Posted on 08/28/2008 9:57:02 AM PDT by Caleb1411
DENVER — Democrats have made it a priority to lure more evangelical and Catholic voters from the Republican camp into their own, but the likelihood of success is becoming more problematic given pronouncements by two Catholic archbishops and a decision by the editor of an evangelical Christian magazine.
Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput, the archbishop of Denver, said Democratic vice presidential candidate Joseph Biden should avoid taking Communion because of his support for abortion rights.
In 2004, the Archbishop of Boston, Sean O'Malley stood by a statement he had made the previous year that pro-choice Catholics are in a state of grave sin and cannot take Communion properly. Around the same time, then-Cardinal (now Pope Benedict XVI) Joseph Ratzinger, in a private memorandum, told American bishops that Communion must be denied to Catholic politicians who support legal abortion. The memo and the statement by O'Malley were thought at the time to be directed at Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, who is Catholic. Kerry and many other Democratic and Republican Catholic politicians have mostly ignored such directives and taken Communion anyway.
Appearing last Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried some theological hair-splitting. She described herself as "an ardent, practicing Catholic," but then said the church had only held its pro-life position for the last 50 years and that during the previous 2,000 years it had reached different conclusions about when life begins.
In an unusual public rebuke of a leading political figure, Washington, D.C., Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl said Pelosi was "incorrect" in her statement that the church had differed over the years about when live begins.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
What many citizens today fail to reason through is that the so-called "right to choose," is an invented euphemism of recent decades designed to mask the ugly act of "destroying" the life and liberty of the child in the womb. So was the use of the word, "fetus," which is so much less personal than the word, "baby." By those euphemisms, an artificial right was bestowed by unelected justices of the Supreme Court of the United States on only one class of citizens (women) to destroy the Creator-endowed, therefore "unalienable" life and liberty of an as-yet-unborn citizen.
This question is the most important one to be considered in the 2008 election of a President.
Consider the logic utilized by those who say they personally oppose taking the life of the child in the womb, but believes in the trite and tired old phrase of "a woman's right to choose."
Why could a 70-year-old daughter not use the same reasoning to apply to a "right to choose" to get rid of an elderly mother whose care is threatening her own health? (And don't say it is not realistic to claim the health risk that many face!)
Or, why should the nation's law not provide that same "right to choose" to both men and women who consider another individual to be a threat to their personal health or wellbeing, an inconvenience to their lifestyle, or merely a burden they cannot take care of?
Clearly, America's laws against the taking of life do not allow for a citizen's "right to choose" murder as an optional way of solving a personal dilemma, no matter how perplexing or burdensome.
Unmask the faulty logic of the fence sitters, and let them articulate what is their real reason for favoring the taking of a life in the womb! Is it not possibly because they do not see children in the womb as beings "endowed by their Creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?
The candidate who is most likely to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand this basic principle underlying our liberty and the American Constitution is the only logical choice to lead this nation, in this voter's humble opinion!
Infanticide, idolotry like the Columns in Olympian Denver tonight, arrogance, lying as Biden did last night, will probably not draw many people of faith except for the liberal types who have been in the fold since FDR. SFranNan and others who rewrite the Bible are not going to keep people from wondering just what theme has this DNC Convention shown for the public. Just what qualifies the Messiah to be CIC? If lightning hits the stage tonight, I would expect Zeus to hold a toga over the Messiah. But, the real God might take a different tact! LOL
did you see Archbishop Chaput on Cavuto today? Great!
The Democrats have pulled this song and dance every four years for the last few elections. They really lost a lot of religious voters with John Effin Kerry’s run, because he tried to claim he was so religious, but his stands on moral issues belied that. For the first time, the Republican candidate received more Catholic voters than the Democrat.
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.