Cardinal Dolen slams DNC pledge to only support pro-abortion candidates

Michie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
165,522
55,220
Woods
✟4,586,217.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

Michie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
165,522
55,220
Woods
✟4,586,217.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
A catholic can be democrat. Depending on the reason and that the conscience is formed by the Church. The Church is apolitical and operates by faith alone. The Church is not democrat, republican, liberal, or conservative. The Church is Catholic and operates from the foundation alone. The media and the laity are the ones trying to label the Church in these terms. Let's face it, neither party is the same party it was 50 years ago. The Church is just taking her rightful place in the public square.
are the church bishops going to break away from the democrats? can a catholic be democrat?
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Gnarwhal
Upvote 0

football5680

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2013
4,138
1,516
Georgia
✟90,322.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I'm fine with what the DNC said. It just shows they are the party of death and all their supposedly "Catholic" politicians are apostates, if they were ever Catholic to begin with.
 
Upvote 0

Michie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
165,522
55,220
Woods
✟4,586,217.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yes but you'll get a lot of objections on that as they like to think they are the only party that cares for the poor, etc. Claiming they are the ones that are pro-life.
I'm fine with what the DNC said. It just shows they are the party of death and all their supposedly "Catholic" politicians are apostates, if they were ever Catholic to begin with.
 
Upvote 0

AvilaSurfer

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 14, 2015
9,736
4,784
NO
✟928,396.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes but you'll get a lot of objections on that as they like to think they are the only party that cares for the poor, etc. Claiming they are the ones that are pro-life.
Which is the broad brush the left likes to use.
 
Upvote 0

Gnarwhal

☩ Broman Catholic ☩
Oct 31, 2008
20,373
12,069
36
N/A
✟423,673.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
They are quite full of themselves. I see it daily on the board.

Technically I'm still registered as a democrat, but I can only think of one person in the party whom I'd vote for, and she's probably more appropriately an Independent.

I've had a rapidly-growing distaste for the democrats. Both parties, really. I gag hearing Sean Hannity just as much as I gag hearing Rachel Maddow.

I'm becoming more aware of this moral high ground fallacy that the Dems like to play with though, and it's partly why I want to distance myself from them.
 
Upvote 0

Cosmic Charlie

The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated
Oct 14, 2003
15,418
2,337
✟64,958.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I wading in here because....

....I no longer know why.

This is the pro-life movement screwing up yet another time.

Yes, I'm blaming the pro-life for this because they did it.

Going up against Planned Parenthood's abortion services is one thing.

Going after their ability to serve women's
health needs is quite another.

The pro-life movement's inability to see the fundamental deference between the two is the horrible error that is going to lead ultimately to it's defeat.

By going after Planned Parenthood as an organization you have allowed this issue to be framed as a fight to women's healthcare. At a time when the whole population is seriously focused on healthcare generally.

Even if the Democratic party wanted to back pro-life candidates (and between me and you I think they do, for sure Sander's does) they can't now. They've been boxed in by GOP's attempts to de-fund a major women's healthcare provider at a time when they are trying to ensure everyone has access to affordable healthcare.

Democrats are going to be seen as the protectors of women's healthcare.

This was predictable when Paul Ryan put this bill together.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,009
Flyoverland
✟1,224,061.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Technically I'm still registered as a democrat, but I can only think of one person in the party whom I'd vote for, and she's probably more appropriately an Independent.

I've had a rapidly-growing distaste for the democrats. Both parties, really. I gag hearing Sean Hannity just as much as I gag hearing Rachel Maddow.

I'm becoming more aware of this moral high ground fallacy that the Dems like to play with though, and it's partly why I want to distance myself from them.
I was a Democrat a long time ago. Son of Democrats, my paternal grandfather was even a county chair in the party, a school board member, and got a Postmaster job through patronage back when they did that sort of thing. I became disallusioned with the Democrats in the early 1980s after trying to be both pro-life and a Democrat. It was an uphill battle for this party of tolerance to allow a pro-life person to be a delegate to county, district or state conventions. Those slots were for pro-choice people only. Ar least in Minnesota. I eventually left and joined the other party.

It wasn't so bad being in the other party. Only occasionally do they manifest their desires to eat the poor. Overall they are an inefficient conglomeration of disparate interests who sometimes pull together. I was there because it was a pro-life party. At least they always paid lip service to pro-life issues even if they seldom actually managed to get anything done about it.

Recently I was supposed to go to a district convention and I found that I just couldn't do it with the party now a subsidiarity of the Trump Empire. Maybe I'm over-reacting, but I just couldn't go. I didn't vote for Trump, but instead Evan McMullen.

The Democrats actually admitting that there is no room for a pro-life Democrat anywhere in the party started in Omaha, with a pro-life Democrat (sort of anyhow) running for mayor that the big guns in the Democratic party wanted to support. But NARAL and Planned Parenthood set them straight. There is NO ROOM AT ALL for a pro-life candidate at any level in any place in the Democratic Party. So the candidate for mayor had to pledge his undying support for abortion and the Democratic Party had to declare the obvious about how pro-life people need not apply.

This should be the signal for the last pro-life Democrats to head for the door and not look back. Apparently before this announcement actually 23% of Democrats were pro-life. Afterwards? I suspect some of those 23% are like frogs in hot water, no longer able to jump out. But others could do so.

We are in a strange moment in national political history. Hillary Clinton was the most astoundingly bad candidate in a long time. She damaged the Democratic brand badly. Donald Trump was only a bit less worse. The Republican brand is an unknown at the moment. This is a moment where a third and fourth party could make a go of it. I'm checking out the American Solidarity Party. Not sure they have the oomph to do anything, but their positions are good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gnarwhal
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gnarwhal

☩ Broman Catholic ☩
Oct 31, 2008
20,373
12,069
36
N/A
✟423,673.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I was a Democrat a long time ago. Son of Democrats, my paternal grandfather was even a county chair in the party, a school board member, and got a Postmaster job through patronage back when they did that sort of thing. I became disallusioned with the Democrats in the early 1980s after trying to be both pro-life and a Democrat. It was an uphill battle for this party of tolerance to allow a pro-life person to be a delegate to county, district or state conventions. Those slots were for pro-choice people only. Ar least in Minnesota. I eventually left and joined the other party.

Your experience resonates with me. I actually registered as a Republican in 2005 when I was a senior in high school, and then in 2012 I switched. I never really identified with the "new democrats" though, I always favored classical democratic ideology, the pre-war democrats, if you will.

I've never been the activist type, so I never took a hard-and-fast position on social issues like abortion and homosexuality. Church teaching has really galvanized my positions though, and they're inconsistent with the democratic party. Plain and simple. I'm still not an activist, but I won't support anyone who opposes Church teaching.

Like you, I thought of myself as a pro-life democrat, but my democratic side stemmed from ideological positions on the environment, education, economics/trade, infrastructure, taxes, etc. I just couldn't justify 'tolerating' the idea that the rest of the party supported abortion and gay marriage while affirming the rest.

The thing is, I can't tolerate that the Republican party affirms traditional marriage and a pro-life position, but has starkly contrasting views on the other positions that I place a lot of value in.

So... I guess that leaves me as an Independent. Perhaps it's a bit idealistic and naive of me, but I really think the Millennial generation will be the one to break past the barrier and see a third party elected to the White House. A guy can dream, right?

It wasn't so bad being in the other party. Only occasionally do they manifest their desires to eat the poor. Overall they are an inefficient conglomeration of disparate interests who sometimes pull together. I was there because it was a pro-life party. At least they always paid lip service to pro-life issues even if they seldom actually managed to get anything done about it.

Recently I was supposed to go to a district convention and I found that I just couldn't do it with the party now a subsidiarity of the Trump Empire. Maybe I'm over-reacting, but I just couldn't go. I didn't vote for Trump, but instead Evan McMullen.

I agree with this 100%. I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries, but he was sandbagged by his own party, and there was no way I would've voted for Clinton. So I voted for Trump. I regret it, but I still don't regret not voting for HRC. I just wish I would've cast my vote for someone like McMullen (admittedly I didn't know much about him and failed to do my due diligence during the election cycle).

The Democrats actually admitting that there is no room for a pro-life Democrat anywhere in the party started in Omaha, with a pro-life Democrat (sort of anyhow) running for mayor that the big guns in the Democratic party wanted to support. But NARAL and Planned Parenthood set them straight. There is NO ROOM AT ALL for a pro-life candidate at any level in any place in the Democratic Party. So the candidate for mayor had to pledge his undying support for abortion and the Democratic Party had to declare the obvious about how pro-life people need not apply.

I only heard about what Tom Perez said yesterday, and am pretty appalled. Even Nancy Pelosi was critical of his proclamation, which to me says a lot. I've been dragging my feet re-registering/unregistering from the party, but this is compelling me to act. I haven't supported the party at all since they nominated HRC, but this crystallizes things for me.

This should be the signal for the last pro-life Democrats to head for the door and not look back. Apparently before this announcement actually 23% of Democrats were pro-life. Afterwards? I suspect some of those 23% are like frogs in hot water, no longer able to jump out. But others could do so.

I believe you're right, anybody with a pro-life stance ought to distance themselves from the party now, it's just no longer going to be feasible to remain in the party. If anyone is like you and I who might have a mix of views, the only viable option seems to be to register as an Independent voter. And I think that's what Perez and his ilk want, he wants to purge the party of any hardcore pro-lifers and convert anyone who's on the fence.

We are in a strange moment in national political history. Hillary Clinton was the most astoundingly bad candidate in a long time. She damaged the Democratic brand badly. Donald Trump was only a bit less worse. The Republican brand is an unknown at the moment. This is a moment where a third and fourth party could make a go of it. I'm checking out the American Solidarity Party. Not sure they have the oomph to do anything, but their positions are good.

What's weird to me is that, given how bad of a candidate Clinton was, the party really isn't responding as radically as I thought they would to repairing their image, reaching out to the voters they alienated in the process, and promoting candidates that could legitimately unify the party, like Tulsi Gabbard. Instead they're just radicalizing themselves even further, to the point that they're virtually the liberal equivalent of the Tea Party on the spectrum.

The Republicans, if they want to survive beyond the Baby Boomer generation, need to do some self-reflection as well. They were pretty well fragmented over the nomination and election of Trump and remain so well into his presidency. They're not doing much to address the stereotype that they're the party of "rich old white men". I don't necessarily care, but when's the last time they put up a legitimate candidate who was under, say, 50-55? Someone rational, well-educated, who could contend with the academics on the left but also represented the wholesome values of the GOP? I don't know, most of the "young guns" I've seen on the right tend to be a little loose-wired.

I'm just counting the days when third parties rise in prominence. Like the American Solidarity Party which is basically a Catholic party for American voters, or rather, it's platform is generally based on Catholic values.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,009
Flyoverland
✟1,224,061.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
This is the pro-life movement screwing up yet another time.

Yes, I'm blaming the pro-life for this because they did it.

Even if the Democratic party wanted to back pro-life candidates (and between me and you I think they do, for sure Sander's does) they can't now. They've been boxed in by GOP's attempts to de-fund a major women's healthcare provider at a time when they are trying to ensure everyone has access to affordable healthcare.
The Democrats allowed themselves to be boxed in by NARAL and Planned Parenthood. They told the remaining pro-life Democrats that they are unwelcome in the Democratic Party. Planned Parenthood was appeased and the DNC leadership no longer has that gun to their heads. Or they still do if they ever dare to vary from the party line again.

It's odd to blame the nasty Republicans and the pro-lifers for the heavy handed approach of Planned Parenthood smacking down diversity in the Democratic Party. They own that party and they were just making sure everybody remembered that fact.

Were I still a Democrat I would have to admit that I finally could no longer pretend there was room for me in the Democratic Party. As it was I struggled for years trying to find breathing space in the Democratic Party. I'd go to precinct caucuses and run for delegate to county or district conventions only to find out that as a pro-life person I was the wrong sort of person for the Democratic Party. They were saying then what finally the head of the Democratic Party has said of the Party now in every corner of the land. I wasn't welcome. And that's cool. They didn't want me. I didn't bother to stay. They don't want anyone but supporters of abortion. That's cool. They know who they are and the kind of people they want in their party. And the kind of people who they want to exclude.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,009
Flyoverland
✟1,224,061.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
If Heath Mello, the guy this controversy got started with, is a Democratic Pro-Lifer, it's not going to be much of a fight. Since 2012 he has attained a 100% voting record for Planned Parenthood. It's really only his PAST that was pro-life, not his present. He's running for mayor of Omaha, which is half-liberal half-conservative in a very conservative state. He was pro-life. He has 'reformed' so as to be in the good graces of the Democratic Party and Planned Parenthood powers that be. It's just that not everybody knew how 'reformed' he had become already. It was really a mix-up by NARAL that didn't know he was already in their pocket.

Democrats' response to Heath Mello's pro-life past is what feminists feared most

I know there are a rare few actual pro-life Democrats, and I wish them well in trying to take their party back. I really do. I just don't think they have any chance of doing so.
 
Upvote 0

MoonlessNight

Fides et Ratio
Sep 16, 2003
10,217
3,523
✟63,049.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Yes but you'll get a lot of objections on that as they like to think they are the only party that cares for the poor, etc. Claiming they are the ones that are pro-life.

Many of the same people who claim that Democrats are the only truly pro-life party, also believe that someone with XY chromosomes, and a fully developed male reproductive system can be a true woman.

They aren't that good at recognizing reality.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MoonlessNight

Fides et Ratio
Sep 16, 2003
10,217
3,523
✟63,049.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
It's odd to blame the nasty Republicans and the pro-lifers for the heavy handed approach of Planned Parenthood smacking down diversity in the Democratic Party. They own that party and they were just making sure everybody remembered that fact.

Simple rule applied by both the Democrats and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself): no matter what happens, it's the Republicans fault.

If the Republicans add an amendment to legislation preventing it from funding abortion, and the bill doesn't go through, then its the Republicans' fault that the bill didn't pass, because they killed it by adding an unnecessary amendment.

If the Democrats add an amendment to legislation requiring funding to go to abortion, and the bill doesn't go through, then its the Republicans' fault that the bill didn't pass, because they were too stubborn to make a few small concessions and killed the bill over it.

The same rule applies to shut downs: Shut downs caused by Republican demands are the Republicans' fault, because they made the demand, while shut downs caused by Democrat demands are the Republicans' fault, because they didn't agree to the demands (this one has been especially ridiculous in Minnesota.)

If a Democrat event is attacked by protestors, its the Republicans' fault, since they should have kept their protestors under control no matter how inflammatory the Democrats might have been. If a Republican event is attacked by protestors, its the Republicans' fault, since they were so inflammatory in their rhetoric that they should have expected violence as an inevitability.

etc., etc., etc.

So it should be no surprise that when the Democrats do their best to squash the pro-life movement, it's really the fault of the Republicans.
 
Upvote 0