Consequence of Being Too Politically Neutral In the Past?


When it comes to organizations and labels such as “Catholics for Trump” or “Catholics for Hillary”, it divides people based on political affiliation rather than common dialogue and human right issues. Jesus would not have identified as a Republican or Libertarian.

At the same time though, priests and religious have supported candidates that are more pro-immigrant and condemned pro-life candidates. From a Catholic perspective, the issue of pro-life outweighs the one with illegal immigration because one deals with defending the lives of the unborn and one deals with breaking the law tied with national security.

There is the misconception that the Republicans are anti-immigrant while in reality, they are against illegal immigrants and want to solve the problem unlike the Democrats who want open borders and amnesty so that they will vote for them. We have a broken immigration system, no doubt if you are on the left or right, and it would be just to fix so that legal immigration is okay with illegal immigration is bad.

But if the Democrats support comprehensive immigration despite supporting abortion at all stages and with federal funding, gay marriage, and transgender bathrooms, they are given a parade from these priests and don’t condemn them. From the 2016 platform itself, one can see the Democrats have gone too far to the left.

President Trump has done significant accomplishments such as appointing pro-life judges, tax cut reform so corporations can pay more their employees, low unemployment rate, repealing the individual mandate of Obamacare, and announcing Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel. Those are significant accomplishments for Catholic social justice.

From my understanding, certain priests know little to nothing about political science and it has divided the Church between the Anglo-American and Hispanic Catholic community.

Has not teaching a basic knowledge of a political science course to seminarians lead this division?

What would be the solution for all of this? Thank you.


Once you’ve loaded the question and stacked the deck like this, it’s impossible to have a productive conversation.


With all due respect, it is not my intention to not have a productive conversation.

It is just a complicated issue that I think should be addressed and discussed with great detail.


I couldn’t agree more. I just think you’ve inserted some premises into your post that make it difficult or impossible to have such a conversation, given that they’re factually untrue.


I agree. The fallacies, half-truths and downright untruths in the original post ensure that the conversation will take place in an echo chamber that reflects the original poster’s biases and preconceived notions. Productive is the last thing it will be.


There is no doubt that socialism has been the most evil political philosophy for at least centuries.

Like the story of the serpent in the garden, such evil uses words of compassion, enlightenment and justice. Like Eve, I think the temptation to ally with this evil gets the better of many.

Seeing the sad decline of much of the western church due to unwise alliances has many of us agreeing that the church since the mid 1940’s was not vocal enough in its political opposition to the great deceiver.


[quote=“JP2_Cristero, post:1, topic:498685”]
There is the misconception that the Republicans are anti-immigrant while in reality, they are against illegal immigrants and want to solve the problem unlike the Democrats who want open borders and amnesty so that they will vote for them. We have a broken immigration system, no doubt if you are on the left or right, and it would be just to fix so that legal immigration is okay with illegal immigration is bad.[/quote]

^^^I’ve quoted you above. How does one say there is a misconception that Republicans are anti-immigrant while simultaneously saying they are “against” illegal immigrants? Are you against them as persons that according to Catholic teaching may be exerting what we call inherent “rights” due to the dignity of the human being to find meaningful work and/or flea tyranny? Also, it is incorrect to say the ‘left’ wants open borders, but it would be correct to say they are seeking a solution to the refugee crisis in the way of pathways to citizenship which is perfectly appropriate. Also, appointing pro-life judges isn’t an automatic pathway to overturning Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade and the consequences thereof were set forth by a U.S. Supreme Court majority of Republican appointed Judges…Fact!~


There is a huge difference between legal and illegal immigration.

If Mexico was truly a merciless government like North Korea, Vietnam, and Venezuela, why would the US have diplomatic relations with them? My sympathy goes to the hardworking illegal immigrants, my family from Mexico crossed illegaly but got amnesty from Reagan and have contributed to society. The ones who aren’t and who are just criminals and lazy welfare recipients, deport them out.

You seem to appeal to emotion “fact!” and there are two things wrong with your statement. Out of the seven justices who approaved Roe V Wade: Four D and three 3. And two, the two parties were evenly split on the issue on abortion during the 1970’s.

Pray to God it will overturn Roe v Wade.


Roe v Wade was approved 7-2. Six of the seven were Republican appointed. This is fact and correlates with my statement prior. Also, it is foolishness to continue with the rhetoric of the right talking point of the who gets “welfare”. Out of shear decency no one can deny treatment in a hospital emergency department (law) but they are NOT getting traditional welfare as many like to spin. Also, when (if) they find employment they DO contribute to a tax base into which they can never receive the benefit thereof. They assist in floating the boat for social security by paying into a local economy tax base, but can never utilize it. A pathway to citizenship for those working difficult jobs and contributing to our community mostly with jobs Americans are not conditioned to handle would be no less than justice. Social justice.


I have yet to come across any forum where it is possible to have any productive conversation when party politics get involved .


[quote=“JP2_Cristero, post:1, topic:498685, full:true”]

it has divided the Church[/quote]

And another thing , @JP2_Cristero who has only been a member for less than a day , which divides the Church is those who let party politics mould their Catholicism , when in truth they should be moulding their politics by their Catholicism .


The Church is not a political organization.


The Church is not a political organization.


Abortion was a very new issue in the late 1960s and early 1970s. There had been a lot of “clump of cells” propaganda, and false, made-up numbers of women obtaining and dying from abortion. Some of those USSC justices were on the bench before the sexual revolution, quite possibly before the advent of the pill in 1958.

At the point Roe v Wade was decided, abortion was not a party issue, much less when they were appointed.

ETA: the is “Confessions of an Ex-Abortionist” by Dr Bernard Nathanson (who later converted first to be an atheist pro-lifers then to Catholicism) in which he describes how the media and thus the nation was deceived about abortion.


I think the solution is conversion.

Here is what GK Chesterton says: The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful.

(From his book Orthodoxy, )

Each party in the US seems or purports to present a coherent all-encompassing philosophy but the reality is that each presents a set of sometimes unrelated solutions which they link, sometimes rather wildly, to the singular underlying philosophy.

The two parties ought to balance each other, each to keep the other from going too far in its philosophical direction, but since the 1960s, this has become less and less the case as the division between the two has widened.


Let me get this right your parents were undocumented immigrants who got a path to citizenship but we should ship all the undocumented immigrants out. There is nothing self serving there. /s/


I think you replied to the wrong person.


Not replying. Iwill fix it.


This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit