Posted on 10/30/2004 4:18:46 PM PDT by CHARLITE
PING.
This article is full of false assertions. I'm surprised the WSJ would go with something like this, which is slanted toward letting Catholic kerry supporters off the hook. And right before the election, too.
Nonsense. Try selling that BS to the Pope.
I don't see how any Catholic --- or anyone who believes that God is the giver of Life, can believe in abortion or support pro-abortion fanatics like Kerry. He doesn't just believe that women should obtain abortions for any reason whatsoever -- he believes the taxpayers should have their money confiscated from them to pay for abortions. He wants the government to ensure people have their abortions.
Even if it does contain some dem slants, if someone on the fence is inclined to believe the "iraq war is wrong" balonie this gives them some real logic to look at.
This view is NOT correct. Few sins are "graver" (mortal) than voting for a candidate who endorses--especially at the level Kerry endorses--a sin specifically defined as serious, grave, mortal by the Church. The "excommunication" in a sense is automatic: mortal sin is a temporary version of excommunication, relieved only by Penance, which in turn requires a GOOD Act of Contrition. A GOOD Act of Contrition depends, among other things, on a firm purpose of amendment--NEVER TO COMMIT the same sin again. Formal excommunication requires more than Penance for relief. It is patently obvious that Kerry's record proves no firm purpose of amendment, and those who vote for him (OR Republican pro-aborts) cannot receive absolution in Confession if they continue to vote for pro-abort candidates (but of course only God and the penitent know whether the contrition was genuine). Excommunication also frequently involves the problem of scandal. Someone VOTING for a pro-abort candidate, unless he calls a press conference, is unlikely to incur public excommunication; whereas a legislator, whose votes are known, is at least more likely to incur it.
War is outside the realm of Bishops' pronouncements--even the Pope's pronouncements, thusfar. War and abortion aren't comparable. Hitler was not excommunicated for invading Czechoslavakia or Poland or France. Henri 1v WAS excommunicated--but not for warring, performed a grueling penance, and the bull was recalled. What's more--who's excommunicated (if unjust wars WERE excommnicable offenses) when a democracy declares war? Nations can't be excommunicated.
Occasionally, there may be some wiggle room. But the real thing comes down to this:
Who are the most defenseless?
The unborn.
Who will die in greater numbers?
The unborn. One day's worth of abortion in this country is more than our forces have lost in the war. One hundred days of abortion are more dead than even the most outrageous estimates of deaths on all sides in the war. One year of this is over three times the death of the war, and four years of it will be more than 12 times the death of the war.
Everything else is quibbling.
The question whether or not the Iraq war is justified is a matter of prudential judgment.
Abortion is not a matter of prudential judgment. It is always and intrinsically wrong.
Moreover, kerry has not really said what he would do about Iraq. In all likelihood, he would end up with worse and bloodier wars than Bush. Bush fought the Iraq war with great care and concern for civilian casualties, unlike clinton, for example, who deliberately bombed civilian targets indiscriminately from 20,000 feet.
This inserts in this Saturday evenings Mass church bulletin:
PERSPECITVE: ABORTION VS. TERRORISM
If a candidate who supported terrorism asked for your vote, would you say, "I disagree with you on terrorism, but where do you stand on other issues?"
I doubt it.
In fact, if a terrorism sympathizer presented him/herself for your vote, you would immediately know that such a position disqualifies the candidate for public office- no matter how good he or she may be on other issues. The horror of terrorism dwarfs whatever good might be found in the candidate's plan for housing, education, or health care. Regarding those plans, you wouldn't even ask.
So why do so many people say, "This candidate favors leagal abortion. I disagree. But I'm voting for this person because he/she has good ideas about health care (or some other issue)."
Pope Joun Paul II put it this way. 'Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture - is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination" (Christifideles Laici, 1988).
False and illusory. Those are strong and clear words that call for our further reflection.
The Pope allows bishops and other ordained clergy to teach exactly this "BS", indeed, he allows them to shout it from the rooftops.
If it's BS, why do you think that is?
[sarcasm]
But it is okay for Kerry to have bloodier wars than Bush, since under Kerry many more Americans would be killed, maimed and traumatized.
American lives are less important than others.
[/sarcasm]
A FRENCH START FOR AMERICA Kerry / Edwards |
I apologize. I should not presume to speak for the Pope. It is my opinion that it is BS. IMHO, the wholesale slaughter of innocent, unborn children (thousands year after year) is a much greater sin than President Bush's handling of the War on Terror.
The article states-
It is up to voters of conscience to decide which evil is greater--the War on Terror or abortion.
To me, it's an easy chioce for a Catholic.
The Catechism, section 2271 to be exact, addresses "direct" abortion not "therapeutic" abortion which is allowed. Borse ought to try actually reading the Catechism sometime before definitively commenting on it.
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76
75 Didache 2,2:SCh 248,148; cf. Ep. Barnabae 19,5:PG 2 777; Ad Diognetum 5,6:PG 2,1173; Tertullian, Apol. 9:PL 1,319-320.
76 GS 51 § 3.
doesn't matter what he "thinks." He obviously doesn't understand his own catechism. Abortion trumps war every time.
My thoughts exactly.
My thoughts exactly.
Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.
HUMANAE VITAE
Catholic Ping - please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.