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

Diak,

I'm not really interested in another debate about the relativism of Peroutka. Suffice it to say, he's no longer on my list. If I could find a candidate that fit every category of righteousness I would know I was in heaven. Since I can't and I am voting then I guess my conscience will have to be damaged. I don't think my selection will be obtuse. But then maybe I'm too obtuse to see it. I wish you the best in your selection.

Dan L

Dan, I have decided I will vote for either my S.O.B., or someone else's S.O.B. I haven't seen any perfect candidates in my lifetime, and I don't expect to see any, either.

Charles

Charles,

I'll bet you my SOB is just as good as your SOB. As wonderful as Divine Liturgy is won't heaven be even greater? There we will only have perfect candidates or better yet, we won't have to have candidates at all. Christ will be our King without any devilish interference.

Aint youth wonderful? We can be so sure of ourselves without letting the reality of sin confuse us.

Dan L

Dan, I wish no more that everyone vote their conscience and go with God. Bush is off my list for that reason. Cerrtainly "There is no man who does not sin" (from the Panakhida) and the "perfect" leader will not come along. But someone who stands clearly on moral issues I feel are important, gets my vote.

That being said, why the problem with holding people accountable for their actions and positions? I've read you more than once on this forum denouncing the moral relativism you have just dismissed.

Ah, to have our Emperor back. Monarchy, that's the real solution.

Amen!

Amen to Dan, not to monarchy. Our imperial presidents are bad enough.

Agreed. Then that monarch can go to hell on his own. We do have a perfect monarch now but someday we won't have to put up with the imperfect ones.

CDL

Agreed. To monarchs, not SOBs. Got enough of them already.

It seems an emerging "issue" from the interview of Denver's Abp. Chaput is whether the Archbishop and other like-minded Catholic Bishops are now "politicking" as portrayed by the New York Times in the aforecited article.

Apparently NOT!

The NYT appeared to have "truncated" the interview.

See EWTN's report, which contains the full transcript of the interview:

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=50403

Amado

Thanks, Amado. Leave it to the lawyer to sort out the facts...

Although considering the source (NYT) it's hardly surprising some spin was added.

Hi,

I am not sour.

Life issues are primary, of course. But Life issues are much more than the legal implications of abortion.

The people being murdered by the war in Iraq are also Life issues.

The people who die crossing the border, sometimes even with the "help" of the border patrol or some Arizona lunatic who hunts immigrants for sport are Life issues.

The people who will die because they lost their health coverage, because they lost their jobs, because their company moved their jobs overseas so they can pay a miserable salary to someone who doesn't know better, are Life issues.

The people who will die in the next terrorist attack, here in this country, an attack provoked in part by the instransigence of those who will look for the American interests only, without the faintest regard for global social justice; who peach "democracy" without winning the popular vote, and preach it to Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba and Sudan, but strangely not to Saudi Arabia where they support the wealthiest autocracy in the world, not to Chile when the dictator Pinichet riegned through terror, not to Haiti because it doesn't matter if it's Douvalier or Aristide, we don't care. Those are also Life issues.

People die of these things. People as valuable and worthy as the unborn American baby we are all concerned about. I am not saying we should not be concerned about these children.

What I am saying is that Life is what starts at conception, ends with death AND EXISTS ALL THE TIME IN BETWEEN THESE TWO EVENTS.

And yes, voting for Kerry is a sin. But if you are not pro-choice and vote for Kerry in spite of your difference on that issue, the Vatican has already said it is a "venial" sin. So if that is the case, vote for Kerry, pray an Our Father, and call it a day.

Now, if you think voting for Bush is not a sin, take another look at the OTHER issues I mention in this post, and then decide.

Shalom,
Memo.

Memo,

Your standards are certainly admirable but I fear that the only one who has ever reached them or was crucified 2,000 years ago. I wish we had a monarch so we wouldn't have to make such decisions but since we don't we're left with a few men none of whom meet the standards.

You list a litany of offenses of which both parties are guilty. So it seems to me that we are back to one option. Who supports the continued slaughter of innocence through abortion and who wants to curb that slaughter. Since that is what we're left with then it is not possible for me to vote for Mr. Kerry.

Dan L

Dear Memo,

You and many others who oppose the war in Iraq seem to have forgotten about the hundreds of thousands of his own people Saddam Hussein enjoyed videotaping as they were beheaded and otherwise tortured, raped, and killed at his bequest. He is nothing less than the equivalent of Stalin. I hate war as much as you do, but Americans are not the only people to deserve justice. How can this plain fact have so easily vanished from the memories of those who keep damning the war because no WMDs were found.

Iraqis deserve humane treatment and freedom as much as anyone else. The absence of WMDs does not mean the war didn't serve some good. Saddam is gone; that's a great good in itself.

Blessings to you in the peace of Christ,

Tammy

Monarchs, hmmm, IIRC, the list of monarchs of the Roman Empire of the East includes such notables as Julian the Apostate, Empress Eudoxia (whom St John Chrysostom saw fit to take to task in his homilies), the iconoclasts, Leo III, Constantine V, Leo IV, Leo V, Michael II,and Theophilus, just to name a few. Henry VIII of England received the title, "Defender of the Faith" from the Pope long before leading the English Church into schism. It is interesting to note, that the Church honors as saints more men and women who suffered at the hands of monarchs, then she honors saints who were monarchs.

ISTM that both political parties are equally impotent when it comes to the abortion issue. Yet,the abortion issue has led to important teachings and movements within and without the Church. Abortion certainly pre-dates Roe v. Wade, but groups like Human Life International or Priests for Life did not yet exist until after 1973. Murder of the pre-born is certainly a travesty, but, in the years prior to Roe v. Wade, I wonder how many women were prevented from having abortions because of a silent or vocal witness in front of an abortion clinic. Having said this, I am not inferring that the staus quo should be maintained, but only outlawing abortion is not the complete answer. The underlying reasons why a women would seek an abortion in the first place are the areas, IMHO, where we should focus our pro-life efforts. At least for now, the Enemy is out in the open for us to confront and not lurking in some dark alley.

Even George Bush acknowledged that his opponent wants to curb the slaughter.

But we don't have a monarchy.

And for all of Bush's "wanting":
we have gone lost ground, under his administration, from the substantial reduction in abortion rate from the Clinton years;

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=041013#5

there has been no effort akin to the marriage amendment to bring an pro-life constituional amendment to a vote;
the teaching moment on embryonic stem cells was shirked for the poll-tested claim of being the first to advance this avenue of research;
the direct question in yesterday's debate on the overturn of Roe v. Wade was dodged.

And so on.

At what point will it become more important to consider workable political strategy for saving lives, instead of merely pointing and gasping at others's sinfulness, while being played like a violin by thier opponents - who talk the talk, albeit with some disgression, but who fail to walk the courageous walk?

I can understand a perspective on life issues and proportionality that makes a vote for Kerry impossible; but if that perspective does not also make a vote for Bush impossible then ISTM that it is either disingenuous or irresponsibly naive.