George Bush

[Carrie]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Nov 30 2004, 04:49 PM'] over 840,000 abortions since June (4000 per day) > 1,121 US deaths in Iraq since June [/quote]
The numbers don't lie...

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 30 2004, 06:21 PM'] I didn't vote, since the reason given was wrong.

A vote for Bush is not a vote in line with the Church. He supports divorice, contracpetion, separation of Church and State, embroytic stem cell research (where they were already frozen), abortion for case of mother's health, rape, and incest, and he was not opposed to gay unions... a vote for Bush was not a Catholic option.

I am not really sure of the war... I have heard it was based around the pro-Isreal, pro-Jewish agenda pushed by Bush and all American Presidents. I have not researched that, but it did come from a respectable source... but Bush was not a viable candidate for the Catholic voter, if that is the question. [/quote]
There were only two people running in the presidental election remember, and one disqualified himself by his stand on abortion. President Bush is the lesser of two evils and Catholics were certainly free to vote for him.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Dec 1 2004, 10:43 AM'] There were only two people running in the presidental election remember, and one disqualified himself by his stand on abortion. President Bush is the lesser of two evils and Catholics were certainly free to vote for him. [/quote]
Only 2 people were running? You should tell that to the Libertarian Party, Green Party, Constitution Party, etc., etc., etc. (up to 100 others) candidates that there were "only 2 candidates running". Actually, there are usually literally 100 who run every year-- from such groups as Communist, Socialist, KKK, etc.

I would have probably voted for Peroutka, if judging purely on the issues, but I heard he made an anti-Catholic statement at one of his rallies in a speach, so he would not have gotten my vote. I am not sure who I would have voted for. I would have had to dig deeper into the third-parties to see if anyone did not break with Catholic teaching. If everyone did, I wouldn't vote.

[aloha918]

abortion is a greater evil

[amarkich]

..didn't log out.

Edited December 1, 2004 by amarkich

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='aloha918' date='Dec 1 2004, 02:53 PM'] abortion is a greater evil [/quote]
Yes, abortion is an evil. My candidate would be one who is not only against abortion but also contraception, divorice, civil unions, separation of Church and State, Modernism, etc.

Since all of those are evils that are mortally sinful (and no Catholic can support any of them), I would only support a candidate who opposed them all.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Dec 1 2004, 09:36 AM'] Only 2 people were running? You should tell that to the Libertarian Party, Green Party, Constitution Party, etc., etc., etc. (up to 100 others) candidates that there were "only 2 candidates running". Actually, there are usually literally 100 who run every year-- from such groups as Communist, Socialist, KKK, etc.

I would have probably voted for Peroutka, if judging purely on the issues, but I heard he made an anti-Catholic statement at one of his rallies in a speach, so he would not have gotten my vote. I am not sure who I would have voted for. I would have had to dig deeper into the third-parties to see if anyone did not break with Catholic teaching. If everyone did, I wouldn't vote. [/quote]
Two winnable candidates.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Dec 1 2004, 03:25 PM'] Yes, abortion is an evil. My candidate would be one who is not only against abortion but also contraception, divorice, civil unions, separation of Church and State, Modernism, etc.

Since all of those are evils that are mortally sinful (and no Catholic can support any of them), I would only support a candidate who opposed them all. [/quote]
You need to read some on the principle of double effect and the material participation in evil. In this case, they both actually applied. You were materially participating in evil, and chances are you could have been participating more so than anyone voting for Bush, it just depends on where you live.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 1 2004, 05:28 PM'] You need to read some on the principle of double effect and the material participation in evil. In this case, they both actually applied. You were materially participating in evil, and chances are you could have been participating more so than anyone voting for Bush, it just depends on where you live. [/quote]
Since I'm not yet 18 until March, I didn't participate in any evil, since I couldn't vote. In any event, you fail to take into account the effect of continuing to always chose the "lesser of two evils" for the particular election. What does it lead to? More and more evil... if Catholics, instead of voting for the lesser of two evils in the spectrum of the particular election, and looked rather to the effect of voting for an evil candidate over time, it would be less evil to vote for the candidate without evil, since when you continue to vote lesser of 2 evils only more evil prevails...

[qfnol31]

Our job is to [i]always[/i] limit the evil done. Sometimes it can't be helped that some will be there.

[Micheal5403]

bump for phatmasser777

[james]

On the abortion issue, George W. Bush's actions contradict his rhetoric.

[url="http://www.realnews247.com/latest_news_and_analysis_july_2004.htm#Pres"]http://www.realnews247.com/latest_news_and...y_2004.htm#Pres[/url]

George W. Bush is a member of a secret society, "Skull and Bones." The Catholic Church condemns secret societies because they are incompatible with Christian teachings. Former president John Quincy Adams clearly showed how membership in a secret society conflicts with Christian morals and one's civic duties in many letters which are collected in a book titled, "Letters on Freemasonry."

[url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1930004087/qid=1102796447/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-1104356-4893567?v=glance&s=books&n=507846"]"Letters on Freemasonry," by John Quincy Adams[/url]

There are many papal encyclicals that deal with secret societies, most notable is Pope Leo XII's "INIMICA VIS."

George Bush's "Born Again" rhetoric is just that--rhetoric. His actions betray him. A person cannot be a member of a secret society and a Christian. The two are incompatible.

Edited December 11, 2004 by james

[crusader1234]

I think Catholics are obliged to agree with the Pope about the war, (supporting unjust war = sinful = matter of morals), but in the end Abortion is the bigger issue.

Anyways, I'm Canadian and I'm only 16, so not that it matters. I wouldn't have voted for anyone, none of them - to me - are beacons of light. Maybe Petrouka, just to support a third party Candidate.

[InHisHands381]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 30 2004, 04:21 PM'] A vote for Bush is not a vote in line with the Church. He supports divorice, contracpetion, separation of Church and State, embroytic stem cell research (where they were already frozen), abortion for case of mother's health, rape, and incest, and he was not opposed to gay unions... a vote for Bush was not a Catholic option.
[/quote]
I agree. A vote for Bush was not a [b]completely[/b] Catholic option. But would a vote for Bush be more in line with Catholic teaching than a vote for another candidate? And would a vote for a third party candidate who may be more in line with Catholic teaching essentially make a difference?
I'm agreeing with what qfnol31 has said on this one....

My opinion...the only way we'll ever be completely satisfied with who is elected and have it be completely in line with the Church is if Pope John Paul II is elected But since he was born in Poland, he can't run

[XIX]

I voted for Bush...

I'm seriously starting to think that I shoulda voted for Christopher West. I'm not making that up.


Crusader4... if you don't want to vote for either one of "the two," then yeah it makes sense to vote for somebody in a third party. I mean, the whole "you're wasting your vote" argument kinda goes out the window if you weren't going to support an electable candidate anyway. That's my 2 cents...

[XIX]

I just wonder if a vote for somebody who actually does support abortion, if only about 2% of the time, gets into end-justifying-means territory.

[the protector]

Let's say...

Candidate #1: Pro-life/Pro-segregation
Candidate #2: Pro-choice/pro-integration

Who do you vote for?

[XIX]

Candidate 7,492, maybe?


Help me, guys. I'm having a political identity crisis!

[hyperdulia again]

The Earthly Head of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church believed this war unjust. I could not vote for the man wh started it. I could not vote for John Kerry because he turns my stomach.

I stayed home and prayed with the Great Mother of God that both men's hearts would be turned from heresy and that God would protect us from whatever evil e saddled ourselves with on Election Day.

Pro-Ecclesia, Pro-Pontifice, Pro-Vita

Under the Mantel of she who is first after Him,

Michael

[Phatmasser777]

Catholics that voted for Bush were voting only for his anti-abortion stance. They choose to ignore everything else, Iraq, Pro-Torturement, Pro-Death penalty, Pro-Rich etc. Oh and hes a mason, and inbed with the Saudis and Oil.

Only the blind vote for the blind.