Archbishop Says It's Immoral to Vote for Pro-Choice Candidates

EWTN News ^ | October 29, 2002 | EWTN

[fatguy]

DENVER, Oct 29, 02 (CWNews.com) -- In his second blunt message in as many weeks on the responsibilities of Catholic voters, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver has insisted the issue of abortion should provide a clear-cut choice.

"I will vote for no candidate Republican, Democrat or third party -- who is actively 'pro-choice,'" the archbishop wrote in his regular weekly column for Denver's archdiocesan newspaper.

Archbishop Chaput dismissed the argument that abortion is only one among many issues to be considered in an election year. He explained: "abortion is separated from other important social issues like affordable housing by a difference in kind, not a difference in degree. Every abortion kills an unborn human life -- every time. No matter what kind of mental gymnastics we use, elective killing has no excuse. We only implicate ourselves by trying to provide one."

In this respect, the archbishop drew a distinction between the abortion issue and other political questions, on which reasonable people might differ. The difference, he said, is that "every abortion is a grave act of violence."

The archbishop repeated his complaint that proponents of legal abortion are seeking to silence Catholics, and others who are opposed to the practice. "The only way to stop this coercion is to send the right men and women to Congress," he said.

Voters cannot remain neutral on the issue, Archbishop Chaput continued. He reasoned: "No violence is ever private. That includes abortion. What we choose to allow, we choose to own."

[fortheDeclaration]

So why doesn't the Roman Catholic Church excommunicate those Roman Catholics to push abortion in congress (like Ted Kennedy?)

Why isn't the 'no' vote for pro-choice Catholics pushed in North-Eastern States where Roman Catholics dominate the political landscape.

[MWS]

Constitutional principles can be modified if popular opinion demands it. And I've seen nothing to suggest that the percentage of Americans who are pro-life is anywhere near as large as the percentage who are pro choice. This presents pro-lifers with a dilemma. I'm not taking sides, just sharing an observation.

Actually, that would seem to be a corruption of the system by those who would make our Constitutional Representative Republic an out and out "democracy" for their own purposes. In the philosophy upon which our system is based, it is not the place of the people or the government to change Constitutional principles, as they are based in reason and natural law. This is because the principles of the Constitution stand ABOVE both the government and the people as a whole. Attempts to compromise the Constitution, even by "democratic methods" should be met with the greatest resistance (even armed, if necessary).

[MWS]

Ugh... I seem to have gotten myself off topic... I just tend to have strong objections against insinuations that we ought to operate as a democracy and according to democratic philosophy. That is not what our country is about.

[Desdemona]

Red hats" typically go to ordinaries of particular sees. St. Louis has had cardinals in the past (Ritter and Carberry), but Rigali is still purple.

May never got a red hat (1978 or 9 - 1994?)(I remember it all happening, May being sick and Rigali's installation, but not when). Rigali might be on a future list, but I think they want to keep him low-profile. He came from the inner group from the Vatican (he's probably a mole) If we get another red hat I'll be surprised.

Rigali also spoke forcefully on this topic. And when he speaks you can hang your hat on it.

[Godel]

So 65% of Republicans are evil then, I guess? I mean, according to http://www.rym.org, that's the percentage of Republicans that are pro choice. And nearly all Democrats are. That means that according to this bishop, over 4 out of every 5 Americans is evil. Is there something wrong with this picture, perhaps?

You can do evil out of ignorance I suppose.

Here's a deal, if you're in favor of abortion, tell me exactly when human life begins. I assume you must know with some certainty, because if you have ANY DOUBT at all about when life begins, then you must admit that theres a small chance that abortion terminates that life. And no moral person could take chances with a baby's life. That's like playing russian roulette. Would you hold a revolver up to a babys head and pull the trigger if you werent 100%%% sure that it was empty?

[Godel]

Human rights are not subject to majority rule. That's why the founders wanted to create a constitutionally limited Republic, and had utter disdain for "democracy".

A majority used to think that enslaving human beings was moral. How is the number of people who think a certain way relevant to the morality of an action?

[RnMomof7]

I NEVER vote for Democrats..but I do sometimes vote the Conservative or Right to Life line..(They are usually duel endorsed Republicans)I do that to encourage a continuence of their conservative policies..

[Castlebar]

So 65% of Republicans are evil then, I guess?

If you'd like to end the hypocricy, then stop posting obvious falsehoods. The Amendment to protect human life has been part of the platform since 1976. If 65% of republicans were pro-abortion, the GOP wouldn't have won four consecutive congressional elections.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>If you'd like to end the hypocricy, then stop posting obvious falsehoods.<<<

There are NUMEROUS Republican organizations that verify what I'm saying about how 65% of Republicans (and nearly all Democrats) are in favor of preserving a woman's right to choose. Here are some REPUBLICAN links:

http://www.rym.org/links.html


>>> The Amendment to protect human life has been part of the platform since 1976. If 65% of republicans were pro-abortion, the GOP wouldn't have won four consecutive congressional elections. <<<


Even George Bush hasn't pushed for an anti-abortion amendment, and voters correctly know that the Republican party has plenty of pro choice candidates (especially up North).

[End The Hypocrisy]

There are NUMEROUS Republican organizations that verify what I'm saying about how 65% of Republicans (and nearly all Democrats) are in favor of preserving a woman's right to choose. Here are some REPUBLICAN links:

http://www.rym.org/links.html

[End The Hypocrisy]

There are NUMEROUS Republican organizations that verify what I'm saying about how around 65% of Republicans (and nearly all Democrats) are in favor of preserving a woman's right to choose. Here are some REPUBLICAN links:

http://www.rym.org/links.html


Having said that, I don't like abortion any more than you do. But there are those who say we should focus, first, on trying to help those who are already at adoption agencies and who can't adopted (and there are plenty of them). There are supposedly far more pro-life volunteers protesting (and fundraising) in front of Planned Parenthood facilities than there are volunteering at adoption agencies.

[Free_at_last_-2001]

I will vote for no candidate Republican, Democrat or third party -- who is actively 'pro-choice... - Good!

[Siobhan]

The situation in the United States (and Canada as well) is so disastrous that extraordinary measures are called for. If Pope John Paul II will not do it, the next Pope may well be willing to do whatever it takes around the globe to address the problems, expose the heretics, and in general clean house. Until the episcopal leadership of the Church clearly and constantly articulates the Gospel of Life as Archbishop Chaput has done repeatedly, we will continue the struggle like a village on the slopes of Mount Etna.

Collegiality - so prized by those who want the freedom to dissent while at the same time yanking the Pope's chain - is of no value without a universal primate i.e., the Vicar of Christ, who interprets absolutely and finally the faith and discipline of the Catholic Church. Collegiality is valuable among the bishops in applying particular efforts flowing faithfully and directly from the Holy Father (whoever he may be).

The Conferences of Catholic Bishops are all novelties that can be swept away as easily as they were recently created as legislative assemblies. The only thing that matters is fidelity, and if the bishops can't be faithful or are simply cads, criminals, infidels, heretics, fools or madmen -- there needs to be a hands-on individual in each nation "to prune the tree Catholick".

A pope could invest such an indiviual with a pallium and whatever powers are necessary for these precarious times. He could give such a person a primatial see. He could give them the title Patriarch of a nation. He could call them Vicar General of a nation. He could call them anything he likes, so long as they have the power and authority to clean house, and the bishops know there is accountability and that departures from the faith will result in their departures from their episcopal offices. (Giving this task to Cardinal Keeler would be such a tragic joke. Perhaps a future Archbishop of Baltimore would be able to do so -- especially if that Archbishop is Chaput or someone like him.)

Archbishop Chaput is just such a person to do the job for the United States. So whether he wears a red hat or an Eastern-style mitre or maybe something new -- a 'Mary blue' hat, those are accoutrements secondary to the power and authority such a person should wield in defense of the Faith.

At the November meeting of the USCCB we will see if they can manage to articulate something coherent that isn't just a highly orchestrated show for the media and the laity. For that meeting I will fast and pray.

I grant you that since God could use Balaam's ass through which to speak, He might have mercy on us and speak through the USCCB. God might also move the Holy Father to do something extraordinary and unexpected -- like put Mother Assumpta Long, OP or Mother Donovan, S.V. in charge of the Church in the USA. Such a Mother Abbess of the nation would shake apart the disgusting good old boy networks and behaviors that have given us these hideous scandals and endless reports of sexual crimes against boys and youths by priests (and bishops and cardinals???). Yes, the more I think of it the more I see Mother Donovan, S.V. as the perfect person to straighten out our "gay mafia" infested Church. And she just may be the most able and articulate spokesman for the Gospel and Culture of Life since Mother Teresa.

[AppyPappy]

There are supposedly far more pro-life volunteers protesting (and fundraising) in front of Planned Parenthood facilities than there are volunteering at adoption agencies.

There is a 3 year wait to adopt a baby. They don't need volunteers. They need babies.

[victim soul]

MAN'S DIGNITY AND RIGHTS COME FROM GOD, NOT A CONSENSUS


Pope John Paul II

"Man, created by God and called to share in His divine life, has always been at the center of the Christian vision of the world and that is why the Church respects and defends life," affirmed the Holy Father. "How can she silence her great anxiety and reprobation in the face of laws recently voted on in different countries which legalize active euthanasia? He said that the "only true rampart" against the constant violations of man's dignity and his rights is "recognizing the sacred and inviolable nature of every human person."

Human dignity and human rights are God-given, said the pontiff, they do not come from a consensus by men. Society exposes itself to grave dangers, he added, if it does not recognize God as the author of life, human dignity and human rights.

Rest of story at: http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=31002

[ApesForEvolution]

So, have you always been pro-infanticide?

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>There is a 3 year wait to adopt a baby. They don't need volunteers. They need babies. <<<

Do you have an explanation for this?


http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cwo99/chapters/chap3.html

"The percentages of children who did not exit to adoption, reunification, or guardianship (i.e., the percentages included in the category "other") ranged from 4.3 in Maine to 22.8 in Wisconsin, with a median of 10.1."


Would it not seem that approximately 10% of unwanted kids wind up never getting adopted or even handed over to a guardian? And how many of the ones who ARE adopted or placed with foster parents (many of whom reportedly do it for the money) painfully & enduringly regret their lot in life? Aborted fetuses have souls, according to purported right-to-lifers, correct? Do their souls not go to Heaven then?

Again, I don't like abortion any more than you do. But something's wrong with this picture and I'm trying to find out what it is.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>Have you always been pro-infanticide?<<<

This might be of interest:

http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cwo99/chapters/chap3.html

"The percentages of children who did not exit to adoption, reunification, or guardianship (i.e., the percentages included in the category "other") ranged from 4.3 in Maine to 22.8 in Wisconsin, with a median of 10.1."


Would it not seem that approximately 10% of unwanted kids wind up never getting adopted or even handed over to a guardian? And how many of the ones who ARE adopted or placed with foster parents (many of whom reportedly do it for the money) painfully & enduringly regret their lot in life? Aborted fetuses have souls, according to purported right-to-lifers, correct? Do their souls not go to Heaven then?

Again, I don't like abortion any more than you do. But something's wrong with this picture and I'm trying to find out what it is.

[ApesForEvolution]

Ok, you're one of the sickos. Agenda matches the rhetoric. Thanks for playing...

[AppyPappy]

There is a 3 year wait for babies to be adopted. The only time that is not the case is states where babies cannot be adopted across racial lines. Your stat is not based on babies. It it were, you wouldn't have a waiting period due to scarcity. If you don't believe me, call your local children's home.

Let me ask you this: If a child is not adopted, should it be legal to kill it? If a child has a "miserable lot", should it be legal to kill it?

Do their souls not go to Heaven then?

What's your point?