DeoOmnisGloria.com

I read another article similar to the one you've mentioned above. This was what they said:

In some strange way the voices of the aborted have been heard...and the silent screem may be coming from behind the Democratic Party's doors.

I believe that I will be forgiven for my sins. I believe that everyone else will be forgiven for their sins, also. We are only human. Saying that the left-wing Democrats who support Michael Moore and other atheistic lunatics is wrong, casting the first stone. We should realize that we should turn the other cheek and love those who persecute us. I acknowledge my mistakes and I would hope that anyone who leads this country would try to do the same. John Kerry leads the country in the reality of our country's goals and freedoms-everone's goals, not just the Baptists, or the Catholics, or the Protestants, or the Jews, or the Arabs or the Jehovah's Witnesses, or those of any other Faith - but, those who are based in the reality that is our world today. He allows us to have our own beliefs. There are so many people who are "regular church go-ers," myself included, who believe that each of us has a right to make our own choices. We will see the results, of this election and of our souls, and we will each be judged individually. I am voting for John Kerry and John Edwards. I hope that you will do the same, but our different views will not divide me from you. I understand that each of us is given free will and I know that I am making the right decision for myself. I hope that everyone will also make their own decisions and research all of their options. God Bless.

Dear Reverend «LastName»:

I sent this letter to all Bishops and Cardinals of the United States.

I watched the Presidential debate with anger last night as John Kerry answered the following questions: “Senator Kerry, thousands of people have already been cured or treated by the use of adult stem cells or umbilical cord stem cells. However, no one has been cured by using embryonic stem cells. Wouldn’t it be wise to use stem cells obtained without the destruction of an embryo?”

Senator Kerry replied that he would allow and promote Stem Cell Research if elected.

Another question was asked of the Senator: “Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person.”

Senator Kerry stated: “I’m a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped me through a war, leads me today.” He then went on to tell her in doublespeak that he would not make such a promise to her.

President Bush plainly answered the same question: “We're not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion.

The Catholic Catechism for Adults (2nd Edition) states: “Therefore, from the moment of conception life must be guarded with the greatest care; abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes.”

The Catechism also states that there are nine ways we can be accessory to another’s sin. One of the nine ways is Silence, i.e., You refuse to speak out against what is a clear violation of human rights, an incredible persecution and prejudice against a class of human beings (the unborn).

Bishops, your silence is deafening. John Kerry claims to be a Catholic but continually votes for the right to have an abortion (See Attached). He also admitted during the debate that he voted against the legislation to end partial birth abortion.

Father John Corapi S.O.L.T., S.T.D. states that: “It is not morally possible for any Catholic to support abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, human cloning, or same-sex marriage. There are no ways around this, no justifications whatever. Why? For the simple reason that the Church holds these things to be intrinsically evil. They are evil in themselves, and no circumstances or subjective conditions can ever change that.”

So what do we hear from the Church hierarchy? Silence. John Kerry tells the world he is a practicing Catholic. He receives Communion on Sunday. How come? What do we tell our 4 children that were raised Catholic when they ask: where is the Church on this issue? Silence.

I read that Cardinal Ratzinger made a pronouncement that a vote for a pro-choice politician is not necessarily sinful if a Catholic, who is also against abortion, believes the candidate’s other positions outweigh the politician’s support for abortion rights. Well that would be fine if you are voting for your local alderman or Mayor, but not if you are voting for the President of the United States.

Whoever wins this election will likely appoint replacement Supreme Court Justices. John Kerry also stated in the debate what kind of justices he would appoint. One of his litmus tests was and I quote from last night: “Will a woman’s right to choose be protected.”

As I understand it, Catholic office holders, whether presidents, senators, congress men or women, or judges at any level must adhere to Catholic teaching or run the risk of separating themselves from the Body of Christ. In such egregious and chronic cases of gross moral evil such as instituting and perpetuating abortion and the structures of sin that surround it, it is quite probable that such Catholic officials are excommunicated in virtue of the acts themselves. A latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication is likely triggered when they vote for laws, funding, and structures that enable and perpetuate such obvious and egregious evil (Cf. Code of Canon Law, Canons 1364,1398; Canon 1329, par. #2). They are in turn forbidden from approaching the sacraments as the result (Cf. Catechism of Catholic Church #1463).

If they think there is not a human being in the womb, then they do not believe what the Church believes, and that belief is not optional. Such a rejection of so fundamental a truth is tantamount to heresy (Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church #2089), the automatic penalty for which is excommunication (Cf Code of Canon Law #1364). No further act of a bishop is required either, since the act of unbelief in itself is what triggers the severing of the member from the Body. If, on the contrary, they think that indeed there is a human being in the womb, they are in a worse position, having fostered, facilitated, and perpetuated a human holocaust of unthinkable proportions.

Yet there is silence from the Bishops and leaders of the Church in the United States. The Senator declares himself a good Catholic, approaches the Body of Christ at Communion, and the hierarchy of the Church remains silent.

What of those who enabled millions of abortions? Is it to be believed that they are immune from culpability? Infinitely more deserving of the canonical penalty are those Catholic politicians who foster laws and the structures that enable such outrageous crimes against humanity.

The Bishops who permit such an elected or appointed official (especially if they purport to be Catholic) to skate along relatively unscathed on such morally thin ice, are perhaps the most negligent and the most culpable of all. To fail to publicly censure such public officials is tantamount to participating in their crimes.

The hierarchy of the Church ultimately must severely censure them and make such censure public. The sin is egregious and public. The redress must be commensurately severe and public, precisely because of that.

Fear of criticism, loss of a tax advantage, or political expediency should never deter you from your sacred duty. It’s time to end the silence.

Respectfully

John P. Smith
Rockford, IL 61103
jsmith@rosariesbydesign.com

Copy: Cardinal Ratzinger

For clarity, my understanding is that Christian ethics raises the question of the relationship between Christian reflection on human action and philosophical reflection on human action, without reference to the Christian tradition. I ask you to please consider my argument from both the Christian tradition as well as the tradition of philosophical reflection, if not political science.

Also, please understand that at St. Josephs Seminary (under the guidance of the Archbishop of San Francisco and in cooperation with its sponsoring bishops) it carried out its commitment to seminary formation according to the vision of priestly life articulated in the Church’s tradition whereby it highly considered Christian ethics. I received an “A” in the class.

Although I am unworthy to debate you regarding Christian ethics, (or anything else for that matter) nevertheless, I challenge you to consider this and to remain consistent with the tradition of the Catholic Church. Leave your “inferior” or “superior” ego at the entrance of consciousness and instead, kindly consider what I have to say. Relax. Be calm. I ask that you remain open to the following consideration thereby avoiding the failure of allowing non-Catholics and other people of good-will, whom may not share in your moral belief, to perceive all Catholics as hypocrites, bigoted, or whom require better education.

However, the style of our argument is not more important than the substance. (In my opinion).

The relationship between theory and practice in the integrating notion of “praxis” is dialectical in my opinion, and not one of identity. i.e., I can be a Catholic, a Christian, a Democrat, a Liberal, Pro-Life, a musician, a philosopher, and a bum all at once. I could have voted for Mr. Bush or Mr. Kerry.

I think it is possible, in other words, for a person to be a sincere believer in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and yet not fully practice what he or she believes and preaches. And I think you may agree (without the fallacy of begging the question) that there is a psychological complexity to faith which is not touched by sociology, economics, or political gain alone.

You may argue that Liberation theology might not do complete justice to the reality of faith when it suggests that faith is impossible and non-existent without works. But the Council of Trent obviously took a lot of pain and effort to assert the exact opposite: “If anyone says that with the loss of grace through sin faith is also always lost, or that the faith which remains is not true faith, granted that it is not a living faith; or that the man who has faith without charity is not a Christian, anathema sit” (Decree on Justification, canon 28, Session VI, 1547 – Retrieved November 3, 2004 from http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/trent06.htm).

I argue therefore that for a living faith, there must be an expression of love. But faith itself can exist, at least for a time, without love. Thus although systematic theology embraces both dogmatic (and doctrinal) and moral theology, the two are not the same, no more than faith and action are the same. And I do not intend my argument to be a discussion on moral theology because the term itself raises the question of the relationship between faith and action within the field of Christian reflection and discourse. But this is a discussion on Christian ethics, not moral theology.

According to Catholic tradition, the grace of God is given to us, not to make up for something lacking to us as human persons, but as a free gift that elevates us to a new and undeserved level of existence. The very concept of “nature” does not come from the Bible but from the following reflection on the New Testament’s proclamation of “the grace of God through Christ.” So we can infer that we are creatures of God by reflecting on who we have become through Christ. This is not forced upon us through laws.

In the end, I think Christian ethics comes from a conscious sense of responsibility to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to the community of faith (CHURCH) which has arisen in response to this Gospel. But not all people in all countries belong to neither your nor my community of faith (Church). It’s up to us to help others in discerning what God is enabling and requiring them to be and to do. It’s up to others to freely discern what God wants. Not through force, because free-will and free-choice is God given and must be respected. It’s up to us to respect free-will and free-choice, regardless of ANY law which supports or does not support our belief. Rhetorically, is it ethical to portend to take freedom of choice away from the individual because of our Christian belief and moral conviction? (I think not).

1. On 9/11/1991 in regards to Abortion Counseling, John Kerry voted YES on HR2707 requiring federally funded clinics to obtain parental consent for a minor’s abortion. Bill Passed on 11/7/1991. Are all abortion proponents in favor of this? No (Did Kerry vote as a Catholic? Did Kerry vote from an ethical standpoint?) (Do you really know for sure? Are you certain?)

2. In regards to Fetal Tissue Research, on 3/31/02 John Kerry voted NO on HR2507 allowing fetal tissue transplant research with tissue from spontaneous abortions and ectopic pregnancies.

3. On Overseas Military Abortions, on 9/18/92 John Kerry voted NO on striking the provisions of the bill that would allow U.S. military personnel and their families to obtain abortions at U.S. military bases overseas at their own expense.

4. On the Hyde Amendment Bill number HR2518 John Kerry voted YES on the amendment to eliminate restrictions on use of federal funds for abortion. Why? It was a vote on an amendment to eliminate language in the appropriations bill that prevents the use of federal funds to cover the cost of an abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or necessity to save the life of the mother. (Was Hyde’s amendment ethical? Respecting a Catholic ethics perspective? No.)

5. On Bill S636, John Kerry voted YES on passing the Abortion Clinic Access bill. The bill passed. The bill subjects to civil and criminal penalties persons who intentionally use force, the threat of force, or physical obstruction to prevent other people from obtaining or providing pregnancy or abortion-related services, or accessing places of worship. (Respecting a Catholic ethics perspective? Yes.)

6. On 8/5/1995 Kerry voted NO on an amendment to not allow coverage of abortion under Federal employee’s health insurance policies except where the life of the mother would be endangered or in cases of rape or incest.

7. On 12/07/1995 John Kerry voted NO on a bill to ban the partial-birth abortion procedure, except when the life of the woman is in danger.

Would I consider a man with this type of voting record a pro-abortionist? I would not for the following opinions:

1. Because he is Catholic. As a Catholic, he seems to completely trust and respect Christian ethics and Philosophical ethics amidst an immoral world.

2. I do not believe the business of Catholicism resides in the political arena. (“Give to Caesar…..Give to God….”)

3. John Kerry respects the Law. Jesus of Nazareth respected the Law.

4. Catholics should respect the Law knowing that God’s Kingdom is not of this World and that God’s purpose is greater than what we believe it is.

It was not Jesus’ purpose simply to set aside the Law of the Old Testament. He was in the synagogue on the Sabbath, (Mark 1:21;6:2). On the other hand, Jesus also found himself at odds with Jewish teachers of the Law. He insisted that the Sabbath was made for men and women, not men and women for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27).

But for Jesus, it is the inner disposition that determines an act’s moral value (7:14-27), more “fundamentally”, Jesus attacked the traditional notion that every part of the Law was of equal importance and that the external observance is what finally counted.

As Catholics, ours is to convince humanity that killing is evil because it is against the teaching of the ultimate and more significant; Kingdom of God. But as Catholics, ours is to convince humanity that killing is evil.

Therefore, to force an individual not to sin (i.e., commit an abortion) through legal means, is not the same as helping an individual convince themselves; their own conscience; that abortion disrespects the dignity of life and the dignity of a human. I cannot support anything less than what was most important to Christ; the inner disposition. Free, and unforced.

I argue that it is the inner disposition of the individual therefore which ultimately counts and which God ultimately looks at. Not the external based on obeying any laws. Whether a law exists to ban abortions or not, does not really matter in this life (to a Catholic). What matters most in this life is (according to Catholicism) that an individual choose according to his or her inner disposition. And our work as pastoral servants (Catholics) is to help counsel a person’s inner disposition regardless of the LAW. Changing or creating laws is a waste of time for the Catholic because God’s LAW and God’s WILL ultimately prevail. This is my argument. But my Catholic faith does not permit me to force this upon anyone.

I welcome all replies.

Eric Reyes MA.ED

So, Eric, we should not work to save the lives of the unborn? We should give them up, since they don't matter, just the disposition of the mother matters, right?

Leaving John Kerry's pro-abortion stance aside (hardly anyone would try and argue that he isn't pro-abortion!), you seem to suggest that it's okay to allow abortion to go on unabated, since the "business of Catholicism" doesn't belong in the political arena? Using your logic, slavery should still be legal, because it was Catholics and committed Christians who forced the issues surrounding slavery on the public. The Death Penalty should never be changed, right? Since it would involve us "forcing" others not to do something.

You may have gotten an "A" in an ethics class, but this is sheer nonsense. Under your guidance, our Faith should inform every part of our lives unless we are voting. That's simply ridiculous.

God bless,
Jay

PS - John Kerry is pushing federal funding of Abortions, so my tax dollars would pay to kill innocent babies. Please explain how that makes him not a "pro-abortionist." And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Jay, you misunderstand my opinion. In keeping with our Catholic Catechism, we are obliged to protect the sanctity of life. We are also obliged to protect the dignity of human beings.

I do not believe John Kerry is pro-abortion. I would not refuse him communion as Cardinal Ratzinger and a few other U.S. Bishops (about six out of 202) would have liked.

The fifth commandment tells us not to kill. But the eigth commandment tells us to not bare false witness. Both are important. (As are the other commandments).

I understand your reasoning so please do not mischaracterize my meaning with useless rhetorical questions which presuppose my intent as being opposed to your own. If you read carefully, you will see that I am a proponent of your views. After all, I am Catholic.

You must understand that many Catholics should probably excommunicate themselves for various grave reasons. I understand the abortion issue as the fundamental issue regarding life for Christians. But what about those whom are not Christian? Well, as a Catholic I feel obliged to educate others of my belief that life and the dignity of human beings go hand-in-hand. Catholicism respects God's will that Humans remain free in faculty and reason. Sometimes, as a Catholic, this is horrible. But I remind you that we must trust in God's HOPE AND MERCY.

Catholics and Catholicism agree that social issues are very important to the life which is saved. And I reason that a political leader must also keep these truths close to his or her heart.

The President of the United States has a moral obligation to uphold the laws, but our Judiciary system is responsible for deciding on the issues you "seem" to force upon any and all presidents in the name of moral justice.

I think more effort should be made in judicial selection, but not at the expense of my tax-dollars being spent on taking life in the name of battling an abstract called "terrorism", by means of "war" in the name of "peace". Again, I quote: "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and furthermore, "Thou Shalt Not Bare False Witness".

Even if in your mind you believe John Kerry is not Catholic, I must remind you that only God knows the truth within our hearts and minds.

But if this isn't enough, then allow me to implore you to be slow to judge, and be quick to defend those whom are being mischaracterized for political gain.

And for (hopefully) the last time, all Life is Sacred. In the meantime, may you continue fighting the good fight my brother. But please do so with the PEACE of CHRIST!!

May the Grace and Peace of the Holy Spirit be with us ALWAYS!!

Eric Reyes

Jay,
I think when you read the posts carefully you may discover that a good majority of what is opinion will coincide with your own. The rest will be in union with the Universal Church and not merely any "particular" Diocese.

Cordially,
Eric Reyes MAEd.

Eric,
I'm still a little confused by your point. First, the Church teaches that the right to life is a "primary" right that the other rights are based upon. Do you agree that bishops have the right according to Canon Law to refuse communion to pro-abortion politicians?

Second, when we protect the life of someone, we aren't "forcing" our opinions on others. Again, slavery would still be legal under this suggestion. We as Christians and Catholics must fight for social justice, rather than sit back and hope the judicial system changes things. Our faith should drive every action of our lives. I guess you would argue that prostitution, gay marriage and more should be legal, since these can be characterized as "opinions" being "forced" on others. Natural law is an actual reality that must be dealt with even in the public sphere.

Finally, you keep trying to insist that Senator Kerry isn't pro-abortion. This is really silly. He isn't being "mischaracterized" unless you can mischaracterize yourself. In fact, Senator Kerry prides himself on his pro-abortion stance. He is the first presidential candidate to speak at NARAL gatherings (Clinton even refused this). He has repeatedly said he will never place a judge on the bench who is not in favor of Roe vs. Wade. He stated that he intends to use federal funding to offer the poor cheaper abortions. I urge you to look into this: Senator Kerry has stated in numerous speeches that only he will protect abortion "rights." In an interview, Senator Kerry even said that in the womb children aren't "persons" - he suggested that we don't have to protect them until they become "persons" (whatever that means), which for him is after birth. You are correct that the eighth commandment tells us not to bear false witness, but it is you, not I, doing so. To call Kerry "pro-life" is a lie, plain and simple.

Also, the Bishops have the right and responsibility to protect the Eucharist (pearls before swine, etc). It is more than six Bishops out of 202 that have stated this (there are two in my state alone). You and I are not in that position because God chose others to do so. There are Bishops that agree with your notion that communion should not be refused, but notice that none of them are suggesting this is because Kerry is not pro-abortion. One of the likely candidates to become the next Pope agreed that pro-abortion politicians should be refused communion. This isn't a Republican/Liberal issue, it's a truth issue: If we believe Scripture, then we believe that John Kerry is damaging his soul by receiving communion while refusing to protect the most innocent of us. If Senator Kerry were pro-life, he would fight abortion as other pro-lifers do. But he isn't.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,
You are not confused, but you enjoy saying that you are for a much deeper reason. Bishops have canonical authority to refuse communion to anyone "incorrigibly opposed to Catholic teaching" (Dulles 2004). This is not a matter of general agreement.

Protecting life is fundamental. What good is protecting life however, if human dignity is disregarded? Your slavery example best regards an issue of human dignity. So too is creating the beginning of life in a petri-dish for the sole purpose of studying it scientifically in the name of human dignity. I believe this too is gravely evil.

When I discuss "force", it is from the perspective of Christian ethics which is a lifelong discipline or "study" for priests. Christian ethics raises the question of the relationship between "Christian reflection" on human action and "philosophical reflections" on human action, without reference to the Christian tradition. How you choose to understand the relationship between Christian ethics and philosophical ethics will reflect how well you understand the relationship between "grace and nature". If you accept the premise that all reality is radically graced, that from the very beginning God is present to all that is, then the concept of "pure nature" is only a logical construct, an abstraction. If you assume that God created the world "with" grace then in your mind grace and nature should be understood as INSPEPERABLE. Nature in other words is "Creation" and Grace becomes "Redemption". Therefore, human existence is always graced existence. This means, too Jay, that the whole created order is oriented to the glory of God (Romans 8:19-23). This means that human progress and dignity in the struggle for justice, peace, freedom, etc., is part of the movement of, and toward, the Kingdom of God.

Now, Christian life is really a life of freedom. Now Jay, I must say that attending a Naral rally and concluding therefore that an individual is an incorrigible Catholic is simply fallacious. Plain and simple. I am pro-life but what if I do not "fight abortion as other pro-lifers do"? Using your cantankerous "logic" you would portend to KNOW my heart. SCAAAAARY my Brother! Scary. But thanks be to God, this is NOT the truth nor the case.

I await your next insistence.

God bless us,
Eric Reyes MAEd.

Eric,
I'm still not really sure what you are getting at. Okay, so everyone but you believes Senator Kerry is pro-abortion. I think it's important to note that you, not I, are the one suggesting he is a "bad Catholic" or "incorrigible Catholic." I never said that, I simply said that he is pro-abortion, which even he admits.

Nor did I say that if you don't fight abortion enough you are pro-abortion. Rather, I made the point that if you fight for abortion as Senator Kerry does, then you are pro-abortion. This is the truth and the case.

I understand that you are looking for a reason to support Kerry, but you must be honest. Even those at "Catholics for Kerry" and other organizations don't argue that Kerry is pro-life. In fact, they argue that although Kerry is pro-abortion, his economic policies would help reduce the number of abortions, which makes more sense than trying to prove that he is pro-life.

Now, do I agree that other issues are important? Yes. But will I give up a pivotal doctrine of the faith in order to vote for someone who does X correctly (X being any negotiable aspect of our Faith, such as the death penalty, war, etc)? No.

Note that Kerry is also opposed to other key Catholic issues, such as embryonic stem cell research (he repeatedly attacked Bush for not providing funding for this) and euthanasia. This isn't a one-issue thing; Kerry is pretty much against all of the stands the Church makes.

I guess in the end the question is: Do you believe the Church is correct in saying that the right to life is the primary right upon which all the other rights are based? It appears you want to argue that the other rights are equal to the primary right.

God bless,
Jay

PS - Kerry didn't "attend" a NARAL rally, he was the key speaker and warned the rally that Bush would destroy our right to abortion. Pro-Life? Let's be honest at least.

Jay, I can't help you understand the Universal Catholic Churches position regarding falsely accusing other people (politicians or not), nor can I provide you understanding in listening and reasoning skills. But God can.

Nevertheless, you misconstrue Kerry's position on abortion and his respect for law. And you mistakenly mischaracterize ME for supporting Kerry. I understand that you do it because you need to justify your own position.

Let the discussion stand where it is. Should anyone (thanks to you) mistake me for a pro-abortionist, allow them to thank you for the mistake. Consider all the facts of this discussion thread.

I am not indifferent to the political order, but I do not believe Jesus came to change the political order. What He preached was bound to affect the consciousness and behavior of anyone who listened. The values Jesus proclaimed would surely transform the world of those who shared them. But to make God's law not to kill as the primary and pivotal law (except when justified) (with abortion as the exception)(except in certain cases, golly gee, yeah, it's ok) primarily "fundamentally" "pivotally" a law of God whose position must be politicized on a website with other Catholics and non-Catholics is foolishness, or useless disputation especially when the discussion breaks down into stupidity and falsehood regarding the character of ONE individual.

Jay, in my opinion you are adding more to the New Testament than is there. You are misconstruing tenets of Catholicism and distorting the actions of other humans. And for this you ignore the realities of what you believe is "pivotal". You ignore the evils created by the current administration using the truth of life as the veil which covers your eyes. And you are not alone.

Jay, is the Kingdom of God "more" supreme than what happens in this world? Yes. In my opinion, always it is the Kingdom that is supreme. (Notice the "period" at the end of the word supreme).

I remain a disciple of Jesus, not Jay. May Jay do the same. Indeed may all humankind do the same. But if not, I respect the CHOICE of humankind which is GOD'S WILL.

God bless us all,
Eric Reyes MAEd.

Eric,
Frankly I'm flabbergasted at your insistance that Kerry is pro-life. So, just everyone else realizes that I'm not bearing false witness as you falsely accuse me of, I'll point out other proofs:

- National Right to Life Committees' statement on Kerry
- Kerry's personal statements on Abortion
- Catholic Family Association's notes on Kerry's Abortion record
- Life News on Kerry and Abortion
- BBC on Kerry's "sure" Abortion stance despite Cardinal Arinze's criticism. Note that Cardinal Arinze is a likely candidate for Pope and not part of the US Bishops.
- National Catholic Reporter on Kerry's "blatantly pro-abortion position"
- Pregnant Pause on NARAL's 100% Pro-Abortion rating for John Kerry
- John Kerry is the first presidential candidate endorsed by Planned Parenthood for his position on abortion (including Clinton and Gore). Note that Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the US.

After reading this, I would appreciate an apology for your insistence that I am mischaracterizing Kerry. Then we can discuss how you seem to ignore the horrific reality of abortion if it suits your political whims.

God bless,
Jay

Eric,

First and foremost, Catholicism is not a religion for only the "high-minded" although several of us, like yourself, have our master's degree (we just don't feel the need to shout it from the roof tops).

I believe you must have some deep seated issues that you aren't dealing with. The first of these being the reality that Kerry lost the election...so it's time to move on.

Let's clarify this "bearing false witness against thy neighbor" thing you keep insisting Jay is guilty of:

Article 8
THE EIGHTH COMMANDMENT
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." (Ex. 20:16; cf. Deut. 5:20)
It was said to the men of old, "You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn." (Mt. 5:33)
2464 The eighth commandment forbids misrepresenting the truth in our relations with others. This moral prescription flows from the vocation of the holy people to bear witness to their God who is the truth and wills the truth. Offenses against truth express by word or deed a refusal to commit oneself to moral uprightness: they are fundamental infidelities to God and, in this sense, they undermine the foundations of the covenant. - Catechism of the Catholic Church, pg. 591

Sen. John Kerry is the clear choice for voters who care about protecting the environment, advancing gay rights, preserving abortion rights, maintaining a transparent government when developing an energy policy or a vast database on its citizenry -- and appointing federal judges within the mainstream of American values on those issues.
Why Kerry is the Choice

As a senator, he demonstrated concern for social welfare and has backed this up with enlightened policy proposals. He has supported civil rights and labor rights and opposed racism. He has supported the rights of women, including the right to an abortion.
John Kerry for President

Consider yourself informed. It is sad that "educated people", like yourself, are so easily deceived.

In Christ,
Joe

And while you're at it, "CRUCIFY HIM"!

The Catholic position is Pro-Life AND Pro-Choice.
Relax, be calm.

May the Grace and Peace of the Holy Spirit be with us ALWAYS.

Eric Reyes

Eric,
How is the Catholic position "Pro-Choice"? Please explain.

God bless,
Jay

Eric,

So now that you have been intellectually proven wrong in reference to Kerry's position on abortion you resort to attempting a comparison between John Kerry and Jesus Christ? Do I need to point out the flaws with this train of thought?

In reference to your "pro-life and pro-choice" comment, I will simply direct you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 2270-2275. It is very straightforward, covering even the obligations of individuals in public office.

There are not any "grey" or "difficult" areas or understandings in regards to the Church's position on abortion.

The truth fills us with burning zeal and untruth demands a response.

In Christ,
Joe

May your burning zeal compel you to study.

May the Grace and Peace of the Holy Spirit be with us always.

Eric.

May your burning zeal compel you to study.

May the Grace and Peace of the Holy Spirit be with us always.

Eric.

May your burning zeal compel you to study.

May the Grace and Peace of the Holy Spirit be with us always.

Eric.

Jay, the Catholic position is pro-life and pro-choice. The pro-life reason can go without saying at this juncture because it is abundantly clear what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says in regards to killing, murder, war, and how we justify abortion being the fundamental or pivotal issue considered as evil and wrong.

But what is not discussed (because it is being ignored, in my opinion) is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says in regards to "Man's Freedom" (Pg.481) Article 3 1731 says that "Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude".

That was said in regards to Freedom and Responsibility.

1738 goes on to say: "Freedom is exerciced in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a FREE and RESPONSIBLE being. All owe to each other this duty of RESPECT. The RIGHT TO THE EXERCISE OF FREEDOM, especially in MORAL AND RELIGIOUS MATTERS, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. THIS RIGHT MUST BE RECOGNIZED AND PROTECTED BY CIVIL AUTHORITY WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE COMMON GOOD AND PUBLIC ORDER".

In earlier postings I've mentioned our Catholic position on Moral Conscience as well. Perhaps you may look it up and we could TRY and have a discussion on the formation of moral conscience and perhaps we could have a discussion on how best we can help people (politicians and JUDGES included) in making better decisions in regards to legislation.

But I also think we could discuss ways in how we can become as Catholics, more influential in reaching out to non-Catholics, Catholics, and people of Good-will (and even Bad-will)without the use of slandering, insulting, or down-right lying about them. I do not believe that proponents of abortion are being properly influenced by the "good" pro-life position because of a particular bias which I think we have all experienced.

It's one thing to propound Catholicism to Catholics but it is much more to propound Catholicism to ALL humankind without ignoring our own Catechism precepts and promptings.

May the Grace and Peace of the Holy Spirit be with us Always!

Eric Reyes

PS: I apologize for having pressed "POST" more than once on the last posting responding, I thought that my computer was acting funny. It was not intentional to press the same post three times. My BAD!
Love, Eric.

III. To Choose in Accord with Conscience
1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law, or on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.

1788 To this purpose, man strives to interpret the data of experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, but the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his gifts.

1789 Some rules apply in every case:

-One may never do evil so that good may result from it;

-the Golden Rule: "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them."

-charity always proceeds by way of respect for one's neighbor and his consience: "Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience...you sin against Christ." Therefore, "it is right not to...do anything that makes your brother stumble."

(Catechism of the Catholic Church).

May the Grace and Peace of the Holy Spirit be with us Always.

Eric Reyes

Eric,

You are proving our point...

First, we aren't saying that we believe individuals are entitled to the freedom mentioned in para. 1738:

"Freedom is exerciced in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a FREE and RESPONSIBLE being. All owe to each other this duty of RESPECT. The RIGHT TO THE EXERCISE OF FREEDOM, especially in MORAL AND RELIGIOUS MATTERS, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. THIS RIGHT MUST BE RECOGNIZED AND PROTECTED BY CIVIL AUTHORITY WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE COMMON GOOD AND PUBLIC ORDER".

..."The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined...As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."

I also want to mention one key part of the Church's teaching on "freedom":

1740 Threats to freedom. The exercise of freedom does not imply a right to say or do everything. It is false to maintain that man, "the subject of this freedom," is "an individual who is fully self-sufficient and whose finality is the satisfaction of his own interests in the enjoyment of earthly goods." Moreover, the economic, social, political, and cultural conditions that are needed for a just exercise of freedom are too often disregarded or violated. Such situations of blindness and injustice injure the moral life and involve the strong as well as the weak in the temptation to sin against charity. By deviating from the moral law man violates his own freedom, becomes imprisoned with himself, disrupts neighborly fellowship, and rebels against divine truth.

2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error, but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e. immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.

We are compelled by our Catholic faith to live a life of charity, to support and uphold the common good, and to proclaim our Catholic faith to all. By supporting or ignoring abortion, or even by saying we are violating the freedom of others by "forcing" this truth of natural law on our fellow citizens we fail to understand the fundamental nature of natural law, especially in terms of the right to life.

In Christ,
Joe

It is good you think so Joe. Then you must also support that George Bush misled the world into an unjust war because he did not follow the STRICT position supported by WE Catholics as taught by our Catechism. Right? So when Bush "respectfully disagreed" with the Vatican, and more than 100,000 lives have been killed since the invasion of Iraq, you are in union with the Catholic position regarding what Bush freely "chose" to do.

And for Christ's sake, please don't give me the abortion issue as "more" important fundamental argument to justify your vote. This is beyond that anyways.

You can freely judge (misjudge) John Kerry, but you simply won't do it with Bush. So it seems, anyways. Well, If this is true, (and I am not saying that it most certainly is), then you contradict your own argument.

May the Grace and Peace of the Holy Spirit be with us Always!

Eric Reyes

Moreover, I want to just say how much I appreciate this complete website and forum because if anything it challenges all of us to read our Catholic Catechism and then come back and form an opinion. In a way, it's "ecumenical" and I really feel like a participant in something great thanks to the opportunity and respect allowed here in www.deoomnisgloria.com

I'm not always right, but I don't always expect to be right either. I simply enjoy this site for my personal growth and the challenge of refining my thinking.

I feel the Grace of God here. Is this crazy?

May the Grace and Peace of the Holy Spirit be with us Always!

Eric.

Post a comment