A Voter's Guide: Pro-choice candidates and church teaching

Wall Street Journal ^ | Friday, September 17, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT | Archbishop John J. Myers

[Askel5]

What's your thought on the Church's pragmatic approach to Non-Negotiables?

I'm not impressed.

[jmaroneps37]

We're fighting Kerry every day, join us. Help keep his hands off the wheel.
catholicsagaintkerry.com

[Askel5]

I'm also disgusted by the Novena put out by Priests for Life on our "solemn duty" to vote? What is this? Belgium or Greece?

Democracy is nothing but a recipe for tyranny by the volonte generale. What's particularly galling is the way Republicans are somehow framed as "pro-life" when in actuality they are the architects and prime movers of the population control programming and birth control mentality whose linchpin is abortion and whose strange fruit is the Artificials on whose Excess Manufacture siblings our Pro-Life president's associates are capitalizing big-time.

Sickening. I hate the way the Church is being co-opted. But, given the way key hierarchy have carried water for the eugnecists since Spellman and Roosevelt's day and given the free rein most radicals and homosexuals ... not to mention contracepting and artificially reproducing Catholics ... enjoy anymore, utterly understandable.

Just another, perhaps the prime, reason I'm delighted to be sticking to my convictions this year: Women shouldn't vote.

(Talk about your women's liberation ... =)

The last thing we need is that "mandate" of which Barbara Bush has been speaking when defending our "Lesser of the Same Evils" political system. If folks would just once have the moxie to vote FOR someone instead of AGAINST the greater of the same damned evils, we'd finally open this nation up. Third parties might still lose but NO CANDIDATE could then pretend the measly 30-40% by which he took the election (among those Americans actually still interested in elections) somehow translates to a "mandate."

Perhaps then Presidents wouldn't be so quick to gift themselves with brand new, strictly unconstitutional powers as done in the aftermath of 9/11's insta-Mandate where fearmongering and chest-beating made for nearly lockstep bipartisan support for the unthinkable.

Surely Catholics find "non-negotiable" the notion that the Powerful are entitled to profile as they please for purposes of political murder. I'm not sure that the strictly confidential (and even outsourced, if necessary) summary execution option our Executive Branch now enjoys is a step in the right direction either.

[Askel5]

BTW ... thanks for asking. The thread on which you posted was pulled so I'll just tell you that -- in order to ease my Momma's mind -- I did evacuate and it took 13 hours to go 140 miles my cousin's in Lafayette/Opelousas area.

THIRTEEN HOURS.

The dog was a prince. I've treated him to a weekend in the country as a result while I have the car I still can't believe I got on Tuesday.

I'm guessing Romulus rode it out as I'd intended to do. If so, I know he's fine (and probably much less strung out than I ... but that's kinda a given as a rule =)

Cheers.

[eastsider]

Nightline had a computer simulation of what would happen to New Orleans if the tidal surge was higher than the levies. It wasn't pretty. Better safe than sorry.

Sorry I missed you guys two weekends ago, but I didn't get your FReepmail till Monday.

Thanks for letting us know you're safe : )

[SuziQ]

Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

Thank you, Archbishop Myers! Get this word out folks, the social justice crowd is hell bent on confusing voters so that their favorite son can get Catholic votes, so we need to work hard to counter them!

[old and tired]

What a terrific letter! Everyone should read this. I may print it out and put several hundred copies by our bulletins this weekend.

[NYer]

Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

According to Rev. Norman Thomas, who has formed a coalition of catholics under the title: Catholics for the Common Good ...

"It's OK to vote for George Bush if your conscience and experience with life issues leads you to," said Thomas. "It's also OK to vote for John Kerry if your conscience and experience in life issues leads you to believe he can do a better job, which I do."
Catholic voters in abortion firestorm

Well, Reverend, that's where you are dead wrong! The Vatican message couldn't be any clearer. Sucking the brains from a fully developed infant trumps social programs.

Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list

[Askel5]

I'm really sorry I missed you too. (As you know, I'm usually conveniently located anytime I'm in town and ... as a bonus ... finally have both morning and evening rush hour traffic under my belt where the City's concerned. I'll definitely catch you next time.)


==== Better safe than sorry.

No doubt. Still, absent some kind of Brilliant Strateregy's forthcoming from the Gov's office on evacuations, the whole exodus experience has seriously diminished my will to get out next time.

The whole thing was surreal.

[ELS]

What's your thought on the Church's pragmatic approach to Non-Negotiables?

Political correctness invades the Church. The smoke of Satan has entered the building.

Part of the problem is that the Church, for the most part, took a 35-40 year hiatus from speaking the truth "in season and out of season." So, to do that now would seem "harsh" to minds that aren't used to it.

Where are today's saints who can speak eloquently, movingly, and charitably to move hearts and minds to the right perspective? St. John Chrysostom? St. Anthony of Padua? Where are your brothers of today?

[ELS]

I'm delighted to be sticking to my convictions this year: Women shouldn't vote.

If we are going to have a republic (the Founding Fathers knew democracy didn't/wouldn't work), I think we should go back to the Founding Fathers idea that only property owners should vote. Was it de Tocqueville who said that the beginning of the end of a democracy was when the voters realized that they could vote themselves the riches of the public treasury? (Whoever said it, said it much better than I have.)

[ELS]

St. John Bellarmine?

[Askel5]

Was it de Tocqueville who said that the beginning of the end of a democracy was when the voters realized that they could vote themselves the riches of the public treasury?

I was thinking of this as I listened to Mary Landrieu on the radio talking of how she already was working on getting Louisiana some hurricane money which ... if Florida's any indication ... basically just rebounds back into Fed pockets courtesy of FEMA.

I'm with you on the "property owners" only idea. (Still leaves me blessedly out of the System =). But, I wonder if there are any genuine "property owners" left to vote in the first place.

I found this storyline of eminent domain abuses very interesting this morning. (Note to self: more stories at Google for later reading.)

[Caleb1411]

James Lamb of Lutherans for Life wrote this article: Is Abortion an Election Issue?

[cpforlife.org]

Speaking of Bellarmine, this election, and true Christian Civic Responsibility:

Catholic Sources and the Declaration of Independence
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/us/ah0005.html


today's "Republic" is radically different

[MegaSilver]

Sucking the brains from a fully developed infant trumps social programs.

Not to mention that the social programs he champions cannot possibly be sustained permanently. The very nature of governmental welfare and unemployment benefits makes them doomed to fail, which is what is happening in continental Europe as we speak. Things are going to be very painful around there for a few decades or so while the government works on "re-adjusting" the economy.

Ultimately, the social welfare system probably harms the same people it purports to help.

[ELS]

Speaking of Bellarmine

I looked back at my reply #13 and realized that his first name is Robert, not John. Apparently, my brain was not communicating with my fingers as I typed that reply. Mea culpa.

[Coleus]

ALL of us who are pro life should get a mass writing and e-mail program going to Archbishop Myers and demand, with conviction, that he have his priests read this article from every pulpit (and insert in every bulletin) in every church in his diocese.  By doing this over 1 million Catholics in NJ will hear this message and it just may save some lives, some souls and help get some pro-life candidates elected to office.  

Cardinal Ratzinger stated that 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 a candidate's permissive stand on abortion."

Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

171 Clifton Avenue
P.O. Box 9500
Newark NJ 07104-0500
973-497-4000, 973-497-4190

E-mail archbishop Myers

Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics

Catholic Outreach [to Republicans]

Kerry Wrong for Catholics.com -- CATHOLIC ISSUES OVERVIEW by the RNC

Analyst cites abortion stance as some Catholic voters shift to Bush

Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics - 5 NON-NEGOTIABLE ISSUES FOR CATHOLIC VOTERS

Newark, NJ, Archbishop Myers Denies Rebuking McGreevey

Become a Catholic Team Leader.

[nickcarraway]

BUMP