Can a Christian Be a Democrat?

Democrat

Every so often I do something that gets press coverage beyond the Oklahoma border.

If this coverage includes the fact that I am (a) a Democrat, and (b) pro life, I know that several commenters on whatever news story or blog my name appears are going to chime in with the opinion that no one can be both (a) a Democrat and, (b) pro life, and that I must be phony, bogus, a Judas goat and a liar. These verbal brickbats come from both sides of the political divide. 

It seems that my dual citizenship in both the Democrat and pro life political kingdoms makes me something of a universal hate object.

When it was just the abortion issue, this seemed a bit over the top. After all, the Republican party is not exactly true to the Gospels, either. Religious leaders and their followers in both the Democratic and Republican camps torture the Gospels to make the teachings of Christ conform to their political party. I see it all the time. 

However, it’s not just abortion any longer. It seems some days as if the National (as opposed to the local) Democratic Party has declared total, all-out war, not just on certain aspects of basic Christian morality, but on the First Amendment and Christianity itself. 

I stopped attending Democratic Party functions in Oklahoma a number of years back simply because it was such an unpleasant experience. I mean, who wants to go spend an evening with people who lie about you and slander you and call you names that you can’t even repeat in polite company? Why would I want to be around folks who attack my faith and tell me repeatedly in every way they can, that they want me to go away?

The question arises, if I’m not a phony about my religious beliefs and my positions on issues concerning the sanctity of human life and the family, then, why am I Democrat? Is it stubbornness, or is it stupidity?

In truth, I am stubborn.

Very. 

And I can be stupid. 

Very.

But in this instance of party affiliation it’s more complicated — or maybe more simple — than that. 

The things I described above broke my heart and made me so miserable that I did consider changing political parties. I wanted to get away from the political party that treated me like dirt. I just plain wanted out. 

I have a habit of asking God what I should do before I act on a decision this big. Sometimes I get an answer, other times, I don’t. This time I got an answer, and a strong one. I asked if I should change parties, and the answer was …

No. 

I waited a few weeks then asked again. This time, the answer was …

NO. 

A few months later, I asked one last time, and the answer was no, with an explanation that I won’t share here. 

After that, I decided to stop badgering God and accept His will. I didn’t understand it. But I knew that I could not change parties. 

And I continued to get kicked around by my fellow Democrats. And it continued to hurt me. And I wondered why God would want me to keep on taking this garbage. 

And God used me in the next few years to do things for issues such as pro life that I could not have done if I hadn’t been a Democrat.

That D after my name was like a key in a lock that turns it over, click, and opens the door. There was one time in particular where I was like a chess piece that He had moved into place and then left there until He needed me. We passed one monumental pro life bill that stopped horrible carnage only because I was a Democrat. If I had been sitting on the other side of the chamber, that bill would have died. There was a reason why I couldn’t change parties, and, in time, I saw it played out. 

The short answer to the question Can a Christian be a Democrat is, yes. In fact, I would say that He needs more Christians to be Democrats, and He needs them now more than ever before. 

Thumb throw christianity in the trash

We are now in a post Christian era in which Christians and Christian values are under attack from almost every quarter, including the political. This is, to paraphrase that great agnostic Thomas Paine, not the time for summer soldiers and sunshine patriots. These really are the times that try men’s souls.

Christians need to retreat to a life of prayer, scripture and the sacraments to build their spiritual strength. We need to find our deepest friendships with one another, where we can be accepted and loved for our faith. Then, we need to join the battle by engaging the world in a constructive, consistent and unwavering manner. 

There is no place where we should not go with our faith, including, absolutely, the Democratic Party. 

  • S.L. Hansen

    I appreciate the fact that people can be pro-life and Democrat at the same time (and we need those people to effect change in a pro-life direction within that party). I’m a registered independent because neither party lives up to Christian standards. We don’t all have to be either Democratic or Republican, you know. In fact, I think that’s why we see so much polarization in this country, because people think there area only two parties to belong to and no opportunity for independent thinking.

  • Bill S

    “We are now in a post Christian era in which Christians and Christian values are under attack from almost every quarter, including the political.”

    And the people doing the attacking are not necessarily bad people. There are legitimate reasons for standing up to the Christian Right.

  • TheodoreSeeber

    And it’s not like one can be a Catholic and Republican either.

    Catholicism doesn’t fit- and that’s why Americanism is a heresy.

    • Bill S

      Why does it sound like Americanism might actually be a good heresy? Is it because we have separation of Church and State and the pope who named that heresy probably wanted the Church to have more say in how Americans should live their lives?

      • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

        That is an ignorant remark. You are grossly wrong on Pope Leo XIII, on what he said, and on why he said it. Why am I not in the least surprised?

        • vox borealis

          Bill S is not necessarily ignorant…rather, I think he willfully misconstrues things.

        • Bill S

          “The Americanist heresy is characterized as an insistence upon individual initiative which the Vatican judged to be incompatible with what was considered to be a fundamental principle of Catholicism: obedience to authority.” – Wikipedia

          I’ll take individual initiative over having the Pope tell me how to live my life.

      • Almario Javier

        From a Catholic perspective, no heresy is ever ‘good’. And the spiritual power should obviously have the right to make moral pronouncements on how prince and pauper live their lives. Morality does not stop its message at the Pillars of Hercules.

        • Bill S

          What I mean by a good heresy is something that is actually a good thing but which is identified as a heresy by the Church. If you read about the Americanist heresy, you can see what makes this such a great country in which to live and why the Pope would have a problem with our freespiritness.

    • Sven2547

      What’s “Americanism”?

      • TheodoreSeeber

        See below for link to Wikipedia article on it.

        The modern form is being American first and Catholic second, and sublimating the teachings of the church to political party.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      I’m ahead of Rebecca again….
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanism_(heresy)

      Somebody will ask for it when their comment comes out of moderation.

      I don’t normally use wikipedia as a reference, but on many historical Catholic items, especially the lives of saints and just about everything that was once in the Catholic Encyclopedia, it’s very good.

      • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

        Theodore, Wikipedia is excellent in general. The only times you have to be suspicious is over a controversial issue. If it’s not controversial, Wikipedia beats out all encyclopeidas.

  • FW Ken

    My dad was a yellow-dog Democrat, as we say here in Texas. Of course, in those days, elections were decided in the primaries, usually between two conservative Dems or a conservative and a liberal (relatively liberal, that is). The older I get, the more like my dad I am, but now the devotion of the Dems to the culture of death is too much for me. Politically, I call myself a militant moderate, which means libs call me conservative and conservatives call me liberal. This pleases me.

    I agree with other commenters that it is hard for a Catholic to be a Republican or a Democrat. But then, I’ve always said the difference is which which deadly sins they ignore and which they promote.

    • Bill S

      It seems that one side ignores Greed and Gluttony and the other Lust and Sloth. Pride, Envy and Wrath seem to rear their ugliness in all of us.

      • TheodoreSeeber

        My goodness, something I agree with Bill S. on

  • Allison Grace

    This surprises me and leaves me quiet (Ha!). I’ve read your articles for months now, learning and liking you without ever checking what party you were with. So darn, you’ve messed up my box. This is where the world wide web is good for me: making me think and consider and stretch outside my box. Thank you. (And I still like you and will continue reading!)

    • hamiltonr

      Thanks Allison. I would hate to lose another homeschooler!

    • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

      Well said. Tragically, as I have just been reminded, for many people it is just the opposite: a place to pick and shop for the views closest to yours.

  • Ryan Hite

    I think it was mentioned to supporters of Gary Johnson that Catholics are Libertarian and don’t realize it… I’m just a little confused as to how Catholicism and Lobertarianism are compatible, but some points are made like religious freedom and smaller government infraction on moral issues and religious institutions.

    • FW Ken

      There are some incompatibilities. The whole of Catholic social teaching does allow for the government to be an agent for the common good, although conservative rhetoric for the past 30+ years has leaned heavily towards “government is the problem, not the solution”. Now that was a reaction, I think, to the Johnson Great Society, which seemed to posit that government is THE solution. I’m not interested in whether that’s a fair perception, but it was a perception. Another incompatibility, I think, is that the Libertarian focuses on the individual as an isolated, autonomous being, with government representing a totalitarian subjection of the individual. That’s broad brush, extreme, Ayn Randian ideology, and I’m pretty sure that Libertarians come on a scale relative to the extreme, but I think libertarianism is on that scale. The Catholic vision, on the other hand, is of the individual, precious to God, integrated into the community that lives under God. It’s on a different “scale” altogether than libertarianism.
      I’m not an expert, although I had my Ayn Rand phase and thought of myself as a libertarian at one time. But that was a long time ago.

      • TheodoreSeeber

        Cardinal Reinhard Marx put it best to me. Good subsidiarity in solidarity is block grants in his mind- instead of food stamps, a church or a city or a county petitions to run a food bank, and is given a block grant to do so. The role of the government is to manage the block grants.

        • FW Ken

          I really like that,Ted, though with a couple of caveats.
          Federal block grants should be limited to ensuring that a poorer state has the resources to enact whatever kind of food program it chooses to enact. Leaving as much of the actual funding as close to the source as possibly is prudent.
          Second, I am leery of faith-based initiatives taking government money. I worked at Catholic Charities and saw the spiritual evisceration that can occur. We use a plastic card in Texas for food stamps, and it has wiped out a lot of the fraud that was taking place. Of course, you see people using the card for eligible items, then buying non-eligible items with cash, but better that then hunger.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            Card. Marx is German. His government has run differently on this for a long, long time.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      I know it was just a typo, but I find it really funny picturing Ayn Rand as a Lobster.

  • vox borealis

    Neither major political party matches well with Catholicism in practice. But at least the Republican party’s national platform (is not inherently contradictory to Catholic teaching, whereas the Democrat party’s national platform—the party creed, as it were—contains tenets that are explicitly contradictory to Church teaching teaching. The American party system does allow individual politicians greater freedom to stray from the party line on individual issues, that is true. Nevertheless, I can see no way one can be a practicing Catholic, adhering to Church teaching, and remain in the Democrat party: to remain would compel the individual to be untrue either to the faith or the party. On the other hand, it appears that adhering to the faith more easily fits within the Republican platform, at least theoretically.

    • Sus_1

      Someone can belong to a political party and not agree with everything the party represents.

      Some people say republicans are not pro-life because they favor capital punishment. It could be said that they aren’t pro-life after the baby is born because they are in favor of cutting welfare benefits which would affect children having enough to eat.

      Republicans don’t believe everyone should have equal access to health care. To me, that isn’t pro-life.

      It goes both ways with democrats and republicans.

      Being a “cafeteria” democrat or republican is not the same thing as being a cafeteria Catholic. I have never voted for anyone that I agreed with 100% of their views.

      • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

        May I ask where Republicans have said they are going to cut off child support welfare after a child is born? May I ask where Republicans have said that everyone shouldn’t have equal access to health care? You should either stop mouthing the opposition talking points or use your language more precisely.

        • TheodoreSeeber
          • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

            First off that’s not a Republican statement. Second, no where does it say they were going to cut off welfare. It says they were to reduce it. How much is enough is a matter of judgement. The bottom line is that no one will go without food and no one will go without a roof over their heads. The more you give, the more landlords charge. The price rises to the money available.

            • TheodoreSeeber

              The line item in Paul Ryan’s budget for WIC is 0.

        • cary_w

          Actions speak louder than words. It may not be explicitly stated in the party platform, but look at what they passed in Texas and other places they have power. How is that not cutting welfare and decreasing access to health care?

          • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

            First off poor people have medicaid. So they have access to health care. Second, no one is going without food or shelter.

            • TheodoreSeeber
              • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

                That’s a temporary condition as they get through the system. Or they so choose to be homeless. Every state in the country has a welfare system.

                • TheodoreSeeber

                  There are holes in every safety net. A common one in Oregon is literacy- if you’re too mentally ill or not educated well enough to navigate the 20 page application for food stamps, well, no welfare for you, for instance. Section 8 in my state also includes filing fees- if you are homeless and out of money, exactly how are you supposed to come up with a filing fee?

                  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

                    Yeah, there are. Nothing in life is perfect. You make the mistake that government is there to help. Charity is there to help. Government is there to establish power.

                    • TheodoreSeeber

                      Government should be able to help Charities without taking power. And in fact, outside of America, does so all the time.

            • Sus_1

              Many poor people are not eligible for medicaid and go without health care. The working poor often go without healthcare. Emergency departments have to treat emergencies. They can diagnose cancer but they can’t treat the cancer. If you are uninsured you have to prove to the cancer treatment center that you can pay for the treatment or they send you on your way.

              I don’t know where you live but the homeless shelters here often fill up which means the people have no shelter.

              • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

                People in shelters are temporary as they work their way through the welfare system. The only legitament issue you raise are the working poor who cannot get healthcare. I am sympathetic to that, so if we want to cut other aspects of government I think we could pay for them, given the right insurance system. Those poor without medical insurance is about 10-15 million. They do get emergency care. So tell me how Obama addressed the issue when he’s got an individual mandate they have to pay and which they can’t afford? Yes we need a revision to the system, but not Obama’s revision.

                • TheodoreSeeber

                  I don’t know about elsewhere in the country- but in Portland there are three homeless for every shelter bed.

                • Damien S.

                  “So tell me how Obama addressed the issue when he’s got an individual mandate they have to pay and which they can’t afford?”

                  Congress addressed it by expanding Medicaid eligibility for the poorest, and created generous subsidies so that the not-so-poor would be helped to buy insurance.

                  Of course, several Republican governors refused Medicaid expansion, so people in their states between 100-133% of the poverty level will be left without Medicaid or subsidies meant for their income level.

                  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

                    The whole thing is financially untenable as you can see with the delays. I don’t believe Obamacare is ever going to happen. If raising taxes to pay for Obamacare is going to push jobs out of the state, i don’t blame any Gov for refusing.

              • FW Ken

                Sus -
                That’s just not true in my community. As I posted on another thread, we have a top flight trauma center and hospital, with local clinics around the county and all the standard specialty services (including a cancer center and women’s health center). Urban areas generally have similar systems, and the rural areas contract with the urban areas for indigent services. My poor clients have health care equal to, and sometimes better than my insurance paid care. And to be honest, the property taxes I pay for all that are the best money I spend. The public school and junior colleges, on the other hand, are serious money wasters.
                Homeless shelters are, by definition, “shelter”. I’ve worked in the large shelter here in Fort Worth. I started and ran a program for homeless folks with mental illness, and have a known a lot of homeless people. These figures are old, but I’ll bet they are good. About 35% of homeless people have a diagnosis of mental illness. About 85% have a substance abuse problem. Both of those conditions are treatable, and it’s grossly dehumanizing to ignore the fact that people are making choices about their lives, just as you and I are. They are not objects of pity or social manipulation: they are human beings.

                • Sus_1

                  In order to get access to the indigent
                  programs, you have to be truly indigent. You can’t own a home. You can’t have money in savings. You are eligible for the indigent services only after you have exhausted everything you have.

                  One cancer illness can cost $350,000. I
                  have the bills to prove it. Thankfully, I have great but very
                  expensive insurance.

                  I helped someone a few months ago try to get health care. They had been sick for a few weeks with what seemed like a bad cold but kept getting worse. She has no insurance and no money. I spent hours on the phone trying to find a place that could see her. I found two free clinics but one had a 6 week wait for an appointment and the other wouldn’t see her because she wasn’t on medicaid. I got sick of it and lied to her and said my doctor would see her for free. I paid $100 for the appointment. They gave me a $75 discount. Turns out she had a bad case of strep. The prescription was $55 until I told the pharmacist what the deal was. He let me have it for $25.

                  If you don’t have money or you don’t have insurance you are screwed if you get sick in this country.

                  I hear you about choices and
                  homelessness.

                  • FW Ken

                    Well, yes, indigent services are for the indigent. Here, your friend could have come to the Urgent Care clinic (LifeSpan, I think they call it now) and been seen in a few hours, with a $5 or $10 co-pay for the medication. Not being indigent, she would have gotten a bill, which she is free to ignore or pay off at a few dollars a month. She would also be able to go to my parish, in the hospital district, and gotten help.

                    Again, cancer treatment is readily available, pay as you are able. If your community doesn’t have this sort of arrangement, I suggest you get politically involved and get one going. My mother got involved and got special education going 40 years ago, mainly because of my handicapped brother.

                    If a place like Texas can have these things, I can’t imagine that anyone wouldn’t.

          • FW Ken

            How are filthy, substandard faux-medical facilities “health care”? How is infanticide, excuse me, “post-birth abortion”, health care?

            Anyway, you are changing the subject, which was welfare. Although that discussion is based on Sus’ making false claims about Republicans and being pro-life. It’s one thing to believe in universal health care and another to endorse specific programs. Reasonable people can disagree about policy solutions.

            Unfortunately, that takes reasonable people on both sides of the discussion.

      • vox borealis

        Where in the republican national party platform does it say that the party supports the death penalty? Where in the Republican party platform does it state explicitly that everyone should not have equal access to health care?

        Now, go read the Democrat party national platform, and you *will* see explicit support for Roe v. Wade and other things that *explicitly* contradict church teaching.

        Also, we are not talking about *voting*, we are talking about party membership. I am *not* a Republican, though my votes may lean that way. Based on the party platform—the official stand of the party at the national level—I *could join the party in good conscience, even if the many candidates are imperfect. However, I could *never* register as a Democrat because the party, by its own definition, is explicitly against the Church on a number of issues. I may, however, vote for some Democrat candidates if I feel they as individuals are the best choice.

        So what I am saying here and in my original comment is that, because of the Democrat party’s own decision to make certain positions planks of their national platform, it is not possible for a Catholic to “be” a Democrat…the party has left them.

        • Damien S.

          “Where in the republican national party platform does it say that the party supports the death penalty?”

          On page 37 of the PDF you can download from http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/

          “Courts should have the option of imposing the death penalty in capital murder cases”

          You were saying?

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    I don’t think the criteria for parties are whether they are true to the Godspel or not. First of all no human being is true to the Godspel or we wouldn’t sin. But a political party has an even more difficult hurdle in that it has to synthesize the views of vast numbers of diverse people, including various different religions. The real criteria for me is whether a political party is sympathetic or hostile to religion in general. I do believe the Republican Party is more sympathetic to religion than the Democratic party. Sure the Republican party bumbles their way through issues, but within its core leadership there is an awareness that they must respond to religious sensitivities or they are going to get kicked out the door. It would be unfair for me to say that the Democratic Party as a whole is anti religious. But there is no question that a large part of the Democratic Party is hostile to religion, and as a party they do not feel the need to respond to religious sensitivities. That has become most evident with President Obama. And I mean really, they boo’d God at their convention. That means something.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_renewing/#Item18

      That’s where the Republican Platform specifically mentions the Death Penalty.

      • Sus_1

        Thank you for both links Ted. Much better than the ones I would have posted.

      • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny
        • TheodoreSeeber

          I can’t in the United States because we have the technology to make it unnecessary (I also support such cruel and unusual punishments such as implanted GPS tagging and life in solitary confinement as alternatives).

          I do admit that it is in fact useful to keeping law and order in less than ideal situations (such as where your level of technology only allows you to build a prison that somebody can Dig their way out of with their bare hands

    • cary_w

      When you say the Republican Party is more sympathetic to religion, I think you need to define which religion. Their stance against gay marriage is certainly not sympathetic to the religions and individual churches that have been accepting and performing gay marriages for decades. They are only sympathetic to their own narrowly defined “true” version of Christianity.

      • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

        Sorry to burst your bubble, but gay marriage is antithetical to the TRUE version of Christianity, the version that has not been modified in recent decades as you claim but for several millenium.

        • cary_w

          So, any Christian church that performs gay weddings is not a “true” Christian church. I think those churches would strongly disagree with you!

          And it begs the question: who gets to decide which churches are “true” Christian? You? The pope? Is there a set of guidelines on the Internet somewhere? Is your own church the only “true” one and everyone else is wrong?

          If you are going to argue that the Republican Party is sympathetic to religion you need to ensure that they are sympathetic and tolerant to ALL religions, not just yours.

          • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

            Any Christian church that performs a gay wedding is certainly suspect. Actually it’s laughable. As to the republican Party, I don’t think I ever used the word tolerant. All I said was that it’s more sympathetic to religion. That doesn’t mean they carry out the wishes of religions or any particular religion. They are sensitive to the issues. A political party has to synthesize the views of large swaths of people. Unless the country was to be 90% Catholic or even 90% devout Christian it cannot be in synch with all religious views. Sympathetic means that at worst it will listen and not enact policy that harms the free exercise of religion.

          • FW Ken

            What constitutes a “real Christian church” is a discussion that has been going on for 2000 years. But where are the Montanists, Marcionists, Sebellians, Arians, and so on? Arian churches, at least, persisted for up to 700 years, longer than Anglicanism, Methodism, or the Baptists.

            “… who gets to say…”

            Well, that’s the question isn’t it. My Church History professor – an Episcopalian, said that the difference between Protestant and Catholic lies in two questions: How does Grace get to us and save us? And… Who says what the Word of God is?”

            In other words, it boils down to soteriology and authority.

            The interesting thing about the hot button issues – abortion and same-sex “marriage” is their cancerous nature. Particularly, we are already seeing legal violence against Christians, but also physical violence, as with the Seattle case, and this murder:

            http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bishop-catholic-mom-murdered-gay-man-died-martyr-her-faith

    • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

      Yikes, I can’t spell…lol. It’s Gospel, not Godspel.

  • Sven2547

    It seems some days as if the National (as opposed to the local) Democratic Party has declared total, all-out war, not just on certain aspects of basic Christian morality, but on the First Amendment and Christianity itself.

    Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. –Ralph Waldo Emerson

    It’s no secret that some Christians cry foul when liberals and/or Democrats support marriage equality, women’s health choices, public healthcare, non-preferential treatment of businesses, etc etc. But not one of those things is based on any desire to attack Christianity (remember: most liberals and Democrats are Christians too), nor are any of them an attack on the First Amendment.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      If they aren’t based on a desire to attack Christianity, then why force Christians to do them?

      After all, if liberals really wanted to provide contraception for free, Planned Parenthood could just buy out Trojan and Women’s Capital Corporation and run those businesses at a loss for free.

  • cary_w

    There are two thing I find very surprising in this post. The first is that you found a dichotomy between being a Christian and a democrat. As a lifelong democrat quickly approaching 50, I have found the exact opposite to be true. I’ll admit I don’t know the religion of many of the democrats I’ve worked with, but the vast majority of those whoes religion I know are Christians, and many of those I don’t know could easily be Christian, and I have only very rarely heard anyone say anything that is even remotely anti-Christian. I am sorry that you have expirianced such hate in the Democratic Party, and I hope you realize it’s not the same everywhere. I live in Utah, not Oklahoma, so maybe things are different here, it’s not uncommon for Utah to be quite different from the rest of the country.

    The second thing that suprises me is that you have not found more pro-lifers among your fellow democrats. You say you are pro-life because you believe in the sanctity of human life. I believe if you dug a little deeper into the views of other democrats you would find that many of them share these views. They may not be willing to call themselves pro-life because they disagree with most of the current pro-life legislation, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have deep personal beliefs about the sanctity of life.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      ” They may not be willing to call themselves pro-life because they disagree with most of the current pro-life legislation, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have deep personal beliefs about the sanctity of life.”

      Actually, I’ve yet to meet very many pro-life Democrats at all. The few I do meet who have some inkling of the sanctity of life don’t hold it very sacred; they’re usually “I wouldn’t get an abortion but I can’t tell somebody else not to” pro-choicers. That isn’t holding life to be sacred at all.

  • Quid

    I think you’re making a mistake to classify your political affiliation with your religion. Catholicism is what defines me. My political affiliation is an informed opinion on what I think is best for the country, whether that coincides with the Democratic party or the Republican, but I wouldn’t define myself as either one.

    The difference is being Catholic requires faith and trust that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and free from error. The Church couldn’t declare dogmatically that the Democrats are right or moral: She can declare that abortion is intrinsically wrong, or gay “marriage” but certainly not a political party as a whole.

    That’s why there’s nothing wrong with being Catholic and Democratic, as long as the essence of the party does not directly contradict Catholicism, like Communism would, for example.

    The Democratic party tends to support immoral causes like contraception and abortion. Provided you continue to oppose these, you can remain Catholic and Democratic.

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    Oh yeah, states are have lots of money. In what planet are you talking about.

  • A Guy Kerr

    I have to disagree. The Democrat party of today is not the Democrat party of JFK. The Democrat party today, as a whole, says it is ok to kill unborn babies. Or like Barrack Obama voted, it is ok to kill a living baby in a botched abortion. I know that there can be Democrats who don’t agree with abortions, but the party does. This is the same party that took God out of their convention. Democrats as a whole says it is ok for two men or two women to be married. Regardless of what the pope says, the Bible says this is wrong. So even though there might be those in the Democrat party who say they are Christians, I would have to argue that you are putting a political party in front of God’s word. It doesn’t mean you have to be a Republican either. Both parties have their problems and have no right to claim that they represent God. However, if you are going to vote for the group that most aligns itself with what God’s word teaches, then you would more times than not have to vote Republican.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X