Should Catholic voters support Democrats?

[*michaelsean*]

(08-25-2020, 09:01 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: Yeah, maybe in 500 AD.

And I did; you mentioned, "dogma," then I responded that said, "dogma," was just control and stuff that is to be taken as fluff in today's modern world.

- I go to church every Sunday, without fail (haven't since February, due to COVID). This, I deem to be the most-important part of any religion, aside from living your life with the morals and values it teaches.
- On that note, I absolutely live on the morals and values that Catholicism teaches and there have been occasions in life where I have not (nobody's perfect and I have acted out of turn on a few occasions, but I have atoned or attempted to atone for the times I have not been a model person). This, I also feel, is what separates each religion and sect from the other (its morals and values)
- I pray a ton
- I wear 2 crosses and (a currently missing) St. Antonio around my neck, along with a rosary ring and an Our Father ring.
- I observe Lenten tradition and do not eat meat on Fridays (an Italian-Catholic thing), haven't my entire life (there have been fluke occurrences).
- I have St. Antonio tattooed as a half-sleeve

Religion, like everything in life, requires an evolution of sorts and a shit-ton of so-called, "dogma," that you talk about, has to be eschewed or completely gone against; every religion is chock full of hypocrisies and paradoxes, thus on occasion, it's impossible to act, speak or think one way that is acceptable, while at the same time not going against another teaching.

For example, Jesus was a walking Golden Rule observer, yet if we are to follow his lead and treat everyone how he/we wished to be treated, why am I not allowed to bring a raised and Catholic-following friend to church with me, because he's gay? I have to turn him away and shun him, because his lifestyle is viewed as sin in the eyes of the faith I believe in?

And there are a lot more paradoxes where that came from.

Therefore, all of this, "dogma," which attempts to create black and white scenarios, cannot be adhered to in an increasingly grey world. Period. Accept it. You even said so yourself:


And there's your evolution! One piece of, "dogma," that has been eschewed.

But then you mention:

(which it isn't)

So what is it? Is the doctrine sound? Or is it that not everything has to be followed to the letter in 2020, due to a significantly more-complicated world than it was 1800 years ago?

Anyways, this is a discussion for another thread and I'm rambling to death anyways. Basically, I know from what I see, experience, think and do daily, that I'm a helluvalot of a better Catholic (in terms of adhering to the doctrine) than 95% of the ones I've spent my entire life around and that is completely non-hyperbolic.

Did you just say signs isn’t infallible? Why are you still pretending? There are hundreds of churches that evolve as you like. And who told you you can’t bring a gay man to church and that you must shun him?

Im not sure why you quoted me those two times. Did you think there was a contradiction? That’s not dogma.

I have a feeling you don’t know Catholic dogma very well. That’s not meant as an insult but maybe you should read them all. As a Catholic, you are required to accept them.