[ArrogantBustard]

Actually, he's suggesting a sixth criterion: support of unjust wars. You can't vote for a politician who would wage unjust wars ... that's murder as surely as abortion is murder. The not-so-hidden subtext is the assumption that the ongoing efforts to destroy islamic terrorists in Iraq and other places constitute an unjust war. This belief seems common, though not universal, in 'Traditionalist' circles. I disagree with them. The trouble with this fellow is that he's so vehemently opposed to the war on islamic terrorists that he's willing to vote for pro-sodomy, pro-abortion, pro-cloning, pro-cannibalism, pro-euthanasia politicians in order to end the war. And he's trying to twist the facts sufficiently to give the appearance that Catholic teaching justifies such a vote.

I disagree.

[jobim]

...it does a disservice to Catholic discourse and places a restriction on Catholic voters which the Church has explicitly denied. Catholic voters must indeed vote with an informed Catholic conscience, but such a conscience cannot be neatly captured by the five issues - important as they are - enumerated by the Voter's Guide.

This is so contorted that I assumed he had another agenda. Is he really proposing a vote for a pro-abortion, etc candidate who was against the war? That position is untenable, as you say. That's why I assumed he would either vote for a fringe candidate who was right on all of the issues (as he sees it) or not vote at all. At least I believe that is what the NOR espouses. But as adults we are compelled to look truthfully at candidates who have a chance at winning, and vote where the damage to the non-negotiables is least.

[mockingbyrd]

"Abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning of humans and same sex "marriage." No Catholic, asserts Catholic Answers, may compromise on any of these since they are all intrinsically evil."

Amen and hubba hubba!

The way some "traditional" Catholics (including NOR and now even the Wanderer) are misrepresenting the just war doctrine is reprehensible. Their view is that you can only respond if some nation attacks you, which is not what the Church teaches. It is the equivalent to teaching that you can only respond to a personal assailant after he has shot you. By their reasoning, the European front in World War II was unjust, because Hilter did not attack us. Even though he declared was on us, we could not have responded because he didn't attack us.

And now to attempt to hold such a misunderstanding at the same level as the Church's teaching on the sanctity of life is morally repugnant.