This page  updated October 16

(for more please see post The Economy, Catholics and Election 2008)

Cardinal George:

“If you’ve got an immoral law, you’ve got to work to change that. You’ve got children being killed every day. It goes on forever. That’s the great scandal, and that’s why there’s such a sense of urgency now. There’s no recognition of the fact that children continue to be killed, and we live, therefore, in a country drenched in blood. This can’t be something that you start playing off pragmatically against other issues.”

The Election and Catholic Responsibility

The  “Catholic vote” is never a sure thing. Politicians have learned that Catholics are not a unified voice nor a unified voting block–too bad. If we Catholics voted according to the teachings of the Church, we could bring about enormous good for our nations.

The following clips and links are meant to serve Catholics in their effort to show fellow citizens how and why the Catholic worldview is a better plan for building healthy peaceful communities.
Please feel free to leave comments and suggestions.

*

*

*

Defense of Marriage Amendments in Arizona,

California and Florida:

Catholics may not vote for laws or politicians who would enact laws that legalize homosexual unions.

Here is what the Church says:

If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.

The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice.(16) The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.

There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.(4)

Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity… (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”.(5) This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries(6) and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.

Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involv- ing a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy.

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

Simply stated, Catholics must vote in favor of defense of marriage amendments.

What does Scripture teach about homosexual acts? Isn’t there room for some tolerance for the homosexual lifestyle?

See what Scripture says here

ABORTION and the Catholic Vote in 2008

Bishops of Kansas issued this guide for responsible voting, “Catholics would ‘commit moral evil’ by voting for a candidate who supports abortion and other intrinsically evil things. Voting is a moral act, and voting for pro-choice candidates is evil in itself. One becomes a collaborator in evil by so doing. No amount of rationalization can escape this logical and moral conclusion.”

* * *

Many people suppose that “life issues”  is a “seamless garment” and that no one issue can dominate. This view takes the position that certain social issues, such as a “just wage” or  universal health care,  are “life issues” too.

This is inaccurate.

Few Catholics are aware that there is a hierarchy of values. Yes, these other concerns are about life, the quality of life–but only in the broadest sense.  They have no claim on the Catholic citizen where abortion is the first and most crucial life issue.  The logic is clear: The issues of wages and health care are moot unless one first has life.

What about the death penalty and war? Are these life issues too?

Only conditionally–here is the logic:

Abortion is always and everywhere, in every era, a grave evil and an injustice against life.   The life that is killed during an abortion is ALWAYS an innocent life.  Under no circumstances can an abortion be moral or just.

However, there are times and circumstances for war. All wars are NOT evil.   To stand by and permit Hitler to massacre millions is hardly a choice for life!  There are times in human history when war is justified–that is not to say that every act committed in a just war is just.

The death penalty is no longer justified in most modern nations because we have means of confining murderous criminals for the safety of the innocent public.  But there are conditions under which scripture and the teachings of the Church do permit the death penalty.  So it is not accurate to say that the death penalty is always wrong, but recall that it is accurate to say that abortion is ALWAYS a grave evil.

Articles of interest on abortion and other “consistent ethic of life” discussions:

The prefect of the Apostolic Signature, Archbishop Raymond Burke, said this week that Catholics, especially politicians who publically defend abortion, should not receive Communion, and that ministers of Communion should be responsibly charitable in denying it to them if they ask for it, “until they have reformed their lives.”

In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to “take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it”. (EV # 73)

From the US Bishops:

“The teaching of the Catholic Church from the very beginning, founded on her understanding of her Lord’s own witness to the sacredness of human life, that the killing of an unborn child is always intrinsically evil and can never be justified. If those who perform an abortion and those who cooperate willingly in the action are fully aware of the objective evil of what they do, they are guilty of grave sin and thereby separate themselves from God’s grace. This is the constant and received teaching of the Church. It is, as well, the conviction of many other people of good will.

To make such intrinsically evil actions legal is itself wrong. This is the point most recently highlighted in official Catholic teaching. The legal system as such can be said to cooperate in evil when it fails to protect the lives of those who have no protection except the law. In the United States of America, abortion on demand has been made a constitutional right by a decision of the Supreme Court. Failing to protect the lives of innocent and defenseless members of the human race is to sin against justice. Those who formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good.”

Abp.Chaput told AP Biden should refrain even from taking communion because of his support for abortion.

Political Obligations, Moral Conscience and Human Life.

Expedience is the oxygen politicians run on, but they can’t say that, and so they invoke or invent principles that enable them to pander and call it philosophy. “Government should stay out of the bedroom.” It’s a catchy tune, but the lyrics don’t match the purported theme. Abortion doesn’t take place in the bedroom. Consensual sex does. So does rape. So what are they saying? They’re not saying anything. They’re conjuring a taboo. “Reproductive freedom.” They don’t mean you should be free to reproduce. They mean something almost opposite. They mean you should be able to terminate your child if you reproduced but didn’t mean to, or did mean to but have since changed your mind.

“Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, a “Catholic,” opposes the death penalty, but supports abortion. President Bush, a Protestant, supports the death penalty, but opposes abortion, albeit with exceptions. So which of the two is more in line with Catholic teaching?”

For a comprehensive selection on Political Responsibility (from Church documents) please look here.

Voter’s resources here

OCTOBER 13

From Inside Catholic comes this list of bishops who have spoken clearly about the choices a faithful Catholic must make:

We now have 40 bishops who have spoken out individually to correct the record during this election. Add to that the other 21 bishops of New York State, in addition to Cardinal Egan, and you have 61 who have spoken aloud on the priority of life issues.

Here is the updated list: