of a human being, so by definition a murderer cannot have a legal choice to murder — that’s a contradiction in terms.
The appropriate and relevant question is: should a person ever have a legal choice to kill or cause the death of another human beings? The answer, of course, is “Yes.” There are such cases. Abortion is one of them because the woman has a right to determine what happens to her internal organs and systems which cannot be abrogated by any person or being’s right to life. Even if the fetus had all the right and moral status of an adult — indeed, even if it were an adult, sitting next to her and hooked up to her with tubes — she has a right to sever the connection.
Even if the fetus has a right to life, that doesn’t mean it has a right to access anyone’s organs or body to maintain that life. You have a right to life, but that doesn’t give you a legal right to use anyone’s body or organs. If I had a rare blood/DNA type that made me the only match to keep you alive — whether it’s as little as donating blood, as extreme as donating a kidney, or as bizarre as being hooked up to you for a couple of months — that wouldn’t make it murder for me to refuse or even to say “no” part way through.
It wouldn’t be nice. It might even be very immoral, depending on the circumstances. However, it would not be murder. There is no precedent in any law that would justify charging me with murder and sending me to prison or that would justify in forcing me to help you. This is your problem because you keep trying to make theological or moral arguments, but what you need to be able to do is make a legal argument. Unfortunately, you can’t — the state doesn’t even have the power to forcibly harvest your organs after you’re dead, much less forcibly use them while you are alive.
Did you forget already that the question is whether abortion should be a legal choice? Notice the key word: legal. If you think abortion should be treated legally as murder, you have to make a legal case — you have to demonstrate some sort of precedent and basis in the law for forcing one human being to supply their body and organs for the use of another person. Barring that, you have to be able to make a legal case for this entirely new legal arrangement in a way that would not thereby justify the state using force to use your blood, organs, or body while you are alive. In other words, you need to be able to demonstrate that the current system of near-absolute bodily autonomy can be maintained alongside abortion being murder.
If you can’t — if making abortion a crime of murder does undermine the current expectations of bodily autonomy — then you should admit this and make sure everyone knows what the legal cost to them may be.
I don’t. I use your age and your status as non-pope to dismiss your attempts to speak for your Church as false and void.
Here’s some advice: if you don’t want people to take your age into account when evaluating your fallacies, factual errors, and false statements, then don’t choose to bring it up. Your behavior now makes it sound like you mentioned your age for the sake of some sympathy, but are now defensive and mad when it didn’t work.
Except for the fact that all the people you wish weren’t Catholic have not actually been excommunicated.
Ah, so you admit that they are indeed still Catholics?
Except his statement doesn’t excommunicate anyone — it doesn’t inform anyone that they are no longer Catholic. Quite the contrary, in fact, because it clearly says that the recipient’s communion with the Church is diminished, not severed. The very quote you offer to support your position is, if read carefully, a repudiation of your claims.
Yet, it has also clearly not kicked out all the people you would like to see kicked out. So obviously the leaders don’t share your opinions about the need for imposing and enforcing ideological purity in the same way you do.
Yet not everyone who fails to fulfill that requirement is excommunicated. Ergo not everyone who fails to fulfill it ceases to be Catholic.
Thank you for expressing so clearly your desire for ideological purity. It’s the belief of every such puritan that their movement will become oh-so-much better once all the slackers, dissenters, and other undesirables have been kicked out.
You might want to read up on how well that works for them, historically.
Murder is an illegal killing, so abortion is not murder; instead, you wish it were murder. Once again you are using language designed to force acceptance of your conclusions without you having to make an argument for it.
Your obligation is to make an argument for why abortion should not be a legal choice. Calling it “murder” fails to do this because it’s a word that assumes the truth of your conclusion.” Because the debate is over whether abortion should be a legal choice, “pro-choice” is the only appropriate label for those who support abortion being a legal choice. I explained why in some detail and you simply ignored all of that in order to focus on a tangential point.
You are the only one who has ignored comments made by others. I have endeavored to address everything you’ve said.
Now I seriously question YOUR reading comprehension, I never said that those people lose the name of “Catholic”, I acknowledged, to begin with, that they retain that name, but these people are not “Catholic” in the fullness of the term, they are are like a hollowed out shell, they retain the name but have abandoned the spirit, the core essentials that make a Catholic a Catholic. Yes, they retain the name if they are not excommunicated, but they who openly defy Catholic teaching and do not repent have broken those baptismal promises and lose that essence of “Catholic”.
I am using the word murder to describe the willful destruction of human life whether as a means or as an ends. With this the being the definition, I say, “Abortion is murder.”
It is impossible for you to understand this fact, and I make allowance for this, about Catholicism simply because you are not Catholic. To truly understand something you must immerse yourself within it and live it.
To your statements about Catholics who are Catholics only in name I offer this Bible verse: “21 Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven – only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day, many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons and do many powerful deeds?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Go away from me, you lawbreakers!’ (Matthew 7: 21-23) Here Jesus Himself says to those people who take on only the name of His followers are not really his, nor do they know Him, they are the people who cry out: ‘Lord, Lord’ but are not accepted by Christ because they do not accept Christ.
Prove it.
You’re just mincing words. You deny that they are “fully” Catholics but acknowledge that a far as the Catholic Church is concerned, they are in “full” communion. They are as Catholic as anyone and since you don’t know what’s in their “hearts,” you can’t render any judgments.
Since this is a legal debate over what should or should not be legal, only the legal definition of “murder’ is ultimately relevant. Personal definitions are irrelevant.
And that’s as likely to apply to you as to anyone. The Catholic Church allows that even an atheist may enter heaven, so given that as a starting point then a pro-choice Catholic can’t be automatically excluded.