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

For those of y'all who don't mind some expletives, and who are as tasteless as I, go to, www.georgebushisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com [georgebushisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com]

Logos Teen

That site is funny! At my age, what's another expletive or two? I tell the kids in my classes that I have already heard any and every bad word they can come up with, so they are not going to surprise me with anything.

No, you are not ludicrous. I was speaking generally about liberal Catholics who work harder at undermining our Faith than living it. I don't know you, so what I perceive in your writings is all I have to go by. Nothing was directed at you personally. And you are right, nothing can come before the Church.

I did not mention another military intervention. You assumed it.

Military intervention might be necessary someday, but this administration has been putting great pressure on Syria to break its ties with Iran and turn to the West. It may still happen without the need for military action. Those who think that we can treat terrorism as crimes to be responded to do not understand at all.

The �Defense of Marriage Act� does two things. First, it provides that no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other State with respect to a same-sex "marriage." Second, it defines the words "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of Federal law. It does not do �violence to the spirit and letter of the Constitution�. It protects marriage and the family by defining marriage as the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse as a husband or wife of the opposite sex.

It is constitutional, necessary, overdue and thoughtful.

This debate is about preserving what is left of a solid foundation of right and wrong upon which our society rests. People with homosexual tendencies are good people and are called to holiness. Homosexual activity is always wrong. It should always be discouraged. It should not be allowed the special rights and protections of that which is good and holy.

My inference is drawn form your calls for immediate unilateral intervention and toppling in a paragraph about just wars.

Such legislation runs directly into the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. I don't know if there has been a test case, but Bush specifically referrred to the prospect of this statute being overturned in court in his call for support on a constituional amendment.
I do agree, however, that now - seven years after the passage of DOMA and Kerry's article - the topic is no longer premature or presumptuous.

Again we disagree at a very fundamental level. I do not want our government overstepping its competence by reaching into religious realms, making judgments of what is is holy, and taking state action in its support. It is our church that reveals and calls us to what is holy. And by our example, we call those around us, as well.

The path of lobbying for government mandates is unlikely to work. It's like Patriarch Alexis hoping to fend off proselytism by government fiat rather than by evangelism.

Hmmm.

I haven't posted much on the forum since last winter.

But I cannot let this thread go any longer.

Djs, I am absolutely floored that an intelligent Christian like yourself could offer such tortured rationalizations for supporting candidates that hold the muderous "pro-choice" position. It's like supporting Hitler with the excuse that he builds good roads. Earlier in the thread, you took umbrage at ByzanTN's assertion that Kerry supports the killing of babies, papering Kerry's position over as "a different view on the role of government in the realm of abortion."

No kidding that Kerry has "a different view on the role of government in the realm of abortion." That's because Kerry thinks that the "role of government" is to protect the so-called right to abortion!! Your abstract language cannot hide the hideous reality of this position, however: I have stood on the sidewalk and watched as young girls were corraled by "escorts," away from sidewalk counselors and into the chambers of death where the little human being within would be tortured, maimed, and killed. The blood of these infants, tens of thousands strong, cries to heaven for vengeance--and what will happen to us if that vengeance, which belongs to the LORD of hosts, should fall upon ourselves? What if we should be called to account for failing to save one of those little babies from destruction? What if we should be called to account for (as Kerry and others have done) dedicating our public service to the preservation of this horrible reality that is abortion?

I'm sorry Djs, but there is no doubt that Kerry supports the killing of babies. All the euphemistic language in the world--whether of "choice," or "freedom," or (most inappropriately of all) "compassion"--cannot get around that simple fact.

And don't think that I am so naive to think that Bush is some kind of pro-life activist, either. That's why I'm voting for the only truly American choice in this election, Mr. Peroutka. But that is beside the point for me right now. I just cannot stand to see Christians, who know damn well that abortion is wrong, go on supporting candidates who will devote every fiber of their being to making it more available and better funded.

God bless this desperate nation,

LatinTrad

djs wrote:

No other strategy could effect a legal change in this country as it would be struck down by the courts. (That's why it's so important to stop these justices appointed by the Bush administration.)

Are you saying that we're stuck with legal abortion in this country and we should just get over it?

To me Kerry's membership in the Trilateral Commission says a lot. There were other presidents also in it, but none of them spent a lot of time conversing with Socialists governments before becomeing president like Kerry has. That just makes me real suspect.

Dear All:

While we can all argue who is better for America and which Presidential candidate really stands for the values of apostolic Christianity, DJS does raise a good point.

Specifically, it is a slippery slope to allow our government to make decisions based upon religious convictions alone. Religious teachings or natural law may both play a part in it, but, IMHO, there must be a public policy reason behind it.

There are, to be sure, perfectly good policy arguments with respect to same-sex "marriage"
but, frankly, that's not what one hears from the government, is it?

As for the Consitutional legalities, it is a very interesting point. The Federal Government is supposed to be one of limited powers and should probably allow the states to decide what is and what is not "marriage" as a matter of state law.

However, the Defense of Marriage Act provides that a State need not recognize a same-sex "marriage" from another State. Guess what? THAT WAS ALREADY THE LAW.

The Supreme Court ruled long ago that a State may refuse to honor another State's laws and decrees (including marriage) if that decree violates that State's fundamental public policy.

In other words, if a State legislature decided that it did not want to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another State, it could have done so with or without the Act.

Therefore, I'm sure one can be forgiven if he/she sees the Act as nothing more than political pandering to the extreme Right.

As for defining marriage as a matter of federal tax law, that falls within Congress' express power to levy taxes. Furthermore, who's going to be dumb enough to challenge this? Why pay the marriage penalty if one doesn't have to?

On the other hand, what if a State that recognizes same-sex marriage has an income tax system that is based upon the Federal Internal Revenue Code? That State would have to re-write its own tax code. What a mess that would be.

Yours,

hal

Latin Trad:

Thanks for recognizing me as a Christian; or should I take your remark a suggesting that I am not a Catholic? The Hitler comparison is really weird, however, since I haven't given any suggestion � either here or on prior threads - of the "better roads" analog at all. I have not made any pro-Kerry arguments at all, just objected to some of the anti arguments that I consider not valid.

There are really three issues that provoke me to write on threads such as these.

First, I really object to rash judgment. Especially when people take some kind of perverse pride in it, as though they are courageous in standing against the charity, politeness, and civility. This board is fairly nice, IMO, but I often come here with a hangover from Welborn, Shea, Ray, and Keating blogs and fora. As our hymn goes: we will show the world the Truth by our love for each other. But the Catholic internet is largely obsessed not with growing and healing the body, but in purifying it by amputation. We are showing not The Truth, but the unpleasant truth about our sinful selves.

Judgment of Kerry, while generally not rash, still manages to dismiss a salient fact. Whether it falls short of your standards, it is a fact that Kerry and his wife have, in the Catholic church, a spiritual life, a church life, a sacramental life; they have held it throughout their lives. I don�t think that their formation and sacramental life is without effect. And this is reassuring to me.

Second, I have discovered something shocking to me about the abortion issue. Not many people really care about bringing this problem to a moral solution. I�m not talking about those who actually want the status quo for one reason or another; I�m talking about sincere pro-lifers. They embark on ostensibly pro-life courses of action, without a serious consideration of the efficacy of the path. Some folks seem mainly interested in Pharisaical purity. Some exhibit extreme political naivete. What is typically lacking is any consideration of the impact that a course of action has on the goal of making abortion unthinkable, and thus extremely rare. This is especially odd IMO since people are often so certain about the actions that they take, even though the strategy is not well-thought out, and lends itself to unanticipated negative effects. It�s like the Bush administration�s �planning� for the war in Iraq. Purity of intention and loftiness of goals do not absolve us of responsibility for planning and execution to ensure that the goals are efficiently reached.

A trivial example of what I am talking about is the baby killer rhetoric. It really doesn�t matter however strongly you feel that such a case can be made objectively. What matters is that that rhetoric is not likely to convert anyone, but more likely will harden hearts and cement divisions. It is irresponsible. Likewise I would argue that casting a symbolic vote for an unelectable candidate may help you feel pure, but is saves no lives. If saving these lives is the most important issue then such a vote is irresponsible.

A third issue pertains to the role of government. One cannot really have a cogent coherent position on the voting issue without addressing this issue first. Failure to address this issue is a flaw in much writing on the subject � which sounds as thought the author thinks (or wishes) that we are living in some monarchial society with established Catholicism. But our nation stands as an experiment in self-government, where whatever is not explicitly forbidden by law is permitted, and where a strong effort is made to restrict the reach of the laws of the state. I stipulate that there is nothing Catholic about this structure. And it may be that some think it antithetical to spirituality. I think, however, that it puts the onus of spiritual direction where it belongs on the church not the state.

Within this framework one could be motivated for a variety of reasons to put the abortion issue outside the realm of government proscription. This is different in motive - though not significantly in effect - than supporting/promoting abortion. It recognizes that we live in a pluralistic society in which there is remains a diversity of opinion on the status - moral and legal - of the pre-born. Catholics who want to advance their perspective might like to consider that our view is a difficult teaching; it will take patience effort and charity to win people over to this view. ISTM that a realistic model for making progress is the civil rights movement, where the key to success was not to defeat opponents but to win them over.

I stipulate that this political perspective, which I would identify with Democrats, does not go nearly far enough, IMO; it permits but does not support efforts to build that consensus. That can change with grass roots work. And that evolution is consistent with a century of Democrats working to expand human rights and dignity. While this legacy that is not being lived up to, I believe that it can be can be rekindled in that party far more surely than it could be created in the other major party. And I would argue that this blindness is in moral principle superior to that the skewed vision of the Republicans, who advocate the idea that government has the knowledge of good and evil and the authority to forbid it or to permit it at its digression. I may be wrong about which path and which leadership will help most to solve the problem. On the other hand the evidence is clear that, for the moment, neither of the major party candidates will be taken decisive, transforming actions on this issue. They difference is purely rhetorical aimed at energizing the base. In that sense, every issue is proportionate to this issue � not because they have the same gravity as the abortion issue, but because the difference, in practice rather than rhetoric in the candidates on this most important issue is really negligible.

DTB:

No. When a majortiy of our citizens are persuaded to embrace our perspective, then politicians, including the politicians on the court, will be tripping over themselves trying to get jump on board with this crowd and claim to be leading it. A constitutional amendment might easily pass. Alternatively, at that point overturning Roe v. Wade woudl be something of a fomality and would not have the hazards that it does now.

djs wrote:

From the official John Kerry website:

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

And John Kerry will only nominate individuals to the federal bench whose records demonstrate a respect for the full range of constitutional rights, including the right to privacy and the right to choose.

This is John Kerry's agenda...to pack the judiciary with judges who would entrench the culture of death in our country.

Is the solution to support the man so that he can do this and wait for a moral revolution in our country that would sweep away abortion on demand?

I agree it will take effort to win some people over. Some will never be won over, however.

In the meantime, thousands upon thousands of "the pre-born" are dying. Is it your solution that we should just be patient and vote for a candidate who wants to cement the "right to choose" philosophy into our judiciary? Isn't that working against our goal?

How many years will it take to effect this moral revolution? And, all the while we support those who are wanting to make all judges anti-life?

I'll take my chances with disturbing the political equilibrium with trying to effect a change now while we are also trying to win consciences over.

As said before, I don't support Kerry's actions on abortion, but see them, especially in this context, as irrelevant. Our cuture is not dictated by the Supreme Court, or for that matter by the President or Congress, but by us. Our culture of death is a culture that we have embraced; it has not been imposed on us. It will never be overturned by government fiat. If we could understand that we could begin to direct our efforts in the right direction and make a difference. For example, the failure of catechesis is so profound that the rate of abortion among Catholics is the same as the general population. Can we recognize this as our grievous fault and focus efforts to fix this? Can we purify ourselves, can our community provide counter-cultural example of life and love?
I don't eschew political action at all. But I don't see a top down approach working. Or, becuase of the political risk even being tried beyond lip service.

I don't have a lot of time right now to respond, but I would like to just say a quick thing to djs:

I nowhere implied that you are not a Catholic. My argument is not so much about you as it is about babies who are being slaughtered on a daily basis in our country, and about the responsibility that we all bear for doing something about it.

In a recent post on this thread, you make the curious statement that the Supreme Court does not dictate our culture. There is a sense in which this is true--i.e. that Roe v Wade was received the way it was because of the cultural decline that had already taken place--but there is also a sense in which your statement is false. The decisions of the Supreme Court go a long way toward dictating our culture from the top. No matter how selfish or bankrupt our culture was prior to January 1973, we simply would not have 50,000,000 mudered children if it weren't for a decision of the Supreme Court. (We wouldn't have mandatory secularism in public schools if it weren't for the Supreme Court either, but that's for another thread).

The next president of the USA will probably (or at least conceivably) have the opportunity to re-shape the Supreme Court, as there are several justices probably/conceivably retiring in the immediate future. John Kerry has declared his passionate desire to use the abortion issue as a "litmus test" in the appointment of justices. How then, can you support him in good conscience?

I do not buy your argument that Kerry's pro-abortion positions are irrelevant, for the reasons stated above, and also for the simple reason that we cannot go about changing hearts and minds on the issue of abortion, at the same time as we are promoting political leaders who treat abortion as a sacrosanct human right! How is public opinion ever going to change in this nation if the elites, who govern and formulate policy, are promoting abortion here and abroad at every turn??

Anyway, there is a lot more that I wish to respond to, but I have to run. God bless.

LatinTrad