www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News NY Times: Group of Bishops Using Influence to Oppose Kerry

Of course I'll forgive them. Does that mean I have to allow my family to be put in harms way until I get the chance?

Dan L

But Memo, I was completely serious.

Apparently, we value liberty over life.
Different people would put the balance n different places, but the principal is clear. The life issue is secondary to the liberty issue.

djs,

It always has been. Thus it was so when the Hebrews left Egypt. Thus it was when Patrick Henry spoke.

Dan L

I'm trying to be a faithful Catholic. So, for me the issue is closed.

Dan L

Notes and Quotes

Oct 17 2004 Articles of Catholic Interest, East & West Vol.2 No.35


Voting for Pro-Aborts Is a Sin

The long-awaited clarification letter from St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke on the issue of voting for pro-abortion politicians appeared in the archdiocesan newspaper. Excerpts are below.

"There is no element of the common good that could justify voting for a candidate who endorses, without restriction or limitation, the deliberate killing of the innocent, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, human cloning or same-sex marriage.

"These elements are so fundamental to the common good that they cannot be subordinated to any other cause, no matter how good.

"Procured abortion and homosexual acts are intrinsically evil, and, as such, can never be justified in any circumstance. Although war and capital punishment can rarely be justified, they are not intrinsically evil. Neither practice includes the direct intention of killing innocent human beings... One cannot justify a vote for a candidate who promotes intrinsically evil acts which erode the very foundation of the common good, such as abortion and same-sex marriage, by appealing to that same candidate�s opposition to war or capital punishment.

"While I respect very much the sentiments of those who are so discouraged with the failure of our public leaders to promote the common good that they have decided not to vote at all, I must point out that the Catholic who chooses not to vote at all, when there is a viable candidate who will advance the common good, although not perfectly, fails to fulfill his or her moral duty in the limitation of a grave moral evil in society.

In another passage, Archbishop Burke castigated those Catholics who neglect their civil and political duties, as well as those who leave their religion at home when they go work.

"The Second Vatican Council exhorts Christians, as citizens of both cities, to perform their duties faithfully in the spirit of the Gospels. It is a mistake to think that, because we have no lasting city, but seek the city which is to come, we are entitled to shirk our earthly responsibilities. This is to forget that by our faith we are bound all the more to fulfill these responsibilities according to the vocation of each one.

"But it is no less of a mistake to think that we may immerse ourselves in earthly activities as if these latter were utterly foreign to religion and religion was nothing more than the fulfillment of acts of worship and the observance of a few moral obligations. One of the gravest errors of our time is the dichotomy between the faith which many profess and the practice of it in their daily lives. Most Rev. Raymond Burke, Archbishop of St. Louis, MO reported in Life Site News.

But the key question that is invariably glossed over by the Bishops who hold this view is what it means to "promote" - especially inasmuch as we live in a liberal democracy, not a monarchy, not Franco's Spain, ...

Secondly the idea of proportionality on the basis of the issue itself rather than the reasonably expected impact on the issue is irresponsibly naive. Is the goal here to reduce abortion or not? Should we vote - for example - for a nominal, and perhaps hypocritical, pro-lifer who is wrong on every other issue?

So while the statement may be correct, in the strictest way, it draws false boundaries. ISTM, that voting for someone who does not support legislation against these acts instead of someone who talks but does not deliver opposition to the acts, can be justified on any number of grounds including adherence to Catholic teachings on war, capital punishment, or whatever.

Except to the cause of liberty?
Which to some means liberty of the nation state, and to others means liberty of individuals.

Like all of us. Including the 60% of those at the Vatican who would vote Kerry.

In reference to the above posts, I am posting the following:

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE FOR OCTOBER 8, 2004 - FROM WASHINGTON, DC
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 01:24:27 -0400
From: "RFC Updates" <mail@rfcnet.org>
Reply-To: "RFC Updates" <support@rfcnet.org>

Organization: Religious Freedom Coalition
To:"RFC" <support@rfcnet.org>

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE - WEEK ENDING OCTOBER 8, 2004

HOUSE AND SENATE IN RECESS UNTIL NOVEMBER 16th

IMPORTANT INTERNATIONAL SECTION TODAY!

THE PRESIDENCY

FORCED ABORTION

President George W. Bush has withheld $25 million in funding from the UN Population Fund (UNFPA)
because of that agency's support of forced abortions and forced sterilizations in Chinaand other nations.
The President transferred the funds to a State Department program to fight human trafficking and
prostitution. Previously the President had transferred $9 million that was to go the UNFPA to the US
Agency for International Development for a reproductive health program. So far this year President George
W. Bush has move 11 percent of the $300 million Congress allotted to the UNFPA to other US agencies
who do not promote abortion. What would John Kerry have done?

ABSTINENCE GRANTS

On October 5th President George W. Bush announced $100 million in new grants for abstinence-focused
programs as part of the $15 billion Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Of the eleven organizations receiving
grants nine are faith-based. The grants will help these faith-based organizations teach children in AIDS
plagued nations such as Ethiopia, Haiti, Tanzania and Zambia to avoid behavior putting them at risk for
HIV. Previously the President has said, "I think our country needs a practical, effective and moral message.
In addition to other kinds of prevention, we need to tell our children that abstinence is the only certain way
to avoid contracting HIV. It works every time." What would John Kerry have done?

In the Senate, in order to avoid filibustering, a committee was appointed to decide which issues should come to a vote. On that committee are certain liberal Democrats.

The conservative judges that President Bush has appointed, had the majority of votes in both houses. What has happened though, is that the liberal Democrats on the Senate committee will not allow Bush's appointees to come to a vote. This is what Pres. Bush means by a litmus test. The judges Pres. Bush appointed, are being forced by the Senate committee to disclose information about past court decisions. This is illegal, and it is being done so that certain Senators will know how these judges will vote in relation to Wade vs. Roe.

In other words, the liberals on the committee want to make sure, that the judges replacing the one's retiring after the election, will be pro-choice.

If in this election, President Bush wins, and the Senate has more Republicans, then the possibility exists that a vote will be forced in the Senate.

Zenovia,

The charge is often made about a stalling action on Bush's judicial nominees. In fact the progress and approval rate is actuall quite good in comparison to other administrations. Data, with partisan commentary, can be found here:
http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-doc.cfm?doc_name=fs-108-2-282

The prospects of picking up enough seats for a cloture vote are essentially zero.

Zenovia,

Maybe your comments on another thread about ignorance on the part of the American public with respect to the judicial nomination process have some merit. The House does not vote on judicial nominees.

What is illegal? One can go into any law library - or subscribe to an online reporting service - and read every opinion ever written by any judicial nominee who has sat on an appellate level court - which is most often the case in the instance of nominees to the federal bench. A judge's decisions are a matter of public record. Again, try to get your facts straight.

Many years,

Neil

Hi,

Yes, but your assertion that the only way to be it is to vote for Bush, and the consequent implication that those who would not vote for Bush are not trying as you do, is insulting to both the intelligence and the effort of the same.

As for me, the issue is also closed. I am not an American Citizen, so I do not have the burden of this particular choice.

Shalom,
Memo.

Memo, be careful! Rumor has it that Mexico is harboring terrorists and has WMDs.

That's not the rumor I heard. The one I heard was that Al Quida has plans to set several bombs off in Mexico City.

dan l

And we have to point out that WE ARE KIDDING before anyone takes it seriously.

I am not trying to stifle any conversation here, but I have often noticed that politics can bring out ugly sides of otherwise lovely people.

Let's all try to respect each other, and realize that in the end, we are all Christians and as such, I would hope, we wish that our country would and could become a country that reflects good Judeo-Christian values through its laws, through its schools, through its magazines, music, books and television shows, and most importantly through the respectability and the hearts of its people...

Just some thoughts for what they are worth,
Alice

Those thoughts are worth a great deal, and I thank you for them. I totally agree with them.