www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall kerry wrong for catholics. com

I found this site today. I personally found it interesting. http://kerrywrongforcatholics.org/
Others may disagree, but anyway here goes...

And whether you agree or disagree with Kerry, it just points out all that he has said and done which is against the teachings of the Catholic Church. Not much commentary, but just what was in newspapers and his voting record in Congress.

Pani Rose

Rose, I have reached the age where I suppose it's OK to be grumpy. But I have had it with Catholics who advocate everything but Church teachings. They are always on a "faith journey" and etc., etc. It's always interesting that when I hear that term, it means the person on the faith journey no longer believes in the doctrines taught by the Church. The whole thing is ridiculous. Either one is Catholic, or one is not! To be Catholic means upholding the teachings of the Church. There's nothing negotiable about it. grump, grump, grump

Byz,

I agree with both of you. How on earth can a Catholic vote for one who supports the killing of babies? Anyway, I wish Mr. Bush had acquitted himself better in the debate. Perhaps he'll do better next time.

Dan L

Well, there is also the matter of putting people in harm's way. Neither candidate wins a contest on preventing death to God's creatures. Bush is more willing to permit capital punishment, etc. It is hard for either candidate to be guiltless based on their records.

It, let's be clear, is the RNC. There should be no expectation that this sampling of information is unbiased.

It does not point out "all" that he has said and done against the teachings of the Catholic Church. I am confident that - bez chisla - wouldn't fit on a web page.

It also raises numerous issues that are not matters of teachings of the Catholic church at all.

Who was behind this? Perhaps Deal Hudson?


I think that your definition is about sinlessness, not about being Catholic. It is not grumpiness but arrogance for a layman to make assertions about who is and who is not Catholic.

We all have sin, and I have as much or more than most! What I think is arrogant is for Catholics to try to weasel around Church teaching to support a candidate or political party. Something is backward with priorities in a case like that. Church teaching on abortion is clear, and capital punishment is a red herring thrown in to the mix to water it down and diffuse it. I don't, and have never, supported capital punishment. But states do have the right to execute criminals for sufficient reason whether I like it or not. States don't have the right to endorse abortion. As to who is or is not Catholic, those who protest Church teaching are Protestants at best, and heretics at worst. I will never put allegiance to a political party ahead of following the teachings of the Church. No matter what arguments I could propose for doing it, I don't think I could sell that crock to God. He wouldn't buy it.

Humm, you are right djs, Paid for by the Republican National Committee Not Authorized By Any Candidate Or Candidate Committee - www.gop.com [gop.com]

Thank God for that! I truly appreciate them putting it out there so we can see just how he has voted. I am sure he has made some good decisions, but if he is continualy going against the beliefs of faith, not just Catholic but even moreso, Scripture in his voting then he is only condeming himself.

Pani Rose

Doesn't matter to me who put out the form. I haven't even looked at it. Kerry is for killing babies and calling homosexual lust "marriage." These positions go against Catholic truth and so I'm opposed to John Kerry. There is nothing difficult about this decision unless you really don't care about the Church.

Dan L

Jim, very good points.

The real Catholic page should be "Catholics can't vote for either in conscience.com"

Most Catholics seem to forget the Holy Father's reminder that life is cradle to grave, and his definition of respect for life is quite expansive [including preventing unjust and unnecessary war] and not myopically focused just on abortion.

The current president sits atop hundreds to thousands of Federally-funded abortions weekly, Federally funded sterilizations, etc. which he has presidential order authority to stop but has never even lifted a finger to slow. He has never even suggested legislation to change this, or attempted to redirect Federal funding away from these programs.

His partial birth flag-waving was nothing more than a sorry political ploy to the neoconservatives, as the bill he signed exempted some heinous techniques from the law, which he knew very well. He has caused unnecessary death and destruction through an unjust and unnecessary war, which he and no one else had the power to stop. His VP candidate has a homosexual child and has "no problem" with that lifestyle, by his own words.

There is simply no higher ground morally with either candidate. I have heard some Catholics say Bush is a "lesser of evils". First of all from a Catholic perspective that is not true, but even if one believes that and supports him they have fallen into a serious moral relativism. An evil is an evil.

For me the choice for president may be the easiest it's ever been. It's Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party. Maybe he won't even get 1 pct, but I totally agree with his platform.

As I have said before, neither candidate is ideal. I would love for a good, moral, Catholic to run for that office - and I would support either male or female. But it takes so much money and influence to get elected, it seems like the good people have no chance of getting nominated or being elected.

Not your call!

Is this characterization - lofted so vaguely - a true one or a rash judgement? Have you considered Cardinal Ratzinger's nota bene, or do you view the Cardinal as a weasel too?

Perhaps you should look at the site.

There are two similar stories cited. These reports differ from yours. Similarly, while you no doubt differ with Kerry on his view of the role of government in the realm of abortion, you would be hard pressed to truthfully support the remark that he is "for killing babies".

Diak�s generalizations about the president�s positions are rather unfair and incorrect.

On his third day in office in 2001 President Bush signed an executive order prohibiting federal funds to be given to international organizations that promote or provide abortions (restoring the �Mexico City Policy� of President Reagan).

In 2002 President Bush signed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which ensures that every infant born alive, including an infant who survives an abortion procedure, is considered a person under Federal law.

In 2003 President Bush signed into law a ban on partial birth abortions. It is far from perfect but there were not enough pro-life votes in Congress to come up with a better bill.

Senator Kerry voted against all of these and more.

Regarding federal funding of domestic abortions, I do not believe the President has the authority to prohibit (via executive order) Title X funds from being used to pay for abortions. He routinely asks Congress not to fund abortions or abortion related activities. He can veto all spending bills that involve abortion funding (something I annually write to him about) but he does not have the votes to sustain the veto. There is some funds that he can redirect with executive order. He redirects almost all of that towards abstinence-only programs or to health care facilities that do not promote or provide abortions.

Yes, the partial-birth abortion ban is far from perfect. It was definitely not a political ploy to conservatives. Shortly after signing the bill into law President Bush called for the loopholes to be eliminated. Sadly, there are not currently enough votes in Congress to do this.

Unjust and unnecessary war? I strongly disagree. I think the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are both just and necessary. In the case of Iraq we gave Hussein 12 years to comply with the United Nations resolutions (I supported what little Clinton did). [The UN was too busy making money off of the Oil for Palaces scandal and wasn�t interested in the killings in Iraq or the genocide in Rwanda.] I support immediate unilateral intervention in Sudan (the UN will never help these people and we cannot stand by and watch another Rwanda). I also support toppling the government of Syria if it does not stop fostering terrorism (which is puppet of Iran who is funding the terrorists on the battleground in Iraq). Saudia Arabia is also on the list of countries to deal with. But we have already discussed this at great length.

Yes, Vice President Cheney is wrong on homosexual issues. Cheney, however, is not the president.

There is a far higher moral ground with Bush than with Kerry. Even within the �seamless garment� teaching there is a ranking. Protection of innocent human life ranks far above other social issues and economic issues. This is a clear teaching of our Church. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger spoke to the issue of moral voting. The press (and some Catholic bishops) left off the part about proportionality and the media wrongly trumpeted it as �Catholic can vote for abortionists�. A close and considered review of Ratizinger�s text show that is only ok to vote for a pro-abortion candidate when there is not a pro-life candidate available. Ratzinger wrote: "Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. �There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia." A possible example of a proportional response would be to choose to vote for Bush (who is not perfectly in line with Church teachings) instead of Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party (who is very close to Catholic teaching) because Peroutka has no chance of winning. Or, if you are in a state with only two pro-abortion senators to choose from.

In each of his votes in the Senate, Kerry has voted against every possible restriction on abortion, even during delivery of the baby. He proudly states his supporting for abortion rights. He has voted consistently to fund abortions. It is fair to conclude from his voting record that Kerry is for killing babies. In my opinion, anyone who votes for a pro-abortion candidate when there is pro-life candidate (even if imperfectly so) on the ballot has the blood of the innocents on his or her hands.

Regarding homosexual marriage, Kerry claims that he is for civil unions and against homosexual marriage but he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act (to prohibit states from being forced to accept homosexual marriages that become legal in other states).

President Bush is far from perfect. But he is much closer to Catholic moral values than is Senator Kerry.

No, I think it's quite simple. What comes first? Your religion, or your party affiliation? You have to make that decision as do we all. For me, it's clear. My salvation is not dependent on either party and is far more important to me than parties or candidate. Candidates and elections come and go. Wait a few years and there will be others. Heaven and Hell last forever. As for Cardinal Ratzinger's document, I don't know what to make of that. The document came out, then a statement saying it was a private communication that was leaked, and that it was not intended as a document the laity should follow. Well, that's clear as mud isn't it?