From ETWN's Fr.Stephen F. Torraco:

"If the person knows the Church's teaching that abortion is a serious evil, and if the person knows that voting for a pro-abortion candidate makes him, the voter, an accomplice in evil, then yes, he commits a serious evil and needs to go to confession."

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 27, 2004

Answers

bump

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 27, 2004.

Original article

He goes further here.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 27, 2004.

i disagree with this. unless the overturning of the roe vs wade decision is at stake, i do not think voting "pro-choice" makes someone an accomplice of evil.

we can pray for an end to abortion, as disgusting and unbelievable a practice as it is, but in the meantime, we have to vote for the benefit of social justice and the common good. and this may not always be for a republican.

respectfully disagreeing, j

-- jas (jas_r_22@hotmail.com), February 27, 2004.

Jas! A respectful liberal voice! A wonderful surprise! Glad you are here. The forum may not be so glad. This is a rightwing conservative forum with a rw-c view of the Church. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), February 27, 2004.

i disagree with this. unless the overturning of the roe vs wade decision is at stake, i do not think voting "pro-choice" makes someone an accomplice of evil.

If you want to get rid of abortion, you need to start voting in people who actually think that abortion is murder.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 27, 2004.

Here is some more information:

Nothing is more important than the lives of unborn children. In November 1998 the American Bishops released a statement called Living the Gospel of Life. In paragraph 23 they state:

"Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing, and health care. Therefore, Catholics should eagerly involve themselves as advocates for the weak and marginalized in all these areas... But being 'right' in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding attacks on innocent human life (emphasis in the orginal). Indeed, the failure to protect life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the 'rightness' of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community".

This plainly states that NO issue is more important than protecting the unborn.

Is voting for a pro-abortion candidate a sin? Probably. Is it a mortal sin? Possibly. In the document Declaration on Procured Abortion (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, November 18, 1974), paragraph 22 states:

...man can never obey a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the liceity of abortion. Nor can he take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it.

"But", you say, "I don't vote for the law". No, but if you vote for a candidate that votes for the law then you are at least partially responsible for the law. Any politician who votes for an abortion law is clearly a formal accomplice to that law, giving formal cooperation with abortion. Any person who votes for such a candidate, knowing full well that candidate will help make public money available for abortions, and/or will continue its decriminalization, is cooperating with that candidate in the continuation of abortion, and that is a sin.

The above is from: http://www.catholic- truth.info/misc/vote.htm

Fathers Heribert Jone, OFM Cap. and Henry Davis, SJ. Speaking of the duty to vote and when it could be sinful not to, Fr. Jone writes:

205. Voting is a civic duty which would seem to bind at least under venial sin whenever a good candidate has an unworthy opponent. It might even be a mortal sin if one's refusal to vote would result in the election of an unworthy candidate. [Moral Theology (Dublin: Mercier Press, 1929, 1955)]

Similarly, Fr. Davis writes,

It is the duty of all citizens who have the right to vote, to exercise that right when the common good of the State or the good of religion and morals require their votes, and when their voting is useful. It is sinful to vote for the enemies of religion or liberty... [Moral and Pastoral Theology, vol. 2, Chapter V, 4th Commandment, p. 90 (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1935, 1959)] Who, then, are the enemies of religion or liberty for whom it would be sinful to vote? Reasonably, it would be those who attack the most basic rights in a society, since all rights depend on those which are logically or actually prior. Among the enumerated inalienable rights recognized by the Declaration of Independence is the right to life. The right to life is both logically and actual prior to all other rights since liberty is meaningless to those who have been unjustly killed. The protection of innocent human life is thus the first obligation of society. This is why protection against foreign enemies is the first duty of the federal government and protection against domestic enemies (criminals) is the first obligation of local government.

They are also enemies of religion and liberty who attack the most basic cell of society, marriage and family. A society that doesn't foster the life-long commitment of a man and a woman to each other and their children is self-destructing. Granting that we have already reaped the fruit of easy divorce laws, the most pernicious attacks against the family today are by those who favor homosexual unions and the granting of marital status to homosexual unions. It is also undermined by an unjust tax system which penalizes marriage in favor of fornication. ...

Those who are anti-life and anti-family manifest this darkening of conscience, a darkening which makes their other political decisions inherently untrustworthy. No Catholic can reasonable say "this candidate is anti-life and anti-family, but his social policies are in keeping with Catholic principles." Catholics should look carefully to discover what in his policy views manifests the same will to power over others manifested by his anti-life principles. More than one tyrant in history has used pani et circi (bread and circuses) to mollify the masses. The mere appearance of social justice is not the same as social justice, which can only occur when everything in society is properly ordered, beginning with the most basic realities - life and the family.

From: Moral Duties Concerning Voting by EWTN.

more references:

More on Voting and Mortal Sin by Grace D. MacKinnon

Are you a one-issue voter? You better be! by MARIO DERKSEN

"Three things are necessary for a sin to be mortal" Includes voting for someone who is pro-abortion as a sin.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 27, 2004.

Here is another way of explaining it for those who are still confused:

The Church has said is that those who vote for politicians that support abortion are cooperating in the advocacy of the sin:

Our Holy Father John Paul II has stated that “abortion and euthanasia are crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it.’" (The Gospel of Life, no. 73) [emphasis added].

“Such cooperation [in evil] occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it. This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it. Each individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts which he personally performs; no one can be exempted from this responsibility, and on the basis of it everyone will be judged by God himself” (cf. Rom 2:6; 14:12) (The Gospel of Life, no. 74) [emphasis added].

So, if we knowingly support the immoral intention of a lawmaker who openly promotes the killing of innocent unborn children or sick or dying persons, then we run the risk of being guilty of mortal sin. The Holy Father is clear on Catholic voting on the issue of abortion.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 27, 2004.

"i disagree with this. unless the overturning of the roe vs wade decision is at stake, i do not think voting "pro-choice" makes someone an accomplice of evil.

we can pray for an end to abortion, as disgusting and unbelievable a practice as it is, but in the meantime, we have to vote for the benefit of social justice and the common good. and this may not always be for a republican."

I also think that there are other things to consider as well--if you vote for a weak military leader, this country won't be allowed to fix the abortion problem, because we won't be able to stay the free country we are. Further, in this country, you have the legislative, judicial, and executive branches. We can only affect the judicial branch (I'mthinking of any appointed judges here, such as Federal and Supreme Court justices here) indirectly at best, through voting our conscience in the other two areas.

Although I'm still waiting for someone to rightfully blame the Democrats and pro-abortion people for the problems with social security.... fewer people paying into the system is one of the main reasons for its impending failure now....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 27, 2004.

a quote from up stream: "This plainly states that NO issue is more important than protecting the unborn."

Interesting. I am interested in turn on how far you would take this. So which is the lesser of two evils: The US before Bush removed the freedoms, but with abortion rights laws in place VS The South US before the Civil war, with slavery, but only that oppressive (no more but no less), and with no abortion?

Since you would likely agree that the pre-civil war South US, while vile, is the lesser of these two evils how about this pair:

The US before Bush removed the freedoms, but with abortion rights laws in place VS a really oppressive slave system coupled with a slective breeding program where the males are only gelded, not killed, with again, no abortion. No murder (at least no more than an really oppressive system would produce), but no rights.

I really want to know how much you value rights vs life, quality of life vs life. So I am checking with really low quality and low rights examples.

Now in truth we are not making these selections, these choices. Nor do I want to twist your words to have you say that we are. But to place one issue over another no matter what... Well maybe you were not looking at the no-matter-what clause. Basically, you can not mean what it seems that you might have ment. What you must have ment is that abortion is the leading problem today that must be attacked, right?

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), February 28, 2004.

Sean,

I am not sure what freedoms you have lost under Bush. I know the rhetoric about Bush=Hitler etc but Im not sure sane people are buying it. It is clear that a vote for Kerry is a vote for abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, cloning, and euthenasia. If people value these "rights" and "freedoms" thats fine. They can vote for him. I still would say that for a Catholic to do so is sin.

-- David F (notreal@address.org), February 29, 2004.

Bush does not equal Hitler, even if he reminds me of fictional president Clark from the Babylon 5 show. But you have had many rights removed. He has not started pogroms, nor ended up killing many people. But he has taken several important steps to allow the government to do so.

Right now, if the police do not like your face, you can be arrested, and held without bail indefinitely. You do not have a right to an attorney. You do not have many of the rights that derived from the Magna Carta. Americans have already been arrested and held without charges and without access to the usual ability to communicate that they are arrested. So, yes, the police can come, and you can disappear, and no one can get you out or even find out where you are being held. This has not happened much. But if they get away with this abuse even once, they will push it to its limits. So, no, you do not have freedom, just the illusion of it.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), February 29, 2004.

For that matter does a lack of freedom and rights matter if the country is catholic? If a dictator like North Korea's (voted most oppressive in the last 31 years by a newsmagizine) was over a Catholic country, would that matter? After all the church will have their misrable souls even if the military/polices state will have their bodies? Some South American dictatorships, while not in N.K.'s class for oppression, do as compentent of a job of oppression as they can manage.

I am not asking for asking sake. I am strongly currious about how far this matters,if it matters at all to any of you. The Left cares deaply about this, and the Right (this forum) does not seem to care at all.

Bush has scared me deaply. Example: the only reason for raping our parklands and the resources we will need to power this country in the future is that we are about to run out of all other such power -- or that he just likes killing our future for the sake of his buddys. Either way it is scarry. But the loss of our freedom scares me more. If I could not remove him with the vote, I would be ragging my self on my lack of courage to do the right thing. But I doubt that I would do the right thing. All americans who have given their lives to preserve freedom are now disrespected. Arlington Cemetary now holds those who died for nothing if we do not remove Bush.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), February 29, 2004.

Sean et al,
There have been over 4,000,000 children killed by abortion. There were not that many deaths in the US Civil War. There is no way you can compare thinning the forest to prevent to ravages we have seen in the last few years by humongous forest fires with the genocide of abortion....especially when you realize that it is the mother of the children that are requesting the murders. This has a systemic affect on the society where 'choice' supercedes morality. We are seeing the effects of this murdering sociological morality today. But before we do anything else, we must stop the killing!

It is time we all stop and get our priorities straight!

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), February 29, 2004.

Bill, Then I take it that if/when we have no civil rights and no liberties, but abortion is confined to backstreet illegal operations you will not be objecting? You would count it a victory if this ever comes to pass?

Please answer the above lesser of two evils examples. I believe you may have chosen to say that abortion is more evil than the worst soceity or even worst combination of societys that I have described above. Please clarify, especially if this is not true.

Actually, I used to be a mild mannered independent voter. But when the pres does not give equally to the right and to the left, this polarizes the nation. I am deaply polarized. I used to be a one topic voter. I got betrayed so often that I no longer am such. You are not getting betrayed. But watch for the backlash -- if the right owns the nation, all the nation's woes can be blamed on the right -- and on the churches, etc. that support it.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), February 29, 2004.

Sean,
Again, the first thing we need to do is to stop the killing. None of the candidates for president is advocating totalitarianism, and we still in this country have checks and balances in place. Don’t over-dramatize what is the real situation in the United States, even if the press would like you to so they gain viewers.

Today murder of adults is confined to backstreet illegal operations, isn’t that were murder belongs? Why make it a social norm? Remember your 10 commandments, one of them is ‘thou shalt not murder’.

So to answer your question: I don’t what-if situations that are not likely to happen. I deal with the real world and real world situations. Today we are mass murdering our unborn, innocent children in the United States, and the society is telling Moms that it is OK to do this. This is contributing to all kinds of problems and destroying our society. This is a true evil that needs to be stopped now, not a pretend evil that might happen in the future. Again, we have institutions in place in the US to stop any president from becoming a totalitarian, and we have elections every 4 years to get a totalitarian out of office. There is no rational way to equate Bush or Kerry with a totalitarian (don’t let your emotions take over here, look at the real world.). What we need to focus on today is stopping the mass murder of innocent children. This is the #1 problem facing the US voter today. This has been repeated over and over and over again by our Catholic leaders.

In Christ

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), February 29, 2004.

He has taken the first steps of the power of a totalarizan goverment. We must stop this while it is small or we will lack the power to do anything. A vote for Bush is treason. The first footprints of totaliarization are here. A vote now can stop them, we might not have the chance later.

topic change.. Tis a pity that there is not a canidate that would please both of us. We are not against each other on single issues, just on the choices presented by the selection of canidates. If Bush wants my vote, he must stop betraying the constitution and all the laws back to the Magna Carta. Get that done, and a great deal of force would go out of the Democratic Need to Get Bush.

topic change.. I was currious and still am, and I have said so, and have asked the question and have gotten no answer from you, Bill. Is there any lengths that the situation could go to that would stop you from putting abortion as #1 problem? Are there any limits at all on your prioritys, not just the situation as it is, nor just one what it could develop into, but any limits at all?

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), February 29, 2004.

no need to equate Bush or Kerry with a totalitarian... If we do not kill this when it is small, it is a powerkeg sitting. It can be used to supress votes, and given people, eventually will be. He is like a negitive John the Baptist, not the negitive Christ, just the one who comes before and sets everything up, not the real horror. But if we do not stop this, we will have no hope of stopping the real horror.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), February 29, 2004.

We HAD institutions that could remedy Bush, and maybe we still do. But they have taken several body blows. Anyone who wants to jail indefinately all Democrats in a county theoretically could do so now. It will not happen, yet. That it is a legal possibility really bothers me. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), February 29, 2004.

You call us "rightwing" simply because we hold to the teachings of the Church. We are NOT rightwing, we are mainstream. We are simply "Catholic." Conversely, where in all of the Catechism can you find your watered down, lukewarm theology? No where!

Religion that does not effect the heart is in vain.

Gail

P.S. "For what good is it, my brethren, to say you have faith, but have not works?"

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 29, 2004.

Religion that does not affect the heart is vain. So True!

MainStream? Not really. Mainstream is ballanced. Mainstream is compassionate in all directions. Mainstream is not twisted around one issue to the exclusion of others. I was mainstream. I am too concerned now to be so.

Actually a few old regulars did have an arguement that Catholic was not mappable into Left or Right, but took pieces of each. That is mainstream, or Catholic Stream. But when suffering of others is neglected to ride your own hobby horse, that is an extream. Almost all the opinouns of regulars in this forum going back for years would easily map into the Right or Ultra Right. And since the Right is owned by the churches, then the image of the right is that of the religious right. And yes, any backlash will go all the way back like a burning fuse, to the source and owners.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), February 29, 2004.

" where in all of the Catechism can you find your watered down, lukewarm theology? " What theology have I been using anyway? What theological statements have I made? When have I commented on the rightness or wrongness of your cause?

Instead I have often inserted a palm branch of peace in my comments. I told Bill that it was a pity that we both can not have what we want in a single canidate, since there is no contradiction in having Freedom and No=abortion. It is just that Bush is anti-freedom. And after so long a struggle for freedom, I do not want to loose it.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), February 29, 2004.

Dear Sean,

The "mainstream" teaching of the Church is found in the Catechism. Your theology is flawed on its face because it says that you can believe one thing in your heart, and vote another way with your hand.

What is in the heart is reflected in every action that you take, every word that you say, and every vote that you make. You vote for those candidates who reflect your values, for those candidates who most resemble your beliefs and convictions.

If you choose to vote "pro-choice" then you obviously have little or no value for life, as is reflected by the person for whom you rally.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 29, 2004.

Sean,
Just to be clear, I don't see you as an opponent. As to freedom, I don't agree with everything Bush's administration wants to do, but I don't see it as a fundamental threat to American freedom either. I trust the checks and balances that have been placed into the system. They have kept the country more or less free for our 200 years with the tendency towards more freedom over the passage of time, not less. My priority now, as a good Catholic and Christian, is to stop the continuing murder of millions of innocent children in the name of this freedom both you and I cherish so dearly. I see our opponents as devilishly cunning and willing to trick us into accepting deviant lifestyles that hinder family life and promote the culture of death. They have learned long ago that the slow and steady win the race. And they are winning, make no mistake about that.

I see Bush as helping us in that cause, and Kerry as an opponent to us in that cause. A dead child has no chance of living free in this country. We are certainly in a very bad state of affairs if we elect a candidate for president who speaks out in favor of this murder continuing, or a representative in congress who speaks out.

A Catholic should not be ‘left’ or ‘right’ but should defend life. A Catholic should be voting pro-life and family. It is becoming clear that we will have a clear choice in this year in the presidential race. We will have pro-life candidates at the local levels as well.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), February 29, 2004.

Sean asked: Is there any lengths that the situation could go to that would stop you from putting abortion as #1 problem? Are there any limits at all on your prioritys, not just the situation as it is, nor just one what it could develop into, but any limits at all?

Sure there are limits to what I can stand before putting abortion as the #1 problem. Say the murdering of more than 4,000,000 people by the leader of the nation. That has not happened, you are forcing me to ‘what-if’ which is a fruitless endeavor and I will stop it here. When a situation actually happens I will respond to it, and not invent events that have not yet occurred.

Now I have a question for you, honestly tell me why you hate Bush so much?

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), February 29, 2004.

Sean,
I will post the entire article, but some things the Pope said today, you might be interested in:

John Paul II says there can be no genuine development if the fundamental rights of life and the family are not respected.

In his address to the Argentine envoy, the Holy Father highlighted two requirements to "construct a society based on fundamental values that cannot be given up, for a national and international order worthy of the human being."

"One is certainly the value of human life itself, without which not only is the right broken of every human being from the moment of conception until his natural end -- which no one can claim for himself the power of violating -- but the very principle of all human coexistence is reduced," the Pope began.

"It is worth asking what sense it makes to improve ways of living together if life itself is not guaranteed," he added.

"It is necessary, therefore, that this value be guarded with care, quickly impeding all attempts to degrade, in a more or less veiled way, the primordial good of life, converting it into a mere instrument for other ends," the Pontiff continued.

The other pillar of society and, therefore, of progress, is "marriage, union of man and woman, open to life, which gives place to the natural institution of the family," he clarified.

"The latter is not only anterior to any other larger order of human coexistence, but upholds it, being in itself an original fabric of intimate relations guided by love, mutual support and solidarity," the Pope explained.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), February 29, 2004.

Why do I hate Bush? Destruction of fundamental freedom. Destruction of checks and balances. Setting laws that will eventually enslave us. Actually having the police enforce those laws. I see a horrible threat here. Things are at least back to the McCarthy era if not worse. Destruction of environment/ecology. Destruction of economy by buying votes via tax cuts known to be dangerous when offered. Pity for the ones that he bought.

Ok, agree to disagree. You see abortion as the greater theat, the greater evil. I see all liberties going as a too strong potential and am reacting to that. I see his actions as treasonous. You see them as life saving. It can be both, and likely is.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), February 29, 2004.

Gail, You know -- you may be right. Political and physical Freedom is not a concept that gets much play in the Bible or in Catholic theology. It is a value or set of values that is very important to me. I will vote to protect it when it is threatend. My prioritys are dependent on how i see the threat situation.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), February 29, 2004.

Sean,
It is very hard to agree with you. I honestly thing you are either exaggerating here or very misinformed. In any case, these mistakes don’t deserve anyone’s hatred. For example:

No fundamental freedoms have been destroyed. The Constitution is still here. The Congress is still here. The courts are still here. The laws are still here. Your freedoms are still here. So Bush has not destroyed any fundamental freedoms that I can tell. They are all still here, in the US. In fact, he is working to increased the freedom of Latins coming into this country and the freedoms of the Iraqis and Afghanis. I agree he has restricted the freedom of some terrorists who have been plotting, and often succeeding, in hurting us and a good thing too! When someone keeps repeating he wants to kill us, and actually accomplishes the killing of 3,000 of us, maybe it is time to restrict his freedom!

Bush has also not destroyed checks and balances. They still exist as much as they did before.

Bush has not set any laws that will eventually enslave us or any other kind of laws. All federal laws have been set by congress, as usual.

This is nothing like the McCarthy era. I think you have your history wrong here.

There has not been any mass destruction of environment/ecology under Bush. The only mass distruction I know about are the massive forest fires that we have had in the West and those can be directly traced to mismanagement of the forests caused by environmental law suits. Even the Democratic governors of our Western states are agreeing to this fact.

Kerry buys votes, all politicians buy votes from their constituents… maybe that is why we vote for them. Even my Senator, John McCain, buys votes. But you probably know this.

I don’t see any reason for hatred here. You must hate him for some other reason. What is it? I might understand you hating him if he wanted to continue the killing of 4,000,000 babies, but he doesn’t. What is your real reason for hating him?

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), February 29, 2004.

By the way, Sean, don't throw the word treason around lightly. The penalty for a president committing treason is death.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), February 29, 2004.

The penualty for treason is death. And if someone killed him, and I was on the jury, I would not convict. I might give the person a metal.

This is different from before 911. Then he was only destroying our future. I disliked him. but I did not hate him. We had as a nation worked to eliminate the debt. At one time every dollar we had to go to a project, well 1/3 of it went to servicing debt. We were working to get out of that. Now it is worse than that. All our national sacrifice and sweat wasted. And our national parks were considered as almost sacred trusts. When he started to destroy that, I felt that he must be removed, but that I could still vote a replublcan in for an office. I was a angry moderate.

Now I will not vote a republican in as dogcatcher. I must work to reverse this treason.

Your rights? What rights? The right to trial by jury? gone. Do you understand Habeas Corpus? Show us the body? this right is gone. In both cases not only legally gone, but already used in practice against americans. Already violated. If I was a policeman or, better, a federal officer, I could come in, arrest you and your family, and no one would ever get you out of jail. Or even find where you were taken, nor could a lawyer get to you to get your side of the story. If I knew where you were, you could be gone in hours if I was one of those who now have this power.

Libraians are being told that they must report what books are being read. Well he lost their vote. Kinda like loosing the right to read (first amendment lost)

A peace march (the right to peacefull assembly) got this response: the school that it was held at was told to turn over records of a organizational meeting with intent to find out who was legally there. The school said that this had not happened since the McCarthy era.

There have been other incidents. all demonstrate that you may have the illusion of freedom, but not the fact.

No, I am not uninformed. You have not been paying attention. The country is in grave danger. Passive will not work. In a short while he has activated many people to strongly work against him. And has polarized the country as never before. In so doing, he has greatly worked against your side by identifing your side with his treason.

The response has been gratifying. More americans are turning out to destroy him.

Brittan never recovered the libertys lost in WWII. The secrets act is still on their books. They are much less free because of this. And these days it may not even be a needed evil. But it still is there.

The time to do something is when we can. While we still remember what we had.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), March 01, 2004.

Gail, Back to your assertion that I have weak theology. Yes, I am more American than Catholic.

One could make a Bible case about kings and slaves: the only democracy known was the failed greek one, and the only republic known was the hated roman one. King Soloman (I have been told) greatly increased the percent of his countrymen that were slaves to finish the temple. And his successor would not let this up.

Paul said if you are a slave, then remain a slave.

I strongly suspect that there are other quotes. Free the soul to contemplate God, but the body is not important. This presentation of the Bible may twist things, but the point is that there is not a lot of support for individual liberties in the Bible.

So, the theology points to a hiearchael system with out any checks and balances. (See all justification for the way the Catholic Church is governed.*) And to acceptance of slavery as a part of life. Modern American democracy is unknown to those writers. So the Bible can be used to support the South American dictator whose country is Catholic. And also (but much more poorly) the pre-civil war slave holder.

I will abandon any church position to avoid these things.

Changing topic. You feel that you are loosing the fight against Abortion. I see this as wrong. There has been a great shift against abortion. Your work has been to the public good. And staying the long distance has worked.

We may need a further attitude shift in your direction. Remember smoking? How few do that anymore. And not many laws needed shifting. Just attitudes. A few laws giving people in restraunts the right to be smoke free, but mostly just that.

Sean

* the lack of checks and balances yields regular problems, but it is no worse than any other system for church government I have seen.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), March 01, 2004.

The fact that the republican controlled congress did this to the nation is why I am lumping them with him. He requested that the law be made, and they did it. Patriot act is slavery for our children or grandchildren disguised as a needed thing. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), March 01, 2004.

Bill,

If you knew that what I have said was true would you be concerned? If the situation was going to eliminate liberties we used to take for granted, would you work against this?

Would you be concerned enough to vote him out even if it set back your cause?

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), March 01, 2004.

Sorry for the chopped up submissions. I hope that you answer all of them. Both because it has been useful to parse the topics by responce and also boiling blood blues.

Yes, Bill, there is an emotional component to this. I have 2 kids. The thought of them living without the liberties we had does make my blood boil.

And, being fair, seeing both sides, the preceeding adminsitration(s) were hammering away at our liberties. A particularly nasty admendment to the FCC rules springs to mind as a successful attack on the 1st admendment. But Bush has gutted where they scratched.

And, finally, quietly, liberties are dangerous. It is dangerous to be able to talk back to the king. It is dangerous to be able to assemble -- revolution may come of it. Every liberty granted in the 1st 10 admendments is dangerous to those in power, and sometimes to ourselves. Even a small subclause (I am not a Lawyer) grants rights that are insane by standards of 400 years ago. And every one is precious. I used to dislike the NRA. A "gun nut" persauded me that if the 4th falls, if it is not kept as a special, then why should the others be different? To see these destroyed is to feel treasonsly betrayed. Raped.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), March 01, 2004.

Bill, Against your 4,000,000 dead I place every slave in the south (for all the years that the south kept slaves )that would have gladly been torchered to death if their childern could be free. I place all the people who ever have fought and died for freedom. I place the Israelites escaping from Egyptian bondage. I place the last thousand or more years of developing liberty and the many who either risked death or died for it.

I think I have a greater population count. You have innocence killed. I have bravery disgraced, disreguarded, denyed, betrayed.

And It is a pity that I must place one against the other. Both are sepreate good causes.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), March 01, 2004.

Sean,
Slavery is over, the murdering of the innocent children in the US is not, let's stop the murdering, please.

I think you understand the need. I realize it is hard to say that those politicians you like are murderers but until they stop supporting the murder and stand up to protect the innocent, they are culpable.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 01, 2004.

Sean,
Watch your rhetoric; the advocating of the death of any president is a felony punishable by imprisonment of more than one year. You are publishing what you write on the Internet for all to see, so you could be held liable in a court of law. People have been persecuted for what they have written on the Internet in this regard. The Secret Service does not fool around with how they protect the person holding the office of President of the United States.

As for the patriot act, rather than fill up space here, I would highly recommend that you read this article on the hypocrisy of the war against the Patriot Act by Kris W. Kobach, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Missouri. He shows that the Democrats’ claims are rife with legal and factual errors, but accuracy isn't their goal. Their goal is to discredit the Bush administration and scare voters into believing that the FBI is spying on ordinary Americans. We don't need to be hysterical about it, unless you are panicking about laws we have had in place for years. Remember the Democrats need to find something to fight against otherwise they are redundant.

One example you gave was a school that claimed this was as bad as the McCarthy era. Well, it isn’t. There is a difference in how McCarthy ran his shop and how the FBI runs theirs. But you are correct, life has changed since 9/11, we are at war now. A better example would be to examine how peaceful assemblies were handled during WWII. I think you will see we are actually more lenient today.

With all due respect, being a yellow dog Democrat does not save any babies’ lives.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 01, 2004.

I never advocated that someone shoot anyone. Just that I would approve if it happened. Yes, from a legal and technical aspect I regret doing so on a public forum. So I take it back. I officially do not approve.

On evidence: I can give other examples. And I would have if you had given any sign that you considered the dictates of the Church as even with the need to preserve this country's freedom, I would have. No need to do so now. Basically, if they are holding one or more americans without the basic freedoms we have been used to, then what ever law they are using to justify this is bad. And should be fought as strongly as possible. Because what the do by ones and twos now, they can do wholesale later. And I can give references to cases where americans are right now being so held, but it seems that you are not interested. If you are, if you care, I will continue and cite them.

If you ever want to know why the opposition to Bush is so strong, so dedicated, it is because we are trying to save America. Fear is high that he will continue to destroy it. We love the constitution. And strongly hate attacks on it.

I feel that I have stated my case, though without the evidence that it would take a few web searches to find. You know why people hate Bush. You know that I regret that your cause is entangled with his. And both you and I are getting a bit hot. So I feel that I should go away. This whole discussion has been a great exception in the way I treat this forum. Usually I am trying to be nice-nice and not controversal. The title and content of this thread set me off. I feel that what I said needed saying, and I need to be at least this brave in defending my Country, As I should be brave enough to say that Jesus is King in my life if asked, or even if others are expressiing their religious beliefs.

So this may be good bye, Sean

-- (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), March 02, 2004.

You will not save America by approving the assasination of a standing president... or for that much the murdre of anyone. Take care, I hope you do not leave. I realize you have been trying to be nice. I hope you realize that I will always speak out against murder.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), March 02, 2004.

Sean,

Cool it!! As pointed out to you already " Advocating of the death of the president is a serious criminal offense." I demand you to KNOCK this off.

May God give you the Grace to come home to the holy Catholic Church.

-- - (David@excite.com), March 02, 2004.

"I never advocated that someone shoot anyone. Just that I would approve if it happened."

Now why does that sound so familiar? Oh yes ...

"I never advocated that someone should get an abortion. Just that I would approve of a woman's right to choose."

Moral relativism run amuck.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 02, 2004.

Bill,

Thanks for the website on the Patriot Act. Sean's comments are indicative of a political ideology unfortunately held by many catholics, and I believe encouraged by too many religious, whose view of catholic social justice places greater emphasis on deaths occuring during war (even just wars), capital punishment, etc. than deaths occurring from abortion. It is heartbraking to peruse websites like catholicsfordean.com to see the mental gymnastics taking place to justify voting for a pro-abortion catholic candidate. And the hatred pouring forth against Bush is just a mystery to me. At his very worst, Clinton never evoked the raw passion in me that Bush seems to evoke in Sean, Anti-Bush et al.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), March 02, 2004.

Brian,
Thanks for the note. Freedom, real freedom means obedience to God. The life of Christ shows how full freedom is attained by abandoning oneself to God's will, John Paul II heard at the first complete day of his annual retreat.

Some interesting excerpts:

"Jesus makes us understand that no one is as free as the one who is free of his own freedom."

"The cause of Jesus' life is God, his Kingdom. And these also help us to understand Jesus' lifestyle. Jesus' lifestyle was his poverty and radical freedom, his unconditional trust in his Father, sign of intense love for life and a complete, total trust in God."

Again, here is a Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 02, 2004.

Sean said "Why do I hate Bush? Destruction of fundamental freedom. Destruction of checks and balances. Setting laws that will eventually enslave us. Actually having the police enforce those laws. I see a horrible threat here. Things are at least back to the McCarthy era if not worse. Destruction of environment/ecology. Destruction of economy by buying votes via tax cuts known to be dangerous when offered. Pity for the ones that he bought."

And to this we do agree!

Anyone read the Patriot Act II? Pretty wild stuff.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 02, 2004.

The only way to commit a mortal sin is to be absolutly certain that God makes laws and for a person with freewill to be absolutly certain that the law exists and then breaks it. Faith is not certainty- only the delusion of certainty. There is no such thing as human knowledge only human belief. Any human constructions ideologically are based on belief or faith and far short of empirical proofs (another delusion).

-- garcia frausto (gfrausto01@sbcglobal.net), March 02, 2004.

A ratical Patriot Act II doesn't really exist except in the minds of the left wing.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 02, 2004.

Gail,
What Sean wrote is hystarical nonsense that is not backed up with real facts that support the premises he is proposing. The checks and balances are in place, execpt possibly in San Francisco where anarchy seems to be the rule of the land. And, again, the only mass destruction of the environment I know of is the mass forest fires we have in the West that can be directly attributable to the actions of the Sierra Club and other so called ecologists. Open your eyes and see the real world and stay away from propaganda.... oh yea, and help us thin our forests out here before they all burn down!

... AND DON'T VOTE FOR AN ABORTIONIST!

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 02, 2004.

What's really scary is activist liberal judges who do not care about the rule of law. Legislation by judicial activism is the biggest threat to our freedom in this country. Witness the flouting of the law here in Northern California with homosexual marriages. Voters overwhelmingly approved of Proposition 22 a few years back which defined marriage as between a man and woman. But the law is not an absolute to Gavin Newsom (mayor of SF and a catholic) and his ilk. Start issuing unlawful marriage licenses, and then sit back and wait for your buddies on the court to come up with some way around the law and the will of the people. This has been their m.o. here in California and elsewhere since the 60's and 70's -- think Roe v. Wade. This is why, in my opinion, the most important thing a president does is appoint supreme court justices. This is how our country is run these days.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), March 02, 2004.

Last nibbles, intended to be small, but when I got started... "Jesus makes us understand that no one is as free as the one who is free of his own freedom" “real freedom means obedience”

As I said above, there is not a lot of theology about freedom/rights of the body, (except last rites(pun)). Against such good theological opponents as are in the forum, I had no chance to successfully create and defend such a theology. The first above quote seems to advocate acceptance of body slavery for someone, as does some other comments. Can someone craft a theology that approves of freedom and rights and such? The second one, paraphrased as “shut up and Soldier for God” is not really pro anyone’s rights except the right to be ruled.

There is a case going to the Supreme Court this summer that involves an American citizen held with out any civil rights. So that does mean at least one such person is being so held even now. I do not like the feeling of this; the SC has fumbled on this too often. As I said, this fundamental violation of civil rights would not be even considered possible with out new laws like the Patriot Act(s). If my analysis of the exact letter of that act is flawed, then I must say that the results bear the evil fruit that marks such a law as evil. I do not care what your tame law prof says, the police are doing things with this that are nasty and scarry.

I would like to crack that if you can not say, even in jest, that a person should be shot, your 1st amendment civil liberties have taken at least a small hit. Do you have to be old to remember when "he should be shot" was said as a half serious way of saying "he should be stopped" or even "I hate him"?

If nothing else you now see why the opposition sees this as more than a life or death of a person or persons issue, and makes it more the life or death of a country that they love. Understanding the opposition may be the first step to defeating them.

Patriot II has/will complete the removal of many liberties. If I recall correctly was directly defeated, and then reintroduced as something else. I hope that it has not passed, but fear that it has.

Ben Franklin: those who trade freedom for security will end up with neither.

Ecology: There is a large amount of fuel available in or under several state parks here and/or in Canada. This fuel is being readied for exploitation. A large pipeline project is being readied to bring natural gas from some of the parks to some places to use it. I am vague, but I am also quoting from memory National Geographic. All this would be justifiable if we are about to run out of energy and no one is telling to avoid a panic. But if it is just to let George’s friends get rich, then the destruction of resources is destruction of what may be very valuable to our children to keep them warm. On a lesser note, Bush has been unkind to all the pro-ecology movement. Could you imagine putting a destroy-the-forests person in charge of protecting them? Similar things have been routinely done. I can look up sources and detail this if directly challenged to do so. This destruction got people hot under their collars even before the other problems.

Hysterical? No, I can back each of these facts. Hysterical? If your country was to be sold to Stalin would you be? Not that I am saying that this is the immediate threat, just if we do not stop them now, we may not have the chance/liberty to do so later. I am doing this for the children and grand children of citizens alive now.

“Always speak out against murder.” Would you have been a C.Objector in WWII? Was there some killing that may have been justified? If you would have been I admire your consistent stand.

David, I have already “Cooled It”.

Bill, Ok, “it is a mystery to (you) why (I) feel this way”. If you believed what I do about the peril that our country is going through, would you feel as I do? Or are you saying that you do not understand my belief(s)?

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), March 03, 2004.

Sean,
I am glad you are still here.

What I was trying to say is that God's Law and Natural Law trumps all law and individual freedom. Your starting point is the obeying of God's Law, then you go from there to work towards freedom. If you don't you are really not going to obtain true freedom. So murder to accomplish the goal of freedom is out.

I don't think our country is in pearl by the current administration. I think our country is in pearl by the murderers who are killing innocent babies.

If I didn't like the current administration, I would be very energetic within one of the political parties and maybe even run for government office myself to change things. I think you ran into error when you started talking about killing people, but I also think you probably realize this and so I am glad you are still here. Anyway, rather than fear what a pipeline may or may not due to a national forest, I am personally witnessing the vast forests of the West, where I live, being destroyed NOW by the bark beetle and forest fires. Both are caused by not allowing the forests to burn naturally, for a century. Look at photos of the old west's forests and today’s and you will see how much denser the forests are now. These dense forests are diseased and tinder boxes. Again, if you want love your national parks, you would be fighting with all your might to help us thin them.

As far as oil independence, we better find a way soon or we will always be involved in the middle east and dependent on Opec's whims. I am in favor of alternative fuel, but that is slow going but this is truely something we need to do for our national interest.

Stalin murdered millions of people. I don't see anyone in the current administration advocating that. In fact, the liberation of Iraq and the support of the liberation of Haiti have shown that this administration knows right from wrong in this area.

Patriot II was a trial baloon, what exists now are only a shadow of it's previous self. You see, checks and balances is still working. There is no need to panick.

Ben Franklyn's quote in Poor Richard's Almanac was:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Some say in this he was quoting Thomas Jefferson to James Madison. Thomas Jefferson is the guy who attacked Tripoli.

He also said in that magazine:
"God helps them that help themselves."
"Love your Neighbour; yet don't pull down your Hedge."

In truth, Franklyn said lots of things in Poor Richard's Almanac, some profound and some foolish. It was hardly a theological work.

"Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment." - Ben Franklyn

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 03, 2004.

As far as oil independence, we better find a way soon or we will always be involved in the middle east and dependent on Opec's whims. I am in favor of alternative fuel, but that is slow going but this is truely something we need to do for our national interest

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), March 04, 2004.

The above post is what happens when I copy and paste with out looking. Sorry.

“What I was trying to say is that God's Law and Natural Law trumps all law and individual freedom”

The founding fathers of America had a theology that included, nay, demanded individual freedom. Now the easy thing to say is that they were not Catholic. And that this theology came from Protestant Scotland and/or Protestant Holland. Is there any Catholic theology that is consistent with the founding father’s vision?

Franklin’s sayings are not a theology. But he was a founding father.

Is there any Catholic theology that would allow anyone in say, South America, to overthrow a brutal and repressive government? And what do you think if it? (Do good practicing Catholics make ideal slaves? No revolts?)

I agree about the bark beetle. I strongly like the idea of cutting those trees. Handing over the job to a lumber company that has no restraints about clear cutting the lot is not responsible. And that is what I would expect this administration to do. Though there are strands where clear cutting would be acceptable. I’ve seen a few.

I really should have been more careful about a few things in the last post. I am concerned not about selling the country to a Stalin today, but setting up conditions for such in 50 years – conditions where once in, we could not get out. A trigger point for such is when essential liberties are gone.

I am also concerned about the energy we will be using then. I fear that when (not if) the oil runs out that the part of the 1st world that does not have a substitute will have chaos and woe on a barbaric scale. Actually if Bush et al were to pave over the national parks and start condos on them (and they are not), well they could possibly recover. If we are going to be hurt soon, then a responsible position would be to run pipelines through parks and such. If we are not going to be hurt soon, this is destroying a fuel source that we will desperately need to extend the time we need to swap over to a new system. Those people in Martha’s Vineyard that rejected the wind machines are great fools.

And again, the trigger point for me abandoning a moderate or moderate- left position was the applied results of the patriot act.

That any of Patriot II got passed is a shame and a horror.

In England long ago the changed from Catholic to Protestant. Actually more than once. And during one of those times the Pope of that time issued a proclamation that said that all Catholics should resist this and resist the Government that formed it. The sad thing that resulted was that any Catholic that did not renounce this proclamation (and the pope who issued it) became, in the eyes of that state, a traitor. The Catholic church got what it called people who died for religious causes, the English said that they died for political causes, And the sad thing is that both sides are right when politics and religion are so mixed. As they are almost so mixed now.

Bill, I am a terrible speller. And I notice that you, even if you are better than me, are occasionally having trouble. This was written in Word, spell checked, and copied and pasted to the discussion group. A old member of this group (JP? ) suggested this to me, and I pass it to you. It has also allowed me to go back and forth between creating this missive and looking at your latest.

“As far as oil independence, we better find a way soon or we will always be involved in the middle east and dependent on Opec's whims. I am in favor of alternative fuel, but that is slow going but this is truely something we need to do for our national interest” – I could not agree more.

I am finding less to say on the original topic that would be new. I do value the people that expanded the number of people that are talking here.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), March 04, 2004.

Sean,

Didn't you leave the Catholic church for some Esiscopalian liberal free thinking denomination years ago?

Your way of thinking is sad, " safe the forest to kill a baby."

-- - (David@excite.com), March 04, 2004.

Thanks, Sean.
By the way, some of the founding fathers were Catholic, Maryland was a Catholic stronghold.

As to whether a Catholic theology is consistent with the vision of the founding fathers, I would say, sure. Catholics believe in Natural Law and part of Natural Law is that all men are created equal and endowed by God with certain rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness amongst them. Another part of the Natural Law that the founding fathers believed in and that the Church also believes in is that a sound society must have a fear of God, or as Abigail Adams put it: “"A patriot without religions is as great a paradox as an honest man without the fear of God...The scriptures tell us 'righteousness exalts a nation.'"

Catholics also believe that there must be a link between the principles of a sound government and the principles of Christian faith, or as John Quincy Adams put it, "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

Even Jefferson wrote, "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of people that these liberties are the gift of God?"

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 04, 2004.

I was challenged by a poster to come up with a theology that would support liberty. Knowing how well this group is on theology, I counter challenged that you-all should try to come up with that theology. Liberation theology, even if extensively researched and quoted, would not fly here.

Bill has said that a Catholic theology is consistent with the vision of the founding fathers, without the usual collection of quotes that would normally be used to back that up. And several posters, including Bill, have come up with quotes that would counter any of that. Now building a theology is a task for many books. But I am still left with the impression that there is not a Catholic theology that would be acceptable here and still support basic human rights and liberties. If I had said that “a Catholic theology is consistant...” I feel that I would be attacked.

Bill, I am not attacking you, I am attacking the issues. You are setting up to dismiss me because I am me, thus attacking me, not the issues, not the stance. Ad Homimum (spelling is poor) attacks are poor. There is a lot that I never denied, including the Sin issue you raised.

Bill, I am not putting the trees (or the forest) in front of those babies. I am putting future liberties and the coutnries future in front. I understand your concern. Please correctly state your understanding of mine in the future. Please read old posts correctly if you still think I think this way. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), March 04, 2004.

Sean,
Here are some references for you:

The Founding Fathers of the United States asserted their claim to freedom and independence on the basis of certain "self-evident" truths about the human person: truths which could be discerned in human nature, built into it by "nature’s God." Thus they meant to bring into being, not just an independent territory, but a great experiment in what George Washington called "ordered liberty": an experiment in which men and women would enjoy equality of rights and opportunities in the pursuit of happiness and in service to the common good. Reading the founding documents of the United States, one has to be impressed by the concept of freedom they enshrine: a freedom designed to enable people to fulfill their duties and responsibilities toward the family and toward the common good of the community. Their authors clearly understood that there could be no true freedom without moral responsibility and accountability, and no happiness without respect and support for the natural units or groupings through which people exist, develop, and seek the higher purposes of life in concert with others.Pope John Paul II

The Faith of the Founding by Catholic Theologian Michael Novak

America was founded on the wings of faith and reason, says Michael Novak

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 04, 2004.

Sean, re-read who is responding to you... the thought of the trees before the babies was not mine...

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 04, 2004.

Bill,

Thank you for the references. And I am sorry that I protested to you something that was not yours.

Ok, a theology of some liberties under God is actually enjoyed by Catholics. Very good. And again, thanks,

I still am at a loss for any more to add, and I will try not to just repeat myself, this has been going on quite long -- though we have educated each other, and respect a bit each other. Also, in respect for these threads of this forum, I will only deal with this issue here.

And still further, Thank you for listening. I know that I have been contra to this forum's intent, and just having my time to say my say has been valuable. I am trying to get back to being nice or absent or lurking rather than challenging.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), March 04, 2004.

-interesting debate between Truth & illusion...

One part of the illusion that seemingly is adopted unknowingly by those who oppose killing babies is the term 'choice'

As quoted from the introductory quote the term 'pro-abortion' is the correct term as no one can be pro both sides of the issue (choice)...

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), March 04, 2004.

Sean,

If you have questions about the Catholic faith, feel free to ask that is what we are here for: to exchange information and grow in a faith that will get us to God. I've enjoyed our conversation.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 04, 2004.

Comments, examples, etc will be appended here and not bothered elsewhere:

Following by another person, not me but I agree --

For those of you concerned about the erosion of our rights and our Constitution, this was forwarded to me by an acquaintance who's a local news reporter. Not sure of the original source, which is why I don't provide a link to it, but it was forwarded to him from a contact in the publishing industry. I did find a link to a story on the New York Times website, and I pass that on. It requires free registration to view, but you may find it interesting (or disturbing) enough to be worth it.

http://tinyurl.com/yrhp4

-- Rowan Hawthorn

The United States government has issued a warning to American publishers. Under new regulations, publishers will be liable to serious legal consequences if they edit poetry from Iran, Cuba, Libya, North Korea and other nations with which trade is currently banned. The government's position deems editing such materials to be "trading with the enemy."

Generally, laws and regulations prohibiting trade with various nations apply to consumer items, commodities and even tourism, but according to current opinion, these laws also apply to the written word and even to editing such material.

According to U.S. Treasury Department officials, those publishing poetry or prose from a country under a trade embargo are forbidden to reorder paragraphs or sentences, correct syntax or grammar, replace "inappropriate words," or add illustrations.

Several major publishers, editors and translators were recently informed that, from this point forward, only publication of "camera- ready copies of manuscripts" will be allowed. They indicated that correcting typographical errors in a story or poem submitted by someone living in the identified countries would be punishable by a fine of up to $500,000 and 10 years in jail.

Treasury Department spokeswoman, Tara Bradshaw, stated that banned activities also include "collaboration on and editing of the manuscripts, the selection of reviewers, and facilitation of a review resulting in substantive enhancements or alterations to the manuscripts."

Publishers will be required to obtain "U.S. government permission" to publish and edit the work of writers and poets living in countries with "oppressive regimes." Under certain conditions, publishers can obtain a license from the government allowing for some editing.

In spite of current world conditions, these regulations are a departure from previous practice and appear to put a strain on First Amendment rights. Publishers and others should be aware of the changes in U.S. policy to avoid legal difficulties.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), March 16, 2004.

Sean, It sounds like an Internet hoax. Normally, people are not directed to the general: 'U.S. Government' but to a particular agency.

The fact that you can't link to a US Government website that gives details shows it to probably be a hoax.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 16, 2004.