Vote Kerry

[thessalonian]

" I'd also like it if you were to look up the proportionality thing instead of always using that link"

Yes, it is true that in the final curtain call it will be between you and God. But what people forget with this proportinality thing is that Ratzinger makes it clear up above that the reasons people claim to vote for kerry over Bush from a Catholic standpoint, i.e. anti-war and anti-death penalty are not proportionate to abortion.

2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propoganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’" (no. 73). Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it" (no. 74).

That seems to narrow the scope of proportion a bit now doesn't it.

"3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."

Abortion is always a grave sin and it is always a grave sin to participate in it in any way, including voting pro-choice in any way. Now if there are two pro-choice candidates it might be possible to vote for one over the other on other reasons. Personally I have been faced with that and have chosen to abstain from voting.

Read the whole document from Cardinal Ratzinger and when you get to the last line don't forget what he said before it.

[url="http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm"]http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/...gerommunion.htm[/url]

Blessings

Edited October 21, 2004 by thessalonian

[McSockPuppet]

As I read these responces I have 1 comment, and 2 questions for everyone. First off all, being Pro-Chioce is wrong certainly, without a doubt. But, my parents vote democratic, and they are EXTREMELY PRO-LIFE. They see that Sen. Kerry has many good qualities like education, welfare, taxes, and a withdraw from war! They simply find Pres. Bush intollerable. Is this wrong? I was recently reading a book enititled "Catholic Answers" and they stated that if The person voting was NOT voting on the fact that their canidate was pro-choice there was no grave sin committed. This book is not just some flimsy book put together by two wackos in a basement somewhere, it was accredited. Is this right?
The second question I have is if voting for Bush is any better. He went against the strict oders of the Pope concerning war. Right? And secondly whats so Pro-Life about him? He still wholely believes in the Death Penelty, which in this country is NOT NEEDED due to our facilities. Am I off my rocker on this whole message on what?! Please help me out Phatmassers.

In Chirst,

Scruffers

[toledo_jesus]

nobody here claims Bush is perfect. The thrust of the argument is that comparing both Kerry and Bush leads a Catholic to see that Bush's values (in public) are more in line with the Church than John Kerry's. Privately, John Kerry could be a saint. But publically, he advocates abortion so we can infer that perhaps he is not so faithful a Catholic.
What it boils down to is this: The Catholics who are voting for Kerry realize that they are not in line with their Church. Their identity as Catholics is being challenged and so they are attempting to use any argument they can to 1. get what they want, and 2. remain "faithful" "Catholics". Let's go with our gut instincts for a moment...Bush went to war. 1000 American Dead, 15,000 Iraqi civs dead, unknown number of insurgents dead. However...Abortion has killed more than 40,000,000 people since Roe v. Wade. Look at how many zeroes that was. Kerry would continue the policies that have decimated our generation and contributed to the decline of social security (less people working means less money for old folks) and the decay of morality in America. No responsible Catholic will vote for Kerry. Period. :angry:
The only ones who want to vote for him are those same people who are of too little moral character to make their faith a public part of their life. The lukewarm. :angry:

Catholicism isn't easy. :angry:

[thessalonian]

"The second question I have is if voting for Bush is any better. He went against the strict oders of the Pope concerning war. Right? And secondly whats so Pro-Life about him? He still wholely believes in the Death Penelty, which in this country is NOT NEEDED due to our facilities. Am I off my rocker on this whole message on what?! "

I suggest you read my post right about yours and go to Cardinal Ratzinger's letter linked in that post. It talks about proportianity and clearly indicates that the war and death penalty are not proportional issues to abortion, Euthenasia, stem cell research, etc. etc. . Why? Because war is not always gravely sinful and neither is the death penalty. Yes, Bush went against the Pope, but as president of this country he has different information than the Pope and God will judge him based on that information as to whether he was right and the war was actually a just war. As far as the death penalty while I agree with the Pope that it is not likely needed in America in this day and age, it is not condemned and in the Catechism it is said to be justifiable at times. Further if you read Romans 13 it is quite clear that there is Biblical precedent for Governments having it as a tool to keep the peace. Abortion is alway gravely sinful however.

Hope that helps

Blessings

[Oik]

Dairy, you misunderstand the voters guide and a the host of issues surrounding "proportionate" reasons.

I believe Thessalonian covered everything, so please re-read thessalonians posts.

You information is accurate, however one cannot just pick up a Bible crack open the Old testament books and expect to see (and understand) God's mercy.

What I mean to say is that while it is true that there are proportionate reasons for a Catholic to vote for someone that stands against the Church, it must be also understood that one os voting for the lesser of two evils.

Kerry is open, obsinate, and persistant in supporting, even [i]vowing[/i] to support things contrary to the Faith. The best part is, He still claims to be a faithful, practicing Catholic.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Abortion is always a grave sin and it is always a grave sin to participate in it in any way, including voting pro-choice in any way[/quote]

"in any way" I could see you thinking you can't vote "in any way" if you followed Catholic answers. Just from a bishop point of view I can not see that. I realize they said no other issue matches it. They have not addressed the fact that some think it will not change and with good reason. And then there's the proportionality thing too if you interpret it that way. [i]That said, I do realize that the bishops said no other issues match abortion.[/i]



Just to note. I did provide the entire link to proportionality of ratzinger in a previous post in this thread.


I do acknowledge that the moral weight of abortion is above every other issue. I don't think anyone has a grasp on my point I'm arguing that it's a null issue that it won't change even if Bush is elected. I say this because there's so many arguments you guys could be making and you're just repeating the same thing. I think you all are too far in on this one. I may have to bow out unless someone addresses my points.

Edited October 21, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]I realize they said no other issue matches it. [/quote]

that's by me. i just wanted to add. ...matches it in theory.


do we at least have the facts of the situation straight? I'd go on to give you a few cues of what you should be arguing, but I don't want you to be the ones to say it if you're not sure. i think you're on the right track. you just have to address your main point instead of letting people speculate. i say that cause right now i know you mean well but you have not really addressed my point and haven't really made any points other than abortion is an issue that has no other matches. (i say that only works on a theoretical level.. do you understand what i mean?) there's just so much more you could be arguing. i'll tell you soon if we hit a block in the road.

Edited October 22, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest Aluigi]

It is very likely that Supreme Court Judges will be nominated by the next president. John Kerry specifically says he will only nominate those who support the right of a woman to murder. Bush says he won't have such a litmus test (all his nominations would be pro-life because he believes them to be most defensive of the constitution)

let's not forget about when issues such as partial birth abortion come up. clearly in the past 4 years and in the coming 4 years tons of issues regarding life in the womb have come up, the Laci Peterson Law and Partial Birth Abortion have come up, and in the next 4 years there will be supreme court judicial nominees and who knows what other types of legislation that will go to the senate. also, whether or not the American Government funds abortions at home and abroad continues to remain a hot issue.

To claim that abortion will not/ can not be affected in the coming four years is not based in reality.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I'm not saying will not or can not. I'm saying it probably will not. Don't create a strawman of me that's not me to knock me down and win the argument (instituting some logic principles I think we should post them locked with definitions and examples... I'm willing to get them if they would do it)

I do appreciate you actually using some form of argument though. You are expressing your point directly. Maybe this is what they meant too, but they sure didn't express it.

What I was going to say to you all and what me and you will eventually start arguing is: probability. What do you think the probability is? I think a good Catholic could say the probability is not good. You might insist it is good.

We might agree that we don't really know. Then, it seems if we don't know that you should vote for one who might overturn. I'm saying that it's not wrong to think that it won't be overturned.. I base this mostly one the fact that most americans are pro-choice.

I do understand how you would disagree. Considering the nature of the bishop letters, I don't think you can objectively (assuming objective of course) say that it is wrong to vote that way.

You'll say benefit of the doubt. I think I might personally even agree. But that doesn't mean you have to.

Edited October 22, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Cardinal Ratzinger came out and made a statement on it.[/quote]

I wanna see this from ironmonk though. I bet he's refering to the same thing I am.. the proportionality thing. The fact that it doesn't expressly say that you can't vote for kerry or the conditions of a kerry no vote, I think shows that he's warping his message.

You might say I'm warping the message? I don't think so because he could make the message clearer if you're going to argue that he actually made a statement about it.

To say that it is implied is not to say that it is true unless it can be implied with qualification. The fact that there is possibly not qualification means that you should not imply it.


But this is just a side thing sort of. I want to argue the last post mostly instead of just speculating what is meant blah blah blah.

Edited October 22, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest Aluigi]

I am saying that something WILL DEFINITELY happen that will affect abortion. At the very least it is certain that John Kerry will reopen funding for abortions abroad (that Bush has cut). There is a very high probability that the next president will appoint a Supreme Court Judge (and everyone knows the Supreme Court would be the key/sole player in any type of overthrow of roe v wade <except for armed revolt >) and there is a distinct probability that laws that affect the baby in the womb will come up in congress (I can name at least 2 that have come up in the past 2 years that Bush supported and Kerry opposed )

proportionate reasons would be if the guy running against Kerry was a neo-Hitler who was proposing a new holocaust. That is proportionate (though Abortion definitely kills MORE people still, the proposition of a new holocaust, state sponsored murder, is proportionate to the state sponsored murder of abortion)

proportionate reasons would not be anything that is less morally reprehensible than state sponsored wide scale murder.

[thessalonian]

I am no prophet but I am going to say something now that may well seem raidcal but I want you to take a hard look at. What was the result of slavery in this country. Do you know that the US Council of Catholic Bishops did not take a stand on that one. Some say for good reason, as it was believed that if slavery was abolished that it would throw 4 million black on to a labor market that could not absorb them. And in fact it did and most blacks ended up in poverty. Now certain forms of slaver were allowed as moral by the Church. For instance indentured servitude or slavery due to capture of infedels in a just war. But race based slavery which was not hardly know to the world until 1400 was condemned at it's outset by Pope Eugene in 1463 I believe it was, thirty years before America was founded. And it was consistently condemned throughout the history of the Church (I can back this with quotes). Yet the Catholic Bishops in a council just before the cival war were silent on it. Do you think that the judgement of God was upon a nation steeped in immorality, having grown cold due to sin at that time. By the way, the Abolistionist movement started long before the cival war. Should they have said it was a okay to vote for against Lincoln because slavery had gone on since before the Revolution and was not going to change anyway?

What was the result of the Holocaust of the Jews in that began prior to WW II. Do you think that God was not a part of the judgement of a nation.

Now this country has grown cold to life via 30 years of abortions of over 50 million babies, not counting the millions lost through contraception and now the morning after pill called "plan B". Man's plan is what it should be called. Stem cell research and Euthenasia are at our doorstep. We cannot tell what is wrong with heather having two daddies or mommies. Pornography is rampant and we call it free speach. I dare not guess what the judgement of God on this nation will be. He does care about these things last I checked his holy word. And he does judge nations for them.

You can say nothing has happened and so nothing will. So likely did many abolitionists who I am sure saw reason to vote against Lincoln. The twisted arguements were around then also and people fell for them. But we know nothing will happen with kerry and in fact he has said he is in favor of you writing a check to the governement to pay for these abortoins in the second debate. Once again I shudder at the thought of God's judgement on this nation.

Blessings

[Anna]

[quote name='Balthazor' date='Oct 20 2004, 11:38 PM'] I am having moral issues with both candidates.

Sure Bush says that he is against abortion, but as many abortions are being performed as ever.

Kerry is not much better, he can't seem to take a strong stand on exactly where he stands on abortion. He doesn't condone it but he doesn't want to do anything to try and stop it because of the few cases that may endanger the mother. (so he says)

Every fiber of my being tells me that abortion is just plain wrong.

I don't think that either Bush or Kerry really support abortion.
However, I do not see a man before me that is planning on doing anything to efectively reduce abortions. [/quote]
Senator John Kerry has a twenty year long voting record on the issue of abortion. Don't listen to what is coming out of his mouth while he is trying to drum up votes: look at the real man and what he has done in office.
For twenty years, he has consistently voted pro-abortion.
He was one of only six representatives to reject the ban on Partial Birth Abortion. You can't get any more pro-abortion than John Kerry.
His abortion support is 100%, and that is why he is first presidential candidate ever to win the covetted Planned Parenthood Federation endorsement.
Let's not forget, Kerry promises to appoint only justices who believe the Roe v. Wade decision, legalizing abortion in all 9 months for any reason whatsoever, is Constitutional.
That will seal the fate of millions of American babies for years to come. Supreme Court Justices serve a life term.

The first thing George W. Bush did when he took office was to reverse Clinton's decicion of the Mexico City Policy, which provided aid for abortions in family planning clinics beyone the US borders. Under Clinton, we were even exporting abortion. Under Bush, the US no longer funded it.
Bush introduced the ban on Partial Birth Abortion.
He introduced the Defense of Marriage Act, which would guarantee that the legal definition of marriage would remain between a man and a woman.
Kerry voted against the Defense of Marriage Act.
Doesn't matter whether you marry the opposite sex, or the same sex, as long you "marry up."
Bush is opposed to using embryonic stem cells. He supports stem cell research donated ethically, not taken from fetuses.
Kerry supports embryonic stem cell research.


Oh, btw, I am NOT even a Republican!
But I am Pro-Life.
And to save the babies, there is only one logical choice a voter can make.

Pax Christi. <><

[dairygirl4u2c]

I like your style alugi. So far. If I start to dispute we should finalize our discussion though. Don't walk away and you'll be a god to me. jk

I want ot also mention what I said about probabiliity. This is I'm pretty sure why Iron was talking about "perhaps" stuff that I was talking about. His argument I assume and yours will be I assume that yes perhaps nothing will happen, but that doesn't mean we shoudn't vote for a prochoice just in case. At the very least it's a principled dispute. You'd say at the very least it's bad to vote for him on principle. That's what most say when talkig in person. Andt these are hardcore catholics. You all are a lot more extreme than in person by the way. But then you haven't argued final that it is a sin to vote prochoice if all you're going to do is say that it is. I think at the least I'm going to be right that you can't say it's a sin. I suppose you could argue the ordinary magisterium has inclinations that wya and just because they haven't addressed kerry specifically or the problem of ucertainany doesn't mean you shouldn't follow their "spirit" of their letters. But he prob of uncertainty really does need adressed to say it is a mortal sin, much less a sin, Id insist. And "spirit" of letters is disputable.

[quote]At the very least it is certain that John Kerry will reopen funding for abortions abroad (that Bush has cut). [/quote]

I'm pretty sure that the abortions would happen anyway. If the family doesn't want the baby if they did not want the baby anyway, cause poor sick.. they'd find a way to do it. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think I am. You'd hae to say on principle we aren't going to be the ones to assist. But I could see someone arguing that saving eh starving is worth more than not assiting a murder that was goig to hapen anyway.

[quote]There is a very high probability that the next president will appoint a Supreme Court Judge (and everyone knows the Supreme Court would be the key/sole player in any type of overthrow of roe v wade <except for armed revolt >)[/quote]

Actually. That's what everyone thinks. And I woudn't be surprise if the a lot of repubs would want you to think that. As you later mention, the Congress can clarify its laws anytime it wants. The supreme court sisn't suppose to be legislating from the bench.

I could see a prob arising in the future. The states need lik 75 percent of states to over ride the consitution or something like that. That means if a decidion was made an the majority was against it, the court would win. I can see good rasons for the set up this way, because pepole are wishy washy, but then abortion can fall into those cracks whichs isn't good. If this was the csae voting for the justices would be a must.

[quote] and there is a distinct probability that laws that affect the baby in the womb will come up in congress (I can name at least 2 that have come up in the past 2 years that Bush supported and Kerry opposed [/quote]

Yes, but will they do anything? The one I know you're prob talking about just got vineefective right away by judicial review. People have misconceptions about partial birth. THe bill didn't allow for mother's health. People agree that health should be considred. People are against partial birth in general. So it looks good to have a bill that does away in theory with partial birth. It seems like a political maneuver because I doubt the politician actually are more conservative than the poulation and want all partial birth done away with when the pop wants it done away with except for moether health. Now, Mother's health" is abused and we politicians should be resolving that. Don't give so much credit to the policitians! I'm not sure of the other bill you're talking about. (you must be talking about the one in the last response to your quote) Now here maybe you'd argue that the demos and kerry are not allowing a reason use of the mother's health thing? Based on my observations they seem willing to say no partial births and do the mothers health thing. If thta's not the case and if you can show this I might reconsider.

[quote]legalizing abortion in all 9 months for any reason whatsoever, is Constitutional.[/quote]

Actually it's suppose to be only for the mother's health after the first trimestter and only if the state allows it. This is a notion that even most with prolife tendencies believe in.. mother's help then okay. That makes it even more less likely that the decision will b eoverturned. I bet most prolife judges might consider this good. In a certain sense you could look at it as a compromise. The first trimester is all allowable, but after that only mothers health. It doesn't appear that justices will want to go against a stalemate "compromise" like that. This is a major consideratino you need to realize. Even beyond the fact that a marginal yet formidable margin are gnerall prochoice.

[quote]Kerry voted against the Defense of Marriage Act. [/quote]
As for the marriage arguments arguing as if I was catholic. The Catholic Church does say all civil unions marriage etc is nt allowable. They say starvation etc is wrong. I might argue that if you think the nation needs the policies of Kerry that these might trump marriage things. You might disagree and say marriage foundation of society and way to save it. But I think you can take a moral absolute such as no starving and say that even though the way to no starving is disputed, if people ar estarving and need the policies.. then at that time it can trump marriage ideas. The bishops have n't really addressed this issue. That is essentially again for example what if I think helping the starving is worth more than saving marriage.

[quote]Bush is opposed to using embryonic stem cells. He supports stem cell research donated ethically, not taken from fetuses.[/quote]
Here's what you're saving that I think a Catholc could dispute with you. Invetro fertilization couples have many fetuses created. They only use one. The argument against that is that to use th ecells you have to kill the fetus. The counter argument is that it was going to die anyway. I could see someone saying that to save the starving is worth more than to save a baby that was goig to die anyway. You'd think Bush or whoever would start being against invetro. But you know how much peple do that, no one's even talked about it.

Edited October 22, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Winchester]

I'm sure it's been said, but Kerry's position regarding abortion: Personally opposed, but unable to dictate such morality is untenable for a Catholic. Moreover, it is patently absurd. It's pandering, and I don't think Mister Kerry is stupid enough to believe what he says, I believe it's merely politics.