PDA

View Full Version : Catholics Against Kerry



Alan D. Hyde
09-21-2004, 11:37 AM
From their website:

In an interview following the Vigil for Life Mass in Washington Wednesday, Boston Archbishop Sean O'Malley expressed his great desire for a renewal of faith among Catholics. Asked about the problem of Catholic politicians promoting abortion, the Archbishop noted that the problem "is not only politicians but those (Catholics) who vote for them." He stressed repeatedly the "great need for adult catechesis among our people."

"These politicians should know that if they're not voting correctly on these life issues that they shouldn't dare come to communion," the Archbishop said.

Archbishop O'Malley noted that beyond pro-abortion politicians, that reception of Holy Communion by those not in a state of grace is sadly commonplace. "I think it's in the context of a greater problem - Catholics feel that everyone is entitled to go to communion all the time. That has to be addressed. You know if a (pro-abortion) politician asked me I would say you shouldn't go to communion, I wouldn't go to communion. They don't understand why." He explained, "At a funeral sometimes they will announce that communion is for Catholics and people get all offended, so we've lost the notion of the sacredness of communion and the kind of disposition we need to have."

Aside from his stressing the "great need" for adult catechesis, the Boston Archbishop said the solution lies in holiness. Catholics must "be willing to live their faith heroically, the testimony of holiness is the only thing that's going to be able to convince people. Mother Teresa could speak about life issues in a way, because of the ethos of her life, that was much more powerful than the most eloquent preacher or teacher. We have to live our faith very deeply in order to draw people."

* * *

Archbishop O'Malley also once wrote:

I have not said for whom I shall vote, but I will tell you for whom I will not vote. I will not vote for any politician who will promote abortion or the culture of death, no matter how appealing the rest of his or her program might be. They are wolves in sheepís garments, the K.K.K. without the sheets, and sadly enough, they donít even know it.

If I were ever tempted to vote for simply selfish reasons, tribal allegiances, or economic advantages rather than on the moral direction of the country, I should beat a hasty retreat from the curtain of the polling booth to the curtain of the confessional.

Cardinal Arinze has similarly said that "unambiguously pro-abortion" Catholic politicians are "not fit" to receive communion.

***

Alan

LeeG
09-21-2004, 11:45 AM
Alan, is the Catholic Church the one where priests are celibate?

George.
09-21-2004, 02:48 PM
I have nothing but contempt for religious organizations that try to influence politics.

Shang
09-21-2004, 02:59 PM
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bachelorpriest.jpg

FG
09-21-2004, 04:05 PM
Influencing the moral character of our nation is what the religious organizations need to do. What are our religious leaders supposed to do except try to help people find a moral compass. It is sad when expression of thought is held in contempt because one does not agree with it. It would seem we should be in Stalinist Russia rather than the US where there is free speech. You have the right to express your ideas, and I have the right to dismiss them as silly.

Elmer Jenkins
09-21-2004, 04:11 PM
With the current scandal in the Catholic Church, Catholics have no business pushing their moral agenda on anyone.

LeeG
09-21-2004, 04:12 PM
reinforcing the moral character of individuals within a religious organization is a starting point,thereafter that individuals good works will do what legislation can't. But I sure don't want someones religious organization influeincing the political process.
What are the various churches policies on relaxing the Geneva Conventions at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib?

FG
09-21-2004, 04:21 PM
The Catholic Church has not suggested that torture is ok or that the geneva convention is obsolete. Other than for the abortion issue, most democrats would be the people of choice for church leadership. Most Catholic leaders were against the war in Iraq. The abortion issue is pretty black and white. If the fetus has a soul, it's murder. Church leadership, and I agree with them, feel the fetus has a soul.

For me, if it a choice between lives, then an abortion may be morally acceptable as long as there is no net loss of human life.

LeeG
09-21-2004, 04:42 PM
FG, I'll not disparage the Catholic church here, my comment about celibate priests had to do with expertise in the area of sexual activity and raising children, and how they shouldn't be getting into recommending candidates on these issues.
How does the Catholic church view legalized killing via the training and deployment of military forces?

George.
09-21-2004, 04:46 PM
Are you saying the Church has the pretension of KNOWING who is the more moral man among the two candidates? Have both confessed to a Catholic priest? Have their minds being analyzed in depth bu the Church? Does the Church hold a monopoly on morality issues?

FG
09-21-2004, 04:50 PM
The Catholic Church Leadrship is against military action except to protect innocents. It opposed the war in Iraq.

Billy Bones
09-21-2004, 04:51 PM
Wine, Sodomy and the Lash!

George.
09-21-2004, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by FG:
The Catholic Church Leadrship is against military action except to protect innocents. It opposed the war in Iraq.^

That is right. All the Catholic-bashing bigots in the bilge better remember that. As far as I know none of the other Christian religious leaderships had the guts and moral clarity to back Jesus over Bush on this one.

Alan D. Hyde
09-21-2004, 05:13 PM
Yes, that's so.

But, as the Archbishop says below, the evil of abortion outweighs (proportionately) the evil of Iraq, so that no good Catholic should vote for "pro-choice" Kerry...

A Voter's Guide
Pro-choice candidates and church teaching.

BY ARCHBISHOP JOHN J. MYERS
Friday, September 17, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

Amid today's political jostling, Catholic citizens are wondering whether they can, in conscience, vote for candidates who support the legalized killing of human beings in the embryonic and fetal stages of development by abortion or in biomedical research.

Responding to requests to clarify the obligations of Catholics on this matter, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, under its prefect, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, released a statement called "On Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion." Although it dealt primarily with the obligations of bishops to deny communion to Catholic politicians in certain circumstances, it included a short note at the end addressing whether Catholics could, in good conscience, vote for candidates who supported the taking of nascent human life in the womb or lab.

Cardinal Ratzinger stated that a "Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of a candidate's permissive stand on abortion." But the question of the moment is whether a Catholic may vote for a pro-abortion candidate for other reasons. The cardinal's next sentence answered that question: A Catholic may vote for a pro-abortion Catholic politician only "in the presence of proportionate reasons."

What are "proportionate reasons"? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong. Then we must consider the scope of the evil of abortion today in our country. America suffers 1.3 million abortions each year--a tragedy of epic proportions. Moreover, many supporters of abortion propose making the situation even worse by creating a publicly funded industry in which tens of thousands of human lives are produced each year for the purpose of being "sacrificed" in biomedical research.

Thus for a Catholic citizen to vote for a candidate who supports abortion and embryo-destructive research, one of the following circumstances would have to obtain: either (a) both candidates would have to be in favor of embryo killing on roughly an equal scale or (b) the candidate with the superior position on abortion and embryo-destructive research would have to be a supporter of objective evils of a gravity and magnitude beyond that of 1.3 million yearly abortions plus the killing that would take place if public funds were made available for embryo-destructive research.

Frankly, it is hard to imagine circumstance (b) in a society such as ours. No candidate advocating the removal of legal protection against killing for any vulnerable group of innocent people other than unborn children would have a chance of winning a major office in our country. Even those who support the death penalty for first-degree murderers are not advocating policies that result in more than a million killings annually.

As Mother Teresa reminded us on all of her visits to the U.S., abortion tears at our national soul. It is a betrayal of our nation's founding principle that recognizes all human beings as "created equal" and "endowed with unalienable rights." What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a "proportionate reason" to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation's labs?

Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

Consider, for example, the war in Iraq. Although Pope John Paul II pleaded for an alternative to the use of military force to meet the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, he did not bind the conscience of Catholics to agree with his judgment on the matter, nor did he say that it would be morally wrong for Catholic soldiers to participate in the war. In line with the teaching of the catechism on "just war," he recognized that a final judgment of prudence as to the necessity of military force rests with statesmen, not with ecclesiastical leaders. Catholics may, in good conscience, support the use of force in Iraq or oppose it.

Abortion and embryo-destructive research are different. They are intrinsic and grave evils; no Catholic may legitimately support them. In the context of contemporary American social life, abortion and embryo-destructive research are disproportionate evils. They are the gravest human rights abuses of our domestic politics and what slavery was to the time of Lincoln.

Catholics are called by the Gospel of Life to protect the victims of these human rights abuses. They may not legitimately abandon the victims by supporting those who would further their victimization.

Archbishop Myers heads the archdiocese of Newark.

This essay is courtesy of www.opinionjournal.com (http://www.opinionjournal.com)

***

Alan

ThomNC
09-21-2004, 05:22 PM
The Roman Catholic Church is against the death penalty. Could a Roman Catholic vote for an advocate of the death penalty? If not, we've run out of candidates.
Thom

LeeG
09-21-2004, 08:41 PM
Alan, are you Catholic and putting out a call for fellow Catholics to not vote for Kerry?

B_B
09-21-2004, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by LeeG:
Alan, is the Catholic Church the one where priests are celibate?No, it's where those who diddle young boys are moved from parish to parish, but those who condemn a legal act, like abortion say, are encouraged to be shot. It all makes sense to some... :rolleyes:

B_B
09-21-2004, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by LeeG:
Alan, are you Catholic and putting out a call for fellow Catholics to not vote for Kerry?Alan is SO not Catholic it ain't even funny.

What is SAD though is Alan pretending to coalesce around something he normally would not condescend to entertain....such be 2004....those who never served their country in a war are war heroes, that served are traitors.

go figure... :rolleyes:

Meerkat
09-21-2004, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by FG:
Influencing the moral character of our nation is what the religious organizations need to do. What are our religious leaders supposed to do except try to help people find a moral compass. "Influencing" and "helping find" is not the same as "coherce", and this is quite cohercive.

FG
09-22-2004, 06:20 AM
Seems a statement about morality is appropriate for a Catholic Bishop. US Catholics do not follow all the churches teachings that well, so it seems a suggestion to me. Example is birth control - way more than 50% of us catholics use some form even though the church teaches against it.

People who call a spade a spade are admired by me. Way to many wishy washy people out there trying not to offend anyone or looking to be offended.

George.
09-22-2004, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:


... the evil of abortion outweighs (proportionately) the evil of Iraq, so that no good Catholic should vote for "pro-choice" Kerry...
What a wonderful piece of doublethink! Trying to make our contradictory political and religious beliefs seem coherent vis-a-vis one another, are we?

Of course the US is full of candidates who SAY they are against abortion, but don't DO anything about it other than make speeches designed to stir up the partisans... and you guys still choose who to vote for based on such BS... no wonder you have the "leaders" you have!