Vote Kerry . . .

[Iacobus]

TheDude, as I promised

It is from G et S, Paragraph 67

[quote]68. In economic enterprises it is persons who are joined together, that is, free and independent human beings created lo the image of God. Therefore, with attention to the functions of each-owners or employers, management or labor-and without doing harm to the necessary unity of management, the active sharing of all in the administration and profits of these enterprises in ways to be properly determined is to be promoted.(7) Since more often, however, decisions concerning economic and social conditions, on which the future lot of the workers and of their children depends, are made not within the business itself but by institutions on a higher level, the workers themselves should have a share also in determining these conditions-in person or through freely elected delegates.

Among the basic rights of the human person is to be numbered the right of freely founding unions for working people. These should be able truly to represent them and to contribute to the organizing of economic life in the right way. Included is the right of freely taking part in the activity of these unions without risk of reprisal. Through this orderly participation joined to progressive economic and social formation, all will grow day by day in the awareness of their own function and responsibility, and thus they will be brought to feel that they are comrades in the whole task of economic development and in the attainment of the universal common good according to their capacities and aptitudes.

When, however, socio-economic disputes arise, efforts must be made to come to a peaceful settlement. Although recourse must always be had first to a sincere dialogue between the parties, a strike, nevertheless, can remain even in presentday circumstances a necessary, though ultimate, aid for the defense of the workers' own rights and the fulfillment of their just desires. As soon as possible, however, ways should be sought to resume negotiation and the discussion of reconciliation.[/quote]

[MC Just]

Why are Catholics liberal in the first place? Liberalism is for the protestants not Catholics. Wake up sleeping Catholics.

[traichuoi]

something i've always wondered is when they talk about the woman's right to choose, they call the child a fetus. but when they talk about how it endangers the woman's life, they refer to her as a mother. hmmm

[heyyoimjohnny]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Oct 27 2004, 05:00 PM'] Why are Catholics liberal in the first place? Liberalism is for the protestants not Catholics. Wake up sleeping Catholics. [/quote]
So true. Catholic Democrats don't make sense... lately. Back in the day, democrats were nice. But they kind of took a turn for the worse...

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Oct 27 2004, 04:47 PM'] And Katie, I don't think you have ever had to edit any of my posts, (I don't think it has ever happened to me at all, cept the time Flower threatened to because I made fun of Vera, in jest), but if you have, sorry.
[/quote]
I haven't (if I had I'd have warned you, too). You are respectful even if you disagree. The person I was complaining about when I said I wished people would read the guidelines was throwing out some personal attacks. I've never seen you do that.

[qfnol31]

I just found it and thought it really awesome:

[quote]In the past 16 months. . .
(Each + represents 8,000 human lives)
Capital Punishment killed 98 Americans .
War in Iraq killed 16,561 people + +
Abortionists murdered 1,750,656 American infants + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

"The common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights -- for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture -- is false and illusory if the right to life is not defended with maximum determination." -- Pope John Paul II[/quote]

[Good Friday]

I said that the above post was going to be my last post, and I intended it to be. However, there are a few more things that I need to address:

[quote name='Ironmonk']GF is a non-Catholic and only seeks to cause greater division. His hatred for the Catholic Church has consummed him to spout untruths.

Obviously he cannot comprehend because he rejects Catholicism.[/quote]
I'm not a non-Catholic; I don't hate the Catholic Church. I support a different presidential candidate than you do. Get over it. (By the way, for the moderators who are evidently not paying attention, even though two of them have been involved in this thread . . . [b]this is a personal attack[/b] against someone who actually posts here, as opposed to the President, who doesn't post here).

[quote name='Ironmonk']The Pope prefers Bush to Kerry.... so does every orthodox Bishop.[/quote]
Cite a source. I want to know where the Pope said that he prefers Bush to Kerry. Isn't there some rule in the guidelines about misrepresenting the teaching of the Pope and/or bishops?

[quote name='azaelia']There are people running around the town tearing down Bush/Cheney signs and throwing them in front of the Republican headquarters. Oh but if Kerry signs were torn down, we would be violating the lefts freedom of speech[/quote]
Well, the Bush/Cheney people actually broke into a Kerry/Edwards campaign HQ the other day, busted out all their windows, and stole their computers.

[quote name='dUSt']1. The Supreme Court determines if Roe vs Wade will be overturned.

2. There is a greater than good chance that new Supreme Court judges will be appointed by the next president.

3. Kerry has promised NOT to appoint judges that will overturn Roe vs Wade.

4. Bush has made no such promise.[/quote]
Bush appointed pro-choice justices to the Texas Supreme Court; seven of nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have been appointed by pro-life Republican Presidents Ford, Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Their records speak for them, don't you think?

By the way, being that you own Phatmass, you risk its tax exempt status as a non-profit organization by endorsing political candidates. I'd hate to think anyone might turn you into the IRS. The tax burden might cause Phatmass to cease to exist, huh?

[littleflower+JMJ]

oh stop being silly

if you have looked at hte homepage what you DO see is the video of patrick madrid about the teachings and obedience to the Church.


nice try though.

Pax.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='littleflower+JMJ'] oh stop being silly, this is a public forum, there is NO endorsment whatsoever

but if you have looked at hte homepage what you DO see is the video of patrick madrid about the teachings and obedience to the Church.


nice try though.

Pax.[/quote]
And to think, you used to be so nice. I suppose further catechesis has led you to turn into a little Ironmonk-in-training? That's very sad . . . I guess Catholics don't stay nice as they age.

[Iacobus]

GF has a point Flowery. He was mostly refering to, I think, dUSt's anti Kerry posts. Or favoring to use words to cast Kerry in a negitive light, I admit I do the same to Bush unconusicously, at least when I can spell. This election is really touchy and a lot of groups are looking at non-profits to watch for anything that might be read as an endorsement by an offical of that company of one person or another in public and on the record. Being rough on Kerry is dangerous, but probly not overly so.

[b]Edit:[/b] I am not saying dUSt endorsed anyone, but am just trying to follow GF's though process.

Edited October 28, 2004 by Iacobus

[littleflower+JMJ]

who said i was beign mean? I just fail to see the reason why you say such things at times....


[quote name='Iacobus']GF has a point Flowery. He was mostly refering to, I think, dUSt's anti Kerry posts. Or favoring to use words to cast Kerry in a negitive light, I admit I do the same to Bush unconusicously, at least when I can spell. This election is really touchy and a lot of groups are looking at non-profits to watch for anything that might be read as an endorsement by an offical of that company of one person or another in public and on the record. Being rough on Kerry is dangerous, but probly not overly so. [/quote]

lets not forget this is a public forum peeps, whose striving to be obedient to the Holy Mother Church, and supporting a pro-abortion candidate would be the LAST thing any faithful cathoilc would be doing.

dnagerous from what? sorry but we all will have to answer to God for upholding the dignity and sacredness of Life....

and all this phorum does is point to what the Church tells us, im sorry if you choose to see it otherwise...

pax.

[jmjtina]

[b]FACTS:

1. The Supreme Court determines if Roe vs Wade will be overturned.

2. There is a greater than good chance that new Supreme Court judges will be appointed by the next president.

3. Kerry has promised NOT to appoint judges that will overturn Roe vs Wade.

4. Bush has made no such promise.[/b]


There IS NO vote for BUSH. These are [b][u]facts.[/u][/b] THE "endorsement" is pretty flawed if you think it's one. I'm sure Kerry or Bush would NOT call this an actual endorsement. Heck, I wouldn't! They turn "anti-Kerry" when facts are presented to show he DOESN't and won't defend life, which, Life, is what we will base our vote on.

The main thing with Catholics is life. Who defends life more? If life cannot be defended in the earliest stages, then consider everyone open target and family under attack if Kerry gets elected. Who can defend life more? nice quote:

"The common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights -- for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture -- is false and illusory if the right to life is not defended with maximum determination." -- Pope John Paul II

[quote]Some Political Issues
Should Be More Important
Than Others for Catholics

By Mark Brumley

Are some issues in the upcoming election more important than others? Absolutely. I say that as a long-time advocate of what’s called a Consistent Life Ethic.  My thinking has always been that the alternative to a Consistent Life Ethic is an Inconsistent Life Ethic, which doesn’t make sense.  Prolife Catholics have really no choice but to be consistently prolife—that is, to defend human life against all attacks and to support whatever fosters respect for human life, including insofar as possible the conditions under which human life is actually lived.

Some prolife activists have been wary of, if not outright hostile to, the Consistent Life Ethic.  This is because some people mistakenly claim that prolifers must view all issues touching on human life as equally important.  Such a view is sometimes called the Seamless Garment approach to life issues, although not all proponents of the Seamless Garment approach think all life issues equally important. 

How can someone consistently prolife hold some life issues to be more important than others?  The answer is simple.  Some threats to human life are more immediate, more far-reaching, and graver than other threats. 
Consider the issues of abortion and the Iraq war.  Let’s assume something for the sake of argument that is by no means self-evident—that the war in Iraq is unjust. Legalized abortion is without question unjust because it amounts to state-approved killing of millions of innocent, helpless babies.  How do these two things compare with each other?

Often it’s difficult and at times inappropriate to compare this injustice with that injustice.  But when it comes to comparing the evils of the Iraq war—assuming as we have that it’s unjust—there is no comparison.  American forces in Iraq are not deliberately and directly killing millions of innocent, helpless human beings.  You might argue that the number of civilian casualties in Iraq is too high to justify the war.  You might make the case that abuses of civilians are far greater than the Bush administration admits.  But it would be absurd to argue that 1, 300,000 people were being killed as a result of American policy in Iraq. 

Not so with abortion.  Last year, abortion destroyed 1,300,000 human lives.  And not in the way, say, thousands of people died as a result of criminal assault—through illegal activity—but as the result of government-approved killing.  Legalized abortion is not the consequence of an abuse of policy but the consequence of an abusive policy, one that allows certain human beings to kill other human beings, with the killers’ actions backed up by the police power of the state. Where government should uphold the right to life of unborn babies, it intentionally allows over a million of them to be killed each year through abortion.

There simply is, then, no legitimate comparison between the evil of abortion and the war in Iraq, even on the assumption that the war is unjust.  What about another “life issue,” capital punishment?

Again, let’s assume for the sake of argument that capital punishment, as it is practiced in the U.S., is unjust.  I add the qualification “as it is practiced in the U.S.” to help specify things because not all uses of capital punishment are wrong, as far as Catholicism goes.  The Catholic Church recognizes the right of the state, under certain circumstances, to use the death penalty (CCC 2267).  Whether those circumstances presently exist in the U.S. is an interesting question to debate.  For the argument here, though, let’s assume that such justifying circumstances don’t exist.

Where does that leave us with respect to capital punishment and the issue of abortion?  According to one anti-death penalty advocacy group, there were 65 executions in 2003.  I would say, “Compare that to 1.3 million abortions in 2003,” but of course once again there’s no comparison.  Over a million innocent human beings were killed in 2003 through abortion, while less than a hundred human beings, at least some of whom are arguably not innocent, were killed through capital punishment. That isn’t an argument to ignore capital punishment—assuming it’s unjustly applied in the U.S.—but it is an argument against lumping them to get as if they were on more or less the same level.

Some people object to prolife advocates’ emphasis on life issues on the grounds that the conditions of one’s life are important, too, not simply the fact one is alive. Of course it isn’t enough that prolife people support the right to life.  The principle that upholds the right to life—the dignity of the human person—tells us we should be concerned with the conditions under which life is lived.

Nevertheless, as a matter of sheer commonsense, protecting the right to life has a practical priority over the right to a certain condition or standard of life, even though the latter is also important.  Why?  Because unless you’re alive, we can’t talk meaningfully about the conditions of your life.  Unless you have the right to life, it’s nonsense to talk about having other rights.  Pope John Paul II put it this way:
The common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights—for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture—is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination (Christifideles Laici, no. 38).
Yes, issues such as health care, unemployment, homelessness, education, and poverty are significant ones. Someone genuinely committed to the dignity of the human person and for that reason genuinely committed to the right to life should, as we have said, also support efforts to ensure that people have access to health care, jobs, homes, education, and sufficient wealth to live a decent human life. That is the sense in which prolife people must have a Consistent Life Ethic.

But those without health care, job opportunities, homes, schooling and economic means include 1.3 million babies who were killed last year through abortion.  When they were deprived of their lives, they were deprived of the opportunity for health care, of a chance to begin a life leading to work, of having a home, of eventually attending school, and of attaining any economic means whatsoever.  The logical priority of the right to life is unavoidable. 

Abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell experimentation, human cloning, and same-sex marriage have been called non-negotiable issues in certain Catholic circles.  Why?  Because they involve intrinsic evils that government can never legitimately authorize. They involve issues on which all Catholics are obliged, as Catholics, to agree.  Most other concerns—even very important ones such as capital punishment or the Iraq war—are subjects about which Catholics can legitimately disagree.  Not so with the five non-negotiable issues.  On these issues there is such a thing as the Catholic position, whether or not certain Catholics choose to embrace that position.

Cardinal Ratzinger made this point recently in connection with abortion and euthanasia on the one hand and capital punishment and war on the other.  In his letter, “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” he set out general principles regarding reception of the Eucharist by those who support abortion rights and euthanasia. Ratzinger wrote, “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.  For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage way, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.  While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment.  There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

Given the nature of embryonic stem cell research and human cloning, the same absolute prohibition that applies to abortion and euthanasia applies to these things.  Likewise, Catholic teaching requires an absolute opposition to same-sex marriage.

Catholics have an obligation to form their consciences according to the teaching of the Church.  That teaching allows a wide range of conscientious judgments on a number of important, political issues.  Abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell experimentation, human cloning, and same-sex marriage are not among those issues.  On these subjects there is but a single legitimate “Catholic position.” When it comes to legal support for these issues, one can be Catholic or “prochoice,” but not Catholic and “prochoice.”  [/quote]

God Bless.

Edited October 28, 2004 by jmjtina

[Guest Aluigi]

In the spirit of charity I implore you to really pray abou this tendency you have to threaten people when they anger you. I've seen this pattern in you, and it's certainly not Christian-like. I remember you doing this to Ironmonk in the past, me in the past, and now your threatening dUSt with malicious intent. Please stop .

I can accept you as a Catholic assuming that you believe in that which the Holy Roman Catholic Church professes as Divinely revealed by God including being pro-life and would support legislation to make abortion illegal, you are just convinced Bush would not do anything good about it (I would say "duped" instead of convinced, but regardless...)

However, I do believe it is objectively a sin to vote for a pro-abort candidate when there are no proportionate reasons to 4000 babies a day dying. While an erring conscience binds, and it is clear to me your conscience has led you to vote for Kerry, that in my view of Church teaching would make you less culpable for the sin of voting for a pro abortion candidate. I really would hope that you reconsider, but my main concern for you is that you have the Ecclesiology, Theology, and Morality down about the issue of abortion. Everything else is just arguing the specific situation, which is politics. You are not required by the Catholic Faith to believe that President Bush would do a lot of pro-life stuff. But you are required by Catholic Faith to believe that the government should do pro-life stuff and you are required by the Catholic Faith to act in a manner that would help cause the government to do pro-life stuff.

That is my .02
Stay strong brother
I pray for you constantly

Pax Amorque Christi
-Aloysius-

[Dave]

[quote]I'm not a non-Catholic; I don't hate the Catholic Church. I support a different presidential candidate than you do. Get over it. (By the way, for the moderators who are evidently not paying attention, even though two of them have been involved in this thread . . . this is a personal attack against someone who actually posts here, as opposed to the President, who doesn't post here).[/quote]

Didn't you once describe yourself as an independent Catholic? If you're not in union with the Holy Father, you're not Catholic. And if you support a candidate who supports what the Church condemns, then you're not in union with the Church either even if you happen to be Catholic in name.

And I hate to tell you, but you've made your share of personal attacks on here too -- not necessarily on Phatmass, but you definitely have. For every finger you point, three point back at you.

[quote]Cite a source.  I want to know where the Pope said that he prefers Bush to Kerry.  Isn't there some rule in the guidelines about misrepresenting the teaching of the Pope and/or bishops?[/quote]

Well the Pope couldn't possibly prefer Kerry. So it stands to reason that Bush would be the only other choice.

[quote]Bush appointed pro-choice justices to the Texas Supreme Court; seven of nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have been appointed by pro-life Republican Presidents Ford, Reagan and George H.W. Bush.  Their records speak for them, don't you think?[/quote]

Maybe Bush made mistakes in the past, but shouldn't we let his past mistakes be in the past? If people are smart, they'll learn from their mistakes and not make them again.

[quote]By the way, being that you own Phatmass, you risk its tax exempt status as a non-profit organization by endorsing political candidates.  I'd hate to think anyone might turn you into the IRS.  The tax burden might cause Phatmass to cease to exist, huh?[/quote]

The issue here is candidates who support abortion and those who don't. We're a Catholic phorum, so we won't promote the former. Also, I think you're just mad because Phatmass isn't supporting your own personal agenda, which would include Kerry. Somehow I don't think you'd be complaining if Phatmass supported Kerry. That's a little hypocritical, no?

Edited October 28, 2004 by Dave

[jmjtina]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Oct 27 2004, 10:01 PM'] . Or favoring to use words to cast Kerry in a negitive light, [/quote]
Allowing the murder of unborn children is not negative light, it's evil. And for Kerry to allow the murder of innocent children to go on, even encouraged, is to try to sugarcoat the reality of the evil and harm he will do to society if he takes office.

Let's not forget where Mr. Kerry also stands on euthanasia. As well as Homosexual "Marriage", and Embryonic Stem Cell Research, and cloning, but the most vital for ALL Life, the direct killing of the unborn. Directly opposing the teachings of the Church.

In fact it's no "light" at all, but total and complete darkness.

May God have mercy on us.

God Bless.

Edited October 28, 2004 by jmjtina