Today he wrote an article on facebook for everyone to see. I thought it was great, so I'm going to post it here.
That does it Catholics, Come to your senses!
I've tried hard to be empathetic with my Catholic friends who have managed to reconcile voting for Obama with their faith, but after reading this:
... I can no longer hold my tongue. A serious Catholic is delusional if they think that voting for Obama's social policies (which have historically proven to be not only ineffective, but counterproductive) can somehow balance the travesty that is his record and rhetoric on abortion and embryonic stem cell research. The Catholic Church holds that to enable the evil acts of another, or to refuse to act to prevent them when possible, is a sin. While judgment ultimately belongs to God, I cannot find, nor have I ever heard, a justification for supporting Obama's horrific record on the unborn (and even the born!) as to make voting for him anything other than what it is: a sin. I understand this will upset some of my very good friends. I understand that they believe that serious thought and prayer has led them to believe that taxing the rich (and small businesses), funding government poverty programs, and teaching kids to be radical activists instead of educated young adults somehow make his unquestionably anti-life positions palatable. But the truth (and the truth sometimes hurts) is that they are wrong. And the thousands upon thousands of abortions that will ensue from his election will bear this out.Bottom line: a Catholic may disagree with whether McCain's policies will help the poor more than Obama's, or benefit healthcare more than Obama's, or lead to more jobs than Obama's; but they cannot say that his policies perpetrate evil. Obama on the other hand has clearly espoused an agenda that, through the lens of the Catholic Church, is unequivocally morally repugnant. The election may not turn out like I want (though I will continue to pray otherwise), but I will never, ever, second guess my vote. But I have a strong feeling that a few of my friends, on the other hand, will someday be confessing theirs to a priest.
I'm proud of you, Ken!
16 comments:
Well said and I'm amazed at his courage to say it, even to friends. To me, it seems like such a simple thing to vote pro life. Even though the PL candidate might not have the best economical, military, or education programs in his/her sight, I just know that a man or woman who saves the unborn and encourages a natural death for everyone will have our best interests in his/her sight. But I am scared we are losing this fight. I pray we aren't. If we put our own selfish needs in the election regarding taxes, education, social security, and healthcare before the unborn, we are doing a huge injustice. Imagine someone coming to you saying, I can lower your taxes or save this baby, you pick. Well, it's an easy choice for me. The sacrifice of personal gain and comfort is worth it.
Wow! That's awesome. And so true.
What courage he has to post it for his friends to see. And speaking of facebook, I love using it to subtly get out my political views.. I join conservative and pro-life groups on there just so that all my more liberal facebook "friends" can see that I joined them! I guess I need a little more courage to do what your husband did. He's so right though, and more of us need to start saying it. It might be tough for some to hear, but it's the truth.
Very well put! I like it!
Probably a question for both you and Ken. Do you think "they" are siding with him since he picked a Catholic running mate?
Does Ken mind if I share his words with some people?
In support of Ken's position I am going to put something on my blog from an excerpt that was included in our Sunday Bulletin. It is from a letter from the Catholic Bishops of Kansas. I was going t include it here - bit it is too long - even though I am only quoting parts of it.
Blessings to you both! Keep it up Ken!
Christi
FYI, friends I know who are supporting The Chosen One were supporting him long before Biden was selected. And most know that he's not really Catholic anyway.
I appreciate the kind words. This has been a frustrating time, and I've tried to be politically correct, but it's not working.
And btw, for the record, while I wouldn't calll him the perfect candidate, I do believe McCain's policies are IMMENSELY more likely to help the poor, the uninsured, and the otherwise lost in our society then the programs of The Chosen One, which ultimately will only further rob the poor of their dignity and perpetuate their status. In other words, McCain's beats Obama in ALL stages of life.
Ken,
You are the MAN.
"I will never, ever, second guess my vote. But I have a strong feeling that a few of my friends, on the other hand, will someday be confessing theirs to a priest."
My goodness... how arrogant can you be? To actually be so presumptuous as to say that people who will vote for Obama will have to confess to a priest!!? That's awful. The Catholic Church has NO place in politics, and you have NO place in your friends' politics, their beliefs, or their votes. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Furthermore, what boggles my mind is that you "pro-lifers" claim to vote based on a candidate's opposition to abortion. Basically, all that candidate needs to do is SAY he or she is "pro-life" and you people buy it. It doesn't matter in the least what policies they present or support. It's sad.
I doubt you (or many other "pro-lifers" for that matter) know that abortion rates actually dramatically DECLINED under the Clinton administration (they were much higher under Reagan and Bush!). And that's because of birth control! But I doubt you care; you'll write it off because of the Church's opposition to contraception. What a shame -- abortion actually significantly gets reduced, and it probably doesn't even matter to you. So many "pro-lifers" are pro-life in name only. All a person has to do is SAY they're pro-life, and evidently it means the world, no matter what their actions say.
Amazing.
Dear Anonymous:
Thank you for your input. How about examining more closely your abortion statistics. You'll note that abortions started declining right about 1992, which not coincidentally is when Casey v. Planned Parenthood was decided. That case, while upholding the right to abortion, lowered the standard of review for laws that restrict access (parental consent, partial birth, etc). Since that time, abortions have dropped. Additionally, abortions have actually dropped under George W. Bush. Please review:
Proof You Are Wrong
Second, in my view a candidate does not have to "say" he is pro-life to qualify, he does indeed have to act upon that belief. Case in point, George W, for instance, ended funding of abortions overseas and in military hospitals. He refused to fund the creation of embryos for purposes of stem cell research. That saved unborn lives. McCain has routinely voted for the unborn (and pregnant mothers, lest you think preventing abortion is ONLY in the interest of the child), whether it be on parental consent, informed consent, partial birth abortion, etc.
Obama, on the other hand, says the first thing he'll do if elected -- the FIRST thing he'll do (evidently the economy actually isn't his priority) -- is pass the Freedom of Choice Act, undoing for good all of those aforementioned measures that have actually led to the reduced abortion rate. He has even failed to support a bill that protects BORN children who survive abortions.
Finally, contraception has been around since the 30s, yet the abortion rate exploded in the 70s. So are you saying that contraception was ineffective in the 70s, but effective in the 90s? Puleeze.
But truly, what I find amazing is that so many people believe the choice to reproduce should extend beyond the choice to have sex, the natural consequence of which is SURPRISE! pregnancy.
You can freely have your flawed opinion, but do me a favor and take your anti-child anti-Catholic pop culture pseudo-sanctimony and stuff it.
Dear "Anonymous" blogger:
Do your comments mean that you are actually pro-life? After all, it seems that you are arguing we pro-lifers should look at a candidates voting record rather than just take them for their word.
If that is your argument, I couldn't agree with you more, and I hope you will convince other pro-lifers such as yourself to do just that!
[by the way, for Obama and McCain's voting record, please go to www.nrlc.org and see for yourself who is more pro-life]
You also seem particularly enraged at Ken's suggestion that voting for a pro-abortion president would be a sin. I have a follow-up question for you: If one of the candidates stated that they personally do not support slavery, for example, but would not restrict the right of someone else to own a slave, would it be morally permissible to vote for him or her?
Of course not. We cannot vote for a candidate that would support policies that violate the dignity of human beings and slavery would do just that. If we were convinced to vote for such a candidate based upon his or her other "good" policies we would still be sinning because nothing - NOTHING- justifies slavery.
Likewise, NOTHING justifies abortion OR voting for a candidate who supports abortion.
If you do not agree that abortion and slavery are morally equivalent, then let's discuss that. (both treat other human beings as disposable objects and both violate the core dignity that each of us possess as humans).
I would really like to know where you stand on all of this.
Finally, I would also like to know why you chose NOT to publish an opinion you are proud to put your name or blog beside?
AS a Catholic I'm confused. Does the death penalty matter? Or are those lives not as important? What about an unjust war? Do those lives not matter as much either? Aren't those important moral life issues?
What about taking care of the poor? Isn't that a moral issue?
What about caring for the sick? Isn't that a moral issue?
Also, the language used in this post isn't the love and unifying language of Christ. It is devisive, insulting, and judgemental.
Can't both sides come together to try to reduce abortions? That will actually get something done.
(side note, McCain himself has said he wants abortion not to be such a focus, and has voted to support stem-cell research etc Neither candidate is entirely pro-life)
“Fellow Catholic,” you are indeed confused.
Yes the death penalty matters, but neither candidate for president is anti-death penalty. So what’s your point? But if you wish to argue it, the Catholic Church does not “oppose” the death penalty, rather it advocates using it only when there is no other way to prevent further evil being perpetrated. The Church acknowledges that it is the right (and obligation) of the state to take steps necessary to ensure the safety of its citizens, though also averring that, speaking practically, it is rarely necessary.
As for taking care of the poor, that is also important (I don’t believe I ever heard McCain say “screw the poor,” have you?) But two candidates can disagree with how best to help people escape poverty, and there is absolutely no proof that any of Obama’s programs will actually lead to progress (and in fact, historically government programs have proven to do just the opposite – look up how the number of minorities in poverty swelled after the Great Society was passed in the Johnson administration).
As for my tone, Jesus did not mince words. He pointed out error when he saw it, and I would expect no less from a strong Catholic who desires to prevent the spread of evil in our society. I also find it absurd that you can talk about “love” yet be willing, evidently, to sacrifice so many innocents in the name of electing a smooth talking radical.
And yes, both sides should come together to end abortions. First, they should come together and pass laws banning it. Then we should help pregnant women in need, and encourage adoption.
Finally, I don’t care if McCain doesn’t want it to be a focus. Barack Obama’s viewpoint focuses the issue for him. I would take an “unfocused” McCain, who certainly won’t do anything to increase abortions, over a “focused” Obama who will repeal the ban on abortions overseas and in military hospitals, and who will push for the Freedom of Choice Act (a title that is just plain sick, if you ask me) which will limit even the simplest and most reasoned restrictions on abortion. And while McCain is in favor of research on embryos already destined to be destroyed, he is against the creation of embryos expressly for that purpose, unlike Obama.
The bottom line here is that on the issue of life, there is no defensible argument for Obama, and any attempt at such comes out tortured and illogical.
When did I say I was willing to sacrifice the lives of innocents?
I merely ask what about all the other life issues? Who are we to qualify life? Who are we to say which lives are more important?
I do not understand why you would need to argue with those statements. Neither candidate is pro-life. Period. Both candidates support policies that result in death.
However, I think this devisive insulting language contributes to nothing getting done to end abortion. Who is going to listen to you when you do not "correct" with love. All it does is turn people away from our Church.
The point you are making is limited to one life issue. And anointing John McCain as pro-life is just plain untrue.
Dear Fellow Catholic:
If one advocates for Barack Obama or votes for him, (which it seems clear to me you are -- please correct me if I'm wrong) one is sacrificing millions of unborn lives to pursue other "goods" that simply cannot be compared to an innocent child's basic right to life.
The next President will appoint at least one, probably two more justices to the US Supreme Court, and those votes will determine whether women will continue to be able to kill their unborn children so that they can be "free."
What is truly at stake is whether the Court will continue to allow women to kill their children for any reason or no reason at all.
Did you know that in the abortion legal context, "health" is now defined as a women's age or mere emotional status? Do you agree that a women can have a late term abortion if her "health" is at risk, when this is how "health" is currently defined? Surely you do not, as a fellow Catholic, agree with this. Surely you would prefer a more reasonable definition of the term "health" such as an "irreversible impairment of a major bodily function." Yet this is not allowed under Roe v. Wade.
Did you know how radical the Roe v. Wade decision is? It needs to be reversed or drastically limited.
We need one more Supreme Court justice to get the more reasonable health definition on the books and to save millions of lives in doing so.
As a woman myself, I'd like to invite you to consider whether the right to kill our unborn children really makes us equal to men. In fact, abortion is a contradiction to the very essence of femininity and womanhood. It denies our beautiful, unique ability as life-giving creatures and attempts to make us like a man in order to be equal to him! What a shame!
When will society praise women for bringing forth life instead of making her feel ashamed of this? (after all, why would women seek abortions unless they felt ashamed of their pregnancy, pressured by others, or not supported by their community.)
Women deserve better than abortion and so do our babies. It's time that we as a society accept the fact that women will have babies at inopportune, inconvenient times and that women need the support of our government, community, churches, schools and society during this time, not a check (with tax payer dollars) to go off and get an abortion to kill her baby. How does this help the woman, child, baby or society? What a tragic outcome abortion always is.
My prayer for you is that the Holy Spirit will give you wisdom as you decide how to vote in light of your Catholic faith. I hope this dialogue has opened your eyes and softened your heart.
(Different anonymous than above)
Lifehopes, I agree with many of your underlying points, but I highly doubt this post is going to soften any hearts. Strident language may have its place, but calling anyone who disagrees with you delusional, sinful, and morally repugnant is not the way to go about it.
No, neither candidate is pro-life by Catholic standards. But there is much more at stake here than "innocent babies" vs. "selfishly profiting" from so-called welfare policies. What about the innocent children in Iraq and potentially Iran? What about the innocent children who would be denied health care or be denied social programs like Head Start as their budgets have been repeatedly slashed under Bush?
Post a Comment