A ouple of sites I found... one for Kerry, the other agaisnt, both based n the catholic Faith.

-----------------------

first, the agaisnt...http://www.catholicsagainstkerry.com/

Now he for.

http://www.catholicsforkerry04.org/

Let us nwo discuss it.

-- zarove (zaroff3@juno.com), August 03, 2004

Answers

BUMP

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 03, 2004.

This is a prime example of the difficulty that Catholics face in electing a President. Which is the lesser of two evils.

Some support Kerry because he allines well with Cathloics on issues besides abortion and stem cell research.

Some aline with Bush because of his stance on abortion and gay marriage and stem cell research.

I believe that abortion gets a high weight when deciding who to vote for, however, it is not the only thing to look at. This means that I will vote for Kerry in this election but will most likely vote for a republican some time in the future. I just happen to like the Democrat this time around.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), August 04, 2004.

"..this means I will vote for Kerry in this election.."

Here is what John Kerry Bishop said about this Scott, Archbishop O'Malley also once wrote: "I have not said for whom I shall vote, but I will tell you for whom I will not vote. I will not vote for any politician who will promote abortion or the culture of death, no matter how appealing the rest of his or her program might be. They are wolves in sheep’s garments, the K.K.K. without the sheets, and sadly enough, they don’t even know it. If I were ever tempted to vote for simply selfish reasons, tribal allegiances, or economic advantages rather than on the moral direction of the country, I should beat a hasty retreat from the curtain of the polling booth to the curtain of the confessional. Cardinal Arinze has similarly said that "unambiguously pro-abortion" Catholic politicians are "not fit" to receive communion."

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

How can it be blasphemously said that John Kerry is a “practicing Catholic” when he publicly enables a "culture-of-eternal-death" that is antithetical to Catholicism? Kerry shamelessly promotes contraception, abortion, homosexuality and euthanasia – all of which are condemned by the Church as sins, sins no less that cry to Heaven for vengeance. One does not have to be handling the forceps that crush the skulls of babies when one is the political instrument for making such barbaric acts "legal".

Kerry could not even bring himself to vote for a recent bill that would have made it illegal to kill an innocent in the womb if the mother WANTED the baby. Its promoters went to pains to tell the professional baby killing lobby that it would have no effect on the Roe v. Wade decision. Kerry was so moved by this attempt at appeasement to the radical left that he made a special effort to vote AGAINST this bill so that his core support in NOW and NARAL would not be endangered. This support applauds every filthy non- Catholic vote Kerry makes to kill babies in what should be their safest place of refuge - their mothers' wombs.

-- - (David@excite.com), August 06, 2004.

Some support Kerry because he allines well with Cathloics on issues besides abortion and stem cell research.

Kerry does not allign with Catholic issues at all as far as euthenasia, homosexual behavior, abortion, murder of children for scientific purposes (what you called 'stem cell research) are concerned. ALL are intrinsically grave as far as Catholic doctrine.

He also seems to take divorce and marriage lightly.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), August 07, 2004.

Lets not frget the real reaosn behidn the Mass for John Kerry... to be seen a sa good, practicing Catholic... aftwr the right media peopel are called, he an sit in his special ropped off section, and peopel can hoour him while he attends this event...

I'm sure we have some time for Jesus later...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 07, 2004.

Maria Teresa Thiersten Simoes-Ferreira Heinz Kerry:

Married Senator John Kerry in 1995. She only took his name eighteen months ago and she is an "interesting" paradox of conflicts. If you thought John Kerry was scary, he doesn't hold a candle to his wife! Maria Teresa Thiersten Simoes-Ferreira Heinz Kerry was born in Mozambique, the daughter of a Portuguese physician, was educated in Switzerland and South Africa. Fluent in five languages, she was working as a United Nations interpreter in Geneva in the mid-60s when she met a "handsome" young American, H. John Heinz, III, who worked at a bank in Geneva. He told her his family was "in the food business." They were married in 1966 and returned to Pittsburgh where his family ran the giant H.J. Heinz food company. He was elected to the US House of Representatives in 1971, and in 1976 he was elected to the first of three terms in the United States Senate. A Republican, he wrote a burning diatribe against some of the causes backed by young House member (John Kerry).

Several years later, in 1991, he was killed when his plane collided with a Sun Oil Company helicopter over a Philadelphia suburb. The senator, his pilot and copilot, and both of Sun's helicopter pilots were killed. He was survived by his wife, Teresa, and their three young sons.

Four years later, having inherited Heinz's $500 million fortune, she married Senator John Forbes Kerry, the liberal junior senator from Massachusetts. She became a registered Democrat and the process of her radicalization was set in motion. Heinz Kerry is not shy about telling people that she required Kerry to sign a prenuptial agreement before they were married. John Kerry may not have check writing privileges on the Heinz catsup and pickle fortune, but he is certainly a willing and uncomplaining beneficiary of it. A lot of > > > hard-earned money, made through many years of hawking catsup, mustard, and pickles has fallen into the hands of two people who despise successful entrepreneurship and who believe in the confiscatory redistribution of wealth. > > > > > > So how does Mrs. Heinz Kerry spend John Heinz's money? Just one example: According to the G2 Bulletin, an online intelligence newsletter of WorldNetDaily, in the years between 1995-2001 she gave more than $4 million to an organization called the Tides Foundation. And what does the Tides Foundation do with John Heinz's money?> > > . They support numerous antiwar groups, including Ramsey Clark's International Action Center. Clark has offered to defend Saddam Hussein when he's tried. They support the Democratic Justice Fund, a joint venture of the Tides Foundation and billionaire hate-monger George Soros. The Democratic Justice Fund seeks to ease restrictions on Muslim immigration from "terrorist" states. They support the Council for American-Islamic Relations, whose leaders are known to have close ties to the terrorist group, Hamas. They support the National Lawyers Guild, organized as a communist front during the Cold War era. One of their attorneys, Lynne Stewart, has been arrested for helping a client, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, communicate with terror cells in Egypt. He is the convicted mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. They support the "Barrio Warriors," a radical Hispanic group whose primary goal is to return all of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas to Mexico. These are but a few of the radical groups that benefit, through the anonymity provided by the Tides Foundation, from the generosity of our would-be first lady, the wealthy widow of Republican senator John Heinz, and now the wife of the Democratic senator who aspires to be the 44th President of the United States.

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), August 08, 2004.

MaryLu you have simply cut and pasted a hoax urban legend which is currently doing the email rounds. See http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_teresa_heinz_kerry.htm

Please check your sources before dropping this material holus-bolus into the forum.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 08, 2004.

A grave offense against God is committed when someone votes for anyone who is pro-abortion or pro-choice from the instance of conception. A candidate who is not morally for innocent life should not be expected to be just in civil affairs. One who votes favorably for such a candidate is guilty as an accomplice in murder against the Commandments of God.

-- - (David@excite.com), August 14, 2004.

Your heart’s in the right place David, but that’s not what the Church teaches. Someone who merely votes (for other reasons) for a candidate who is pro-abortion is not guilty of murder. Someone who votes for him BECAUSE he is pro-abortion in order to facilitate abortion is guilty of being an accessory to murder.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 14, 2004.

Someone who votes for him BECAUSE he is pro-abortion in order to facilitate abortion is guilty of being an accessory to murder.

A Catholic would also be committing a sin if they were voting for Kerry because Kerry would be more lenient on any of the mortal sins he advocates.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), August 14, 2004.

Here is a good case in point:

Suppose the local archbishop has appointed you president of the archdiocese's Catholic Charities / Catholic Youth Organization, which has a $35,000,000 budget. You have $25,000 in your pocket and are inspired to give it away. To whom, or what, do you direct your alms?

(a) to the Missionaries of Charity

(b) to another corporal or spiritual work of mercy

(c) to John Kerry's presidential campaign

If you're Clinton Reilly, president of Catholic Charities / Catholic Youth Organization of the Archdiocese of San Francisco -- a man described here as "a Roman Catholic who supports gay rights and a woman's right to choose"-- your answer is (c).

From Catholic World News’ blog

 

 

 

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), August 14, 2004.

Someone who merely votes (for other reasons) for a candidate who is pro-abortion is not guilty of murder. Someone who votes for him BECAUSE he is pro-abortion in order to facilitate abortion is guilty of being an accessory to murder.

amen steve. very well put.

-- jr (foo@bar.com), August 15, 2004.

Does this mean that Catholics could have voted for Hitler in good conscience because he claimed to be in favor of some good economic policies? Yeah we all know he was a war-monger and hated the Jews, but at what if they voted for him making the trains run on time and crack down on crime?

Considering the sheer numbers of children killed and women forever implicated, the sheer numbers of elderly at risk and gazillions of embryos poised to be created and then killed for their "spare parts" should Kerry get elected, I don't make the Hitler allusion lightly. Far more Americans are killed daily by Abortion than have died in war or capital punishment.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 16, 2004.

“Gazillions”? Let's try to stay rational Joe. Surely you’re not seriously suggesting that all of the German Catholics (approx 40% of German Catholic voters) who voted for Hitler and the Nazis in 1933 (the last vote they got) committed the mortal sin of being accomplices to murder? Or the majority of Austrians (overwhelmingly Catholic) who agreed with Hitler taking over their country in 1938? Catholic moral theology does not endorse your idea of “guilt by association”, unless the person associating himself INTENDED to facilitate the evil committed by the principal actor.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 16, 2004.

Hi Steve!

You've made a serious error equivocating the rise of Hitler and the US presidential election. In 1933, could not predict the Holocaust would take place. The implication wasn't there. Same in Austria in 1938. In fact, the horrors of Nazi concentration camps weren't known until after the war. Even assuming that Germans knew about this, they didn't have a choice! There was no free election to make their choice known.

unless the person associating himself INTENDED to facilitate the evil committed by the principal actor

A voter should be politically aware before casting a ballot. Abortion is murder. Once a candidate's abortion stance is known, a voter needs to understand it better. The mention of a candidate's abortion stance should be deterrence to simply casting a vote for that candidate. In this day and age, there's no excuse to not learn more about their position.

If a voter is so separated from the Church not to know that abortion is murder then perhaps their salvation is already at risk.

I just don't see why you need to dwell so much on "INTENT". You're talking about catholics here. We're not bound by invincible ignorance.

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 16, 2004.

Vincent, it was not me, but Joe, who drew the parallel between the rise of Hitler and the US presidential election. He didn’t mention the Holocaust, only that Hitler "was a war-monger and hated the Jews", facts which were known in 1933 when the Nazis won the plurality of votes at a democratic national election (and won proportionately more votes in the predominantly Catholic south).

I “dwell so much on INTENT” because without intent, there is no sin, whether you are Catholic or not.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 16, 2004.

Steve,

I apologize for confusing your argument with Joe's. However ,I still see you obfuscating sin and salvation:

I “dwell so much on INTENT” because without intent, there is no sin, whether you are Catholic or not.

Human beings, sentient, rational beings do few things without intent. The intent of abortionists is to facilitate murder. A vote for abortionists is an accessory to murder. The only exclusion is when a) a person does not know what abortion is or b) a person is deceived into believing a candidate is not pro-abortion.

If one were to go with your "intent" argument then how is the church able to pronounce judgement on abortionists? Their obstensive intent is to facilitate choice, no? Moral relativism and the slippery slope, Steve. That's all I see in your arguments on intent.

-- Vincent (love@noemai.net), August 17, 2004.

Steve,

Consider a poor single mother voting for a candidate for their abortion stance. However, said woman does not consider abortion murder. Does that take away their culpability? How about when an ethnic group considers another sub-human and attempts to eradicate them? Does that take away their culpability?

I hold firm that support for Hitler with the knowledge that he was committing genocide makes a person complicit in his act. However, the argument is that if a person did not have this knowledge and considering an era of a government where free media didn't exist, then the person would not have known and therefore not be complicit in this act. After 3 decades of the abortion era, the "intent" point is moot.

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 17, 2004.

Catechism:

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 17, 2004.

I take it then that both you and Joe DO think that 40% of German Catholics committed the mortal sin of assisting murder by voting for the Nazis. And presumably that any Catholic who knowingly votes for any pro-abortion candidate, realising what abortion is, is also committing the mortal sin of assisting murder. If so you are very confused to say the least.

An abortionist doesn’t intend to “facilitate murder” or "facilitate choice". He intends to actually commit murder. The para you quote from the catechism shows you may not commit murder in the hope that good may result. It has nothing to say about helping to elect someone who may in turn help to make or keep certain types of murder legal.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 17, 2004.

Steve, please, my argument about German Catholics voting for a man who spells out his life's ambition in Mein Kamph and his later instigation of WW2 and the holocaust actually makes the case of 2004 Catholics voting for Kerry even worst because not only have they MORE information about his intentions and plans but also more information about the holocaust against innocent life.

Gazillions = if you think stem cell "research", the creation and harvesting of embryos is going to be limited by millions that's a huge mistake. Already millions have died through In Vitro Fertilization "techniques" wherein dozens of embryos are created in the petri dish (thus proving by the way that it's NOT the woman's body but a completely separate individual life at stake), and the "viable" ones are then selected for implantation in the Uterus. The "unviable" embryos are ROUTINELY killed.

-- joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 17, 2004.

Joe, you’re not going to convince people to vote for Bush with outrageous claims like saying anyone who votes for Kerry is going to Hell.

I have made clear that I utterly oppose killing embyos. My point was if you think it’s more than 1,999 million, say “billions”. Adults don’t say “gazillions” in serious discussions.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 17, 2004.