Non-Negotiables

Some issues allow for a diversity of opinion, and Catholics are permitted leeway in endorsing or opposing particular policies.  This is the case with the questions of when to go to war and when to apply the death penalty.  Though the Church urges caution regarding both of these issues, it acknowledges that the state has the right to employ them in some circumstances (CCC 2309, 2267).

Pope Benedict XVI, when he was still Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, spoke of this in a document dealing with when Catholics may receive Communion:

“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.  For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.  While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment.  There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia” (WRHC 3).

The same is true of many other issues that are the subject of political debate: the best way to help the poor, to manage the economy, to protect the environment, to handle immigration, and to provide education, health care and retirement security.  Catholics may legitimately take different approaches to these issues while the same cannot be said for euthanasia and abortion, two actions which are always wrong no matter the circumstances.  The protection of innocent life always takes precedence to all other issues.  What good are all other rights if one does not have the right to life?

God Bless
Nathan

Ref: Catholic Answers, Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics, Catholic Answers Press, 16 pgs, 2016

The Church on Abortion`

The Catholic Church is pro-life.  She teaches that abortion is always wrong.  Where does this teaching come from?  It all starts “in the beginning.”  In Genesis chapter one – “God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.”  Every human person, from the moment of their conception, is created in the image and likeness of God.

Interestingly, the teachings on abortion in the  Catechism of the Catholic Church are in the section on the Fifth Commandment – “You shall not kill.”

This is not a new teaching, something that the Church has been trying to figure out for centuries.  Quite the contrary.  In the Catechism paragraph 2271, it says, “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.  This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.”

What about exceptions for things like rape and incest?  Regardless of the circumstances surrounding its conception, the child in the womb is still a child of God.  In paragraph 2270, the Catechism puts it succinctly – “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.”

For further study:

CCC 2270-2273;  Genesis 1:26-28;
Exodus 20:13;  Deuteronomy 5:17

Reference:
Gus Lloyd, A Minute in the Church, Vol II,  p.9, 2010

God Bless
Nathan

Mercy Sunday Reflections

This past Sunday was Mercy Sunday.  Our priest gave a great homily on the necessity of the Mercy of God through the Sacrament of Confession but also for us, being members of the Body of Christ, our necessity of doing His work.  Works like feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, burying the dead and so on.

 

I was incredibly moved by his homily because when he began speaking on the need of protecting the defenseless I couldn't help but picture a young person in the womb whose heart is being stopped intentionally through abortion.  Who is more defenseless than a baby not yet born?  And what are we doing to defend him or her?  You see, a 6 week-old embryo is just that, a baby.  A young one but a baby nonetheless. 

 

This young one, this person who was conceived into this world only six weeks prior already has a beating heart.  This living organism is growing, therefore is alive.  Its parents are human beings therefore IT is a human being.  A living human being growing in the womb with its own distinct DNA, different from either of its parents.

 

Our call as Christians is to have mercy on those who need it.  This entails us to DO something to those who need our support and protection.  How much have we done to help these defenseless human beings from dying horribly?

 

These babies not only have a beating heart at 6 weeks gestation, they also develop earlobes, fingers, have a brain and can even move their limbs.  These babies even have fingernails by the end of the twelfth week of gestation which is the end of the first trimester when most abortions occur.  

 

Let us not neglect our Christian duty by ignoring this holocaust.  It is indeed a holocaust of massive proportions.  Around 6 million Jews died during those years while there are about 1.5 million abortions A YEAR in this country alone.  That comes to about 55 million dead babies since Roe v. Wade passed in 1973.

 

Let’s stand up and be counted.  Let’s do whatever we can to reduce the number of abortions a year by voting for those who have pro-life stands into office that they may institute pro-life laws.

 

God Bless
Nathan

Sanctity of Human Life Month

In honor of the Sanctity of Human Life Month, I thought I'd re-direct you all to a local demonstration on the sanctity and value of human life.  Please click on the link below.


http://wagmtv.com/event/line-up-for-life/

God Bless
Nathan

The Epiphany of Our Lord

The Epiphany of Our Lord is the Christian feast observed on Jan. 6.   An “epiphany” is an appearance. In today’s readings, with their rising stars, splendorous lights and mysteries revealed, the face of the child born on Christmas day appears.

In honor of this day, I thought I’d bring you a little exchange of the pro-life position to a pro-choice individual using what science has made known to us on when human life actually makes its appearance in this world, ie when life begins…

Pro-lifer: What do you think about abortion?

Pro-choicer: I don’t know. I mean, if a woman already has three kids and can barely feed them, I don’t see why she has to be forced to bring another child into the world.

PL: I agree it would be really tough to not know how you are going to provide for your children. I don’t know how I’d handle that situation. But can I ask you a question?

PC: Sure.

PL: Let’s say this woman knows she can take care of three children and she actually wants a newborn. Should she be allowed to kill one of her other children, such as her two-year-old, so that she can make ends meet?

PC: No! I mean, she could always adopt that one out.

PL: Yeah, but what if she doesn’t want to worry about what will happen to that child after she adopts him out? Maybe she’s worried about him being abused by a stranger. Why would you say she shouldn’t be allowed to kill her two-year-old?

PC: Because the two-year-old is a living, born human being. It’s completely different! Are you saying that a woman should be forced to drop out of school or lose her job just because she’s pregnant?

PL: I don’t think women should be fired just because they are pregnant—that’s definitely unfair. But let’s say a woman gives birth and finds that she can’t finish school or keep her job because her baby demands too much of her. In fact, most moms I know find born babies to be harder to handle than unborn babies. Should women be allowed to kill their newborns if that will help their education or career?

PC: Of course not, but you’re confusing the issue.

PL: How am I doing that?

PC: You’re talking about killing babies, and I’m just talking about women’s choice.

PL: A choice to do what exactly?

PC: To not be a mother if they don’t want to be one.

PL: I agree with you that no woman should be forced to become a mother.

PC: You do?

PL: Of course. We also agree that it’s okay to force a woman to stay a mother by forbidding her from killing her born children. She can put them up for adoption and give up being their legal mother, but she’ll always be a biological mother as long as the children are alive.

PC: But that’s because you can’t kill people.

PL: Ah! So that’s the issue. It’s not really about poverty or choice, since you and I agree those reasons wouldn’t justify killing born people like two-year-olds. But if the unborn are just as human as a two-year-old, then why not treat them like we treat two-year-olds and make it illegal to kill them just because they are unwanted?

(exchange found in Trent Horn’s book “Persuasive Pro-Life” in the chapter named “The Pragmatists”)

 

God Bless
Nathan

On the Importance of Voting

It is hard to underestimate the importance of voting.

As you are well aware, here in the US, the silly season is in full swing. Candidates are filling the airwaves and making media appearances in an effort to solicit your vote for this important midterm election.

PLENTY AT STAKEI realize this is not a Presidential election this year, so voter turnout won’t be as high as two years ago. Nonetheless, this election season will have a big impact on the country.

On top of control of the US Senate, governor races, House of Representative seats, and Senate spots are up for grabs. These candidates could possess tremendous power if (re-)elected.

A governor can determine judge appointments, veto state bills, and sign bills into state law, for instance. Elected Congressmen can go on to chair Congressional committees, and vote on national laws, as well. Such decisions impact all of us at some level.

WE ALL HAVE A MORAL OBLIGATION TO VOTEWe have an obligation to vote, as stated by the Catechism of the Church, 2240:

“Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country.”

Voting serves the common good, and thus it serves the Natural Law, as well.

We all should seek justice, liberty, and peace for all members of our nation. We must discern the best candidates and vote for them, so as to help them to win. Then we must hold them accountable to enact laws and fulfill their duty to serve.

CATHOLIC VOTING RECORD HISTORICALLY AN INDICTMENTAs great as the importance of voting is, sadly Catholics, at least here in the US, do not have a good track record. This must change!

Five of the last six Presidential candidates who won the popular Catholic vote also won the election. This means that the majority of self-identifying Catholics voted into office Barack Obama (twice), George W. Bush (once), and Bill Clinton (twice). The lone exception was in 2000, when Al Gore won the popular Catholic vote (by two points), but lost the election in the electoral college.

That is frightening.

In 1998, the US Council of Catholic Bishops issued a document called, “Living The Gospel Of Life: A Challenge To American Catholics.” I think it sums up perfectly why Catholics have failed at the ballot box.

I want to direct your attention to the spot-on observation in section 24 of this “Challenge:”

“Today, Catholics risk cooperating in a false pluralism. Secular society will allow believers to have whatever moral convictions they please—as long as they keep them on the private preserves of their consciences, in their homes and in their churches, and out of the public arena.

“Democracy is not a substitute for morality. Its value stands – or falls – with the values which it embodies and promotes. Only tireless promotion of the truth about the human person can infuse democracy with the right values. This is what Jesus meant when he asked us to be a leaven in society.

“American Catholics have long sought to assimilate into U.S. cultural life.

“But in assimilating, we have too often been digested. We have been changed by our culture too much, and we have changed it not enough.

If we are leaven, we must bring to our culture the whole Gospel, which is a Gospel of life and joy. That is our vocation as believers.

“And there is no better place to start than promoting the beauty and sanctity of human life. Those who would claim to promote the cause of life through violence or the threat of violence contradict this Gospel at its core.”

We would do well to recall the words of our bishops and to heed them. We can start with this election.

IN CLOSINGWithout the right to life, no rights exist or matter. That’s why it is the foundational criteria by which any candidate must be measured by a faithful Catholic. If a candidate does not support the right to life from conception to natural death, he or she is disqualified from properly serving office.

I hope you agree on the importance of voting. Now, get out there and vote pro-life!

Copied from: http://prolife365.com/the-importance-of-voting/

USCCB Voting Guide

The Pro-Life USCCB Voter’s Guide

 

By Randall Smith

Thursday, 25 October 2012

Twice now I’ve published articles here arguing that: a Catholic with a properly formed conscience cannot vote for a candidate who favors allowing abortion over one who favors restricting it – any more than a Catholic with a properly formed conscience could have voted for a candidate who favored allowing slavery over one who favored restricting it. Several people since have asked about the USCCB voter’s guide: “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” My answer: while I have rather strong reservations about some wording in the document, and although I think the approach the document takes eviscerates its rhetorical force, all-in-all, it’s hard to accuse the authors of not beating the drum against abortion. In a thirty-page document with very large type, abortion comes up no fewer than fourteen times – indeed, it shows up on nearly every page. You can’t read far before you find a sentence prohibiting abortion. Permit me a few examples: ·         “There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called “intrinsically evil” actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. In our nation, “abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others.” (22) ·         "Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights – for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture – is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.” (26) ·         “Two temptations in public life can distort the Church’s defense of human life and dignity: The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.” (27-8) ·          “The Holy Father, in a particular way, called on Catholic politicians and legislators to recognize their grave responsibility in society to support laws shaped by these fundamental human values, and urged them to oppose laws and policies that violate life and dignity at any stage from conception to natural death.” (39) ·         “A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.” (42) Is that clear enough? Some have faulted the USCCB document for equating abortion with other issues. That’s not entirely fair. The document states repeatedly that “some issues involve principles that can never be violated, such as the fundamental right to life. Others reflect [a] judgment about the best way to apply Catholic principles to policy issues.” (63) The latter, admits the document, are matters “for principled debate and decision.” Above all, though, the document insists: “It is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions.” (37) The document seeks repeatedly to affirm the priority of abortion while not diminishing the importance of the other important issues we face. Doesn’t that make sense? We can’t cease concerning ourselves with health care, concern for the poor, the debt crisis, and marriage and family issues until and unless the scourge of abortion is ended: “Although choices about how best to respond to these and other compelling threats to human life and dignity are matters for principled debate and decision,” says the document, “this does not make them optional concerns or permit Catholics to dismiss or ignore Church teaching on these important issues.” (29) Of course not. What if there were two pro-life candidates running against one another? Can we just forget that election or the issues involved? Absolutely not. In that regard, however, consider this: What would happen if the pro-abortion party in the country – the one dedicated to keeping out any pro-life candidates or voices – were guaranteed to lose 90 percent of the Catholic vote given their stance on abortion? There is an odds-on chance that the pro-abortion party might not remain entirely pro-abortion. We might finally have a real election again between two parties and candidates with roughly equal claims on our moral concern. And then we could consider those other important issues. We’ll never get there, however, as long as some people keep bellying up to the bar with the guy we all know is a sad, dangerous, and self-destructive alcoholic who, when he gets a few drinks in him, kills babies. Randall Smith is associate professor of theology at the University of St. Thomas, Houston. © 2012 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org

Explainig Why Abortion is Wrong While Avoiding Religious Terms

Today I would like to show how one can debate, argue, on the merits of being pro-life without using religious texts for support.

Using only science and our own Declaration of Independence we can make a solid argument against any and all abortions.  First we need to understand that a person is a living human being.  The online dictionary Merriam-Webster defines ‘person’ as “a human being.”  Second, our Declaration of Independence tells us that all human beings have an unalienable right to life.  And thirdly, we can know that a new human being begins its life at the moment of fertilization.  As the same online dictionary defines ‘fertilization’ as: the process of union of two gametes whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated.

There you have it.  Everything you need to successfully explain your pro-life position as being well supported by science by applying the fundamental right to life for all human beings from the beginning of its life (at fertilization) to its natural end.

There’s no other conclusion possible.  You see, the only objections to my position of pro-life is to argue that size, level of development, Environment or degree of dependency are points allowing for the destruction of what is growing in the womb, which science tells us that it’s a living human being.

Let’s look at these different objections to see how weak their position really is.  Does size determine if someone has a right to life?  No, of course not.  A baby is much smaller than a teenager but that doesn’t mean that the baby doesn’t have a right to life simply because it’s smaller in size.  The same goes for a newly formed human being, the zygote.  It may be extremely small but it is indeed a human being and alive and therefore it has a right to life just as a baby or a teenager does.  Size does not determine if one has rights.

Does the level of development determine if one has the right to life?  Of course not.  An adult human being is much more developed than a toddler, does that mean that the adult has a greater degree of this right to life than the toddler does?   Just because the level of development might prevent a human being from ‘thinking’ or ‘feeling’ doesn’t mean that our value is based  on our abilities.   Some individuals , like Gabby Gingras, can’t feel pain at all but that doesn’t mean that she has no right to life.

Does ones location determine if one has a right to life?  No.  Just because they are living in the womb at the moment, which is in its proper location for its age, doesn’t change ones nature that they are indeed a human being and the fact that they are growing means that they are alive.  All living human beings have a right to life no matter where they may be at a certain time in their lives.  I have as much a right to life whether I’m in bed or at work; the same applies to the individual whether she is in the womb or in her mother’s arms.

And lastly, the level of dependency.  The fact that the individual who is completely dependent on the mother for survival does not determine whether he has a right to life.  If that were the case then a newborn would not have a right to life either since it is completely dependent on someone else, usually the mother for its survival.  If level of dependency on another for survival determines if one has a right to life means that the killing of newborns would be morally acceptable.  No rational individual would support the killing of newborns.

Again, we can plainly see that if it can be ascertained with a great amount of certainty that a new human being begins its existence at the moment of fertilization, then by virtue of believing in the right to life for all supercedes any ‘rights’ the mother may feel she has to an abortion for whatever reason.  Science has determined with certainty that a human being does indeed begin its life at the moment of conception which means that a mothers ‘right’ to choose to deliberately kill her developing human being should not be allowed by law.

The right to life is to be afforded to all living human beings simply by virtue of them being  human beings.  And that right to life cannot be taken away because of their size, level of development, environment or dependency.  They deserve this right because we believe that the founders had it right; that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights[that cannot be taken away or denied], that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” 

 

God Bless
Nathan

Fortnight 4 Freedom

The U.S. Bishops have called for a Fortnight for Freedom from June 21 to July 4, 2014. Please visit www.fortnight4freedom.org for more information on this important time of prayer, education, and action in support of religious freedom!

 

What do we mean by religious liberty?

 

In Catholic teaching, the Second Vatican Council explained in Dignitatis Humanae that the foundation of the principle of religious freedom is rooted in the dignity of the human person, who is endowed with reason and free will, and therefore able to take responsibility for his or her actions. Religious liberty is protected in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and in federal and state laws. Religious liberty includes more than our ability to go to Mass on Sunday or pray the Rosary at home; it also encompasses our ability to contribute freely to the common good of all Americans.

"We are Catholics. We are Americans. We are proud to be both, grateful for the gift of faith which is ours as Christian disciples, and grateful for the gift of liberty which is ours as American citizens. To be Catholic and American should mean not having to choose one over the other. Our allegiances are distinct, but they need not be contradictory, and should instead be complementary. That is the teaching of our Catholic faith, which obliges us to work together with fellow citizens for the common good of all who live in this land. That is the vision of our founding and our Constitution, which guarantees citizens of all religious faiths the right to contribute to our common life together. "

Religious Liberty Is More Than Freedom of Worship

 

Religious liberty is not only about our ability to go to Mass on Sunday or pray the Rosary at home. It is about whether we can make our contribution to the common good of all Americans. Can we do the good works our faith calls us to do, without having to compromise that very same faith? Without religious liberty properly understood, all Americans suffer, deprived of the essential contribution in education, health care, feeding the hungry, civil rights, and social services that religious Americans make every day, both here at home and overseas.

 

What is at stake is whether America will continue to have a free, creative, and robust civil society—or whether the state alone will determine who gets to contribute to the common good, and how they get to do it. Religious believers are part of American civil society, which includes neighbors helping each other, community associations, fraternal service clubs, sports leagues, and youth groups. All these Americans make their contribution to our common life, and they do not need the permission of the government to do so. Restrictions on religious liberty are an attack on civil society and the American genius for voluntary associations.

 

The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America issued a statement about the administration's contraception and sterilization mandate that captured exactly the danger that we face:

Most troubling, is the Administration's underlying rationale for its decision, which appears to be a view that if a religious entity is not insular, but engaged with broader society, it loses its "religious" character and liberties. Many faiths firmly believe in being open to and engaged with broader society and fellow citizens of other faiths. The Administration's ruling makes the price of such an outward approach the violation of an organization's religious principles. This is deeply disappointing.

This is not a Catholic issue. This is not a Jewish issue. This is not an Orthodox, Mormon, or Muslim issue. It is an American issue.

 

 

"All the Energies the Catholic Community Can Muster"

 

What we ask is nothing more than that our God-given right to religious liberty be respected. We ask nothing less than that the Constitution and laws of the United States, which recognize that right, be respected.

 

In insisting that our liberties as Americans be respected, we know as bishops that what our Holy Father said is true. This work belongs to "an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity endowed with a strong critical sense vis-à-vis the dominant culture."

As bishops we seek to bring the light of the Gospel to our public life, but the work of politics is properly that of committed and courageous lay Catholics. We exhort them to be both engaged and articulate in insisting that as Catholics and as Americans we do not have to choose between the two. There is an urgent need for the lay faithful, in cooperation with Christians, Jews, and others, to impress upon our elected representatives the importance of continued protection of religious liberty in a free society.

 

We address a particular word to those holding public office. It is your noble task to govern for the common good. It does not serve the common good to treat the good works of religious believers as a threat to our common life; to the contrary, they are essential to its proper functioning. It is also your task to protect and defend those fundamental liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. This ought not to be a partisan issue. The Constitution is not for Democrats or Republicans or Independents. It is for all of us, and a great nonpartisan effort should be led by our elected representatives to ensure that it remains so.

 

Text taken from, and for more information, please go to:
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/

 

God Bless
Nathan

Mortal Sin

We learned in last week’s leaflet that Jesus instituted a Church with authority (Mat 18:15-18).  Now are we free to ignore this Church, preferring our own particular ideas, our own preferences?  In a strict sense we are free to do as we wish BUT for those of us who are Christians, we are most free when we follow God. 

As Christians we are to follow God as Jesus taught us.  We put our trust in His message and teachings.  As a famous 20^th century philosopher once said: “To trust Him means, of course, trying to do all that He says.  There would be no sense in saying you trusted a person if you would not take his advice.”  (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity)

Jesus advised us to listen to His Church when He told us to bring our disagreements to it in Mat 18.  Specifically, He told the apostles to tell it to the Church and if they will not listen to the Church then we are to treat them as though they are lost.  Jesus said: “tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

And so we see that Jesus’ advice in determining the truth is to go to His Church.  On matters of faith and morals we also know that whatever the Church proclaims to be true is infallibly known to be true since Jesus said that whatever the Church binds on earth will be bound in heaven.  Since nothing untrue can be bound in heaven means that whatever the Church binds on earth must also be true.

Now, if you are aware of a Church teaching defined as true and binding but reject it anyway then you are freely going against the advice of Jesus as well as rejecting the authority of His Church.  If all these conditions are met, that is first, that you are aware of the binding authority of His Church and secondly freely reject it, which is a very grave matter, then you are rejecting the rightful authority given to His Church by God Himself.   You are perpetrating a mortal sin.

Are you aware that the Church Jesus founded teaches in the necessity of keeping the Sabbath day Holy by going to Mass on Sunday?  If you are aware of this and freely neglect to go without good reason then you are committing a mortal sin.

Are you aware that the Church Jesus founded teaches on the grave matter of artificial contraception usage to be against the moral law?  If you are aware of this teaching of the Church and yet freely use artificial contraception anyway then you are committing a mortal sin.

Are you aware that the Church Jesus founded teaches that human life is sacred and to be protected?  If you were aware of this and also aware of the extreme abortion views of one political candidate while the only other candidate opposing him clearly had a better life-affirming stand but voted for the one with the extreme abortion proponent anyway then you committed a mortal sin.

Please, examine your conscience before receiving our Lord in the Eucharist.  Are you guilty of mortal sin?  If you are then I urge you to go to confession before receiving the Eucharist since you would be “guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.” (1 Cor 1:27)

God Bless
Nathan

Voting Like a Catholic

In a few days, most of us will go vote for our next president of the United States.  So how do we choose between candidates?  What are the criteria that we are to use in determining who is best for the job?  Our leaders in the faith answer…

Archbishop of Baltimore mentioned what we are to ask ourselves when deciding.  He said: “The question to ask is this: Are any of the candidates of either party, or independents, standing for something that is intrinsically evil, evil no matter what the circumstances?”

“If that’s the case, a Catholic, regardless of his party affiliation, shouldn’t be voting for such a person”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholics-shouldnt-vote-for-candidate-who-supports-intrinsic-evil-says-balt

We find in the words of another Archbishop that people “who are practicing Catholics cannot have alternate views on abortion.  Such foundational issues have a huge impact, and it’s important that Catholics make those distinctions.  A person may be right on a lot of secondary issues but wrong on the foundational issues.  And if that’s the case, it would be very difficult for a Catholic to vote for someone who, for example, favors unlimited access to abortion… undermines the meaning of marriage or supports policies that really undermine the foundation of our culture.”
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/archbishop-chaput-be-catholic-before-you-are-democrat-or-republican/

Archbishop Chaput also tells us “So can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is: I can’t, and I won’t. But I do know some serious Catholics—people whom I admire—who may. I think their reasoning is mistaken, but at least they sincerely struggle with the abortion issue, and it causes them real pain. And most important: They don’t keep quiet about it; they don’t give up; they keep lobbying their party and their representatives to change their pro-abortion views and protect the unborn. Catholics can vote for pro-choice candidates if they vote for them despite - not because of - their pro-choice views.  But [Catholics who support ‘pro-choice’ candidates] also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it."

The passage following that sentence continued, "What is a ‘proportionate’ reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life - which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed."

And for this reason archbishop Chaput says:  “I certainly can’t vote for somebody who’s either pro-choice or pro-abortion.”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2008/may/08052107

If the only two candidates to vote for can both be labeled pro-abortion then Cardinal Burke, prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura (the Vatican's highest court) said : “You may in some circumstances, where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country.” http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2010/oct/10102806)

In fact, in a recent letter Bishop Ricken of Green Bay stated that the church has a responsibility to speak out regarding moral issues, especially on those issues that impact the “common good” and the “dignity of the human person.”

The bishop identified abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and homosexual “marriage” as non-negotiables.   The Bishop then stated:

 “To vote for someone in favor of these positions means that you could be morally complicit with these choices which are intrinsically evil,” the bishop warned. “This could put your own soul in jeopardy.”
http://www.gbdioc.org/images/stories/Front_Page/An-Important-Moment-Article-from-Bishop-Ricken-10-24-2012.pdf

Prepared by a St. Denis parishioner

A Vote for Evil?

Posted by Scott at 8/11/2012 08:30:00 AM

Re-printed with permission.

 

Catholic voters cannot support any candidate whose position is intrinsically evil. Baltimore's Archbishop Lori preached recently. Anyone who supports abortion is supporting murder, an intrinsic evil and no Catholic can, in good conscience or in good faith, vote for such a candidate. Likewise, a candidate who does not uphold THE definition of marriage as being the union of a man and a woman and supports homosexual "marriage" - with homosexuality being an intrinsic evil and an abomination to the Lord - cannot be supported in good conscience or faith. This really narrows the field for you!

Vote your conscience - vote your faith! What good is your faith if you don't LIVE it and EXPRESS it? Such would be known as a faith without works. You can express yourself as a Catholic all you want, but when it comes to actually LIVING your faith, do you? When you enter the privacy of that voting booth, do you pull the lever or fill in the blank for the candidate who supports the killing of innocent children in the womb? Will you vote for the candidate who supports marriage or the one who supports the dissolution of the first Sacrament God instituted which is specifically for a man and a woman? If you are not LIVING your faith, then you do not have a LIVING faith!

^{James 2:14} What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him?

The simple answer to St. James' question is NO! That faith cannot and will not save him. If you exercise your freedom to vote in such a manner that you're voting for someone who supports values contrary to your faith - that would be even worse than the "dead faith" St. James speaks of, for YOUR works actually become EVIL WORKS when you stand in support of a candidate who supports such intrinsic evils.  [Blog site address:
 http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2012/08/a-vote-for-evil.html]

 

As Catholics we are obliged to vote pro-life but if the only two candidates to vote for can both be labeled pro-abortion then Cardinal Burke, prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura (the Vatican's highest court) said : “You may in some circumstances, where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country.” http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2010/oct/10102806)

A Catholic's Guide to Voting

Catholic Voter’s Guide

 

 

per·son

 

1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.

 

2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.

 

3. Sociology . an individual human being, especially with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.

 

4. Philosophy . a self-conscious or rational being.

 

5. the actual self or individual personality of a human being: You ought not to generalize, but to consider the person you are dealing with.

 

 Source:  www.dictionary.com

_________________________________________________________

In trying to figure out who to vote for in any election it’s important to know where each candidate stands on the issues of the day.  What they plan to do to help invigorate the economy, universal healthcare and what needs to be done about ongoing wars.

All of these, as well as others, are very important but to determine who is the one who better represents the people of the United States we need to figure out which subject has priority over all others.  If both candidates agree about what we believe is most important then we are to look at the subject which has second highest priority and so on.

As concerned citizen, we are obligated to elect individuals who will look out for the lives of his constituents.  Not only on the day-to-day issues but on life issues itself.  Many individuals lose their lives in the fight against our country’s enemies and many also lose their lives when they are forcibly taken out from their mothers’ womb.

Both categories are important since both involve the loss of life but which one should be our priority when two candidates disagree on both issues?  How are we to decide who to vote for when one candidate will fight to end a US war but will work to help facilitate easier abortions for all women while the other seems to want to continue armed hostilities abroad but will work to stop most abortions from being performed?

A couple of things to consider when deciding which issue should have priority.  Although you may not agree with the necessity of troops in foreign wars, they at least have the means to defend themselves.  They can either take cover, retreat or even shoot back.  The baby in the womb can do none of those, and that’s why they are considered the most defenseless.  A secondary thing to remember is the sheer number of casualties involved.  For the entire Afghan war there is a total of over 3,000 deaths as of Sept 2012[1].  In fact, the sum of all U.S. soldier deaths from all wars in U.S. history (including the Civil War, World War I and II as well as the Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan wars) we have a total of a little over 1.3 million deaths[2].

A single death from an unnecessary war is one too many and if you are against war in general then one death during war is one too many.  But if one compares the number of deaths from ALL U.S wars put together this number comes to about equal the amount of deaths performed by  abortions in an average year!  In fact, the once special research affiliate of the abortion chain Planned Parenthood gives us national statistics that show an annual abortion rate of 1.2 million abortions[3].

The total number of deaths by abortions in the U.S. alone since its legalization is now over 54 million.  54 million living human beings, persons, allowed to be killed simply because they were unborn at the time.  Any right to choose, or any other right at all is superseded by the right to life since what’s the point of having all other rights if one doesn’t have life?

I’ll leave it to you to figure out what kind of a free democracy we really are when we allow for the killing of the most defenseless among us, of those not yet born.  What good is freedom if some aren’t even allowed to live?  Where is their choice?  Choose wisely, vote in support of the possibility of choosing for all human beings especially in choosing life.

 

Missed past week’s leaflets?  Questions?  Comments?  Come visit our Blog at www.parishofthepreciousblood.blogspot.com

Prepared by a St. Denis parishioner

 

---

[1] http://icasualties.org/OEF/ByMonth.aspx

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war#cite_note-defense.gov-83

[3] http://www.nrlc.org/Factsheets/FS03_AbortionInTheUS.pdf

Freedom of Religion

Last week we learned that destroying a growing and living human being is truly against the Will of God.  Therefore all followers of God are obliged NOT to do those things.  Our Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes St. Augustine when defining ‘sin’.  Augustine says: “Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor cause by a perverse attachment to certain goods.  It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity.  It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.” (CCC 1849)

The Catechism also defines sin thusly:  “Sin is an offense against God.  It is a revolt against God through the will to become ‘like gods,’ knowing and determining good and evil.  Sin is therefore “love of oneself even to contempt of God.”” (CCC 1850)

We know there are two levels of gravity of sin, venial and mortal, Scripture is very clear on that point (1 john 5:16).  A venial sin is an act that does not completely cut himself off from the love of God that is in Jesus Christ.  A mortal sin does indeed cut him off from God.  The Catechism defines these terms this way: “Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a great violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God”… “Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.” (CCC 1855)

For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.” (CCC 1857)  Therefore since we know that contraception  and abortion are of a grave matter (very serious subject) then for one to deliberately (freely) and knowingly perform these or help others in performing these acts is morally evil (ie mortal sin).

It has been a tenant of our Catholic faith since the very beginning that abortion and the use of contraception is always and everywhere gravely wrong.  Whether anyone else believes this to be right or wrong is irrelevant for our purposes today.   If our conscience dictates that it is a great moral evil to use contraception or abortafacient drugs then by virtue of loving our fellow man we are also obliged not to directly help them acquire such products and services.  For example, if it is morally wrong for me to intentionally kill an innocent bystander then it is also morally wrong for me to knowingly supply the gun so that someone else can kill him.  Since 1973, ever since abortion has been legalized, federal law does not protect all of its citizens.  It currently discriminates against a class of persons not yet born and with the Healthcare services being proposed by Obama (ie, Obamacare) the government will force its citizens to pay for these deadly services whether we have religious objections to them or not.  We must make our voices heard.  The voice of reason needs to overcome or our great country will no longer be a country where freedom or religion prevails.  We must prevent our government from trampling on our right to freely exercise our religion in the public square.

Even though “unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense” as well as “the promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders…” we as a society are obliged to defend our constitutional right to freedom of religion.  PLEASE, let us rise up and be heard.

Prepared by a St Denis parishoner