Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Bush Is Not Pro-life...


AnomilE

Recommended Posts

[quote]well I'd say that just about does it... ACTION speaks louder than words. [/quote]

Actions do speak louder than words and I for one am tired of lip service. Give me someone who is authentically pro-life in EVERy circumstance- and I will vote for that perosn- otherwise my well formed conscious cannot abide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='AnomilE' date='Aug 5 2004, 01:15 PM'] Actions do speak louder than words and I for one am tired of lip service. Give me someone who is authentically pro-life in EVERy circumstance- and I will vote for that perosn- otherwise my well formed conscious cannot abide. [/quote]
I told you. I am 100% pro-life. I am Catholic. Will you vote for me instead of Peroutka?

You said, "Peroutka does not need to be Catholic or claim to uphold Catholic teaching".

So, does this mean that Peroutka is going to support papal authority? If the pope tells him to do something, will he guarantee us that he will do it? If not, he is in a sense, evil. If he denies the authority of the pope, he is not in communion with the Body of Christ, and therefore, contains some evil. Using [b]your own[/b] argument, you [b]cannot[/b] cooperate with him.

What say you to that? Are you voting for me or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i saw that. his support of spector was done in order to further the pro-life cause: get someone who has influence and will support pro-life judges and get everyone else to support them so they got on the bench. those comments don't make him evil, just slightly wrong. would it not be a huge victory for the cause if some law was inacted that said abortion is only legal if you can proove you've been raped or the father is in your family? that'd save a TON of babies, alot more babies than a president who insists on a law that will never be passed through the house or senate that would outlaw abortion in every case. once the one banning it in almost all cases is in effect, we'll have legal precedent to site the unborn baby as a person and thus work to get it illegal even in those cases. i don't like his ABC idea, but that was a comment-- in action he has supported abstinence-only programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='dUSt' date='Aug 5 2004, 01:23 PM'] I told you. I am 100% pro-life. I am Catholic. Will you vote for me instead of Peroutka?

You said, "Peroutka does not need to be Catholic or claim to uphold Catholic teaching".

So, does this mean that Peroutka is going to support papal authority? If the pope tells him to do something, will he guarantee us that he will do it? If not, he is in a sense, evil. If he denies the authority of the pope, he is not in communion with the Body of Christ, and therefore, contains some evil. Using [b]your own[/b] argument, you [b]cannot[/b] cooperate with him.

What say you to that? Are you voting for me or not? [/quote]
Hold on dUSt,

What you are saying is not completely true. Much of what the president does is matter of prudence, not of moral good or evil, but some things are. When it comes to respect for life, Peroutka's stance DOES meet our moral criteria. Other matters are not salvation issues (medicare, education, cleaner streets, ect.) THerefore, whoever becomes president should meet our moral criteria- if they do not, I can't find one bit of Catholic teaching that says I MUST vote for that individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='AnomilE' date='Aug 5 2004, 01:34 PM'] Hold on dUSt,

What you are saying is not completely true. Much of what the president does is matter of prudence, not of moral good or evil, but some things are. When it comes to respect for life, Peroutka's stance DOES meet our moral criteria. Other matters are not salvation issues (medicare, education, cleaner streets, ect.) THerefore, whoever becomes president should meet our moral criteria- if they do not, I can't find one bit of Catholic teaching that says I MUST vote for that individual. [/quote]
So, you're saying that someone that will not profess to be obedient to the Vicar of Christ contains absolutely no evil?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 5 2004, 01:33 PM'] i saw that. his support of spector was done in order to further the pro-life cause: get someone who has influence and will support pro-life judges and get everyone else to support them so they got on the bench. those comments don't make him evil, just slightly wrong. would it not be a huge victory for the cause if some law was inacted that said abortion is only legal if you can proove you've been raped or the father is in your family? that'd save a TON of babies, alot more babies than a president who insists on a law that will never be passed through the house or senate that would outlaw abortion in every case. once the one banning it in almost all cases is in effect, we'll have legal precedent to site the unborn baby as a person and thus work to get it illegal even in those cases. i don't like his ABC idea, but that was a comment-- in action he has supported abstinence-only programs. [/quote]
I can't believe you are copping Bush out on those items. I am seriously questioning your allegiance to Church teaching over political party choice here.

What is this "slightly wrong" stuff. Does our Church teach anywhere that anything "slightly wrong" may be used to justify a good ends?

Why do you pledge allegiance to this man- because he throws you a few favors as a por-choice believer, or because he's UNABASHEDLY pro-choice (which he is not).

The fact is this- his funds went to support a man who is publicly pro-abortion. Period.

He is commiting America to allocate funds to promote the usage of condoms when deemed "necessary".

He is not seeking to end abortion in America because he sees instances where he feels it is allowable- and our Church does not.

CAN ANYONE PLEASE ADDRESS THE ISSUE AT HAND AND STOP BEATING AROUND BUSHES? (no pun)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Peroutka going to ban birth control? If not, that is an intrinsically evil action, so therefore, according to your own arguments above, you are not allowed to cooperate with that evil.

If I become president, I [b]will[/b] ban birth control. So, I ask again, since I am [b]clearly[/b] a better moral choice for president, are you going to vote for me now? If not--why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='dUSt' date='Aug 5 2004, 01:37 PM'] So, you're saying that someone that will not profess to be obedient to the Vicar of Christ contains absolutely no evil? [/quote]
What I'm saying is that even people who profess allegiance to the total teachings of the Church can contain evil. It's an arbitrary point. All people can contain evil.

When it comes to the moral criteria for legislation- does our current president match up?

Who does? I'm suggestion someone who does. That's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='dUSt' date='Aug 5 2004, 01:40 PM'] Is Peroutka going to ban birth control? If not, that is an intrinsically evil action, so therefore, according to your own arguments above, you are not allowed to cooperate with that evil.

If I become president, I [b]will[/b] ban birth control. So, I ask again, since I am [b]clearly[/b] a better moral choice for president, are you going to vote for me now? If not--why? [/quote]
Yes he will- I suggest you visit his site for yourself and check out all his stances- they come out clean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[i]"What is this "slightly wrong" stuff. Does our Church teach anywhere that anything "slightly wrong" may be used to justify a good ends?"[/i]

I don't see where Peroutka said he is going to ban birth control, so this is "slightly wrong" on his part. Does our Church teach anywhere that anything "slightly wrong" may be used to justify a good ends?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='AnomilE' date='Aug 5 2004, 01:43 PM'] Yes he will- I suggest you visit his site for yourself and check out all his stances- they come out clean. [/quote]
Please show me where it says he will ban birth control. I couldn't find it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='dUSt' date='Aug 5 2004, 01:40 PM'] Is Peroutka going to ban birth control? If not, that is an intrinsically evil action, so therefore, according to your own arguments above, you are not allowed to cooperate with that evil.

If I become president, I [b]will[/b] ban birth control. So, I ask again, since I am [b]clearly[/b] a better moral choice for president, are you going to vote for me now? If not--why? [/quote]
Do you have the means to put yourself on the November Ballot?

Do your policies outside of moral criteria fit the needs of this Country?

These are things I do not know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MichaelFilo

[quote name='AnomilE' date='Aug 5 2004, 12:08 PM'] Okay everyone- answer me this-

1. Can you ever cooperate with evil- lesser or greater- to bring about a good end?

If you correctly follow the constant teaching of the Church, the answer is no.

I cannot and will not even attempt to understand why faithful Catholics insist on crumbling into the Republican Party.

It is a superpower that has whetted all of your pallets by throwing you some bones to make you ahppy and go "well, at least they're doing something.

What if we as Catholics stood ground for once and said- "No that's not good enough"

When will that day come. We are Catholic before American- remember that always. [/quote]
As dust said, none of the candidates in are in communion with the Church, hence they all hold evil and heretical teaching. So in a sense, we can't vote for anyone, and that is a sin. As American citizens, we have that responsibility, to not do EVERYTHING we can to stop the evil of abortion, then we fail.

Can you cooperate with a lesser evil to bring about a good end? N...Yes. When there is no one good, then you must take the lesser evil.

The reason faithful Catholics insist on voting Republican is not in the fact that most are Republicans, but in the fact that the Republican party is the only party that has any hopes of winning and is the one that most closely relates to the Church's teachings. If a Democrat is anti-abortion and a Republican is pro-abortion, then all Catholics who could vote on the matter would be called to vote for the Democrat. The problem is it doesn't happen very much.

I think that 4th line was an attack at a party with no basis behind it.

Catholics have never settled for less, but neither have they went straight to useless demonstrations. To remove abortions we can't expect it to be instantanous. Realize that Pres Bush has been stepping in the right direction.

We are Catholic before American. We are also reasoning creatures before we fall upon our emotions. You disfavor the Repub. party, but aren't using reasoning. None of the independents have a chance to win. Reason before emotions leads to the best results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you still haven't answered my question. I am 100% loyal to the church and publically submit to the authority of the pope. Peroutka doesn't. If you're voting on morality, I'm the better candidate. Will you vote for me or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...