If you insist on being a Democrat, so be it. At least you seem to realize the values that lead that party are not what you endorse. As you state, this is the party of the abortionists, the pro-homosexual agenda, the anti-God politically-correct initiatives, and of course, every type of Socialist method known to redistribute wealth of those who work and take risk to those who do not. Seriously,I cannot see how a believing Catholic could in good conscience, consider themselves a member of this Democratic Party. As a conservative, I am a Catholic Christian first.
The Republicans, sadly, in oh so many ways, are the same as the Dems, politicians who have compromised themselves with their only goal being to get re-elected. It cannot be denied, however, the Republican party is Pro-Life, anti same-sex nonsense, anti illegal immigration, pro 2nd amendment, and finally at it's core significantly driven by personal responsibility. Since LBJ, the $Trilions spent on entitlements have made the FEDS the great enabler. In the long-term, this has proven itself to be more harm than good.

I have a problem with the government programs such as welfare which discourages self-sufficiency and encourages truly destructive personal habits plus I also think these programs destroy the community's motivation too help the unfortunate in any sustained or involved way. I think this because when you pay 1/3 of your income to the government you are left with less discretionary income for your family and money that could be used for others and it therefore encourages the " I gave at the office" attitude among many people, thus causing a loss of a real sense of community and care. Also one can argue it helps to destroy families because the high rate of taxes forces many families into two worker households which may weaken the integrity and viability of families with small children.While the dems may believe they are helping and need a powerful central government to do the job, in fact I believe this weakens society and ignores another element of Catholic social teaching - subsidiarity!I strongly suggest you read the book: " The Tragedy of American Compassion".

I'm enjoying the stories of the old warhorses like David Lawrence and John Bailey.
Don't you think it far more likely that the GOP will be more open to your sort of economic policies, then the Democrats will ever be to traditional morality and cultural issues? Look at the rise of Huckabee, and some of the ideas being floated by Olasky,Dreher and Gerson. All of those guys get heard, and their ideas discussed within the conservative movement, even though they break from orthodox Reaganism. Is there a similar openess to debate on abortion, embryo-destroying research, and traditional marriages and families on the Democratic side? Nope. And there won't be. Sorry David, but the old-style Catholic ethnic Democrats are either dead or dying. You'd have more success re-founding the Whig Party then convincing the Democrats to tolerate pro-life, pro-family polices, let alone promoting them.
Whether you choose to join us or not, you're very much welcome in MY Republican Party. Read Rick Santorum's " It Takes A Family". Social justice doesn't have to be warmed over statism.

Thank you for such a well written piece. And thank you for expressing the basis of much of what it means to be an American Catholic.

For those who rally around the Pro-life movement, the best thing that could happen is to overturn Roe/Wade. Then they will get to see just how pro abortion their so called family value Republicans really are. It is pure hypocrisy to think one party is somehow better or worse than the other on supporting life. For me, a life long Republican, it is the Republican party that has abandoned it's roots. And no matter how you try to spin it, they are being adopted by the Democrats. Without social justice, there are no family values and religion merely becomes a political issue. Making moral judgments about political issues is mixing religion and social justice and basically advocating a theocracy much like exists in Iran. I too was taught the importance of all men being created equal. I am sad to see others arguing that all men are not equal unless they conform to their beliefs. The same argument being used by the terrorists. How did we in the US allow our principles to trump our moral compass. We argue how valuable an American's life is. We tacitly endorse the concept that other human beings are less valuable. We do it in foreign policy, economic policy, social policy, military strategy, politics and in our judgment of folks who believe differently.

Thank you for refocusing the debate even if several folks chose to ignore it. Hopefully we will see and be able to support candidates who will do the most public good, regardless of their personal beliefs.

That's why I am a Democrat. As Pope John Paul II wrote in Centesimus Annus (1991),"The more that individuals are defenseless within a given society, the more they require the care and concern of others, and in particular the intervention of governmental authority."

I believe the "individuals (which) are (most) defenseless within a given society" would be the unborn. Your support of Democratic candidates by both your vote and your rhetoric insure the annual genocide of most defenseless in our Nation will be over 1 million.

Also, a government cannot demonstrate "care and concern". It is always an instrument of coercion. It possesses a monopoly on force unavailable to the "private sector". Unlike personal charity, the "gifts" of government are never "free". Power is the coin of all governments, and their largess always comes with an equal or greater demand for power. Obviously you have no concept of the Church's long held Principle of Subsidiary.

The best example of the "real costs" of Federal Program to "help" the poor is universal Welfare - a suppossed program to help the poor, but instead destroyed the Black family in our country more efficiently than could any program design specifically to do so by a racist government. Even liberal Democrat Senator Daniel Moynahan of NY recognized it as such. Still the totally repudiated socialistic program remains the Democratic Party "Holy Grail".

Finally, if we are to remain a "government of laws", as the Republican Party insist, instead of a "government of men", as the Democrats prefer, we really need to limit the Federal Government to matters the Constitution of the United States of America authorizes them to address. Welfare is certainly not mentioned anywhere in the Article I Section 8 delineated "Powers" of US Congress. If you support such Federal programs, please do the right thing - amend the Constitution first!

"But at a time when America's wealthy and middle classes are growing estranged from and sanction violence against the poor and vulnerable, I hope and pray that the great Democratic public servants of years past can inspire those of today and tomorrow."

What on earth are you talking about? Americans, especially the wealthy and middle classes are the most generous in the World. The real "violence against the poor and vulnerable" was perpetrated by the Democrat politicians, especially LBJ who fought as Senate Majority Leader to block and finally waterdown the Civil Rights Act of 1957 - the first enacted since 1870. In the area of true Civil Rights and Martin Luther King's "dream" of full equality has been better served by the Republican Party, who will not belittle Blacks and other minorities with preferential treatment, which is merely the expression of the ingrained bigotry of the Party of Thomas Jefferson, whose opinion of African Blacks has always been and remains today:

"there are varieties in the race of man, distinguished by their powers both of body and of mind...as I see to be the case with races of other animals."

The Democrats manifest this continued prejudice by establishing quotas and set-asides - then they take credit for the accomplishment of great minority giants, such as Assciate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas - who would set on the court today had the Democratic Party had its way!

"How did we in the US allow our principles to trump our moral compass. We argue how valuable an American's life is. We tacitly endorse the concept that other human beings are less valuable."

This is utterly absurd. Obviously you have no idea of what you "pontificate" about.

You certainly are clueless as to just what our Nation's "Principles" truly are, as expressed above. I suggest you inquire of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on the same. I am sure he will explain to you the "Self-evident Truths that ALL MEN are Created Equal" - not merely Americans. Hence so many Americans shed their blood so willingly around the World so that other men may one day live as free as we.

Of course, as most Democrats do, you start out with the proposition that America and its Principles: that Men are "Endowed by the Creator with certain Unalienable amongst which are LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS (PROPERTY)" are worst evils on Earth. It was the Democratic Party that denied men, especially African Slaves, their RIGHT to the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS - i.e. the Right to the keep what they earn from the sweat of their brow! The Democratic Party has corrupted America's Principles so that the "Pursuit of Happiness" is now a "guarantee of Happiness itself", and that "Happines"s is no longer defined as your property and what you have earned from your effort, but instead it now means your "right" to do anything that fills good.

Democrats have no idea as to the meaning of morality - hence the "lemming" defense of the "Right to murder unborn babies". The Democrats' Right to murder the most defenseless kills more innocents in one year that have been killed by Americans in ALL THE WARS they have participated in since the Revolution. The hyprocracy smells to high heaven.

Of course, the Democrats also promote lose morals and the lack of ethics by dividing our country into "Special Interests" who they promise something for nothing because they will take it from someone else. How else can they get elected and stay in power? After all, our Founders knew that the free Republic that was created by our Constitution could never survive without a "moral and ethical people".

Democrats elected Bill Clinton - a President with the "morals and ethics" of a slug. Now daily, in his effort to get back into the Oral Office by marriage, we are remined why he will always be known as "Slick Willie"!

The Democrats became interested in women and minorities when it meant getting their vote, and thats how they operate. Are they interested in the unborn, no because they have no voice. Individuals like Jimmy Carter while governor of his state didn't care that Blacks were not allowed entrance into his Baptist Church, until his was running for president. Then suddenly that immediately was changed. But you heard little about that fact... Both my parents who were from Illinois had great grandfathers in the Civil War. And as small bands out in the battle fields played the Battle Hymn of Republic this is what motivated the Union Soldiers. But does any one remember this G.O.P history today, that happened when Blacks had no voice??? I ask any one to think of the words in the last verse of the Battle Hymn of Republic, and this is what these Union Soldiers felt at heart. So Mr Stricherz go ahead and vote Democrat and be ready to answer to Our Lord for your frivolous actions

The state isn't the place to turn for taking care of the least among us. Another post said it well...state welfare programs & the like generate an "I gave at the office attitude".

Witness France a few summers back. The state takes care of many of the elderly there. So, while many in France were enjoying their famously long summer vacations, grandma & grandpa were dying in the heatwave back in the hometowns. The state had assumed, and grandchildren abdicated, the fundamental responsibility of family to honor mothers/fathers/grandmothers/grandfathers. Can the state possibly tend elderly citizens as well as these peoples' own families? Of course not.

I laud (and share) your sense of obligation to those less fortunate, but see only failure in instance after instance of the state attempting to do that which is rightly done out of free will by the more fortunate individuals for those less so.

Dinesh D'Souza describes giving a starving man a sandwhich voluntarily. The giver does so out of free will, the reciever is rightfully thankful. A moral transaction transpires. Rework that. The state takes the sandwich from the citizen, and hands it to the starving man. The sandwich was not given freely, and the starving man feels entitlement as opposed to gratitude. Morality is removed from the equation. No system which does this can help us realize our potential as Catholics or Christians. Our God is all about free will and our choosing the good, right, and just. Not doing "good" because "Caesar" compels us.

Our Lord commanded us to care for the poor, needy, imprisoned, sick and ailing, etc. Us. The Community of the Body of Christ.

Federal programs are paid for with taxes. Taxes are extracted at gunpoint. If you think otherwise, just refuse to pay your federal taxes for a few years and observe the results.

Christian charity cannot be imposed at gunpoint. It must be offered from the heart.

Government can NEVER(!) take the place of the Church, either in mission or in purpose.

I cannot believe the people here advocating that the Republican party is the "moral" party!! You can really stand there and say what this Republican government has done to this country is moral and just?? They certainly haven't helped the unborn child avoid abortion in 8 years in office, but the poor are certainly worse off. The rich are doing just fine, and thousands of innocent people have been killed by this administration going off to a a war brought on by falsehoods. The deceit and secrecy that this so-called "moral" party has used over the past eight years to stay in power in disgusting at best and sinful at worse.

They have even ridiculed the conservative right- wingers that they supposedly represent. And they still blindly follow...

I am a church going, Christ believing, pro-life, charity giving Christian and I can guarantee that I will not vote Republican in the next election. And with all my heart and soul, I am ready to answer to our Lord for what some may call a "frivolous action." I hope that all of you ready to condemn those who vote Democratic are ready ready to answer for the Republican party's sins as well.

Well, while the conservatives are still not all convinced as always, at least they're now on the defensive. They have to say why Republicans are better for women and minorities, and for the poor.

Of course, it doesn't convince. We know what Republicans really believe - in the superiority of the West, whites, men, and America. It's interesting to see the contortions they have to go through to say they're better for blacks than Democrats are. Democrats only support women and minorities to get their votes? Well, what about Republicans supporting large corporations then?

I would say the opposite of Shan Gill - that the Church can never take the place of government. We can never count on voluntary charity alone to fulfill then needs of all the poor and defenseless. Why don't conservatives just think of paying taxes as a moral thing? Then they wouldn't complain about it so much. Republicans are the only people who spend 600 billion dollars on the military every year and then complain about taxes. Hello? Where do you think the money to fight the little wars in Iraq and Afghanistan comes from?

The conservatives who've posted here seem to believe both in charity and in capitalism's pursuit of self-interest - just another of their contradictions.

Republicans seem to think government can never be "caring", always "coercing", and maybe under a Republican administration, that'd be the case.

Wealthy and middle-class Americans are the most generous people in the world? Where's your proof? A statement as ridiculous like that can be disproved by any statistics.

No, it's Republicans who have "no understanding as to the meaning of morality", as Neal Lang so blithely says.

Rob Schultz, I cannot see how, in good conscience, a believing Catholic can be a Republican.

I used to be a Democrat, back in the post-Truman, Skoop Jackson era, when conservative principles rule the halls of Washington. What changed? Social programs changed the meaning of conservatism to social engineering by government largess. The particular programs that Mr. Strickerz gives credibility to the Democratic Party was is fact its undoing. It wasn't the programs themselves, but the impetus behind the programs, e.g., to get the vote, that cause most sensible conservative Democrats to leave the party. The author also gives the Democratic party a pass when it comes to civil rights. For over one hundred years, the Dixicrats kept black civil rights from ever reaching a vote in either house, and now blacks support Democrats by nearly 95%.

I'm not saying that Republicans are without fault. In fact, I can find fault in each party equally. But, I think, the later 20th century Republican party, generally, has done more for civil rights (primarily from conservative justices on the Supreme Court) and by keeping the unborn child safe in its mother's womb.

Right now, I don't think either party is doing anything to improve the Kingdom of God here on earth. I fact, I wish that there was a "None of the Above" on my ballot this fall.

>>The lesson I learned from the experience was obvious but instructive: There is no money to be made helping poor people. Businesses and profit-minded individuals create wealth for the able-bodied, but neither can be relied upon to serve the poor and working classes. Just read Milton Friedman.<<

I have read Milton Friedman. He contends that the business of business is to to provide goods and services, not to engage in charity. He also contends that such enterprise provides far more employment and far more income than are provided by welfare and charity combined. Just read him. Also read the relevant sections of the Statistical Abstract of the United States, e.g., the section on income and employment.

Also, please read a basic logic text on how to make a proper division or classification. I suggest you do so because you imply that the poor and working class are not able-bodied. "Businesses and profit-minded individuals create wealth for the able-bodied, but neither can be relied upon to serve the poor and working classes." Furthermore, do you have evidence to substantiate your slur that business and profit-minded persons (presumably all such since you do not state any qualifiers) cannot be relied upon to serve the interests of the poor and working class? Is the desire for profit incompatible with working for the good of all? Does the fact that you work for a wage or a salary so corrupt your soul as to leave you without concern for your fellow man?

As for your citation from John Paul II, let us not overlook that a single quotation from dozens of documents beginning with Rerum Novarum can be slanted to imply anything. For example, imagine what can be implied by -- or inferred from -- a rhetorical question such as, "Can anything sound come from someone who worked with Jesuits in the '90s?"

Gil writes,




I take his point. The poor and working classes are able bodied; or at least the ones who are not severely mentally ill or handicapped. I should have phrased this sentence more accurately.

I also take his point about the importance of business in creating wealth and jobs. But he also implies that businesses and the free market are always and everywhere superior to the federal government. For a pro-lifer, that is an odd position to take.

Mark Stricherz says

"But he (sic) also implies that businesses and the free market are always and everywhere superior to the federal government. For a pro-lifer, that is an odd position to take."

Why is favoring free markets, which is to say, popular decision making over federal government, which is to say regime, decision making an odd position for a pro-lifer? Is not the principle of subsidiarity at least as compatible with free markets as it is with (liberal) reliance upon federal (not local or state) government?

I enjoyed this article very much, and agree with every word of it. The tenor of many of the comments disturbs me, however.

Somehow we are at the point in history where Democrat = liberal and Republican = conservative. That is like saying Coke = cola, which implies that there is no such thing as a cola that is not Coke. A thinking Catholic can be liberal in ideology and reject what the Democrats stand for. I know I do. Somehow all public thinking has devolved into a strictly linear thought process -- Democrat versus Republican. I am not purely Democrat, nor purely Republican. I am purely Catholic, and that ties me to no specific political creed.

The following quote comes from "Doctrinal Note On Some Questions Regarding Catholic Participation in Political Life," which can be found on the Vatican's own website:



So there. Anyone who argues that the GOP is the proper party for a Catholic is going against the pope.

There is nothing adherently wrong in believing that the government has a role in remedying poverty. Certainly any such effort is bound to be fraught, but there are problems with expecting the free market to do it also. Tell me how the free market is going to educate all children, save victims of Katrina, or provide medical care for the destitute elderly. The government is uniquely equipped to handle such problems, because it can not only provide the money, it can also provide the laws that can make things happen (compulsory schooling for kids, anti-spousal abuse laws, health care safety regulation).

Nuns can found all the hospitals they want, but only the federal government can create licensing and accreditation that ensures safe medical treatment. Good intentions are not enough; sometimes laws are needed (see also civil rights legislation).

Socially responsible conservatives can't be blind to this. They may distrust the government in its exercise of power, but they cannot pretend all exercise of power is inherently wrong.

Why is it so hard for so many to believe that there are good ideas on both sides of politics, and, while we are at it, that there are actually more than just two sides?

It's worth remembering that some of us Catholics vote for a Democratic candidate IN SPITE of their abortion stance, not because of it.

I also find it frustrating that many politicians who are against abortion are also against the government programs that might help the families raise the children once they are actually born. As a mother who has to work outside the home, I am grateful for any and all laws that protect my rights to health insurance, to maternity and family leave, to being able to resume this job I need once the child is born. That's not government interference, or coercion; that's called survival.

I am from Louisiana. I left the state because of the poor economic conditions. I didn't go begging some government bureaucrat that life is not fair so therefore the government should take care of me. I got going, found better economic conditions in Georgia, a well run state, and took responsibility for my on well being.
Many Louisianians have the entitlement mentality that demands the government owes them a living. This kills self-motivation. If I am sitting at home with a beer in my hand knowing I have a government check coming in the mail, why put the effort into finding job? Government entitlement programs produce laziness, facilitate alcohol, drug, food, sex addictions, family dysfunction and social decay.
You want to help the poor, don't give them a fish, teach them how to fish.

If you vote for a pro-abortion candidate, it's sinful, regardless of whether you vote for him because of, or "in spite of," his being pro-abortion.

Regarding those "politicians who are against the government programs that might help the families raise the children once they are born"----Name one.

Well written, Fr. Joseph.

I have also noticed Catholic Democrats who look at the wrong question. It is less whether a candiate (or party) thinks it is a good idea to take care of old people or have young people finish college or what have you. these are good ideas. There is virtually no one out there advocating leaving granpa out on the curb or having most twenty-year-olds at the Jethro Bodine level of education.

The real question is whether or not they think it is a good idea for the federal government to act.

The federal government is a gigantic, messy, inefficient, cruel tool to use to do anything. Fighting wars, negotiating treaties, and delivering mail is about all the founders thought it was appropriate for -- an dthat was when it was a tiny embryo of the behemoth it has become today.

You want to help that young mother raise her child? Volunteer at the adoption agency or work at the crisis pregnancy center. But getting Uncle Sam to take up the case is a recipe for outrageous costs, ponderously slow response, and -- worse yet, a citizenry with an excuse to turn their backs and say, "that's what my taxes are supposed to do."

Once you look at the right question you discover that conservatives aren't people who don't want to support good ideas. They are people who don't want the federal government mucking up good ideas.

I was once a Democrat,but now I'm not.I became a Republican, but now I'm not. I'm just an old man now who prays a lot more often than he ever did.I don't vote for a party anymore,although I could be counted on by both parties once.Now it's just the person running for the particular office that gets my vote.There's only one thing I care about anymore,and that is respect for life.Here in Oregon the state is more than happy to kill you before your born,or when you become old and sick.Right now we have a poor fellow, with a family,who is dying of cancer.Now,we have a very liberal,compassionate state government here.They told this poor guy they couldn't pay for his medicine any longer,but they would mercifuly kill him, if he so chose.Did I mention the government is controlled by Democrats? These are the people who will spend millions of our dollars to build "bike paths"for the elite "cappucino Libs".We have "advocates" for snail darters,for spotted owls,for saving trees,If you can name a cause there will be some advocate for it.What puzzels me is the fact that if you are a felon sentenced to die for multiple murders,and you need a heart transplant in prison, you'll get one.They have to make you healthy before they kill you.If you happen to be an illegal immigrant who needs a kidney transplant,don't worry.You'll get one before they deport you.But if you happen to be an American working man or an un-born child,these liberals will love you to death.Now thats compassion,thats liberalism,government "helping"
people.Not with my vote.

Fr. Joseph, interesting opinion, but as you know something is not a sin just because you say it is. To use your phrase: "Name one." (i.e., please reference the teaching of the Magisterium that you are assuming is completely evident here.) At the same time, you might want to give you definition of sin (you seemed to have redefined it from what is taught by the Church). You seem to be going quite a bit further than Pope John Paul did in Evangelium Vitae. Perhaps you hold a special role within the Church that we are not aware of. Please let us know the authority with which you teach.

When reading this, I'm reminded of 1 Samuel 8, when the people ask for a King/government to do everything for them. I don't think God will be any more pleased with us if we seek to have our government be responsible for us, than he was with the.

I am always so confused by the view many seem to have of what the Church considers social justice. I don't understand this desire to have everything fall under the auspices of the government, particularly in light of the massive evidence that the government does almost nothing well, from Welfare, to public education, to the DMV. Also, when the government gets involved, the rights of Christians are diminished.*see public education* Why would anyone want to have it involved more than it already is?

My sister often brings up a friend of hers, who is agnostic as well as a Rhode Scholar. When in college, he once had to debate on the issue of providing health care. His conclusion upon researching all sides was that it should be left in the hands of the Catholic Church. That is what I believe Jesus has in mind for us, as Shan Gill eloquently put it. That we, the Church, do it, and of our own free will.

The Church teaches that Socialism is an evil, yet so many seem to ignore that fact. Also, the principles fo Catholic social teaching include that "...government is best when it is closest to those being governed and that it should begin with, and defer to, the smallest governing unit, which is the family." Small government...

When you factor in the rest of the platform of the Democrat Party, I don't see how any Christian, much less a Catholic, could ally him/herself with them.

While I'm nowhere near in total agreement with the Republican Party, I find almost no common ground with the Democrat Party of today. I'm afraid I simply don't understand your reasoning.

Well, I'll be voting Republican in the fall. (Got that out of the way.) Reason: Lesser of two evils.

I have problems with both parties.

With the Democrats, my problem is that they have a platform and a philosophy, and their legislation and judicial results tend to live up to that platform and that philosophy. Hence: Abortion, Intrusive Government, Bad Fiscal Policy, Horrible Economic Policy, Government Funding of Anti-Family Organizations.

With the Republicans, my problem is that they have a platform and a philosophy, and their legislation and judicial results rarely live up to that platform or that philosophy. Hence: Pork, Horrible Fiscal Policy, Wishy-Washy Economic Policy, and all the most important parts of any really good bill are tossed out at first opportunity in order to craft compromises which are worse than doing nothing at all.

Having said that, the really unjustified libel in this thread is that economic conservatives/libertarians don't care for the poor. They are, in fact, far better for the poor than left-leaning alternatives; otherwise I wouldn't vote for them.

Firstly, on private charity: I can't locate the study, but I recall one which authoritatively (and unsurprisingly, at least to me) showed that when it came to private charitable giving, right-leaning persons in the U.S. consistently gave more than left-leaning persons, at all levels of income.

Milton and Rose Friedman are an excellent example, giving untold millions to education-related charities.

Secondly, on public policy: I know it's counter-intuitive, but there are excellent reasons to believe that Johnson's Great Society programs, the New Deal, and similar policies tended to prolong depressions/recessions, not cure them; tended to entrench poverty, not correct it.

The free-market alternative policies tend by contrast to increase real wealth...and, yes, they increase it faster for the rich. So? If in fifty years you can take the poor from starvation to obesity while the rich go from sailboats to multiple yachts (or, for the responsible ones, major charitable donations), isn't the most important thing to get the poor out of starvation?

If getting the poor out of starvation is less important than keeping the rich down, what then is our animating motive? Envy? Covetousness?

I will not vote for a Democrat because I would not wish thereby to injure the poor and the oppressed, or perpetuate the enshrining of the sin of class resentment as the core impulse of that body politic.

Add on top of that the fact that we're maybe one Supreme Court Justice away from being able to reverse Roe v. Wade, and the calculus is that much easier.

I don't hate good hearted people who think otherwise. But I believe them to be in deep error.

Virtually all my thoughts have already been voiced by many of those responding, but "Yikes" summed it up quite well. Today's Democrats are not the Democrats Bobby Kennedy, unfortunately they are more of Ted Kennedy's mentality and/or morality. Charity by force (taxes) is not charity at all.
When it comes to voting, my parish's bulletin provided us with these 5 Non negotiables-The same eyes that read the Bible, also reads the ballots. The same hands that pray to God, also cast our votes. As Christians, we do not leave our faith outside the voting booth. Know that God will hold us accountable for our votes, whether we limit evil or enable evil! It is therefore our responsibility as Christians to be fully informed on where the candidates stand, regardless of party, and to vote as Jesus would vote rather than for personal gain!
The 5 Non-Negotiables are: Abortion, Euthanasia, Human Cloning, Embryonic Stem Cell Research & Same Sex unions.
Now count who votes in favor or oppossed to these and see which party a Catholic Christian can really support.

Hello.
I quote from a previous entry entitled Political Realities:

The 5 Non-Negotiables are: Abortion, Euthanasia, Human Cloning, Embryonic Stem Cell Research & Same Sex unions.

I don't fault anyone for strong feelings on those issues. But how about throwing in:
wars that are not impossible to avoid. Iraq is not one of those.

I am not proud of the seemingly inescapable conclusion that many of my fellow Catholics care much more about the unborn than those already here and suffering through man-made disasters - war, genocide, indifference to disease and starvation. Why do all these beings lose so much sympathy once they pass through the birth canal?

Throw in the results of global warming as well. The results will apparently be much more devastating for the poor, especially in lowlands on the coasts of Asia, than for the rest of us.

I really find it insulting for you, Cathy, to insinuate that because I find the Democrat Party completely irreconcilable with my beliefs, I am unconcerned for people "after they pass through the birth canal". Just because I feel the Government handouts, in a forced redistribution of wealth, do not help anyone to become independant and productive, but the complete opposite, and are not actually in line with the teaching of Christ, in that he taught that all able bodied should work and idleness is sinful, does not mean I do not care or act on my responsibilities. Perhaps you missed the statistics showing that conservatives are far more charitable than their liberal counterparts? Just because I would prefer to decide how my charity is distributed rather than have my tax dollar used by the Federal Government to provide all sorts of "services", many of which I find morally repugnant, does not mean I do not care, quite the contrary.

I believe the Church and private charities can do better.

I wish I didn't even have to support state sponsored education with my tax dollars. I pay a great deal to protect my children from the damage being done by that Government "service", but I still have to pay taxes that go to teach children how to have sex, and provide them with birth control, and all other sorts of things incompatible with the teaching of the Church, thanks to the liberal wing of our government, ie the Democrat Party, and weak Republicans not fighting it.

Also, we could argue whether the war in Iraq is a just war or not, all day long. The fact of the matter is that the Church has never proclaimed it unjust. For you to insinuate that I do not care about the lives affected by it is also highly insulting. I have a sister and two brothers-in-law on Active Duty.

Global Warming is yet another issue that can be argued. There is every bit as much evidence against "Man-made" Global Warming as there is for it and I would say that against it is far more convincing. That said, as a conservative person, I have long been a recycler, I make sure my vehicles are up to emission standards, teach my children of the evil of polluting/littering, etc... Caring for the planet does not, however, mean we shouldn't utilize the resources God has given us, responsibly. Both parties could work on a nice compromise in that department. Still, the radical stand of the Democrat Party leadership on this issue is way off base and would have us all living in caves, unless of course, we are one of the "elite".

I don't understand how a Democrat votes for Republican candidates. That doesn't sound like a Democrat to me. I'm a Democrat, a life-long Catholic, and I understand that there is more to running this country than the abortion issue. I'm against abortion, but the law says a woman has the right to choose. Banning abortion is not the answer; women have been getting them regardless of laws. Changing peoples hearts about abortion will diminish them, but you can do that only by loving the women who have an unwanted pregnancy. All Republicans do it condemn and judge them. Clearly that doesn't work.

Many of you Catholics have been hoodwinked by the Republicans for years. Is abortion gone? Is gay marriage banned? Is prayer back in public schools? Is it easier to get a gun? The Republicans told you they were going to do all these things but they did nothing but tell you what you wanted to hear, and you believed them. They never had any intention of doing any of them. They just wanted your vote so they could fatten their pockets. Yet, you continue to believe them. I was a Republican for twenty years, but as a devout Catholic I couldn't in good conscience, remain one when I knew they cared nothing about the poor, the homeless, those without health care, peace in the world, and on and on. You know what? They never will care about them.

SORRY, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A FAITHFUL CATHOLIC TO BE A DEMOCRAT ANY LONGER.
SUPPORT MEANS A BIG YES TO ABORTION, INFANTICIDE, HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE AND EXPERIMENTATION AND THE KILLING OF HUMAN BEINGS FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE.
IMPOSSIBLE DUDE.

Well, it was good to see so many posters correct the author of this article.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for government to exercise charity.

Government programs destroy the relationships required to exist for charity to exist.

In the past government may have been a more "efficient" way to bring capital to bear on true needs. However since the technolicial revolution of computers and Internet that method has lost its supremacy of efficiency.

The Catholic Church in the United States, specifically the Bishops, not the UCCB, need to take the lead on organizing and bringing forth the systems to ensure information and capital flow to those in need.

Not a government program.

The GOP's official party platform is pro-life.

http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf


The Democrat's platform is not.

http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

This is the deal breaker for serious catholics. Given the alternative, there is no reason for a catholic to be Democrat. It's pretty simple, i think. This is the great thing about catholicism, little or no ambiguity on moral issues. This is why i love being catholic, there's never much doubt as to what the right way is, no matter how someone spins it.

It is just plain wrong to be affiliated with an organization that supports abortion and many other evils when you have an alternative that is more in accord with the moral teaching of the Church.

It may be difficult, especially for the traditional democrats whose families have been democrat for decades, but what is more important, secular traditions or church teaching?

The church is also against capital punishment, but the Republicans jump on that as okay. You CANNOT " one sided on pro-life" (be against abortion and for capital punishment) and consider yourself following Catholic doctrine. You can be a Republican though. A true Catholic Democrat is against abortion and against capital punishment.