Posted on 10/29/2004 4:50:14 AM PDT by SLB
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."
He encouraged the congregation to stop by the church to pray before voting.
But at least one member of the congregation dislikes being told how to vote.
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."
But the language she heard Sunday was too hard to swallow.
"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."
None of them have the slightest chance of winning.
I'm not buying your idea of "proportionate reasons."
I'd be interested in knowing why you think so. You really think that McClintock would not have picked up a majority of the votes that went to Arnold?
Furthermore, you don't know his exact wording, which is important.
Not to offend any Catholics, but it is for reasons like this that I feel that all of this human-declared "mortal sin" business is nonsense.
Fine. Don't buy it. But, to definitively declare that anybody who votes for Kerry is guilty of mortal sin is not something Cronkleton has the authority or comptence to declare.
Thats irrelevant. Facts are facts.
"If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly." - 1 John 5:16-17
You don't offend me. Clerics deciding that anyone who votes for John Kerry is deserving of eternal fire goes way beyond their competence and beyond the Church's teaching.
Yeah, McClintock would've made sure that he lost. The biggest donors to his campaign were Indian tribes that had already endorsed Bustamante. They wanted hom to be a spoiler. That's why he never said one word against Bustamante. Had the race suddenly turned into a two-way race between McClintock and Bustamante, McClintock would've gotten a visit from tribal representatives demanding that he fold, or that he forever forgo any future donations from the tribes.
In any case, I hope we cal all agree, in any case, that it's a sin to tell a lie.
[My band takes the cue, as I begin to croon one of my favorite songs]
Be sure its true when you say,
"I love you,"
It's a sin to tell a lie.
Millions of hearts have been broken,
Just because these words were spoken.
I love you, yes I do, I love you,
If you break my heart, I'll die,
So be sure that it's true,
When you say "I love you,"
It's a sin to tell a lie.
;-)
The media lie of massive civilian casualties lives on...and on...and on...
I bet that the donations received from Republicans who otherwise pragmatically supported Arnold would have more than mad up for any money not received from the tribes.
No, it probably would not. McClintock has made sure, over the years, to insult and annoy the major GOP donors in this state, even as he begs them for more money.
I wasn't aware of that. I was under the impression that he was quite popular amongst the GOP. Is it just that the major donors are liberal/moderates like Jones?
An impression he carefully cultivated. However, it's not reality.
Is it just that the major donors are liberal/moderates like Jones?
No. There are conservatives who donate. He's annoyed them, too.
Can you give me some examples? I've never known of such Republicans. Then again, I'm on the other side of the country.
His bestest buddies in the world are a group misleadingly called the "California Republican Assembly." The CRA's main efforts over the past decade have been, in the name "true conservatism," to get less-than-true conservative candidates (including, believe it or not, Bill Simon) to lose the election because of misleading push-polls to conservative voters at the last-minute...using money donated to either McClintock or to the CRA at McClintock's request.
If I recall correctly, FR has partnered with the CRA on several occasions, and JimRob himself has received an award from them. Can't be all that bad.
Nobody's perfect. But the CRA has been getting progressively more stupid.
My favorite was when they spread false rumors that a GOP candidate's son had been busted for possession. The phone call went out to every GOP phone in the district the day before the election. Knocked turnout down enough to give the seat to a loony-leftist.
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.