Posted on 11/29/2011 4:33:50 AM PST by jacknhoo
To certain Catholics, Peter Kreeft is a rock star.
That was evident Nov. 18, when nearly 500 people filled an auditorium at the Bishop O'Connor Center in Madison to hear him talk.
Kreeft, a Catholic author and Boston College philosophy professor, had been asked by the Catholic Diocese of Madison to speak on whether "a Catholic can be a liberal." Kreeft called it "a very challenging question" and said he'd never spoken on it before.
Kreeft is a strong defender of the Catholic Church against what some people call "modernists" or, more derisively, "cafeteria Catholics," people who pick and choose which church teachings to follow.
There is no middle ground to Kreeft. It would be silly and redundant to him, for instance, to call someone a "pro-life Catholic." You cannot be anything but against abortion to be a Catholic, Kreeft said.
"To be a Catholic is to take the whole deal," he told the crowd.
Kreeft said several definitions of a liberal can and should fit Catholics, including "someone who is generous and unselfish" and "someone who highly values liberty and freedom."
On abortion, Kreeft contended Catholics are the "true liberals," because a liberal wants to extend liberty to the oppressed, and "the unborn are the most oppressed," he said.
Yet, in the political realm, the term liberal has been hijacked by abortion rights activists, Kreeft said. "A Catholic cannot be today what is called a liberal about abortion. That's obvious. That's a ‘duh.'"
Kreeft mentioned other issues, such as homosexual marriage and euthanasia, that he said Catholics cannot take politically liberal positions on, yet he focused most on abortion. Coming in for the most criticism were elected officials who call themselves Catholic yet support abortion rights.
During the Q&A, an audience member brought up the Kennedy political dynasty and how a group of leading theologians and Catholic college professors had met with Kennedy family members in the mid-1960s and came up with a way for Catholic politicians to support a pro-abortion rights platform with clear consciences.
Kreeft said these Catholic advisers "told the Kennedys how they could get away with murder." Kreeft then made one of his boldest comments of the evening, suggesting the theologians who first convinced Democratic politicians they could support abortion rights and remain Catholic did more damage to the Catholic Church than pedophile priests.
"These were wicked people. These were dishonest people. These were people who, frankly, loved power more than they loved God," Kreeft said. "Sorry, that's just the way it is. In fact, I'd say these were even worse than the child molesters — though the immediate damage they did was not as obvious — because they did it deliberately, it wasn't a sin of weakness. Sins of power are worse than sins of weakness. Cold, calculating sins — that's straight from the devil."
A few minutes later, the talk over, the crowd gave him a standing ovation.
Jack, here is the principle that many have found applies to the situation what to do when faced with voting for a flawed candidate ... when he is running against a radical lib.
“Welcome to the jungle” means welcome to reality.
DOUBLE EFFECT
“The principle that says it is morally allowable to perform an act that has at least two effects, one good and one bad. It may be used under the following conditions:
1. the act to be done must be good in itself or at least morally indifferent; by the act to be done is meant the deed itself taken independently of its consequences;
2. the good effect must not be obtained by means of the evil effect; the evil must be only an incidental by-product and not an actual f”actor in the accomplishment of the good;
3. the evil effect must not be intended for itself but only permitted; all bad will must be excluded form the act;
4. there must be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect. At least the good and evil effects should be nearly equivalent. All four conditions must be fulfilled. If any one of them is not satisfied, the act is morally wrong.
An example of the lawful use of the double effect would be the commander of a submarine in wartime who torpedoes an armed merchant vessel of the enemy, although he foresees that several innocent children on board will be killed. All four required conditions are fulfilled: 1. he intends merely to lessen the power of the enemy by destroying an armed merchant ship. He does not wish to kill the innocent children; 2. his action of torpedoing the ship is not evil in itself; 3. the evil effect (the death of the children) is not the cause of the good effect (the lessening of the enemy’s strength); 4. there is sufficient reason for permitting the evil effect to follow, and this reason is administering a damaging blow to those who are unjustly attacking his country. “
http://www.catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=33215
link regarding double effect.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/sep/08091604
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Voting and abortion: Bishop Myers clarified “proportional reasons”: there aren't any...
http://www.tldm.org/News7/Myers.htm
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Where Faith and Politics Intersect, Part III - There Is No Evil Today Proportionate to Abortion
http://catholicism.about.com/b/2009/05/11/where-faith-and-politics-intersect-part-iii.htm
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CATHOLIC FAQs
MORALITY
Excerpt:
Here the reasonable gain obtained by the use of the double effect (if it truly were indirectly willed only, which it is not) would not in any way be proportionate to the horrible evil of abortion and the scandal would be immense.
http://www.sspx.org/catholic_faqs/catholic_faqs__morality.htm
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
No Proportionate Reason to Vote for a Pro-Abortion Candidate
http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/no-proportionate-reason-to-vote-for-a-pro-abortion-candidate
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Catholics Voting Pro-Choice Are Excommunicated Automatically
http://www.archive.org/details/CatholicsVotingPro-choiceAreExcommunicatedAutomaticallyPro-life
Excerpt:
From the “Catechism of the Catholic Church”, “2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.” If I vote for a pro-abortion candidate (pro-choice), and that candidate supports legislation to legalize abortion, then I have formally co-operated in making it possible for babies to be murdered. If fact, section 2272 above says that a person who does so is automatically excommunicated!! Roman Catholics must vote for a Pro-life President, not Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, since the Church teaches that formal cooperation (voting for pro-abortion candidates) in an abortion is an grave offense. Film from Rosemary Vivianne.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Abortion and Excommunication
http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article78.htm
Excerpt:
Any Catholic politician who casts a vote with the intention of legalizing abortion, or of protecting laws allowing abortion, or of widening access to abortion, commits a mortal sin.
When such a vote indicates that the Catholic politician believes that abortion is not always gravely immoral, such a politician incurs a sentence of automatic excommunication, under canons 751 and 1364, because of heresy.
When such a vote is intended to have the effect of making abortion legal, or more easily obtainable, or more widely available, such a politician incurs a sentence of automatic excommunication, under canon 1398, as someone who is attempting to provide substantial or essential means for women to obtain abortions. Catholic politicians who pass laws which legalize, protect, or widen access to abortion, are providing essential assistance to women who want to obtain abortions.
It is not sufficient for Catholic politicians to claim that they are “personally opposed” to abortion. If any Catholic politician favors legalized abortion, despite a claim of personal opposition, such a politician commits a mortal sin by promoting abortion and by voting in favor of abortion.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
No Faithful Catholic May Vote for a Pro-Abortion Candidate
http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/no-faithful-catholic-may-vote-for-a-pro-abortion-candidate
Excerpt:
The Church does acknowledge that voters may vote for a pro-abortion candidate, using what Pope Benedict XVI (writing shortly before his election to the papacy) calls “proportionate reasons.”
A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.
But these proportionate reasons are largely assumed not to exist except in a single case, and that is when both candidates in a race are pro-abortion. When, however, there is a clear choice between the candidates—as in the current presidential race—a faithful Catholic must vote for the one who opposes abortion. Barack Obama receives the National Abortion Rights Action League’s highest rating (100%) and its endorsement. John McCain received 0% from NARAL, and he has always been anti-abortion.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bishop Vasa: Pro-Abortion Candidates are ‘Disqualified’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2081495/posts
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bishop Gracida explains why pro-abortion Catholics must be excommunicated
“All other grave social issues,” he points out, “such as war, poverty, health, economic justice, immigration, etc. are of secondary importance and indeed pale in comparison to innocent human life under systematic annihilation.”
Bishop Gracida issued the interdiction in 1994 forbidding a politician from receiving Communion, yet he “felt that limiting Interdiction in the internal forum was important not only for the spiritual well being of the person being interdicted, but also for the spiritual good of the community.”
But, he says “in 1995 Pope John Paul II concluded that it was urgent to promulgate the Encyclical Evangelium Vitae. Some 12,000,000 abortions later, it has become crystal clear that the politician who actively engages his political skills to maintain abortion-on-demand and who protects the ongoing genocide by voting for legislation in favor of abortion formally cooperates in the evil of abortion itself.”
“In reality,” says the bishop, “the distinction between the abortionist and the politician is almost nominal: One, a murderer, is guilty of directly procuring abortions; the politician, makes it legally possible for the genocide to continue unabated.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Pope says bishops must educate faithful to vote against abortion
Excerpt:
Certain actions and political policies, such as abortion and euthanasia, are “intrinsically evil and incompatible with human dignity” and cannot be justified for any reason, the pope said.
While some may claim they support abortion or euthanasia to defend the weak and the poor, “who is more helpless than an unborn child or a patient in a vegetative or terminal state?” he said.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004432.htm
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“But these proportionate reasons are largely assumed not to exist except in a single case, and that is when both candidates in a race are pro-abortion. “
THANK YOU FOR AGREEING WITH ME. MORE EVIDENCE TO BACK UP MY CASE.
as we discussed, in CT & MA both candidates are usually ‘pro-choice.’ Few exceptions. The decision is between a NARAL pro-abortion leftist, or a “pro-choice” candidate who wants to put restrictions on abortion such as parental notification ... and has an excellent pro-family record.
Only a fool would say, “none of the above.”
I am defending Bishop Myers’ position on the matter.
(a) both candidates would have to be in favor of embryo killing on roughly an equal scale or (b) the candidate with the superior position on abortion ....
VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE WITH THE SUPERIOR POSITION ON ABORTION
Catholics searching for a way out, will follow the Marxist Bishops who have infiltrated the church, but in truth know that voting for a pro-Abortion politician is sinful.
The topic of this thread is whether a Catholic can be a Liberal...being that liberalism in the United States is atheistic socialist, the answer is no.
You can refer to pro-life persons as fools if want, that's on you. However there is no obligation to vote, when the candidates are all pro abortion/pro-choice.
You pretend, for your own convenience, but certainly not your own salvation, that there is difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion candidates. There is no difference and there have been no record of difference in Ma and CT, that could lead you to believe so. Hence, you pretend there are.
It is a grave sin to vote for pro abortion/pro choice candidates.
There is no evil in the world proportionate to the evil of abortion, so the argument that one could justify voting for a pro abortion/pro choice candidate due to eliminating other evils does not hold for this issue at all, nor could it ever.
You seem to relish in the watered down Catholicism or the gray areas that you know in your heart are not gray at all. That is you own free will to do so, but encouraging others to follow your error is the real fool’s game.
It is only permissible to tolerate the lesser of two evils if a proportionate reason exists - regarding abortion, nothing is proportionate. If you don't see that, your heart is hard and you should pray, and I should pray, for your heart to be softened.
sorry dude.
ya ought to read what you post before you assess me. but all that info you posted will be a big help to our pro-life group here in central CT! Will be there tomorrow night ... they will be excited to get your info from Bishop Myers! Can I give it to “prayer cenacle” leader here, too?
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.