According to recent news reports (ABC, CNN, FOX), Catholics support John Kerry for president. I find this odd since the liberals stand on abortion, welfare, stem cell research etc seem to go against what the Church teaches. Just curious and would like to see other peoples points on this. Thank you

-- Roger (ro@yahoo.com), August 17, 2004

Answers

Response to Why do Catholics support liberal canident

Bump to New Answers to invite comment.

-- (bump@bump.bump), August 17, 2004.

Response to Why do Catholics support liberal canident

A good percentage of Catholics are ignorant to what the holy Church realy teaches. Presidential pro-abortion candidate John Kerry is an automatically excommunicated Catholic.

A grave offense against God is committed when someone votes for John Kerry 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.

This man should NOT of been allowed to receive the Eucharist. This is a disgrace to the Catholic Church when baby killers like Kerry& Clinton are allwed to disgrace Gods Church.

-- - (David@excite.com), August 17, 2004.

Response to Why do Catholics support liberal canident

This is canon law says Roger:

"Canon Law 1398 Catholics who have obtained an abortion, or performed an abortion, have excommunicated themselves latae sententiae (automatically by their very action) from the Catholic Church. They remain outside the church until the reception of the sacrament of Penance through a good confession.

"Canon Law 1329 Catholics who are accomplices in enabling and permitting the crime of abortion to occur, who without their assistance the crime would not have been committed, incur the same penalty.

"Canon Law 915 (an exception to receiving Holy Communion) "Others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion."

Devout Catholics, that is, those who take the Scriptures and their Church teachings seriously, don’t have a presidential candidate in US Senator John F. Kerry. They can’t. To do so is to become a party to the hypocrisy. To do so is to betray one’s Christian conscience. To do so is to be in spiritual rebellion against God and the Church.

-- - (David@excite.com), August 17, 2004.

Catholics often vite democrate because historicallyte democrates where more sensative to Catholic concerns. Mosg Christaisn voted deomcrate, in fact, in the 1960's. This was becuase they where for peace and helpg the poor. Many of them still feel a partyloyalty, or whre born into a party loyalty, and vote democrate witout even thinkign it through.

That in addiiton to Kerry promotign himself as Catholic and thus excitign Cahtolics who dot bother to look into his veiws laces him as popular among Catolics.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 17, 2004.

Roger, I am curious why you think that Kerry’s stand on “welfare” goes against what the Church teaches. This is one area where Kerry’s stand is much more in line with Catholic teaching than Bush’s is.

David, people come here for credible info in Catholic teaching. It doesn’t help when you throw around ignorant, inflammatory and untrue claims that Kerry is a “baby killer” who is “automatically excommunicated” and that those who vote for him are committing “a grave offense against God” and “guilty as an accomplice in murder”. Unless you can somehow show that at least one abortion occurred which would not have occurred without Kerry’s assistance, the canon law you quoted shows you are quite wrong about him being excommunicated. It says nothing about those who vote for him. Canon law does not and cannot address whether a sin has been committed. It is not a moral code but a legal code for regulating the conduct of the church.

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

Steve, I do not mean only Kerry. I live outside of New Orleans and noticed that Catholics here support the liberal candidates on local elections. Then after watching several news programs I noticed that it seems Catholics nation wide support liberal candidates. I still find it odd that Catholics support liberals and I am interested in finding out why. Thanks

-- Roger (ro@yahoo.com), August 18, 2004.

Steve, I forgot to comment on your welfare statement. I don't think welfare and charity are the same things. Thats just me.

-- Roger (ro@yahoo.com), August 18, 2004.

The Edwards Record on Abortion

In 1999 Edwards voted against Banning Partial-Birth Abortion. S. 1692, 10/21/99, Roll Call 340

In 2003 Edwards attacked President Bush for signing the bill banning partial-birth abortions.

In 2003 Edwards voted against ‘Laci and Conner’s Law,’ also known as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act which recognizes unborn children as murder victims if they are killed by criminals in violent federal crimes. HR 1997, 3/25/04, Roll Call 63

In 2003 Edwards voted to endorse Roe v. Wade as “an important constitutional right…which should not be overturned.” S 3, 3/12/03, Roll Call 48

In 1999 Edwards voted to include abortion as a ‘health benefit’ for federal employees. S. 1282, 7/1/99, Roll Call 197

In 2001 Edwards voted to restrict the speech of pro-life and other citizen advocacy groups by imposing severe limits. S. 27, 4/2/01, Roll Call 64

In 2003 Edwards voted to use government facilities for performing abortion. S. 1050, 5/22/03, Roll Call 192

In 1999 Edwards voted against an effort to document the sale of “fetal tissue.” S. 1692, 10/21/99, Roll Call 338

In addition, Edwards has consistently supported filibusters against President Bush's pro-life judicial nominees. For example, Edwards voted six times in favor of the filibuster that blocked the confirmation of Miguel Estrada and in favor of the filibusters of pro-life Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen and former Alabama Attorney General, pro-life William Pryor, both nominated to federal courts of appeals.

From the John Kerry Website

“John Kerry believes that women have the right to control their own bodies, their own lives, and their own destinies. He believes that the Constitution protects their right to choose and to make their own decisions in consultation with their doctor, their conscience, and their God. He will defend this right as President. He recently announced he will support only pro-choice judges to the Supreme Court.

From the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL)

“NARAL Pro-Choice America knows, based on John Kerry’s record in the U.S. Senate, and the positions he has articulated as a candidate for President, that Roe v. Wade would be safe in his hands if he is elected President. He is an unwavering supporter of a woman’s right to choose as well as the privacy rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

“We also know that based on everything George Bush has ever said or done about choice that Americans’ rights are in severe peril, and if he is president for four more years, women will lose the right to choose. His record of nominating the most vehemently anti-choice judges and his recess appointments of the most extreme anti-privacy judicial activists prove that President Bush will fulfill his promise to “do everything in my power to restrict abortion.”

From Planned Parenthood

"With the selection of John Edwards as his running mate, Sen. Kerry has again shown his complete commitment to reproductive rights and access to reproductive health care," PPAF president Gloria Feldt said. "In stark contrast to the current administration, a Kerry- Edwards administration will stand up for the fundamental rights of women both in the United States and around the world and will ensure that women's health is a centerpiece of its agenda."

“Sen. Edwards has a 100% pro-choice, pro-family planning, pro-woman voting record in the U.S. Senate. He marked the 30th anniversary of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade by stating, "The right to choose is not just about a woman's privacy. It is also about a woman's equality and her personal dignity - her inalienable right to stand as a proud and independent equal in our society. The right to choose is an essential ingredient in the full equality of women."

“As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Edwards has been an influential voice of opposition against President Bush's attacks on women's rights and extremist nominations to the federal bench. During his term Edwards cast pro-choice votes on numerous pieces of legislation relating to reproductive health…” From National Right to Life

"During his nearly six years in the U.S. Senate, John Edwards -- like John Kerry -- has consistently voted according to the dictates of hard-line pro-abortion groups, and contrary to policies favored by most Americans." Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director.

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.

Presidential pro-abortion candidate John Kerry is an automatically excommunicated Catholic no matter how the spin doctor(Steve) trys to word it.

-- - (David@excite.com), August 18, 2004.

Thanks David. I understand the candidates are liberal, but I am interested in why catholics support them.

-- Roger (niatross65@hotmail.com), August 18, 2004.

Roger, I suggest you read the Church documents I quoted on the "Defining “Poor”" thread. The Church wholeheartedly endorses State welfare as well as private charity.

David, simply repeating your statement which I have already debunked proves nothing. Kerry is not automatically excommunicated and those who vote for him are not guilty of being accomplices in murder. This is not spin doctoring but the law of the Church.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 18, 2004.

Steve, The local, state and federal forms of welfare have created a dependent class of people. They are the most abused government programs. Most americans have no problem helping the needy, just look at what we donate worldwide through faith based charities.

-- Roger (niatross65@yahoo.com), August 19, 2004.

On the subject of the appointment of Supreme Court Justices, an issue which is seen as crucial by all activists on both sides of the issue, Kerry is quoted as saying, "I am prepared to filibuster, if necessary, any Supreme court nominee who would turn back the clock on a woman's right to choose or the constitutional right to privacy." A large section of his website is dedicated to his pledge to "End the Era of Ashcroft." Justice John Ashcroft has been a vocal supporter of the right to life.

"Canon Law 1398 Catholics who have obtained an abortion, or performed an abortion, have excommunicated themselves latae sententiae (automatically by their very action) from the Catholic Church. They remain outside the church until the reception of the sacrament of Penance through a good confession.

"Canon Law 1329 Catholics who are accomplices in enabling and permitting the crime of abortion to occur, who without their assistance the crime would not have been committed, incur the same penalty.

Presidential pro-abortion candidate John Kerry is an automatically excommunicated Catholic. The only thing you "debunk" is your own mind. Read the kerry& edwards record on abortion again. Did I miss something? Will they help the slaughter of innocent children?

How can you vote for this slaughter of innocent children? And this is the same spin doctor(Steve) that will tell you John Wayne Gacey after raping over 20 boys with their hands handcuffed behing their backs and bashing their heads in after he had his sexual way with them, and than burried them in his basement should not of had a death sentence?

Whats your opinion of Mr. Edwards voting record on abortion Steve? Does this concern you voting for this as a Catholic? And what about Mr. Kerry & and his vote on partial birth abortion? Do you think Mr. Edwards will change his (hitler like) mind?

Thanks in advance

-- - (David@excite.com), August 19, 2004.

“Steve, The local, state and federal forms of welfare have created a dependent class of people.” (Roger) We are all dependent on each other. Welfare does not make us so. The supposed “self-made” individual who has never depended on anyone is the great US myth. “They are the most abused government programs.” I would say the most abused govt programs are the “industry support” and similar programs which siphon off BILLIONS of taxpayers’ money to already rich corporations - compared to the miserable hundreds or thousands that a small minority get by cheating the welfare system. “Most americans have no problem helping the needy, just look at what we donate worldwide through faith based charities.” Compared to what other countries give per head of population and compared to their income, our donations to charities are small.

David, your emotional filibusters don’t change the facts. No one here denies Kerry and Edwards are pro-abortion and that murderers are bad people. But if your claims were true, that the Church says a murderer must be killed, or that Kerry and Edwards are automatically excommunicated murderers and that those who vote for them are committing the mortal sin of being an accomplice in murder, then the Church would clearly say so. In fact it says the contrary. Yes you did miss something. You missed reading the Church statements above which show you are wrong. No matter how much you hate Kerry and Edwards, your hysterical posturing can’t dragoon the Church against its will into damning everyone who votes for them.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 19, 2004.

John Kerry describes himself as a "believing and practicing" Catholic, yet he was prevented recently from reciving communion by the Archbiship while in St. Louis. His extreme pro-abortion views - he supports partial birth abortion and voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act - are in conflict with the Catholic Church; the Catholic Church automatically excommunicates someone who participates in an abortion. Too bad the mainstream media only acknowledges "Catholics in name only" like Kerry, and shuts out real Catholics.

Church law is clear. Kerry's goal to make abortions available, not only to Americans, but to the whole world has caused him to incur a common excommunication. Canon law 1398 says, "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication." This applies not only to the woman having the abortion, but to the abortionists, those who support abortion, and those who willingly make it accessible.

Also, Canon 1331 §1 says, "An excommunicated person is forbidden to receive the sacraments." This includes Communion. The logic is clear: If Kerry has been excommunicated and if an excommunicated person should not receive Communion, then Kerry should not receive Communion. In a situation such as this, there is no need for a bishop or priest to make a point of forbidding Kerry to receive Communion; canon law already says that he is not able to.

May God open your closed mind Steve.

-- - (David@excite.com), August 20, 2004.

God says through Isaiah, "Trample my courts no more! Bring no more worthless offerings…Your festivals I detest…When you spread out your hands, I close my eyes to you; though you pray the more, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood! Wash yourselves clean…learn to do good. Make justice your aim: redress the wronged, hear the orphan’s plea, defend the widow" (Isaiah 1:13-17).

Indeed, those who worship God but support abortion are falling into the same contradiction as God’s people of old, and need to hear the same message.

Archbishop Raymond L. Burke said Friday that Catholics in St. Louis who vote for political candidates supportive of abortion rights have committed a grave sin in the eyes of the church, and should confess and do penance before receiving Communion.

Burke's comments, made in a telephone interview as he prepared to depart for Rome, amplified comments he made Thursday on KMOX radio and in the Post-Dispatch this month about the importance of the abortion issue for Catholics when they go to the polls this year.

Did you "debunk" this holy man also Steve? A grave offense against God is committed when someone votes for John Kerry( as stated by Archbishop Burke) who is pro-abortion or pro-choice from the instance of conception.

God bless you.

-- - (David@excite.com), August 20, 2004.

Yes I do debunk him if that is what he said. If so he is in a tiny, tiny minority among Catholic bishops and theologians. May God open your closed mind to understand the Canon Law you yourself posted: “1329 Catholics who are accomplices in enabling and permitting the crime of abortion to occur, who without their assistance the crime would not have been committed, incur the same penalty.”

I'm sure your heart's in the right place David, but you need to use your head as well and not be blinded by your political views.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 20, 2004.

I agree with David that Kerry is excommunicated, but I agree with Steve that it's not a mortal sin to vote for him; my main contention for that is that (a) voting for a candidate is not the same thing as voting for the passing of every law he/she supports, and (b) the legality of abortion is an important pillar in the war against abortion, but it is not the only one, or even, one might argue, the most important.

One must address the economic, cultural, and religious dimensions as well, and it is possible to reasonably believe that Bush policy does more to create a culture, and indeed, an economy of death. Bush's "Culture of ownership" feeds into the very sources of the culture of death--rampant individualism, consumerism, unfettered liberation of the whims of wealthy private organizations, etc. and so on.

I will not vote for Kerry, but neither is a vote for him in itself grounds for saying that someone has mortally sinned, or is an accomplice to murder. It's a different story if they vote for him with the intent of continuing abortion.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), August 21, 2004.

Regarding Archbishop Burke's comment--if it is true, it leads to the very interesting consequence that all Catholics who have voted for Democrats since Roe vs. Wade have been living in unconfessed mortal since ever since.

Oh, wait--mortal sin requires knowledge and intent as well as action. The Doctrinal Note from the CDF on Catholics in Politics seems to clearly put the most acute burden on the politicians themselves. No certain authority has made any statements regarding voting for politicians.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), August 21, 2004.

Anon,

Deliberate consent is intent. Voting for a candidate who stands for abortion is not premeditated intent so that one becomes an accomplice in murder. But, given knowledge of the Church's teachings, awareness of a candidates stance, and the consent for such candidates to take office and thereby consensual support for abortion, it becomes a mortal sin...unless, there are no alternative choices. Being uninformed is hardly anyone's excuse these days. I guess one can make a case for that as a matter of pedantic argument.

Let me put it this way: I don't think one has to be an accomplice to murder to commit a mortal sin. Mortal sin is what leads to death of one's soul, not just the body of another.

God bless!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 21, 2004.

italics off!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 21, 2004.

"But, given knowledge of the Church's teachings, awareness of a candidates stance, and the consent for such candidates to take office and thereby consensual support for abortion"

That conclusion does not follow. Once again, you presume (and expect others to presume) that if a Catholic voter does not conform to one particular path to end an evil, then he/she thus is not publicly opposed to that evil. This is not always true. Electing a president who will delegate Supreme Court judges who will overturn RvW is one path among many to end abortion, and it certainly doesn't exclude them; but like all the others, it has its own advantages and disadvantages (as a plan of action) that have to be weighed alongside all the others.

A vote for Kerry need not be based on the error that abortion is not the single most critical issue in this election. Rather, it may be based upon a justified opinion that having a pro-life president, as one means to ending abortion, while extremely valuable, may be expendable in the face of the sacrifices entailed in a Bush administration, and in the face of the fact that tremendous successes against abortion can and are made even with a Democrat president.

You just have to see the complexity of the situation. It's a lot muddier than Bush=Pro-Life, Kerry=Pro-Death

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), August 21, 2004.

To be clear, once again, I'm not arguing for Kerry, nor am I voting for him; I'll probably vote for Bush. But nobody with universal authority has ever ruled that voting for a particular candidate is committing a mortal sin, and I will defend the position that Catholics can vote for Kerry without sinning gravely, until I see that the Magisterium teaches otherwise.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), August 21, 2004.

Anon,

This is our first engagement. Perhaps, it's better if I tell you a little more about myself. I'm a cradle catholic. I used to be quite the liberal democrat, voting for Clinton twice. Jesuit educated, I've been weaned off certain secular nonsense like liberation theology and scriptural humanism, though I can't really blame Jesuits as the lay teachers were really the problem. I've found myself borderline atheist never took it up. I still have alot of kinks to work out and I guess that's something to do in a lifetime, but, don't mistake me for someone else. I don't go by political monikers. Strangely, I've found my gut instinct is more conservative than my mouth is. Bear with me.

Once again, you presume (and expect others to presume) that if a Catholic voter does not conform to one particular path to end an evil, then he/she thus is not publicly opposed to that evil

That's Kerry's response. Similar to certain Sola Fide arguments.

The only presumption I make is a Catholic voter is a Catholic person, not just in name or in conviction, but also in action.

Electing a president who will delegate Supreme Court judges who will overturn RvW is one path among many to end abortion, and it certainly doesn't exclude them

Right. We should stick to the right path. Other "options" can not exclude the vote. A vote is for representation. These other options are things to do, not choices over who will represent you.

but like all the others, it has its own advantages and disadvantages (as a plan of action) that have to be weighed alongside all the others

and

A vote for Kerry need not be based on the error that abortion is not the single most critical issue in this election

If you think the war on abortion should also be waged on the poverty front, by all means do it. A vote for Kerry is not a vote for this option. If you think abortion education is key, voting Bush does not exclude this option.

Don't ignore what's on the table. Kerry is not offering to end abortion, but to further it. He doesn't offer a different route. What Kerry offers to life issues is not ends or means for Catholics. What Kerry offers, on the table, is personal-incentives along with moral evils. Given a choice, a person who deliberately chooses Kerry, chooses certain incentives along with the moral evils(no matter how they turn a blind eye). Materialism, secularism vs catholicity.

In all this, no Catholic has stepped up to point out what exactly the choice for Kerry has over Bush in terms of policy. What? CP? War? How come the Magisterium hasn't made issue with these. Why has the USCCB made it so clear that these two don't contend with abortion. No Church-respecting Catholic could elevate these up against life issues.

Economics? Environmental?

Let's work on these in detail and find out if we're not dealing with neo-liberation theology.

It looks to me like the right hand does not know what the left one is doing. We should make war on secularism. Start with self first. Don't presume self is Catholic. Presume being Catholic has certain requisites. Catholics are Catholics when they behave Catholic.

One does not expect the Bishop of Rome to make a declaration in favor of Bush or Kerry. That won't happen. What has happened is his Holiness' aides and American bishops have raised a stink against pro- abortion politicians. I think the big mistake is assuming there are actually bishops who support Kerry at face value.

While there is still time left, I suppose hearts should still be converted. But, as a matter of fact-finding, our bishops have shown us clearly that Kerry is neither ambivalent nor ambiguous about Catholicism. He's against it.

The Magisterium has not said one can vote for Kerry without sinning. That's also not the same thing as saying Catholics can vote for Kerry without sinning. Contrarily, bishops have stepped to say voting for such candidates is sinful. Are these guys nuts? Are these guys undeserving of their pallia? Did they ignore the Pope on their ad limina visits? There is a trend to ad limina visits. Maybe that's also something to get into.

God bless,

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 22, 2004.

Just this morning on EWTN, the famous parish misssion priest, Fr. John Corapi, was expressing his opinion that some pro-abort politicians are probably guilty of heresy -- and thus are automatically excommunicated.

Yes Stephen I thought of you. Maybe you should be the one to use your mind some. John Kerry is headed straight to hell unless he repents.The Catholic Church has taught from the beginning that the killing of the unborn (burning them with a solution the doctor injects into the womb, cutting them up while still alive in the womb like so much meat, or sucking out the brain in partial birth abortion) is intrinsically evil, murder and can never be justified.

Those who perform an abortion and those who cooperate willingly in the action, if fully aware of the grave evil, cut themselves off from the church and separate themselves from God’s grace. This is and has been the constant teaching of the Catholic Church.

And to vote for this savage man could put your soul in grave danger.

-- - (David@excite.com), August 25, 2004.

".You just have to see the complexity of the situation. It's a lot muddier than Bush=Pro-Life, Kerry=Pro-Death "

Its not that muddy J.Z. Kery and Edwards = In 1999 Edwards voted against Banning Partial-Birth Abortion. S. 1692, 10/21/99, Roll Call 340

In 2003 Edwards attacked President Bush for signing the bill banning partial-birth abortions.

In 2003 Edwards voted against ‘Laci and Conner’s Law,’ also known as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act which recognizes unborn children as murder victims if they are killed by criminals in violent federal crimes. HR 1997, 3/25/04, Roll Call 63

In 2003 Edwards voted to endorse Roe v. Wade as “an important constitutional right…which should not be overturned.” S 3, 3/12/03, Roll Call 48

In 1999 Edwards voted to include abortion as a ‘health benefit’ for federal employees. S. 1282, 7/1/99, Roll Call 197

In 2001 Edwards voted to restrict the speech of pro-life and other citizen advocacy groups by imposing severe limits. S. 27, 4/2/01, Roll Call 64

In 2003 Edwards voted to use government facilities for performing abortion. S. 1050, 5/22/03, Roll Call 192

In 1999 Edwards voted against an effort to document the sale of “fetal tissue.” S. 1692, 10/21/99, Roll Call 338

In addition, Edwards has consistently supported filibusters against President Bush's pro-life judicial nominees. For example, Edwards voted six times in favor of the filibuster that blocked the confirmation of Miguel Estrada and in favor of the filibusters of pro-life Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen and former Alabama Attorney General, pro-life William Pryor, both nominated to federal courts of appeals.

From the John Kerry Website

“John Kerry believes that women have the right to control their own bodies, their own lives, and their own destinies. He believes that the Constitution protects their right to choose and to make their own decisions in consultation with their doctor, their conscience, and their God. He will defend this right as President. He recently announced he will support only pro-choice judges to the Supreme Court.

From the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL)

“NARAL Pro-Choice America knows, based on John Kerry’s record in the U.S. Senate, and the positions he has articulated as a candidate for President, that Roe v. Wade would be safe in his hands if he is elected President. He is an unwavering supporter of a woman’s right to choose as well as the privacy rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

“We also know that based on everything George Bush has ever said or done about choice that Americans’ rights are in severe peril, and if he is president for four more years, women will lose the right to choose. His record of nominating the most vehemently anti-choice judges and his recess appointments of the most extreme anti-privacy judicial activists prove that President Bush will fulfill his promise to “do everything in my power to restrict abortion.”

From Planned Parenthood

"With the selection of John Edwards as his running mate, Sen. Kerry has again shown his complete commitment to reproductive rights and access to reproductive health care," PPAF president Gloria Feldt said. "In stark contrast to the current administration, a Kerry- Edwards administration will stand up for the fundamental rights of women both in the United States and around the world and will ensure that women's health is a centerpiece of its agenda."

“Sen. Edwards has a 100% pro-choice, pro-family planning, pro-woman voting record in the U.S. Senate. He marked the 30th anniversary of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade by stating, "The right to choose is not just about a woman's privacy. It is also about a woman's equality and her personal dignity - her inalienable right to stand as a proud and independent equal in our society. The right to choose is an essential ingredient in the full equality of women."

“As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Edwards has been an influential voice of opposition against President Bush's attacks on women's rights and extremist nominations to the federal bench. During his term Edwards cast pro-choice votes on numerous pieces of legislation relating to reproductive health…” From National Right to Life

"During his nearly six years in the U.S. Senate, John Edwards -- like John Kerry -- has consistently voted according to the dictates of hard-line pro-abortion groups, and contrary to policies favored by most Americans." Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director.

There isn't nothing "muddy" about this. Kerry= death for babies with no hope. Whats "muddy" ?

The only "mud' I see is how the "spin-doctor" will try and spin the slaughter of innocent children and vote for kerry and edwards.

-- - (David@excite.com), August 25, 2004.

David, your enthusiasm for your cause is clouding your reason. I’m sure Fr Corapi preaches very good missions, but as I said, his opinion that Kerry is AUTOMATICALLY excommunicated is the opinion of only a very small minority of theologians and bishops (and Fr Corapi is not even a theologian as far as I’m aware). I’m NOT saying that Kerry is a good Catholic or that his salvation is not in doubt. Nor do I doubt for a moment the evil of abortion, so please don’t make me have to repeat that again. I would even consider the possibility that voting for Kerry could be a sin. What I object to is your insupportable and categorical assertions that Kerry is AUTOMATICALLY excommunicated (not just denied communion by some bishops and priests) and that voting for him IS a MORTAL sin.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 30, 2004.

I am not going to spell check this hope you can find the time to read. This is for David@excite.com and niatross65@hotmail.com While you condemn J. Kerry and/for his view on abortion as a sin and all that. Well what do you consider gw bush who willing allowed men here in Texas on death row be executed and never raised a pen which we here in Texas bought yhe bas---- he had control of this and failed to do anything. He had control of this and failed to take action. The Bishop and all others seem to forget this, rather they wish to condemn J Kerry and John Edwards for their vote to allow abortion to continue. gw bush had control of this and failed to take action is he bound for hell? This is fact so why do you now support him Now lets see if Kerry had voted no, would it have changed any thing? NO!!! Where as, gw bush and d chenney has taken the medical care for the less fortunate and taken the aid/monies for the less fortunate and given it to the rich. (Remember it will be easier in accordancd to the bible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to pass into through the gates of Heaven.) Is it not a fact you are a blind and deaf Republican who will vote for a republican regardless of the sin he has committed. Totally without regard of the fact he is staving millions of children to death daily. Your arguments don't make since. gw bush has killed about 1100 military personnel, hundred of thousands of children by cutting off their food, medicines and doctors medical assistance. He has had direct control of these deaths, whereas, J Kerry has had little control of the abortions. I am a Catholic (Emmaus Catholic Church, Lakeway, TX)I had a vesectemy does that send me to hell (will that get me kicked out of the church I think not if so I want all my money back that I have donated to the church plus the cars to the charities of the church.) Which death is less important the unborn baby, the child, the military person. Your logic is senseless and you are a false prophet. Now go soak your lying typing fingers, your feet and your brain for its failure to comprehand the true reason for your vote for the draft doding, deserter known as gw bush. The very best of good- byes, from Austin, TX Frank A Bowers

-- Frank A. Bowers (arnoldbowers1@aol.com), October 06, 2004.

I had a vesectemy does that send me to hell (will that get me kicked out of the church I think not if so I want all my money back that I have donated to the church plus the cars to the charities of the church.)

What makes you think you won't go to hell for that. Just curious.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), October 06, 2004.

I am not going to spell check this hope you can find the time to read.

{Hey, they manage my posts...}-Zarove

This is for David@excite.com and niatross65@hotmail.com

{Mind if I answer?}-Zarove

While you condemn J. Kerry and/for his view on abortion as a sin and all that. Well what do you consider gw bush who willing allowed men here in Texas on death row be executed and never raised a pen which we here in Texas bought yhe bas---- he had control of this and failed to do anything. He had control of this and failed to take action. The Bishop and all others seem to forget this, rather they wish to condemn J Kerry and John Edwards for their vote to allow abortion to continue. gw bush had control of this and failed to take action is he bound for hell?

{Not the Capitol Punishment argument again...

OK, their is a differenced between Capitol Punishment an ABoriton. RFegardless of your stance on Capitol Punishment, their is a difference between a legal punish,ent enacted agaisnt someone who has been found guilty of a crime, and punishing an innocent because he is an inconvoenecen for another.

In capitol punishment the theory is that these men are to be executed so justice can be done to pay penalty for actiosn they have taken. Or else to satisfy the need to protect the community form their continued aggressions.

Abortion is the willgful temrinaitoin of a life that poses no real threat to anyone, and that is beign killed for hte conveiene of the mother...

See the difference?

Or is a baby exaclty the same a Charles manson and Ted Bundy to you?}- Zarove

This is fact so why do you now support him Now lets see if Kerry had voted no, would it have changed any thing? NO!!! Where as, gw bush and d chenney has taken the medical care for the less fortunate and taken the aid/monies for the less fortunate and given it to the rich.

{Like to see proof of his I would... My SSI Payments actually increased...}-Zarove

(Remember it will be easier in accordancd to the bible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to pass into through the gates of Heaven.)

{ Yet, the relaity is they didnt punihs the poor and reward the rich...and sint Kerry also wealthy?}-Zarove

Is it not a fact you are a blind and deaf Republican who will vote for a republican regardless of the sin he has committed.

{You mena liek allowing Gay Marriage to ruin our society and allowign us to Kill our unbirn HCildren? Or like makign the economy run like a socialit tate with the Govnemrent in controle of your lives? Or how about removing the Bible form public discourse and corcign Humanism on everyone? Taidign tot he Moral degrade? Oops...Forgot, thats all Kerry...}-Zarove

Totally without regard of the fact he is staving millions of children to death daily.

{evidence?}-Zarove

Your arguments don't make since. gw bush has killed about 1100 military personnel, hundred of thousands of children by cutting off their food, medicines and doctors medical assistance.

{The military actiosn in Iraq qhe a war. regardless of your agrement withhe war, it isnt the same as Murder.

Likewise, he didnt starve chidlren by takign awya their food, thats pure poppycock...}-Zarove

He has had direct control of these deaths, whereas, J Kerry has had little control of the abortions.

{Uhm... Buhs pulled the trigger or issued orders to kill our troops? As noted, he idnt rmeove the food and medicine form children, or at leats you syaign he did is not convencing...}-Zarove

I am a Catholic (Emmaus Catholic Church, Lakeway, TX)I had a vesectemy does that send me to hell (will that get me kicked out of the church I think not if so I want all my money back that I have donated to the church plus the cars to the charities of the church.)

{It is agaisnt hcurhc teachings. why be Cahtolic if you are oppsed to the tezhcings of the Chruch?}-Zarove

Which death is less important the unborn baby, the child, the military person.

{All Deaths and all lifes ar eimportant. But the Military personel chose to serve and serve in ac ause, knowign they may die. This is diffeetform abortion.}-Zarove

Your logic is senseless and you are a false prophet.

{Your logic is senceless and sicne when did david or anyoen ehere aside form elpidio cplaim prophethood?}-Zarove

Now go soak your lying typing fingers, your feet and your brain for its failure to comprehand the true reason for your vote for the draft doding, deserter known as gw bush.

{He didnt dodge the draft, he served in the National Guard... His record wa snot exemplery, but e did serve...}-Zarove

The very best of good- byes, from Austin, TX Frank A Bowers

{Bye, don let the door slamyou on the backside on your way out.}- Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 06, 2004.

Archbishop Myers of Newark just penned a column in the WSJ that turns Steve's argument on its head and pretty much closes the door theologically speaking on the idea that Catholics can vote for pro- abortion politicians because they might be nice guys or might send more pork and funds to state welfare offices.

(BY ARCHBISHOP JOHN J. MYERS Friday, September 17, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT ) Money quote #1:

"Cardinal Ratzinger stated that a "Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of a candidate's permissive stand on abortion." But the question of the moment is whether a Catholic may vote for a pro-abortion candidate for other reasons. The cardinal's next sentence answered that question: A Catholic may vote for a pro- abortion Catholic politician only "in the presence of proportionate reasons."

Quote #2

What are "proportionate reasons"? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong. Then we must consider the scope of the evil of abortion today in our country. America suffers 1.3 million abortions each year--a tragedy of epic proportions. Moreover, many supporters of abortion propose making the situation even worse by creating a publicly funded industry in which tens of thousands of human lives are produced each year for the purpose of being "sacrificed" in biomedical research."

Quote #3 "Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

Consider, for example, the war in Iraq. Although Pope John Paul II pleaded for an alternative to the use of military force to meet the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, he did not bind the conscience of Catholics to agree with his judgment on the matter, nor did he say that it would be morally wrong for Catholic soldiers to participate in the war. In line with the teaching of the catechism on "just war," he recognized that a final judgment of prudence as to the necessity of military force rests with statesmen, not with ecclesiastical leaders. Catholics may, in good conscience, support the use of force in Iraq or oppose it. Abortion and embryo-destructive research are different. They are intrinsic and grave evils; no Catholic may legitimately support them. In the context of contemporary American social life, abortion and embryo-destructive research are disproportionate evils. They are the gravest human rights abuses of our domestic politics and what slavery was to the time of Lincoln. Catholics are called by the Gospel of Life to protect the victims of these human rights abuses. They may not legitimately abandon the victims by supporting those who would further their victimization."

Archbishop Myers heads the archdiocese of Newark.

Well Steve? Is the archbishop just someone in the corner who isn't "mainstream" enough for your Catholic conscience?

I for one took note of his mention of Iraq - seems like someone agrees with what I've been writing all along.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 07, 2004.

Hi, Frank

I have to ask. Were you drinking when you posted to me?

What does you having a vasectemy have to do with this thread? Is this eating at you deep down that you did this? Your like a sad gelding.

Yes, you committed a grave sin if you were aware of what the Church teaches. You need to confess this and repent.

-- - (David@excite.com), October 07, 2004.

The way that this bishop reasons about abortion and compares it to other reasons for voting for an abortion candidate shows a man that has entirely lost the faith. Unfortunately, there are too many others like him. The Church will survive despite men like him and the other despots who are infecting the church at this time.

-- Doug (Corporo@south.com), October 14, 2004.

Joe, my position on this subject appears to be exactly the same as Abp Myers’. I can’t for the life of me see why you think there is any contradiction between his quote and what I said above.

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

Steve, if apologies are in order, I will offer them.

This is what I reacted to:

"Yes I do debunk him if that is what he said. If so he is in a tiny, tiny minority among Catholic bishops and theologians. May God open your closed mind to understand the Canon Law you yourself posted: “1329 Catholics who are accomplices in enabling and permitting the crime of abortion to occur, who without their assistance the crime would not have been committed, incur the same penalty.” I'm sure your heart's in the right place David, but you need to use your head as well and not be blinded by your political views"

1) You seemed to imply that the good bishop wasn't speaking in the "mainstream" when as I quoted from Newark, it appears that his message about pro-abort politicians and those Catholics who vote for them specifically because of abortion, is very much mainstream theology.

2) The typical voter only gets a chance every 2 to 4 years to effect social change via elections. If two candidates present themselves and 1 unequivocally supports a regime of abortion, contraception, judicial activitism (gay-marriage), as well as embryo-killing stem cell research and human cloning... it doesn't matter if the guy is great on farm subsidies and welfare - a vote for such a moral monster would be to say "Yes" to the culture of death, which would be a sin.

It's hard to imagine a clearer case than this. I mean, good people can and do argue about the best way (among many) to help the poor or minorities. Many different paths may all lead to the same goal. But this isn't the case with the 5 big Life issues on the table this time.

You're not automatically a bad person for wishing Farmers would either sink or swim on their own - like the rest of industry - without getting the rest of us to subsidize them. But you would be a bad person if you think anyone has the right to kill a completely defenseless and harmless human being.

The bishops have consistenly pointed out that politicians and those who vote for them because of their immoral positions or votes should not go to communion until they seek forgiveness and amend their ways... well, gee, let's see... that must mean they're not in the state of grace doesn't it?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 18, 2004.

Joe, saying that people “are not in the state of grace and should not go to communion” is a very different thing from saying, as David did, that they “are automatically excommunicated” and are guilty of the crime of murder and must be executed.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 18, 2004.

Even saying that people who vote for candidates who are pro-abortion "are not in the state of grace and should not go to communion" far oversteps the authority of any bishop. The only thing that can prevent a Catholic from receiving the Eucharist is unconfessed mortal sin; and no person, including a bishop, can accurately judge whether another person - let along a whole class of people he doesn't even know - are guilty of mortal sin. It seems some bishops are willing to let the end justify the means - hoping to avoid the election of a pro-abortion candidate like Kerry by the use of spiritual scare tactics which cannot possibly be supported by Church teaching.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 18, 2004.

OK scholars, now in the case of the Catholic voter who casts a vote for Kerry, knowing full well now after the 3rd debate that he does have a litmus test for judges - they must be wholeheartedly pro- abortion, must never overturn Roe v Wade, etc... there is no equivocation, no subterfuge left.

He was adamant that while he lets his faith move him in many matters of public policy (health care, the environment, etc) he won't let his faith move him in matters of abortion, gay marriage, lethal embryo-stem cell harvesting, etc.

So the issues where Good Catholics can disagree on, he lets his faith guide his actions. But on the key issues no Catholics can opt for and still be faithful to the Church, and hence to Christ, he says his faith can't be brought to bear.

You have a candidate who stands for the culture of death and has repeatedly professed his desire to further it! A vote for him is a vote for abortion which is categorically immoral.

So explain to me how a Catholic, knowing what the Church teaches on Abortion and knowing that a vote for Kerry will result in INCREASED abortion (at worst) and no decrease (at best)...could not by that very act be committing a sin against life?

Now if you do something which is immoral, you commit a sin. Those who commit serious sins ought not go to communion with Our Lord until they seek forgiveness.

The sin in this case is compounded by the fact that the next POTUS will be selecting at least 1 if not 2 Supreme Court Justices, and hundreds of other judges - ALL OF WHOM WILL BE PRO-ABORTION, PRO- GAY, PRO-EMBRYO-KILLING...if Kerry and the Democrats are put in charge.

And that will have a generational effect - they'll be in power for life not just the next 4 years. Long after Iraq and Afghanistan cease to be heard of (anyone remember Kosovo? - We still have troops there even though Clinton promised they'd be gone in 1 year) these immoral judges will continue to pervert the laws for the sake of the growing number of immoral neo-pagans while forcing Christians to be second class citizens.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 19, 2004.

"So explain to me how a Catholic, knowing what the Church teaches on Abortion and knowing that a vote for Kerry will result in INCREASED abortion (at worst) and no decrease (at best)...could not by that very act be committing a sin against life?"

A: Such a Catholic could indeed be committing a sin in voting for Kerry, but the claim that such a sin is a mortal sin cannot be validly made by other parties. Also not all Catholics are fully aware of the Church's teaching (even though they should be), and not all Catholics are fully aware of the possibility of increased abortions with Kerry in the whitehouse. After all, that information certainly would not be directly available from the TV debates, since both candidates are skirting that issue as much as possible, rather then stating the plain facts.

Another important issue in the case of a Catholic who votes for Kerry is motive. Did the Catholic vote for Kerry because of other important issues, and largely in ignorance of his stance on abortion? Or did he vote for Kerry because of other important issues, in spite of knowing his stance on abortion? Or did he vote for Kerry BECAUSE OF his stance on abortion? Obviously the moral implications would not be the same in one case as in the other.

I hope it is clear in all of this that I am in no way supporting Kerry. I personally believe his election would be an absolute disaster for our nation. I am only addressing the spurious, sensationalist, pseudo-spiritual political attacks being leveled against him, such as trying to brand him a "heretic" (frankly, how many people would really care, in terms of voting?), or accusing his supporters of "automatic mortal sin" (whatever that is).

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 19, 2004.

This was quite a debate -I am happy to see that Kerry lost his bid to further abortion and homosexual agenda.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 28, 2004.

Wow, you hit the nail on the head. That's exactly why Kerry ran, to further the homosexual agenda. In fact, it was actualy part of a larger international gay conspiracy!

-- Anti-Bush (comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 28, 2004.

No, sarcasm aside, probably not. His only allegiance was to himself...and the abortion/drug company/title X funding governmental industrial complex. But it is true that the democratic party is almost entirely in the control of people who are pro-homosexual. Both as a matter of their party plank as well as a function of the actual people in the positions of power, and office.

And it doesn't look like they are going anywhere so look forward to further GOP gains in 2006.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 28, 2004.

Wow, you hit the nail on the head. That's exactly why Kerry ran, to further the homosexual agenda. In fact, it was actualy part of a larger international gay conspiracy!

anti-bush,

Yes -I and many hit the nail on the head; however, no one knows Kerry's intent. I myself considered only his clearly stated dissenting 'positions' on abortion and homosexuality (on these two issues he did not flip flop?)

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 28, 2004.

"No, sarcasm aside, probably not. His only allegiance was to himself...and the abortion/drug company/title X funding governmental industrial complex."

Finally something we can agree on.

"But it is true that the democratic party is almost entirely in the control of people who are pro-homosexual."

No, I think it's in the control of people who used to have a cause in the 60's, fighting against the war and for civil rights, but eventualy became corrupted by big buisiness, and now are a bunch of obscenely wealthy people who are doing nothing productive, yet still kidding themselves into believing that they are the party of the common people.

"And it doesn't look like they are going anywhere so look forward to further GOP gains in 2006. "

I'll be voting Green. The GOP's got nothing on the Green Party. Who knows, with so much of my generation disillusioned by the Democrats' sorry showing this time around, perhaps we will mobilize and get a few Greens in the House in 2006. Just imagine how the face of beltway politics would change if even one or two honest third party candidates were elected...

-- Anti-Bush (comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 28, 2004.

I sincerely hope that you do vote Green in 2006! BTW, what DO they stand for now? And what guarantee is there that should lots of democrats move over into the Green party that they won't "democratize" it?

Finally, what do you suppose all those people who sincerely protested the Vietnam war did when the boat people started washing up in the 1980's with horror stories of the concentration camps, the killing fields, rape and pilliage and torture? Did any admit that they may have been naive about Ho Chi Minh? Did any apologize to these Vietnamese refugees? Any "oops, our bad"? Just wondering.

I mean, if you are for something and you get what you want...you ought to take moral responsibility for what happens as a direct result of getting your way. The peace-niks wanted the US to pull out. We did. The South fell, over a million people were killed from 1975 to 1980.

Now they want us to pull out of Iraq. "if we just leave the war will stop and innocent people will stop dying." That's the reasoning - but it didn't work in 'nam and it won't work in "the sandbox". Peace only comes from unilateral victory. Just ask the Japanese.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 29, 2004.

"I sincerely hope that you do vote Green in 2006! BTW, what DO they stand for now? And what guarantee is there that should lots of democrats move over into the Green party that they won't "democratize" it?"

The Greens stand for protecting the environment, pulling out of or reneotiating NAFTA, increasing corporate accountability, putting an end to the PATRIOT Act and similar legislation that the Bush Administration bullied Congress into passing after 9/11, guaranteeing healthcare for everyone, and pulling out of Iraq.

"Finally, what do you suppose all those people who sincerely protested the Vietnam war did when the boat people started washing up in the 1980's with horror stories of the concentration camps, the killing fields, rape and pilliage and torture? Did any admit that they may have been naive about Ho Chi Minh? Did any apologize to these Vietnamese refugees? Any "oops, our bad"? Just wondering."

Do I have to spell it out for you? NOT EVERYONE WHO WAS AGAINST THE WAR LOVED HO CHI MIHN! There were other motives at work besides the "international communist conspiracy" (that wasn't real), you know. Did you ever stop to consider that people didn't want their friends and bothers and sons shipped off to die in some hellhole halfway across the world for a made-up cause? Preserving human life was never our motive for going into Vietnam, or else we wouldn't have supported Ngo Dihn Diem all through the 50's, and we wouldn't have doused the countryside in napalm. What is with this black-and-white crap? Just because someone opposed the war doesn't mean they were a communist. Jesus. I imagine you don't care for gangster rap, but that doesn't make you a klansman, does it?

"Now they want us to pull out of Iraq. "if we just leave the war will stop and innocent people will stop dying." That's the reasoning - but it didn't work in 'nam and it won't work in "the sandbox". Peace only comes from unilateral victory. Just ask the Japanese."

How many more Americans have to die, Joe? How many more? Are you willing to sacrifice your son to save Fallujah? As I get closer and closer to enlistment age, I know more and more people going off to Iraq and I have to wonder, is it really worth losing them for a patch of sand in a country that never attacked us. Is your son in Iraq?

-- Anti-Bush (comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 29, 2004.