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

ByzTN,
That is simple. And I know of no one who has a religion who would hesitate in answering this. What is not so simple is your implict assumption there there is some party that incompatible with our religion. (Would that be the party of Pataki, Giuliani, Arnold, ...? )

Broad philosophical principles of parties endure, while implementations of them come and go, as issues wax and wane. My affiliation is related to the broader principles even while there are areas of serious disagreement on specific issues - areas that I work to change.

You may consider this to be weaseling. But on fundamental moral teaching of the church I have no issue. I am, admittedly, doubtful that the various writings on how to inform one's voting have the same infallible stature, particularly because the disparity of treatment, which ranges from the black/white of some US Bishops, to the more nuanced statement of the Cardinal. Even so, I am unconflicted on the matter; I have pointed out before, my voting decisions have, arguably, a better prospect of leading to a solution to the significant moral issue at-hand, than those advocated by others here.

You yourself have insouciantly stipulated that you have no idea how your voting strategy could lead to a solution of the abortion problem - the great moral issue of our time. I think that the very political dimensions of facing this problem -necessarily going beyond the metaphorical burying of talents to avoid making an error - may be very strongly connected to salvation.

Dear Administrator,

It's fascinating to see your increasing appetite for military interventions. Being bogged down in Iraq does tend to limit our prospects, however. Ironically the war in Iraq has paved the way for nuclear development in Iran. Another miscalculation.

Kerry on the DOMA, 1996:

"The misnamed and misguided Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is as unconstitutional and unnecessary as it is mean-spirited and malicious. The authors of the bill mistakenly claim that Congress has the authority to allow one state to ignore a legally recognized marriage in another. But the U.S. Constitution is unequivocal on this point: �Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.�

Imagine the confusion if we didn�t have such a clause: A child-custody decision in California could be ignored by Illinois; a divorce concluded in Nevada could be rejected in New York. DOMA does violence to the spirit and letter of the Constitution by allowing the states to divide.

Unconstitutional. Unnecessary. Premature. Presumptuous. What is this debate really about? It seems no coincidence that every election year a few politicians gang together for some legislative gay bashing. This behavior panders to the basest instincts of the human condition--scapegoating and ostracizing. "


The point on the constitutionality of the DOMA was re-iterated by Bush in advancing the need for a constitutional amendment. This amendment is the bashing for the legislature in this election cycle. It has no prospect of passing, but is brought for a vote - just for parada.

No such votes on the vaunted pro-life amendment from these phonies, naturally.

djs,

Kerry's website states his position on nominating judges is to make acceptance of "abortion rights" mandatory for such appointees.

Bush's position is manifestly the opposite since many of his judicial appointees have faced filibusters by Senate Democrats and still have not taken their place on the bench. See, for example this news article:

http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=8551

If elected, Kerry would no doubt remove those judicial nominations and then substitute "pro-choice" nominees in their stead.

Roe v. Wade was almost overturned a few years ago until Justice Stevens changed his mind. A few Supreme Court justices are likely to retire soon.

Who is most likely to negatively impact the nation's judiciary (both in the Federal courts and the Supreme Court) as they make nominations? Kerry or Bush?

I was unable to add these news links regarding the battle over judicial appointments since the time for editing my post had expired:

http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/nominees/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3266239.stm

Admin,

I have no intention of getting involved in this debate, as I decline to aggravate myself by debating politics, with or without including the religious considerations involved, at home or on the net. As the likelihood of anyone convincing another to change his/her mind, particularly in an environment such as this is miniscule to none, why bother? Besides which, I consider both candidates to represent poor opportunities from which to choose.

That said, I bothered to read this thread tonight; why, I don't know - and saw the above comment in your post. Let me just offer, all else in Bush's favor or disfavor aside, that the law you cite as a positive indicator for him will likely endure as the most useless piece of legislation crafted this century.

It created no status that didn't already exist at law and offered no expectation as to any born-alive infant which didn't previously exist either at law and/or in medical ethics. Any violations of the pre-existing concepts that transpired in the past will not be less likely to transpire in the future because someone has drafted another piece of legislation which says it is wrong to do what has long been defined as wrong. Neither is anyone who previously failed to exercise professionally recognized standards of care with respect to such infants more likely to do so because another piece of paper has been added to the documents which already require that they do so.

If you're going to give Bush credit for anything, at least make it something which was worth the cost of printing the statute.

Many years,

Neil

It's kind of unfortunate, in a way, that we don't have a Catholic party in the U.S. But if we did, it's likely that the political process would ultimately corrupt it and make it Catholic in name, only. So we have two candidates from two parties, and I can't say I really like either of them. Granted, I object to the candidates on certain points and can also find myself in agreement with either candidate on other points. I think one problem is that neither candidate is solidly anti-abortion in all cases. But I don't have the allegiance to one party over the other that would cause me to automatically vote for it's candidates. Sharon Mech said on another thread sometime back that she would be holding her nose and voting in this election. Same here.

djs, what I am getting at is that I find it ludicrous that any individual would have a loyalty to one party that is so strong, it becomes more important than anything else. I am old enough to have seen both parties totally reverse their platforms. The Democrat and Republican platforms are seemingly not even related to what the parties believed in my father's day. I have seen the original flip-flop, long before Kerry was even a senator.

Thanks, Neil, you took the words right out of my mouth.

I have to say I disagree with about everything the Admin stated in his post, and will not dissect it point by point.

The Holy Father has made it clear that the war in Iraq most certainly does not meet just war criteria. He has told the President to his face that he disagrees with the US waging this war. He has furthermore included unnecessary war in his statements regarding respect for life.

I go with my Church on this issue and my loyalty is to Church first, and party somewhere down in the double digits of priority. That is why I am independent. Both major parties and both major party candidates maintain positions in DIRECT opposition to my faith.

The President has presidential order authority to cease and desist any Federal funding of an Adminstrative branch program. That covers a lot of abortions and sterilizations conducted by Federal agencies, employees of Federal agencies, etc.

If he gets trumped by a court, or Congress, so be it. At least there is a public show of courage. This president has made none. None.

He has never spoken out against the Federal programs within the administrative branch, of which he is ultimately responsible as commander-in-Chief, that provide death to children and sterilization of women.

He has not attempted to even suggest introduction of any legislation whatsoever to correct Roe V. Wade. If any litmus test of a pro-life president is necessary, it is that one.

Afghanistan was no show of courage. It was a necessity. And when the quarry was in the bag, the President balked, allowing the lackeys to fail in bringing home the quarry.

Sure, Cheney is the VP. I won't debate you on that. No Presidential candidate embraces a VP candidate without embracing partially his stances. To accept a VP candidate with which you disagree on major moral issues is either intellectual suicide or just stupidity.

All of the President's attempts at portraying a pro-life stance are merely political positioning to win over neoconservative support. We can go through every one of them, point by point and show the shortcomings AND the fallicies. I am quite prepared to do so if we really want to go down that road.

My position stands, this President offers ABSOLUTELY no higher ground to Kerry. Any attempts at proving Bush does offer anything better will fall as misinformed at best, polemical and deceptive at worst.

This is simply a statement of a relativist or Machievallian position, which proportionality is a nice way of hiding.

Our Lord and 12 apostles in the midst of the Roman Empire was indeed a minor "independent" movement. The Cross looked like a statistical improbability to most at the time.

No vote cast in a pure Catholic conscience is wasted, whether that vote be write-in or otherwise. At the end of the day, you have voted your conscience. That is the bottom line. Proportionality is just a nice cover for moral relativism when the "proportions" are completely opposed to the Catholic faith.

Salvation starts with our own soul and our own conscience. If we cannot even order that aright, we've got major problems.

That, I suppose would be ludicrous. It would foreclose disagreements on various issues., and thus doesn't apply to the discussions here. It's a red herring.

I think I have to disagree with you Neil.
The partial birth abortion ban was worse. Instead of seizing the moment to press for broad restrictions on late term abortions it simply outlawed one specific procedure. The number of lives saved is zero. Worse, it effectively set the precedent that late term abortions are OK provided they are not so openly gruesome.

Even if well-intended (and I am skeptical), it should be understood that we are responsible not only for having good intentions but for bearing good fruit and avoiding the bad fruit of unintended consequences. (Ditto for Iraq, btw).

Perhaps I misunderstood you. You kind of came across that way as someone fanatically committed to one party, right or wrong, regardless of Church teaching, etc., etc. I realize print communication is subject to all kinds of misunderstanding and miscommunication. Perhaps that's what has happened here. Of course we can disagree on various issues.

DTB:
I am really untroubled by the supreme court issue;
I don't see this strategy as fruitful for solving the abortion problem, which will only come from changing peoples attitudes. In fact, I forsee ral drawbacks to this appraoch, which would turn the decision making back to the states.

In the civil rights era, the obstructionists wanted the issue left to the disgression of hte various states. Fortunately the 14th amendment stood in their way. The treatment of blacks in the south might have been considered entirely approapriate in the various southern states, but when viewed throughout the nation, it roused the conscience of the nation. The weight of national opinion brought about a change even in the southern states disinclined to make the change.

Similarly I think that this a cohesive national opinion needs to be cultivated on this issue, rather than relieving this pressure by effectively restricting the voices of the proponents of change to their own states. In the long run, overturning Roe v. Wade will probably cost more lives than it will save.

ByzTn:

Oh, so it was me that you were calling ludicrous. :rolleyes:

Committed, yes. Although in recent times this imply means rejecting the slander that they're all a bunch of crooks.
Fanatically, no. My efforts are too limited. But I do love my country and care passionately about her future.
Before my church, never.
I am sorry that you would read this into my writings.

I would grant that the President himself is sincere in his views. But the party actions, for which he may not be totally responsible, are consistently poll-driven posturing to gain support of social conservatives. Thus votes on the gay marriage amendment are pushed, but not on the pro-life amendment. Cutting funds to international agencies - oh my, that's controversial in America. And so on.