Posted on 09/12/2004 6:24:08 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
An article in the Post-Dispatch announced that Archbishop Raymond Burke is giving 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 comment he made earlier this summer, Burke said Thursday [September 2] 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.
“Previously, Burke had said Catholics who vote for a politician who supports abortion rights were committing a grave sin and must confess before receiving Communion…
“Burke now says there is one scenario in which a Catholic could vote for a politician who supports abortion rights without committing a grave sin. In that scenario, a Catholic who personally opposes abortion rights, votes for a candidate who supports abortion rights ‘for what are called proportionate reasons,’ he said.” (“Burke clarifies Voting Stance, September 2, 2004)
Burke makes a reversal on his firm stand.
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 on September 2 that 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?
Does he mean issues like opening up another soup kitchen, or getting rid of the death penalty in which only a few guilty persons are killed every year and then only after they have had a trial, which innocent unborn children have not received?
Or, could it be the Iraq war, on the topic of which, by the way, Kerry said that he would again vote to go to that war.
I can think of no other reason and I don’t know how Burke can either to claim the garbage of "proportionate reasons."
Burke can now join Kerry as one of 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 it is okay so long as they believe the politician's stance on other moral issues outweighs their stance on murder. Of course not. Apparently, 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.
money talks
Ping
"Proportionate reasons" was a qualification mentioned by Cardinal Ratzinger. It simply means that, in theory, a Catholic could vote for a pro-abortion candidate if the candidate's opponent is even worse. It's hard to imagine an opponent who's worse except for perhaps an opposition candidate who's pro-abortion and pro-genocide.
Ratzinger, himself, has flip-flopped on voting for pro-death politicians, just as Burke has.
This is a man who's in "union" with Rome.
"This is a man who's in "union" with Rome."
What are proportionate reasons?
Our bishops are so disgusting. (if this report is accurate)
They are democrats first and Catholics later on.
I used to think they were heros. God help us.
LOTI - I assume you're not voting for Pres. Bush then? He's pro-abortion when the life of the mother is at stake. Apparently we're all stuck voting for the Constitution Party candidate and ceding the Supreme Court to a new batch of Kerry-appointed liberals? I don't think so.
So now according to one of our "hero" bishops as long as you can convince yourself that voting for a pro-death candidate is not only because he's pro-death, you're a good Catholic? This is insanity.
I suppose we can vote for a Nazis too, as long as you're not voting for him solely because he's a anti-God murderer.
Our episcopal seems to have hopelessly lost their way. Traditional/Orthodox/Conservative Catholics sadly have no moral leadership whatsoever, we're literally on our own.
Please answer gbcdoj's question. Do we all vote for the Contitution Party's candidate because he is the only one who is totally pro-life? President Bush is for abortion in cases of rape and incest,so if you believe that Burke and Chaput and Ratzinger are wrong then you evidently are advocating either sitting this election our or voting for Perouskis.I hope Ultima has something to say about this.
Yes. I only vote for strictly pro-life candidates. I'm afraid one of those cute little babies that had its head and arms ripped off while it bled to death will meet me at the Pearly Gates and ask me "Why?".
Don't tell me I'm wasting my vote. I don't vote to win. I vote to do the right thing.
It would seem to me that to push us back to the top of the slippery slope and anchor us to the pinnacle we need to elect candidates that either oppose abortion under any circumstances or oppose it in all but very defined circumstances.
In the upcoming election we have a third candidate on many ballots and it is conceivable that a vote for the pro-life candidate of the third party might take away votes from a candidate that is far more pro-life than the other.
Maybe rather than being afraid of meeting a cute little baby with it's arms cut off,one should think about meeting one million cute,tiny creatures who have been violated at various points along the way or a few humdred.
This is a subject that must be talked about and I hope we all will think about it and add our thoughts. It is very important.
Are there any Catholic Bishops left in the U. S.?
What a satan-inspired cleric!
(Some) clerics who are in good stead with God, know that this amounts to Cafeteria Catholicism. You just take from the Church what you want and ignore the vegetables.
A pro-abortionist is one voters should steer clear of at elelction time, but this bishop, along with scores of others, has decided to help Kerry and his ilk all he can by removing the key issue by which Catholics must vote against such candidates.
What a ride on which liberal clerics have taken the laity. Most of the laity are slap happy and nothing shocks or suprises any longer. Clown masses, washing peoples hands instead of feet on Maundy Thursday, a jug band mass, a folk mass, a childrens' mass, a polka mass....they just keep trying and trying and trying.
Many churches have a confessional station that is so disguised you can't find it and furthermore it is never used. Many just to go "services" to be entertained for 45 minutes.
And has an iron-clad pack with satan....as does most of the vatican.
"LOTI - I assume you're not voting for Pres. Bush then? He's pro-abortion when the life of the mother is at stake."
This is precisely the point I make in this thread here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1214452/posts
President Bush is a pro-abortion candidate who Catholics could vote for on the grounds of proportionate reasons.
I am certain that this is the implication of Ratzinger's footnote. The possibility of voting for someone like Kerry never enters into it.
Already hashed out and discredited on the news/activism forum.
Try to pay attention.
What does that mean? I read this article several days ago on Zenit. How is it discredited?
Instead of realising this, even after much discussion on this forum, some folks puke up the knee jerk response: "Burke is the Spawn of Satan!!!" Stuff and nonsense!
THEN A VOTE FOR KERRY WOULD BE A MORTAL SIN.
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.