Ratzinger's Kerry letter--the newest Republican wedge issue

I think it's time to consider that the Republicans are using Ratzinger's letter to the American bishops as an opportunity to drive a wedge straight through the Democratic party base, of which Catholics have long been an important part. And many on DU are playing right along. By the time Democrats finish destroying each other, the Republicans won't have a political opposition to worry about. Think about it.

Edit: Some historical background is in order here. Catholics have been loyal Democratic voters since the first waves of Irish immigration in the mid 19th century. Italians and Eastern European Catholics and Jews similarly supported the Democratic party when they immigrated to the US between 1885-1914. When FDR formed his New Democratic coalition, Catholics and African-Americans, where the latter were allowed to vote, were central. 2004 is the first election in US history where Catholic voters favored a Republican candidate. They broke precisely as the rest of the country did: 52% to 47%.* The only question is what happens to that vote in the future. You folks here have something to do with that.

(*Those of you who insist the 2004 election results are fraudulent should at least maintain some intellectual consistency on this issue. You can hardly use these numbers to argue that Catholics are insignificant to the party if you don't accept the overall results).

I would be curious to know just how much of "the Democratic party base" they make up.

they went narrowly for Bush

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Catholics went for *, 52%-47%. A percentage point greater than *'s supposed national average, 51-48.

How do we consider Catholics part of our base when more of them vote for Republicans?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Are you claiming that the postings of us ignorant raving atheists on DU changed history in 2004 and is what caused Catholics to break for *?

is that this website has become over the past 48 hours ground zero for anti-Catholic sentiment. Many of the arguments come right out of nineteenth-century nativist campaign speeches from groups like the Know Nothings. Another Catholic Duer who knows something about history commented on the same thing. The ideas are the same. The only difference now is that they come from the left rather than the right. I understand that appeals for tolerance fall on deaf ears. What I'm trying to point out is that your language has political consequences. DU has already lost members over this. Moreover, awareness of the content of these threads I refer to are spreading far beyond this site. I'm guessing that if we did a Google search you would discover that. If not yet, it certainly will be. It's far too much ammunition for the Republicans to pass up.

Now if you want to go on about how your distaste for the Pope and Catholics in general is justified, go right ahead. I can hardly stop you. I merely wish to prompt people to think about the political end that the anti-papist language serves.

The hyperbole of your post bears no relation to what I've said. If you want to know what I'm saying, just read what I've written. I've been quite clear. Your personal theist or non-theist views do not concern me.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I have plenty of my own. What I object to is hate speech. The difference should be clear.

And how have I disrespected you? A righteous and indignant attitude? Because I care about what is just? Okay, if that's what you want to call it, so be it. But you aren't going to sauced in convincing me the prejudice, whether toward homosexuals or whether it be anti-Catholic nativism, is remotely acceptable. If I didn't care about what was just, I would be active in politics. If we don't work to make the country and the world a better place, what is the point?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

but if you have engaged in the hate speech I've seen on some threads, hatred for it's own sake,... then I guess it would be beyond telling you to shut up. I have, however, never seen those kind of posts from you. If what you have done is offer concerns about the Pope, I have no problem with that. I find curious your great defensiveness on the subject.

is really "hatred for its own sake." I don't even know if what I have said constitutes "hate speech" in your opinion, since you haven't ever really defined it. This is a liberal political message board. Surprise! There's lots of liberals here. And another surprise, we tend to be VERY politically aware and VERY angry with conservatives and their opposition to progressive social and economic issues.

So when a conservative pope is elected, one who has specifically spoken out against liberation theology, feminism, gay rights, abortion, and many other ideas central to American political liberalism (not to be confused with capitalist economic liberalism), people are going to be angry. Especially given the enormous amount of political power the Catholic church wields all around the world.

What I have seen is an expression of this anger, not specific anti-Catholic bigotry. Just another perspective, I guess.

Some quotes on the pope from other threads here:

"Desertion in April of 1945 demonstrates Joratz is just a weasly bastard." - Walt Starr


"Yippee! Go Benedictus XVI, go moral absolutism, go fascism!" -aneerkoinos

"Even worse, the Bush ties to the Pope and the Nazis goes way back" - Steve_DeShazer

"Or "Ratfucker" in my household" (Speaking of what to call the pope) - mitchum

"Unfortunately, his current behavior is what smacks of Nazism." - leesa

I could go on but I don't have the search fucntion, if you want go back to the day he was elected and check out all the wonderful nazi posts about him.

I am a staunch liberal but after the Pope died I considered leaving the DU because a number of people here insist on constantly bashing my religion with this hate speech. If you bring up points fine, if you scream nazi you don't help democrats in any way. This kind of crap certainly will fuck this party over and I am fed up with it.

Hold on there, bud! Is calling Bush a bastard also hate speech? If not, why does the pope get special treatment? Just because he's the appointed leader of a church?

Truthfully, I don't see how any of those could be construed as "hate speech" either towards the religion of Catholicism itself or in particular against individual Catholics. They seem to be intense statements directed at an INDIVIDUAL - an individual who has taken some rather harsh stances AGAINST liberal and progressive ideas at that. And if it's "hate speech" to insist that no individual should be above intense criticism, I'd say a political message board is the wrong place for you to be, period.

You are confusing hate speech with bluntness.
Hate speech is an implied threat toward a population.
Not a person.

*"You nigras better not come around here or else."
*"All liberals should be executed for treason."
*"Fags spread AIDS and need to be stopped."
*"If I see a dyke I'll teach her to like sex with guys."
*"Catholics sacrifice babies on altars." (wield the torches)
*"Pagans sacrifice babies on altars." (wield the torches)
*"Jews have horns."
*"German women are fat cows and should not be allowed to be dancers."
*"Mexicans aren't smart enough to learn English." (hence, they are lesser citizens)

and most recently:

*"Homosexuals are inclined towards an intrinsic moral evil." (Pope Benedict)
*"Homosexuals are part of the new ideology of evil" (Pope J. Paul, whose infirm hand was most likely guided by Ratzinger.)

According to a recent DU poll. 20-23% of Catholics on DU think that Ratzinger was the best choice. Even if 10% were freepers, which I think is excessive considering some of the things people say to GLBT people on this board, then still 10-13% of Catholics on DU explicitly support Ratzinger's hate speech against us.

Many of us here have learned that, despite the many many many many MANY Catholics on DU who are our friends, allies, and relatives, we can NO LONGER assume that Catholics on DU support calling us anti-Catholic bigots and even white, northern, protestant racists who hate the Irish, Italians, and Mexicans even though some of the gay people on this board are anything but white, northern, and protestant. (Personally, my mother is Catholic and my father is Jewish and I grew up in a working-class Irish and Italian neighborhood. My partner was raised in a Catholic family and is part Irish, part Latino, part Cherokee.) To assume that all gay people are WASPS is to reiterate the RW talking point about 'liberal elitists' and 'wealthy white gay elitists.'

We have a legitimate beef against Ratzinger. We have a legitimate beef against those who support him. We have a legitimate beef against those who apologize for him. Yes, Catholicism is a part of people's culture. But white southerners have made the same argument for the Rebel Flag. I am so sorry that the higher ups of your religion elected someone who is the adversary of so many progressives. I hope you find away to have peace with your religion. If I can help in anyway, just ask.


But I have limited time. I spend a lot of my time taking care of my own people. GLBT teenagers and adults are beaten, raped, killed, urinated on, smirked at, pointed at, yelled at every single day in America. They are 40% of the homeless youth on the streets of liberal NYC and 1/3 of all teen suicides. These year I have had 2 friends beaten into the hospital by gaybashers. One had a torn cornea, the other was a female beaten publically by a gang of men on a popular street. One had bible verses read over him during the beating. Another man in my old city (Austin) was picked up at a bar and forced to sodomize himself with blunt implements at gunpoint and swordpoint (yes, you read that right...the man called it the Sword of God and read Bible verses over him). The perpetrators even admitted to the crime, stating that they were proud. The only paper that covered the crime was the Daily Texan (the UT Austin newspaper) because a student was involved. Think it only happens in Texas? In my new city, NYC, Rashawn Brazill, a 19 year old black gay man was dismembered and his body parts dumped in garbage cans along the A Line of the subway. I don't know motivation or the perpetrator's religion, but I do know that the NYT buried the article on page 22. The same week a straight white girl was shot during a robbery and it was on the cover of the NY post and discussed for days.

I am tired. The last thing I want is in-fighting among progressives. There is no need, our groups overlap. I know that the gay Mexican-American boy praying the Virgin of Guadalupe for strength is not my enemy. I know that the Irish Catholic mother who both takes communion and supports PFLAG is not my enemy.

But Catholics who support Ratzinger are against me and the people I love. And I will continue to speak to these people directly and clearly. And I will continue to despise Ratzinger and speak out against him. And it will never be hate speech. It's called speaking truth to power.

Anyone who supports Ratzinger cannot, by definition, be a liberal. He has called for action against liberalism. It's like being a Log Cabin Republican, a black Klansman, or a Jewish Nazi. Does. Not. Compute.

Methinks this choice of Pope is bringing out the true colors in some "liberals" here at DU.

but calling him "Ratfucker" does not constitute hate speech. Not to get all Jesuitical on ya, but it doesn't pass the test.

None - NONE! - of the "examples" you offer indicates Ratzinger is hated FOR BEING CATHOLIC, which would make it hate speech.

Instead, he's despised for his long-held conservative ideologies and his willingness to offer human rights to some and not others.

Your argument is patently absurd, and intellectually dishonest.

What I see on this board are a group of people imbued with bourgeois values with little regard for equality and human rights. I see people who define themselves politically, not in terms of what they stand for but it terms of who they oppose. I really wonder what it means to be a "liberal" to some here? It doesn't mean tolerance, it doesn't mean human rights, it doesn't mean promoting a fair and equitable economy. What does it mean? What are the principles that they uphold? As far as I can tell, it means they hate "Rethugs", "fundies," and "cultists," "neo-cons" (though few even know what neo-conservative means), "DLC centrists," and of course Hillary Clinton. To this I will also add women, thought they themselves won't concede that point. The misogynist language on DU is pronounced. So my question is who is left? What kind of party is built by denouncing the majority of the population as inferior? Then of course there are the eugenicists, who believe that reproductive rights should be linked to IQ. And they denounce Ratzinger as a Nazi? The cognitive dissonance here is startling.

Of course they are also a good number of very intelligent, well-informed people on this board, and they understand politics and culture in far more comprehensive terms. If there were not, I wouldn't waste my time here. I do find it disturbing, however, how the group think mind meld is one that promotes such animosity toward those who think, pray, and vote differently from themselves.

I understand that people are upset about the choice of this pope. No one more so than the Catholic members of this board. My own reaction was absolute shock. But it is very clear is that the selection of the new Pope has provided an opportunity for some to express anti-Catholic views--identical to those that proliferated in the nineteenth-century, to those that were voiced during the presidential campaign in 1960, to those articulated by the New Klan in the 1920s.
Such groups are far from progressive and I object to any attempt to identify a modern-day expression of their ideas as progressive or even liberal.


Hate speech defined: calling the Pope a Nazi as an epithet, even after being shown the charge is spurious. Not simply expressing concerns about Nazi connections, but using it as an insult, toward Catholics on this forum as well as the Pope. Talking about a Papist conspiracy, that the Pope controls American politics (this particular argument is like entering a time warp), arguing as one poster did on ATA that Catholics are not liberals and should not be permitted to speak on these boards. Using deliberately offensive language with the INTENTION of hurting others. That is hate speech.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Please support this claim, so we know it's not a claim created out of whole cloth, please. I've NEVER seen the sentiment you suggest has been expressed here.

Criticizing the RCC is not hate speech.

I'll tell you what IS hate speech, though - defining homosexuals as "disordered" and "evil"... calling gay marriage "iniquitous"... claiming that the child rape the RCC covered up as a matter of written policy is a "product of the media".

THAT'S hate speech, not the alleged "nativist" attacks some of you are claiming happen that have yet be be identified and offered up as evidence.

and then reading again your response, I find it bizarre. I lay out two basic goals: tolerance and a strong Democratic party. Is that really so offensive to you? What could you possibly find disrespectful in my remarks?

that is a historic change. Again, I am only searching my memory, but I think the the past, Catholics used to trend Dem.

And all factors leading to that change should be looked at - including the Catholic Church's continuing attempts to influence American politics, generally in alignment with the Republican party platform.

In overwhelming numbers. Those numbers have been in decline for a while though.

Not in overwhelming numbers, but they favored Democrats. You're quite correct that in previous decades Catholic support for Democrats was much stronger.

Bush 52%, Kerry 47%: the same as the population at large.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

2004 was the first election in American history that Catholics favored a Republican. It's important to consider the party longer-term. Remember that Catholics were party of the New Democratic coalition that FDR built. Since the Irish first came to America, they have voted Democratic, even when the Democrats were the bad guys. They have remained loyal Democratic voters for over 150 years. My grandmother would have sooner slit her throat that vote for a Republican. You folks on DU, however, just might succeed in changing that.

expanse of the Internet.

Here's a little something for you to ponder: when the Catholic Church says that abortion is a sin, and that to vote for someone who supports abortion rights is a sin, do you think that influences people's votes? And should those of us in the Democratic Party who SUPPORT abortion rights drop that plank to win back some Catholics?

I oppose any restriction of women's rights. I feel certain that Democrats could regain Catholic voters if they adopted a more moral position on social justice issues: poverty and the war in particular. The death penalty would help among Catholics, but not the population at large. Americans sadly are a blood thirsty people.

As for your humility: The Library of Congress catalogs threads from DU. They are searchable through the web and are reproduced on a number of other websites. DU members are responding to articles in the press. I wonder where those articles come from? Interesting that a letter written during a past presidential campaign is suddenly of such great interest. My money is on his Rove.

the feelings of pro-life Democrats, many of whom are Catholic. We're not anti-women, we're anti-killing of any sort. Every one of us on DU has said repeatedly that we don't want abortion to be outlawed, we want the left to take the lead in starting programs that decrease abortions by decreasing demand/ need for them, i.e., by preventing unwanted pregnancies, which requires better sex education and better access to contraceptives, even though contraception is forbidden by Catholic teaching. We compromise on that teaching because we believe it is more ethical to prevent the conception of an unwanted child than to kill that child at some point in his/her development. You are, of course, free to disagree.

But the longer our concerns are ignored, mocked, and/or misrepresented, at DU and anywhere Democrats gather, the easier it is for Karl Rove to snag more Catholic votes away from "the party of death." Rove taught Bush** to use the phrase "culture of life," which he got from Pope John Paul II, who used it to indicate a culture in which war and capital punishment are avoided and the poor are given the help they need, as well as a culture in which solutions other than abortion and euthanasia are sought and supported. The GOP is actively courting Catholics while the Democratic Party is showing no interest in us.

As a Dem and a DUer, you buy into Rove's agenda when you say a human being like Terri Schiavo should die, when you refuse to recognize the concerns about abortion that millions of Americans have, and when you call the new pope names -- or when you agree with those who say these things. Some non-Catholics would agree with you about the pope but you'd lose many of them over abortion and/or euthanasia.

Hispanic voters are the fastest growing voting bloc. Most are Catholic, the rest are mostly evangelical Protestants. You do the math.

And you know the Schiavo thing was about her right to die, not about outsiders deciding for her - on either side.

should also focus on the Church itself:

* Denying communion to certain candidates (interestingly, always a pro-choice Democrat but never a pro-death-penalty Republican!)
* Declaring it a sin to vote for certain candidates
* Much of Catholic social policy aligning with the Republican party

Don't assume that a few nasty posters on DU are causing all your problems, imenja.

The problem I refer to is one that may effect the Democratic party, as DUers fall in line with Rove's wedge efforts. Perpetual Republican domination is a problem for all of us. It is for you to decide if that is something that matters to you.

to analyze ALL reasons that voters appear to be drifting towards the Republican party. Including taking a good long look at even those institutions dear to us.

A bunch of non-religious individuals posting on an Internet message board is probably NOT the only factor, ya think?

My thread was not meant to be a comprehensive analysis. Merely a caution.

to the loss of Catholic votes. It is the very same reason that Democrats have lost the working class vote. As the party becomes more beholden to corporate America, they don't offer an economic or social platform that addresses the concerns of most Americans. There is also, you might note, a great overlap between the Catholic and union vote. In the US, the right has increasingly defined politics in terms of culture rather than class. It's a brilliant move on their part, since it works to divide the working and middle classes and allow corporate interests to dominate. The left has bought it hook line and sinker, so much so that you and others consider only those aspects of Catholic teachings.

Catholicism is a communitarian religion. Ratzinger's words about liberalism, lost on most Americans unfamiliar with political economy and politics more generally beyond our own borders, was a caution about the excesses of the ideology associated with capitalism. (Made clear by his juxtaposition of liberalism with Marxism). Liberalism promotes the values of the individual above the community. It legitimates capitalist accumulation, the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few at the expense of the many. This is the aspect of Catholic teachings that I most appreciate. Ratzinger's concerns with liberalism further include the kind of individualism that he sees as leading to moral degradation--divorce and homosexuality, among others. On some of this, positions on gays and homosexuals most importantly, I strenuously disagree.

The Catholic church is more than the media message so many have absorbed. It's concerns are not limited to GOP talking points. Catholics vote on a range of issues, and the letter from the Bishops during the campaign discussed that very point.

Or, to be more accurate, neoliberalism?

And if he's so against capitalist concentration of wealth into the hands of the few, why did he help kill off liberation theology?

but some assertions made are unique to the U.S. Catholic church
Pope John Paul II gave communion to pro-choice politicians and intervened personally to try to prevent executions.

JPII required clergy to "quit" politics or leave the church ----supposedly Catholics are required to consider the totality of a politicians stances (how Catholics could vote for a pro-war President , I don't know---how Catholic clergy in the US could encourage it is even more of a question)

The Catholic Church's social policies are based on social and economic justice, environmental justice and strong opposition to the exploitive capitalism of the west .... (yes I am well aware of the church's position on homosexuality, birth control...)

My rambling point: Catholics as a group have become more conservative but it is independent of the church ... as Catholics (especially the Irish, Italians...) assimilated fully into American society, became more affluent and became separated from their ethnic roots they mirror the rest of US society-----I am not stating this is good or OK, I just strongly believe the influence of religion is not as great as some like to claim.

As Democrats we need to draw more people into the fold, we don't need to alienate groups of people.

Perhaps showing people that Democratic policy actually is more in line with Catholic policy than Repuke policy is a better way

If the RCC leadership is really dedicated to social and economic justice, why did JP II and Ratzinger kill off liberation theology?

Then why, in the name of all that is good, do you support the Catholic Church and consevatives like Ratzinger?

vote for a politician who agreed with them on other issues the church cared about, like poverty, war, healthcare for all, etc....

I think we should be mindful that John Paul was NOT a fan of Bush and sought to correct the record after Ratzinger sent that letter.

They don't understand how badly the Democratic Party needs Catholics.

a death wish for the party

they kept the focus throughout the campaign on the perceptions created by the first letter.

What can be done when the GOP controls most of the media?

get that message out there, despite the media's bias.

and stop working to engineer permanent Republican ascendancy

The letter addressed proportionality. They did not feel it was right for Catholics to vote for pro-choice politicians based solely on that issue, but it was ok to vote for them based on their stance on other issues. They also strongly opposed the war. Other than abortion and stem cell research, there really wasn't much that they agreed on with Bush.

I don't care as long as it is done for every church and religion.

I agree entirely. There has been far too much campaigning by churches of all faiths.

soup kitchens, shelters, other Catholic-run programs for the poor? If you take resources away from the Church, the Church has to cut back on some programs, since it runs more charities than anyone else.

I agree that all churches should obey the laws regarding political involvement. Those that don't should be reported.

I suspect you'll find, however, that the law is rarely violated. Think about it: we've all seen leading Democrats politicking at African-American churches and receiving endorsements from ministers, all of which seems illegal, but do you really think intelligent attorneys like John Kerry and Bill and Hillary Clinton would engage in deliberately illegal acts? The fact is that both parties and the churches know where the line is and keep from crossing it.

Gee, what a loss.

on political issues, I don't feel responsible for turning voters away just because they suddenly feel "alienated".

This "persecuted Christian" bullshit has got to stop.

.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You were addressing the issue of Catholic issues that would take voters away from the Democratic party.

I am sorry to say, but if their faith in liberal causes can be shaken by the decrees of an ultra-conservative Bush supporter just because he has been named head of their church, then that is their problem, not mine. They were lost anyway.

What are we going to do? Conform to policies set out by the Vatican? Abandon our principles and try to be more of a good Catholic party?

If people on this forum dislike Bush and refuse to leave an organization that openly and actively supports him while attacking everything that they profess to believe, then so be it. There is nothing we can do.

We are losing the Catholic vote not because of the alleged bigotry and intolerance you claim that you see here. We are losing Catholic votes because church leaders are actively telling their faithful not to vote for Democrats.

Consider: John Paul II was against the Iraq war, but do you recall him encouraging all "good Catholics" not to vote for him?

Like social justice. Catholic voters are not lost. And they do not vote based on abortion rights alone, even the pro-life Catholics. Social justice, peace and combating poverty, is more important to most Catholics that sex. The problem is the left has bought into the GOP agenda of politics. We have allowed them to define politics in cultural terms, their wedge issues. Most on DU pay attention to only those elements of the Catholic Church, not the bulk of activities that relate to ministering to the poor.

The issue of the letter has been entirely distorted and it's laborious to keep repeating the details. John Paul II did not make any such statement. He was near death when that letter to the Bishops was written. The Bishop of Denver made that ridiculous remark, and the Council of Bishops then tempered his comments. Many Catholics, myself included, were furious over singling out abortion as an issue. Clearly the Republicans used it to their advantage, and very effectively since it continues to dominate discussion on website.

You have decided the Catholic vote is "lost," when it is the Christian denomination that least favored Bush. I suggest you figure out how many votes Kerry would have lost without those Catholic voters. Catholics have been central to the Democratic party base since the first wave of Irish immigration. Catholics vote on many issues. Catholics have no stopped supporting progressive causes. The Democrats have forsaken those causes.* Democrats are beholden to corporate interests and have lost track of concerns for economic and social justice. Have you forgotten the Catholic priests and nuns who lost their lives fighting for equality and an end to dictatorship in Central America? Is all of the work done to care for the poor around the globe so inconsequential? Is our society so bourgeois that our idea of human rights is confined to sex alone? Is it possible that so-called liberal Americans care so little for the world outside our borders?


My post had nothing to do with abandoning progressive causes. Rather I insist they be firmly upheld. The hate speech expressed on this site is far from progressive. I support entirely those who fight for equal rights for all Americans, including gays. I will not, however, support hateful people who call me and the head of my Church Nazis. I will not support those whose willful ignorance allows them to feel entitled to claim Catholics cannot be considered progressives and should not be allowed to speak on DU (see ATA). That is anything but progressive or principled. To pretend they object to a pope because he is intolerant when they themselves neither practice or value tolerance is far from convincing. They are no different from the Know Nothings and others who came before them. If those prejudices are more important than equality and tolerance, they should continue their hateful remarks. What principles do they uphold other than bigotry. I see own hate and a kind of selfish nihilism in their remarks. If you truly want to drive away the Catholic vote, you are deciding to relinquish power permanently to the Republicans. Make no mistake about it. It is a decision. If you do so, it has nothing to do with anything that can be passed off as principle.

*(I choose not to use the term liberal, since it is in its classic meaning the political ideology that accompanies capitalism. Catholicism is a communitarian religion. It denounces the kind of individualism that allows the few to prosper at the expense of the many. Hence Ratzinger's denouncement of the extremes of liberalism and Marxist-Leninism.)

Which came first: non-Catholic liberals directing "hate speech" at your church on a website, or your church embracing the conservative/Republican political agenda and basically telling its membership to vote accordingly? Are we pushing Catholics away, or is the church redirecting them?

Oh you can give examples of individual nuns and priests fighting for social justice, but keep in mind your new pope cracked down on liberation theology. Oh, and on any sort of feminist church writings. What are we to make of that?

I just think that the number of Catholics abandoning their historical Democratic roots has far more to do with the church aligning itself with the Republican party and its social issue positions (anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-woman, anti-secular) than it does with even the most virulent "hate speech" you claim exists on DU. I think that's the point ComerPerro was making as well.

But why must SOME critics use centuries-old vocabulary? Or just express that they hate ALL religion--even when it's not influencing politics?

Perhaps you could point to a thread for me?

As to why the expression of hatred for all religion, well, that's probably a topic for another thread (or twenty) on its own. From my perspective, it has a lot to do with conditioning people to uncritically accept what their leaders tell them. To focus more on a stain under a bridge than on their economic condition and what they can do about it other than accept it as "God's will." No, not all religious people think this way, but it's clearly more the rule than the exception. Hating anything that seeks to minimize individual thought and critical analysis is not necessarily a bad trait.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If you think blaming Americans for not voting how you want them to is in anyway productive, you're mistaken. You can continue to blame the demise of the Democrats on a series of external factors, but if the party doesn't get real with itself, it chooses to fade into political oblivion.

I have no control over what the Catholic church does and neither do you. I do have some ability to influence the Democratic party. If you like a party that serves only corporate interests, keep doing what you're doing, keep blaming others who don't see the virtue of your favored millionaire over theirs. If you want to change the US political stem, blaming Catholics and other people of faith is not going to do it.

If it makes you feel happy to say people of faith are responsible for all misery on the planet, go right ahead. What I wonder is where that gets you?

"Have you forgotten the Catholic priests and nuns who lost their lives fighting for equality and an end to dictatorship in Central America? "

Have YOU forgotten it was the Catholic church itself that killed off liberation theology, which was what led many of those who died to fight even to the death for those things?

You keep crying "hate speech" and "nativist", yet have consistently failed to back up your claims. I'm still waiting for 1) evidence of hate speech toward Catholics (you haven't shown any) and 2) an answer to my questions about liberation theology.

I find it humorous that a person who once equated ME to Nazis for daring to point out that people choose to follow their religion's practices is lamenting about some idiots calling Ratzinger a Nazi. Isn't that hypocrisy?

Isn't it time to dig up similar Catholic letters slamming these money chasing satanic rats?

by deliberately stirring up conflict amongst Democrats every chance they get. There I said it.

I'm just saying what many of you are thinking. Flame away. See if I care. Just look around GD and GD politics. It's so obvious. Then hop over to Freeperland to see some of them bragging about it.

That's my new term, and I like it.

It seems like there's been a HUGE infiltration around here lately. I'm pretty sick of it.

Thanks for saying it.

:kick:

I was expecting a description of the problem and then the original poster's proposed solutions - do's and don'ts - what will make it worse, what will fix it, etc.

Yes, Ratzinger's appointment is going to be used to great advantage by conservatives, not just in the US but around the world. We are concerned with American electoral politics. What is to be done?

That they stop buying into Republican tactics. When they have concerns about the Church or the Pope, raise them in a respectful and informed manner rather than using epithets. Simply to start realizing that Catholics are important to the Democratic party. Some of the posts on this thread deny that. They prefer we leave.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I don't suppose you would have anything that resembles evidence to support your "probably depends entirely" claim?

Ask yourself this: Does equality matter do you? Does tolerance matter? Does social justice matter? Do you care about peace and combating poverty? Or is your idea of politics confined to sex? Is your view of the political so myopic that you define it entirely in terms of GOP wedge issues? Has the Republican party been so successful that it's convinced you to think of the world in such narrow terms, in ways that allow them to hold power? Is it possible that you've somehow managed to avoid learning anything about the Church's efforts to fight poverty, illiteracy, illness, and right-wing dictatorship around the world? Are the lives of the nuns and priests lost working for the poor in Central America so inconsequential to you?

Yes, respect is important to me. If hatred is something you value, if using Nazi epithets passes as principle, you're right, there is no chance of compromise. There is nothing progressive about any of that. The brain dead are not limited to the right. These past 48 hours have made that quite clear.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It was that the sin is the woman's not the law or lawmaker. That the woman has free will and that the law didn't force her to have an abortion. So in other words mind your own business, was their official stance.

The twisted interpretation of Radzinger's letter was used by some of the Catholic leadership, but not all. The Vatican's position was "if a Catholic thinks a candidate's positions on other issues outweigh the difference on abortion, a vote for that candidate would not be considered sinful."

Most priests misinterpreted this message (as did the yahoo story that has been all over the threads in the last couple of days). That was not Ratzinger's or the Vatican's position.

==============
Cardinal Ratzinger's note underlined the principles involved for the Catholic voter.

"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia," Cardinal Ratzinger wrote.

"When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons," he said.

http://www.jknirp.com/thavis3.htm

In other words, if a Catholic thinks a candidate's positions on other issues outweighed the difference on abortion, a vote for that candidate would not be considered sinful. (eg voting against Bush because of the war, his stance on capital punishment, his lack of support for social programs that help the less fortunate survive, his lack of health care for those in need, his support of torture and his endorsement of those that crafted the torture policy, et cetera.)

It was the US Catholic Church leaders that twisted Ratzinger's words and gave in the the weed, they sold out Catholics and our nation for 30 pieces of silver (faith based initiatives and tort reform to protect their dioceses from the litigation they faced due to their abusive and sick priests).

Basically, Ratzinger's letter said that Catholics should take responsibility for their actions, under Church law, if they are divorced, if they support programs that are not sanctioned by the Church (abortion, euthenasia, etc), then they should not try to receive the sacrament of communion.

I've been wanting to see the text of that letter.

between the Vatican and Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. The title of the letter is "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles”. It was leaked, but others discussing the issue in greater detail have not been leaked. Some links below that may help you.

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/citw.cgi/past-00187

http://www.jknirp.com/thavis3.htm

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/148/story_14893_1.html

This site is Ratzinger's Fan Club (I just found it, I am not necessarily a fan, but I am willing to give him a chance, that is all we can do at this point) and it has links to a lot of his writings, you may be able to find more here.
http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/Ratzinger_Online.html

Bottom line, the Catholic Church puts the responsibility on the individual. As a nomad Catholic, I don't agree with the church's stance on many things, the access to sacraments being one of them. If the sacarments are gifts from God, through which I am to gain greater access to his love and understanding, then why should I be deprived of them when I need them most, when I am at my lowest, when I am sinning?

Hope the resources help. :hi:

http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2004/07/ratzinger_on_co.html

Neat site. The text of the letter is "heavier" than I had thought, but the bottom note leaves it as a matter of conscious.

After this letter, there were several others exchanged between the Vatican/Ratzinger and the bishops. I'm trying to find some of the others, but the subject of divorced catholics and communion became a sticking point.

Argument: Ratzinger tipped the election because of a letter. This smacks of a Republican plant. You all are falling for something that doesn't make sense based on the math. 52% of Catholics voted for Bush, the rest Kerry. So we are talking about 3% of the Catholic vote. Is 3% of the Catholic vote enough to have tipped the entire election to Bush? No. There are approximately 72 million Catholics in the US (of all ages, including children). Let's generously calculate that 50% of them vote. 3% of that number is 1.2 million. Bush won by over 3 million votes, more than double that 3% of Catholic voters.

Even that calculation assumes that the entirety of that 3 % of Catholic voters actually made their decision based on an idea that a Catholic politician should not receive communion, when the letter actually said that Catholics should base their vote on a range of issues: A Catholic would only be considered sinful and unworthy of the sacrament if he or she voted for a politician EXCLUSIVELY because of his stand on abortion.

This is an effort to play into anti-Catholic prejudice and divide the Democratic party base, and you folks are swallowing it hook line and sinker. The Republicans won't need to worry about raising campaign funds in 2006 when the Democrats get done eating their own. You've got to hand it to them. The Republicans are smart bastards. They know hatred is the most powerful force in American politics on both side of the isle. What is unfortunate is that most Democrats aren't smart enough to see through it. You've (plural) let them set the agenda on everything, to the point where Americans define politics in terms of GOP talking points: so-called "moral values" issues over social justice, peace, and poverty. That clearly is the case for most on this discussion board.


Then there is the obvious point that while Americans believe ourselves to be the center of the universe, we are not. The American Catholic Church is at best peripheral to the Vatican. The idea that they would be so concerned about an election of ours to try to sway it in favor of a candidate whose foreign policy and wars they frequently denounced is entirely absurd. It speaks to the tremendously inflated sense of self-importance Americans demonstrate with frightening regularity. There is a world beyond our own borders, and most Catholics reside there.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week411/election.html

LAWTON: Prior to this election, we heard a lot about the Catholic vote and that Catholic voters could be one of the most important swing votes. Were they?

KOHUT: They were indeed. The Catholic vote divided just about evenly between Gore and Bush, tipping a little bit toward Al Gore. But going a little bit less Democratic than they did four years ago, as the Catholic vote slowly becomes a little less Democratic and a little more Republican seemingly with each election.

LAWTON: And that is a trend we've been seeing, isn't it? At one time, Catholics were considered sort of the stronghold of the Democratic Party -- that's shifting now?

KOHUT: Well, it certainly was and it is shifting. They were part of the old New Deal coalition reflecting the ethnicity of many American Catholics in the '30s and '40s. But as these groups of voters became more assimilated, they have become more mainstream and therefore divide more evenly between the Republican and Democratic parties.

This is not a sudden change, imenja. It's part of a trend as the Catholic church has drifted more towards focusing on its conservative social issues, and as the US Catholic population has grown more conservative along with it.

"This is not a sudden change, imenja. It's part of a trend as the Catholic church has drifted more towards focusing on its conservative social issues, and as the US Catholic population has grown more conservative along with it."
---------------
As for Republicans instigating this Pope debate...I don't buy that, though they may well be happy with it. We liberals may have to let go of those Catholics who are more conservative, if they want to support Republicans. They are entitled to their beliefs and their politics. The divisions within the Catholic church are reflected in a split between Catholic support for Republicans and Catholic support for Democrats in America. If we hang onto roughly half of the Catholic vote that may be the best we can do. So be it.

Separation of church and state IS an issue of our times. Religion does affect politics. This thread is a pretty good example of how such volatile topics can be effectively debated. I would not like to see Religion taboo in a political forum. For ex, I have learned a lot about the Pope I didn't know here. Let the Mods referee.

I never claimed that it was. This, however, was the first presidential election in which a majority of Catholic voted Republican. The fact, however, is that the conservative drift of American Catholics mirrors that of American society overall. Signaling out Catholics for blame for the loss of an election is ridiculous. A great recipe for guaranteed political failure is to blame voters rather than looking at the candidates and the party itself.

My point was to imagine that this letter somehow gave Bush the election is absurdly simplistic.

The Vatican remains much as it has been for a very long time. Part of what is controversial about Ratzinger is his determination to not allow the Church to adapt it's teachings to contemporary circumstances. There is no question that the American Catholic Church has become more conservative, I suppose in reaction to the general conservative trend in this country over all. Only in recent years have some Catholics joined forces with the Christian Right. There is, however, a great diversity among Catholics, not only the laity but the clergy as well.

Again, this notion of conservatism you describe is devised by the GOP, one that focuses on sex rather than poverty and social justice. The Church remains committed to social justice. We in the US, influenced by the media, understand the political quite narrowly. As long as we continue to let them frame our political understanding in terms of sex and so-called moral values, we submit to their efforts to create a political culture that never challenges the fundamental exploitation of corporate capitalism and our political system that has emerged to serve it.

We are a conservative nation because both parities are conservative. We have no effective opposition because of the financial power of the wealthy over politicians. In my view, the responsibility lies as much with the Democrats and the so-called left as with the right. There is no requirement that we allow them to limit our minds so. Why do we? Why is it that people on DU prefer to focus on GOP defined "moral values" issues rather than those that challenge corporate exploitation? The Catholic Church isn't responsible for the fact that Democrats are afraid of the "class warfare" label, that the run from the L word, and that Kerry didn't have the courage of conviction to stand up strongly and consistently against the Iraq War. Its time people stopped looking for external excuses for the loss of Democratic power and started taking a hard look at the party itself.

But his letter does give us an indication of what he is capable of whipping up against pro-choice candidates.

But Catholics have been trending Republican since the Christian Coalition began in the 1980s. The whole agenda has been to split the Catholic vote using abortion as a wedge and it was first implemented with the Carter/Reagan campaign. This is a first time that the RW got a taste of the possiblities that if they could get Catholics to go wild over abortion and social issues and forget about povery then they could split the Dems. This is an old game and they are finally winning.

My aunt is a republican Catholic. Her whole life is consumed over abortion and gays. She pays lip service to the poor, but all she really cares about are these issues. Other family members of mine who are anti-choice and anti-war struggled to choose between the two. It is not DU that has caused Catholics to go Republican, it is the Vatican's stance on Abortion and, more recently, the specter of gay civil rights.

Unless you abandon these issues, Dems will continue to lose Catholics.

Are you saying that unless Catholic change their views on abortion that Democrats will lose voters? Or are you saying something else?


Catholics supported Democrats for years after Roe v. Wade. The key to regaining Democratic voters, whether Catholic or otherwise, is to remember that we are a party that is meant to represent ordinary Americans and to advance policies that meet their interests. That means poverty, peace, education, and health care need to matter more than corporate interests. Democrats need to stop allow the GOP to frame the political debate. Your post--indeed the majority of political views on this site--demonstrate the extent to which the Republican party has succeeded in redefining politics in cultural terms. If we don't break free from that paradigm, the Democrats will continue to lose all voters, not just Democrats.

The fact is the teachings of the Catholic Church are out of our hands. It is not a Democracy. If it were, Ratzinger would not have been selected Pope. It's time we focus on the Democratic party rather than searching for external factors to blame for our loss of power. I recipe for continued political failure is to keep blaming voters for not choosing the candidate you want. At a certain point the party is going to have to wake up and realize that the responsibility lies with the party itself.

the right as the Republican Party started to work on Catholic Americans in the 1980 elections. They have been widdling and widdling. And Democrats cannot concede on this issue. In fact, with other groups it's a WINNING issue.

As far as the virtues of Catholicism go, I think it's easier to be pro-life than pro-economic justice. You can beat people over the head and still be pro-life. But to fight for economic justice you really have to care about people. How much empathy does ANY group of people have intrinsically?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Nice.

Now what was it you were saying about anti-religious (presumably only anti-Catholic) hate speech, again?

ON EDIT: Gotta admire how you juxtaposed the above comment against the sentence a couple lines before: It's far easier to call names than follow the intricacies. So cool, it's almost "iniquitous"~

Would that be an example of, oh what's the word... HYPOCRISY?

Great catch, comsymp.

Though you note that Bridgit apologized, something most on DU seem incapable of.

in fact, if you look carefully, you'll see that it only repeats the insult.

It doesn't justify similar language on the other side.

Where did I say that. In fact, did I not write a very civil letter of support for Bridget's positions while pointing out the hypocrisy?
This post was addressed to you because you claimed that her post was an apology. I was asserting that it was not.

Attacking the physical features of an ethnicity is always vile. I was surprised that you found it acceptable.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

or their part. Tolerance starts with ourselves. To demand it of others while not practicing it oneself is less than convincing. If we all used more respectful language, we would learn far more from each other and better advance progressive politics. Most of us, certainly myself included, are guilty of making disrespectful transgressions, but when it becomes a matter of course, when some insist they have no responsibility to use respectful language, that only further contributes to the debasement of American political culture.

That is why I don't use the derogatory terms for Republicans and Bush that are common on this board. I fail to see how calling someone a Chimp or a rethug says anything about the dangerous policies the right promotes. All is signals to me is that the speaker harbors a great deal of unproductive animosity.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Who is anyone to criticize the poetry that others use to get themselves through the day? Certainly, there are radical aspects to the appearance of Guadalupe to the poor indian Juan Diego and what that means to the Mexican people that she chose to appear to a poor indian and not a rich Spanish priest.

But your comment that "so many posters would prefer to regurgitate what they learned from their prune-faced, Puritan, Papist-hating parents" shows a good degree of ethic hatred and a whole lot of assumption. Are all the ancestors of anglo-american's 'prune-faced'? Is it possible that some of the posters who were laughing at the idea of seeing holiness in a grease stain Italians or Jews or, gasp, Black or Asian? I saw a young black girl start a fight with an Asian girl waiting who was waiting for the subway today, by saying "What are you lookin' at, Chink?" While racism is always the dominant group oppressing the minority, ethnic peoples can most certainly be bigots.

This thread proves it.

The right-wingers are getting ready to trumpet their version of "christianity" this Sunday in order to try to confuse and split the people of this country. They wish to pack all of the Federal courts, especially the Supreme Court with religious zealots and ideologues like Thomas. This is evil. This is something to be resisted.

It's no reflection on rank and file Catholics that some of the positions of this new Pope are evil and un-progressive. Just as it's no reflection on the Buddhists on this board that the shrub finally (maybe) got elected.

If anyone should learn to be 100% secular, it's us. Right?

If anyone should practice tolerence for speech, even speech we don't like, it's us. Right?

If anyone should be able to respond to a seeming provocation with a loving request for understanding, it’s us. Right?

As a great philosopher once said, “Can’t we all just get along?”

and I wish it could be the case. I think, however, the Republicans have demonstrated that invoking religious language can be effective politically. I think Democrats need to be clear about what the moral foundation of their party platform is....of course that requires finding it, and that means breaking from their corporate pay masters. That, more than religion, is the key obstacle.

I think part of the problem is that the repuke right has co-opted the words "morality" and "values" just as they've very cleverly turned "liberal" into a dirty word.

The Dems have a major problem, and I feel for them. They have to figure out how to talk about basic values like Justice and Fairness without resorting to the divisive, fundamentalist language the right-wing (in all of its hypocritical glory) has no problem using.

It's going to take a while. "Truth always lags behind, limping along on the arm of Time." Baltasar Gracián.


http://www.10ktruth.com/the_quotes/truth.htm

is a wedge issue? :wtf:

Look: The man who currently sits on the throne of St. Peter worked to put George W. Bush in the White House. That's not a wedge issue - that's an outrage.

And, just as Bush's lies on Iraq should make the public skeptical of anything coming out of his mouth, so Ratzinger's actions should tag anything else he says, sans a sincere apology to the American People.

and John Paul II had a very contentious meeting the Bush over the war. If you happen to be interested in knowing some of the circumstances of the Kerry letter and other Bush-Vatican confrontations, read mehr's posts in this thread and her own thread in GD, also available on the greatest.

You obviously know nothing about the Vatican's position on the war, so if that is important to you, you should bother to inform yourself on the subject.

Me: Bush lied about Iraq...Ratzinger worked to re-elect Bush.

You: John Paul II opposed the Iraq war, so you obviously know nothing about the Vatican's position on the war.

Your logic is breath taking.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It seems that Ratzinger wanted to keep Kerry from communion. But PJP ruled to have another letter sent contradicting what Ratzinger said. If I'm reading this correctly, then it reflects well on the broader-minded Cardinals who sought to correct the letter. But it doesn't clear Ratzinger's behavior in the least.

Here, then, is Ratzinger's previously unpublished memorandum, which he wrote in English expressly for the bishops' conference of the United States:

Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles

by Joseph Ratzinger

1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgement regarding one's worthiness to do so, according to the Church's objective criteria, asking such questions as: "Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?" The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum," nos. 81, 83).

2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. <...> In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propoganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it'" (no. 73). Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God's law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. <...> This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it" (no. 74).

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

4. Apart from an individual's judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person's formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church's teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" <2002>, nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person's subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person's public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.




http://www.faithfulvoice.com/sandro.htm

No matter how the Church mitigated this letter after the fact, this is conclusive evidence that Ratzinger has, at least in the past, attempted to instruct Catholics in the US to vote against liberal candidates.

Tom Ridge (R) was threatened with ex communication as Governor if he signed Pa.'s Abortion bill into law. Tom immediately went public and assured the people of Pa. That he would enact THEIR will and sign the bill into law. I gained much respect for Tom Ridge durring that Time. He signed the bill and to the best of my knowledge he was never ex communicated. So it's pretty much an empty threat. But a THREAT to an elected official from registered agents of a foreign government none the less. They should be treated just as if they were threats from agents of the former Soviet Union or other religious zealots like Osama Bin Laden. Now that america has forced the Vatican to deal with the sexual abuse of thier parishoners by thier preists. Maybe now would be a good time to also force them to deal with the Psychological abuse of their pasrishoners in our government by thier cardnials. I wonder if they can take it as well as they dish it out? Maybe Tom Ridge and John Kerry should visit Benidict XVI. Tell him he has 24 hours to change the Papal Bull to the pope is human and therefore of sin and not righteous and therefore falable. If not he won't burn in hell for all eternity. But the vatican will burn for at least 5000 years after we've nuked it. Unless of course who ever is left cleans it up. :sarcasm: and :kick:

Better Yet! Have them tell Ratzinger he is not Pope because America didn't get to vote in thier election. If they are going to assert themselves into our Government and affairs. Then we will assert ourselves into thier government and affairs. Didn't Jesus say do onto others as you would have them do onto you? We could go Jesus on them and Hussein him. Pure :kick:

it is getting hijacked to continue the religious warfare

thank you for your understanding