Posted on 03/07/2007 1:41:55 PM PST by madprof98
A Catholic newspaper is telling readers that Catholics shouldn't support White House hopeful Rudy Giuliani because of his support for allowing women access to abortions.
The National Catholic Register's editorial urges anti-abortion voters to choose another candidate other than Giuliani.
"A Republican party led by a pro-abortion politician would become a pro-abortion party," according to the editorial that appears on the Web site and is set to appear next week in the newspaper's print edition.
Editors say "they hope that pro-lifers will 'be reasonable,' not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and go along quietly," but "we won't."
"When they ask us to 'be reasonable' and go along with a pro-abortion leader, they assume that there is something unreasonable about the pro-life position to start with," the editors wrote. "We’re sorry, but we don’t see what is so unreasonable about the right to life.
"What looks supremely unreasonable to us is that we should trust a leader who not doesn’t only reject the right to life but even supports partial-birth abortion, which is more infanticide than abortion," according to the editorial.
[snip]
"Would a pro-abortion president give us a pro-life Supreme Court justice? Maybe he would in his first term. But we’ve seen in the Democratic Party how quickly and completely contempt for the right to life corrupts. Even if a President Giuliani did the right thing for a short time, it’s likely the party that accepted him would do the wrong thing for a long time," the editorial reads.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Ask me this: Why should conservatives have to compromise all the time? None of the Democrats running for President are pro-life or pro-gun.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=137377
Disregard the title of the thread. Like FR, things go off-topic pretty quickly. Also - there are many non-Catholics there, as well as all flavors of the Catholic rainbow. Overall, the Catholic posters are on the more orthodox side.
Howard Dean was pro-gun (believe it or not). Bill Richardson is pro-gun.
Thank you!
True, but I think that Dem loyalty is strong with many people i.e. 'my grandparents voted Dem, and so do I. They're the party of the working man'. People aren't quick to recognize change.
There's a thread at catholic.com focused on the Bishops, communication, and pro-abortion politicians running there now:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=1976397
I think it's fascinating reading, because there are so many knowledgeable and opinionated posters there (just like here).
communication = communion
Excellent. So has this publication that is telling Catholics they cannot support Guliani been doing the same thing for the last fifty years regarding the pro-abortion Catholics that keep getting reelected?
Rudy Toot is toast. Pro-Abortion, Anti-Gun; forget it.
Considering how many Catholics in NY have already voted for Rudy, I'd say Rome is doing little more than preaching to the choir.
I don't subscribe to the National Catholic Register, but I have read issues of it every now and then. I won't be at all surprised if they gave Kerry a very hard time in 2004.
Thank you for the voice of sanity.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Santorum was beaten by Casey a pro-life Democrat.
That's exactly what I said. Conservative Republicans can win in PA if they aren't running against a pro-life Democrat.
Yeah, so what? I said, 'As a label, "Catholic" is even more meaningless than "Republican"' And I am right. Take for example the Catholic doctrine on abortion, it is pro-life. But folks like Rudy call themselves Catholic and yet they support the "right" abortion. Hell, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry have the "Catholic" label. It has come to mean next to nothing, not so much because of the church itself, but because of the cafeteria-style approach of the majority of its members. I suppose that the Church is at least partially responsible for tolerating this approach.
Just last week, the local newspaper had a picture of a local lady painting a pro-Hilary sign for her recent visit to Dubuque. This lady is employed by the bishop as some head of child protection, or some such position. Now why would the church tolerate that? Where is your "clear and vocal stand" when it counts?
If Richardson is the Dem nominee, and several folks feel he might be the darkhorse, there is a more than decent chance that the NRA might endorse him. That will be enough for him to win. The GOP really needs to find a pro-gun candidate or they're in major league trouble.
This is certainly not the first time a candidate has been opposed by the Catholic Church over this issue (it may not have been mentioned as pointedly in print, but the priests certainly got the message across). However, if this is somehow new to your diocese, I have a better question: Why NOT start with Giuliani?
Actually, the label that fits them most appropriately is "heretic."
St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas". "The right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness--free choice--is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material. On the other hand the will may freely incline the intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority of the Church. The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one's own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonourable. Heresy thus willed is imputable to the subject and carries with it a varying degree of guilt; it is called formal, because to the material error it adds the informative element of "freely willed".
God bless! Me either!
The Church teaches that certain things are simply "non-negotiable" as Pope Benedict stated just recently. Others are to be matters of conscience.
Abortion is "non-negotiable." The killing of an unborn baby is a most hideous form of homicide.
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.