Catholic Church: Hillary is Satanic

[ImaginaryDay2]

http://www.catholic.com/sites/default/files/voters_guide_for_serious_catholics.pdf

In summary - "It's your duty, so you gotta vote for someone. Just don't vote for the most evil". Got it.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

The Church hierarchy may have more pressing matters than to attend to every view stated by every private group that unofficially affiliates itself with the Church. I don't see a lack of response to disagree as necessarily being agreement. I think if one wants to know the Church's official position on something, they should directly address the Church hierarchy itself.

Catholic Answers, based in El Cajon, California, is the largest lay-run apostolate of Roman Catholic apologetics and evangelization in the United States. It publishes Catholic Answers Magazine, a bimonthly magazine focusing on Catholic outreach, religious formation and apologetics, as well as the website catholic.com. It also produces Catholic Answers Live, a radio show answering callers' questions on a variety of topics related to the doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. Catholic Answers Live is syndicated on the EWTN radio network.

I think the the Church is aware.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Catholic Answers does not come off as official to any Catholic.

Difference between official and influential? Come on...

 

[psalms 91]

Gotta justify it I guess

 

[MarkFL]

I think the the Church is aware.

They could be aware of this issue, but since no one can speak for the Church except for the Church itself, no one should hold the Church responsible for things said by an organization that does not officially represent the Church, no matter how influential that organization might be. At least that's how I would approach it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Difference between official and influential? Come on...

Catholic Answers is not especially influential. It is not a part of the hierarchy. It's a private group. They seek (and often obtain) approval for their apologetics pamphlets but their political views are not approved by the hierarchy (for obvious reasons).

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Catholic Answers is not especially influential...

Maybe not in the mind of a Catholic (I suppose it would depend on which Catholic you ask), but a pamphlet that touts itself as "...the definitive guide for any Catholic who wants to cast a vote consistent with Catholic moral teaching", I'd say they believe differently.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Maybe not in the mind of a Catholic (I suppose it would depend on which Catholic you ask), but a pamphlet that touts itself as "...the definitive guide for any Catholic who wants to cast a vote consistent with Catholic moral teaching", I'd say they believe differently.

I am sure some Democratic Party leaning Catholics put out similar voter's guides with just as much confidence that their opinions are all godly and true and that every good Catholic ought to follow their advice.

 

[Rens]

I don't think they're the only ones who say you must vote for Trump.

 

[Josiah]

Party Identity by Religion/Denomination:

Members who say they "most identify" with one of the political parties in the USA....


MOST REPUBLICAN -

1. LDS
2. Church of the Nazarine
3. Southern Baptist Convention
4. Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod
5. Assemblies of God


MOST DEMOCRAT:

1. African Methodist Episcopal Church
2. National Baptist Convention
3. Unitarian - Universalist
4. Church of God in Christ
5. Atheist

Matching the overall American are the Roman Catholic Church, Episcopal, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Seventh Day Adventists.


Historically, Catholics have voted more Democrat than the average American, but recently they have become more average. Historically, Catholic politicians have been more likely to be liberal Democrats although that too has recently begun to change.



- Josiah

 

[Lamb]

The area where I grew up had Republican Catholics since Catholics are mainly Pro-Life.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The area where I grew up had Republican Catholics since Catholics are mainly Pro-Life.

But the Republican Party is not "pro-life" in its formal policy nor in its members' voting records. Some Democrats and some Republicans vote against abortion measures and state a desire for Roe Vs Wade to be over turned but in the decades since that decision it has never been over turned despite having Republican presidents and Republican dominated congresses for more than one half of the time since Roe Vs Wade was handed down by the USA Supreme Court.

Public opinion has been with Roe Vs Wade most of the time since the decision was handed down

(source)

 

[Josiah]

The Republican Party IS officially pro-life, this has been a key part of the Party Platform since 1976 (the first time either party officially placed this issue in their official Platform). And the vast majority of Republicans in both houses are pro-life and vote that way. And all the Republican Presidents and nominees since 1980 have been pro-life (Ford - elected in 1976 - was very unclear and neither endorsed or rejected that part of the Platform). All 17 of the Republicans that ran in the Primaries this year were pro-life.

The vast majority of Democrats in both houses are pro-abortion (it use to be the ones from the South were pro-life but that's not generally the case now). All the Democrat presidents and presidential candidates since 1976 have been pro-abortion and supportive of Roe v. Wade.

There are a FEW in both parties that don't toe the line, but they are small minorities in both parties: This is one of the issues where Party solidarity is very strong. Republican - Pro Life. Democrats - Pro Abortion.



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Republican Party IS officially pro-life, this has been a key part of the Party Platform since 1976 (the first time either party officially placed this issue in their official Platform). And the vast majority of Republicans in both houses are pro-life and vote that way. And all the Republican Presidents and nominees since 1980 have been pro-life (Ford - elected in 1976 - was very unclear and neither endorsed or rejected that part of the Platform). All 17 of the Republicans that ran in the Primaries this year were pro-life.

The vast majority of Democrats in both houses are pro-abortion (it use to be the ones from the South were pro-life but that's not generally the case now). All the Democrat presidents and presidential candidates since 1976 have been pro-abortion and supportive of Roe v. Wade.

There are a FEW in both parties that don't toe the line, but they are small minorities in both parties: This is one of the issues where Party solidarity is very strong. Republican - Pro Life. Democrats - Pro Abortion.
- Josiah

Interesting.

I checked this source, it doesn't specifically mention overturning Roe Vs Wade but it does mention a new amendment to the constitution to include a right to life for the unborn. Why hasn't that ever passed in all the years since Ronald Regan was president? Surely it could have been passed.

 

[Josiah]

The Republican Party IS officially pro-life, this has been a key part of the Party Platform since 1976 (the first time either party officially placed this issue in their official Platform). And the vast majority of Republicans in both houses are pro-life and vote that way. And all the Republican Presidents and nominees since 1980 have been pro-life (Ford - elected in 1976 - was very unclear and neither endorsed or rejected that part of the Platform). All 17 of the Republicans that ran in the Primaries this year were pro-life.

The vast majority of Democrats in both houses are pro-abortion (it use to be the ones from the South were pro-life but that's not generally the case now). All the Democrat presidents and presidential candidates since 1976 have been pro-abortion and supportive of Roe v. Wade.

There are a FEW in both parties that don't toe the line, but they are small minorities in both parties: This is one of the issues where Party solidarity is very strong. Republican - Pro Life. Democrats - Pro Abortion.


.

Interesting.

I checked this source, it doesn't specifically mention overturning Roe Vs Wade but it does mention a new amendment to the constitution to include a right to life for the unborn. Why hasn't that ever passed in all the years since Ronald Regan was president? Surely it could have been passed.

For years, the Republican Platform DID call for overturning Roe v. Wade (which would require an act of the SUPREME COURT - neither Congress or the President can do that) AND for a constitutional Pro-Life Amendment. Why hasn't such happened? Even during the times when the Republican Party had a majority in the Senate AND a Republican President who would not veto it, even then - all the Senate can do is present the Amendment to the States, the Senate CANNOT amend the Constitution, only 2/3s of the States can do that. It was never tried because Democrats always held a solid majority in over one-third of the States meaning the effort would have been totally in vain. It would pass in many states, probably most - but not the two-thirds required. It's very difficult to amend the Constitution (on purpose).

Of course, none of that impacts what I posted.



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

For years, the Republican Platform DID call for overturning Roe v. Wade (which would require an act of the SUPREME COURT - neither Congress or the President can do that) AND for a constitutional Pro-Life Amendment. Why hasn't such happened? Even during the times when the Republican Party had a majority in the Senate AND a Republican President who would not veto it, even then - all the Senate can do is present the Amendment to the States, the Senate CANNOT amend the Constitution, only 2/3s of the States can do that. It was never tried because Democrats always held a solid majority in over one-third of the States meaning the effort would have been totally in vain. It would pass in many states, probably most - but not the two-thirds required. It's very difficult to amend the Constitution (on purpose).

Of course, none of that impacts what I posted.
- Josiah

No right to life amendment was presented to the states between 1980 and now, right? Not during Regan's time as president nor Bush Snr nor Bush Jnr, that's 20 years of republican presidency and no amendment was put forward. Do the republicans really want it?

 

[Josiah]

No right to life amendment was presented to the states between 1980 and now, right? Not during Regan's time as president nor Bush Snr not Bush Jnr, that's 20 years of republican presidency and no amendment was put forward. Do the republicans really want it?

Yes, they do. And yes, the Democrats will defeat it. If the Republican Party ever has a clear majority in the Senate, a Republican president in the White House, and full control of two-thirds of the 50 States, that will very likely be presented. But to date, that hasn't happened. And even if Trump wins today and even if the Republicans hold onto the Senate today, there still will not be even close to two-thirds of the States with Republicans in control. There are political realities. And no, it's not solely up to the US Senate - indeed, it CANNOT amend the Constitution AT ALL.



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, they do. And yes, the Democrats will defeat it. If the Republican Party ever has a clear majority in the Senate, a Republican president in the White House, and full control of two-thirds of the 50 States, that will very likely be presented. But to date, that hasn't happened. And even if Trump wins today and even if the Republicans hold onto the Senate today, there still will not be even close to two-thirds of the States with Republicans in control. There are political realities. And no, it's not solely up to the US Senate - indeed, it CANNOT amend the Constitution AT ALL.
- Josiah

Time will tell. So far since Roe Vs Wade no attempt has been made by the republicans to amend the constitution to include a right to life.

 

[Josiah]

Republicans have been worked HARD to gain majorities and governorships in more states. Of course, Democrats have done the same.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Republicans have been worked HARD to gain majorities and governorships in more states. Of course, Democrats have done the same.

Your posts read like Apple executives explaining why "getting used to" their less than expected Macbook Pro models for 2016 is necessary rather than just producing a better product. Why can't the republicans put the constitutional amendment to the states and if it fails then try again and again until they win?