I don't have any problem with religious leaders using their influence on policy. It is using their religious function (i.e. communion) against individuals that gives me a problem. As nearly as I can tell, neither Rudy or John Kerry asked for communipn from the Bishop. He is using communion as a way to disuade people from voting for Catholic polititians that don't toe the line. I hope that the Bishop will speak forcefully and often about abortion. Making public announcements about Catholics that he is not counselling or having any pastoral relationship with seems like a political statement not a pastoral one.

 

I disagree. I think it is important for the Church to make its position clear. It cannot allow the "Cafeteria Catholics" like Giuliani, Kerry, and the Kennedys appear to the general public to be the face of the Church. The Catholic Church is unwavering in its support of the sanctity of life. In fact, yesterday's homily addressed that very subject. It is important that bishops and other leaders make the position clear rather than waffling politicians. The issue is far more important than mere politics.

I disagree. I think it is important for the Church to make its position clear. It cannot allow the "Cafeteria Catholics" like Giuliani, Kerry, and the Kennedys appear to the general public to be the face of the Church. .

 

 

What % of Catholics fall into the "Cafeteria Catholics" category in the strictest sense of the term?

 

80%?

What % of Catholics fall into the "Cafeteria Catholics" category in the strictest sense of the term?

 

80%?

 

In this country, the percentage, as in other religions, is probably higher. Nonetheless, that doesn't change the "rules". Absolutes are still absolutes.

In this country, the percentage, as in other religions, is probably higher. Nonetheless, that doesn't change the "rules". Absolutes are still absolutes.

 

I agree. I'm just curious as to what people think the % is.

 

Do you fall into the Cafeteria category?

I agree. I'm just curious as to what people think the % is.

 

Do you fall into the Cafeteria category?

 

To be honest, yes, but not in regard to foundational beliefs. I have trouble with "side" issues such as annulments of marriages for those in "influential positions".

To be honest, yes, but not in regard to foundational beliefs. I have trouble with "side" issues such as annulments of marriages for those in "influential positions".

 

I think many would fall into that category.

There's an article in this week's Time Magazine that says the GOP could see a split if Guliani wins the nomination. He's Pro-Choice, Pro-Gun Control, and Pro-Gay Marriage according to the article.

I would suggest to those GOPers so predisposed that a glass that is one-fourth full is better for them than is an empty glass. Surely these fundamental GOP Christians are not fool enough to think that Hillary Clinton and/or "Barry" Obama are a better choice to protect their beliefs.

There's an article in this week's Time Magazine that says the GOP could see a split if Guliani wins the nomination. He's Pro-Choice, Pro-Gun Control, and Pro-Gay Marriage according to the article.

I listened to a long interview that Hannity had with James Dobson a few days ago. Dobson had met with a large group of other Christian conservative leaders recently and they were nearly unanimous in their commitment to support a third party candidate if Giuliani wins the nomination.

 

Hannity argued that Giuliani's commitment to nominate strict constructionists to the Supreme Court and his record of reducing drug trafficking and prostitution as mayor should make him an acceptable alternative to Hillary. (Rudy is supposedly a very good friend of Scalia and has said that, as president, he would nominate more judges like Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts.)

 

Dobson is adamant that he will not back a candidate that is either not pro-life or opposed to a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. Dobson held his ground despite Hannity's repeated appeals that a vote for a third party is equivalent to a half vote for Hillary.

 

Not only is Dobson strongly opposed to a Giuliani nomination, the only major Republican candidates that he seems willing to support is Mitt Romney. Dobson has not met Thompson, but the two have already had a couple of misunderstandings that has caused some friction.

Dobson stated that he has always been a man of principle and that he and Hannity would just have to agree to disagree. Apparently Dobson's "principled stance" does not allow him to consider the lesser of the evils.

 

At the risk of upsetting some posters who like the good doctor, I have concluded that Dr. Dobson is a fool. Having stood right next to him during a Right to Life rally at the Lincoln Memorial a few years ago, I must say that I don't reach this conclusion with any joy. Nonetheless, I think he is dangerously wrong in light of what is at stake.

Dobson stated that he has always been a man of principle and that he and Hannity would just have to agree to disagree. Apparently Dobson's "principled stance" does not allow him to consider the lesser of the evils.

 

At the risk of upsetting some posters who like the good doctor, I have concluded that Dr. Dobson is a fool. Having stood right next to him during a Right to Life rally at the Lincoln Memorial a few years ago, I must say that I don't reach this conclusion with any joy. Nonetheless, I think he is dangerously wrong in light of what is at stake.

I disagree with Dobson on this issue too, but I thought he presented a pretty compelling set of arguments to support his position. He believes that it would be hypocritical for him to spend his entire adult life fighting for the rights of the unborn and then support the lesser of two evils, when both the evil and the lesser evil support abortion. His evil is evil logic is pretty sound, although I hope that he will reconsider his position with regard to Fred Thompson if Thompson gets the nomination.

 

As I undersstand it, Fred's position is that each state should be free to ban gay marriage and that the federal government should not ban it through a constitutional amendment. While I disagree with Thompson's position because of the unwillingness of some state courts to allow state residents to decide this issue by referendum or through state legislatures, I don't think that Thompson's position is the moral equivalent of supporting gay marriage and it certainly is not the moral equivalent of supporting abortion.

I would suggest to those GOPers so predisposed that a glass that is one-fourth full is better for them than is an empty glass. Surely these fundamental GOP Christians are not fool enough to think that Hillary Clinton and/or "Barry" Obama are a better choice to protect their beliefs.

 

Or you sacrifice the next 4 years to send a message to the Republicans.

 

Voting for Rudy G would send the message to the Republicans put anyone out there and you can count on our vote. You have a 3rd party candidate that garners 15-20% of the vote and strong message is sent.

Or you sacrifice the next 4 years to send a message to the Republicans.

 

Voting for Rudy G would send the message to the Republicans put anyone out there and you can count on our vote. You have a 3rd party candidate that garners 15-20% of the vote and strong message is sent.

I would argue that Hillary will have an opportunity to nominate several Ruth Bader Ginsburgs to the Supreme Court and those nominees will probably face confirmation hearings in a very friendly US Senate. The "message" that some pro-lifers want to send to the GOP will be welcome news by the Democrats and it has the potential to contribute to the deaths of millions of unborn babies for many years past the current election cycle.

 

I really do respect the consistency of your position and others who agree with Dr. Dobson, but the damage that Hillary could do in four years to the pro-life movement could take decades to repair.

I would argue that Hillary will have an opportunity to nominate several Ruth Bader Ginsburgs to the Supreme Court and those nominees will probably face confirmation hearings in a very friendly US Senate. The "message" that some pro-lifers want to send to the GOP will be welcome news by the Democrats and it has the potential to contribute to the deaths of millions of unborn babies for many years past the current election cycle.

 

I really do respect the consistency of your position and others who agree with Dr. Dobson, but the damage that Hillary could do in four years to the pro-life movement could take decades to repair.

Great points and good convincing argument.

 

I am not convince that the judges nominated by Rudy G would not be any worse.

 

I am also of the mindset that the Republican party might begin to take the Christian vote to granted as the Democrat party has been accused of taking the African American vote for granted. Don't have to really represent them because they feel they have no other choice and will vote for us regardless.

Great points and good convincing argument.

 

I am not convince that the judges nominated by Rudy G would not be any worse.

 

I am also of the mindset that the Republican party might begin to take the Christian vote to granted as the Democrat party has been accused of taking the African American vote for granted. Don't have to really represent them because they feel they have no other choice and will vote for us regardless.

All valid points, but I would prefer that the Christian right flex its political muscle on an issue where the collateral damage could be repaired in the next election. My fear is that the GOP will learn its lesson but will not have an opportunity to apply what it learns for many years.