This comes as a surprise as Archbishop Burke was one of my heroes when he said that a Catholic cannot vote for a politician who is pro-abortion, such as John Kerry. Was he bought off? Did billionaire John Kerry’s money play a part? I can think of NO other explanation that makes even the slightest sense.
Archbishop Raymond Burke says he is trying to give St. Louis Catholics a way to vote for politicians who support abortion rights without committing a grave sin or having to go to confession.
In his latest clarification of controversial comments he made earlier this summer, Burke said Thursday he believes Catholics could vote for a politician who supports abortion rights as long as that’s not the reason they are voting for the candidate, and they believe the politician's stance on other moral issues outweighs the abortion-rights stance.
How in the world is it possible that any other issue could outweigh the killing of 4,000 children EVERY DAY – 1.4 MILLION EVERY YEAR?
Maybe opening up another soup kitchen, or getting rid of the death penalty in which only a few are killed every year after they had a trial, which unborn children have NOT?
Or, could it be the Iraq war, which by the way Kerry said that he would AGAIN vote to go to war.
I can think of no other reason and neither can Burke to claim the garbage of "proportionate reasons."
Burke can now join Kerry as the country’s two greatest flip-floppers and innocent children will suffer because of it.
Burke is dead wrong and I will prove it to you. Suppose instead of 4,000 unborn children who are being killed every day, it was 4,000 born children, or adults. Would he still say that you can vote for someone who is an enabler of these killings as long as that’s not the reason you are voting for the candidate – that they believe the politician's stance on other moral issues outweighs their killing stance. OF COURSE NOT, which means that Archbishop Burke does NOT consider unborn children to be the equivalent of born children or adults.
May God have mercy on his soul.
I had nine bishops on my list of GOOD bishops, now there are only eight . One thing I do know for sure -- his flip-flop brings a smile to the face of satan. The following is Archbishop's Burke's phone and fax numbers.
Could not find an e-mail address but here is his webpage, maybe you can.
http://www.archstl.org
314-633-2222 FAX 314-633-2302
Frank Joseph MD
DFjosephMD@aol.com www.hometown.aol.com/dfjoseph/abortion.html
To the many Catholics who were re-directing their contributions to Bishop Burke's diocese: hopefully this latest flip-flop will finally convince you to stop supporting any novus ordo establishment.
How many more lessons do you need?
To say that one can NEVER vote for a pro-choice candidate has NEVER been the position of the Catholic Church.
Burke is saying EXACTLY what Ratzinger said.
But aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
"The sticking point is this - and this is the hard part," said Burke. "What is a proportionate reason to justify favoring the taking of an innocent, defenseless human life? And I just leave that to you as a question. That's the question that has to be answered in your conscience. What is the proportionate reason?"...
"I think what I never did before was distinguish the two cases," he said. "One of the reasons I didn't go into it then, but have now, is that it is difficult to imagine what that proportionate reason would be."
And now, FReepers, you know...the rest of the story. Good day.
Candidate A is pro-abortion, but against euthanasia and homo marriage.
Candidate B is pro-euthanasia and pro-homo-marriage, but is against abortion, except in the cases of rape and incest.
A Catholic, in this case would quite possibly have proportionate reasons to vote for Candidate A. It's a tough call, but is at least arguable.
There is too much missing from the Post-Dispatch article. I believe that the reporter has misrepresented Archbishop Burke's words.
He recently explained voting guidelines and "proportionate reasons" at a retreat and what is presented in the Post is nowhere near what he has said over and over again.
People should be more discriminating in their belief in the news of articles from left-wing rags.
There are at most two good bishops. Last fall (or was it Fall of 2002? time flies) the bishop's conference had a vote on a heretical document on marriage with a politically-correct title about stopping domestic violence. The vote was 249 - 2.
We don't know who the 2 were or why they voted against it. We can hope that they were orthodox bishops who objected to the fact that the document contained language contrary to Catholic teaching, in which case we might have 2 good bishops. But they might have voted against it for entirely different reasons, maybe they were liberals who thought it didn't go far enough in overturning patriarchal structures of oppression.
Ping
Meanwhile, in Philadelphia, Cardinal Rigali's people are preparing candidates' questionnaires which have as their top issue "Equitable Housing". Though, in fairness to the Archdiocese, leaders in the Philly pro-life movement are expecting mostly to be left alone, which allows the laity to get the message out, except in those situations where an individual pastor is hostile toward genuine Catholic issues.
Actually, based on the stances taken by the Pope, is there a candidate, even minor party, whose beliefs do not violate the teachings of the church?
Remember, while abortion is the story in the press, the Pope also condemns the death penalty and the War in Iraq.
If voting for someone who doesn't 100% follow the church is a sin, anyone who votes is guilty.
Does the Kerry campaign, the DNC or other left wing group have something on ABp. Burke?
I just find it too bizarre to be any other way, this statement is 180 degrees from every other statement he has made on the subject.
Somebody got to him
Which begs the question how many leaders does the American Church have with the integrity to publically make controversial stands?