Posted on 05/20/2008 11:04:44 AM PDT by julieee
Denver, CO -- In the latest development of the saga over a group of Catholics who are supporting Barack Obama for president despite his pro-abortion position, Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput is weighing in. Chaput says the Catholics should following the church's pro-life teaching and get Obama to do so as well.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
Chaput must have missed Hillary’s Catholic Supporters, who are the ONLY reason she is still in this race. Why is he singling out Obama?
LOL, this is the same man who says he doesn't want his children punished with a baby. The same man who supports partial birth abortion. The same man who helped defeat a bill that would ban infanticide. You would have a better shot at getting NARAL to oppose abortion.
Senator Bob Casey Jr. who claims to be pro Life is a leading supporter of Obama!
Does that make him Pro Life of Pro Abortion?
What is Bishop James Timlin of the Scranton Diocese say about Bob Casey Jr.? Bishop Timlin is one the leading supporter of Casey!
The reason NARAL supported him over Hillary is that Hillary stops at partial birth abortion and doesn’t venture into supporting infanticide... at least not publicly.
Any person who says they are Catholic, and supports either Hillary or Barry Obama IS NOT A ROMAN CATHOLIC.
All you “cafeteria Catholics” out there should shut up and stay away from the polls. All you can do is muddy the waters...
Good for Chaput.
"So can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is: I [Chaput] can't, and I won't," he wrote. "But I do know some serious Catholics -- people whom I admire -- who may. I think their reasoning is mistaken."
I think asking Hussein Obama (or any democrat) to oppose abortion is a fool's errand. Same as asking McCain to enforce border and immigration laws. I also think that the idea of "holding their feet to the fire" is nonsense. If they can count on your vote when they're pro abortion (or pro illegal immigration), they have no incentive to change.
Is that kinda like “jumbo shrimp?” LOL
My fellow Catholics who support pro-abortion candidates need to pull their collective heads out of their rears. Just like ya can't “support the troops but oppose the war”; you can't be practicing Catholics and support and/or vote for pro-abortion candidates.
next...
Better he should ask them to oppose Obama.
Re: “Senator Bob Casey Jr. who claims to be pro Life is a leading supporter of Obama! Does that make him Pro Life of Pro Abortion?”
It makes him a political pimp who accepted support from MoveOn.org with the full knowledge that MoveOn.org was promoting hatred of Catholics and Jews. If the Santorum campaign had acted on this, as I urged repeatedly, Santorum might still be a U.S. Senator.
Archbishop Chaput’s a good man. I read this as a roundabout way of pointing out that Obama likes abortion, without getting in trouble with the IRS. At the same time, it’s a roundabout rebuke to those “Catholics” who are lending him their support.
Re: “ “Catholic Obama supporters?” Is that kinda like “jumbo shrimp?” LOL”
More like kosher ham and cheese sandwiches, and kosher bacon-wrapped scallops.
Google on Jill Stanek and see what she has to say about Obama’s support for LIVE BIRTH ABORTION. Then spread the word to the Catholic community.
Talk about being oblivious.. this guy eye rolling utopian autistic oblivious.. In the democrat party the Mothers are the victims not the murdered babies.. Obama knows exactly what he is doing..
Working from the inside to change the party. Casey's father was not even allowed on the platform. Same methodology for Conservatives not to bolt the party but work to change it.
Why don't we seize the opportunity provided by the MSM's deification of Obama to permanently de-claw the IRS and get God back into the public school classrooms?
This post (<-click), while addressing taxes, helps to explain why government "leaders" like Obama are actually in contempt of the Constitution that they have sworn to defend, foolishly following in the footsteps of FDR's dirty federal spending politics.
In fact, the article referenced below shows that Obama is the #1 federal spending proposer in the Senate for '08; Clinton is #2.
Obama, a big-shot federal spenderAnd this post (<-click) exposes how corrupt justices then began using FDR's politically correct license to ignore the 10th A. to unlawfully stifle traditional family values, including the USSC's scandalous legalization of abortion in Roe v. Wade. Note that the post first references two non-abortion cases in order to show Roe v. Wade in a different, troubling perspective.
In fact, consider that the states have the constitutional power (10th A.) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory (14th A.) classroom discussions on the pros and cons of evolution, creationism and ID, as examples, regardless that atheists, separatists, pagan-minded judges and the MSM are misleading the people to think that doing such things in public schools is unconstitutional.
The people need to reconnect with the Founder's division of federal and state government powers. The people then need to wise up to the major problems that, since the days of FDR's dirty politics, Congress has not only not been operating with the restraints of the federal Constitution, particularly where constitutionally unauthorized federal spending is concerned, but the USSC has wrongly been ignoring the 10th A. protected power of the states to address religious issues.
The bottom line is that the people need to get in the faces of judges, demanding that judges uphold their oaths to defend the 10th A. protected powers of the states to address religious issues - or get off the bench. The people also need to send big-shot, Constitution-ignoring federal spenders like Obama home as opposed to trying to send people like him to the Oval Office. The people need to get in the faces of members of Congress, demanding a stop to constitutionally unauthorized federal spending while appropriately lowering federal taxes - or get out of DC.
Lincoln put it this way.
"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln, Political debates between Lincoln and Douglas, 1858.
Marxists cannot be Catholic
Re: “ Casey JR is at the top of the VP list.”
Good. 2008 will be an opportunity to make him a one-term Senator.
Hussein has no Catholic supporters.
Not real ones, anyway.
Obama is too tied to the left wing branch of the Democratic Party to even think about abandoning his position on abortion on demand without restrictions. Perhaps the good Archbishop should remind Catholics that in good conscience they cannot support Obama or other pro abortion politicians.
Without reading further, I knew it was Bishop Chaput. He is a great man. I wish he could come here and take over in NYC when Cardinal Egan steps down.
My congratulations to Bishop Chaput. It's a sad commentary on our society, and on many nominal Catholics, that this statement would be considered controversial.
I suspect that this is more of an attempt to publicize Obama's position on abortion. If that is in fact true, the bishop had challenged Obama to reject infanticide as well. Obama's support for infanticide would have come as a shock to the American people.
Wait til that issue comes up. Middle America will be fleeing Obama in droves.
Because Chaput, a confessed Democrat, knows that Hillary won’t get the nomination.
+Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
May 19, 2008
Forty years ago this month Bobby Kennedy was still alive and running for the Democratic Party's 1968 presidential nomination. I was a seminarian in Washington, D.C. I was also an active volunteer on Kennedy's campaign. I can still remember helping with secretarial work in the same room where Edward Kennedy and Pierre Salinger labored away on RFK strategy. It was my first involvement in elective politics, and after the Vietnam Tet Offensive in February and Martin Luther King Jr.'s murder on April 4, Kennedy's cause seemed urgent. Then on June 5, Kennedy was gunned down himself.
After RFK died, the meaning of the 1968 election seemed to evaporate. I lost interest in politics. I didn't get involved again until the rise of Jimmy Carter. Carter fascinated me because he seemed like an untypical politician. He was plain spoken, honest, a serious Christian and a Washington outsider. So I supported him during his 1976 campaign when I was a young priest working in Pennsylvania.
After his election as president, I came to Denver as pastor of Holy Cross Parish in Thornton in 1977. I eventually got involved with the 1980 Colorado campaign for Carter's re-election on the invitation of a parishioner and Democratic Party activist -- Polly Baca, who was and remains a good friend.(Note: Her name is Polly Baca-Barragan; divorced wife of a Chicano activist/ex-priest by the name of Miguel Barragan, she is a racist, pro illegal alien, active in La Raza and a Marxist. Chaput allows her to act as lector at his Sunday evening Mass at the Cathedral Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in Denver.)
Carter had one serious strike against him. The U.S. Supreme Court had legalized abortion on demand in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, and Carter the candidate waffled about restricting it. At the time, I knew Carter was wrong in his views about Roe v. Wade and soft toward permissive abortion. But even as a priest, I justified working for him because he wasn't aggressively "pro-choice." True, he held a bad position on a vital issue, but I believed he was right on so many more of the "Catholic" issues than his opponent seemed to be. The moral calculus looked easy. I thought we could remedy the abortion problem after Carter was safely returned to office.
Carter lost his bid for re-election, but even with an avowedly prolife Ronald Reagan as president, the belligerence, dishonesty and inflexibility of the "pro-choice" lobby has stymied almost every effort to protect unborn human life since.
In the years after the Carter loss I began to notice that very few of the people, including Catholics, who claimed to be "personally opposed" to abortion really did anything about it. Nor did they intend to. For most, their personal opposition was little more than pious hand wringing and a convenient excuse -- exactly as it is today. In fact, I can't name any "pro-choice" Catholic politician who has been active, in a sustained public way, in trying to discourage abortion and to protect unborn human life - - not one. Some talk about it, and some may mean well, but there's very little action. In the United States in 2008, abortion is an acceptable form of homicide. And it will remain that way until Catholics force their political parties and elected officials to act differently.
Why do I mention this now? Earlier this spring a group called "Roman Catholics for Obama '08" quoted my own published words in the following way:
"So can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is: I can't, and I won't. But I do know some serious Catholics -- people whom I admire -- who may. I think their reasoning is mistaken, but at least they sincerely struggle with the abortion issue, and it causes them real pain. And most important: They don't keep quiet about it; they don't give up; they keep lobbying their party and their representatives to change their pro-abortion views and protect the unborn. Catholics can vote for pro-choice candidates if they vote for them despite -- not because of -- their pro-choice views."
What's interesting about this quotation - which is accurate but incomplete - is the wording that was left out. The very next sentences in the article of mine they selected, which Roman Catholics for Obama neglected to quote, run as follows:
"But [Catholics who support 'pro-choice' candidates] also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it. What is a 'proportionate' reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It's the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life - which we most certainly will. If we're confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed."
On their website, Roman Catholics for Obama stress that:
"After faithful thought and prayer, we have arrived at the conclusion that Senator Obama is the candidate whose views are most compatible with the Catholic outlook, and we will vote for him because of that -- and because of his other outstanding qualities -- despite our disagreements with him in specific areas."
I'm familiar with this reasoning. It sounds a lot like me 30 years ago. And 30 years later we still have about a million abortions a year. Maybe Roman Catholics for Obama will do a better job at influencing their candidate. It could happen. And I sincerely hope it does, since Planned Parenthood of the Chicago area, as recently as February 2008, noted that Senator Barack Obama "has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record both in the U.S. Senate and the Illinois Senate."
Changing the views of "pro-choice" candidates takes a lot more than verbal gymnastics, good alibis and pious talk about "personal opposition" to killing unborn children. I'm sure Roman Catholics for Obama know that, and I wish them good luck. They'll need it.
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.