Come on Mark, tell us how you really feel about the Republican party and the current political atmosphere.

Well, when going to the voting booth should I vote for the party that activley seeks to FURTHER ADVANCE abortion, same sex “marriage,” euthanasia, and fetal stem cell research….OR…...do I vote for the party who’s platform is against all those above listed intrinsic evils, and support the pro-life position “at an arms length?”

And, there are those who say if you vote for the 3rd party, you’re just taking a vote away from the Republican party; therefore actually supporting the “culture of death” Democrats.

Ahhh thanks for summing up all my feelings on the matter.

Hiding one’s head in the sand doesn’t address nor resolve the problem. We should demand more of our politicians and hold them to their word when they reneg on their promises.  It’s our own fault for not paying attention adn letting them get away with it.  It’s our duty, responsibility and right to participate in our representative republic. Thanks for making us think (again!) Mark.

And, there are those who say if you vote for the 3rd party, you’re just taking a vote away from the Republican party; therefore actually supporting the “culture of death” Democrats.

Yes.  They are called “Republican politicians” and it is one of their favorite lies.  In fact, voting for a third party candidate is… voting for a third party candidate, not voting for a Democrat.

Well,  a third party candidate hasn’t won an election since Andrew Jackson (and there weren’t Democrats and Republicans then.) 

So, if a third party wins an election in the next 100 years, you can tell me I was wrong!

I made no predictions about third party candidates winning.  However, I’m willing to bet that the way to go about seeing that they do is by voting for them and not by continuing to vote for major parties who play us for suckers and continue to tell us that it’s hopeless to vote for anybody but them.  In the words of Henry Ford, “Whether you think you can or you think you can’t, you’re right.”

Well, how about “I think I like 7Up better than either Coke or Pepsi,” or “I prefer Wendy’s to either McDonalds or Burger King.” By refusing to choose either of the main contenders, you’re telling me I am choosing one or the other by default? If I became Eastern Orthodox instead of either Catholic or Protestant, would I be crypto-Catholic or latent-Lutheran? (Well, maybe that third example was uncalled for. . . )

. . . or perhaps it’s the old “finite piece of pie,” where if I make a profit, I steal from a poor person? Or , if I shop at Walmart, I deprive an American?

Mark, really for a true pro-life third party candidate to win the election, and overturn Roe v Wade…nothing would make me happier.

I just don’t share your “democrat vs republican = stupid, evil party vs. evil stupid party” thoughts. 

I can understand frustration that the republicans haven’t gotten as much done as we’d like, but to say that republicans are “almost equal” to democrats when it comes to pro-life issues, it’s just not true.

Mark - there is only one reason you have the Supreme Court judges you named sitting on the court—- pro-abort Democrat Catholic Senators who either ran the Senate confirmation hearings or threatened to filibuster them breaking a historical precedent in order to keep a suspected prolife judge off the bench, in which case the prolife Senators would not have the votes to cut off the filibuster.

You’re right, you are not the one that should be asking the question.  Your standards are too high for mere mortals, especially politicians. 

But knowing where you are coming from, I think what you would like to know the answer to is a two-part question: Why do they think abortion-on-demand remains the law-of-the-land some thirty-two years AFTER the Republican Party added a plank to their platform in support of a Right-To-Life Constitutional Amendment; and what, in your opinion, is it going to take to make that a reality?

SB:

The GOP owned the White House and the Congress when Bush nominated Roberts and Alito, who have made clear they regard Roe as “settled law”.  That, of course, was after Bush’s *first* pick, the pro-choice (but usefully sycophatic) Harriet Miers.

Don’t kid yourself.  The GOP has no intention of *ever* overturning Roe, much less a Right to Life Amendment.  No. Intention. Whatsoever.

As long as Catholics keep talking as though expecting a politician to be minimally committed to absolute minimum standards of human morality is “too high for mere mortals”, we will continue to get the leaders we richly deserve.

I’m not asking for Mother Teresa here; just pols who don’t ask me to support actions and policies that are worthy of hell.  If we are fine with GOP pols who do this, what on earth makes us think that Catholics who vote for Dems who advocate hellworthy policies are going to feel obliged to change?  They can drag out the “Your standards are too high for mere mortals, especially politicians.” line too.  In fact, that’s exactly what they do.

Katy said:  And, there are those who say if you vote for the 3rd party, you’re just taking a vote away from the Republican party; therefore actually supporting the “culture of death” Democrats.

And Mark’s answer was:  Yes.  They are called “Republican politicians” and it is one of their favorite lies.  In fact, voting for a third party candidate is… voting for a third party candidate, not voting for a Democrat.

Oh, Mark, don’t tell me you are THAT naïve.  How did we get Bill Clinton as President for two terms – he never ever got more than 48% of the votes.  That means 52% of the voters wanted somebody else other than Clinton.  Why didn’t those 52% anti-Clinton voters get that someone else?  Because a third, Independent candidate siphoned 15 to 20% of those votes off the other main party candidate, resulting in the Democrat winning.  It is just plain political reality, if you don’t vote for somebody, your vote is against them.  And what prolife judges did Clinton nominate for the Supreme Court in those 8 years?

Mark, it is sad you have such a negative outlook on some of the most decent people in government who are working to bring about a better life for people, starting with a majority who believe in a Constitutional Right to Life, and continuing on to a life of liberty and freedom to pursue happiness, including praying in public schools and keeping marriage between one man and one woman.  I’m not into kicking mud into those people’s pathways.  I know who the evil ones are, and it isn’t them.

SB:

My view of American politics isn’t as Manichaean as yours.  I don’t think the average GOP pol is “evil”, nor do I think the average Dem is “evil”.

I’m not sure whom you are naming as the majority who believe in a Constitutional amendment.  If its the GOP pols who dominated the Executive and legislative branches for eight years, they have a funny way of showing it.  They promised prolife action.  They delivered absolute bare minimum results and then got to work on what really interested them, namely war, torture and inept mismanagement of the economy.  I’m done supporting the lesser of two evils.  That’s still supporting evil.

Maybe we need to look at the abortion issue from a different angle.  It is first and foremost a moral issue.  We can pass all the laws and restrictions we want to make it illegal, but if we fail to convince our fellow children of God, and brothers and sisters in Christ, of the inherent evil in the act of abortion, the desire to have one when we feel the need, and the lack of awareness of the sanctity and holiness of *all* human life,then the laws accomplish nothing but making abortion illegal(a noble thing in itself).  however, the greater issue is to use the gospel of life to reveal God’s ultimate plan for us as our mirror image of Him.  If we fail to do that, everything else is window dressing.  We will save lives, (again a good thing),but the darkened souls and hardened hearts of pro-abortion people will still suffer from the delusion that the taking of a human life at any stage is wrong and leads to spiritual death.

re: Mark, “I’m done supporting the lesser of two evils.” 

Then you are going against the very Church you claim to be fighting for, whose precepts you think you are defending.  And you are turning your back on what Pope John Paul II said in Christifideles Laici concerning this very situation: “The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life.  Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights – for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture – is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination….”

What part of “maximum determination” do you not understand?  Is 52,000,000 murdered babies not enough reason to work to get church-going Catholics to stop feeding the beast?  Look what they got for love for the Democrat Party; health care that will now give the born the same rights and protection as the unborn has, and at a higher cost; housing that brought down financial institutions and the stock market, wiping out peoples retirements and sent us into a recession that has put millions out of work; work – unions that wrecked the automobile and steel industries and the public education system, and now have given us, in less than twenty-five years, government employee unions that have bought the Democrat Party legislators which resulted in government workers making twice as much money a year paid with our tax dolllars as similar workers in the private sector paid with customers voluntary purchase, as well as with Cadillac health care and retirement plans on top of their high wages; families where welfare has destroyed the fabric of marriage and parenting, especially in the black neighborhoods; and a culture, including the clergy, that sleeps peacefully at night after going to Mass and Communion on Sundays with over have of them pleased with themselves for the political party they love and vote for that is responsible for the tens of millions of murdered babies continuing.

Go ahead, Mark, feeling good about yourself - not results - is what really counts in this spiritual war that is affecting every aspect of our lives.  Disregard what the JP II says about “maximum determination,” and what the bishops say about the “lesser of two evils.”

I know what my question is…..“are you glad your mother didn’t abort you?”

These days, the big wars over abortion are over Supreme Court Justices, and as hard as it may be to hear, that war is a war between the parties - Republican and Democrat. Republicans favor judges who interpret the constitution narrowly and don’t “discover” new rights (like the right to privacy, abortion, etc). So if I know a pro-choice Republican is almost certain to vote to confirm a Justice who doesn’t believe in legislating from the bench (which Roe vs Wade despicably did), that’s the result I care about.

If there’s a Democrat who’s down-the-line prolife, this is generally a wolf in sheep’s clothing on the only real issue that matters abortion-wise: will he vote for a Justice who interprets the Constitutions “intentions” so broadly that Roe vs Wade and a host of other unconstitutional monstrosities will be upheld? Almost certainly he will, regardless of his prolife credentials. When his party needs him to vote for the next Justice Sotomayor, he’ll be there. So I don’t care how prolife he says he is - I care which PARTY is most prolife. A political party being generally on the right side matters more than one politician.

It’s a messy business, and yes we need to advocate for the most prolife positions we can get out of Republicans, but at the end of the day, we’re going to have to hold our nose a whole lot and compromise countless times. The other side is quite willing to do that - that’s why they’ve gained the ground they have in the last half-century.

I’m beginning to think this Mark Shea is a closet liberal demacrat. It’s from the liberal media playbook to make false accusations against republicans and encourage republicans to vote 3rd party wich always helps demacrats.

I’m beginning to think this Mark Shea is a closet liberal demacrat. It’s from the liberal media playbook to make false accusations against republicans and encourage republicans to vote 3rd party wich always helps demacrats.

Oh please.  In 2000, it was Democrats voting for Nader who were accused of giving the election to Bush.  Is it really inconceivable that I might have a moral reason for refusing to support intrinsic grave evil from either party?  I’m not a “closet Democrat” (whatever that means).  I’m a Catholic.  I’ve decided I’m sick of being played by the two parties and asked to support grave intrinsic evil.  That’s really all it is.  Refusal to vote Republican is not mentioned as a sin anywhere in the Catechism.  Conflation of a political party with the kingdom of God however, is warned against by the tradition as “secular messianism”.

Disclaimer: I am not a citizen of the USA, nor have I ever voted there. In Australia we can vote for a third party BUT the preference system means that our vote always ends up with one or another of the tow main parties anyway. Voting is compulsory here too, so our choices are a)vote for one of the two major parties, b) show up and ‘donkey vote’ (cast an illigimate vote) or c) pay the fine for not voting.

We have the same dillemma here that Mark mentions. Voting for the “we are not quite as evil as those other guys” party always leaves a bad taste in the mouth so I have devised my own solution. Soemoen above complained that a vote not cast for Republicans means a vote cast for Democrats (in other words they win because the Republicans didn’t). Good! If they haven’t listened to you in 30 years then it’s time to kick them where it hurts most (kick them right in the ballots) until they stop playing games and come to the party with some REAL policies. Rather than accept the ‘lesser evil’ of a slightly less evil party I say accept the lesser evil of a short Democrat term while the Republicans finally figure out they have to produce a prolife policy to get the prolife vote.

Here’s an indisputable recording of pro-life voting records.  Please go to http://capwiz.com/nrlc/issues/  and click on “Key Votes.”  There are hundreds of pro-life bills listed.  Clicking on them shows how Democrats and Republicans voted on them.

Again, I understand your frustration,but to say that Republicans are “almost equal” to Democrats when it comes to pro-life issues, it’s just not true.

I would press them on making the Hyde Amendment permanent.

What part of “maximum determination” do you not understand?

I think this is precisely the question Mark (and I) would pose to the GOP politicians who have been elected on a pro-life vote.

Personally, I don’t understand the part of it that compels me to continue to elect politicians from a party that has not yet achieved any pro-life results.

What portion of “maximum determination” do you think is accounted for by voting for, say, Scott Brown?

Peter -

You may not be familiar with our federal government.  The Congress makes the laws and spends the money.  The President runs the Executive Office and signs or vetos legislation passed by both houses in the Congress. The Supreme Court decides cases of law based on the U.S. Constitution, or they are supposed to.  The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  The President also nominates people to federal judgeships including the highest court in the nation - the Supreme Court.  But the U.S. Senate, which is the upper house of Congress, gets to vote on the President’s nominations.  When Republican Presidents nominated people to sit on the Supreme Court that the pro-abortion senators suspected would vote to overturn the 1973 Roe v Wade decision, those senators (always Democrats, some even Catholic) were able to block such presidential appointments.

  The pro-abortion party was able to do that for three reasons.  One, they were in the majority and were running the Senate hearings.  Two, they had enough members to filibuster the nomination and block any Senate business, something the U.S. Senate never did with Supreme Court nominations before.  But the Democrats threatened to do it when abortion became the political issue it did the past 37 years.  Three, the pro-abortion party; i.e., the Democrat Party, knew there would not be any outcry and backlash for blocking potential prolife/anti-abortion nominations from their largest voting block because the Catholic bishops provided them cover by expanding the meaning of “prolife” to include political issues that Catholics believed, wrongly, the Democrat Party was “more moral” on.

So, the nature of our federal governmental system prevented Republican Presidents from having the justices they wanted on the Federal Benches that would have led to overturning the 1973 abortion decision.  By Catholics continuing to vote for the pro-abortion party, they are responsible for abortion-on-demand remaining the law-of-the-land.  And the U.S. bishops and clergy are allowing the their flock to blaspheme the Holy Spirit by leading them in reciting their Profession of Faith while giving their name identification and their votes to the Democrat Party that is diabolically opposed to what those bishops, clergy, and Catholics say they believe every Sunday Ironic, isn’t it?

<<And, there are those who say if you vote for the 3rd party, you’re just taking a vote away from the Republican party; therefore actually supporting the “culture of death” Democrats.

Yes.  They are called “Republican politicians” and it is one of their favorite lies.  In fact, voting for a third party candidate is… voting for a third party candidate, not voting for a Democrat. >>

Not exactly true, especially if you don’t live in a swing state.  If I lived in NY, HI, CA or some other predictable state—voting either Republican or Democrat is throwing your vote away

I’m with Mark.  The lesser of two evils is still evil.  30 years of promises and no progress.  Fool me once, shame on you, fool me 30 times, shame on me.

For me, the point of voting third party is not to get a third party candidate elected.  I don’t think it is realistically possible and even if it were possible, I’m not sure that it would work well in a system where two parties are so entrenched.  The point in voting third party is to change the other two.  Imagine what the Republicans would do if they knew that if they didn’t start getting results, the pro-life vote would go elsewhere?  Imagine what the Democrats would do if the knew that if they didn’t make room in the party for a genuine pro-life position that they would lose most of the Catholic, compromising vote?

This is the point of the third-party vote, to move the other two.  If all of us who found the two major parties evil and eviler, or even just evil and disappointing started voting with our feet, the parties would have to follow us.

JohnMcG said, “I would press them on making the Hyde Amendment permanent.”

So, JohhMcG, just how should they (Republicans) do that?  Catholic voters helped give the first pro-abortion, pro-infanticide, and I might add, the first full blown liar President ever - a super majority in the Congress.  As such, the party in control of Congress operates the day to day function of law making.  If the leadership doesn’t want to talk about something, it doesn’t get talked about.  If the majority party doesn’t want to hear anything from the minority party, they don’t.  Just look what they did with Obamacare, Democrats conducted meetings in which the minority party was LOCKED out. 

Oh, and Scott Brown’s election stopped the Democrat’s passage of Obamacare which would give the BORN the same right to life that the Democrats give the unborn.  Brown’s election also did one other positive thing – it forced the Democrat Congress Members to become even more despicable, if that were possible, and exposed their disregard for decency and the American democracy men have died for, by skirting the traditional way of passing legislation to thrust Obamacare on us anyway.  So, while many of us may have avoided being aborted, because we were born before abortion was legalized, and the rest escaped being aborted, thanks to their mothers, we now can all look forward to finding out what it is going to be like when Obamacare denies us our life saving operation because we are not in their determined “wanted” subgroup.

Stilbelieve - your comments and explanations are spot on!

Wineinthewater - I’d like to comment on 2 points that you made:

1) “Imagine what the Democrats would do if they knew that if they didn’t make room in the party for a genuine pro-life position that they would lose most of the Catholic, compromising vote?”

Whether you put “Democrat” or “Republican” in that sentance, I would have to say that the change needs to come from WITHIN the CATHOLIC CHURCH.  I forget the exact percentage, but I believe it was something like 64% of all Catholics voted for Obama.  I think we need to reach the CATHOLICS (nominal, marginal Catholics) and help them understand WHY abortion is evil.  THEN we’ll have the clout to worry Dems and Republicans.

2)“If all of us who found the two major parties evil and eviler, or even just evil and disappointing started voting with our feet, the parties would have to follow us. ” 

I MUCH prefer your “evil and disappointing.”  I feel it’s much more accurate and fair.  And, you are right.  If Catholics voted like Catholics, and not just a bunch of Pelosi’s, Kerry’s, and Biden’s, we’d have the voting power to make some real changes.

Let me get this straight:

* The Catholics who have voted for pro-choice Democratic candidates because they prefer their positions on issues like captial punishment, war, torture, and support for the poor are very bad, and our bishops are delinquent in not telling them so.

* It’s good for Catholics to vote for pro-choice Republicans like Scott Brown because it blocked “ObamaCare.”  And if not, it exposes how evil the Democrats are, which is important.

So, in other words, exposing how awful the Democrats are is more important than witnessing for the unborn.

But not war and torture.

Good to know.

Oooohhh - to be as pure as wineinthewater and Mark - it must be heavenly!

I wonder, if we were in the military fighting a battle, if you would refuse to fight along side me because my chosen family is not as pure as you think a family is supposed to be.

The most successful third party in US history is the GOP.  The GOP was founded as the anti-slavery party in 1854, while the Whigs waffled and the Democrats were ardently pro-slavery.  The Whigs went from being in the White House in 1852 to being nonexistent in 1856, while the Republicans won in 1860 and slavery was abolished in 1865: *that’s* what can happen if people don’t except the “you’ve only got two choices: us or them” mentality.

My question to the GOP Senate candidates: “The Republican Party was founded in 1854 as the abolitionist party on the great evil of their day, slavery.  Are you an abolitionist on the great evil of our day, abortion?”

Again with the bogus “purity” sneer, SB?  I repeat.  I’m not looking for Mother Teresa, just a politician who isn’t asking me to support what the Church calls “grave and intrinisically immoral” acts.  John has your number.  Your mission has morphed from protecting the unborn to merely “being against Democrats and for Republican”—even when the Republican is zealous pro-choice, pro-Roe, pro-ESCR, and pro-torture.  If that’s “maximum determination” you can keep it.  And you can keep the sanctimony of suggesting that any criticism of such distorted priorities constitute disobedience to holy Church and sin against God.  I am under no obligation from Holy Church to vote for a candidate who supports sins directly contrary to the teaching of Holy Church.  Insisting I am is crazy talk.

The reason devout christians vote republican, compare George W.‘s 2 appt’s to the supreme court to Obamna’s 2 appt’s….........  Mark need’s to listen to Fr. Coripi.

JohnMcG – “…and our bishops are delinquent in not telling them so.” 

Our bishops created this warped, confused morality that you and Mark seem afflicted with by moving these so-called “social justice” issues under the roof of the house of prolife, so built and called to counter the pro-aborts calling themselves “pro-choice.” 

Interesting that the pro-aborts; i.e., pro-choicers, still focus on only one issue – keeping abortion legal.  They use a rifle and solid bullets in their battle.  They see their opponents and pick them off one by one.  The bishops, you and Mark want all of us to use a shot gun and then you complain that our pellets are not pure enough to take down the opponent.

re Mark - “Again with the bogus “purity” sneer, SB?

That is what you are seeking in a political party.  The bishops can’t even get that in the 2000 year old One True Church.

I was just informed that blocking “Obamacare,” or even forcing the Democrats to resort to some procedural chicanery in order to pass it, was a valid reason to support a pro-choice candidate.

Who’s confusing issues?

@ JohnMcG

Ok, time to get out the Catechism!

Intrinsic Evil = something that remains evil no matter what conditions surround it.

Abortion - Intrinsic Evil
“captial punishment, war, torture” - NOT intrinsic evil.  Sometimes even a moral duty to
            protect the innocent.

“Support for the Poor” - both party’s say they do the best job, so that’s just your personal bias.

“bishops are delinquent ” - some of them are, but many fine Bishops have spoken out (despite the threat of lossing
                tax free status.)

“it’s good for Catholics to vote for pro-choice Republicans like Scott Brown because it blocked “ObamaCare.” - Are you
kidding me?  Did you want pro-life Catholics to vote for Martha Coakley?  Brown is head and shoulders more pro-life than
Coakley.  That just doesn’t make any sense.  Did you even follow the links, and see the chart on the 2 candidates?

” So, in other words, exposing how awful the Democrats are is more important than witnessing for the unborn.”  - HUH?
Coakly favored Tax Funding for abortions, Brown opposed.  Coakly Opposed Parental Consent for Minors, Brown favored.
Coakly Opposed the Ban on Partial Birth Abortion, Brown Favored.  Coakly favored FOCA, Brown Opposed.  Coakly Opposed
Abortion Exempted from Health Care, Brown Favored.

No, people who voted for Brown (instead of Coakly) did witness for the unborn.

So once again

Abortion - intrisic Evil

“But not war and torture.”  No, not war and torture!

You’ve got a case of apples and oranges here!

So, you would have put down your gun and gone home when you learned we joined with Russia in WWII?

Brown’s Democrat opponent was far worse on the issue.

SB:

You really need to address John’s point.  You also really need to stop pretending that opposition to grave and intrinsically immoral acts is in the same moral category as disliking smoking or quibbling about a tax policy.  All your sneers result in is guaranteeing that, over time, the GOP can continue to abandon more and more of their alleged prolife convictions (they’ve already embraced ESCR and SC justices who agree that Roe is settled law) and you will continue to vote for them and denounce anybody who has a problem with their capitulations as “too pure”.  Soon, you will be enthusiastically cheering Senators who support Roe, abortion on demand, ESCR and torture, just so long as they are GOP.

Oh.  Wait.  You already do.  And you think Catholics who don’t are self-righteous and “too pure”.  Weird.

Where exactly is “using reconciliation to pass a bill” on your list of intrinsic evils?

And by the way, torture is an intrinsic evil. 

—

You were the one who said that blocking ObamaCare justified a vote for Scott Brown, not me.  It is only when cornered that you trotted out Martha Coakley’s (I agree) horrible record in order to re-spin his victory as a victory for the unborn.

If I lived in MA, I probably would have voted for Brown over Coakley.  But I wouldn’t have been happy about it, and I wouldn’t have seen his victory has something in particular to celebrate.

—

I’m not looking for purity; I’m looking for accountablity.  A previous post told me it was too much to ask to make the Hyde Amendment permanent.  That us voters must support the GOP no matter what, but they can’t be expected to do something as simple as cement an existing ban on using federal funds for abortion.

Those are hard results, not a search for theoretical purity.

The Massachusetts election was not WWII.  You’d be amazed how many things are not WWII and how many people are not Hitler.  If I’d been in Massachusetts, I’d have voted for a third party candidate, if possible.  I would not not have celebrated the election of Brown, but called it what it was: <a href=“http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?opti>a Pyrrhic victory for the prolife movement.</a>

“But not war and torture.” 

Actually, an unjust war is intrinsically immoral. You know, like the Iraq war that was condemned by two Popes and nearly all the bishops of the world. Unjust war is just another name for murder.  That’s why it’s unjust. So,by the way, is torture. (See Veritatis Splendor 80). 

Catholics who don’t reduce all of Catholic moral teaching to the question of abortion understand this.

Mark - thank God the popes and the bishops aren’t in charge of our physical safety, they have a hard enough job with our spiritual safety.

  It is easy to say whatever you want when you don’t have the responsibility to produce the results you are pontificating on. The popes and bishops can’t even get their flock to stop the 52,000,000 murders of babies, and still counting, in this country that has been going on for 37 years.  And that is a spiritual issue they are in charge of because they profess to believe in the “Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life.” Bernadin said “expanding ethic of life” to include these other issues would bring more clergy and others into the prolife movement (what made him think the clergy weren’t in it, already?).  Whether it did or not,  it didn’t help the babies because moderate and liberal Catholics had their guilty consciences assuaged by what he and the bishops did,  and “guilty conciseness” Catholics never had to leave their beloved Democrat Party because now, it too, supported “prolife” issues. 

The one thing Bernardin did succeed in was keeping the prolife (anti-abortion) movement from “falling completely under the control of the right wing conservatives” which was his main reason for adding “social justice” issues to it.  It wasn’t to save the babies, it was to save the Democrat Party that Catholics so dearly loved.  Heaven forbid if that did happen – Roe v Wade would have been overturned by now, and a Right-to-Life Constitutional Amendment would have been submitted to the States for a vote, and maybe 25,000,000 babies’ lives would have been saved.  That doesn’t even count the babies’ lives that would have had the protection of the Constitution returned to them.  And Catholics would have learned that there is life after leaving the Democrat Party – a much better life freed from the “Offenses Against Truth” and other sins of the 7th, 8th , 9th, and 10th Commandments.

stilbelieve,

If not voting for candidates who support intrinsic evils is all it takes to be pure, that is a pretty gray shade of white.  If refusing to vote for a party that has demonstrated itself to be ineffective at achieving its goals is a high standard, that would make a pretty tough game of limbo. 

I see it as a pretty low standard.  Be marginally effective and don’t advocate evil.  If asking that of our politicians is too much, then the whole system has fallen pretty far.

Thank God the popes and the bishops aren’t in charge of our physical safety, they have a hard enough job with our spiritual safety.

Shorter SB:  Ignore and heap contempt on the guidance of the Church on everything (even abortion when the candidate is Scott Brown) and uncritically vote Republican.  Deus lo Volt!

Amazing.

The one thing Bernardin did succeed in was keeping the prolife (anti-abortion) movement from “falling completely under the control of the right wing conservatives” which was his main reason for adding “social justice” issues to it.  It wasn’t to save the babies, it was to save the Democrat Party that Catholics so dearly loved.  Heaven forbid if that did happen – Roe v Wade would have been overturned by now, and a Right-to-Life Constitutional Amendment would have been submitted to the States for a vote, and maybe 25,000,000 babies’ lives would have been saved.

So… the fact that the GOP chose to do as absolutely little as possible when it controlled Congress and the White House for 8 years is due, not to the GOP (who were just sooooo helpless to enact a prolife agenda when they held all the cards), but to the dead Cardinal of Chicago?  He was so immensely powerful that he reached out from the grave and stopped the GOP from doing what they’ve promised to do for 30 years?

So then, there’s no point in voting for a GOP congress and President again because the ghostly spirit of Bernadin will keep them (somehow) from enacting a Right to life Amendment, even though they really really want to, right?

You really expect people to believe that?  If the GOP are so helpless that even *after* they get the power they want they still can’t resist the ghost of Bernardin, why do you expect them to do something this time?  You aren’t even making sense.

My question would be “Hey, could you at least buy me dinner and maybe kiss me first before you [REDACTED] your [CENSORED] in my [TOO HOT FOR TV!]?”

Mark - your, how shall I say this, lack of knowledge of the separation of powers and the Senate’s filibuster clause is sad.  To get “aye” votes is far more demanding than to get “nay.”  Short and simple.  When Holy Spirit-professing-to-believe-Catholics give their name and votes to the pro-abortion party, evil is going to win out.  Life is proving that. Bernardin’s religious/moral “explanation” for why he did what he did was an error.  But what his biographer said his reason was is accurate.  Pray all you want - God will act when His people believe and act on what they say they believe in their Profession of Faith.  The only spiritual issue in the Creed that can be reality tested is whether one believes the Holy Spirit is the Lord and the Lord is the giver of life.  That is the only essential belief a Christian must hold that can be acted on and verified in life.  Church-going Catholics, including clergy at all levels, who give their name identification and or votes to the pro-abortion party are blaspheming the Holy Spirit.  And blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the only unforgiveable sin.

So when the GOP owns the Executive and the Congress and does virtually nothing about abortion, it’s not their fault. It’s the fault of a long dead cardinal. But if a Catholic fails to vote GOP, even when it’s for a third party who is prolife against a Repub who is pro-choice, they are blaspheming the Holy Spirit?

Wow.  Just. Wow.

More common (or is it, sadly, uncommon) sense from Mark Shea ... bravo.

I think Mark’s characterization of the Republican Congress and Administration as doing “almost nothing” about abortion.  This article:

http://www.lifenews.com/nat312.html

summarizes a few things that Bush did in order to limit abortion and support other pro-life causes.  All of these things are under attack or completely rolled back under Obama. 

Admittedly, Bush and the Republicans may not be as pro-life as some would like them to be, but isn’t the standard that we are supposed to vote to limit harm? 

On the other hand, there was certainly reason to believe that McCain was a pro-life opportunist and would not have had as good a record on these issues when compared to Bush.

I might admit that voting for Republicans or other “consrvatives” who don’t do enough for pro-life causes might tend to make pro-life groups complacent and energize abortion foes.  There’s something to be said for holding out for principle.  At some point, Democracy can be a tyranny of the masses when principles are ignored.

Robert Rohn, you are right, Fr. Corapi can shed some light here!

Taken from “Form your Concience, vote your Concience” by Fr. John Corapi

“This year, more than ever, Catholics, and the entire human family, face a daunting challenge. We have to elect a president and other high ranking officials, and the choice could be a matter of life or
death for the nation. For Catholics, it is a matter of a moral mandate: form your conscience so that you can vote your wellformed conscience. It is not morally permissible to merely vote for whomever you like based on superficial or even personal preferences. The candidates have to be evaluated in the sober and pure light
of truth. Your conscience must be formed to the objective norm of that truth, which is
Church teaching in faith and morals. Since a physician needs to be concerned with
what’s sick, let’s get right to the point. It is not morally possible for any Catholic to
support ABORTION, EUTHANASIA, FETAL STEM CELL RESEARCH,
HUMAN CLONING, OR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. There are no ways around this,
no justifications whatever. Why? For the simple reason that the Church holds these things to be INTRINSICALLY EVIL. They are evil in themselves, and no circumstances or subjective conditions can ever
change that. They are not to be confused with such things as the death penalty and legitimate self-defense, which are not intrinsically evil, and which governments can, and often must, make use of. While the conditions for applying such unfortunate measures as the death penalty and WAGING WAR may be open to debate, they are not things evil in
themselves, always and everywhere. Any appeal to conscience concerning intrinsically evil matters is a specious one. Conscience is not an independent entity; it does not operate in a vacuum. Conscience must be formed to the objective norm of truth—Church teaching. Church
teaching is clear on the issues mentioned (Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church #1783).

Some of you don’t realize the G.O.P. has been fighting foir the unborn but it’t been an up-hill battle, remewmber when Reagan tried to appoint Robert Bork to the suprem court, Ted Kennedy said some terrible lies about him on the senate floor and with the media’s help, it worked and Reagan had to appoint the more moderate Anthony Kennedy. If Bork would have been on the court in 1994 Roe v. Wabe likey would have been overturned.  Speaking of Ted Kennedy, that’s Scott Brown’s seat now, make’s Scot Brown look pretty good , doesn’t it.

Mark, honestly can you agree that the War on Terror is not a black and white issue?  There are solid Catholics of good will that sit on both sides of this issue.  And, also high ranking theologians that sit on both sides of this issue.

Also, Torture for torture sake is immoral.  But, again, we are in a grey area.  The waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed resulted in information about his planned attack on Los Angelas, saving thousands of innocent lives.  Now perhaps you would prefer that terrorist attack happen, rather than the waterboarding of Mohammed, but personal opinions aside, the waterboarding you are so fixated on is a grey area.  Theologians on BOTH sides.

Abortion…no grey here.  Intrinsic Evil.

We understand the gravity of the abortion issue.  We want leaders we elect to office to reflect that gravity.

Of the main parts of the GOP agenda, abortion is the one they have accomplished the least on, and the issue that has occupied the least amount of energy.

Compare the list of pro-life accomplishements to, for example, the taxes that have been lowered or repealed, or the expansion of executive power, or the invasions.

The point being that the GOP is capable of accomplishing things when they want to.  The task for us is to pressure them to want to.

Would pro-business conservatives continue to quietly support the party and defend it from all critics if there had been as little action and energy put toward lowering taxes and removing government restrictions on business as there has been for the unborn.

Would neoconservatives continue to support the GOP if they buckled and called off the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?

I concede that the GOP is better on this issue, and that this is the most important issue.

But it’s not good enough.  And until it is, I think our task is to pressure them to make them good enough.

Again, I think making the Hyde Amendment permanent is an absolute bare minimum of what we should expect from a GOP majority in Congress, should it come to pass.

Oh, Obama will veto it?  Let him do it, and try to explain why.

Also, Torture for torture sake is immoral.  But, again, we are in a grey area.  The waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed resulted in information about his planned attack on Los Angelas, saving thousands of innocent lives.  Now perhaps you would prefer that terrorist attack happen, rather than the waterboarding of Mohammed, but personal opinions aside, the waterboarding you are so fixated on is a grey area.  Theologians on BOTH sides

Abortion…no grey here.  Intrinsic Evil.

Torture is intrinsically evil as well.  There is no grey area.  That you can construct a scenario where refraining from torture produces a bad outcome does not make it OK, anymore than the likely bad outcome in the Phoenix case of the mother with the blood condition makes abortion in that case OK.

There are “theologians” on both sides of the abortion issue as well.  But those arguing for its permissiveness are not thingking with the Church, or, more bluntly, wrong.

If you want to argue that the scale of abortion makes it a more important issue, I can see it.  But to say that we should let torture slide because it’s not “intrinsically evil” is just plain wrong.

—-

As an aside, I think the stess on “intrisic evils” in the 2004 elections was a bit of a misstep.  As you note, war is a prudential decision.  Masturbation is intrinsically evil.  But if a candidate pledged to start a war of annexation with Canada and to ban masturbation, I don’t think that would justify a vote for that candidate.

Waterboarding is NOT torture, no one ever died or was injured from watereboarding but thank God we did it to Khelid Sheikh Mohammed, it saved thousands of inocent lives.

Thank you Marty and Robt Rohn for making this easy for me!

JohnMcG - simply put, you are wrong.

You said “anymore than the likely bad outcome in the Phoenix case of the mother with the blood condition makes abortion in that case OK.”  There are no “theologians” on both sides of the abortion issue.  We call them heretics!  The nun involved in the case you mention excommunicated herself for recommending abortion, instead of seeking other preventative measures that would save the mother AND child.  It’s spelled out word for word in the Cathecism.  If it’s hard to understand, he’s Fr. Corapi to explain it again…

Per Fr. Corapi…“It is not morally possible for any Catholic to
support ABORTION, EUTHANASIA, FETAL STEM CELL RESEARCH, HUMAN CLONING, OR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. There are no ways around this, no justifications whatever. Why? For the simple reason that the Church holds these things to be INTRINSICALLY EVIL. They are evil in themselves, and no circumstances or subjective conditions can ever change that. They are not to be confused with such things as the death penalty and legitimate SELF-DEFENSE, which are not intrinsically evil, and which governments CAN, and often must, make use of. While the conditions for applying such unfortunate measures as the death penalty and WAGING WAR may be open to debate, they are not things evil in themselves, always and everywhere.

Can you point me to the post where I asserted that war is intrinsically evil or that abortion is not?  I agree both that abortion is intrinsically evil, and war is not.
Yelling that over and over again only makes the GOP’s lack of action on this issue in the past 30 years look worse.

I see we’re likely to reprise the same waterboarding arguments that have been made (and debunked) since 2005.  To save some time, I’ll refer to this post (http://zippycatholic.blogspot.com/2010/02/why-i-believe-waterboarding-is-torture.html).

To summarize, I think there are prayers God would be more pleased with than a prayer of thanksgiving that we waterboarded KSM.

And to the targeted people of Los Angelas, I’m sure they would tell you the waterboarding was Legitimate self defense from a would be killer.  Legitimate self-defense is NOT intrinsically evil, and governments CAN, and often must, make use of.

And most women who have procured abortions are (at least for some time) probably thankful that it is available to them, and that their lives can be defended from the unwanted intrusion of a baby.

But they’re wrong.

JohnMcG, I’ll point you to your post “Posted by JohnMcG on Tuesday, Jul 13, 2010 10:33 PM (EST):” in which you said “Torture is intrinsically evil as well.  There is no grey area.”  Then you stated that “you can construct a scenario where refraining from torture produces a bad outcome does not make it OK, anymore than the likely bad outcome in the Phoenix case of the mother with the blood condition makes abortion in that case OK. There are “theologians” on both sides of the abortion issue as well.”

So my response to you was
1) the waterboarding was (arguably)legitimate self defense (because the Church teaches that there ARE conditions that can surround self defense that make it necessary.)

2) The abortion advising nun was going against a clearly black and white issue.  Killing babies is intrinsically evil. (because the Church teaches that there are NO conditions that surround abortion that make it anything other than evil.)

You said “Yelling that over and over again only makes the GOP’s lack of action on this issue in the past 30 years look worse. “

I don’t recall yelling at all, I didn’t say anything over and over again (except as I explained it again at your request,)and I don’t see how explaining that the waterboarding can be allowed in certain circumstances, but abortion is not allowed under any circumstances makes the GOP look worse.

“So when the GOP owns the Executive and the Congress and does virtually nothing about abortion, it’s not their fault. It’s the fault of a long dead cardinal.” 

Mark, first when has the GOP “OWNED the Congress” where it was FILIBUSTER proof like the Democrats had under Obama until God took Senator Kennedy away, or even now with Senator Byrd gone?  The proaborts are a lot more militant and financially better off than the prolife supporters.  There is no money in prolife; there is in abortion.  Thus the proabort Senators aren’t going to risk losing that money and their “job.”  They have demonstrated they will do anything to defeat, however they can, a potential prolife Supreme Court Republican President nominee.  And they know they will have their mainstream media allies covering their back like the media has for Obama since he got the Democrat nomination for President and the first nineteen months of his presidency.

Second, define “virtually nothing about abortion.”  Compare their doing “virtually nothing” for the unborn to that of the Catholic church-going, profession of faith professing, Lord’s Prayer praying, Holy Eucharist receiving Catholic supported pro-abortion party Presidents.  (I think Jordan Henderson’s post a few comments back may help you with that – after all, it is you who slanders them by saying they have done “virtually nothing.”)

Third.  “Fault” is not what I’m interested in but FACTS and REASONS that explain why abortion-on-demand remains the law-of-the-land.

Fourth.  Yes, the reason we have abortion-on-demand, still, is because of what that “long dead cardinal” did ten years before he died to the Catholic word “prolife” and to the nationalization of the U.S. bishops.  No other Catholic bishop or Cardinal has ever received the amount and kind of positive media coverage that Bernardin did when he changed the meaning of “prolife.”  That was because no other bishop or Cardinal handed the pro-abortion mainstream media and the pro-abortion Democrat Party, which are basically one and the same, the gift Bernardin gave them in his “consistent ethic of life.”  Both the media and the pro-abortion party knew the prolife movement had been neutralized by that and they had clear sailing from that moment on. That is when Catholic Democrat Senators started flexing their pro-abortion muscle in defiance of “their” Church.  They knew they weren’t going to continue to lose the Catholic vote.  And they were right.  That was the gift the Cardinal of the Archdiocese of Chicago’s gave to his Catholic Democrat flock, and only the Democrat flock.
 

Mark and the rest of the Mark allies, have you read Bernard Nathanson’s book, Aborting America? Do you even know who he is?  He’s the last remaining member of the main pro-abortion movement leaders in the U.S. that is still alive.  Have you read the favorable biography by Bernardin’s long time friend, Eugene Kennedy, published several years before Bernardin’s death, called Cardinal Bernardin, sub-headed, Easing conflicts – and battling for the soul of American Catholicism?  You ought to.  You’ll learn how the Church bishops were targeted, and how they fell willingly, after a while, into the trap set for them, which Bernardin leading the way, doing the dirty work.  You may also see how your arguments are that of “sincere puppets” needed in the proabort’s political strategy.

“Again, I think making the Hyde Amendment permanent is an absolute bare minimum of what we should expect from a GOP majority in Congress, should it come to pass.”

JohnMcG, that is a given, but you better be doing something, yourself, to help get more prolife Republican House and Senate members elected, especially in the Senate in order to have the ability to override Obama’s veto.  That will require 66 aye votes. 

Also, what good is being done for the unborn by bad mouthing the GOP for not doing more for prolife, and backing the idea of third party candidates to “threaten” the GOP to be more prolife?  Unlike the pro-abortion party that has lukewarm prolife legislators, because of a weak prolife Democrat base, the GOP legislators face not only well financed pro-abortion political activist, and a pro-abortion mainstream media, but they also face a powerful, successful financial contingency in their own party that is not really interested in social issues, especially prolife.  There is a strong undercurrent in the GOP to drop the abortion issue totally.  Those men and women strong enough to be true to their personal principles ought to be encouraged, not threatened, because your threatening them only gives ammunition to those well healed people in the party who think the abortion issue is a loser and they don’t like backing losers.

I think everyone’s overstating their case. I think Mark overstates the case against the GOP some, but I think others are overstating the whole “voting Republican” thing. President Obama was way too pro-choice for me to vote for back when he was Senator. Senator McCain said too much stuff about Iran.

On the tack of judging the candidate individually and not according to party, here’s what I would ask:

“How do you intend to go about securing justice for all, particularly the least among us, starting with the unborn, the elderly and the poor, and starting with the right not to be exterminated?”

Mark - your, how shall I say this, lack of knowledge of the separation of powers and the Senate’s filibuster clause is sad.  To get “aye” votes is far more demanding than to get “nay.”  Short and simple.

I would have agreed to this right up until the “health care” bill passed. If Pelosi has shown us anything, it’s that a determined majority can get almost anything passed. The GOP hasn’t tried and failed; it hasn’t even tried.

Can someone please point me to the pro-life legislation the GOP proposed and had filibustered by the Democrats?

Can someone please point me to the pro-life legislation the GOP proposed and had filibustered by the Democrats?

They thought about trying.  Lord knows they thought about it.  But the malevolent spirit of the long dead Cardinal Bernardin came to them in the night and told them he would haunt them for decades and that besides it was impossible to even try so don’t bother.  What could they do but comply?  As Andy points out, a determined majority in Congress clearly finds it impossible to pass an extremely divisive bill.

So yeah.  It’s Bernardin’s fault that the GOP never tried.  And he is just as dead and powerful as he was last decade.  So Vote GOP or you have sinned against the Holy Spirit and can never be forgiven.  No.  Really.  SB says so and that’s like the voice of the Pope himself speaking.

I think I will continue voting third party is a candidate advocates grave and intrinsic evil anyway, thanks.

Mark and JohnMcG - have you read the books?

JohnMcG - it’s federal judge appointments, mainly for the Supreme Court, that the filibustering threat has been made, not legislation. The Supreme Court, which created abortion-on-demand and which the Democrrats defend, can be overturned.  The Dems know that and that is why they fight to the death to keep us from getting that fifth vote on the court to overturn. 

Tell me, what prolife legislation did the pro-abort Catholic Democrats introduce and get passed, or any prolife Democrat legislation while they’ve run Congress?  Have you checked out the party voting records on key prolife legislation that Kathy went to the trouble of finding and posting for you “GOP prolife atheists?”  By the way, the Hyde legislation you want brought back was a bill sponsored by Henry Hyde, a Republican Chicago congressman when the Congress was controlled by the Democrats.  It is even more controlled by the Democrats today.  Why aren’t you pushing for them to bring it up?  The Republican elected representatives were locked out of the meetings on healthcare by the Democrats. Tell me how they are supposed to get their ideas of reform into that legislation.  And the media continues to present all political stories from the Democrat position.  So, just what do you want done that you haven’t seen they try?

I thought we’d been over this.  Real prolife judges, not (first pick) Harriet Miers, followed by two judges who tell us Roe is “settled law”.  Pols who oppose ESCR rather than cave on it.  Pols who seriously attempt a Right to Life Act instead of whining that its impossible so let’s not even try.  Pols who don’t blame their inaction on a long dead cardinal who, in fact, opposed abortion.

I am happy to credit Henry Hyde with the Hyde Amendment.  May his memory be eternally blessed.  But Hyde was an exception to the rule of a party elite that talked about abortion every election, but did virtually nothing about it.  Sure, they are better then the Democrats.  But all that means is, they don’t care while the Dems are filled with passionate proabortion zeal.  That’s why I vote third party when it’s a choice between a GOP candidate who is all talk and a Dem who is going to support abortion.  It’s emphatically why I vote third party when the GOP guy is willing to meet the Dem halfway or 3/4 of the way, as with Scott Brown.  The notion that this is sinning against the Holy Spirit is contemptibly laughable.

@stillbelieve—Sorry, I have a full-time job and a family to take care of, so I’m afraid my turn-around time for book-reading demands is a bit longer than 12 hours, in particular when those hours include the time when I’m sleeping.  If only we were this demanding of pro-life politicians, Roe v. Wade would have been overturned 30 years ago!

—

First, I’m not arguing that people should vote for Democrats instead.  I’m arguing that we raise the standards for what Republicans (or any politician) needs to do on the abortion issue to deserve our vote.  And, sorry, whining about how powerless they are isn’t going to do it, and only helps convince me that electing Republicans won’t make a big difference in the election.

—

Second, I know I’m going to get pilloried for this, but I think Bart Stupak did more for the unborn in a few months last year then all politicians had done in the previous 35 years.  If you believe what you say about Obama and the Democrats’s zeal for abortion, then I think that passing a health care bill where there’s ambiguity over funding of abortion, and extracting the executive order declaring that it doesn’t fund abortion are real accomplishments.  He pushed like hell for his provisions in the bill, which, in my opinion, would have made it a truly pro-life bill.  These things are not nearly enough, and I would expect a GOP Congress to fix a lot of what’s broken in the bill, but it is more than anyone else has done since Roe v. Wade.
—
I wrote at length to my Catholic pro-choice Democratic Senator urging her to support the Stupak amendment, and help bring forth a health care bill we could all support.  She did not do so, and I will rememeber that during the next election.  I expect those claiming my vote based on concern for the unborn to be better.

Mark -  Yes, the “spirit” of Bernardin lives on in the minds of over half the Catholics, including ALL the U.S. bishops and cardinals, especially those liberal ones he was instrumental in getting appointed to bishop. 

And that “spirit” is the splintering of the word “prolife.”  That word was perfectly focused on one main intrinsic evil – abortion.  It was a word coined to counter the proaborts calling themselves “pro-choice.”  Bernardin shredded that word into multiple fragments that have nothing to do with the murdering of innocent human beings.  That he lives on is evidenced by the numbers of Catholics who can continue to support with their name identification and votes the only political party responsible for abortion remaining the law-of-the-land, contrary to what they profess to believe and pray for in Mass on Sundays.  His purpose was to keep the prolife movement from falling completely under the “control” of “right wing conservatives.” He succeeded.

Conscientious Catholics were dropping out of the party because of the Democrat Party’s support for abortion.  Many other Catholics who were life long Democrats were agonizing over their predicament.  They opposed abortions but loved the feeling they had of moral superiority being Democrats – “caring for the little guy” as opposed to the big, bad evil richman’s party.  They could never be an “evil” Republican but they felt lost if they had to abandoned their party.  Being a Catholic who believes what he says he believes in church on Sundays and receiving Jesus in the Eucharist was not enough of a self identity for so many of them.  Bernardin found a cure for them which would enable them to lose their guilty consciences and remain in the pro-abortion party as Democrats. 

Yes, the “spirit” of Bernardin lives on.  And he lives on in the muting of bishops on this issue for the sake of “collegiality” which he fostered, and in the appointment of people who run the NCCB, and latter the USCCB

Read the books, Mark, and make up your own mind with the facts from the men who were there in the beginning.  Don’t rely upon your “feelings,” frustrations, and bantering back and forth, but facts.

To help you guys out, let me concede the following:

1. The Democrats’ position and record on abortion is absolutely unacceptable, and that’s probably putting it mildly.
2. The Republicans’ position and record on abortion is superior to that of the Democrats.
3. Abortion is more important than any other issue, both because of the gravity of the evil involved.

—

What is under dispute is whether the Republicans’ record on abortion has earned them our vote on abortion.  It is my opinion that it has not.

—

Excuses aren’t going to change my mind.  Repeating how awful abortion is isn’t going to change my mind.  Conspiracy theories involving Cardinal Bernadin aren’t going to change my mind.

—

What may change my mind is you telling me how things are going to be different this time.  As far as I can tell, all the excuses (the Bernadin legacy, the fillibuster, the Supreme Court, Democrats’ commitment to abortion) are still in place.  So what’s your plan for overcoming them?  I don’t want to vote for the GOP on abortion and hear the same excuses again in four years.

JohnMcG - these are not “excuses” they are explanations of what we are up against.  They are facts that can’t be changed by your opinions.  I have helped defeat three different pro-abort Democrat incumbent Congressmen and two State legislators, replacing them with strong prolife Republicans in Democrat majority districts.  I not only read the books, but did my homework and rolled up my sleeves and got my hands dirty.  If you and Mark want to jump off the pro-life tracks to dance to your own music, so be it.  But at least have the courtesy to keep your opinions to yourself and vote for whoever you want, but if you are not going to do the work to get the facts, don’t sabotage it for the babies and the rest of us who are working in the areas we can that are known to be causing the continued murder of the innocent unborn.

My plan is to attack the pro-abortion party’s Achilles’ heal – the church-going Democrat ID/ voting Catholics.  Why in the world would any Profession of Faith reciting, Lord’s Prayer praying, Body of Christ receiving Catholic give their name and votes to a political party diabolically opposed to what they profess to believe, pray for and receive every Sunday?  When they pray for God’s “will to be done on earth,” do they think God creates life to be aborted? And “to be delievered from evil; “is abortion not evil?  Apparently they do.  The bishops should hold the Profession of Faith up to them like a mirror to have them look at themselves in to see if they really believe what they say they believe, and pray for.  This is a spiritual issue to Catholics, not a political one.  The bishops and clergy can talk to the congregation any time they want about this.  Why aren’t they?

I need help with this because the bishops won’t do their job.  You want a better, stronger prolife party – help work to make it that way.  Get off the sidelines.  We need all the help we can get.  And this is coming to you from a south Chicago born, Irish Catholic, former pro union, liberal Democrat who changed his registration from Democrat to Independent a couple years after Roe v Wade came down and after my returning to the Church.  I knew when life began from a year of embryology in college including lab work.  My prolife decision was not based on religious beliefs but science. 

I had an opportunity to fly back to Wash. D.C. and made an appointment to see my Congressional House representative.  I told him sitting in his office that if he voted the way I wanted him to on this issue, I will work to keep him reelected.  If he didn’t, I will work to get him defeated.  It took two election cycles, but was successful in helping a young Catholic Republican lawyer from Notre Dame and Georgetown U.  He was the first Republican I can remember talking to and getting to know.  Even still, I couldn’t go from a registered Democrat to Republican for at least two years.  And even then, it was after hearing on a weekend radio news story that the GOP just added a Right to Life plank to their party platform.  I thought to myself, if they have the principles to do that, knowing that the media was so pro-abortion, than I can at least give them my name identification and register from Independent to Republican.
I know how Catholic Democrats felt at that time. 

Pro-abortion Democrat incumbents were gradually losing their seats to pro-life Republicans in Democrat majority districts.  Then there was the Reagan landslide, 49 out of 50 states, and the recovery starting the year after his tax cuts were passed and kicked in (he took office in ’81, got the Democrat House and newly elected GOP Senate to pass his tax cuts, but the Dems only went along with it if they kicked in a year after they were adopted.  The economy stayed sluggish because of that but started growing in ’83; by that time the Dems took back the Senate because the economy was still bad.  But Reagan took us out of high unemployment, high inflation, and high interest rates and kept the economy going strong for 17[?] quarters) while putting in play the break up of the Soviet Union.  This is the time Bernardin changed the definition of ‘prolife’ in ’84-’85 for the reasons I’ve stated and that are in his friend’s biography about him.

Sorry for the verbiage, you deserved to know.  Hope you had time to read it.

Stilbelieve, excellent explanation!  Very well stated.  I’m so glad to know that in our Pro-Life work, we have people like you on our side.

Amen Stillbelieve, like Kathy I have to say say ” excellent explanation ! very well stated”  should be a headline column on this site. You give me hope where as some of Marks colums on this subject make me feel like there’s no hope….  From another former pro union democrat who became a republican because of their pro-life platform and also because of Jimmy Carter/ Ronald Reagan.

Robert:

There is always hope.  It’s just not in politics.

I am working; I’m just not going to continue the strategy that has not presented results in 30 years.

As you narrative demonstrates, the policy of electing Republicans has been great for those who want lower taxes and a more militaristic foreign policy.  It hasn’t been so great for the unborn.

I will continue to try to build a pro-life culture in my why, which, your sinister insinuations against Cardinal Bernadin to the contrary, I beleive also includes opposing torture, the death penalty, and a preferential option for the poor.

I will vigorously oppose all pro-abortion policies, including the recent funding of abortion in the health care bill, and will support all pro-life policies.

But I am not going to fall for the lie that the single most important thing I can do for the unborn is to vote Republican.  If a Republican candidate presents a strong pro-life view, I will proudly support him or her.  But their record has not earned them a default vote on this issue, in my view.

I hope and pray that your efforts do indeed lead to a change in the law and culture against abortion.  But the results of the past do not encourage me, and you have not offered me a reason to believe that following this same strategy will yield different results.

My plan is to attack the pro-abortion party’s Achilles’ heal – the church-going Democrat ID/ voting Catholics.

When I read this, I have to question if this is really about saving baby’s lives, or making people you don’t like very much feel bad.  How many babies does it save for you to “attack” your brothers and sisters in Christ?  Do people generally change their opinion after they’re “attacked?”

“When I read this, I have to question if this is really about saving baby’s lives, or making people you don’t like very much feel bad.  How many babies does it save for you to ‘attack’ your brothers and sisters in Christ?  Do people generally change their opinion after they’re ‘attacked?’”

JohnGcM – I’m attacking the Democrat Party’s “Achilles heal.”  The Democrat Party is not Catholic.  If my “brothers and sisters in Christ” are in error and it results in the continued murder of unborn babies, am I, to be silent?

...excuse me GcM – dyslexia :(

I think there is some space between “remaining silent” and “attacking.”

Admonishing the sinner and instructing the ignorant are spiritual works of mercy, so of course we are not expected to remain silent.  But the attitude behind your choice of words don’t smack of one living a work of mercy.

lol! I did it again.  I better go see a doctor. Sorry, JohnMcG

John - truth is truth.  If one resents hearing it - he resents hearing it no matter how it is expressed. 

You have read my post of why Catholics should not be giving their names and votes to the Democrat Party, do you find them “attacking?”

Well, on just a surface level tactic, several people have made the observation that not all Catholics understand the grave evil of abortion.

Perhaps we should be encouraging our Priests to speak up on it, our Bishops to write a much more concise and articulate guide for voting (not the wishy washy guide they came up with for the Nov. 08 elections.)

Find ways to reach out to the nominal Catholics that aren’t in Church every Sunday (and much to my surprise, even some who are!)

Get involved in our own County’s chapter of Right to Life.

Mark, excellent blog. Everyone who disagreed with him, I couldn’t stand reading all your comments. Sorry, I’ve just never heard such high praise of our first 43 presidents, stilbelieve, as Obama being “the first full blown liar President ever.” I don’t expect you to have a wealth of knowledge on say, Rutherford B. Hayes, but what about Bush, Clinton, Bush, or Reagan (the presidents of my lifetime)? Four staight shooters with hearts of gold?

If you cantpt bring yourselves to vote third-party of democrat, how about at least getting new republicans in office? A “One term is all you get if abortion is still legal the next election” policy. Light a fire under them!

OK, Sean, I’ll take your challenge.  Tell, what are the “lies” that you believe, “Bush, Bush, and Reagan” told to the American public?  And tell me what the “truths” are Obama has told the American public. 

As for “getting new Republicans in office,” it is the Democrat Congressional Senators that are stopping the appointment of “strict Constitutionalist” to the Supreme Court.  Had strict constitutionalist, like Bork, been supported more than likely they would have overturned Roe v. Wade by now.  And there would have been passed a new Constitutional Amendment, returning the right to life to the unborn.  Three-quarter of state legislatures would have passed it and the major political issue of abortion would have returned to the spiritual issue that it is.  But the pro-abortion party that church-going Catholics continue to support and vote for, including probably over 50% of the religious, clergy, and bishops (making Catholics the biggest, single voting block for the Democrats), is the reason abortion-on-demand remains the law-of-land, and a political issue. 

To get more prolife Republicans elected to Congress only requires Catholics to STOP voting for the pro-abortion party.  That does NOT mean Catholics have to become Republicans; they just have to STOP giving their name and votes to the Democrat Party; i.e., stop feeding the baby killing beast.  But that has become hard to do because of Cardinal Bernardin’s life saving injection of so-called “social justice” issues into the prolife issue (life-saving to the Democrat Party – he was the CHICAGO Archdiocese Cardinal, you’ll remember). And being Democrat is more important to those voters than what they profess to believe and pray for as Catholics. 

Third party voting only rewards the party you don’t want to get elected.  That is how Clinton got elected - because of a guy name Perot.

stilbelieve,

I have no objection to someone voting for a GOP candidate who they feel will be genuinely effective.  The problem is with the notion that we must vote GOP just because Democrats are worse.  It makes us settle for mediocrity.  I don’t see the sense in voting for “less bad.”

Voting third party can reward the party you don’t want elected .. in the short run.  But when that third-party vote is significant, it moves the party.  Look at the way siphoned Libertarian votes have moved the GOP.  Look at what siphoned Green Party votes moved the Democrats.  Neither was a huge shift, but neither was a whole lot of people either.  Now imagine if all the pro-life Republicans withdrew to a third party in one election.  The short term loss of allowing more Democrats into office would more than be made up in the massive shift to greater effectiveness that the GOP would have to make.

wineinthewate - do you like living with the “hope and change” Catholics helped to bring about this last election?  That’s the “short term” results of allowing the wrong PARTY to take control of the White House AND the Congress.  Will we be able to survive it and get back in control and get back up on our feet?  We will have to see.  Do you like living with such uncertainty?  I don’t. 

And who knows what this administration will stoop to do to keep the Democrat majority in Congress?  These are not your typical leaders controlling a political party.  These are Chicago leftist running the show – and they have been doing it for a long time in Chicago.  Plus the main stream media is totally on their side.  So, what makes you think clear thinking Americans will get a shot of being elected when the machine and media are always going to be against them?  Look what they are trying to do to a decent, successful, common sensical fighter for the people, Sarah Palin.  Look what they did to Clarence Thomas and Judge Bork. 

No, you change a party from within.  Roll your sleeves up and get your hands dirty finding like minded people to join you and take over the party, distric by distric.

Unfortunately the Democratic Party has become the socialist and “Pro-Death Party”. 
The following quote from Saul Alinsky speaks for itself - “True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, (Alinsky taught). They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties….”.  Followers of Alinsky are Hillary, Obama, Rohm Emanuel etc.
Not only are abortions an issue, but so is going against the Catholic teaching regarding “Subsidiarity”, in favor of anti-Catholic positions of socialism and collectivism.

Anne, you said,“Unfortunately the Democratic Party has become the socialist and “Pro-Death Party”. 

How do think this happened?  What do you think came first, the socialism then the pro-death; or, pro-death then the socialism?

Why do you think this happened; i.e., why did God let this happen in His Church?

Ron Paul 2012