AmericanPapist Comments
I don't know, the pessimistic side of me foresees yet another USCCB document that folks will blithely be able to take whichever way they wish - and here's the rub - and without trying too hard.
Well, since it looks like the two major presidential candidates will be nearly identical (abortion-supporting liberal hawks for New York), does it really matter?
It matters because the purpose is not to coyly direct Catholics who to vote for but to be a reflection on principles. Hopefully the material will also preclude the so-called "voter guides"
Liberal "Catholics" always look forward to these vague political statements from the bishops in order to ease their consciences and confuse issues.
It doesn't work. They are still going to have to answer to God for why they voted for presidential candidates who are certain to appoint Supreme Court justices that uphold the slaughter of innocents.
When a Catholic votes for a liberal Democrat, they are voting for abortion on demand, encouraging through their pacifism Al Qaeda to spread throughout the world insteading of fighting them on their turf, ridding God in the public arena, consigning inner city children to public schools by not granting school choice, euthanasia, the pornification of our culture, and all sorts of other social ills.
We don't need a document from liberal "Catholic" bishop to tell us what is already evident or to obfuscate the truth: A Catholic in good conscience cannot vote for liberal Democrat.
Gabe --
Please. Could you be a liitle more clear about your opinions? Don't hold back. Express yourself.
Kate
Kate- These are not relativistic "opinions." They are the truth, which is why you will never these days see a true Catholic voting for a Democratic candidate.
To be Catholic means you are line with the universal values that make up the truth.
Democratic candidates in America will certainly:
Appoint radical judges that will uphold abortion
Refuse to allow for school choice
Destroy our Judeo-Christian foundations
Promote euthanasia
They also will not fight radical Islam and will retreat globally.
The choice cannot be any clearer for a Catholic, and to vote for Democrats these days by any Catholic is inexcusable. Liberal "Catholics" are extremely misguided.
'These are not relativistic "opinions." They are the truth, which is why you will never these days see a true Catholic voting for a Democratic candidate.'
My goodness! Few can match Gabe for hijacking the faith to serve partisan politics. The accursed liberation theologians have nothing on him!
Something keeps telling me that the debate of this document will create some fireworks between those like Bishop Burke who want clarity & those who want a document that enables Pro-choice Catholics to "blithely be able to take whichever way they wish - and here's the rub - and without trying too hard."
As for Anonymous' claim that Gabe is "hijacking the faith to serve partisan politics": No he isn't, he is just stating a fact. Every Democratic Candidate for President & most for lower office are Pro-choice & thus people that I could not, as a "true" Catholic (who was raised a Democrat), vote for. & if Giuliani gets the Republican nomination, I couldn't vote for him either.
I like Fred Thompson. He is pro-life unless someone pays him $250/hour to be pro-abortion. Now that's a values candidate.
Katherine,
Gabe's comment is on target, yours is a red herring.
No one had mentioned Fred Thompson in the thread, nor had the Republican Party platform been mentioned. Rather, the issue Gabe brought up was related to Democratic Candidates.
His final line raises the issue most clearly: Can a Catholic, in good conscience, ever vote for a liberal Democrat (in this case, it seems to mainly deal with 'for President')? Because of issues related to abortion, the answer seems to be no.
If you disagree please provide substansive reasons, keeping in mind that nothing (with the exception of genocide, since abortion is genocide) is morally equivalent to abortion. We're not talking about a choice, we're talking about the slaughter of cute little babies. Do you disagree with that?
Further, an anti-Republican or anti-Conservative rant does not mean "it's okay to vote for Democrats now." That's making excuses for evil. It is entirely possible a situation will arise where it is not morally permissible to vote for either major party candidate.
LCB --
I would guess we are already at the stage where Catholics cant vote for any of the candidates in good conscience.
Pope John Paul II: His death penalty errors
by Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
(contact info, below)
October 1997, with subsequent updates thru 5/07
SEE ADDITIONAL REFERENCES AT THE END OF THIS DOCUMENT
The new Roman Catholic position on the death penalty, introduced in 1997, is based upon the thoughts of Pope John Paul II, whose position conflicts with reason, as well as biblical, theological and traditional Catholic teachings spanning nearly 2000 years.
Pope John Paul II's death penalty writings in Evangelium Vitae were flawed and their adoption into the Catechism was improper.
In 1997, the Roman Catholic Church decided to amend the 1992 Universal Catechism to reflect Pope John Paul II's comments within his 1995 encyclical, The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae). Therein, the Pope finds that the only time executions can be justified is when they are required "to defend society" and that "as a result of steady improvements . . . in the penal system that such cases are very rare if not practically non existent."
This is, simply, not true. Murderers, tragically, harm and murder, again, way too often.
Many issues, inexplicably, escaped the Pope's consideration.
First, in the Pope's context, "to defend society" means that the execution of the murderer must save future lives or, otherwise, prevent future harm.
When looking at the history of criminal justice practices in probations, paroles and incarcerations, we observe countless examples of when judgements and procedures failed and, because of that, murderers harmed and/or murdered, again. History details that murderers murder and otherwise harm again, time and time again -- in prison, after escape, after improper release, and, of course, after we fail to capture or incarcerate them.
Reason dictates that living murderers are infinitely more likely to harm and/or murder again than are executed murderers - an obvious truism overlooked by the Pope.
Therefore, the Pope could err, by calling for a reduction or end to execution, and thus harm more innocents, or he could "err" on the side of protecting more innocents by calling for an expansion of executions.
History, reason and the facts support an increase in executions based upon a defending society foundation.
Secondly, if social science concludes that executions provide enhanced deterrence for murders, then the Pope's position should call for increased executions.
If we decide that the deterrent effect of executions does not exist and we, therefore, choose not to execute, and we are wrong, this will sacrifice more innocent lives and also give those murderers the opportunity to harm and murder again.
If we choose to execute, believing in the deterrent effect, and we are wrong, we are executing our worst human rights violators and preventing such murderers from ever harming or murdering again - again, defending more innocent lives.
No responsible social scientist ha
Commenting by HaloScan
