Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Compassionate Catholicism
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Other Issues > Other Issues Archive
Beamer
I pulled this from the Kerry forum. Louisa responded to my request for help because my sister (who is Catholic, and so am I) was going to vote for Bush.

QUOTE
Funny coincidence this as I have a daughter-in-law who is voting for Bush and she lives in Chicago - also a Roman Catholic. So today I sent her something to think about and perhaps you would like to print this off and give it to her. Whilst the Catholic Church is against abortion, stem cell research and the death penalty, it tells us that we have to look at the broader picture, that all human life is precious. The following is a part of the bishops' guidance for Catholic voters. It goes without saying that this is the Catholic creed and many of you will not agree with it and I don't expect you to but I think that many Catholics will be voting for Kerry and so will I because we are looking at the big picture and I do believe that we are being pointed in the direction of the best candidate for our future and the future of this world....and here it is.......for your sister and any other Catholic who is still undecided.

Life and Dignity of the Human Person
Every human person is created in the image and likeness of God. Therefore, each person's life and dignity must be respected, whether that person is an innocent unborn child in a mother's womb, whether that person worked in the World Trade Center or a market in Baghdad, or even whether that person is a convicted criminal on death row. We believe that every human life is sacred from conception to natural death, that people are more important than things, and that the measure of every institution is whether it protects and respects the life and dignity of the human person. As the recent Vatican statement points out, "The Church recognizes that while democracy is the best expression of the direct participation of citizens in political choices, it succeeds only to the extent that it is based on a correct understanding of the human person. Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on this principle."

Rights and Responsibilities
Every person has a fundamental right to life--the right that makes all other rights possible. Each person also has a right to the conditions for living a decent life—faith and family life, food and shelter, education and employment, health care and housing. We also have a duty to secure and respect these rights not only for ourselves, but for others, and to fulfill our responsibilities to our families, to each other, and to the larger society.

Option for the Poor and Vulnerable
Scripture teaches that God has a special concern for the poor and vulnerable. The prophets denounced injustice toward the poor as a lack of fidelity to the God of Israel. Jesus, who identified himself with "the least of these", came to preach "good news to the poor, liberty to captives . . . and to set the downtrodden free." The Church calls on all of us to embrace this preferential option for the poor and vulnerable, to embody it in our lives, and to work to have it shape public policies and priorities. A fundamental measure of our society is how we care for and stand with the poor and vulnerable.

Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers
The economy must serve people, not the other way around. Work is more than a way to make a living; it is a form of continuing participation in God's act of creation. If the dignity of work is to be protected, then the basic rights of workers, owners, and others must be respected—the right to productive work, to decent and fair wages, to organize and choose to join a union, to economic initiative, and to ownership and private property. These rights must be exercised in ways that advance the common good.

Solidarity
We are one human family. We are our brothers' and sisters' keepers, wherever they may be. Pope John Paul II insists, "We are all really responsible for all". Loving our neighbor has global dimensions in a shrinking world. At the core of the virtue of solidarity is the pursuit of justice and peace. Pope Paul VI taught that "if you want peace, work for justice. The Gospel calls us to be "peacemakers." Our love for all our sisters and brothers demands that we be "sentinels of peace" in a world wounded by violence and conflict.

Caring for God's Creation
The world that God created has been entrusted to us. Our use of it must be directed by God's plan for creation, not simply for our own benefit. Our stewardship of the Earth is a form of participation in God's act of creating and sustaining the world. In our use of creation, we must be guided by a concern for generations to come. We show our respect for the Creator by our care for creation.

These themes anchor our community's role in public life. They help us to resist excessive self-interest, blind partisanship, and ideological agendas. They also help us avoid extreme distortions of pluralism and tolerance that deny any fundamental values and dismiss the contributions and convictions of believers. As the Vatican's statement on public life explains, we cannot accept an understanding of pluralism and tolerance that suggests "every possible outlook on life [is] of equal value". However, this insistence that there are fundamental moral values "has nothing to do with the legitimate freedom of Catholic citizens to choose among the various political opinions that are compatible with faith and the natural moral law, and to select, according to their own criteria, what best corresponds to the needs of the common good".

Moral Priorities for Public Life
We wish to call special attention to issues that we believe are important in the national debate in this campaign and in the years to come. These brief summaries do not indicate the depth and details of the positions we have taken in the documents which are cited at the end of this statement.

Protecting Human Life
Human life is a gift from God, sacred and inviolable. Because every human person is created in the image and likeness of God, we have a duty to defend human life from conception until natural death and in every condition.

Our world does not lack for threats to human life. We watch with horror the deadly violence of terror, war, starvation, and children dying from disease. We face a new and insidious mentality that denies the dignity of some vulnerable human lives and treats killing as a personal choice and social good. As we wrote in Living the Gospel of Life, "Abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human life and dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental good and the condition for all others". Abortion, the deliberate killing of a human being before birth, is never morally acceptable. The destruction of human embryos as objects of research is wrong. This wrong is compounded when human life is created by cloning or other means only to be destroyed. The purposeful taking of human life by assisted suicide and euthanasia is never an act of mercy. It is an unjustifiable assault on human life. For the same reasons, the intentional targeting of civilians in war or terrorist attacks is always wrong.

In protecting human life, "We must begin with a commitment never to intentionally kill, or collude in the killing, of any innocent human life, no matter how broken, unformed, disabled or desperate that life may seem."

Catholic teaching calls on us to work to avoid war. Nations must protect the right to life by finding ever more effective ways to prevent conflicts from arising, to resolve them by peaceful means, and to promote post-conflict reconstruction and reconciliation. All nations have a right and duty to defend human life and the common good against terrorism, aggression, and similar threats. In the aftermath of September 11, we called for continuing outreach to those who had been harmed, clear resolve in responding to terror, moral restraint in the means used, respect for ethical limits on the use of force, greater focus on the roots of terror, and a serious effort to share fairly the burdens of this response. While military force as a last resort can sometimes be justified to defend against aggression and similar threats to the common good, we have raised serious moral concerns and questions about preemptive or preventive use of force.

Even when military force is justified, it must be discriminate and proportionate. Direct, intentional attacks on civilians in war are never morally acceptable. Nor is the use of weapons of mass destruction or other weapons that cause disproportionate harm or that cannot be deployed in ways that distinguish between civilians and soldiers. Therefore, we urge our nation to strengthen barriers against the use of nuclear weapons, to expand controls over existing nuclear materials and other weapons of mass destruction, and to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty as a step toward much deeper cuts and the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. We also urge our nation to join the treaty to ban anti-personnel landmines and to address the human consequences of cluster bombs. We further urge our nation to take immediate and serious steps to reduce its own disproportionate role in the scandalous global trade in arms, which contributes to violent conflicts around the world.

Society has a right and duty to defend itself against violent crime and a duty to reach out to victims of crime. Yet our nation's increasing reliance on the death penalty cannot be justified. We do not teach that killing is wrong by killing those who kill others. Pope John Paul II has said the penalty of death is "both cruel and unnecessary".30 The antidote to violence is not more violence. In light of the Holy Father's insistence that this is part of our pro-life commitment, we encourage solutions to violent crime that reflect the dignity of the human person, urging our nation to abandon the use of capital punishment. We also urge passage of legislation that would address problems in the judicial system, and restrict and restrain the use of the death penalty through use of DNA evidence, a guarantee of effective counsel, and efforts to address issues of racial justice.

In a world where one-fifth of the population survives on less than one dollar per day, where some twenty countries are involved in major armed conflict, and where poverty, corruption, and repressive regimes bring untold suffering to millions of people, we simply cannot remain indifferent. As a wealthy and powerful nation, the United States has the capacity and the responsibility to address this scandal of poverty and underdevelopment. As a principal force in globalization, we have a responsibility to humanize globalization, and to spread its benefits to all, especially the world's poorest, while addressing its negative consequences. As the world's sole superpower, the United States also has an unprecedented opportunity to work in partnership with others to build a system of cooperative security that will lead to a more united and more just world.

The United States should take a leading role in helping to alleviate global poverty through a comprehensive development agenda, including substantially increased development aid for the poorest countries, more equitable trade policies, and continuing efforts to relieve the crushing burdens of debt and disease.

More concerted efforts to ensure the promotion of religious liberty and other basic human rights should be an integral part of U.S. foreign policy.

It is a moral imperative that the United States work to reverse the spread of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and to reduce its own reliance on weapons of mass destruction by pursuing progressive nuclear disarmament. It also should reduce its own predominant role in the conventional arms trade.

The United States should provide more consistent political and financial support for appropriate United Nations programs, other international bodies, and international law, so that these institutions may become more effective, responsible, and responsive agents for addressing global problems.

Asylum must be afforded to all refugees who hold a well-founded fear of persecution in their homelands. Our country should support protection for persons fleeing persecution through safe haven in other countries, including the United States, especially for unaccompanied children, single women, women heads of families, and religious minorities.

The United States should adopt a more generous immigration and refugee policy based on providing temporary or permanent safe haven for those in need; protecting immigrant workers from exploitation; promoting family reunification; safeguarding the right of all peoples to return to their homelands; ensuring that public benefits and a fair and efficient process for obtaining citizenship are available to immigrants; extending to immigrants the full protection of U.S. law; offering a generous legalization program to undocumented immigrants, and addressing the root causes of migration.

Our country should be a leader--in collaboration with the international community--in addressing regional conflicts in the Middle East, the Balkans, the Congo, Sudan, Colombia, and West Africa. Leadership on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an especially urgent priority. The United States should actively pursue comprehensive negotiations leading to a just and peaceful resolution of this conflict that respects the legitimate claims and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians, ensuring security for Israel, a viable state for Palestinians, and peace in the region. The United States, working with the international community, must also make the sustained commitment necessary to help bring stability, democracy, freedom, and prosperity to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Building peace, combating poverty and despair, and protecting freedom and human rights are not only moral imperatives; they are wise national priorities. Given its enormous power and influence in world affairs, the United States has a special responsibility to ensure that it is a force for justice and peace beyond its borders. "Liberty and justice for all" is not only a profound national pledge; it is a worthy goal for any our nation in its role as world leader.


Conclusion
We hope these reflections will contribute to a renewed political vitality in our land. We urge all Catholics to register, vote, and become more involved in public life, to protect human life and dignity, and to advance the common good. This dual calling of faith and citizenship is at the heart of what it means to be a Catholic in the United States. Faithful citizenship calls us to seek "a place at the table" of life for all God's children in the elections of 2004 and beyond.
UniversalSoldier
QUOTE(beamer619 @ Nov 5 2004, 03:17 PM)
I pulled this from the Kerry forum.  Louisa responded to my request for help because my sister (who is Catholic, and so am I) was going to vote for Bush.
*


First let me say; my late father and his parents were Catholic and the woman I've loved for over 45 years is Catholic. I have been blessed with the generosity and friendship of some wonderful people who also happen to be Catholic. I, however, am what could be described as an independent Christian, I do not count myself a member of any organized division of Christianity. I pray, I read the Holy Bible to learn of the words and acts of Jesus Christ and try to follow His example. I believe I have recieved miraculous responses to some of my prayers, while other prayers -- including those for the life of a cancer-stricken sister, were not answered in ways that spared me the deepest grief imaginable. All of this is to "introduce myself" as a person who has no reason at all to be "against" Cahtolics.

Now let me also say, your posted essay on Catholic beliefs is eloquent and even beautiful. I can see why you find comfort and strength in your religion. But most emphatically, I do not agree that any religion or faith-based thoughts have any validity when it comes to formulating laws which deeply impact the lives of those who share neither your faith nor your faith-based assumptions.

To be more clear: You may believe, for instance, that terminating the existence of a fetus is killing a human being, but you cannot force that belief on others. To attempt to do so reveals that your are assuming a power over others which you do not actually have. To put it bluntly (but I hope not provocatively); attempting to ban abortion is pre-empting other people's rights.
This is in violation of the purpose and spirit of the Constitution. Such attempts are rightly perceived as arrogant power-grabs by those who are victimized by anti-abortion laws.

Banning abortion without legal authority is wrong. We depend on legislators and jurists to set and interpret laws, we explicitly bar "religious authorities" from using or replacing legislators and jurists. To allow religious beliefs to become operative in our government is unthinkable -- we have now plenty of examples of what happens when religious zealots take over the law: see Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etceteras. Our Constitution was created to do two things: First to set out the structure and rules of a democratic government, second to set forth a list of freedoms which are NEVER removed but often expanded as need arises.

The same applies to these so-called amendments to the constitutions of 11 states which (suddenly and arbitrarily) ban "marriage" between same sex couples. Religion exists apart from law in this country, for good reason. This banning by states or the federal government is descriminating against a minority, violating their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
In states which include a ban on socio-economic partnerships between same sex couples -- this is a clear violation of ALL "same sex" contracts! That means that two men or two women can never strike a contract which has "social implications" -- making any company larger than sole proprietorships illegal! This is nonsense, which is what can be expected from basing laws on mere religious assumptions.

Conservatives are famous for claiming their right to keep and bear arms -- under the 2nd Amendment. But many of the new religious constituents of George Bush now are saying that gays do not have constitutional rights, that doctors who perform abortions are murderers and should be subjected to the death penalty. We CANNOT have and cannot permit this "pick and choose" approach to our Constitution, no matter how eloquent or sincere those who want to do so.

I have conservative Catholic friends who are wondering "Why do the Democrats call us radical religious right?!? I've explained to them: When you violate a standard set down by a document
which has existed since 1789, you ARE a radical. When you impose your religious laws on entire states and try to impose those laws on the entire population of the United States: you are a radical.

One conservative Catholic friend told me that, according to Church doctrine, John Kerry was not a good Catholic, and that was his reason for voting for Bush. I reminded him: When John F. Kennedy was running for president (I remember this well), his Catholic membership was cause for doubt about his suitability for the office. He responded something like, "Don't worry about whether I'm a good Catholic, worry about whether I'll be a good president." (That's not a correct quote, but I haven't time to look it up. It's the point that's valid.) My friend's desire to have "a good Catholic" in the White House was actually a powreful reason for the rest of the country to say, "No way!"

I also reminded this friend: in the 1500s, Elizabethan England had laws against BEING Catholic and there were hundreds of spies trying to earn money for finding and exposing Catholics. Why? Well, it was because Catholics appeared more loyal to the Pope than to the Crown. Many Catholics were hung, then drawn and quartered in public executions. William Shakespeare nearly suffered this fate - but his popularity saved him.

From all of this, I sincerely hope that you can see why your desire to protect the unborn, to limit the rights of gays is just fine when confined to your own home and family, but will provoke the most serious consequences for all of us if you attempt to force your beliefs into our country's laws. I say this as one who would willingly fight for your right to be a Catholic, Jew or Moslem, but will also fight for the other constitutional rights of any minority.
caveatemptor
From the Eagle Tribune

Lawmaker: Priest asked me to quit choir
By Stephanie Akinand Andy Smith
Staff Writers

ANDOVER -- State Rep. Barbara L'Italien was asked by the pastor of her church, St. Augustine's, to step down as cantor and head of the youth choir because of her pro-choice stance on abortion.

L'Italien, a life member of the church, says she refused the requests made by the church's new pastor, the Rev. William M. Cleary.

"I was told that because I am a legislator and a Democrat I was being asked to step down," she said. "This has upset my whole home. I am a pretty unlikely and undeserving target of this."

Cleary said this morning his decision to ask her to step down has nothing to do with her party affiliation. Rather, he says, he cannot have someone in a leadership position who is in favor of abortion.

"In this particular case we're dealing with a person who is against the church's position," Cleary said. "I can't allow her to be in a public posture -- to be standing up at the pulpit singing or directing singing."

Cleary says he has no problems with L'Italien receiving Communion or working with children "behind the scenes." While he says his decision was not based on her being a Democrat, Cleary did say Democrats, in general, are more inclined to be pro-choice.

L'Italien says Cleary first contacted her by phone on Nov 3. -- a day after she was re-elected to a second legislative term. The following day he came to her home and asked her to resign from the church youth choir, which she has helped lead for the past four years, and from her position leading song in the church, which she called cantoring.

L'Italien is one of five parents who run the youth choir, which serves children from age 4 to grade six. Three of her four children have been involved in the choir since it started in 2001, but L'Italien said Cleary did not want her children to resign.

She said cantoring involves her standing on the altar alone and leading song during church services.

L'Italien said she had two meetings with Cleary. The first was at her home, where Cleary spent an hour and a half speaking with L'Italien, her husband and her 80-year-old mother.

During the second meeting, Cleary said she could remain on the youth choir if she stopped cantoring.

"I've been a lifelong member of that church," said L'Italien, D-Andover, adding that she attended St. Augustine Grammar School and has sung her entire life.

She said she told Cleary she has her own personal view but she is sworn to uphold the law and represent a broad range of people.

L'Italien said she has spoken out against the death penalty and casino gambling, and considers her defining issues as her work for the elderly and the disabled. But she said Cleary seemed only interested in her stance on abortion. L'Italien said she cannot make the decision of reproductive choice for anyone else.

The pastor's request, "just really saddens me and has caused me immense pain," she said. "And I think the reason is unjust."

L'Italien said she has spent her entire life as an active Catholic. She has taught CCD at St. Augustine's and her husband teaches it now.

She said she will not consider the request official until she receives it in writing.

L'Italien's House district includes parts of North Andover, Andover, Methuen and Haverhill among other communities.

Staff writer Tim Wacker contributed to this report.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2010 Invision Power Services, Inc.