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

Here's a Bishop taking the Gospel message to the people in a sports bar...

From the New York Times:

Group of Bishops Using Influence to Oppose Kerry
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
and LAURIE GOODSTEIN

Published: October 12, 2004


DENVER, Oct. 9 - For Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, the highest-ranking Roman Catholic prelate in Colorado, there is only one way for a faithful Catholic to vote in this presidential election, for President Bush and against Senator John Kerry.

"The church says abortion is a foundational issue,'' the archbishop explained to a group of Catholic college students gathered in a sports bar here in this swing state on Friday night. He stopped short of telling them whom to vote for, but he reminded them of Mr. Kerry's support for abortion rights. And he pointed out the potential impact his re-election could have on Roe v. Wade...

You may need to register to read the full story:

Group of Bishops Using Influence to Oppose Kerry [nytimes.com]

I wish Father Loya's sermons were taped. He gave a barn burner on this topic last Sunday. Without mentioning either of these two political candidates he made it quite clear that voting for one is a clear vote against the Catholic faith in favor of Life and for death.

O, but he said it so well! I must have given him 10-12 amens. Usually I only give 4 or 5.

Dan L

//I wish Father Loya's sermons were taped. He gave a barn burner on this topic last Sunday. Without mentioning either of these two political candidates he made it quite clear that voting for one is a clear vote against the Catholic faith in favor of Life and for death.//

I just wish the Orthodox church would have the same Abdominun fortitudinus to come out with similar edicts. My Latin is a little rusty.

JoeS

Ah, a wish list!

I wish American voters would care about other important issues in addition to the legal implications of Abortion.

Shalom,
Memo.

Memo,

Why so sour? Every Thursday evening we have a vespers for peace. We've done this now for several months. Our property is given over as a testing area for ecology. We have been featured in the Ch. Tribune.

Don't be so sour. Life issues are always going to be primary. Why wouldn't they be? "Jesus came to bring life and that more abundantly."

Dan L

I applaud Archbishop Chaput whom I greatly admire (a good Kansas man ). In general I agree with the Archbishop's assessment.

I would only point out that the article assumes that opposition of Kerry equates to support of Bush, which is quite erroneous.

Archbishop's Chaput's statements did not implicitly nor explicitly support nor advise anyone to vote for Bush. He didn't even mention Bush by name.

I think it is great that the American bishops have finally gotten past their years-long spineless period. It's good to see them stand up and speak out against evil. And to see bishops do that without producing another 12,000 page document full of inane chatter is truly a miracle. Things are looking up.

Well, if we're listing the things some good American archbishops have stood up for in defense of family, I think it's necessary to thank my archbishop, Archbishop +Donoghue of Atlanta, for making very public his plea that Georgians vote to ban the possibility of same-sex marriage in our state.

Good for all the American Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops with enough gall to use their influence in getting behind true Catholic teaching.

Logos Teen

Dear JoeS,

The OCA is VERY outspoken about life issues. Metropolitan HERMAN has marched in pro-life rallies himself, as have many others.

Gaudior, adding a wish that more would follow the example of outspokenness...

And I remember Marcus Grodi of EWTN asking for and receiving the blesing of Archbishop Demetrios of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese at the March for LIfe last year after the Archbishop addressed the crowd.

It was rather nice seeing Mr. Bush win a debate. In so doing he defended Catholic doctrine while the "Catholic" Kerry opposed it. Also, the emphasis that Mr. Bush had on the exportability of Liberty was superb. "Liberty is a gift of God and is a gift for all societies." He needs to repeat that. It's the best argument for going into Iraq. I wished he had used this before.

Memo, as you can see Mr. Bush does talk about alot more that pro-Life.

Dan L

He won? That's stunning in and of itself. I didn't even watch this debate.

I wonder how this will show in the polls.

Logos Teen

Teen, I also didn't watch but would find it hard to believe there was one clear winner in these "spinfests" they call debates.

I've just been listening to replays from the debate on Christian talk radio. For me, Bush only threw a polemic bone and made absolutely no firm or definite pledge to overturn R v. W by championing a constitutional amendment. The Protestant announcer even picked up on that.

If there is any such thing as a litmus test for a Presidential candidate on abortion, that has to be it. I have still not been satisfactorally assured that fewer abortions will happen with Bush relative to Kerry in spite of his "nice words".

He has a Republican majority to work with, which furthers questions about Bush's record. Plenty of Federal funding is currently being used under the Bush watch for sterilizations and abortions.

In 2002 he signed increased funding legislation for International Family Planning to the tune of over 480 million dollars. It is well known that fund is used for abortions and sterilizations.

But also remember this same Bush said in 2001 that the country was "not ready" [his own words] for a constitutional amendment openly banning abortion. He also campaigned for Arlen Spector who was running against a prominently pro-life candidate. I guess party ideology for some really is more important than personal moral convictions.

And Bush's words in the last debate were very telling. "To destroy life to save it is...one of the real ethical dilemmas we face". No dilemma there at all. It is only a dilemma if one is ignoring Catholic and basic Christian teachings, and trying to balance some kind of Machaivellian decision.

That was after, of course, he acknowledged as President he authorized the destruction of life and making the vivid point that he was the first President to allow funding for that venture. I found no public request for forgiveness for that in his words, either. If I missed one, I would gladly take a look at it.

You can't have it both ways. Who's talking about flip-flopping? As a Catholic I have to be absolutely sure on the entirety of life issues, abortion and beyond to win my vote.

If at the end of the day a President is afraid to stand up and say he will reverse R v. W. openly through championing a constitutional amendment, that person probably shouldn't be calling themselves pro-life. At the end of the day, both he and I could sleep knowing he tried to do the right thing.

That would be courage by any means if one of these two would just stand for the issue all the way, no posturing, not just words, but making a visible, tangible commitment to overturn one of the most heinous and brutal laws ever enacted and make THAT a clear and public major platform element.

The bottom line is neither of these guys really cut the mustard on life issues from a truly Catholic perspective.

As we know from such Catholic teaching as Christifideles Laici, respect for life doesn't stop with one issue or one phase of life.

Diak,

I gather you aren't avoiding this election. I won't ask to whom you are giving your vote since you haven't offered to tell us but will ask you this: "If half the pie doesn't impress you in a less that perfect society how does no pie at all impress?"

Dan L

Dan, your question is a bit obtuse. Is life an objective moral issue? Is there objective truth? It has nothing to do with pies or other incomplete analogies. I believe the answer to both is yes.

I am independent and will vote so as I have other options (i.e. Peroutka). I need to be able to reckon with my conscience at the end of the day, all relativistic arguments about lesser of evils or "proportionality" aside. I think that's fair enough.

I also heard this morning an interesting program where previous directly contraditctory statements from the candidates were played (in their own voices with the dates and reference of the previous statements) after their statements in the debate(s). If credibility is really an issue, it is bi-partisan in this election. Factcheck.org I think came up with at least some of these.