www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Democratic Party and Catholics

This is a very good article on the Democratic Party and Catholics. It is from a Canadian newspaper.

http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?id=C7891B55-08F4-4402-9464-E6D8425097DB#

It's too band the U.S.A doesn't have Parliamentary democracy

Between the money-grubbing robber barons and the baby killers a modern Catholic has no natural political home.

All political positions must be squeezed into two polar factions and that means compromises. One issue voters usually wind up hurting themselves in important ways when they draw that all-important line in the sand.

No American political party puts Catholic social teaching in practice to the extent required for me to vote with a clear conscience.

Very good post, Coalesco.

The stories of Catholics leaving the Democratic Party go back at least to 1972. This sure seems a slow train a-comining.

For a while, there was some buzz about 'communitarianism' whcih seemed a secular explanation of basic Catholic social principles.

Axios

I'm sorry, I have to giggle.

My dad's family are all devout, extremely charitable and very old school Irish Catholics and there is not a Democrat among the entire, quite huge, family. Most would call themselves Republicans, the rest would just describe themselves as politically independent, but not a one has been an admitted Democrat since they came to this country. Interestingly, my Irish relatives first appeared here during the American Civil War and settled in NYC and Chicago - and several fought for the Union.

My concept of the Irish in America is different than most I've seen portrayed in media, including pop and political media: I have never met a relative like Frank McCourt writes about (indeed, most of the men in my family hardly drank at all, counter to that stereotype), and I can go over to Arlington National Cemetery and see several generations of the men in my dad's family, including him, who have died since the Civil War (we had no Civil War "draft rioters" that we know of - so Gangs of NY doesn't fit our profile either).

But we do have a political secret: a couple of my relatives admitted when I asked them to having voted for JFK, but they admitted this only after much prodding, and said that was largely because OTHERS chose to make an issue of his Catholicism and they made an apolitical leap in a political process to support a fellow Catholic to show the naysayers that a Catholic president would not usher in the end of America as we know it. Apparently, some folks said some awful things about JFK and questioned whether a Catholic should be president - I wasn't around yet (I was born long after he died), but I guess to some extent that type of prejudice still exists in regard to judicial appointments.

Did anyone see Amistad? Remember the subplot about the Catholic judge? The idea was, appoint the Catholic and he would be afraid of being "outed," so he'd issue a decision that wouldn't rock the boat. Instead, he is depicted as praying for strength in making the right decision. I appreciated Spielberg dropping that in. Unless I misunderstood, I thought he was being quite enlightened.

Money grubbing robber barons?

Coalesco, personally, I�m very happy that the USA does not have a parliamentary democracy.

Whike the modern Democratic Party totally nauseates me, I don�t think every one of them is a baby killer.

As for money-grubbing robber barons, President Bush has almost fully embraced the Democrats�domestic agenda in things like McCain-Feingold, the education bill and Medicare prescription drugs.

Better a "money-grubbing robber baron" than a socialist.

It is certainly clear that politics in the U.S. is opportunism run rampant; politicians will say or do almost anything to keep their jobs - I guess just like most of the rest of us.

As a New Englander by birth, I tend towards the Independent thing - vote for the candidate who bests represents what I think is important.

For a long time, I've pondered what our government would look like if Mother Teresa were President. And the "Sisters" party were the majority in Congress.

But it seems that while many applaud Mother Teresa and her ministry, they would be disquieted if her principles were to "govern" our daily lives. Perhaps it would just be too "taxing" to fulfill our Catholic Christian obligations. All too often, we abdicate to the Calvinist principle of "pull one's self up by the bootstraps", but if one doesn't have the intelligence or talents, well, "God just made you marginally intelligent and talented" and you'll just have to make do or starve.

I remember many of my Boston-Irish Jesuit colleagues (of the elder persuasion) talk about the depression years when widows and orphans, tossed out of their flats, would "live" in the bulkheads (coal-chutes) of houses to get out of the elements. The Church did its best to help them, but there were very many - and many died. Many women, my grandmother included (may she rest with a great reward from the Lord!) used to go into the public gardens and the public areas along the highways to pick dandelion and other greens to feed my Mom and her siblings.

The big question is: should the government have a role in this? The "old" Democrats of the FDR persuasion made a clear affirmation that government had a responsibility to the poor. The new ones don't seem to have the same 'moral' perspective on saving the lives of the poor, the unemployable, the sick, the elderly or the less-gifted. It's more about "rights" (which, in itself is a good thing!!) than about "survival".

In our old countries, the community made sure that people survived. We were the same "community", speaking the same language and worshipping at the same Church, and our ancestors would never have allowed "our own" to suffer. It was both wrong and would be an unthinkable embarassment.

In a pluralistic society, it's easy to raise up the walls and avoid any responsibility for "our own" since they disappear in the masses. And we expect that the social services of the government will assume the responsibility, and so we don't have to worry. The reality is: governmentally paid social services, especially in Long-Term-Care facilities is woefully inadequate.

So, people in the Church are faced with a political conundrum. Let the political/social system take care of people's needs, or tell them to bug off and let the voluntary associations like the Church assume responsibility ourselves. And that costs money, and most folks in this country don't want a dollar to be used on anybody else who "has not earned it".

Since it is anonymous in a very large, pluralistic society, we don't think of it as being responsible for "our people", just "them".

So, I think it's best to be independent and to vote for the most Mother-Teresa-like candidates.

Blessings!

I don't think I have voted with a clear conscience since my first time in the ballot. The times when I got fed up and chose to abstain from the whole process were even worse, because then I felt that I had walked away from my responsibilty.

While I don't think Parliamentary rule would be the answer(British and Canadian voters seem to be having the same problems we are here in the states), I do agree that the simple two party system is not enough. Personally I don't like the platforms of either party which is why I choose to be independant, but even when there is a viable third party candidate I am aware that I might be throwing away my vote, since the chances of that candidate winning are slim.

I think in reaction to some Catholic voices who responded to the complexity of voting with the response "I'll make it simple for you, here is who you should vote for", a spokesman for the Catholic bishop's conference made what I thought was an excellent response to a person who said whdoever he voted for, he was choosing a candidate that affirmed one group of vunerable people over another. The response was --- don't think of your vote as your only activity. If you do that you will be immoblized. Get involved. Be part of the political process. Just don't vote and be done with it.