1. Religion & Spirituality
Send to a Friend via Email
Scott P. Richert

Where Faith and Politics Intersect

By April 27, 2009

Follow me on:

Over the weekend, a number of folks on Twitter began posting tweets inspired by the Obama administration's release of Bush-era memos regarding torture. I saw several variations on the theme, but the one I noticed first read:

Sad2 think R president is against pouring water on terrorists but supports sucking the brain out of an infant! #catholic

I saw that tweet when Patrick Madrid retweeted it. Patrick is the publisher of Envoy magazine and one of the most dynamic Catholic apologists practicing today, and he's a man I greatly admire and respect. If you're not reading his blog daily and following him on Twitter, you should be. But the retweet, it seemed to me, was out of character, and I responded to Patrick:

One could be opposed to both, as John Paul II was.

It seemed to me that the original tweet's use of "pouring water on" as a euphemism for "waterboarding" was meant to minimize the moral atrocity of torture, which Pope John Paul II had described in paragraph 80 of his encyclical Veritatis splendor as an "intrinsically evil" act—like abortion. "Pouring water on" isn't an accurate description of waterboarding; indeed, as I told Patrick, it sounds more like what we do in Baptism.

Patrick believed that I was reading too much into the original tweet, and perhaps he's right. (Though, since I have read other statements by the person whom Patrick was retweeting, I don't think I read too much into this one.) But what concerned me about Patrick's retweet, and the dozens of other tweets and retweets expressing a similar sentiment that I saw from other Catholics I admire, is that they seem to encapsulate a common theme I often see among conservative Catholics: Abortion is the ultimate moral evil, so we can, and perhaps even must, excuse or minimize lesser evils wrought or supported by those who don't support abortion.

Or, as I characterized it to Patrick:

What's a little waterboarding between friends, when we have abortion?

Please note: I'm not suggesting that Patrick holds this view; on the contrary, it's the fact that I'm certain he doesn't that made his retweet so surprising to me. And his puzzlement at my surprise is, I think, simply more proof that he himself hasn't fallen into this trap, so he finds it hard to believe that others have.

Yet so many Catholics do—not only those of us on the political right, but those on the political left. Indeed, we on the right see it clearly when those on the left fall into it. During the 2008 U.S. presidential election, I wrote at great length here on the Catholicism guidesite about why Catholics can never support a political candidate who supports abortion for the purpose of supporting abortion; and, moreover, can only support a political candidate who supports abortion when there is a proportionate reason for doing so. But since abortion is a grave moral evil, it is hard (if not impossible) to imagine what such a proportionate reason might be.

Many readers took this to mean that I was saying that they had to vote for a candidate (John McCain) who supported a war that two consecutive pontiffs opposed, because his opponent (Barack Obama) was, objectively speaking, the most pro-abortion candidate ever to run for the presidency of the United States. But, as I repeatedly explained, my point was otherwise: As Catholics, we did not have to vote for either major-party candidate.

If we believed that Barack Obama's actions as president would increase the number of abortions in the United States (and there was indeed reason to believe so), we could vote for John McCain even if we believed (along with John Paul II and Benedict XVI) that the war McCain supported was unjust. But we did not have to.

This, I think, is the crux of the issue: Too many Catholics, on both sides of the political spectrum, try to figure out which major political party best fits their understanding of Catholic moral teaching. Then, having made up their minds, they all too easily assent to, or at least gloss over, those positions that their chosen party holds that violate Catholic teaching.

Indeed, they sometimes even fall into the trap of excusing the actions of political leaders they like, even when Catholic teaching raises grave doubts about such actions. That, it seems to me, is happening right now among Catholics in the United States who are politically conservative.

Some simply disagree with John Paul II's statement in Veritatis splendor that torture is intrinsically evil; others are willing to grant it, but say that we need further definition of what constitutes torture; while still others (and I think this is the largest group, simply based on my observation) grant that torture is intrinsically evil but believe that we have to support those who support it because abortion is an even greater evil.

But what if there is another option?

Shortly after the 2008 election, I discussed an article by an old friend of mine, Fr. Rob Johansen, entitled "Our Faustian Bargain: Catholics Caught Between Parties" (see my post, "Where Do We Go From Here?"). His argument, in a nutshell, is that "Catholics make up some 25 percent of the population, but we exercise an influence far smaller than our numbers." The answer to increasing our influence is to follow "The teaching of the Church and of our bishops," which, as Father Johansen writes, "instructs us to take our faith as our starting point and build our politics around that."

Practically speaking, that would mean withholding our votes from both major political parties until they began to conform their political platforms to the moral teaching of the Catholic Church.

Imagine if, in 2004, all Catholics on both the left and right had told John Kerry that they would not vote for him because of his stand on abortion and on embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR), while also telling George W. Bush that they would not vote for him because his "compromise" on ESCR was still wrong and he was prosecuting a war that Pope John Paul II had warned was unjust and that had led Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to declare that "The concept of pre-emptive war does not appear in the Catechism." What would the effect have been?

Obviously, one of the two men would still have been elected, so the short-term effect might well have been minimal. But between November 2004 and November 2008, the effect would have been dramatic, as both parties hustled to try to win back the Catholic vote.

Instead, Democratic operatives spent those four years trying to convince Catholics that they could vote for a politician who advocates sucking the brains out of infants and letting children who survive abortion die unattended. Meanwhile, Republican operatives worked hard to explain that it didn't matter that their candidate held essentially the same position on ESCR as the Democratic one did, or that he had stated numerous times in his political career that he didn't want to see Roe v. Wade overturned, or that he, too, had supported the war that President Bush had waged.

In other words, both parties asked us to accept half a loaf—or, one might say, a mess of pottage. And the result was that we ended up with the most pro-abortion president in the history of the United States, expanded funding for ESCR, and the continuation of the war in Iraq.

Obviously, my imaginary scenario—all American Catholics withhold their votes until one or both parties come around to our way of thinking—is a pipe dream. But the broader principle is not. How many Catholics would it take to make a difference—to make one or both parties start taking Catholic moral teaching seriously? Ten percent of the Catholic voting population? Five percent?

We'll never know until we try.

But to try, we must first quit excusing the evil—yes, evil—acts of our preferred set of political leaders just because someone else's preferred set of political leaders engages in even greater evil. We need to quit trying to explain away the words of a papal encyclical or a council document or the Catechism of the Catholic Church just because those words might indict people with whom we otherwise agree.

In other words, we need to put the Faith first, and politics a distant second. And that may mean that, for a time at least, we refuse to play the two-party game.

More on Faith and Politics:

Connect With Scott: Twitter | Facebook | Newsletters
Comments
April 28, 2009 at 1:50 pm
(1) Jeffrey Mark says:

When I was in the Marine Corps we we trained to live through water boarding cause most all countries use it all the NATO Countries do.And
I am Pro Choice but agianist Abortion.To Be Pro Choice for me is the Women Needs to make a Choice But we must present the Bibical Choice of God which is Pro Life,Pro Family Pro Church and Pro Church teachings.Women do not allways know the have a choice.We must Inform them of that!!!!So they Can Choose Lifee!!!!and Choose the Right!!!!!!!!!!!

April 28, 2009 at 2:56 pm
(2) Dave says:

Since Catholics are so fractured in their voting decisions, I fail to see how withholding votes is going to make any difference.The net effect will be the same.

Catholics will have to be more aggressive in debating every point they find offensive like the girl in your article who twittered about abortion.

April 28, 2009 at 9:51 pm
(3) Mike Sexton says:

I appreciate your words and they do make one think but in the end I felt uncomfortable in that it sounded like you were equating waterborading with abortion. Waterboarding makes someone very uncomfortable (is that the definition of torture?)but abortion kills someone. Monstrous difference. Sorry, I’ll vote for the waterboarder trying to protect our country from a very great evil every time over the abortionist. Be careful that you don’t confuse people by trying to demonize waterboarding.

April 28, 2009 at 10:05 pm
(4) Scott P. Richert says:

Mr. Sexton, I really have to wonder how far into this article you read before you posted your comment. The point is that you don’t have to vote for either—and that, if enough of us didn’t vote for either, we might actually begin to convince both political parties to start listening to Catholic moral teaching.

No, I’m not equating waterboarding with abortion, though waterboarding can indeed result in death or in long-term damage to the body.

Is it torture? Christopher Hitchens, a journalist who had formerly supported the practice, submitted himself to it. His answer? Believe Me, It’s Torture. If you doubt his witness, I would urge you to have the guts to do what he did.

If it is torture, then it should be demonized—because, as Pope John Paul II declared in Veritatis splendor, torture is intrinsically evil.

Finally, does someone’s claim that he is “trying to protect our country from a very great evil” absolve him from the requirement to conform his actions to the moral law? Catholic just-war theory makes it clear that it would be better to lose a war than to prosecute that war unjustly. Why? Well, you may remember a certain remark that our Lord made: What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, if he loses his soul in the process?

April 29, 2009 at 1:46 am
(5) Tom Qualey says:

“We’ll never know until we try. But to try, we must first quit excusing the evil—yes, evil—acts of our preferred set of political leaders just because someone else’s preferred set of political leaders engages in even greater evil.”

OK. We have tried to go with one by effectively holding our nose as we pick the ‘lesser’ of the two evil-promoting candidates. The results are/were sitting in the Oval Office. As I see it, trying something ‘new’ is going to take leadership – and that comes from the Bishops.

Considering the Notre Dame controversy with Pres. Obama not only speaking but receiving an honorary degree – I really would have though at least 95% of the US Catholic Bishops would have gotten together to support their own policy! I really would have expected the head of the congregation would have gotten Fr. Jenkins’ attention by telling him to step down and end this mess. I really would have thought there would have been a mass protest of soon-to-be graduates refusing to attend the graduation. The issue is: where is the leadership – especially, if one wants to get into the political arena?

April 29, 2009 at 1:53 am
(6) Zaphod says:

It is always a tricky question, do we try to stem the tide of anti-Catholic and anti-life policy by voting for the crowd who is not quite so anti-Catholic or anti-life?

In our country we have also had to face this problem, with a government bringing in all sorts of ridiculous or terrible policies. To get rid of them we needed to vote for the other lot who weren’t as socially bad or as anti-life.
Not a great choice, but not voting for the second group was, in-effect, supporting the first group into government again.

I am fascinated by how many Catholics voted for Obama, and it would be interesting to know how many have excommunicated themselves in the process.

Voting for McCain may not have been the best, but it was the only choice you really had in the circumstances.
You now have the most aggressively anti-life government ever, who are going to use US muscle to push abortion in every country. You have missed the possible opportunity of regaining control of the Supreme Court and reversing the Roe vs Wade decision.
Your President believes in infanticide and your Secretary of State is praising Margaret Sanger!
I won’t ask if it can get worse than that, because it obviously can, but the ramifications for the whole world are very worrying.

April 29, 2009 at 8:17 am
(7) WVGhostDog says:

Withholding a vote won’t work in a system where everything is geared to getting 50 percent plus 1 vote (electoral votes for President, popular vote for every other office). Let’s say 10 Catholics in a state legislative district withhold their votes in a given election and give public notice they have done so.

The losing candidate will be reluctant to change their position to be compatible with the Catholics because 1. they will likely alienate some of their other supporters, especially in our society where Catholic teachings cut across the liberal/conservative divide and 2. they cannot be certain that the Catholics will actually become politically active again; after all, they did not participate in the last election. The winning candidate has even less incentive to disrupt a winning coalition. But what would you expect from a political system predicated on the notion that some human beings are worth only 3/5 of other human beings?

April 29, 2009 at 8:37 am
(8) Scott P. Richert says:

I have to wonder about the certainty that Zaphod and WVGhostDog exhibit—”Voting for McCain may not have been the best, but it was the only choice you really had in the circumstances”; “Withholding a vote won’t work in a system where everything is geared to getting 50 percent plus 1 vote.”

It’s especially odd in Zaphod’s case, since he acknowledges that playing politics as usual put us in the situation we’re in today: “You now have the most aggressively anti-life government ever, who are going to use US muscle to push abortion in every country.”

That didn’t happen because Catholics withheld their vote; in fact, quite the opposite. As I explained in the article, it happened because too many Catholics, having chosen one party and decided to stick with it, were willing to accept the lies of the propagandists of that party.

We know what we’ll get if we continue to act like that. As I wrote in the article, “And the result was that we ended up with the most pro-abortion president in the history of the United States, expanded funding for ESCR, and the continuation of the war in Iraq.”

In other words, continuing to do what we have been doing leads us to the worst of both worlds. If that isn’t an argument for changing the way that we approach politics, I don’t know what is.

April 29, 2009 at 1:28 pm
(9) Matthew Warner says:

Scott – I appreciate the article! It’s a great topic and I agree with you. I especially agree that we must get our priorities straight as voting Catholics. However, in recognizing that both parties have their problems, I think it’s important not to then conclude that since both have their problems therefore we should vote for neither. Or, even more importantly, somehow infer that they are both equally problematic.

I’m not saying you believe that – I don’t believe you do. But I think it’s easy for Catholics reading this to come to that conclusion when you directly compare issues like torture, war, etc. with issues like abortion. Morally, these are fundamentally different when they come to the teachings of the Church.

I believe the issue of “torture” is much more complex than most conversations I’ve read seem to treat it.

All that aside, I don’t believe we have to go to an extreme of not voting for either party. As you already noted…as Catholics we shouldn’t be tied to a particular party. I think we need to vote on ISSUES. And there is no doubt that there is one issue in particular that all faithful Catholics can agree on, the bishops have spoken out on, is the gravest challenge in our country, and there is zero room for debate on and that’s abortion.

If all Catholics voted for the candidate (not the party) that supported the unborn for ONE election cycle, no major party would ever put a pro-choice candidate up for election ever again. Because it would be impossible for them to win. I wrote a post on this awhile back: http://www.fallibleblogma.com/index.php/2008/11/10/if-catholics-were-catholic-pro-abortion-politicians/

Then we move on to the next gravest issue.

But as another commenter noted – this takes leadership to do this. And until we get the proper leadership in taking on such huge, but feasible, tasks we will continue on this path that continually tempts Catholics into compromising their faith.

April 30, 2009 at 11:01 pm
(10) Jeffrey Mark says:

My Bishop,did not speak out agianist Voting For Our President,to 2 and1/4 days before very stronly,where was theat Moral Voice,before that time.Christians need to Vote Prayerfully as God Leads.But The Republicans are more pro abortion than the Democracts.AT least the 2 Senators from Maine are as was George Bush,and the rest of them!!!

May 1, 2009 at 11:37 pm
(11) Scott P. Richert says:

Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Matthew. You’re right about the gravity of abortion, as I’ve made clear in this article and many others.

A couple minor quibbles: If John Paul II is correct in Veritatis splendor that torture is “intrinsically evil,” then torture and abortion are closer together than either is to, say, war or capital punishment, neither of which the Church regards as intrinsically evil. There may still be a definitional question regarding torture (though I agree with Mark Shea that we should not be approaching the definitional question by trying to figure out just how far we can go before we cross the line into torture, any more than two teenagers should approach a physical relationship by trying to figure out just how far they can go before they commit a mortal sin).

And second, to say that abortion is the gravest moral evil that we face today is not to say that other moral evils aren’t evil. It is important to remember that abortion ranks at the top, but most conservative Catholics have no trouble remembering that. What too many of us have trouble remembering, however, is that other evils are indeed evil as well. Holding a pro-life position somehow becomes a philosopher’s stone that makes other evils morally acceptable. (During the campaign, I actually had fellow Catholics tell me that John McCain was preferable to Barack Obama on the question of ESCR, even though their voting records were the same. Their reasoning? He was preferable on abortion, so that somehow made his position on ESCR less wrong.)

Beyond that, I wish that a) we could convince all Catholics in the United States to vote only for pro-life candidates; and b) that it would make a difference. But there are two problems: First, in an increasing number of races, all candidates are pro-abortion; and second, abortion has often been used as a political tool by nominally pro-life politicians who did little or nothing to try to end it when they were elected.

In fact, I’m writing this comment on the day when Justice David Souter announced his retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court. Did George H.W. Bush—who favored abortion until it was politically inconvenient to do so (as did Ronald Reagan)—know that Souter would not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade? Almost certainly. At the very least, there was no excuse for him not to know.

So voting for pro-life candidates alone will not do the trick, since we pro-life voters never insist that they actually follow through. Instead, in the next election, we simply make excuses for them—because, of course, their opponent again is pro-abortion.

That’s why I think that Father Johansen is on to something. We need to issue a wake-up call to both parties and to individual candidates, to let them know that they cannot simply take Catholic voters for granted any more. But we can’t do that by continuing our current voting patterns.

May 3, 2009 at 1:34 pm
(12) girl_faith says:

Until you’re a woman who has been raped, I really don’t think you deserve the right to attack abortion. I am ProLife, but I had a friend who went through this trauma and had an abortion, and to be honest I admired her courage in making such a hard decision! It is something that I know will haunt her forever, and it is made so much worse when people she does not know judge her on this decision.

People deserve the right to be in control of their life, their body is their own to make whatever choices they wish with it.

and Tom Qualey, “I really would have thought there would have been a mass protest of soon-to-be graduates refusing to attend the graduation” I hate to inform you this, but the teenage population is becoming less and less religious! If anything, I imagine the students would refuse to attend if they took away the honor for Obama. The Catholic Church needs to do something to win back the youth … and this is not it.

May 5, 2009 at 10:47 am
(13) Matthew Warner says:

Scott, thanks for the response and the follow up article. I intend on responding fully on my blog later this week if anyone is interested because I think it’s a great conversation.

Just a few quick thoughts in the meantime:

1) I agree that even though abortion is the gravest of issues it does not mean we can ignore or overlook other “lesser” evils. I’m in complete agreement there in case anyone thought otherwise.

2) Of course holding political candidates accountable for what they say they will do is an important(essential) part of it. But that’s true for ANY issue and ANY candidate in ANY office regardless of how we vote. So it’s a moot point in terms of choosing which candidates Catholics should vote for. It’s a given for any strategy to work.

3) Taking ourselves effectively out of the counting (not voting) doesn’t exert influence at all. It does the exact opposite. It takes Catholics completely out of the equation leaving the political decision making and direction of our country entirely in the hands of non-Catholics.

On the other hand, with proper leadership, if we voted together with certain priorities as a block, within a few election cycles we could use our size to shape the country however we wanted to. But again, that takes leadership and Catholics passionately committed to the Church. Neither of which we have all that much of at the present.

As I said, I agree with almost all of what you said. And I didn’t mean to infer in any way that you weren’t clear about the gravity of abortion. I just believe that in our current culture of catholics simply being clear on abortion is not enough…not when we are well aware that Catholics everyday justify supporting abortion by pointing to other less problematic issues like capital punishment and calling them equals further muddying the waters.

Because I know that 50% of Catholics who read anything I would write on that issue are going to rationalize in this manner, I just make a habit of being “extra” clear about it. :-) And I think that’s prudent in our present cultural situation. That’s all!

May 5, 2009 at 11:52 am
(14) Scott P. Richert says:

Matthew, thanks for the thoughtful comments. Regarding #2, what’s the strategy for actually holding politicians accountable? If you vote for a pro-life candidate for Congress, for example, and he does absolutely nothing to advance the cause of life during his term in Congress, and he runs for reelection against a pro-abortion opponent, then what?

Most pro-lifers I know (and I was this way myself) will say, “Well, we have to vote for him again, because we can’t vote for the other guy, because he’s pro-abortion!” But the practical effect of that is to become a “sure vote” for the pro-life candidate, which simply ensures that he can continue never doing anything to advance the cause of life.

The only way to give him a swift kick in the rear and to make sure that he understands that you mean business is to withhold your vote from both candidates.

Regarding 3, I don’t advise simply not voting. If there’s a third alternative who is in line with Catholic teaching, vote for him. If there isn’t, well, yes—withhold your vote altogether. Because the alternative is to become irrelevant, because you’re simply a “sure vote.” See above.

I find Father Rob more persuasive on this point. Currently, Democratic candidates have no particular reason to reconsider their stand on abortion. Why? Because in any race featuring a pro-life Republican, we pro-lifers will vote for the pro-life Republican without batting an eye—even if that pro-life Republican has been in Congress since 1972 and has made only the most desultory moves to combat abortion.

But if we Catholics are in play—if we’re willing to go to the mat and withhold our votes from both major parties—then Democratic candidates have a real reason to reconsider their support for abortion. And Republican candidates have a real reason to make sure that, if elected, they actually follow through.

Your suggestion is closer to the status quo. Perhaps Father Rob is wrong, but since the status quo isn’t getting us anywhere (or, rather, is making things worse—most pro-abort President in the history of the United States), I think it’s worth giving Father Rob’s strategy a try.

Yes, “Catholics everyday justify supporting abortion by pointing to other less problematic issues like capital punishment and calling them equals,” and I have repeatedly attacked that problem on this site and elsewhere, and I’ll be doing so in Part III. But today, those Catholics have been joined by other Catholics who have their head straight on abortion, but who use abortion as an excuse to justify disregarding Church teaching on just war and torture.

That does nothing to advance the pro-life cause, and in fact, it harms it, as even James Hitchcock acknowledged in his article in the Spring 2007 issue of Human Life Review.

How are we more likely to make headway—by saying, “Forget about torture, if it’s really even torture! Concentrate only on abortion!” or by saying, “You’re right about torture, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church shows. But that same Catechism affirms the intrinsic evil of abortion. Come join us, and together we’ll fight for all human life.”

We pro-life Catholics have a chance to make inroads among Catholics who have become muddleheaded on abortion, but who still have some capacity to recognize evil. But we won’t make such inroads by telling them that what they clearly perceive as evil—and what the Church Herself says is evil—isn’t.

They’ll think we’re hypocrites, and our charge of hypocrisy against them will lose all moral force.

May 7, 2009 at 7:43 am
(15) Kirt Higdon says:

Thank you for your excellent analysis, Mr. Richert, and for showing how partisan loyalties undermine loyalty to the Church. As one example of this I cite the instance of my brother who, though not a supporter of Obama, was barred from a Catholic internet group for pointing out McCain’s pro-abortion positions. In my town, a well known pastor told one of his parishoners that he would refuse him the Eucharist unless he removed an Obama bumper sticker from his car.

As a Catholic, one can make the prudential judgment to vote for the lesser evil of the candidates of the two major parties, carefully considering all their positions and choosing whoever one expects to do the least harm with the possibility of good. That’s not my position, but it is a legitimate Catholic position. Or (my preferred position) one may reject all candidates who do not meet Church standards on issues of intrinsic right or wrong and then either vote for a minor candidate or not at all.

What one may not do, with any intellectual or moral integrity, is apply the absolute standard to the opposition party, the relative standard to one’s own, and then condemn those who reason or vote differently as “not really Catholics”, “Catholics in name only”, or “cafeteria Catholics”. These accusations are often thrown by people who should be getting the plank out of their own eye first.

May 7, 2009 at 10:47 am
(16) Scott P. Richert says:

Thanks, Kirt. I think you’ve put your finger on what’s wrong with politicizing the Faith when you write:

What one may not do, with any intellectual or moral integrity, is apply the absolute standard to the opposition party, the relative standard to one’s own, and then condemn those who reason or vote differently as “not really Catholics”, “Catholics in name only”, or “cafeteria Catholics”

That temptation will always be there as long as we think of ourselves as members of a particular political party. The parties need to come to grips with the moral teachings of the Catholic Church; individual Catholics should not have to work out a complicated moral calculus to determine which party best fits.

May 11, 2009 at 2:46 pm
(17) Matthew Warner says:

“The parties need to come to grips with the moral teachings of the Catholic Church; individual Catholics should not have to work out a complicated moral calculus to determine which party best fits.”

Should not? Sure. But the reality is that we do. And we can’t blame the political parties for not giving us the choices we want if we refuse to engage and shape them ourselves. These parties are not some separate entities from “us” or “catholics.” They ARE us. We help make them up and we set their agendas. We are not victims of them unless we decide to be.

Contrary to what you suggest above, we are not stuck in this “sure vote” dilemma you speak of above when you say: “The only way to give him a swift kick in the rear and to make sure that he understands that you mean business is to withhold your vote from both candidates.”

That’s only the case if we limit our actions to election day. If we are involved in primaries in the parties and with protesting and taking action during terms, we can influence who ends up on the ballot. Shoot, we can even kick them out before election time if we really wanted to and came together. Then put in the candidate we choose. That’s how our system works. That’s why we have to actively engage and shape it ourselves – not just take our ball and go home if we don’t like our choices.

I totally agree that we can’t diminish other moral issues in the process. But voting to limit evil sometimes has unintended consequences. We still have to work against those other evils and never overlook them. But we also have to address the current crisis in our culture in a practical, effective, and timely way – as literally thousands of lives depend on it every single day.

I wrote more about this in my response to your part II post here.

May 12, 2009 at 3:50 pm
(18) Mac Rojo says:

Scott,

I think you are mixing two issues that do not morally match.

The butchery (no matter how you slice ‘em … baby’s dead) of un-born children through abortion is an intrinsic evil and any alleged Catholic who supports or votes for those who support abortion are participating in that evil and are heretics because they are picking and choosing which Catholic doctrine they want to obey.

Water boarding and un-just war does not earn automatic self-excommunication as direct support of abortion does. Just because a Pope says something is unjust does not automatically make it a venial or mortal sin; unlike the direct or indirect (vote) support of abortion.

Too many alleged Catholics are ignorant about the teachings and tenants of the faith; and most, horrifically, do not believe in the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Yet these buffoons regularly receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin and think they are real Catholics. The result of this sin is the support for the sin of abortion by the sinner who has been fooled by the Devil. Remember; if they do not discern the Body and Blood, they bring condemnation on themselves. I would like to conduct a survey to discover the last time Obama voters participated in the Sacrament of Confession. I am sure the results would mirror their lack of belief in the True Presence in the Eucharist.

At the core of moral confusion over these issues is the gross lack of ecclesiastical testosterone. Far too many Cardinals, Bishops, Nuns, and Priests have no backbone anymore … and fail to speak and teach the Catholic truth. If they were united, our country would have a different moral atmosphere. We also need to ferret out and laicize homosexual priests and lesbian nuns who poison our Church from within.

As you may know, Saint Thomas Aquinas taught that if you believe all but one thing the Catholic Church teaches, you are not Catholic; you only happen to believe all but one thing the Catholic Church teaches.

Therefore; Obama voters are not Catholic … they are heretic protestants! Think of the Lord of the Rings … Obama is the Awk general and his Catholic voters are part of his Awk army … all seeking to destroy that which is good … including the Catholic Church.

In Spirit & Truth,
Mac Rojo

January 27, 2012 at 11:59 am
(19) Mary Johnson says:

Choose life! The worst day of US history was Jan 22nd 1973. It brought a lot of sadness and shame to this country. In spite of what we Americans say or feel about ourselves. A lot of us have not respect for life, human or otherwise. And we will answer for it someday! Please read “Won by Love” by Norma McCorvey. She was Jane Roe in Roe vs Wade. She was an uneducated, poor, unfortunate soul who saw over the years that abortion was wrong and repented.

September 28, 2012 at 2:04 pm
(20) Dionne Mari says:

Whether you’re an American citizen or a non-citzen who lives in America, this election will determine if you will still have an America in 2016. The 2012 election is not about abortion, but about Saving the U.S. Constitution, and SAVING AMERICA and the freedoms our constitution provide. so that we are able to live according to our faith or religion.

Obama has already destroyed some of the U.S. Constitution and our freedoms by forcing us to buy health care, and even if we are a Christian business or institution that does not believe in paying for abortion or birth control or sex changes.

Another way the U.S. Constitution has been raped is by Obama having the man who creted a film ridiculing Mohammad, arrested. Until now, this country has always allowed free speech. Obama seems to think that his own opinion is more right than the United States Constitution.

Obama’s thinking is dangerous. Afterall we have three branches of government. Obama does not respect our Constitution and hecerttainly has not represented the United States. He degrades it by apologizing nearly every month since being in office. He seems to represent Muslims, as he defend’s Terrorists who bomb our consolates and embassies, but angrily lectures Americans against speaking against Mohammad in speech or a video at the United Nations just two days ago. Fellow Americans, this is frightening!!!!

Wake Up, Americans! IF YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN, it is your duty to vote for the Romney/Ryan ticket. To vote otherwise is to allow a very dangerous man (Barack Obama) to continue to destroy the very Constitution that has saved our country’s freedoms. Up until now it has been a fair and just place to worship and live our lives and ministries. WAKE UP! SAVE AMERICA, aand save our freedom of speech and our freedom of “separation of CHURCH and STATE”, by saving the U.S. Constitution.

Leave a Comment

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>
Top Related Searches
  • faith
  • ©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.