Priest: It's a sin to vote pro-choice

CHEYENNE (AP) -- A Roman Catholic congregation is being told that voting for pro-choice candidates in next week's election would be a mortal sin.

The Rev. Tom Cronkleton, of the Holy Trinity Catholic Church, said he has a moral obligation to remind his parishioners of their duty as citizens and as Catholics to vote for people who will represent them.

"There are five pre-eminent issues -- abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem-cell research, human cloning and so-called homosexual marriage," Cronkleton said. "How the candidates stand is a reason to vote for or against them."

In a bulletin insert on Sunday, Cronkleton said, "Being a Catholic sometimes is difficult, and being a Catholic voter is not an exception. We have to live by faith and moral principles and not by political affiliation or personal like or dislike."

Joan Easley said at least one person walked out of the church during Sunday's sermon, and she would have walked out had she not been there with her 80-year-old mother.

"It was disturbing," she said. "I don't support abortion, but I also don't support going over and bombing and blowing up families either."

A lifelong Catholic, Easley said it is not the first time she has felt out of synch with the church's positions. But she said she has dealt with her disagreements quietly.

"They (the church) are the ones who have introduced me to the love of Jesus Christ, and I feel that they have the ability to give me the complete faith," she said.

"As far as the church doctrines, sometimes I have a problem with them. But you've got to suck that kind of stuff up."

"They're actually putting their personal feelings on our religion," she said. "I don't think we should be judged on the personal feelings of a priest."

As a nonprofit organization, the church walks a fine line in its ability to speak to voters about the morality of their choices. The Internal Revenue Service does not permit nonprofit groups to endorse candidates or try to influence the outcome of elections.

A Roman Catholic pro-choice group based in Washington, D.C., Catholics for a Free Choice, has gone on the offensive against the archdiocese in Denver to try to halt its expressions of politics from the pulpit. The group is challenging the archdiocese's tax-exempt status.

"Nonprofits can't get away with this by avoiding the candidate's name and using the word 'pro-life,'" said the group's president, Frances Kissling. "There are two candidates -- one is pro-life and one is pro-choice. By saying to vote pro-life, they have said to vote for George Bush.

"If they say you cannot vote pro-choice, that is a statement of opposition, and that is illegal."

"However, it's awfully hard to separate "Christian faith" from a particular denomination once the floodgates are opened."

Come on, what floodgates? There was no wall, there were no gates to open until the God-haters conjured them into existence in the 60s. For most of the country's history we did just fine without those walls.

"When churches participate directly in the political process, specifically endorsing one candidate, then they have entered into a different zone."

I disagree entirely. Churches are voluntary associations of free citizens, and there is no excuse whatever for curtailing their speech. They are not agencies of the government, nor are they funded by the government. Regulating the speech of people just because they are in a church building is the most egregious insult to the First Amendment imaginable.

The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law (establishing an official church), or prohibiting the free exercise (of religion); or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."

The only bit your position does not violate is "or of the press."

"In that event, they are acting just like any other campaign source and will eventually be regulated as such."

What in the world is a "campaign source," and where does the Constitution give the Federal Government the right to "regulate" them?

Every US citizen has an absolute, iron-clad Constitutional right to assemble and discuss politics. That right is not lost by the act of entering a building designated as a church.

Every US citizen has an absolute, iron-clad Constitutional right to express his political opinions. That right is not lost because one is ordained.

"It should come as no surprise if such politically active churches lose their tax-exempt status."

Not a surprise, but an abhorrent abuse and violation of our God-given rights, as enumerated in the Constitution.

"If, on the other hand, a church limits their voice to opinions on specific issues, instead of a particular candidate, there can be no argument from the government."

The God-haters are already seeking to invoke the violence of Government to suppress just such speech, i.e. that on issues instead of a particular candidate. Articles reporting that have been posted on FR in recent days.

The "middle of the road" is just "halfway to the wrong side." Freedom of speech and religion must be inviolate.

"Voicing a strict opinion on issues of right and wrong is what churches do."

And what they are now being sued and investigated for.

"Endorsing specific candidates is what campaign contributers do."

I reiterate, every US citizen has an absolute, iron-clad Constitutional right to assemble and discuss politics, and to express his political opinions. That right is not lost by the act of entering a building designated as a church, or because one is ordained.

These efforts to suppress political speech on the grounds that it occurs in buildings designated as churches are nothing more dignified than a thinly veiled attempt to strip churchgoers of important Constitutional protections.

The sleaziest part of it is that leftist legislators, knowing they could never get away with passing a law explicitly depriving citizens of civil rights on the basis of religious affiliation, are using a renegade IRS to do their dirty work.

"As we found out a couple of weeks ago, this is not the church's official position. It is not a mortal sin to vote for a politician that supports choice. The Vatican clarified this over that lawsuit that was to be filed to excommunicate Kerry. Only having an abortion and helping someone procure an abortion are mortal sins."

I fear the Vatican's position was too nuanced to prevent misprision.

It boils down to this: when a Catholic voter is faced with a choice between a politician who is a step better than the opponent on abortion, even if he is less strongly against it than we might hope, the Catholic is not rendered unable to vote for either, but can vote for the better candidate as a step in the right direction.

In no way does the Vatican's statement allow a Catholic to support abortion, which is this woman's position.

And despite how this priest's homily was reported, I'd bet dollars to bellybutton lint that if you asked him, "Can we vote for Bush even though he supports abortion under the 3 circumstances, because he's so much better on the issue than Kerry," the priest would say, "Certainly," and that he never meant to imply otherwise.

In no way does the Vatican's statement permit a Catholic to disregard the issue of abortion in the interest of furthering other, less vital agendas. It says that *if* there were an issue of equal or greater importance, then those issues might offset or even override the issue of abortion.

In this election, however, such an issue does not exist, and it *is* a mortal sin to vote for Kerrey, just as it was to vote for Gore, and for Clinton before him.

I reiterate, every US citizen has an absolute, iron-clad Constitutional right to assemble and discuss politics, and to express his political opinions. That right is not lost by the act of entering a building designated as a church, or because one is ordained.

Everything you wrote is absolutely true. However, it doesn't address the problem of a church, not a person expressly endorsing a particular candidate. The difference is that a citizen isn't a tax-exempt institution, and a church is not a citizen.

The constitution does, absolutely protect the free speech rights of citizens. But there is no constitutional guarantee that a politically active church can remain a tax-exempt institution, while the members of that church can say whatever they like, that's guaranteed.

"Everything you wrote is absolutely true. However, it doesn't address the problem of a church, not a person expressly endorsing a particular candidate."

A church is a voluntary association of people, most of whom are usually citizens. By what argument do those people lose their right to political speech through organizations to which they belong? By what authority do they lose their right to say, "We of the Lutheran (or Baptist, or whatever) Church endorse Alan Keyes"?

"a citizen isn't a tax-exempt institution"

And since when does the tax-exempt status of churches have conditions other than that they are legitimate churches? Their tax-exempt status is not some socialist attempt to encourage them, as it is with non-religious tax-exempt groups. It flows from the First Amendment...a tax is a restriction on freedom of worship. Their tax-exempt status is constitutional, not granted at the whim of IRS reprobates.

"But there is no constitutional guarantee that a politically active church can remain a tax-exempt institution, while the members of that church can say whatever they like, that's guaranteed."

I think my last paragraph dealt adequately with that argument.

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.