Archbishop Chaput: Democrats have ‘gotten worse’ on abortion because Catholics haven’t left

When it comes to the intersection of the Catholic faith and Catholic teachings with politics, BCI rarely hears better public comments from a bishop than those coming from Archbishop Chaput and Cardinal Burke.  Here is the latest from Archbishop Chaput, as reported by LifeSite News:

Archbishop Chaput: Democrats have ‘gotten worse’ on abortion because Catholics haven’t left

October 24, 2012 ( – In a recent video interview with Catholic News Service, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia said that the position of the Democrat Party on abortion has “gotten worse” over time because Catholics within the party haven’t taken a strong moral stand and shown a willingness to abandon the Democrat Party.

“I think many of the Democrats have [taken] Democrat Catholic votes for granted because they’ll go with them no matter what the party position might be on abortion,” Archbishop Chaput said. “That’s why the position of the Democrat Party has gotten worse, and worse, and worse as time goes on because Catholics haven’t abandoned them as they’ve moved in that direction.”

Chaput said that in the earliest days of the abortion debate in the United States, most people probably thought that the Republican Party would’ve “easily embraced abortion,” and that Democrats would have been the political party standing for the defense of life because of the large number of Catholics within the party.

“Catholics have been historically part of the Democrat Party in great numbers, and I think really could’ve stopped that great development movement if they tried, but they didn’t in order to accommodate people from the other side of the issue,” he said.

The Archbishop also said that you can’t always trust the Republican Party to stand for the defense of life either.

“You know you can’t trust the Republicans to be pro-life 20 years from now. You can’t let any party take your vote for granted,” said Chaput.

Archbishop Chaput called on Catholics in the United States to put their Catholic identity ahead of their political party, and even their American citizenship, to stand united with the Church’s moral teaching opposing abortion.

“We’re Catholics before we’re Democrats. We’re Catholics before we’re Republicans. We’re even Catholics before we’re Americans because we know that God has a demand on us prior to any government demand on us,” he said. “And this has been the story of the martyrs through the centuries.”

“[Abortion] is a very serious issue that requires absolute adherence on the part of Catholics,” the Archbishop said, “and if we don’t stand united on this issue we’re bound to failure—not only in the area of protecting unborn human life but in maintaining our religious freedom.”

BCI agrees.  Oddly, Cardinal O’Malley, in November 2007 said the following in a Boston Globe interview:

“I think the Democratic Party, which has been in many parts of the country traditionally the party which Catholics have supported, has been extremely insensitive to the church’s position, on the gospel of life in particular, and on other moral issues,” O’Malley said.

Acknowledging that Catholic voters in Massachusetts generally support Democratic candidates who are in favor of abortion rights, O’Malley said, “I think that, at times, it borders on scandal as far as I’m concerned.”

“However, when I challenge people about this, they say, ‘Well, bishop, we’re not supporting [abortion rights],’ ” he said. “I think there’s a need for people to very actively dissociate themselves from those unacceptable positions, and I think if they did that, then the party would have to change.”

That was then, this is now, when Cardinal O’Malley has allowed himself to be muzzled by his senior aide, Fr. Bryan Hehir.  To his credit, the Cardinal is talking out about how we should vote against Question 2 (Physician Assisted Suicide).  Aside from that, we hear nothing else from His Eminence about the moral choices we face in the election.   Does he not care?

22 Responses to Archbishop Chaput: Democrats have ‘gotten worse’ on abortion because Catholics haven’t left

  1. Mary Zoza says:

    In Massachusetts, where can social conservatives go? The MA GOP several years was considering putting a pro-abortion plank in the state platform. Their official position now is to be silent on social issues, which means in practice to recruit socially liberal candidates, like Charlie Baker. They apparently recruited Elizabeth Childs to primary Sean Bielat this time (last time they probably figures he didn’t have a chance) and it wouldn’t surprise me if they also recruited that unknown Fall River dentist to primary him as a social conservative and split the conservative vote.

    Look at our Senate candidates — A real bloodlust-for abortion Dem and a Rockefeller Republican “What’s all the fuss about abortion? I’m ‘pro-choice’ too!” Undoubtedly if Scott Brown were a social conservative, they would have primaried him too!

    BTW, I’m Unenrolled.

  2. Ray Neary says:

    To most “catholics” today in Massachusetts, their religion is the Democrat Party and their politics is the Roman Catholic church. Polling and election results bear this out – tragically.

    • Michael says:

      We can thank our bishops and our pastors for allowing the “catholics” to call themselves Catholic and to go astray.

  3. saintpio1 says:

    I have been saying for years that catholics are putting their “party” before their faith! Just now the priests are starting to say it–where have they been??? Why aren’t they saying -if you vote for a candidate who votes for abortion (or many of the other now sinful practises) that you cannot come to communion!!!!??? The Popes lagged on concecrating Russia to the Blessed Virgin…they are not shepherds any more. Shepherds would catch their sheep before they became lost. Many of our catholics in the pew should not be coming to communion because of contraception practises. Where is the backbone of a priest who refuses to say what they should, be MEN, be FORCEFUL, be LOUD and shepherd their sheep. They are more business men than shepherds. They are losing their sheep!!!

  4. saintpio1 says:

    Phyllis Schlaffly ( Eagle Forum) worked hard and long to keep the repulican party prolife, otherwise they too would be prochoice! BLESS HER GOD!

    • Michael says:

      newsflash … the republican party is not pro-life

      • ANNE says:

        Michael – please provide the basis for your statement that we can check. Use the Party Platforms and the voting records of the majority of votes by Party in the House and the Senate

        The ‘Mexico City Policy’, is an intermittent United States government policy that requires all non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services as a method of family planning with non-US government funds in other countries.
        The policy has not been in effect since January 23, 2009 when Obama took office.
        Since 1973, USAID has followed the Helms Amendment ruling, banning use of US Government funds to provide abortion as a method of family planning anywhere in the world.
        The policy is a political flashpoint in the abortion debate, with Republican administrations adopting it and Democratic administrations rescinding it.
        The policy was:
        1) enacted by Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1984,
        2) rescinded by Democratic President Bill Clinton in January 1993,
        3) re-instituted in January 2001 as Republican President George W. Bush took office,
        4) and rescinded January 23, 2009, 2 days after Democratic President Barack Obama took office.

  5. saintpio1 says:

    There is another candidate running for president!!!!!!!! He is very prolife!!
    He has 76% of electoral votes he needs. He can be written in on any ballot!!!!

  6. Objective Observer says:

    …and take a vote from the only person who can beat Obama!

    • Michael says:

      yes the man who can beat obama is aggressively anti-life and pro same-sex “marriage.” great option. explain how moral that vote (action) is.

    • ANNE says:

      No body outside of a few people have ever heard of him.
      I can’t even find him on the internet under the .com that was provided.
      A vote for a losing candidate, is a vote for OBAMA.

      Are the people supporting this guy – serious or are they for OBAMA ?
      In what States is he on the ballots? He is not even on the ballot in MA, let alone FL, OH, VA, etc.

      People beware, although we do not know who is and is not sincere, Obama operatives have tried to get Catholics not to vote or vote for some person sure to lose rather than vote for Gov. Romney.
      Dirty tricks.

      • ANNE says:

        Whoops – sorry, Heofling is only on 3 states ballots – FL, CA and CO.
        He can’t win as a write in – in 47 States.

        Obama or Romney will win – which do you choose to pick the next Supreme Court Justices, or fix the economy ? ? ?.
        Who will do the least harm ? ? ?

  7. Objective Observer says:

    Ask yourself how you will feel, when you wake up on November 7th, and hear that Barack Obama has been re-elected by a razor thin margin — and it’s the votes that went to Mr. Hoefling?

    There are times when we would prefer not to vote “for” either candidate, so that leaves voting against the one you like less.

    The claim that Mr. Hoefling has any percentage of the electoral vote has no ground. I’m not saying he isn’t a great guy, but every vote he gets is a vote that helps Barack Obama.

    • Fr. J. says:

      Michael and Saintpio1, While your intent of voting for someone who is “very pro-life”, “a good man, and a great American” is admirable, I hope you have come to grips with the reality that those who do so (in a swing state where the electoral vote is still up for grabs) are helping to re-elect Obama. If you REALLY think Tom Hoefling has a chance of winning the electoral vote in the U.S., I think you’re kidding yourselves.

      The next POTUS will either be Obama or Romney.The margin is likely to be razor-thin. If Obama were to win by thin margin, say by the # of votes that 3rd party candidates like Mr. Hoefling got, how will you feel on the next day? Are you going to proudly tell your friends,”I’m glad we have Obama for another 4 yours! And I helped make that possible by voting 3rd party, since Romney wasn’t up to par”? I shudder at the thought of who Obama will appoint to the Supreme court, especially if the Senate is controlled by Democrats for another 4 years.

      If neither major candidate is perfect on moral issues important to Catholics, it is morally permissible to vote for the one likely to do less harm. You might consult the Voters Guide for Serious Catholics from Catholic Answers for more perspective;

      • Fr. J. says:

        sorry for typo–I meant to say, “are you going to proudly tell your friends “I’m glad we have Obama for another 4 years!”?

    • Marie says:

      saintpio1 and Michael…

      This is not an election year to toss a vote away. And, if you do, on November 7, 2012 you will each be saying, “PLEASE GOD, HELP US!!!!”

      Hold your nose, make your mark and make your mark count, because this election is all about God and country. The fix you are looking for will not happen by making your point; it can only happen by making your vote count.

      For this election, you need a saviour. If you do not elect one, in four more years, it won’t make a difference that you are pro or anti anything.

    • Anni says:

      I’ll add my voice to these comments. This election is about abortion and access to abortion more than any other election since the Roe v. Wade decision. If you don’t believe that all you have to do is listen to Elizabeth Warren’s TV and radio ads. Several times we are advised that “Scott Brown had ONE vote to confirm a Supreme Court judge to UPHOLD ROE V. WADE”. “They” try to make us believe that there is no litmus test for judges, but this is proof positive that there IS a litmus test. If Obama is re-elected, he will apply the litmus test to three or four appointments and we will not have a court open to strict interpretation of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment for the next 20 years and possibly beyond.

      If there ever was a time to hold your nose and vote, this is it.

  8. John O'Gorman says:

    Archbishop Chaput, OFM Cap., before his transfer to Philadelphia, welcomed the Knights of Columbus to Denver, CO for the K of C Supreme Convention in August 2011.

    When asked by a brother Knight to challenge the K of C on their double-standard on abortion, he replied that he could not “host and criticize” the K of C.

    So, is Archbishop Chaput a spiritual leader, or did he act like an MC welcoming actors to the Oscars? To be sure, it was a great party!

    John O’Gorman

  9. Marie says:

    John O’Gorman,

    The bigger question is, did “brother” Knight remain a Knight?

    I would like to revisit the vote question for a moment. I so strongly feel that this is one of the most important presidential races ever, that I hope the other candidates (all parties) will stand down and support one of the two significant races, that is how narrow the margin may be.

    There will be no glory in making a point with your vote; your voice will not be heard; you must vote as if your life depended on it for one of the two who is sure to win. You may be the difference.

    • says:

      Thanks Marie. Yes, the brother Knight remained in the K of C, trying to change things from the inside. I intend to vote! Of course, Archbishop Chaput is absolutely right about Democrats and abortion. I have researched the Catholics in Congress and summarized as follows: Democrats: 80 (91%) Pro-Abortion Catholics, and 3 (3%) Pro-Life: 27 to 1 (5 Mixed)………Total 88 Republican: 0 (0%) Pro-Abortion Catholics, and 70 (97%) Pro-Life: 0 to 70 (2 Mixed)……..Total 72 *SUMMARY: 80 (50%) Pro-Abortion Catholics outnumber 73 (46%) Pro-Life (7 Mixed)….Total 160 Startling Contrast: Among Catholics in Congress, 3% of Dems are Pro-Life v. 97% of Republicans! Anyone seeking my research on the K of C or Catholics in Congress can contact me, John O’Gorman, at _LifeJohn@aol.com_ (

  10. concerned says:

    What Soviet Medicine Teaches Us

    By Yuri Maltsev

%d bloggers like this: