2004 Presidential Candidates and their position on Catholic Issues

Hello Jay,
I like the chart. It gives a nice visual so we can contrast the two candidates and their positions on life issues. The thought of John Kerry as the next president really, really disturbs me. It saddens me to see him manipulating the masses by calling himself Catholic, waffling on several important issues, and erroneously blaming Bush for anything that goes wrong, from outsourcing to high gas prices. Kerry's behavior shows that he is not a man of principle or a man with a developed conscience. We need to work and pray hard that he does not become the next president of this country.

In Christ,
Danny

Jay,

The issues you have underscored with the chart are non-negotiable issues from the perspective of faith & morals. Unfortunately, they render both Bush and Kerry ineligible for the office of President - the lynch-pin being their stand on abortion. Kerry's position appears odd and conflicted - "personally against" yet supportive. Bush simply considers abortion to in fact, be a negotiable issue when it comes to rape or incest. Couple that with his foreign policy, economic and military (Nation-Building!!!), he is as unfit as Kerry, but for other reasons.

But remember, Jack, Bush has made partial birth abortion illegal and pushed judicial nominees that are pro-life.

As the quotes I pointed out above state, the central issue is their stance on the right to life, since all other rights are predicated upon it. You may not like Bush's foreign policies, but at least he stands up for most "life" issues.

God bless,
Jay

Indeed Bush is to be commended on his stand re: partial birth abortion, and "pro-life" nominations. Then why (I wonder) the negotiating with abortion as such? His not following through regarding abortion vis-a-vis rape and incest leads me to suspect that his position is disingenuous at best. But toward what end? I don't know! At least Kerry is "easy-pickins" on the issue.

Regarding Bush's foreign policy: Jay, I believe firmly that economic and military foreign policy are issues about "life." Bush does not stand up very well on these more subtle - but no less deadly - "life" issues. In fact, I would argue that issues regarding the global economy (a pyramid upon the top of which America and Americans sit) are issues perhaps even more dangerous & deadly (especially to "developing" and 3rd world folks) than the five you list above if for no other reason than because they are so subtle - almost invisible to Western Culture's eyes; out of sight, and so out of mind.

As Merlin the Magician advised King Arthur when Arthur - during a time of (apparent) unqualified peace in the kingdom - asked "Where then lies evil in my kingdom?" Merlin: "Always, where you never expect it. Always!"

Hello Jack,
Are you saying that Kerry's economic policies would help the global poor more than Bush's? The evidence points to the contrary. The current economic trend of outsourcing is finally spreading some wealth to developing countries. Kerry, in an effort to score some political points, has made it clear that he would set up protectionist measures for the US and try to stop as much as possible these "American jobs" from going overseas. The Bush administration's economic policy realizes that it's only a short-term American loss for a long-term gain for everyone in the global economy. This is yet another good reason to pick Bush over Kerry.

In Christ,
Danny

I've only recently seen this blog. . . but the comments about Kerry and Bush do bother me a little. Isn't it true that the Church, through the Pope, has spoken against wars of agression, capital punishment as well as abortion and euthenasia? Why are some of these issues used to make choices about voting and not others?

Just a curious Baptist.

Ralph,
Good question. Actually I think the quote at the top of this chart answers it the best:

Among all the fundamental rights that every human being possesses from the moment of conception, the right to life is certainly the primary right because it is the pre-condition for the existence of all other rights.

God bless,
Jay

Danny,

I personally find neither Bush nor Kerry as legitimate options, from a Catholic perspective.

I do not, nor does the Church, deal in "degrees of legitimacy." Some issue are simply non-negotiable. I am not simply going to vote for Bush because he is "CLOSER to what the Church teaches." "Close" does not win the race. And, I'm not diggin' the luke-warm position over the cold one. Jesus would, I suspect, spit them both out!

Hence my dilemna as a Catholic voter.

But, Jack, notice the two quotes above direct from the Church. Bush's war stance is subjective; are you arguing that unborn children are equally safe under either candidate? Clearly Bush is more protective of the unborn than Kerry.

In addition, Kerry claims to be a good Catholic then rejects all Catholic beliefs. Bush claims to be a good protestant and does adhere to those beliefs. Which candidate then is most trustworthy? In other words, who has the character to lead?

God bless,
Jay

Jack,
I agree with Jay. I would also add that the Church teaches that Catholics have a moral obligation to promote the common good through the exercise of their voting privileges (CCC 2240). I agree with you that neither Bush nor Kerry "win the race." But it is clear from their positions on different policies that Bush is around "third place" and Kerry is around "tenth place", arbitrarily. The one closer to first place promotes the common good more than the candidate farther from first place. Thus, I think it's every Catholic's moral responsibility to vote for the candidate who will promote the common good the most. We make the best choice possible, given the choices that are available. I think that's what Jesus would do.

Pax et bonum,
Danny

Danny and Jay,

I appreciate your candor, and your opinions. But I cannot buy into the “lesser of two evils” argument. What you are left with is another evil, plain and simple.

Danny, I have not suggested that Kerry’s proposed foreign policy is any better than Bush’s. I’ve simply stated that I believe Bush’s foreign policy – economic and military – to be unacceptable. At one time I believed that his military foreign policy might have been at least reasonable, that is, until he broke his promise not to get into the business of Nation Building – which is exactly what he is up to right now, and freely admits to it. His promise not to get into Nation Building helped him get into office. Once there, well, it was time to get to work Nation Building.

Regarding my duty to vote as instructed by the Catechism: The Catechism does not direct that I am obliged to cast a vote. In fact (and this is following the guidelines set up at the “Catholic Answers” website via their voting guide), if neither candidate is – according to the dictates of my conscience as a faithful and prayerful Catholic – acceptable, I am not required to cast a vote.

The guide suggests: “In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more of the five non-negotiables. In such a case you MAY vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.”

Further, it suggests this about the role of conscience: Conscience is like an alarm. It warns you when you are about to do something wrong. It does not itself determine what is right or wrong. For your conscience to work properly, it must be properly informed-that is, you must inform yourself about what is right and what is wrong. Only then will your conscience be a trusted guide.

Unfortunately, today many Catholics have not formed their consciences adequately regarding key moral issues. The result is that their consciences do not "sound off" at appropriate times, including on election day.

A well-formed conscience never will contradict Catholic moral teaching. For that reason, if you are unsure where your conscience is leading you when at the ballot box, place your trust in the unwavering moral teachings of the Church. (The Catechism of the Catholic Church is an excellent source of authentic moral teaching.)”

As things stand right now, Bush and Kerry set off an alarm in my conscience. Bush believes that the killing of innocent babies is negotiable! That is, as my conscience dictates and in prayerful consultation with the teachings of the Church, simply unacceptable.

If Catholics don’t someday take an unwavering stand on politicians’ “negotiable moralities,” then we will have to continue to settle for, well, negotiable moralities. I shall be happy to vote for either Kerry or Bush if either of them takes a radical turn in their policies foreign and domestic. Otherwise, I am guided by my conscience as a faithful Catholic, and guided by the teachings of the Church to vote for neither candidate and thus begin to find ways to promote a common good that is in line with the teachings of the Church. Not some lukewarm “well almost!” kind of candidate.

How do you fellas suppose that that Bush can be against Abortion, and yet still allow room for negotiation over the lives of innocent children?? I cannot see how this stand is possible. The origin of Kerry’s bankrupt position on this issue is more visible, and at least consistent (hence it’s easy to reject him outright). But Bush’s is at least suspicious, and at best incoherent.

Christ's peace!

Jack,
I think nation building is better than the alternative, but that's another issue.

You are right about having the moral right to not vote, and I respect your decision if you sincerely seek the right thing to do and that is what your conscience dictates.

However, in defending my position, and in reference to your question in the last paragraph I will say this: Pope Paul VI defined the difference between tolerating evil for the greater good and doing evil for the greater good. Doing evil for the greater good is never acceptable. However, tolerating evil for the greater good may sometimes be necessary. This is why I would argue that it is necessary to vote for Bush. With either candidate we will have to tolerate evil. "Would you rather tolerate more or less evil?" is the fundamental question. There is no other choice!! Even if you don't vote, one or the other will become president. It seems very simple to me, but maybe I'm missing something.
I still feel that if you don't vote, you are missing an opportunity to vote for a toleration of less evil, which the Church says may be necessary at times. I believe that now it is necessary to do so.

Pax et bonum,
Danny

First time on this site. Thank God and thank you! I looked for quite some time for a simple chart on the candidates and their stance on the issues. Nice job Jay but where is Capital Punishment on here?

In Christ,

Donna

Good point, Donna, I'll work on adding it

Hey Joe and Jay. With respect to the present administration’s War on Terror: This is the first time to my memory (I’m only 40 yrs old) that there was actual CONSIDERATION of the validity of the use of torture on another human being to extract information from them that might prevent further terrorist acts.

Now, the Catechism teaches the following regarding torture:

2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.

2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.

Now, I know that “foreign policy” is not considered here to be one of the “big 5” issues on which to form an opinion regarding the up-coming election, since it is debatable whether a particular policy is morally acceptable or not. But is it not of a grave matter that the institution of torture is being considered by this administration – and in all likelihood has already been practiced with this administration’s tacit blessing? I personally find it unbelievable that the (potential?) use of torture is even being discussed within the present administration along with a “re-interpretation” (whoa!) of the Geneva Conventions.

Unless the Church teaches somewhere that there is a situation where/when torture is acceptable or even debatable (therapeutic situations aside)…

Does the Church teach this somewhere? I do not know. A little help?

Peace!

Jack,

I agree completely with you that torture is unacceptable and most certainly condemned by the Catholic Church. Foreign policy, while important, is not as urgent as the abortion issue. Torture is inhumane but it does not end the life of a human being. Abortion is the killing of an innocent human being and clearly the greatest evil to be considered during one's selection of a candidate for president, or any other politician for that matter. If a politician cannot see the value of the unborn baby's life, than I don't believe we, as Catholics and/or other Christians, can trust him/her to be of sound mind on any other issue.

I also agree with you that as a Catholic I do not consider either candidate to be the "choice" candidate, but we sometimes have to choose the "lesser" of two evils (not say that Bush is an evil, for I believe he is a good man). An ideal candidate would immediately bring an end to abortion and establish a just foreign policy, but that isn't the case, so we must decide....

Bush is our only option, as Catholics and Christians, since he, at least, is against abortion. It is really that simple.

In Christ,
Joe

Thanks for your response Joe. Like you however, I cannot draw the clear distinction between the gravity of the sin committed when a human being is either aborted, or tortured (to death?).

Both of these situations involve a basic disregard for the LIFE and DIGNITY of the human person, and represent a fundamental disintegration of a humane culture. Abortion is without question (from me), evil as such. And the degree to which it is accepted wholesale in this country – and Western Europe – is an abomination!

Likewise, torture is without question (from me), evil as such. Now here is the rub: In our modern times, before the present administration, the use of torture was considered to be evil without question. But now, torture is being brought to the table by this administration for negotiation. In other words, a proposal is being made that an outright evil be considered acceptable in certain situations.

Joseph – this is exactly where Bush stands on Abortion…an outright evil, negotiable.

Candidate Bush represents therefore, an administration that abides two negotiated evils – torture (to get information about terrorism) AND abortion (in the case of incest). The value that Bush places on the life of an unborn child is contingent and negotiable. Bush has made this clear!, but in a way that is sure to garner him as many votes from the “Christian right” as possible. NOW, his tacit approval of the act of torture – which is already happening as we are now finding out – also bears witness to a further, fundamental disregard for the life and dignity of the human person. The fact that the life(lives) that Bush’s disregard is directed at are the lives of persons potentially guilty of murder, bears not weight/holds no water.

According to Gaudium et Spes “…whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, ABORTION, euthanasia or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as MUTILATION, TORMENTS INFLICTED ON BODY OR MIND, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator.” [27]

I should think that the above list would function well as a checklist for our presidential candidates.

Of course, we cannot conjecture what the experience of being aborted is like. On the other hand many theologians have described the human experience of torture – by those who have lived through it – as an abject, seemingly endless Hell on Earth. I am deeply ashamed of our President today, and of the administration for considering the issue. It is unbelievable to me!

Blessings to you my friend.

Jack,

There are two things that must be considered in light of your comments.

1) Is there a distinct in the degree of evil between the ending of the innocent life of an unborn child and the torture of a possibly guilty and terroristic individual? Not saying that torture is in any way good or acceptable, only is it an equal evil to the complete destruction of a human life?

2) Since you are so unhappy with the current administration and President Bush is your alternative to seek the election of John Kerry, a known advocate for abortion?

I think we can know the difference in the degree of evil each sins holds, but I would like your opinion.

In Christ,
Joe

Jack,
Just to point out something: there is no evidence that Bush either used or endorsed torture. Whereas I think it's plain to see that Kerry does and will support both types of abortion, including partial-birth abortion which is much worse than any type of torture.

God bless,
Jay

Hi Joe,

To answer the 2nd question: Kerry is not an option. But then, neither is Bush (in my opinion).

To answer your 1st:

I know of no distinction in the degree of evil between the torture of a human being and the abortion of an unborn human being. Whether or not a torture victim is “possibly guilty”, I think, means nothing in this conversation. The issue is not the innocence of the victims – but the NATURE of the evil being perpetrated against a victim.

I do know that many human beings who have experienced the living hell of torture and survived it, (re)live that torture for the duration of their lives – many not fully recovering from it. Hell lingers for them.

I also know that (and only within the context of this comparison) the aborted human is immediately in the presence of God.

Joe, if you know of any teaching of the Church that designates that abortion’s evil is by degree, distinctly more evil than torture, please, make me aware of it.

In Christ, I am your brother.

Joseph!

To follow up my response above, let me recommend to you a book:

The Crucified God, by Jurgen Moltmann (Fortress, 1993). He talks a bit about torture from a theological perspective in this book.

Moltmann's theology is what brought me back to the fulness of the Catholic Faith!

Peace.

Jack,
I think the Church is clear about the severity issue:

Among all the fundamental rights that every human being possesses from the moment of conception, the right to life is certainly the primary right because it is the pre-condition for the existence of all other such rights. On the basis of this right, every human being, especially if weak or not self-sufficient, must receive adequate social defence against every form of offence or substantial violation of his or her physical and mental integrity.

God bless,
Jay

Jack,

Fornication and adultery are considered to be grave sins as well, does the Church need to say that these are less grave then murder? It's a matter of common sense.

Comparing the torture of a maybe 100 Iraqi prisoners to the millions of innocent children who have been aborted isn't a logical argument. Yes, torture is grave matter, but again the continual murdering of innocent children is far more of an urgent matter. Do you really not see this?

Also, where has the administration agreed to the use of torture? I would like to read that document.

In Christ,
Joe

Joseph!

To follow up my response above, let me recommend to you a book:

The Crucified God, by Jurgen Moltmann (Fortress, 1993). He talks a bit about torture from a theological perspective in this book.

It was God, via Moltmann's theology, that brought me back to the fulness of the Catholic Faith in 1999!

Peace.

Jay,

The text you cite, and the quote does not address the comparison...i.e. it is not setting up a distinction between the right to life and, something like, "the right not to be tortured." A careful reading makes this clear.

Joe, I am indeed sorry to disappoint you. I do not disagree with you about the urgency of saving the lives of unborn children (remember, Bush negotiates the abortion issue still). We are fundamentally in disagreement about the nature and character of the act being committed when one murders a human being, and when one tortures a human being (or maybe we're not!).

Regarding the administration's agreeing to torture: Under this administration and its foreign/military policy, torture is now being discussed as a viable option at the pentagon. This has been in the national news - right and left. And, the Geneva Conventions are now being called into questioned - especially their directive against torture.

Peace, borthers.

I will be away from the computer until Monday.

Jack,

To support what Jay just posted I quote the following:

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae" (CIC, can 1398),"by the very commission of the offense" (CIC, can 1314), and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society. - CCC, pg. 548

Again, understand that we all agree that torture is a grave sin and a violation of the dignity of the human person. It is just that the abortion of an innocent child is more grave.

In Christ,
Joe

Joe, I agree with para 2272 of the Catechism. But it is not addressing abortion vis-a-vis torture.

See you Monday!

Jack - read my post above. It's pretty clear.

God bless,
Jay

I disagree Jack. If an individual commits an abortion they are immediately excommunicated from the Church by the very act. This is not true for torture, fornication, adultery, etc. All these are considered grave (mortal) sins but excommunication is not the temporal punishment placed on such an act. Again, the Church is clear.

In Christ,
Joe

I am not interested in trying to make a case as to which is more evil; murder of the unborn, murder of an infant already born, murder of the elderly, torture, etc. etc. Beside, the setting of ipso facto excommunications was not intended as a measure for the political ballot.

What is at issue here (in our discussion) IS NOT George Bush OR John Kerry.
Nor is the issue here (in our discussion) whether or not abortion is as such, intrinsically evil; it is.
Nor is the issue here (in our discussion) whether or not torture is as such, intrinsically evil; it is.

Whether or not the degree of evil is more for abortion than any other possible act in this world, should not be – and in fact, is not the only question one should take with one’s self into the voting booth.

What Joe and Jay appear to be promoting is the practice of one-issue voting. I am confident that if our US Bishops for instance, were promulgating one-issue voting – and with abortion being the only relevant issue going into this November – than the Catholic voter’s guide “The Challenge of Faithful Citizenship” would not have been published. Without diminishing the character of the evil of abortion, this document reminds Catholics that there are many other factors that should go into the formation of one’s decision when it comes to voting this November. The document can be found at this
URL: http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/pdf/brochure.pdf

If our Bishops were in agreement with Joe and Jay, then it seems to me that they would not pussy-foot around with a brochure like this, but simple create documents urging all faithful Catholics to vote for Bush because he is “against” abortion (kind of). Our Bishops have not published such a reductionist document, nor has the Vatican released any such a publication. Instead, a faithful Catholic has an obligation to consider the positions of candidates on a wide range of issues, and to do this vis-à-vis the rich Tradition of the Church’s moral/social teachings.

The brochure mentioned above lists “10 questions” with which to measure the acceptability of a candidate – and it does without reducing everything to one question/issue. Let me also suggest another book: Thomas Rausch’s “Catholicism in the Third Millennium” (Michael Glazier Books, 2nd Ed.; 2003) There is a great chapter on the Church’s moral and social teachings including a list of 10 principles of Catholic morality and social teachings that I’ve found helpful in my journey through the issues for the coming election.

Joe & Jay, my suggestion is that you do as I am doing in order to form your decisions about this campaign, namely, soak yourselves with the social/moral teachings of the Church, the Bible, and consider all the issues involved as best as you can. This takes more work than voting by one issue, yes! But I think that Catholics have a responsibility to do this kind of prayerful, hard work. THEN, after doing the hard work, pray even more, and do as your conscience dictates – as the Church directs us to do.

Frankly, and with respect to abortion, I think George Bush is a liar – he has already demonstrated a propensity to “go back” on his word, as well as fostering deceptions to validate going to war. If he were against abortion then, why does he negotiate the issue? I suspect that he knows that he will garner the most votes by favoring abortion in the cases of incest and rape – tapping into those folks who sit on the fence with the issue, regardless of their inclination for or against. Thus Bush is able to say two things out of both sides of his mouth: “Look! I’m against abortion!” then mumbling softly, “But abortion is OK in the case of rape and incest.” It is brilliant politics!!!

George Bush’s carefully crafted and (I believe) disingenuous, partial stand on abortion, plus his present/proposed foreign policies – military & economic, plus his stand on the environment simply do not measure up to the Church’s social/moral teachings. True, his stand on abortion is better than Kerry’s, but on every other issue (it seems to me thus far), Bush’s administration is a travesty – even worse than Kerry’s would be.

I AM NOT ENDORSING JOHN KERRY, nor can I in good conscience endorse George Bush.

Thus far, I firmly believe that Bush’s policies – present and proposed – if passed, would take this world into a new dark era of the culture of death, the diminishing of Human Dignity save that of the middle class and wealthy in 1st World Countries, military/economic imperialism etc. etc. UNACCEPTABLE!

Kerry would maintain the present culture of death in many ways too, as we all already know. UNACCEPTABLE!

Jack,
First go back and look at the post above. One issue voting? I've listed the five key Catholic issues above and detailed the stances of each person. It's ridiculous to say I'm advocating voting on one issue.

Second, you are trying to equate much smaller issues with the five issues listed above. You're trying to throw out the importance of life in favor of torture. At least those tortured had some opportunity to love and serve God on earth - the unborn do not. We're simply showing that you are incorrect in equating these issues as if they were equivalent.

Finally, what is your stance. It seems to me you simply don't like Bush, so you're trying to somehow justify voting against him. My favorite line above is: "Bush's administration is a travesty - even worse than Kerry's would be." For whom, Jack? For the unborn? Kerry has already stated that he would try and revoke the Partial Birth Abortion ban (which Bush pushed through) and only put pro-abortion judges in the courts. For the elderly? Kerry won't stop a law permitting doctors to murder the elderly.

I think the answer is "for you" since you seem to simply have a chip on your shoulder against Bush. Please explain to me using key Catholic issues how a Kerry presidency would be better than a Bush presidency. I'm interested in seeing your response.

God bless,
Jay

Hey Jay,
I’ve placed some of your response in [[brackets]], followed by my response.

[[First go back and look at the post above. One issue voting? I've listed the five key Catholic issues above and detailed the stances of each person. It's ridiculous to say I'm advocating voting on one issue.]]

You are right Jay. You did list five issues. But the tenor of your other responses to my posts have lead me to think that if Bush was pro-Abortion outright, you might then think he was unacceptable.

[[Second, you are trying to equate much smaller issues with the five issues listed above. You're trying to throw out the importance of life in favor of torture. At least those tortured had some opportunity to love and serve God on earth - the unborn do not. We're simply showing that you are incorrect in equating these issues as if they were equivalent.]]

Jay, my observation is this; your list, I think, comes from a conservative Catholic web site – Catholic.com (which is a good site, all-in-all) – which has reduced the election to 5 issues. With respect to you, I defer to the information being offered by the USCCB rather than Catholic.com or EWTN, or some other site or organization of the kind.

And PLEASE JAY! I am NOT throwing out “the importance of life in favor of torture.” I have struggled to articulate that the addition of torture as an acceptable practice – tacit or licit – is indicative of a culture on the downward spiral, even more than one marred only by the evil of abortion (and your other 4 issues). The “right to life” is not simply/only about abortion. If you read the entirety of the Church’s tradition on social/moral issues, there are many more things that violate a human being’s “right to life.” I have only attempted to point out that Bush’s administration is apparently willing and able to take this country, and with it the world, into territory uncharted since WWII at least – a territory that is dark and deathly, I believe. It is the cumulative affect of Bush’s SEVERE stances on “the smaller issues” that, in my view, balance the scales vis-à-vis his disingenuous stance on abortion.

[[Finally, what is your stance. It seems to me you simply don't like Bush, so you're trying to somehow justify voting against him.]]

No! I do not trust Bush. (How can I dislike someone I've never met?) And at almost every measure of Catholic social teaching, his administration’s agenda falls way off the mark – as has traditionally the conservative Republican agenda.

[[My favorite line above is: "Bush's administration is a travesty - even worse than Kerry's would be." For whom, Jack? For the unborn?]]

No! You’re right. Not the unborn. But for the majority of the population of the planet. Nevertheless, Kerry’s position on Abortion (and the other 4 issues) renders him, to me, unacceptable.

Let me say that Bush’s administration is/will be a travesty for those innocent unborn children conceived by a rape or an incestuous relationship, yes! Further, his administration is/will be a travesty for almost the entire bulk of the rest of population of the planet – especially folks in the third world, Middle East; almost the entire Southern Hemisphere!

[[Kerry has already stated that he would try and revoke the Partial Birth Abortion ban (which Bush pushed through) and only put pro-abortion judges in the courts.]]

Then lets work together to make sure that we get Senators in place who will make the confirmation procedure well nigh impossible!

[[For the elderly? Kerry won't stop a law permitting doctors to murder the elderly. ]]

Jay, when it comes to Kerry, you are preaching to the choir here. As I’ve said, I believe him to be unacceptable as a candidate.

[[I think the answer is "for you" since you seem to simply have a chip on your shoulder against Bush.]]

No, not for me - or for you even. We're comfortable North Americans. But the the rest of the world??

Your insult aside, I cannot control your perception of my perspective on Bush. I voted for him! Then I started reading very, very carefully the Church’s social/moral teachings as I watched Bush virtually ignore the Middle East crisis, plunge our country into war for the sake of Nation Building, etc. etc. What you describe as a “chip” on my shoulder is nothing more than a conscience that has considered prayerfully Bush’s presidency and the Church’s teachings & the Bible.

[[Please explain to me using key Catholic issues how a Kerry presidency would be better than a Bush presidency. I'm interested in seeing your response.]]

Honestly Jay, I believe you are more interested in being argumentative. And, I neither have the time, nor the inclination to compare for you two unacceptable candidates for the office of President of the United States. I have done/and am doing the research (looking well beyond your 5 issues). You should do the research yourself. Though I would suggest you start – but only, ONLY a start! – with Gaudium et Spes and with the document that the USCCB has put out.
I do not think this conversation has the potential to gel into anything but an ugly-spirited apologetics-style wrestling match.

I will leave the politics to you fellows.

Blessings!

jack

Jack,
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I wanted to point out that we are not suggesting that voters use a "one-issue" litmus test on the ballot. I do believe the five issues listed are the correct five issues: these are the ones that contain special instructions from the Church (e.g. politicians voting this way are explicitly told they must change their vote). The other issues you list are not of the same caliber as these five.

So I'm wondering: who will you vote for? Obviously there are no acceptable candidates using the construct that you've created. Does this mean you don't vote? Or do you pick the least of two evils? I'm just curious.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

The construct I’m using is the entirety of the Church’s Tradition on social/moral issues – as deeply as I can immerse myself in all of it.

Your checklist of issues is fine for you Jay. I will stick with what our US Bishops have offered in order to come to some sort of decision. In addition, the chapter on social & moral teachings of the Church in the book Catholicism in the Third Millennium by Thomas Rausch, SJ, is an invaluable resource to begin one’s work with this stuff, and provides a 10 point list to take into consideration, and to begin one’s research.

Re: the “caliber” of the issues as you put it:

If we were considering abortion verses, say, the environment or equal distribution of earth’s resources to the poor (option for the poor), et al, IN A VACUUM, then yes indeed, abortion is an issue of greater severity. But we are not living, or deciding in a vacuum. With respect to the “lesser issues” as you put it, Bush is threatening – and has already begun – to take us into new territory of darkness. His policies on the global economy, Nation Building, and the environment coupled with his indifference toward what is going on in the Middle East – all three of these issues have a direct connection to the dignity of human person and the Gospel of Life! And now torture???

I do not know who I will vote for in November. I’m praying for changes before then that will make it clear. That said, the Church teaches that I vote with my conscience instructed by her (the Church's) teachings – If the election were today, I would exercise my right, go to the polls, and return an unmarked ballot – go home and start (re)writing my congressman/woman. I am not required by the Church’s teachings to vote for a candidate.

I’ve a question for you that will get at the principle of the matter, regardless of how unrealistic it may be:

Candidate A, if elected promises to ban abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, cloning, and fetal stem cell research. This candidate has also made clear that s/he will disband the supreme court, congress, and the senate, and then reinstitute Hitler’s Final Solution – round up all Jews into Ghettos and begin the processes of “Special Selection.”

Candidate B, if elected promises to ban gay marriage and euthanasia, partially support some stem cell research, remains silent on cloning, but will continue to support "a woman's right to an abortion" except for partial-birth abortions.

Which candidate would you support? I’m just curious.

Peace.
jack

Okay Jack,

Now I think you are going to extremes. I say this because the Candidate A and Candidate B comparison is not the reality of the situation we are faced with. Bush is not attempting to reinstitute Hitler's Final Solution. We are not faced with your proposed election. We are, however, faced with the current election candidates.

Kerry clearly won't go against stem cell research, gay marriage, abortion, and, possibly, not even euthanasia, all the while claiming to be Catholic...

Bush on the other hand is strongly opposed to all these....so what issues are you speaking about that the Bush administration is not in accord with the teachings of the Catholic Church in terms of social/ethical issues?

In Christ,
Joe

OK Joe! Fair enough! I've posted some of you response in [[brackets]], followed by my response.

[[Now I think you are going to extremes. I say this because the Candidate A and Candidate B comparison is not the reality of the situation we are faced with. Bush is not attempting to reinstitute Hitler's Final Solution. We are not faced with your proposed election. We are, however, faced with the current election candidates. ]]

Joseph! Read my previous post. I pointed out myself that my “proposed election” was unrealistic. And you are absolutely right that we are not faced with these two candidates A and B, and thank God for that!!!

But really fellas, this is a web log! The “proposed election” is simply an instrument to dig deeply into one’s principles. Extreme hypotheticals are used in the classroom all of the time to get at the bottom of a philosophical or religious ethical principals. They are designed to make one REALLY CARE-FULLY CONSIDER what it is one thinks about something. That is all.

So, please! For the sake of discussion…which candidate would you support? A or B?

[[Kerry clearly won't go against stem cell research, gay marriage, abortion, and, possibly, not even euthanasia, all the while claiming to be Catholic...]]

You guys keep portraying this as Kerry vs. Bush, which for me, is not the issue. I have absolutely no more respect for Kerry than either of you guys – and I certainly have no more respect for Kerry than I do for Bush.

[[Bush on the other hand is strongly opposed to all these....]]

Actually Joe, I think that if Bush was “strongly opposed” to abortion, he would not be pandering to the fence-sitters on the issue by advocating abortion in the case of rape or incest. I do not consider this savvy political position to qualify as "strong opposition." This gets to the heart – as do many other things – of my distrust of Bush.

Point made Jack :-) In your Candidate A/Candidate B scenerio I would choose to exercise my right "not to vote". Because neither candidate is a possible choice.

I would like to make one thing clear in regards to Bush vs. Kerry. I do think it is down to those two. Our country is not ready nor willing for a new party, nor will they elect a candidate from a party other than Republican or Democrat. So we have to chose. You are correct that you are entitled to exercise your right not to vote, but I have to consider the potential ramifications of my not voting. Bush could lose and Kerry would be president, which I firmly believe would be very negative for the pro-life movement, as the Clinton era was.

I am a single issue guy...and the issue is a matter of life or death. I sincerely pray for the homeless, the single families, those effected by jobs going overseas (myself included), and the victims of war crimes, but I have to consider first the unborn for no other group of individuals suffers more injustice at this moment in history than the unborn. Even you, Jack, must recognize this. We are talking millions and millions of innocent babies killed so far. More then all wars of the past 100 years combined! What a horrific atrocity this is! They cannot defend themselves, they have no way of improving their state, and they stand to lose the most - their very lives. We must defend life. So when you ask me if I am willing to be a "no vote" in this coming election my answer is no. My reason is simple. Bush has helped the pro-life movement in many ways, granted we could hope for more, but at least he is helping. Kerry on the other hand would not. For me it is that simple.

In Christ,
Joe

In response to Joe (not his last response, but the previous), I begin with Bush and the Church’s teaching on torture. The articles below set the stage nicely. I will not cite the specifics on Catholic social/moral teachings regarding torture as I am assuming that you, Joe & Jay, know what the Church teaches about torture (Gaudium et Spes, the Catechism, et al).

Jay, you have functioned here with apparent ease by claiming that your 5 issues are of a higher caliber than any other issue. That makes you decision almost effortless and quite easy, but it does not take into account the cultural change in direction that the cumulative weight that other issues represent. This is why I offered the extreme hypothetical to get at such a principle.
Anyway, I start with torture. War will probably be next (later next week probably), followed by capital punishment, followed by the global economy (which is an affrontary to the impoverished 3rd World), gun control maybe…

But, 2 things: I am not going to waste much more of my time with this as I’ve got my own work to do this summer. And, I would appreciate your not attempting to portray my position here as advocating Kerry as a candidate. I really don’t care if Bush’s position on this-or-that is “better” than Kerry’s or not. I am not going to vote for John Kerry.

Ok: Here are the abstracts of only a minimal # of articles dealing with this administration and torture and, even more unbelievably, the Geneva Conventions.

[[John Ashcroft's Justice Department exhibited appalling disrespect for the rule of law, for fundamental human dignity, for bedrock American values by seeking to justify the torture of prisoners in U.S. custody.
Ashcroft told a Senate committee last week that the [George W. Bush] administration did not order or condone the torture that U.S. soldiers and citizens inflicted on Iraqi prisoners in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison. But the attorney general also refused to produce those and other memos, telling the nation, in essence, it will just have to trust an administration that went to war on questionable premises.
Even looking beyond the question of right and wrong, the memo's legal arguments are based on doubtful reasoning. One tries to redefine what "torture" means, despicably arguing that inflicting moderate or fleeting pain isn't torture. This despite the Geneva Conventions' language that "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind." (Journal - Gazette. Ft. Wayne, Ind.: Jun 13, 2004. pg. 11.A)]]

[[Re "Lawyers Ascribed Broad Power to Bush on Torture," June 10: The nation confronts the specter of an administration that argues the president is not bound by the prohibitions of the Geneva Convention on torture while it contrives legal devices to immunize its torturers from any punishment for human rights violations. The president proclaims a right to incarcerate citizen and noncitizen alike for indefinite periods without any indictment, trial or access to counsel. Where is the outrage?
The controversial memorandums supporting torture on demand by a U.S. president (Bush) are based on the assumption that the U.S. is always victorious and in control. On the way to large victories there are always small losses where our servicemen become POWs. The rules against terror are there to protect our POWs until the victory comes. Torture anytime is wrong! (Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Jun 13, 2004. pg. M.40]]

[[The report was compiled by a group appointed by Department of Defense General Counsel William J. Haynes II, who has since been nominated by [Bush] for the federal appellate bench. "Air Force General Counsel Mary Walker headed the group, which comprised top civilian and uniformed lawyers from each military branch and consulted with the Justice Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Defense Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies. It isn't known if President Bush has ever seen the report."
Among the legal memos that circulated within the administration in 2002, one is by White House counsel Alberto Gonzalez, famously declaring the Geneva Convention "quaint," and another from the CIA asked for an explicit understanding that the administration's public pledge to abide by the spirit of the Geneva Convention did not apply to its operatives.
It has been apparent for some time that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were not isolated instances -- torture from Afghanistan to Gitmo to Iraq has so far resulted in 25 deaths now under investigation. As the late Jacabo Timmermann, the Argentine journalist who was tortured during the "dirty war," said, "When you are being tortured, it doesn't really matter to you if your torturers are authoritarian or totalitarian." (Times Union. Albany, N.Y.: Jun 14, 2004. pg. A.7)]]

[[U.S. presidents customarily have pushed the envelope of their legal authority to the maximum during wartime. President Bush has been no exception, suspending the right of habeas corpus for U.S. citizens in two known cases and claiming the right to operate a prison at Guantanamo Bay that exists in an extra-legal, no-man's land. Even with all that, the claim by government lawyers that Bush can authorize torture of prisoners in disregard of U.S. law, international law, the Geneva Conventions, treaty commitments, human decency and plain common sense should shock the conscience of every American. (Knight Ridder Tribune News Service. Washington: Jun 11, 2004. pg. 1)]]

Jack,

What are the actual memorandums so frequently quoted here by "journalists", it's not that I don't trust the Press at large...it's just that I don't trust the Press, period. So please provide the actual memorandums.

Jack, again, do you really consider this issue of torture of equal weight as that of abortion, which has claimed the life of millions of innocent children. I really don't want to "waste" any more of your time, but this is important.

In Christ,
Joe

Joseph!

You ask too much of me to go out and find what must be extremely hard to find primary sources. And I do not trust the Press unconditionally either. But one paper would be extremely bold to lie about the Geneva Conventions being diminished by this administration - more than 20 however?? I have to believe the reports are credible.

The issue of torture IN A VACUUM, is not as weighty as abortion. But we are not in a vacuum. This is real life, and the world has become a more deadly place since Bush came into office.

Joe, that torture is “on the table” is akin to the days of when abortion was first being brought to the table. It is indicative of a slide deeper into the culture of death. So many other things that Bush has done that fall into the category of “not as serious” have a cumulative affect. As I said, Bush’s administration is taking us into uncharted territories of darkness – especially when you get into the issues of the global economy & the 3rd World, Nation Building, War, and the environment. All of these issues – even the environment, directly effect the Dignity of Human Life!

Joe, I meant no disrespect for you my friend when I used the phrase "waste of time." Apologies.

Below is a link to a portion of a much larger document at the USCCB web site that I am using as my instructive/formative guideline for deciding about a vote in November.

http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html#6

At the bottom of this document is a nice list of Church Documents with which we can engage in order to come to our voting decisions.

Below this line is a link from the same site, of a brochure that comes in handy in painting the real world context - not a vacuum - within which we as Catholics must adjudicate all of the data regarding the issues as best we can.

http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/pdf/brochure.pdf

We are called to consider ALL of the issues - not only 5, or even 10 - and to consider ALL that we can in light of the Church's teaching.

Joe, I am pro-Life to the "nth degree." AND my eyes are wide open to the entirety of the landscape of death that is before us. I cannot, in good conscience, simply choose 5 bigees, and ignore the rest of the world and what is happening, and why.

Again, as things stand for me: Kerry? UNACCEPTABLE!

Bush? UNACCEPTABLE! (but for different reasons!)

I do not come to this lightly, nore fearlessly - but fear-fully and prayer-fully.

Whoa Joe!

Ask and you shall receive!

I was wondering how the heck I could get a hold of government memo's on torture and the Geneva Conventions yesterday for you, and thinking "No way!" Well, "way!"

Some of them are just now being released.

Follow this URL to the .pdf of one of them:

http://www.npr.org/documents/2004/dodmemo030306.pdf

Also, the business with Ashcroft refusing to release other memo's - this is scary and sad doin's going down within this administration.

Your brother in Christ.
jack

Joe,

Here is the link to all of the few memo's released today or yesterday(?)-hotlinks on the left side of the web site.

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1969640

Grace and peace.

Jack,
I don't want this to become a political discussion, but I thought you should read both points of view concerning those documents (NPR is hardly an unbiased source), so here's a more even analysis of the situation.

God bless,
Jay

Jay, Indeed no! NPR is not an un-biased source. Then again, niether is FoxNews - "fair...balanced..." etc. etc.

When it comes to reading about controversial issues like this there is no such thing as an un-biased source. I suspect you know this. The reader must adjudicate through the varying perspectives - it is as simple as that.

The only way through this is prayer, humility, and an attentive eye to ALL of the teachings of the Church. Only in this way can one even begin to reach a perspective that is not driven by EVEN OUR OWN BIASES/political inclinations.

As I've indicated earlier, I will trust our Bishops at the USCCB and what they have to offer for guidance in the midst of the fray of this election year.

I appreciate the spirit of your suggestion Jay.

Blessings!
jack

Jack,
I just read a statement by the Archbishop of Baker in Oregon on life and voting. He said it better than I've explained it, so I thought I'd quote:

It seems to me that the most effective way to end abortion is to vote for Pro-Life candidates. This is not a function of the Bishops, we have only one vote each, but rather a function of the laity who must be convinced of the power of their own vote and of their ability through the ballot box to effect a good or to perpetuate an evil. Unfortunately that vote has always been split between a multiplicity of 'goods', and with good reason, there are many 'goods' for our society which need to be politically pursued. We see such things as care for the poor, adequate housing, healthcare, education, economic prosperity, foreign policy and we hear the various political promises of how effectively these things are going to be managed by the members of one party or the other. These are tremendously significant human rights and human dignity issues about which we must certainly be conscientious. It would be evil and wrong to omit or to significantly neglect them. The persons who are the recipients of this assistance, however, already have that right upon which the other inalienable rights, liberty and pursuit of happiness, are based. They already have life. The quality of that life certainly needs to be upgraded and improved and as Christians we have a responsibility to work for those improvements. It seems there are many in our society, religious and non-religious alike, Democrat and Republican, who work and act on behalf of these persons. To some extent, however limited, these persons are even able to vote and speak and seek assistance for themselves. This is not true of the pre-born. They have no voice but yours and mine, they have no vote but yours and mine. If we do not vote for those who will act on their behalf, they have no other recourse. The Courts routinely recognize those who suffer but the Courts have refused to even recognize the existence of these most vulnerable of the neglected in our society. We need legislators who will propose and confirm justices who recognize with us the inviolable dignity of the pre-born human person. These have no voice but ours, they have no vote but ours. I, for one, will speak on behalf of all the needy and especially the pre-born for I have access to many words, but I will always vote for those who pledge to defend pre-born human life because I have only one vote and I need to cast it for those who have no vote but mine.
When my father was diagnosed with cancer he also needed open heart surgery. The question arose, which do we treat, the heart or the cancer. The doctors assured him that the cancer was slow growing and that he would die of lots of other things before he died of cancer. Thus the heart surgery was done and he was allowed a goodly number of years of extended life, all the while living with cancer. He could have chosen to treat the cancer but then he would have died many years earlier. He would have died cancer free but he would have died much earlier. Hardly a consolation for him or the family. He chose an immediate life saving operation and recognized that the cancer would still be there to be treated later.
In our society we have both a heart problem and a cancer problem. The heart problem continues to allow innocent human persons to be killed at will. The cancer problem continues to put the poor and needy at risk. I think we need, as in my father's case, to focus on the heart problem for it concerns life itself and not only the quality of that life. You have one vote. Use it for the greatest good.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

Thank you!

And I will read it...after I get back from summer vacation.

Blessings!

jack

Jay,

I enjoyed reading what you suggested, but I am not convinced that it makes an overwhelming case that I should submit a vote for Bush this coming November. I am also sure that the Bishop Vasa’s understanding that possession of “that right upon which the other inalienable rights” are based (as he understands it), is apparently not a “crux interpretum” for the issues facing faithful Catholics with this election.

While I am deeply appreciative of your effort to provide information regarding the issue of abortion and this election, I am reluctant to consider the matter outside of the contexts set forth by the USCCB.

The way it is set by the USCCB is via these questions, and without emphasizing one question over the others:

“Who has a place at the table of life?”

“Where is the place at the table for a million of our nation’s children who are destroyed every year before they are born?”

“How can we secure a place at the table for the hungry and those who lack health care in our own land and around the world?”

“Where is the place at the table for those in our world who lack the freedom to practice their faith or stand up for what they believe?”

It is this series of questions with which I approach the issues of this coming election – and not only one of them.

Believe me, if (and perhaps when) either the Vatican or the USCCB comes out and formally declares that the faithful Catholic must needs submit a vote for George W. Bush because of his stand on abortion vis-à-vis Kerry’s – even though I consider Bush’s to be suspicious as well as severely deficient – then I will submit obediently to my Church. Sometimes, I wish the Church would do this very thing as it would save me time and energy in wading through the DETAILS of Bush’s administration, as well as Kerry’s platform. But the Church does not do this, and I think, for the very reason that there is simply more than one answer to the question “Who has a place at the table of life?”

For me, things atand as they did before: Neither candidate is an option.

Peace.

I like the way you let other people think for you.

Is anyone else interested in starting the "Christian Democratic Party"? We should be represented by people who share our Christian beliefs and are not afraid to express them in the public square. A possible platform would look like this:

Anti-abortion/euthanasia
Anti-contraception/safe-sex education
No embryonic stem cell research
No death penalty
Marriage between one man and one woman
Pro-environment
Eliminate no-fault divorce
Arms reduction
No wars of agression for ANY reason
School vouchers for private religious education
Elimination of readily accessible sexually explicit material

I'm sure we could think of plenty more to put on the list. Anyone care to add???

In Christ,
Dave

Dave,

This sounds a lot like a "Catholic" Democratic Party.

I have a few of issues with your list: (and thus the reasons why there will never be a "Christian" Democratic Party, as Christians, at ones free to think for themselves, disagree on most of these items)

1. In your platform, would you support laws that criminalize contraception?

2. Would you force couples who do not share your views on marriage to stay married?

3. Would you support laws that criminalized homosexuality?

4. Please explain the rationale behind the church's teaching on the death penalty. As I view it the death penalty is completely Biblical.

5. What exactly do you mean by arms reduction?

6. Elimination of "readily accessible" sexually explicit material, why draw the line there? Why not all sexually explicit material?

Grace, Peace and Truth

Thomas

Thomas,

1. Contraception was illegal until the 1960's when it was struck down by the Supreme Ct. Almost all Protestant denominations agreed that it was wrong until the Supreme Ct. told them otherwise. Check your history. Sooooo, the Christian party would vote to undo the intrusiveness of the Supreme Ct.

2. No fault divorce has nothing to do with being forced to stay married. It has to do with penalizing the party seeking the divorce and/or the party that brought about the divorce (mainly by way of infidelity). Christ says that divorce is absolutely wrong. Paul says that divorce and remarriage constitutes adultery. The Bible says that adultery is gravely evil. You bet I support laws that codify this truth. So did everyone else until the 20th Century!

3. Yes. This was the case until last year when the Supreme Ct. struck down anti-sodomy laws. Again, check your Bible and your history.

4. Judge not lest ye be judged. If you do not forgive you will not be forgiven. Vengeance is mine saith the Lord. Grace and mercy. Not to mention the notorious unreliability of criminal convictions in this country today. Does death make sense where we cannot even be sure of guilt? It's an awfully final solution.

5. The reduction and eventual elimination of U.S. stockpiles of nuclear weapons. These sorts of weapons are not legitimate tools of self-defense, but rather a threat of brutal retaliation against millions of innocents. They should not even be in the realm of possibility for any follower of Christ. No political "MAD" mumbo jumbo can change the fact that no circumstance could ever warrant the use of such a weapon by a Christian conscience.

6. Amen. The only trick comes in regulating private conduct. The sale and distribution of such materials is much easier.

We should never be made to apologize for placing in the law that which we exalt as truth! Moral relativism is a lie...

In Christ,
Dave

Dave,

1. Soooo once the Supreme Court is out of the way, should this party support state or federal laws which state that if I chose to use contraception I would be criminally prosecuted? And if so what should the punishment be?

2. Banning no fault divorce would prevent couples from divorcing unless they had a good reason to (ie marital unfaithfulness etc.), but not if they had no good reason to (ie irreconcilable differences etc.). That was the state of marriage and divorce before no fault, look it up. So by removing no fault, you would be requiring couples to stay together unless there was martial unfaithfulness etc.

3. What should be the punishment for those who practice homosexuality and violate the criminal laws?

4. Genesis 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed;" Exodus 21:12 "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death." Exodus 21:14 "But if any man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death." Exodus 21:23 "But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life." Deuteronomy 19:21 "Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." And in case you state that Jesus changed the law in Matthew 5:38-42, I might point out to you that just before this passage he states Matthew 5:17-19. So was Jesus contradicting himself here? No, what he did was actually correct a wrong application of the law of Moses. Jesus taught that individuals have no right to take the law into their own hands, and practice eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Neither we as Christians, nor the Church have any authority to administer justice for criminal acts. In fact we as Christian individuals should turn the other cheek. However, civil government does have the God ordained authority to punish crimes. Paul agrees, Romans 13:1-4 "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." What does the term "sword" mean here if not to imply capital punishment? I think that the clear teaching is that Civil Government is instituted by God to punish those who break the laws. This punishment includes capital punishment. We as individuals do not have this authority. In fact I can’t think of a clearer teaching in the Bible. The fact that we might not be administering justice properly is a totally different issue than whether capital punishment is wrong on its face. The fact of the matter is we have individuals who are clearly guilty of horrendous crimes of murder, and they are living out their lives on the state’s dime in direct contravention of God’s ordained laws. At least be consistent. You take the story of Onan and stretch it beyond all comprehension to cover all contraception, but when there is clear teaching in the Bible about a topic, you virtually ignore it because it is contrary to what the Church teaches.

5. Let me ask you something: Who would have won the cold war had the US not had the policy of peace though strength or MAD as you call it? Would we still be sitting here typing to one another about our religious beliefs? Do you honestly think that the Soviet Union would have sat back and just left us alone, if they had not been threatened with nukes? Was not the assurance of our way of life, the liberties we hold dear, and the rights we believe are inalienable worth our threats of MAD?

6. You stated “The only trick comes in regulating private conduct.” What?!? Don’t you see the contradiction with this statement and your statements about points 1,2 and 3?

7. You stated "No wars of agression for any reason." Should we have stayed out of World War II if we had not been attacked directly?

By the way just so you don’t misunderstand me, I am not condoning homosexual behavior, divorce or p_ornography. I believe that they are wrong, but I am attempting to make a point.

Also I have heard your and Joe’s arguments on contraception and believe that they are a little weak, and no I don’t buy into the whole “It must be wrong because we always believe it was wrong argument.” You’ll have to do better than that.

Grace, Peace and Truth

Thomas

Gentlemen, at the risk of being oustrisized in this discussion, let me talk of a few issues.
First of all, what makes our country great, what makes our country work is the rights afforded to us. Our freedom of choice is the basic freed that all americans hold dear. This freedom is not granted by religion, but by the whole of the people and guaranteed in our constitution. If we allow the U.S to govern it's land through religious priciples then we forfiet the "separation of church and state." I would rather have a president that would say you have a right to do "this" becuase you can, than you cannot do "this" becuase I'm against it and so should you. For whatever the reason, I would rather support a leader who allows me to make up my own mind than one who will tell me what values I should care about. Gentlemen, this "goverment control" is why we fight wars in the first place, against oppression.

I know that the Catholic Church encourages us to promote our values and ideals to others. But I believe the way should NEVER be promoted politically. It will be the bane of our country. I could see it happen if America is a Catholic country, then the promotion of these values would only make sense. But remember, separation of church and state, the freedom of choice: this is what makes us American. Our religion makes us Catholic, two separate things in this country. In other words, "why should my values be yours?" -I will explain them to you and YOU decide. I will never impose what I believe to you. If you believe it's becuase you decided to believe.

In attempt to make things clearer: Many catholics who are pro-choice are NOT, again NOT pro-abortion. Euthanaisa is morally wrong but FORCING them to suffer unbearable pain is an equal injustice. Homosexuals are still CITZENS of America. Our Catholic beliefs should not hinder our ability explore new medical breaktroughs, stem cell research in particular. Human cloning is wrong, and one thing I really do abhor, but activism against this cannot be faith based.

David,

If you don't mind, I'd like to take this.

Gerard,

1. You stated, “Our freedom of choice is the basic freed that all americans hold dear. This freedom is not granted by religion, but by the whole of the people and guaranteed in our constitution.”

And yet the Declaration of Independence would disagree. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Where do our freedoms and rights come from? They are not granted by the “whole of the people”, they are unalienable and granted by our Creator. Sounds pretty religious to me.

2. You stated, “If we allow the U.S to govern it's land through religious priciples then we forfiet the "separation of church and state."”

How do you purpose the US to govern its land, by the tyranny of the majority? You either have laws based on set principals, which are handed down from our Creator which are right and true (ie “religious principals”), or you must base them on the whim of the masses. There is no middle ground.

3. You stated, “I would rather have a president that would say you have a right to do "this" becuase you can, than you cannot do "this" becuase I'm against it and so should you. For whatever the reason, I would rather support a leader who allows me to make up my own mind than one who will tell me what values I should care about. Gentlemen, this "goverment control" is why we fight wars in the first place, against oppression. I know that the Catholic Church encourages us to promote our values and ideals to others. But I believe the way should NEVER be promoted politically. It will be the bane of our country. I could see it happen if America is a Catholic country, then the promotion of these values would only make sense. But remember, separation of church and state, the freedom of choice: this is what makes us American. Our religion makes us Catholic, two separate things in this country. In other words, "why should my values be yours?" -I will explain them to you and YOU decide. I will never impose what I believe to you. If you believe it's becuase you decided to believe.”

I’m not sure I am following you here. First of all as stated above the president does not grant you your rights. Second, if by values and ideals you mean what we believe, I agree we should never attempt to force by sword point our beliefs on others. However, if you mean by values and ideals, actually actions and conduct based on those values and ideals, then I disagree. The civil government ordained by God tells us all the time what we can and cannot do. You cannot murder. You cannot rape. Even though you may really want to, and you may really believe that you should have the right to. See the difference, I am not forcing you to change your beliefs, however, I am going to force you to change how you would normally act based on those beliefs. People state you can’t legislate morality, which is what I believe you are saying here. Yet we do it all the time. We have laws against murder and rape. Why? Because when it comes right down to it, they are morally wrong. There is no other basis for these laws. How do we know that something is morally wrong? We know in our hearts that it is morally wrong, not because the majority of the people got together and decided it was wrong, but because God has said it is wrong, and He has written this standard on our hearts. Calling some of these principals, “religious” principals, is merely playing semantics. They are only “religious” in the since that not everyone agrees with them. The fact that everyone doesn't agree with them, doesn’t mean that they are any less right, or that I have any less authority to attempt to dictate to you what you can and cannot do based upon those principals, than I do when I impose the laws of murder or rape. Bottom line is every law we have is based on what we morally believe is right or wrong, and our prisons are filled with people, on whom we have imposed our moral/religious principals, and who don’t necessarily agree with those principals. This religious/nonreligious dichotomy you have created is in error.

Not only do we as a civil government have the authority to create laws based on our religious principals, we as individuals in that society have in some cases a moral duty attempt to create laws that match what we know is right and true. If for example, if we lived in a society which believed and codified laws which stated that cold blooded murder was ok, but knew that God had told us that murder is wrong, and we did not attempt to change the laws of that society and “impose our religious beliefs” on others, we ourselves would be held accountable to God for our inaction. (Unfortunately, we do indeed live in this type of society. We just don’t call it “murder”, and think that because we call it something else, that it is.)

5. You stated, “In attempt to make things clearer: Many catholics who are pro-choice are NOT, again NOT pro-abortion. Euthanaisa is morally wrong but FORCING them to suffer unbearable pain is an equal injustice. Homosexuals are still CITZENS of America. Our Catholic beliefs should not hinder our ability explore new medical breaktroughs, stem cell research in particular. Human cloning is wrong, and one thing I really do abhor, but activism against this cannot be faith based.”

Don’t you see the inadequacy of your own convictions. By your own arguments, you have no moral authority to say anything is wrong, including human cloning. What is your basis for saying something is wrong? And if we cannot be activist based on what we believe is morally right or wrong, on what basis can we be activist? Your activism MUST be based on your statement of faith that human cloning is wrong, for you have nothing else to fall back on.

No, we have the moral authority and in some cases the moral duty to impose our religious principals on others. The real question is which religious principals should we impose on others and which should we not, and how do we determine one from the other? Or should we always attempt to impose these true principals on others? These are questions, the answers to which I do not know.

Grace, Peace and Truth

Thomas

Thomas,

Very interesting comments and you make excellent points. And you expose my moral delima quite well. But if you will allow me to rebutt.

1. Read futher on, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." We are endowed with these rights by our Creator, but it is the responsibilty of the "whole of the people" and even our government to guarantee that we always have it. If as a people, we see that our government can no longer guarantee us these rights, the Declaration of Independence states it is our right to alter or abolish it.

2. The country's laws are based on religious beliefs, majority beliefs, scientific beliefs, enconomic beliefs, environmental beliefs, political beliefs, among many others. So there has to be a middle ground. That's why our system of government works. You mention tyranny of the majority? But how about the egomaniac who believe that a race of people should be wiped out because of their skin color or race using religion as an excuse. So what becomes the voice of morality, religious or majority. If religious, who's religion? Ours? Theirs? If majority, what group? How do you win the majority? How do you change the majority?

Or try this, I'm a religious fanatic who believes that the evil infidels must die. "There should be a law that allows me to rid my land of all the infidels. I'm right because my Creator tells me so and I believe Him. And I will take it upon myself to make others believe."

3. Murder, rape and other crimes were wrong even before the organization of our faith. Hammurabi's Code "An Eye for an Eye" was written some 1700 years before the birth of Christ and another law written some 1850 before the birth of Christ and yes then it was wrong to committ murder. Crimes such as these were deemed wrong and immoral long before organized civilizations. These crimes were crimes because of societal/civil/majority values, not (just) religious.

4. I agree that we must attempt to make laws which promote our values of right and wrong, but not at the expense of our freedom.
To take the moral high road saying that: you are ignorant, therefore you cannot make an informed choice so I will tell you what is the right way and you must follow. If you don't agree then I will torture and eventually burn you because my Creator says that it's okay. Remind you of the Inquisistion? Was the Inquisition right?

5. You make a good point, but I think you missed mine. My morals are not completely faith based. But a combination of religion, life experience, discussions from friends, debates, parents, etc. I'm sure that your moral values are rooted in these many sources and not from religion alone. It is from these sources and to these targets we should make the arguments and allow inviduals to decide on their own.

In the end you put it best when you ask which religious principals do we promote and which of those do we not promote. Perhaps we should not see it as our moral duty to impose (to obtrude or force), but our moral duty to enlighten.

Gerard,

1. However, we must never forget from where our rights and freedoms ultimately derive. They come from the Creator. Government only protects these rights. We must always look to God for the granting of these rights. We must look to His principals as to what these rights are. We must constantly search for His will as a nation for these principals and implement those principals as best we can. This is not just merely guess work we are engaged in. There is a God, and He has made Himself known to us. We can find out what these principals are, through God’s divine relation of Himself.

2. All of these beliefs that you list above are merely beliefs in one world view or another. You filter everything you know and learn through this world view. These beliefs are all religious in a since, as they come from your particular world view. So to say that one type of belief has more legitimacy over another is a fallacy. There is no middle ground. You base your laws on Truth as revealed by God, or you base them on what the majority thinks is right. Was what Hitler did to the Jews right just because most people in Germany believed it to be right? Of course not, we all know what is right, and we have a duty to behave in that way. If an individual or a group of individuals do not behave in that way, government is instituted by God to punish those individuals. As far as your other examples, you are basing them on a theory that there are no true principals. I reject that theory. I believe that based upon true (religious if you must) principals, that a religious fanatic that believes that all infidels must die is always wrong in his beliefs, and should be punished if he attempts to act on those beliefs. Do you have any grounds to say the same?

3. Did Hammurabi create these principals? No, he discovered and codified them from what he knew in his heart to be true. You are actually proving my point. From the beginning of history we all have known what these principals are, even people 1700 years before Christ.

4. So do I have the freedom to do whatever I want to? Of course not. We set limits on our freedom all the time. With freedom must come responsibility, either voluntarily or imposed, if we abuse our freedoms they will be taken away from us. It is a law of nature, or to put it another way a true principal of God. As to your moral high road comment, like I’ve said before we make these statements all the time in the form of laws directly against people’s beliefs and freedoms. To say that it is illegitimate to do so now, is to cut off the legitimacy of every law which we now have. The real question isn’t whether we can impose our beliefs on others, but what truths should we impose on others, and also what is the consequence of if these others do not conform. Of course torture and burning is always wrong, a true principal.

5. See my comment under point 2 above.

Always attempt to enlighten, and only when necessary impose. The only real question is "When is something necessary?".

Grace, Peace and Truth

Thomas

to all tha Catholic homedoggs up in dis blog

Ey yo trip, so uh, im thinkin that Bush is actually all bad, right? i mean look how far we had progressed when clinton was in office....and look how much of it was messed up once Bush was prez. How can you watch our country go through all of these changes for the worse, and wish for bush to be president again? It's time for a change - it's time to put someone in office who will do better for america, reguardless whether its Kerry or someone else. If Bush is elected for president for four more years - america's going to hell boys....america's goin to hell.

-Shaniqwa Jackson

to all tha Catholic homedoggs up in dis blog

Ey yo trip, so uh, im thinkin that Bush is actually all bad, right? i mean look how far we had progressed when clinton was in office....and look how much of it was messed up once Bush was prez. How can you watch our country go through all of these changes for the worse, and wish for bush to be president again? It's time for a change - it's time to put someone in office who will do better for america, reguardless whether its Kerry or someone else. If Bush is elected for presid