Saving the Oath

Saving the Oath

Regarding my post yesterday on the new politically correct Oath of Citizenship being sneaked in by the Department of Homeland Security. It appears that the White House has put a hold on it. And now Sen. Lamar Alexander has proposed that if a new oath is going to be made it should be made stronger. He also says it’s too important to be composed by government functionaries.

The Oath of Allegiance is a fundamental statement on the commitment of becoming a United States citizen.  It should not be altered by a government agency, no matter how well intentioned.  And I don participation.” The group’s president is Ray Flynn, former mayor of Boston and former Clinton ambassador to the Vatican.

In an article on the group’s web site, Flynn posits that a good Catholic should neither claim loyalty to either the Democrat or Republican party.

A question I have often been asked is, “Can you be a good Catholic and a Democrat in light of the Democratic Party’s positions on life and family?” But another question might also be, “Can you be a good Catholic and a Republican in light of the Church’s moral positions on social and economic justice and the death penalty?” My response to both of these questions is a question of my own.

Can you be a good Catholic and support either a Democratic or Republican candidate who opposes Church teachings on each of these vitally important principles of our Catholic faith? Both parties reach out to Catholic voters claiming that they best represent their values on the issues. So what’s the answer? The following statement may upset leaders of both political parties, who believe it is they who deserve the support of Catholic voices. Which party should faithful Catholics vote for? I say neither party reflects the values and principles of the Catholic faith and I’ll explain why.

I’ll accept Flynn’s point that good Catholics must put their adherence to the Church’s teachings first, before loyalty to any particular political party. That’s just common sense.

I don’t buy into every Republican plank in their party platform and I’m opposed to the legalization of the death penalty in our country based on what our country can do to insure justice without it. However, I can’t believe Flynn’s thesis here. You can’t equate the Democrats’ pro-abortion, pro-sexual perversity positions with the Republicans’ stance on economic and social issues.

For the Democrats, their positions cannot be reconciled with the Church’s clear doctrine. For Republicans, their positions on economics and “social justice” can be justified in relation to Church teaching and are a matter of prudential judgment. It’s just not the same thing and I think Flynn’s liberal political sympathies are showing here.

  • More to the point, MB, is that the Democrat position on economics is at least a prudential judgment and someone can make an argument for it within Catholic teaching (not a convincing one in my opinion, but they can do it.)

    But on the make-or-break issues of life, the Democrats can’t be reconciled at all.

    Here’s my main point: One can be a real Republican and be a good Catholic, if a slightly uncomfortable one at times. But you can’t be a real Democrat and be a good Catholic.

    What do you say about a party that links to anti-Catholic groups from its web site, but won’t link to a group of pro-life Democrats?

    I think the days that a Catholic could reasonably assert that there’s a place for him in Democrat party ended when Gov. Casey of Pennsylvania was refused the opportunity to speak at the 1992 national convention because of his pro-life views.

  • My question may well be construed as “naive” but here you are:

    How many “Catholic Voice” groups do we need?

    I understand that the lay folk outta speak up, but do we need a “group” to give us the legitimacy to do so? I question that. In fact, I say no, we don’t.

    Call me cynical (“Kelly, you’re cynical”), but I’m weary of the “voices.” They’ve been loud, shrill,  judgmental, and they don’t always make a whole lot of sense.

    This one is frankly political. No problem there, as long as we recognize it for what it is. And there seems to have been some thought in putting together this web-site…refreshing from the slap-dash efforts I’ve seen. I mean, it’s something I can see myself taking seriously. The articles, many of them, seem well worth reading.

    Ray Flynn broke ranks with the party in the 2000 presidential election. Is that news to you? It was to me. Maybe I had earplugs on, but I sure as hell don’t remember hearing Flynn speak out for Bush or speak out against Gore.

    I think, despite my automatic dislike for one more “voice” in the arena, that this group may be worth watching.

    As long as it doesn’t levy taxes—uh, I mean, donations—to do so. wink

  • If you are a good Catholic in Massachusetts, perhaps you should register Democrat, and then vote in the Dem primaries, where you will choose ALL of your Federal Representatives. 

    After all, a pro-life Democrat is a better vote than a pro-abortion Republican.

    I’m actually thinking of changing parties to Dem so I can vote for H.Dean in the primaries, to ensure that the Dem pres. candidate gets to relive the days of Dukakis and McGovern.

    REMEMBER:  Flynn did campaigned for George Bush, he shared a stage with him in Boston.

    Flynn is a good Catholic, who supports the candidate who BEST represents the teachings of the Faith.

    Good for him.

  • I’m a registered Republican in the state of Massachusetts, in the City of Boston.

    This gives me the advantage of never having to wait in line during primary elections.

    But I’m like Chris, in the sense that I can’t ever recall voting a straight party ticket.

    P.S. Thanks, Joe, for the reminder, sheesh wink

    P.P.S. Chris, you mean “pro-abortion,” right?