John Kerry

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='M.SIGGA' date='Jul 30 2004, 11:00 PM'] hence, "weigh the consequences."

I believe wholeheartedly that the Holy Spirit doesn't abandon the conscience of the faithful seeking His guidance. As an adult in the Church, I believe it is more important to seek out the great Spirit of God in these types of decision making that are clearly an act of conversion. I think there is a big difference between scaring people into voting prolife all-the-way - which I believe are the tactics of some with larger political agendas - and allowing people to experience a real conversion towards understanding why prolife is the only way.

The fact plain and simple is neither candidate is actually "pro-life" as the Church defines it - this is how a bishop answered me at a young adult conference when I asked him flat out who to vote for this election. He told me to pray about it and consider the decision in respect to where it places me in eternity. That is why [b]he[/b] and none of you have that sort of authority because some of the methods used here to convert people are driving people into wanting to vote for Kerry even more.

This is a cut-and-dry decision process for people who would normally under non-abortion agenda drama support the Republican party anyway. For Catholic prolife democrats this is a really difficult decision, seeing that all other agendas including other forms of repect for human life besides abortion, and our "Constitutional Right" must be put on hold. Text dumping huge automatic-excommunication documents and threats combined with "I hope kerry dies" stuff is really annoying and really doesn't help at all. [/quote]
What position held by Mr. Kerry outweighs his support for the murder of the innocent? The fundamental right to life is the foundation of all other rights, if it is denied, then there can be no justice. You may try and justify voting for him in your own mind, but to vote for him is objectively a grave sin.

John Kerry supports partial birth abortion, while George Bush opposes it and has helped to enact a legal ban on it in the United States. Your arguments are unconvincing, and so I will not commit mortal sin with you by voting for John Kerry.

As Cardinal Ratzinger indicated in his letter to the US Bishops, Catholics can disagree on when capital punishment should be used or when to go to war, but they cannot disagree on matters concerning abortion and euthanasia.

God bless,
And know that I pray for you,
Todd

Edited July 31, 2004 by Apotheoun

[M.SIGGA]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 31 2004, 01:06 AM'] What position held by Mr. Kerry outweighs his support for the murder of the innocent? The fundamental right to life is the foundation of all other rights, if it is denied, then there can be no justice. You may try and justify voting for him in your own mind, but to vote for him is objectively a grave sin.

John Kerry supports partial birth abortion, while George Bush opposes it and has helped to enact a ban on it as law in the United States. Your arguments are unconvincing, and so I will commit mortal sin with you by voting for John Kerry.

God bless,
And know that I pray for you,
Todd [/quote]
My brother in Christ you totally and completely missed the point of my post. I'm not voting for John Kerry. Where on earth did you ever get that impression or come to that conclusion?

THis is the stuff I'm talking about... specifically this:

[quote]Your arguments are unconvincing, and so I will commit mortal sin with you by voting for John Kerry.[/quote]

what is this?

[littleflower+JMJ]

when there is a abortion agenda does the non-abortion agenda really matter at all? we're talking about innocent, defenseless lives beign taken here....

thats what the Pope was saying when he said abortion and euthasia were both such grave matters there was no compromising nor secondary to any other when it comes to voting......

[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=9366&view=findpost&p=287812"]heres something interesting.....[/url]

we can't ignore the facts......as catholics, we align ourselves with the Catholic morals set before us......

we can go from there but we do know one thing......a pro-abortion candidate would be a grave sin if we vote for them.....and in no way, no how can supporting one ever be okay or justified.....

pax.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='M.SIGGA' date='Jul 30 2004, 11:12 PM'] My brother in Christ you totally and completely missed the point of my post. I'm not voting for John Kerry. Where on earth did you ever get that impression or come to that conclusion?[/quote]
Perhaps because you appear to make it sound as if this is a hard moral choice, it is not hard at all. It is a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion politician, if that vote is done with full knowledge and deliberate consent.

God bless,
Todd

Edited July 31, 2004 by Apotheoun

[M.SIGGA]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 31 2004, 01:14 AM'] Perhaps because you appear to make is sound as if this is a hard moral choice, it is not hard at all. It is a mortal sin to vote for pro-abortion politician, if that vote is done with full knowledge and deliberate consent.

God bless,
Todd [/quote]
Once enlightened to the Gospel of Life it is. For some people it takes more time than others. Ever take time to think that not everyone operates like a droid and some people need clarity before making a moral decision?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='M.SIGGA' date='Jul 30 2004, 11:00 PM'] This is a cut-and-dry decision process for people who would normally under non-abortion agenda drama support the Republican party anyway. For Catholic prolife democrats this is a really difficult decision, seeing that all other agendas including other forms of repect for human life besides abortion, and our "Constitutional Right" must be put on hold. Text dumping huge automatic-excommunication documents and threats combined with "I hope kerry dies" stuff is really annoying and really doesn't help at all. [/quote]
This is where I disagree with you, even if abortion were not an issue, the Democratic position on the nature and powers of the State are non-Catholic. The whole platform of the Democratic Party is contrary to the principle of subsidiarity, and such, it should not be supported by Catholics.

Edited July 31, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='M.SIGGA' date='Jul 30 2004, 11:18 PM'] Once enlightened to the Gospel of Life it is. For some people it takes more time than others. Ever take time to think that not everyone operates like a droid and some people need clarity before making a moral decision? [/quote]
I came to oppose abortion long before I became Catholic, and based my position originally on the natural law alone. Right reason tells a man that abortion is murder, you don't need revelation to know this truth. Gaining moral clarity on the issue of the murder of the innocent, isn't difficult to grasp. This truth is written into the very nature of the human person.

Edited July 31, 2004 by Apotheoun

[littleflower+JMJ]

here some good stuff (emphasize mine)

[quote]“[u]abortion and euthanasia[/u] 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 [b]never[/b] 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)[/quote]

JPII :wub:


[quote] Ever take time to think that not everyone operates like a droid and some people need clarity before making a moral decision? [/quote]

of course but i also think in the end, when it come down to it, we all just need to cast aside everything and see if we align with the Church .

pax......:sleep:

[M.SIGGA]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 31 2004, 01:19 AM'] This is where I disagree with you, even if abortion were not an issue, the Democratic position on the nature and powers of the State are non-Catholic.  The whole platform of the Democratic Party is contrary to the principle of subsidiarity, and such, it should not be supported by Catholics. [/quote]
[quote]When I suggested dropping the argument earlier it's from past experience trying to reason with some Bush Republicans; the truth is it's immpossible  There are many people who literally hate John Kerry and all Democrats and wish them ill, so it's not worth arguing this topic here.[/quote]
Lol I need to take my own advice Apotheon you totally lost me when you turned the abortion debate into something about the evils of the platform structure of the democratic party and how it's not consistant with Catholicism. The entire structure of the United States government and Constitution is not consistant with Catholicism. Our capitalist and materialistic "american" way of life isn't consistant with Catholicism. The very concept that these sort of moral issues can be debated and "compromised" is not consistant with Catholicism. It is all very very non-Catholic; that's your party too.

[M.SIGGA]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 31 2004, 01:21 AM'] I came to oppose abortion long before I became Catholic, and based my position originally on the natural law alone. Right reason tells a man that abortion is murder, you don't need revelation to know this truth. Gaining moral clarity on the issue of the murder of the innocent, isn't difficult to grasp. This truth is written into the very nature of the human person. [/quote]
My Badd if the Holy Spirit took a little bit longer converting me into a totally pro-life position, because I didn't used to be. I envy your wisdom lol.

I'm taking my own advice and ending this debate. Peace

[Apotheoun]

Pope John Paul II has spoken about the proper ordering of the State in relation to society in his Encyclical Letter [u]Centesimus Annus[/u]. In this document he condemns the overreaching powers of the State, in what is commonly called the "Welfare State," and here is what he said:

"[48] These general observations also apply to the role of the State in the economic sector. Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principle task of the State is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labours and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. The absence of stability, together with the corruption of public officials and the spread of improper sources of growing rich and of easy profits deriving from illegal or purely speculative activities, constitutes one of the chief obstacles to development and to the economic order.

Another task of the State is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. [i]However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the State but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society[/i]. The State could not directly ensure the right to work for all its citizens unless it controlled every aspect of economic life and restricted the free initiative of individuals. This does not mean, however, that the State has no competence in this domain, as was claimed by those who argued against any rules in the economic sphere. Rather, the State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis.

The State has the further right to intervene when particular monopolies create delays or obstacles to development. In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development, in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute function, when social sectors or business systems are too weak or are just getting under way, and are not equal to the task at hand. Such supplementary interventions, which are justified by urgent reasons touching the common good, [i]must be as brief as possible, so as to avoid removing permanently from society and business systems the functions which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid enlarging excessively the sphere of State intervention to the detriment of both economic and civil freedom[/i].

In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called 'Welfare State'. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the 'Social Assistance State'. [i]Malfunctions and defects in the 'Social Assistance State' are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good[/i].

[i]By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending[/i]. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.

[49] Faithful to the mission received from Christ her Founder, the Church has always been present and active among the needy, offering them material assistance in ways that neither humiliate nor reduce them to mere objects of assistance, but which help them to escape their precarious situation by promoting their dignity as persons. With heartfelt gratitude to God it must be pointed out that active charity has never ceased to be practised in the Church; indeed, today it is showing a manifold and gratifying increase. In this regard, special mention must be made of volunteer work, which the Church favours and promotes by urging everyone to cooperate in supporting and encouraging its undertakings.

In order to overcome today's widespread individualistic mentality, what is required is a concrete commitment to solidarity and charity, beginning in the family with the mutual support of husband and wife and the care which the different generations give to one another. In this sense the family too can be called a community of work and solidarity. It can happen, however, that when a family does decide to live up fully to its vocation, it finds itself without the necessary support from the State and without sufficient resources. [i]It is urgent therefore to promote not only family policies, but also those social policies which have the family as their principle object, policies which assist the family by providing adequate resources and efficient means of support, both for bringing up children and for looking after the elderly, so as to avoid distancing the latter from the family unit and in order to strengthen relations between generations[/i].

Apart from the family, other intermediate communities exercise primary functions and give life to specific networks of solidarity. These develop as real communities of persons and strengthen the social fabric, preventing society from becoming an anonymous and impersonal mass, as unfortunately often happens today. It is in interrelationships on many levels that a person lives, and that society becomes more 'personalized'. [i]The individual today is often suffocated between two poles represented by the State and the marketplace. At times it seems as though he exists only as a producer and consumer of goods, or as an object of State administration. People lose sight of the fact that life in society has neither the market nor the State as its final purpose, since life itself has a unique value which the State and the market must serve[/i]. Man remains above all a being who seeks the truth and strives to live in that truth, deepening his understanding of it through a dialogue which involves past and future generations." [Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter [u]Centesimus Annus[/u], nos. 48-49]

Edited July 31, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='M.SIGGA' date='Jul 30 2004, 11:35 PM'] My Badd if the Holy Spirit took a little bit longer converting me into a totally pro-life position, because I didn't used to be. I envy your wisdom lol.

I'm taking my own advice and ending this debate. Peace [/quote]
I agree, there is no sense in debating a matter that is [i]de fide[/i]. This is not a difficult issue for a Catholic to know the truth about, nor is it one that should cause him any consternation, or give him pause, because he should know that he can never deliberately vote for someone who will promote abortion as if it is a "right." Nor can he support a program of initiatives, no matter how good some of those initiatives may appear to be, which is ultimately founded upon the murder of the innocent.

God bless,
Todd

Edited July 31, 2004 by Apotheoun

[M.SIGGA]

This machine-droid Catholicism is really bothersome. I don't agree with the concept that "True Catholics" don't struggle with anything.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='M.SIGGA' date='Jul 30 2004, 11:31 PM']
Lol I need to take my own advice   Apotheon you totally lost me when you turned the abortion debate into something about the evils of the platform structure of the democratic party and how it's not consistant with Catholicism. The entire structure of the United States government and Constitution is not consistant with Catholicism. Our capitalist and materialistic "american" way of life isn't consistant with Catholicism. The very concept that these sort of moral issues can be debated and "compromised" is not consistant with Catholicism. It is all very very non-Catholic; that's your party too. [/quote]
The Pope neither endorses capitalism nor communism, but he does oppose interventions by the State within society that are contrary to the principle of subsidiarity, and sadly at the present time the Democratic Party stands for that type of activity. Even the Republican Party has not limited governmental intervention to the degree that it should, but at least in principle it recognizes that limits must be placed on the powers of the State. The State must not be allowed to replace society through programs of assistance that in fact create dependency. In addition, the Pope also makes it clear that the Church has no single model for 'constitutional government' in relation to the proper ordering of temporal society; thus the American constitution is not opposed to Catholicism in principle.

God bless,
Todd

Edited July 31, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='M.SIGGA' date='Jul 30 2004, 11:55 PM'] This machine-droid Catholicism is really bothersome. I don't agree with the concept that "True Catholics" don't struggle with anything. [/quote]
Perhaps you have difficulty assenting to the Church's teaching on abortion and other moral issues, but I guess I'm just a simple machine-droid Catholic, because I have no problem assenting to her teachings. Of course I understand that my assent to the Church's teachings is a gift of God's grace.

Edited July 31, 2004 by Apotheoun

[M.SIGGA]

Addressing:

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 31 2004, 01:58 AM']The Pope neither endorses capitalism nor communism, but he does oppose interventions by the State within society, which are contrary to the principle of subsidiarity, and sadly at the present time Democratic Party stands for that type of activity.  Even the Republican Party has not limited governmental intervention to the degree that it should, but at least in principle it recognizes that limits must be placed on the powers of the State.

God bless,
Todd[/quote]

&

[quote]Perhaps you have difficulty assenting to the Church's teaching on abortion and other moral issues, but I guess I'm just a simple machine-droid Catholic, because I have no problem assenting to her teachings. Of course I understand that my assent to the Church's teachings is a gift of God's grace. [/quote]

I credit and thank God everyday for the grace of conversion. I wasn't calling you a droid. However I don't believe it should ever be suggested that a faithful Catholic is somehow wrong or odd for seeking the counsel and guidance of God in prayer. If you percieve this is a serious disagreement I give you the last word and bid you adieu :shootme: because this isn't bearing any fruit lol and it's really late.


Peace in Christ

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='M.SIGGA' date='Jul 31 2004, 12:28 AM'] I credit and thank God everyday for the grace of conversion. I wasn't calling you a droid. However I don't believe it should ever be suggested that a faithful Catholic is somehow wrong or odd for seeking the counsel and guidance of God in prayer. If you percieve this is a serious disagreement I give you the last word and bid you adieu :shootme: because this isn't bearing any fruit lol and it's really late.


Peace in Christ [/quote]
We must always seek guidance from God in prayer, but if the message we receive contradicts the defined dogma of the Church, then the message is not from God.

May God bless you, and I will be praying for you,
Todd

[M.SIGGA]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 31 2004, 02:36 AM'] We must always seek guidance from God in prayer, but if the message we receive contradicts the defined dogma of the Church, then the message is not from God.

May God bless you, and I will be praying for you,
Todd [/quote]
what are you talking about and what are you praying for me about lol? i'm trying with patience to end this, what are you talking about? I never said anything about contradicting dogma. You have made up your own argument against me, and now you are trying to end an argument that never existed. I am so confused and I'm going to bed.

ok seriously this time, peace

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='M.SIGGA' date='Jul 31 2004, 12:46 AM'] what are you talking about and what are you praying for me about lol? i'm trying with patience to end this, what are you talking about? I never said anything about contradicting dogma. You have made up your own argument against me, and now you are trying to end an argument that never existed. I am so confused and I'm going to bed.

ok seriously this time, peace [/quote]
Perhaps it is just your rather equivocal manner of writing, but you sound as if you find it difficult to support the Church's moral teachings. You speak in a way that is extremely subjectivist. As when you spoke about your Bishop telling you to pray, and follow your conscience. Certainly, we must pray, and we must follow our conscience, but we are required to form our conscience in relation to the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church. I was at a talk given by Auxiliary Bishop Gumbleton of Detroit, in which he said that not all homosexual acts were necessarily gravely immoral; now, I knew that that was false, and so I knew, based on the teaching of the Magisterium, that I had to reject what Bishop Gumbleton had said. I don't see that kind of clarity in your comments. Perhaps it is just the way that you express yourself, and thus I am judging you unfairly, but I am not one to equivocate on moral issues. I am also very precise in the way that I express myself. Abortion, as a means or as an end, is always intrinsically immoral and no one can change that. This holds with homosexual acts as well, since they are intrinsically disordered in their proper end, and thus are gravely immoral, and no human power can change that. Again, perhaps it is just the way you express yourself, but based on your comments I get the impression (perhaps wrongly) that you don't recognize the objective nature of the moral law.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - One other thing that confuses me about your posts is that you occasionally make references to "hating" John Kerry, but where in any of my posts have I said that I hate John Kerry; quite the contrary, I pray for him, as I have indicated in numerous posts in different threads.

Edited July 31, 2004 by Apotheoun

[zwergel88]

[quote]Catholics commit a grave sin voting for an abortion candidate.
You cut yourself off from Communion by voting for Kerry.
[/quote]

You know what, I simply do not believe you, and I refuse to participate in this debate anymore because I really do not think that all of you know what you are talking about, and because of the hostile reaction from some people (who called me a crook) it is pretty clear, that I am fully disliked here, so you probably won't hear from me for a while, but, I am still a Catholic, I am still supporting Kerry, and I am headed off to see him today in Greensburg, PA.

You know, I was never tying to be mean or anything here, I was only trying to defend myself, but I think that I have, so I am done, you need not quote my post and then tell me how sinful I am anymore. Its to bad that this debate got so mean.

Edited July 31, 2004 by zwergel88