Replies

President Bush does not share our Catholic Values and is not Christlike. He refuses to hear and do anything about Terri Schindler Schiavo here in Florida after having been apprised that there is attempted murder against her. He has been down here countless time and yet has refused to visit her. All lines to the Whitehouse are apparently closed. Even the brother of this "great man" has not even asked him to step in or they both refuse to do what is necessary even after having been apprised of the facts with evidence definitely put into their possession. If Terri is murdered there will not only be me but thousands of others in a geometrical progression who will never let them forget. They better step in and stop the people trying to commit murder is all that I can say right now. And if they don't they do not have Catholic Values. Take this from a true Catholic.

If I speak untruth prove me otherwise.

Look, since I got on pc93s ping list, I'll chime in with my opinion.

I believe in the fight for Terri. I also believe G.W. Bush is a strong proponent for the pro-life cause. Jeb is involved in the fight for Terri, and President Bush is pro-life.

You may not agree with their methods of promoting a respect for life agenda, but the fact is they are pro-life, and considered so by their allies and enemies.

John Kerry's position wouldn't even allow Terri the opportunity to live--heck, I could envision John Kerry ordering federal marshals to go in and remove the feeding tube and stand guard over the poor woman while she starves.

I appreciate your passion to save innocent life. You have to realize others share that same value, but not necessarily your tactics.

From the Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics. http://www.catholic.com/library/voters_guide.asp

WHEN THERE IS NO "ACCEPTABLE" CANDIDATE

In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more issues involving non-negotiable moral principles. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.

A vote cast in such a situation is not morally the same as a positive endorsement for candidates, laws, or programs that promote intrinsic evils: It is only tolerating a lesser evil to avoid an even greater evil. As Pope John Paul II indicated regarding a situation where it is not possible to overturn or completely defeat a law allowing abortion, “an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality’.”(EV, 73; also CPL, n.4)

Catholics must strive to put in place candidates, laws, and political programs that are in full accord with non-negotiable moral values. Where a perfect candidate, law, or program is not on the table, we are to choose the best option, the one that promotes the greatest good and entails the least evil. Not voting may sometimes be the only moral course of action, but we must consider whether not voting actually promotes good and limits evil in a specific instance. The role of citizens and elected officials is to promote intrinsic moral values as much as possible today, while continuing to work toward better candidates, laws, and programs in the future.

Even if you think President Bush has not done enough to further the pro-life movement, you must admit he is pro-life, and his opponent is not. "Where a perfect candidate, law, or program is not on the table, we are to choose the best option, the one that promotes the greatest good and entails the least evil." The choice here is obvious. President Bush promotes the greatest good, and Jean Kerrie entails the most evil.