Posted on 10/29/2004 4:50:14 AM PDT by SLB
To get out of this conundrum the RCs may have to drop their tax exempt contribution privileges. I actually hope they do, or at least that the issue gets forced so Congress eases up the rules on churches. The RC is so big it will be impossible to ignore.
One of my favorite saints.
I figure some are so brainwashed that they escape from eternal punishment on the whole "invincible ignorance" thing. My grandmother is a great example of this.
But yes to knowingly and intentionaly cooperate in evil is damaging to one's immortal soul.
I ain't perfect but I try to avoid the obvious cooperation with evil. And this one is a no brainer.
Yet another reason I am for repealing the income tax and replacing it with the fair tax, the NRST.
"This is entirely unconstitutional! Remember that the separation of church and state goes both ways!"
Actually, it doesn't. It was intended to protect church against state only; never the other way round.
To say that the Constitution prevents churches from interfering in government is just dead wrong.
If people walk out, or don't like it, tough. In my opinion those in the hierarchy don't speak up enough. And I've had to put up with plenty of that.
And they disagree on most of the other five issues like stem cell research.
To vote for Kerry OVER Bush when considering abortion alone or along with the other five issues is downright evil.
If he received confession (and I'll bet he doesn't)there wouldn't be time to count the lies he tells in ONE day in a single sitting.
LOL! Good one. Or at least modern day democrats and Liberals.
Kerry also supports partial birth abortion, at least in his voting record in Washington. This is evil. Bush does not endorse partial birth abortion and has repeatedly said he will sign any bill Congress passes that will ban this procedure/murder. That makes Bush by far a better choice for pro-life voters. I thought this is what the instruction from the Vatican was all about. If you have two politicians who support abortion (and in Europe that is just about all you have), then you must vote for the candidate who supports life more than the other or others. That would seem to uphold the argument that voting for Kerry is cooperating with evil.
Joan Easley, a hot place is in your future.
We have an auxilliary bishop here in Michigan who does the same sort of thing. He is giving his congregation and many Catholics in this state the excuse to vote for Kerry, basically saying that because Kerry supports the social agenda of the left and Bush does not it is better to vote for Kerry. It is leading people astray. I pray the good deacon does not go this far when he speaks to other Catholics in person.
We have an auxilliary bishop here in Michigan who does the same sort of thing. He is giving his congregation and many Catholics in this state the excuse to vote for Kerry, basically saying that because Kerry supports the social agenda of the left and Bush does not it is better to vote for Kerry. It is leading people astray. I pray the good deacon does not go this far when he speaks to other Catholics in person.
During our church service three weeks ago our pastor confirmed that a marriage is between one man and one woman and that life truly begins at the instant the egg is fertilized. A lady in front of us then got up and walked out. Guess she could not stand the heat.
Last Sunday and again tomorrow in all Catholic churches across America, the sermon will be on how voting for a man who is pro partial birth abortion, gay marriage, and embryonic stem cell harvesting is immoral.
Amen!
Of course it was meant to protect the government too! For the most powerful church to control the government means a very short step from that church becoming the ONLY church. History is chock full of good examples of why it's a bad idea. The leadership of the Church of England being in such control of things pre-U.S. independence probably had something to do with that particular part of the Constitution. It has to be a two-way protection, or it is no protection at all.
"Of course it was meant to protect the government too!"
Uh, uh. No. Not in the way you mean. They specifically forbad the establishment of an official church, preventing what you fear. However, it is explicit in the writings of all the prominent men of the time that the Christian faith was expected to exert an influence in the decisions of government.
Pre-Election Letter to the People of Arlington
By Bishop Paul S. Loverde
Special to the Herald
(From the issue of 10/28/04)
October 31, 2004
Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ,
Nov. 2 marks a quadrennial, pivotal date in our nation — a date when we again are given the opportunity of electing a president, a vice president, and in Virginia, all of the members of the House of Representatives. This is an opportunity that the 394,000 Catholics of our diocese cannot but take seriously, for we must continue to build a "Culture of Life," as our Holy Father calls it — a culture in which our nation’s leaders will "contribute to the building of a society in which the dignity of each person is recognized and protected and the lives of all are defended and enhanced" (cf. The Gospel of Life, 90).
Since the last national election, our nation and world have witnessed Sept. 11 and its aftermath. Domestic issues such as the threat of human cloning, the attempt to legalize same-sex marriage and the ban and subsequent challenging of the ban on partial birth abortion have caused us to sharpen our focus on what is important for us as Catholics. As we examine the positions of candidates on numerous issues in the presidential and other election contests, we must allow our conscience to be guided by fundamental principles.
As my brother bishops and I have stated in "Faithful Citizenship: Civic Responsibility for a New Millennium," the critical principles by which we should judge those who run for elected office are the protection of human life, the promotion of family life, the pursuit of social justice and the practice of global solidarity.
The foundation for these principles is the first, the protection of human life, since without it the other three would be rendered meaningless. If we do not uphold and protect human life in its beginning at conception, there will be no life to uphold and protect thereafter. As we read in Living the Gospel of Life, "We cannot simultaneously commit ourselves to human rights and progress while eliminating or marginalizing the weakest among us … We must begin with a commitment never to intentionally kill, or collude in the killing, of any innocent human life, no matter how broken, unformed, disabled or desperate that life may seem" (20, 21).
To be a faithful Catholic necessarily means that one is pro-life and not pro-choice. As my brother bishops and I said in our statement "Catholics in Political Life" this past June, "Failing to protect the lives of the innocent and defenseless members of the human race is to sin against justice." To be pro-choice essentially means supporting the right of a woman to terminate the life of her baby, either pre-born or partially born. No Catholic can claim to be a faithful member of the Church while advocating for, or actively supporting, direct attacks on innocent human life. In reality, protecting human life from conception to natural death is more than a Catholic issue. It is an issue of fundamental morality, rooted in both the natural law and the divine law.
The Church’s God-given responsibility is to propose the Truth, thereby offering people the proper criterion for examining issues and making informed decisions that are morally right and serve the common good. "The Church must be committed to the task of educating and supporting lay people involved in law-making, government and the administration of justice, so that legislation will always reflect those principles and moral values which are in conformity with a sound anthropology and advance the common good" (The Church in America, 19, Synod for America, 72). There is no doubt that protecting all human life, promoting the family, pursuing social justice and practicing global solidarity are in conformity with a sound anthropology and do, indeed, advance the common good.
Keeping in mind the four priorities that I have outlined, some have wondered whether one may vote for a candidate whose stand on abortion and other life issues is contrary to the teaching of the Church if one believes that that candidate has a better position on other issues of importance to Catholics and indeed to our nation (e.g., national security, taxation, job growth, economic policy, etc.). Let me be clear: to vote for a candidate precisely because of his or her pro-abortion stance is an instance of formal cooperation in a grave evil. Such formal cooperation is, according to the constant teaching of the Church, never morally permissible.
In our common life together in society, it is sometimes not possible to avoid entirely all cooperation with evil. This may be the case in electing to office our state and national leaders. In certain circumstances, it is morally permissible to vote for a candidate who supports some immoral practices while opposing other immoral practices. This is called material cooperation with evil. In order for material cooperation to be morally permissible, however, there must be a proportionate reason for such cooperation. Proportionate reason does not mean that each issue carries the same moral weight; intrinsically evil acts such as abortion or research on stem cells taken from human embryos cannot be placed on the same level as debates over war or capital punishment, for example. It is simply not possible to serve and promote the common good of our nation by voting for a candidate who, once in office, will do nothing to limit or restrict the deliberate destruction of innocent human life.
If, however, a candidate supports abortion in a limited number of cases but opposes it otherwise, a Catholic may vote for such a candidate over another, more unsuitable candidate who is unwilling to place any restrictions on abortion. In this case, the voter makes an effort to limit the circumstances in which procured abortion would be deemed legal. This is not a question of choosing a lesser evil, but rather the Catholic, by his or her vote, expresses the intention to limit all the evil that one is able to limit at the time.
As citizens and Catholics, we must be involved in the political process and in the electing of our local, state and national leaders. "The arena for moral responsibility includes not only the halls of government but the voting booth as well" (Living the Gospel of Life, 33). Once again, I urge you to weigh carefully the issues and the candidates from the perspective of the four moral priorities I outlined above, especially the priority to protect the life of all persons, pre-born and born.
In these days preceding the elections on Nov. 2, please pray and fast that the citizens of our nation will elect those leaders who will renew our communities, our state and our society by enabling all citizens to restore the culture of life.
One with you in prayer and in the exercise of our privileged right to vote, I remain
Faithfully in Christ,
Most Reverend Paul S. Loverde
Bishop of Arlington
Our Pastor relayed a story about a Mr. Vincent who had gone to Washington to accept an award in the Oval Office. This man was the last in line to shake the President's hand. He told the President that he prayed for him and his family everyday. Then he told how this man asked the President for a favor. The President told Mr. Vincent, name it. The man asked the President to pray for his mother-in-law's upcoming cancer surgery.
The President took him by the hand and went back to his desk taking down all the information and correct spelling of his mother-in-law's name so that he could send her a note of encouragement. Then the President embraced Mr. Vincent pulling his head to his shoulder, and prayed with him. Overcome with emotion, Mr. Vincent broke down , and the President continued to hold this man and comforted him.
Our pastor stated that our President is a man of God, he is God's man. He also said it was our duty as Christians to vote and if we don't, we will answer to God one day for our failure to do so.
My church is Southern Baptist.
Christian faith, yes, I agree.
However, it's awfully hard to separate "Christian faith" from a particular denomination once the floodgates are opened. When churches participate directly in the political process, specifically endorsing one candidate, then they have entered into a different zone. In that event, they are acting just like any other campaign source and will eventually be regulated as such.
It should come as no surprise if such politically active churches lose their tax-exempt status. 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. Voicing a strict opinion on issues of right and wrong is what churches do. Endorsing specific candidates is what campaign contributers do.
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.