• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Let's stop kidding ourselves

Discussion in 'One Bread, One Body - Catholic' started by PeterPaul, Dec 7, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PeterPaul

    PeterPaul Well-Known Member

    +295
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Others
    Now that the election is over, its open season. We should start reconsidering our positions. This article is from '03.

    Let's Stop Kidding Ourselves
    by Thomas A. Droleskey

    We are well into the thirty-first year of living under the abominable decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Roe v. Wade. Sadly, the thirty-first annual March for Life will take place next January 22 without any real progress in the direction of the overturning of the Court decision that helped to expedite the American Holocaust.

    That having been noted, however, thirty years and forty-three million slaughtered babies should be enough to convince pro-life Americans to stop kidding themselves about the truth of our political and cultural situation. Should be enough. Should. Judging from the self-delusional comments made by the members of the United States House of Representatives and Senate at the rally on the Ellipse prior to the March for Life earlier this year, however, it appears that thirty years and forty-three million slaughtered babies, to say nothing of the scores of millions of babies who have been killed by chemical abortifacients, are not enough to convince pro-lifers about the truth of our situation. It appears as though most pro-life Americans are content to believe in the political equivalent of the tooth fairy, continuing to deceive themselves into thinking that careerist politicians, most of whom actually support the slicing and dicing of little preborn babies in some instances, are truly our friends who are doing all they can do to stop abortion.

    It is important to review the actual facts of our situation. We not only have not made progress in the past thirty years, we have regressed. Many pro-life Catholics and others believe that some politician who is only conditionally, partly opposed to a certain form of child-killing in the later stages of pregnancy is a legitimate "pro-life" hero. Thus, a review of the facts is in order.

    The Actual Facts Pro-Life Americans Must Confront
    1) George W. Bush is not pro-life.

    He can say he is pro-life all he wants. Saying one is pro-life does not make one pro-life if one supports the execution of innocent babies in their mothers' wombs in certain instances under cover of law. George W. Bush supports abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and alleged threats to the life of a mother. George W. Bush, therefore, is not unconditionally pro-life. He is simply less pro-abortion than other politicians. George W. Bush believes that some babies may be killed under cover of law.

    The Divine positive law and the natural law admit of no exceptions. There is never a circumstance in which an innocent human life may be made the direct object of an intentional act of killing. Never.

    To point out the absurdity and logical inconsistency of the President's position, consider this: anything smacking of racism and anti-Semitism are condemned in the strongest terms by President Bush and his subordinates in the White House. None of them would say that a little bit of racism or a little bit of anti-Semitism are good things. As wrong as racism and anti-Semitism are, though, they are lesser evils than the intentional killing of an innocent human being. Why, then, is a little bit of child-killing under cover of law acceptable when no toleration is given to even a little bit of racism or anti-Semitism? The answer of course is simple: pro-lifers themselves enable this absurdity by accepting exceptions to the sanctity of life while black activists and Jewish leaders make quite a stink when someone in public life is even alleged to have racist and/or anti-Semitic leanings. No one who was deemed to be a racist or anti-Semite would even be considered for a position in the Bush administration, and rightly so. However, the Bush administration is populated with a number of people who completely support Roe v. Wade. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, a Roman Catholic, is a thorough-going pro-abort. Thus, President Bush believes that a man who does not believe in homeland security for preborn children is capable and qualified to provide it for the nation as a whole. If President Bush understood the gravity of all baby killing, he would understand that no one who supports a single abortion under any circumstances is qualified to hold any position in public office, elected or appointed.

    2) George W. Bush engages in a cynical political strategy designed to give crumbs to his political base while doing nothing of any real substance so as not to threaten so-called "swing" voters.

    President Bush found time on Monday, January 20, 2003, to visit a church just outside of the Capital Beltway to honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It is evidently the case that Karl Rove, the president's chief political strategist, believed that it was important for President Bush to arrange his schedule in such a way as to make time for such an appearance.

    Two days later, however, President Bush just "happened" to be away from Washington, D.C., on the thirtieth anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Roe v. Wade. He was in St. Louis, Missouri, addressing a crowd about the economy and his tax proposals. Curiously, the President went right back to Washington, where he hosted a dinner in the White House that very evening. This is no accident. Karl Rove, who is a master political strategist, evidently did not want to make it appear as though the President was available to make his way personally to the Ellipse and address a crowd of people who might threaten the President's political appearance to "moderate" voters. True, no president, including Ronald Wilson Reagan, has ever personally addressed the March for Life rally on the Ellipse. Rove took no chances, however. Bush was spirited away to St. Louis, from which he made a telephone call to the crowd.

    Although the crowd cheered President Bush wildly, apparently it occurred to very few people to ask what in the world was the President doing in St. Louis on such an important historic milestone as the thirtieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The answer, once more, is very simple: Bush and Rove believe that abortion is a politically costly issue, one that is best addressed from a distance and in the vaguest and most general of terms. Knowing that most pro-lifers are so fearful of another totally pro-abortion Democrat in the White House, Rove has calculated that President Bush can do almost next to nothing other than speak in vague terms and retain the enthusiastic support of a very important part of his political base.

    President Bush did indeed speak in vague and general terms for the most part, although he said that he "hoped" that Congress would pass a ban on partial-birth abortions that could be presented for his signature so as to become law. He did not say that he favored any effort to overturn Roe v. Wade, a little fact that was lost on the crowd, wrapped up in the enthusiasm of hearing from their political savior.

    Furthermore, President Bush's proclamation declaring January 19 to have been "Sanctity of Life Day" in the United States contained once again the statement that he was working for the day in which every child will be welcomed in life and protected by law. President Bush does not believe this. How can a man who says he believes that there are exceptions to the sanctity of innocent human life say also that every child will be protected by law. This continuing contradiction in Bush's rhetoric escapes the notice of most pro-lifers. Why are we so gullible, ladies and gentlemen?

    For example, the ban on partial-birth abortions that has been passed by Congress and will be signed into law by the President soon contains a needless "life of the mother" exception in it. Unlike what some simpletons who serve in the House contended on the Ellipse on January 22, 2003, this law will not end partial-birth abortions, which is no different in moral terms from any other form of child-killing. Children will still be killed by this particular method of butchery if doctors allege that a mother's life is endangered. And do we really think that people who kill for a living are going to be scrupulously honest when they assert that they have fulfilled the "exceptions" provision contained in the law? Thus, the contention that "we are going to stop partial birth abortion" once and for all is an abject lie. Children will still be killed by this method of execution even if the partial, conditional ban on it passes constitutional muster in the United States Supreme Court after it is signed into law and makes it way through the Federal court system, a process that might take two years. Again, we are deceiving ourselves, giving President Bush a free pass as he makes contradictory statements designed to mollify truly good people who neither listen carefully to his words nor follow his administration's actions.

    3) President George W. Bush's administration has done much to undermine the cause of the sanctity of innocent human life.

    A full recitation of how the current administration has undermined the cause of the sanctity of innocent human life in the womb would take up quite a bit of space.

    Suffice it for present purposes, however, to cite the President's support of Federal funding for stem-cell research, his administration's increase of the funding of the chemical killing of innocent children in the womb by means of domestic and international "family planning" programs, his campaigning for Republican pro-abortion candidates (how can we build a "culture of life" when a supposedly pro-life President campaigns for pro-death candidates?), and his Solicitor General's contention in an amicus curiae brief in the case of Scheidler v. N.O.W. that pro-life sidewalk counselors are interfering with the ability of abortuaries to conduct their business, to cite only a few instances. The American Life League's Patrick Delaney notes also, "Of course, he also stacked his own Presidential Council on Bioethics with a number of persons who don't understand ninth grade biology or the intrinsic value of human life. If you remember they came out 'deeply divided on the moral status of the human embryo.' This opinion is reminiscent of Roe where the court decided, as you know, that since there is division among 'experts' on when human life begins, we must permit liberty of the individual conscience. Bush stacked his council to reaffirm Roe v. Wade."

    4) Most members of the House and Senate who say they are pro-life are not pro-life.

    Although March for Life Education and Defense Fund President Nellie Gray is completely pro-life, she nevertheless permits speakers to address the rally at the Ellipse prior to the annual March for Life who make exceptions to the sanctity of innocent human life. This misleads the earnest people who travel great distances to get to the nation's capital that there are legislators in Congress who are genuinely pro-life. Most of the so-called "pro-life" members of Congress vote annually to approve funding for the chemical abortion of human beings by means of domestic and international "family planning" programs. Some of these "pro-life" legislators, most of whom make the same exceptions to the sanctity of innocent life as President Bush himself, shamelessly serve as cheerleaders for the President, hailing him as "our pro-life president." Again, this misleads people who are opposed to abortion and want to believe that they have friends in Washington. It is wrong to include them as speakers.

    5) We do not have a "pro-life" United States Senate.

    As I have noted on a number of occasions, the mere fact that Republicans possess a 51-48-1 majority in the United States Senate does not mean that we have a "pro-life Senate," as some members of the House protested at the rally on the Ellipse on January 22, 2003. Apart from the fact that most so-called "pro-life" senators actually support child-killing in some instances, there are seven Republican senators who are completely and totally pro-abortion. They are: Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe from Maine; Lincoln Chafee from Rhode Island; Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania; John Warner from Virginia; Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas; Ben Nighthorse Campbell from Colorado. It is intellectually dishonest and completely irresponsible to claim that we have a "pro-life" Senate. We do not.

    6) The ban on partial-birth abortions will not represent a major victory for the movement.

    As noted earlier, the ban on partial-birth abortions is partial, conditional. Children will still be killed by this particular method of child-killing, which is no more morally heinous than any other form of abortion, even if the ban is signed into law and passes constitutional muster. Not one single life will be saved. Not one. Why? In addition to the fact that there is an exception contained in the law, we have forgotten that there are other ways in the later stages of pregnancy by which a child may be executed. If baby-killers find that they cannot kill babies by means of the partial-birth procedure, they will simply resort to the hysterotomy or the dilation and evacuation methods of slaughtering a preborn child. Repeat: not one innocent preborn child will be saved by the conditional ban on partial-birth abortions. The issue of partial-birth abortions has become a cheap vehicle for phony pro-life politicians to contend that they have done all they can do in the midst of the actual cultural realities in which we find ourselves.
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. PeterPaul

    PeterPaul Well-Known Member

    +295
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Others
    7) Roe v. Wade is not "settled law.".

    The canard that "Roe v. Wade is settled law," was mouthed by Attorney General John Ashcroft (who was most likely coached by Karl Rove) during his confirmation hearings two years ago and has been repeated by a number of "pro-life" Republican candidates since that time, demonstrates an abdication of responsibility to lead a nation in which human law has been "settled" wrongly as a means of protecting decriminalized child-killing. Those who hold public office have an obligation to try to reverse unjust laws and court decisions, staking their political careers in the process, not cleverly calculating how they can make themselves palatable to core supporters while not threatening those voters who support those unjust laws and court decisions. This canard reflects the belief that those who hold public office do not have the obligation to run the risk of electoral defeat in their efforts to change hearts and minds.

    8) The belief in the "lesser of two evils" results in the acceptance of higher and higher doses of evil in electoral politics and public policy over the course of time.

    The scores of thousands of people who gathered in Washington seven months ago have convinced themselves that they have friends in the national government after the long nightmare of the Clinton-Gore years. Actually, however, our situation is worse than it was during those horrible years. It is worse because false friends are far more dangerous than open enemies. Children are dying at the same rate and in the same numbers now as they were during the Clinton-Gore years. Preborn children in the womb are no safer now than they were before January 20, 2001. The more that we enable the so-called lesser of two evils, my friends, the higher and higher the dose of the so-called "lesser evil" becomes over the course of time. There is little difference between George W. Bush's hollow and contradictory rhetoric about building a "culture of life" (all the while doing much to promote and fund child-killing and the careers of those who support it in his own political party) than Bill Clinton's desire to make abortion "safe, legal, and rare." Bush's de facto concession that Roe is the settled law of the land is tantamount to accepting its legality in our current circumstances as a regrettable fact of life about which we can do little. Is this all the babies deserve, my friends?

    9) President Bush is not staffing the Federal courts with pro-lifers.

    President Bush has nominated several high-profile "conservatives" to the Federal bench. Two of these, Charles Pickering and Priscilla Owen, are thought to be pro-life. It is because of that their nominations were blocked by Senator Patrick Leahy in 2002 when he was the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Bush re-nominated both Pickering and Owen earlier this year, which excited many in his core political base who are pro-life. Certainly, Pickering and Owen are worthy nominees and they should have been confirmed.

    If you will forgive me, though, for a bit of cynicism, it would not be unfair to consider their re-nomination a cynical effort by Rove and Bush to gain credit from pro-life and other "conservative" supporters. Democrats vowed to filibuster the Pickering and Owen nominations to death on the floor of the Senate once they got there, which is what has happened. Bush thus gains the dual advantage of showing his political "nerve" while at the same time he is able to berate the Democrats for blocking the nominations of qualified jurists for ideological reasons. Quite a remarkable feat, especially when you consider the fact that Bush and Rove know that these nominees had no chance of being confirmed. It's a great fund-raising tool for a whole variety conservative organizations, including the not-so "pro-life" National Right to Life Committee.

    Indeed, a great deal of energy is being expended at present in behalf of the nomination Judge William Pryor, a former Alabama Attorney General, to a seat on U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which is based in Atlanta, Georgia. Much has been made of Pryor's statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings that he believed Roe v. Wade to be have been "the worst abomination in constitutional law and history." Left out of many Internet reports about Pryor's remarks, including LifeNews.com edited by Steven Ertelt, was the inconvenient little fact that the judge went on to say, "I have a record as attorney general that is separate from my personal beliefs." How is Pryor's position about abortion substantially different than the one adopted by so many Democratic politicians in the immediate aftermath of Roe v. Wade in the 1970s ("I am personally opposed to abortion but I cannot impose my concept of morality upon others")? It's phrased a little differently. The result, however, is the same. Pope Leo XIII noted in both Immortale Dei and Sapientiae Christianae that it is a wicked thing for any Catholic to take one position privately and another in public on issues pertaining to fundamental justice founded in truth.

    Escaping the notice of most "pro-life" voters, however, is the fact that Charles Pickering and Priscilla Owen and William Pryor are not the only sort of nominees who are sent to the Senate for consideration by President George W. Bush. Oh, no. President Bush, who appointed several out-and-out pro-aborts to vacancies on all levels of the Texas judiciary when he was Governor of Texas, does not consider support for abortion to be a disqualification for nomination to the Federal bench. He has appointed more than a handful of "moderates" to the Federal bench, nominees whose nominations sailed through the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2001 and 2002 when it was in the hands of the Democrats.

    The latest "moderate" to be nominated and confirmed to the Federal bench is U. S. Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff, who was the Chief of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Justice Department prior to his confirmation a few weeks ago. Chertoff, who had been the United States Attorney for New Jersey from 1990-1994, gained national prominence in 1995 when he served as the chief counsel of the Senate Banking Committee as it investigated the Whitewater matter when it was chaired by then Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato. Chertoff's pro-abortion views meant nothing to D'Amato. They meant nothing to President Bush the elder, who had appointed him as the U.S. attorney for New Jersey. They meant noting to the current President Bush.

    Chertoff was confirmed by a 99-1 vote of the United States Senate. Each alleged "pro-life" Senator voted to confirm Chertoff, just as most of them had voted to confirm former President Bill Clinton's pro-abortion judicial nominees. The lone dissenting vote in the Chertoff confirmation was Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who still harbors a grudge against Chertoff, who now serves on the United States Court for Appeals for the Third Circuit, for having investigated her eight years ago. Isn't it ironic that the only vote against a pro-abortion Bush judicial nominee came from one of the most militantly pro-abortion figures in the history of this country? The fact that Chertoff supports baby-killing did not stand in the way of the supposedly "pro-life" President and "pro-life" senators recognizing the importance and the quality of his experience and judicial temperament. Chertoff is precisely the sort of man that a Democratic president might nominate to serve on the Supreme Court. If the fellow is good enough for President Bush, why wouldn't, say, a President Lieberman's judgment be good enough for Republicans in the U.S. Senate?

    Karl Rove knows that most pro-lifers do not pay attention to judicial nominees to serve on the eighty-eight U.S. District Courts or the twelve U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal. He knows that the National Right to Life Committee will not do or say anything in opposition to George W. Bush. He knows that Father Frank Pavone, who heads Priest for Life, will hold his tongue (as he has on all of the other Bush betrayals of pro-life, including the sell-out of Joe Scheidler and the Bush administration's funding of abortifacient contraceptives). Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales, the White House Counsel who voted to invalidate a mere parental notification bill when he was the Chief Judge of the Texas Supreme Court, know full well that pro-aborts can be nominated by Bush and confirmed by the Senate without causing Bush any political damage at all.

    However, no truly pro-life president would even consider nominating a known pro-abort to the courts, something that has been done by each of the past three Republican presidents: Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush. How can the culture of life the current President Bush says he wants to build actually be built when he nominates pro-aborts to continue to poison the well of the American judiciary? Indeed, how can that culture of life be built up when the President repeatedly campaigns for pro-aborts in his own political party and appoints them to the highest echelons of his administration? Remember, Arnold Schwarzenegger is a pro-abortion Catholic who is highly touted by the Bush family. It is impossible to build up a "culture of life" while campaigning for those who support baby-killing under cover of law.
     
  3. PeterPaul

    PeterPaul Well-Known Member

    +295
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Others
    Pro-aborts Demonstrate more Consistency than Pro-Lifers

    The National Abortion Rights and Reproduction Action League (which now calls itself NARAL-Pro-Choice) held a dinner on January 21, 2003. In attendance were six pro-abortion Democrats who are preparing to seek their party's presidential nomination next year. Each of them pledged to work vigorously to protect Roe v. Wade, mindful of the fact that pro-aborts demand absolute and unconditional support for abortion-on-demand from anyone to whom they are considering giving a political endorsement. Thus, pro-aborts are more consistent and committed to their evil position than are pro-lifers, who are more than eager to accept platitudes and meaningless gestures from alleged pro-life politicians.

    Part of the problem we face, obviously stems from the fact that the nation's Catholic bishops did not excommunicate the pro-aborts in the Democratic Party in the immediate aftermath of Roe v. Wade thirty years ago. Such an act of apostolic courage would have stressed the overriding importance of the life issue to the average Catholic, and it would have served as an effective deterrent to Catholics in the Republican Party that any embrace of abortion would result in a solemn decree of excommunication. The failure of the bishops to excommunicate the first generation of Catholic Democratic pro-abortion politicians wound up emboldening a litany of Catholic Republican politicians to stake out their own pro-abortion positions in the last decade. We would not have the likes of Rudolph Giuliani and George Pataki and Susan Collins and Susan Molinari and Rick Lazio and Tom Ridge and others in the Republican Party if the likes of Edward Moore Kennedy and Joseph Biden and Geraldine Ferraro and Mario Cuomo and Barbara Mikulski, among others, had been excommunicated in the 1970s.

    To point out the inadequacies and cynicism of President Bush and other Republican politicians who say they are pro-life while actually supporting abortion in some instances is in no way to overlook the horror of the fact that supposedly practicing Catholics in the Democratic Party get a free pass as they protect decriminalized child-killing in this nation. Not at all. We must continue to oppose politicians in both political parties who embrace Roe v. Wade as the "law of the land." That does not mean, however, that we turn a blind eye to the charade of allegedly pro-life politicians saying they are pro-life while they pursue policies that are anti-life. Just because the Democrats are so bad does not mean that we endow the Republicans with a charism of infallibility. That is just as harmful to the cause of restoring legal protection to all preborn children without exception as contending, as many Catholics do, that "we can't be 'single-issue' voters."

    We must be single-issue voters: no one who supports a single abortion is deserving of our votes. And, humanly speaking, we will not have any influence in electoral politics and public policy until and unless we vote consistently only for no-exceptions pro-life candidates. Sooner or later, you see, electoral self-interest will motivate careerist Republicans to pay attention to us the same way the consistency of the pro-aborts forces Democratic candidates to dance to their evil tunes.

    Some people have said that all I do is bash President Bush, that I give the Democrats a free pass, never criticizing them for their militant support of abortion. Such people have very short and selective memories.

    I have made myself basically unemployable in my own chosen field as a college professor of political science for my outspoken defense of the sanctity of life and my criticism of the pro-aborts of both political parties. Indeed, I ran for Lieutenant Governor of New York on the Right to Life Party line in 1986 to have a forum to speak out against my fellow alumnus of Saint John's University, then Governor Mario Matthew Cuomo. Even before that, however, I had given an address at Hofstra University in 1984, attended by nearly 100 people, to rebut Cuomo's address at the University of Notre Dame a few weeks before, the speech in which Cuomo laid out his justification for how he could support abortion as legitimate public policy and remain a Catholic in good standing. I had a number of articles in The Wanderer over the years to point out Cuomo's betrayal of the true Faith in public life.

    In fact, my first article in The Wanderer in October of 1992 was a broadside against Clinton for calling Magic Johnson, who had revealed the year before that he had been infected by HIV, as one of his "heroes." My second piece, "What Kind of People Are We?", published after Clinton's election, was a catalogue of what we could expect from a man who demonstrated his complete and total support for abortion-on-demand during his campaign for the White House. I was unstinting in my criticism of Clinton during his years in the White House. An article published both in The Wanderer and the Arlington Catholic Herald in early 1994 resulted in a group associated with the University of Dayton disinviting then First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton to speak at an event there in July of that year. She had not accepted the invitation. However, the mere fact that she had been invited was scandalous.

    Scores of other articles dealt with the scandal of the praise heaped on the Kennedys by Cardinal Law during the funeral Mass for Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy and of the praise heaped by the same prelate on the late Speaker Thomas P. O'Neil during his own funeral Mass. I took the Archdiocese of Washington to task for permitting a Mass of Christian Burial for the Catholic pro-abort William Brennan, who was one of the seven Supreme Court justices to vote in the majority in the case of Roe v. Wade. And I called on a number of occasions for the excommunication of all politicians of both political parties who support abortion. There is a litany of such names in my book of five years ago, Christ in the Voting Booth.

    To claim, therefore, that my criticism of President Bush is reflective of a lack of criticism of pro-abortion Democrats is to overlook the actual record, my friends.

    What I am trying to point out is as follows: to try to represent President George W. Bush as a friend of limited government who is a friend of the pro-life cause is to do with him what many of Bill Clinton's most earnest supporters did during his eight years in office: to turn a blind eye to reality in order to exculpate themselves from having to take a real honest look at the reality of their situation. We do the cause of fundamental justice founded in the splendor of Truth Himself no good when we place the interests of career politicians above our responsibility to speak plainly as Catholics and to judge words and actions solely on the basis of their consonance with the truths of the true Faith.

    The fight we are fighting is not simply political, as we know. It is principally spiritual. We are fighting the forces of darkness. This is a fight we cannot win on our own. It is a fight we can win only if we are serious about building up the Kingdom of Christ in our own hearts and souls by means of Eucharistic piety and total consecration to Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. If we are assiduous about doing this, we will be empowered from on high to plant the seeds for the conversion of our fellow citizens and our nation to the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ and the Queenship of His Blessed Mother. Nothing is impossible with God. The subordination of men and their nations to the Social Reign of Christ the King is the absolute precondition to the right ordering of human law to the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the natural law.

    While we must use the political forums available to us to speak the truth clearly and without equivocation, we must also keep in mind that we may not see the fruit of our efforts in our lifetimes. We must plant the seeds, however, that might result, please God and by His ineffable grace, in the restoration of Christendom.

    Ultimately, though, the real power to stop all of the madness of a world gone mad, a world which deifies man and profanes the Deposit of Faith entrusted by Our Lord to His true Church, rests with the Vicar of Christ. All he has to do is to consecrate Russia explicitly to the Immaculate Heart of Mary with all of the other bishops of the world. That's all. A miraculous end of the spread of all of Russia's errors, which are really the errors of modernity, will occur. It's really that simple. Some pope—and we pray that it is our current Holy Father—just has to do with the Blessed Mother says needs to be done. Careerist politicians will no longer deceive their citizens. Christ will reign as King of men and nations, and Our Lady will reign as the Queen Mother.

    Vivat Christus Rex!
     
  4. nyj

    nyj Goodbye, my puppy

    +1,247
    Catholic
    One day, PP will trust us to read his information, and will post links instead of the articles themselves.


    :p
     
  5. PeterPaul

    PeterPaul Well-Known Member

    +295
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Others
    LOL! Why do you think I never have? Just look at the celibacy thread to remind you of why I don't. ^_^
     
  6. PeterPaul

    PeterPaul Well-Known Member

    +295
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Others
    bump
     
  7. DJ B.K.

    DJ B.K. But I'm Le Tired...

    +138
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Constitution
    One of the many reasons why I voted for a 3rd party candidate last elction. :sigh:
     
  8. Dream

    Dream Well-Known Member

    +210
    Seeker
    Private
    That's funny, not once in this article was the Unborn Victims of Violence Act mentioned.
     
  9. Paul S

    Paul S Salve, regina, mater misericordiæ

    +277
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Republican
    Bush may not be perfectly pro-life, but Kerry was perfectly pro-choice. No third-party candidate had any sort of realistic chance to win, and voting for a third party instead of Bush might very well have given the election to Kerry.

    I'd rather see abortion legal only in cases of rape and incest than legal for any reason. Bush isn't perfect, but he's much better than Kerry.

    I'm not confident in either party to really get anything done that's truly a benefit to the public, but our only real choices were Bush and Kerry. Limited to those two, Bush was the better choice.
     
  10. Maximus

    Maximus Orthodox Christian

    +365
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    Summary: Bush is far from perfect.

    So tell us something we didn't know.

    What was the alternative in this recent election?

    Kerry? :sick:
     
  11. PeterPaul

    PeterPaul Well-Known Member

    +295
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Others
    No, I just think we need to start thinking about the future and a future party.
     
  12. Dream

    Dream Well-Known Member

    +210
    Seeker
    Private
    Are you not from Spain?
     
  13. PeterPaul

    PeterPaul Well-Known Member

    +295
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Others
    But I live here Dream.
     
  14. Xpycoctomos

    Xpycoctomos Well-Known Member

    +603
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    This article made many good points. I've always said that I am not very impressed with the Republican party and it's pro-life ambiguity. I have also said that I will wait to see what happens to with the Supreme Court nominees this term. If nothing changes for the better and Pro-abortion Judges are brought in under Bush's watch, I will NOT cast my vote on the Republicans again... at least not for a few elections.. even if this means "wasting a vote" on a third party or writing my friend's name in out of principle. Now is the time to prove that they mean business and the fact that Bush kept Specter as the head of the judicial nominee board does not make things look very optimistic.

    From one persective I REALLY enjoyed this article and I think that all pro-lifers should be made aware of what Drolesky has observed. Too many pro-lifers think that the Republican Party is looking out for pro-life values which is simply not true a lot of the time (look at Schwartzenegger, Powell, Giuliani, McCain... and I honestly just named those off the top of my head since they are all big names in the party -one of whom is a favorite for presidential nominee in 2008-... How many more would I come up with if I did my research?*).

    Political lines have more to do with fiscal issues than values and human rights. Again, if nothing positive happens in the balance of the Supreme Justices, the Repblicans will not get my vote to presidency in 2008 no matter what they say. They will have proved themselves to be liars and that is too expensive since I really only voted for Bush because of pro-life (I don't like much else about his platform and action).

    With that said... I am confused as to what Mr. Drolesky wants us to do. What I am interested in is getting things done. The sad fact is that most pro-lifers support abortions in the circumstances mentioned in the OP. I do not agree with this but if the pro-life movement comprimises on nothing we will not have any voice, anywhere. Let's fight the big battle first and work to reduce the number of killings within that 98% that does not fit under any of those exceptions the Bush administration supports. If we take on that other 2%... we should just call it quits in politics and only work on this on a social level (which we may have to do one day anyhow... politically is only one aspect of the fight for life, although important)

    In politics, it is not "all or nothing". This is an immature view that will get us nowhere.

    Also, our esteemed author here seems to ignore that some things HAVE changed with the Clintons gone.



    ... in the US this may be true (I'll take Mr. D's word on it), but like many conservative political junkies he fails to look beyond American borders and so didn't see much importance in the fact that the Bush renigged the money that Clinton was sending abroad to fund abortions in other poorer (often Catholic) countries. Kerry was going to reinstate this. Bush was not and (as far as I know) has not plan to do so.

    No, Bush is not tough on abortion... but he is better than anything else we've ever had since Roe V. Wade hit the scene.

    Mr. Drolesky, I'm sorry "my friend" (according to his article, apparently he's good buddies with his reader-dissenters since he calls them "friend"... or just condescending) but in politics it is ALWAYS choosing a lesser of two evils and I think Bush wins this time.

    John

    PS: none of this is directed at you PP. Thanks for bringing the article up.

    * See next post...
     
  15. Xpycoctomos

    Xpycoctomos Well-Known Member

    +603
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married

    (...this took me all of 20 seconds to google)


    Just to further prove Drolesky's points...

    http://www.gopchoice.org/
    (proudly states that 73% of all republicans are pro-choice)

    US Senate
    Incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski, AK
    Incumbent Senator Arlen Specter, PA



    US House
    Congressman Jim Kolbe AZ 8
    Congressman William Thomas CA 22
    Congresswoman Mary Bono CA 45
    Congressman Rob Simmons CT 2
    Congressman Chris Shays CT 4
    Congresswomen Nancy Johnson CT 5
    Congressman Mike Castle DE AL
    Congressman Mark Foley FL 16
    Congressman E. Clay Shaw FL 22
    Congressman Mark Kirk IL 10
    Congresswoman Judy Biggert IL 13
    Congressman James Leach IA 2
    Congressman Wayne Gilchrest MD 1
    Joe Schwarz MI 7
    Congressman Jim Ramstad MN 3
    Congressman Jeb Bradley NH 1
    Congressman Charles Bass NH 2
    Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen NJ 11
    Congresswoman Sue Kelly NY 19
    Congressman John Sweeney NY 20
    Congressman Sherwood Boehlert NY 24
    Congresswoman Deborah Pryce OH 15
    Charlie Dent PA 15
    Congresswomen Shelly Moore Capitol WV 2
     
  16. Debi1967

    Debi1967 Proudly in love with Rushingwind62 Supporter

    +1,064
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Republican
    And we all know that I could proabaly find publications that would counter all of the arguments already made in thsi thread therefore nullifying everything or at least casting serious doubt to the integrity of the information posted....

    All I would have to do is a Google search myself...

    but I am not going to put up any more useless info than is needed.

    We are talking about politicians people, or has anyone forgotten that? The fact is if you weighed it out, truthfully Bush was still a far better choice than Kerry any day of the week.....
     
  17. Xpycoctomos

    Xpycoctomos Well-Known Member

    +603
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    Debi... I'm agreeing with you. But we do need to be awre that the Republican party is quietly leaving the pro-life scene and we need to call them on that and say "Hold on one second! We see what you're doing.. if you still want our vote, think twice before worming out of this one" The fact that Giuliani is a favorite for 2008 says a lot about where the Republican Party might be going in the future if we don't call it like it is.
     
  18. Debi1967

    Debi1967 Proudly in love with Rushingwind62 Supporter

    +1,064
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Republican
    Umm did I mention that I am from NY.....
     
  19. Xpycoctomos

    Xpycoctomos Well-Known Member

    +603
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    So then you understand all the better. Do you get what I'm trying to say. I'm honestly not condoning Kerry. Really. He was firmly pro-choice... at least we have a shot at change with Bush.
     
  20. PeterPaul

    PeterPaul Well-Known Member

    +295
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Others
    I agree with Xpycoctomos (I'm going to start calling you Xavi, John).

    It isn't an either/or situation. That Bush is better than Kerry doesn't mean my heart and soul is on Bush. We must always be critical of any establishment that produces lackluster results and does not reflect both our humanity and/or our faith.

    That Bush, for example, does not continue to support the population fund is wonderful. That said, it isn't like he is doing much more, either as a "lawmaker" or as a President to end abortion, and to promote an economical system just instead of unbridled.

    I do find it tribal for anyone to stick to a party, even to the point (whether Democrat or Republican) where they defend the indefensible and/or place their loyalty to a party above or at the same level of religion.

    Personally, I think another party is only viable if we decide its viable and we are going to make it so.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...