www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Moral Voting

Since we started to digress on the movie thread I am staring a new thread to discuss voting issues.

"Father Deacon, preventable murder in the case of an infant or an adult absolutely are equatable issues. One cannot pretend to be pro-life without taking the entirety of life into account. That is indeed the position of the Church.

Bishop John Michael has spoken to the issue about Catholic participation in the war, as have others with the support of Rome. And regarding the position of the Chaldean hierarchy, I will refer you to http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?docid=1G1:97173579&refid=ink_g5s1&skeyword=&teaser
="


I would again state that there has been no excommunication of American soldiers but there have indeed been excommunications of pro-abortion politicians. The soldiers also volunteered for duty and were well aware they might be called to sacrifice their lives for their country. To equate the death of a soldier fulfilling his duty with the murder of an unborn child is untenable, especially in the context of justifying someone voting for a pro-abortion politician because they are promising to bring the boys home.

The Church indeed recognizes that life must be protected from conception to natural death, so I would note that pro-abortion candidates are also usually pro-euthanasia, no small surprise there. Being pro-abortion but anti-war does not make one an acceptable choice.

Your article about the Chaldeans runs counter to ever interview I have seen. Although now that Islam is the official religion of Iraq many are leaving, wondering why the Kurds and Shiites get special protections but no allowance is made for the Assyro-Chaldean community.

As for Bishop John Michael, his act was one of grand standing in my opinion. It is very easy to issue a directive when you don't have to worry about the ramifications of it. Given the smallness of his flock (about 5000) how many were in the military? Coupled with the fact that if a Romanian Catholic is in the military they are under the jurisdiction of the Military Archdiocese and not the Eparchy of Canton what was the purpose of it? I note no other Bishop joined him.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Ramifications? I think there was a certain subdeacon whose diaconal ordination was cancelled because his national guard unit was activated. I think there was quite an impact upon his life and ministry. There must have been some agonizing over that situation.

Are you sure that an Eastern Catholic in the military is transfered juridically to a Latin Heirarch? That doesn't seem right.
Killing in an unjust war is murder, isn't it? I think one of the most lamentable lines in the CCC is the one delegating the civil authorities as the experts in determining if a war is just. By that standard, German Catholics were justified in joining the Nazi army in 1939. Indeed, I am unaware of any German bishop proclaiming that cause immoral. When Franz Jagersdater refused to serve in the German army he did so in spite of the opposition of his pastor and his bishop.
Having said that, I don't think a Catholic can ever vote for a proabortion candidate, regardless of what ever issues he is right about. I remind you all that there is no moral obligation to vote! Indeed, there may be at times a moral obligation to refrain from voting.

Everyone,

Please forgive me, but since my question to Incognitus was off topic in the movie thread, and I would really like to hear his response and initiate a dialogue, I have moved it over to this thread. Thanks for humoring me.

-------------

Incognitus,

As you are someone whom I hold in the highest admiration, I would really appreciate your opinion on this situation.

My entire life I have been told that Catholics have to support the Democrat. Period.

For quite some time now I have been having serious doubts about this position. As someone who has been very involved in the pro-life movement, I am particularly concerned by some statements made by Senator Kerry.

In particular, he has promised a pro-abortion litmus test for all judicial nominations to the supreme court.

He has also pledged to force Catholic hospitals that receive federal money to perform abortions, otherwise he will take away their funding.

Furthermore, he wants to use tax dollars to pay for stem cell research, which requires the creation and destruction of an embryo (baby).

He has also come out in support of the sale of parts from aborted babies for research purposes.

I am very, very concerned by this. I am especially concerned by the influence that he will have through the appointment of federal judges, who serve for life. If he keeps his pledge and stacks the benches with pro-abortion judges, we will be guaranteed to see the abortion industry thriving in this country for decades (maybe centuries) to come.

Yet I am hearing yourself, and many other Catholic priests whom I deeply admire, urging me and other Catholics to support this man. I am confused. What am I missing?

On one hand, I keep hearing from the Catholic (and Orthodox) Church that abortion is a great evil that must be stopped. As this is a democracy, the only way to effect change is to vote for candidates who stand for the position that we believe in. BUT I am also hearing from Byzantine Catholic priests that we have to support Senator John Kerry, because he is a Democrat.

Yet other than the issue of abortion, I don't see a tremendous amount of difference between Bush and Kerry.

Bush went to war against Iraq, a war which I have vocally opposed. However, Senator Kerry voted to go to war against Iraq himself, and gave speeches on the floor of the senate advocating this war. Only now, in retrospect, is he positioning himself against it.

Bush supports the death penalty, a position that I seriously disagree with. However, Senator Kerry also is a supporter of the death penalty.

On the flip side, Bush supports the Federal Marriage Amendment, which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. I believe that this is necessary, because the courts are positioning themselves to mandate homosexual marriage, against the popular will of the people. Senator Kerry has come out against this amendment, and is being actively supported by the homosexual lobby.

These are the issues that I care the most about, and honestly, I'm not seeing a bid deal of difference between the two men, EXCEPT on the issues of abortion and homosexual marriage. These differences are significant enough to preclude the possibility of me voting for Senator Kerry, even though he is the Democrat. So why are so many priests supporting him? As far as I can tell, it is because he is a Democrat and is not named Bush. But is that really good enough of a reason?

I am not advocating voting for Bush, but I just can't bring myself to vote for Kerry, even though he is the Democrat.

By the way, have you seen the new John Kerry watch that is being sold by his supporters? When I first saw one I was suprised. The sell for $10, and come with a 5 year warranty. I just can't see myself wearing one of these things...

[Linked Image]

I am looking forward to your response.

Thanks,
Anthony

I am by no means pro-abortion - let me state that at the outset.

I can't bring myself though to vote for a candidate who oppresses the poor, who has invariably supported the rights of the rich to get richer at great cost to workers, who has steadily eroded the rights of workers to enjoy a safe, non-hazardous workplace, who promised with great fanfare to protect the health of those who responded to 9/11 and has not provided the money to do so, who has done everything possible to cut off American's access to affordable pharmaceuticals, while doing nothing to make domestic ones affordable (and giving the pharmaceutical companies BILLIONS by forbidding Medicare to negotiate for drug discounts!) et cetera, et cetera.

I can't vote for an administration that oppresses the poor, starves the hungry, bankrupts the old and sick, and imprisons a greater proportion of the population than any other nation on earth.


Sorry.


And that's just me. I'm not looking to argue, just to say my piece. Every time I go and vote, I feel like I ought to go to confession afterwards, because there just don't seem to be any saints to elect.

Sharon

Sharon,

Since I am a welfare caseworker I feel qualified to answer some of your remarks. It was the Clinton adminstration that passed oppressive welfare reform laws. It was under his administration that single parents were forced to participate in meaningless job training for meaningless jobs that did not get them out of poverty. Conversely, it is under the Bush administration that the requirements were eased and single parents can now opt for a meaningful education leading to two and four year degrees for jobs that will get them off of welfare for good. It is under the Bush administration that Medicare has been changed so that it will provide prescription coverage starting in 2006 (Medicare D) and provided a supplemental program in the interim. Of course not all the current administrations policies are in line with Church policy but oppressing the poor is a bit much, when from my vantage point the current administration has done more for the poor than the previous administration.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Patriarch Bidawid I of the Chaldean Catholics of Iraq opposed the war.

The Primate of the Romanian Catholics is an expert in Augustinian philosophy and Just War theory and should not be easily dismissed. I defy anyone to claim the conditions of a Just War as per St.Augustine were met in this case. Was St.John Fisher grandstanding on the Act of Uniformity?

Americanism is a heresy condemned by Papal Encyclal. Neo-Con thought is from atheist Leo Strauss.

The Byzantine pacifist tradition is even stronger. Czarist Russian soldiers who killed in war were denied the Eucharist for 3 years!!!!!

The standard is not excommunication. Hitler was never excommunicated.

The only country where Christians are not second class citizens is Syria, next target of the Neo-Con artists. Freedom of religion is utterly lacking in Israel, which suffers from manifest Christophobia.

Christos Anesti

Oh dear! Everything my good friend Sharon has posted is factually incorrect! It is the Democrats who oppressed the poor in a welfare system that enslaved them by offering them no way out.

This accusation of Bush supporting the �rights of the rich to get richer at great cost to the workers� is simply untrue. No poor man ever gave me a job. When the government confiscates income for redistribution it only succeeds in reducing the amount of money available to help others. If I invent something that creates lots of jobs and makes me lots of money I should not be penalized for my efforts with confiscatory taxes. If I invent something that is worth millions, I may have a Christian obligation to share my wealth but the government should not have the right to confiscate the fruit of my hard work for redistribution.

What differs here is the means to the end. Liberals tend to demand a certain outcome regardless of cost and tax people in an attempt to accomplish it. Conservatives tend to use tax breaks to encourage corporations to create a safer workplace because it is good for both the worker and the corporation.

Protecting the health of those who responded to the 9/11 attack? The Bush administration has repeatedly proposed funds for this purpose. Congress has not acted and some there prefer to embarrass Bush by not allocating the funds rather than actually helping those who need it.

Billions for pharmaceuticals? Yes! Yes! Yes! It is these billions that pay for research for new drugs to heal us. Is there any other country besides the United States that produces more new drugs, saving more and more lives? Reduce the reward for taking the research risk and you reduce the amount of research and there are fewer new drugs to save us when we are sick.

Senator Hillary Clinton, speaking in San Francisco on Monday, 6/28:
"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Translation: �From each according to his means to each according to his needs.�

Need I mention that Democrats and all who vote for them believe that forcing taxpayers to pay for all abortions is part of the common good? If you vote for a pro-abortion candidate when there is a pro-life alternative of any party, you are pro-abortion.

Bush is Pro-Abortion in cases of rape, incest or alleged life of mother. (Killing a baby NEVER helps the mother) St. Gianni, Pray for us. 4 years and all we got was a ban on partial birth while controlling the House and Senate!

The Constitution Party is the only 100% Pro-life party that would use US Attorneys to ban abortion in all 50 states on January 20, 2005 and remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, as is permissable under the Constitution.

My recollection was that the median duration of welfare support for adults was something like a few years. The case for "enslavement" isn't there. Ditto for "confiscatory". :rolleyes:

Actually some of us think that we ought to pay our bills. We might not like the bills that we, through our elected officials, incur, but while working for a change of those officials responsibility dictates that we nevertheless pay our bills rather than shifting this burden to other generations.

My county is proposing a wheel tax to improve the schools and provide teacher raises. I am supporting that tax because the burden of paying for education has been on the property owners. Now, at least, those who never pay property taxes will have to pay some of their bills for the education of their children. I don't think we are talking about paying our bills. It seems to me that much needed help that was given by the taxpayers to the poor, has now become something they feel entitled to. In some cases, it has destroyed their incentive to do anything on their own, since the government handout will always be there for them. I don't doubt that many well-meaning legislators originally provided that help for the good of the poor. Unfortunately, I think many legislators now provide the help to curry favor and votes from the poor for the benefit of themselves. In other words, many of our legislators and politicians use the poor more than they have ever served them.

My apologies to Antony - I was away from my desk for a few days and missed his question. His admiration is both appreciated and reciprocated.
The notion that for some unstated reason Catholics must support one speciric political party strikes me as completely absurd. However, I'm willing to agree that at certain times, in specific places (Boston and New York both come to mind), tactical reasons may have moved a large majority of Catholics to support this or that party because the other party had become an instrument of blatant anti-Catholic bigotry. But either party has shown itself to be capable of this from time to time.
I've also been involved in the pro-life movement and shall continue to support it. I am no particular admirer of John Kerry; I would simply vote for Gargantua if it would put George W. Bush out of the White House.
Busy as a pro-lifer strikes me as quite incredible, given his behavior on such issues as the death penalty and stem cell research. The man has no principles at all; he will embrace any cause in pursuit of votes and/or other personal advantage. He will then come up with lame excuses to explain why he simply cannot do what he would like to do. I'm unimpressed.
I had not heard the bit about Kerry advocating the withdrawal of federal funding from Catholic hospitals that decline to perform aboritons (or in plain English, kill children), but it doesn't particularly surprise me. There are too many Catholics out there who will claim to oppose abortion, but in fact want it to be available. You know all the catch phrases for that position, so I won't bother to repeat them here.
Bush also supports stem cell research, so there's not much of a choice.
I have not urged you to support Kerry, nor do I propose to urge you to that. I urge you to form your conscience carefuly and vote accordingly, and I fully recognize that that may well lead us to pull different levers in the voting booth. I can think of no specifically "Catholic" reason to support either one - and I do not claim that my revulsion when faced with Bush is a specifically Catholic revulsion.
The claim that we are somehow obilgated to support Kerry because we are Catholics and he is a democrat does not require refutation!
On the complex issue of "same-sex marriages", we may well differ. My view of the matter is that since there is civil divorce on demand, there is no point in mainting the fiction that civil marrige is somehow the equivalent of Christian marriage - it isn't. So let the civil government do as it pleases, but let the Church make it loudly clear that we operate within a different understanding of matrimony, and let there be no doubt what the Catholic Christian understanding of matrimony is,
I truly cannot understand why his mere membership in the Democratic Party (an organization for which I have precious little respect) would be sufficient to convince anyone, priest or layman, to support Kerry - but that is a corollary of free elections; people are free to cast their votes even though I don't think their reasons make much sense.
As for that ridiculous wrist watch; I woundl't have it as a gift, let alone pay money for it! Besides, I don't wear a wrist watch (a pocket watch is much more comfotable).
What has been disturbing me for a while is the shrill presence of a large proportion of people who give every sign of believing that Byzantine Catholicism and neanderthal politics must necessarily go together. If you and I were both in New York I might call them a bunch of goo-goos, but people who have not spent much time in New York would not understand the reference. ["Goo-Goo" in NY City politics is an acronym for "Good Government". Al Smith famously ran - and won - on the slogan "To Hell With Good Government".]
We may continue the discussion at our mutual leisure, if you would care to do so. If the neanderthals or the goo-goos muscle in, we can continue the discussion privately. To prove how wicked and sinful I am, I even like popcorn.
Incognitus

I know that some folks see this as an improvement over the status quo. Is it?

The status quo admits to the moral gravity of abortion but leaves the ultimate decision with individuals rather than government control. Apart from the problem that this perspective presents in failing to recognize the evil, it also fails to be sufficiently liberal in the championing of rights - limiting them to life ex utero. The upside, however, is that it doesn't take much optimism, given our long-term history, to see that we have and will continue to move in the direction of extending rights.

Under the Bush plan, goverment would prohibit abortions except in the "hard cases". What is the significance of this approach? We will have stipulated that abortion is a heinous act that needs government prohibition (good), but also will have arrogated the right to give a green light to inherently evil acts (grotesque). I don't see how this mindset - also revealed in Bush's ghoulish administration of the death penatly in Texas - ever reaches the real goal.

OTOH, I do see light at the end of the tunnel for a problem whose resolution is extending presently unenlightened ideas of human rights. But, IMO, it is liberalism not conservatism that will be key to reaching this goal. It will take time and devoted work. And dirty hands.

Sharon, that was very well said.

There are "liberals" politically who are pro-life, and political "conservatives" who are definitely anti-life.

Catholics should be Catholics, neither liberal nor conservative and yet both. Liberal in love, and always conserving the truth and our holy tradition.

Father Deacon, you seem to want to skirt the issue that [1] the Church has clearly, through the voice of the Pope himself, stated this war is not just nor justified. An unjust war is preventable murder. Abortion is preventable murder. Euthanasia is preventable murder. My argument is tenable indeed.

Respect for life, according to the teachings of my Church, extends from cradle to grave. Preventable murder, whether the victims be infants, sick individuals, or victims of military agression, is always morally untenable and unacceptable.

Who gets judged for the crimes in these cases ultimately is up to God. I would think in the case of the soldier following obedience it would likely be the higher civil authority who decided to engage in that preventable murder, but that is not my place to judge and even the contemplation of that makes me uneasy.

I can not support either candidate based on my understanding of Catholic moral principles, as both candidates have acted contrary to those principles.

As Walnut has stated correctly, the current president can not in any way be considered to be truly pro-life according to the Catholic understanding. I am not sure I would even call him anti-abortion given the concessions he has made and continues to make. Good politics? Bad morality.

I do not think His Excellencey John Michael was granstanding at all. Especially considering the criticism and even hate mail he received later.
He was rather acting the part of a true shepherd and I have great admiration for him for that.

I heard no other American Greek Catholic hierarch speak out in support of the Catholic Church's position on this war as he has. This same bishop has a very strong anti-abortion stance as well. Pro-life, cradle to grave. Eis polla eti, Despota.