Can Bush Ignore The Pope?

[Good Friday]

Read From the Cradle of Civilization -- To the Grave?, by Tom Cornell of the Catholic Worker.

In the article, Cornell asks the following question: "Can the President ignore the will of such a large cross-section of the people, of a quarter of a million people in D.C. on January 18, and as many more in smaller demonstrations across the country, of world public opinion, of Pope John Paul in Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in Istanbul and the Primate of the Anglican Communion Rowan Williams in Canterbury and almost all the religious leadership across the globe?"

The answer, we now know, is a resounding and disturbing yes. President Bush did ignore over a quarter of a million of Americans, the world public opinion, the opinion of Patriarch Bartholomew, the opinion of Archbishop Williams, and the opinion of our Holy Father. And we have seen the consequences of this unjust war.

An American soldier dies every day.

United Nations workers are dying.

The extremist Muslims are rising up.

The Iraqi Christians are now in grave danger.

People are still starving.

Saddam Hussein is not imprisoned or dead.

Weapons of mass destruction have not been found.

President William J. Clinton lied to the American people about his private affairs, and to this day that has not been let go. President George W. Bush lied to the American people about international affairs, and to this day no one is calling for his resignation and/or impeachment. I find it astonishing that one man can lie about his activities in bed, granted that they are inDouche sinful, and suffer such national outrage; but that another man can lie about another country having weapons of mass destruction, and suffer virtually no national outrage. Will we allow George W. Bush to become our Hitler?

The war in Iraq has proven itself to be a failure, and an unjust war at that. You cannot vote democrat in the next election, but I urge you not to vote for Bush either. How many times has he crucified Our Lord as Iraqi after Iraqi has unnecessarily died, as American after American has died in a war that was unnecessary? Is this the man we call pro-life?

I urge everyone to vote for someone in the marginalized parties in 2004, and to end the reign of terror that has been inflicted on our country by democrats and republicans for decades.

[ironmonk]

At least Bush takes into consideration what the Pope has to say...

unlike the democrooks (especially the Catholic ones) that just ignore the Pope and have no justifiable reason for their stances.

Bush actually thinks he's being a good Christian... because of his major flaw... protestantism. At least there is hope.

If people vote for someone outside of the Republican party, we will end up in a worse situation with a democrook as president, just like how clinton got it... if it wasn't for perot; Bush Sr. would have won.

To vote outside of the republican party is to beaver dam the US to the godless, hedonism, and liberalism.

God Bless,

ironmonk

Edited August 26, 2003 by ironmonk

[Jake Huether]

You can't trust repub's either. Vote for content, not for label.

[Carrie]

I'm not voting for Bush. No way, no how.

[Dave]

I'm not voting for Bush. No way, no how.

But what if the candidate running against him were stridently pro-abortion and wanted to eliminate all restrictions on it? What if s/he had beliefs that were totally at odds with Christianity? Would you still vote for the other person and risk committing a mortal sin? I mean, if a person knowingly votes for a pro-death candidate, they cooperate in his/her sin. You wouldn't want that, would you?

[MC Just]

I'm not voting for anyone else they are devoute Catholics faithful to Rome.

[dUSt]

I'd vote for Alan Keyes.

[Good Friday]

At least Bush takes into consideration what the Pope has to say...

He did? When, Ironmonk, did Bush take into consideration what Pope John Paul II had to say about the war in Iraq? I don't recall any public statements from him whatsoever regarding the Holy Father's statements, nor did I ever see him waver in his determination to wage an unnecessary war.

unlike the democrooks (especially the Catholic ones) that just ignore the Pope and have no justifiable reason for their stances.

What justifiable reason did Bush have for his stance? It wasn't weapons of mass destruction, he lied about them. So what was his justifiable reason? And can you explain to me how Bush ignoring the Pope is any different than the democrats ignoring the Pope? However, this is not a Bush vs. democrat issue... if you'll re-read my post, you'll see that I called upon people to not vote for either party, because I think both are corrupt and are destroying our country and the world.

Bush actually thinks he's being a good Christian... because of his major flaw... protestantism. At least there is hope.

There is no more hope for Bush's salvation than there is hope of the democrats' salvation. God could save John Kerry today and Bush could go straight to hell tomorrow, we simply don't know. If he thinks that being a good Christian involves the unnecessary murder of innocent people, then he is not at all interested in finding out what a good Christian is. He may be a Protestant, but even most of the Protestant denominations have spoken out against the unjust nature of the Second Gulf War. Bush's own denomination, the United Methodist church, has spoken out against it. He refuses to listen to any of the world's religious leaders.

If people vote for someone outside of the Republican party, we will end up in a worse situation with a democrook as president, just like how clinton got it... if it wasn't for perot; Bush Sr. would have won.

If enough people would stop relying on the republicans and democrats to make their laws for them, and voted for someone who actually cares about people, then we wouldn't have to put up with republicans or democrats. Even if a democrat did get in office, I fail to see how that would be a worse situation. It's true that former President Clinton did have an affair, and that was very wrong. It's also true that he supports abortion, which is even more wrong. But at this stage in the game, it doesn't matter if the President is for or against abortion. There is nothing any President can do to advance or decrease abortions in this country, it's entirely up to the courts. Bush has done nothing to stop abortion here.

To vote outside of the republican party is to beaver dam the US to the godless, hedonism, and liberalism.

We've had republican Presidents before, and yet this country is already godless, hedonistic, and liberal. That's because there is no fundamental difference between republicans and democrats. Republicans claim to be pro-life and conservative, but if you take a good, long look at everything, republicans have done nothing to advance the teachings of the Catholic Church or the natural law. They're all talk and no action. Did you know that the Attorney General of Alabama is promising to have that monument of the Ten Commandments taken down soon? You might expect that an Attorney General making such a promise would be a liberal democrat. Not so. The Attorney General of Alabama is Bill Pryor, a republican "Catholic" and one of Bush's potential appointments to the federal courts. Why is a republican Catholic cooperating with the federal courts to remove God from Alabama? How is this any different than what democrats do?

But what if the candidate running against him were stridently pro-abortion and wanted to eliminate all restrictions on it? What if s/he had beliefs that were totally at odds with Christianity? Would you still vote for the other person and risk committing a mortal sin? I mean, if a person knowingly votes for a pro-death candidate, they cooperate in his/her sin. You wouldn't want that, would you?

Dave, if all the candidates are evil, you are obliged not to vote, you are not obliged to vote for the lesser of two evils. Why should I be expected to choose between a person who kills unborn children vs. a person who kills innocent Iraqi children? How can Bush be seen as any less pro-death when he is killing people in Iraq in an unjust war with no valid reasons behind it? Are we cooperating in his sin by voting for him a second time? We wouldn't want that, would we?

Besides, it's not as if republicans and democrats are the only candidates. There are a number of other parties out there, some of which have respectable candidates who could do a lot more good for this country than any republican or democrat. But if it came right down to it, and I had no choice but republican or democrat, then I think I would abstain from voting as Dorothy Day used to do. I would rather not be responsible for the election of anyone who thinks it's okay to murder en masse.

I'm not voting for anyone else they are devoute Catholics faithful to Rome.

This is basically what it comes down to, as Mc-Just has said. Are we Catholic voters or are we republican voters? The two are not synonymous. Bush is not a devout Catholic, he is a mediocre Methodist. He has done nothing to advance the pro-life agenda, he just talks about it a lot. In fact, he is not pro-life at all, believing strictly in capital punishment (Texas led the nation in capital punishment while he was governor) and, apparently, believing strictly in unjust war that has been condemned by the Pope, Cardinals in the Curia, and many Bishops, as well as religious leaders from other denominations and religions throughout the world. Bush is not the Catholic candidate.

[PedroX]

Good Friday,

Right! I agree completely!

Two votes for Alan Keyes.

[Carrie]

But what if the candidate running against him were stridently pro-abortion and wanted to eliminate all restrictions on it?  What if s/he had beliefs that were totally at odds with Christianity?  Would you still vote for the other person and risk committing a mortal sin?  I mean, if a person knowingly votes for a pro-death candidate, they cooperate in his/her sin.  You wouldn't want that, would you?

If that's the case, then I'd vote for the independent party, which never has a chance of winning anyway. But Bush will NOT get my vote.

[ironmonk]

Of the two choices, the republican party is the much lesser of the two evils.

Bush is a prot, they are their own popes... and the war was for a just cause... In their eyes as far as the bible is concerned especially for "bible only" people; the war was just.

Sticking to this point about the war and ignoring everything else, is foolish.

Voting against a pro-life canidate for a anti-life canidate, is foolish.

No third party canidate has a snow ball's chance in hell to win.

To vote against the republican party is to vote for the democrooks, who wish to kill babies, kill God, give your children condom's, give your children porn, etc....

Some pull the death penalty card to use against Bush... I've got this to say... Bush is closer to being totally pro-life than any liberal.

Maybe a dozen or so people who mades some mistakes get put to death every year - which is bad, but it is NOTHING compaired to the 40 Million completely innocent babies that are put to death each year.

Bush is a prot; we cannot expect him to listen to everything the Pope has to say. But Bush is the best man for the job.

God Bless,

ironmonk

[Carrie]

But Bush is the best man for the job.

Bah Humbug! <_<

[ironmonk]

If that's the case, then I'd vote for the independent party, which never has a chance of winning anyway. But Bush will NOT get my vote.

If you did that, you would be helping the democrooks kill more babies.

Weather you like the man or not, we should vote for those who come closest to the teachings of the Church.

Bush is closer than anyone.

40 million innocent lives a year...

Take a good look at what the democrooks are responsible for:

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/ph...orted/index.htm

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/monica/mm1.htm

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/monica/mm2.htm

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/monica/mm3.htm

TAKE A GOOD LOOK.... Then, if you can still find it in you to help that continue, God help you.

-ironmonk

[Dave]

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. If you don't vote at all or vote for someone from an independent party who has no chance of winning, and a pro-death candidate wins, you can't possibly be part of the solution, so by process of elimination, it follows that you're part of the problem.

[kdewolf2]

Doesn't the competent civil authority alone have the right to determine (i.e. figure out) whether a proposed war is just or unjust? Although everyone should take the Holy Father's advice into consideration, he is not our political leader. He is our spiritual leader. President Bush's decision was a failure of judgment, but I don't think it is necessary to invidiously attribute deceitful motives to him. In general, President Bush has supported policies we as Catholics should find commendable. He has expressed his opposition to the legalization of homosexual "marriages." He supported federal funding for faith-based charities. He supported school vouchers for inner city kids. He supported a ban on partial-birth abortion. His decision regarding funding for embryonic stem cell research was at least half-decent. I think we have fared much better under President Bush than we would have under Al Gore. I don't think either the Republicans or the Democrats are totally up to par, as far as Catholic social teaching is concerned, but unfortunately the two party system is very deeply ingrained in our political system. A third party candidate has no real chance of being elected. Voting is a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. I am not an official Bush apologist. At first I was quite confident that Bush was lying about the weapons of mass destruction (like we don't have them) in Iraq, and that the war really had more to do with the neo-conservative's lust for power and domination than any real threat. Besides which the very concept of a preventive war is controversial. But look at it objectively. Saddam Hussein was a menace to his own people. The Iraqis are better off without him. It is not entirely implausible to justify the war on humanitarian grounds alone. Furthermore, the war, as far as wars go, hasn't really been that bad. Whatever you may think of Bush, he certainly isn't Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot. Alright, I'm done. Think about it.