It's a hell of a lot more damning as an unconscious slip that a deliberate slur. In either case, he's a useful idiot.
=====================================

My Government, 'tis of thee I sing...

Liberals always, always, have their hand out. They should learn self reliance and responsibility. ww

I'm confused about modern Catholicism. They seem to have a number of different factions. I wish someone would enlighten me as to the various schisms. Some seem to hold to the traditional Roman doctrines, such as Mariolatry and papal infallibility, while some seem to reject those notions. Then there are the far left Catholics where just about anything goes. Perhaps there is an infinite variety.

I would say that this is a phenomenon of the United States. That is many people (of various religions) are more Deists than whatever religion they may nominally belong to. Religion in the United States seems to be a pale washed out version of the way the religion was in the "Old Country" (similar to the beer (:-) ).

It used to be that someone who rejected a religion would be able to point to the "orthodox" version of that religion and tell you that was the religion that he had rejected. Nowadays, a person can claim to be a member of a religion, but tend to define it in terms of the modern cultural and political fads.

I agree with you. Good catch. Good that you called them on it.

WW:

[All} Conservatives always, always, steal from the rest of the country. They should learn compassion and honesty.

[Pretty absurd statement isn't it?]

Clearly, if the citizenry is not responsive to the needs of government, then the citizenry must be overthrown and another elected in its place.

And, come to think of it, that's kind of what the immigration bill is trying to do...

First of all, the quote "Ask not what your country..." did not come from Kennedy, but rather his speech writer Ted Sorensen (who merely left out the word 'politician') and plagiarized Kahill Gibran writing in 1925 "The new frontier".

And secondly, liberals are as dumb as bricks. That's why the have to plagiarize. They also have no conscience, ethics or moral standard because of their 'relativism'.

Yes, JFO, yours is a pretty absurd statement. Thanks. ww

But even by using the "what he country can do for you" to its maximum, the Democratic Congress Approval is at 14%. That includes people that the libs say exist that will always support the government and nation and not say anything negative (they usually use it to argue that President Bush's 32% is actually even lower). So how low does that 14% go?

WW

Thanks for making my point, which of course is way over your head.

steak11111:

All conservatives are Nazis and traitors who want to make this a country for whites only.
[Pretty absurd statement]

By the way,

Catholics are really losing their way. Their emphasis on social causes have made them very liberal and as a church they've drifted far from fundamental Christianity (though I'm sure there are certain individuals that are fine), almost all Catholics are lost.

Hey Jay - any evidence at all that the country is turning more conservative?

I know you like to attack the studies MMFA did, but any evidence to the contrary or are you just talking "codswallop?" My guess is you did as much research as you did for that Harry Reid piece you retracted.

jp2,

I think the poll (and you know which one I'm talking about -- the thread you and lee have been avoiding), shows that 14% of the country is liberal.

jp2: I asserted no such thing. I just said that MMFA's position paper was crap. They made the assertion; they are the ones obligated to prove it.

J.

Actually, I do think the Catholic Church is (its own self & property excepted, of course) very Liberal. Actually, I think Liberal might be being too kind: "Socialist" is more like it (see Central & South America for a working model). They'd be Communist if it wasn't for that doctrine's nasty little habit of banning organized religion. To Communists, The State is the religion.

No I'm confused. I think this priest is a Communist. Yet another area, JayTea where the irony is lost on him!

Hey Jay - any evidence at all that the country is turning more conservative?

Nice straw man. I hope you enjoy knocking and burning that one down. Don't singe your hair while doing.

(Just in case you are too dense to see your own logical fallacy: Jay never stated that the country was becoming more conservative, he only disputed the assertion that it was becoming more liberal.)

It's a shame and a fact that the Catholic Church in America is moving more and more to the left-- not becoming "liberal" but becoming leftist. There is a big difference.

In my opinion, being "liberal" is a good thing. I've yet to meet a leftist or Democrat who was very liberal except in the loosest sense of the word. If you look up the actual definition of the word , only the 3rd (of 6) applies to them.

I used to be a Catholic but couldn't stomach the hypocrisy of the American Catholic Church anymore. I now describe myself as a theist. In my opinion, pretty much every organized religion becomes political and looses sight of the whole purpose.

That's what baffles me is when religious organizations (specifically Judeo-Christian ones) press for government to do X for people. I wonder if they truly understand what they're advocating.

For instance, 'government should provide food for the homeless'. What you're advocating is that government should take property away from one person using the threat of force, which is the only means government has to accomplish its goals, and give it to another person. How on Earth is the use of the threat of force to perform 'charity' consistent with the teachings of these organizations ?

well,

I'm glad mostly it's that the catholics take my money by force (through the government), rather than that other thing they like to take, usually involving altar boys (which I was, once).

It is a funny thing to hear Media Matters proclaiming that America is becoming more progressive while at the same time they and other leftists constantly play the "theocracy" card. So which is it? Are we more to the left than ever or are we on the verge of theocratic rule? Unsurprisingly, the left contradicts itself once more.

That was a cheap shot Nehemiah.

In my opinion, the cover-up was the problem. The actual abuse, while very bad and wrong, was very rare and no worse than you see in any other segement of the population (or any other religion).

at a conference dedicated to overthrowing the current government (albeit peacefully and fully within the law)

There's hyperbole in my rhetoric. There's rhetoric in my hyperbole. Together they taste like crap.

It is a funny thing to hear Media Matters proclaiming that America is becoming more progressive while at the same time they and other leftists constantly play the "theocracy" card.

Ah yes. And I seem to recall many on the left claim that the reason Bush won in '04 was because of huge number of religious right voters... apparently in the past 18 months they've become "Liberal".

correction:
apparently in the past 30 months they've become "Liberal".

"Ah yes. And I seem to recall many on the left claim that the reason Bush won in '04 was because of huge number of religious right voters... apparently in the past 18 months they've become "Liberal".

The hard-right religious nutcakes are still there, rubbing the belly of their Rush Limbaugh doll and praying for a victory, underscoreMikeunderscore, but the stench of their hypocrisy has prompted centrist neo-conservatives (who are equally disillusioned by Bush's repeated blunders) to move towards the left.

They haven't become "liberals" but they've become something like "ex-hypocrites."

Their votes are up for grabs, imho, as no leading Democratic candidate currently speaks for these disenfranchised neo-cons -- although Hillary tries.

Obviously Lee is only here to spin. At least, according to Catholic doctrine, abortion is INTRINSIC evil. War is not an intrinsic evil as abortion and the Catholics also have the just war doctrine. The same with taking care of the poor and so on. So ABORTION is the #1 issue for Catholics in terms of priorty. As a result, no true Catholic can support the dem party and the secular left in general.

In addition, the liberal left has no concern for the poor and oppressed (they are willing to let the communists slaughter them in the hundreds of millions. Now they are willing to let the terrorists blow up women/children. Carter even praised the Hamas terrorist for example). The liberal left is not anti-war either. The liberals fully support the enemies of America waging war against this country and our allies (eg. Israel). They are against America waging war only.

So ABORTION is the #1 issue for Catholics in terms of priorty.

Even if abortion were the #1 issue for the Catholic Church, it is not so for most American Catholics.

As a result, no true Catholic can support the dem party and the secular left in general.

Maybe you should try purging the "false Catholics?"

The majority (58%) of Catholic voters call themselves prochoice, and 62% believe "it should be legal for a woman to have an abortion."

Seventy percent of Catholic voters don't believe that Catholics have a religious obligation to vote for candidates who oppose legal abortion.

You could get some tips from these guys.

All church denominations have abdicated their responsibilities when it comes to social problems. Communities know what is best for their area. Instead the churches push it off on the government. All churches are interested in is supporting their building.

Congressional leadership has reached a historic low in the polls. But to the lefties like Lee the Poll King, that means the country is moving left. Wow. Logic is gone in their world. ww

Surprise,
Let 's put your strawman under your bed. Support the liberals/dem party as much as you want, but don't do it under the name of the Catholic church or Catholic doctrine. That 's the height of hypocrisy.

It is up to you. Just like other liberal posters on this blog, they are free to support their liberal culture of corruption and their corrupted dem party, but don't pretent to care about ethics/morality etc...

Surprise,
Looks like you like to bash the Catholic church. Let me use your standard. Do you see any Catholics beheading people for not adhering to their faith today? Any people tortured or put in jail?
I see the fundamentalist atheists torture, kill, put people in prison for not adhering to the state religion of atheism in communist countries. And you can see the jihadists beheading people not belonging to their faith.

If you want to use historical standard, then atheism holds the record for mass murder ( couple hundred of millions of deaths) so far. Atheism is really far far worse than the inquisition (a defensive war against the not so nice Islamic agression).

One thread down (the 14% thread), Lee has not come back since like post #3 (in fact, no lib has).

It's far easier to post things like "people fleeing the Republican party in droves" or some such, or that the neo-con vote is up for grabs in some other thread. Not when the reality that you are currently at 14% of Americans approving.

Sorry dudes, it's all just noise. Dems are going down big time. This 14% may not even be the floor (remember, even adding up the black and Hispanic population together make up more than 20%).

LeeWard:
the stench of their hypocrisy has prompted centrist neo-conservatives (who are equally disillusioned by Bush's repeated blunders) to move towards the left.

Any actual facts to back this up or is this simply more baseless conjecture (and wishful thinking) ?

In fact, if you look at the trend (wizbangblog.com/2007/06/20/confidence-in-congress-at-all-time-low.php#596915) , it appears that the Democrats have steadily and quiet rapidly lost favor this year... which is contrast to your assertion.

Do you see any Catholics beheading people for not adhering to their faith today?

Just thought you might need some tips when you start separating the "true Catholics" (your term) from the false ones.

Sorry dudes, it's all just noise. Dems are going down big time. - Posted by: nehemiah at June 21, 2007 02:15 PM

-------------------------------------------

WE ARE NOT GOING TO LOSE THE HOUSE. The Senate is such a foregone conclusion that it's not even worth talking about (see "Wyoming" above). Posted by nehemiah | October 15, 2006 11:08 AM

They are nervous. The House will not go Dem. The Senate was never in question. Posted by: nehemiah at November 3, 2006 12:32 PM

Do you see any Catholics beheading people for not adhering to their faith today?

Just thought you might need some tips when you start separating the "true Catholics" (your term) from the false ones.
-------------------------------------------------
Also thought that you might need some tips about what Catholics believe. Using your standard, then anyone can claim to be a Catholic when they don't believe in Catholic doctrines at all?

WW

I hope you are not as cynical as you sound. There are some very good evangelical churches who have not abdicated their responsibilities (and receive a great deal of ridicule for it). Southern Baptists come to mind.

Using your standard, then anyone can claim to be a Catholic when they don't believe in Catholic doctrines at all?

The Catholic Church has changed it's views on many topics over the years. There were those who believed against doctrine that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Were they not Catholics? There were those who believed that mass should be read in English. Were they not Catholics? There were those who believed that the Church should not blame the Jews for the death of Christ. Were they not Catholics? Many in the Church currently believe that the use of condoms to prevent transmission of HIV/AIDS should not be condemned. Are they not Catholic?

Disagreeing with one stance the Church holds doesn't mean one "don't believe in Catholic doctrines at all." Based on what you've written, chances are you are not a Catholic, and thus have no place pontificating on what Catholics believe, let alone proclaiming who is and is not a "true" Catholic.

By the way, my standard, such as it is, is that of the Catholic Church. Anyone who has been baptized and confirmed (provided they have reached a certain age) can rightly "claim to be a Catholic," provided that they have not been excommunicated.

Disagreeing with one stance the Church holds doesn't mean one "don't believe in Catholic doctrines at all."
-----------------------------------------------
Disagreeing on a fundamental issue like abortion means that you don't care much about the Catholic doctrines at all. The Catholic church has always considered abortion is an INTRINSIC evil.

You can claim to be a Catholic, but you don't really care much about the Catholic doctrine if that is your attitude. It is simply a convenient label to use for propaganda purpose. If you disagree with a church on such a fundamental issue, the honest to do is to leave that church. That 's the point.

I see. So someone can be baptized, confirmed, attend mass weekly, receive communion, do mission work, tithe, get married, and perform confession and penance, but if that person merely disagrees with one of the stances of the Church, he calls himself a Catholic "for propaganda purpose"?

The only point you have is at the top of your head.

So someone can be baptized, confirmed, attend mass weekly, receive communion, do mission work, tithe, get married, and perform confession and penance
-------------------------------------------------
I cannot see someone who does all this and can disagree with the church on the #1 fundamental issue. Just like you claim to be a member of the communist party (paying party due, attending all the meetings ...) and claim that you don't believe in collectivism. The honest thing to do is to leave church.

The only point you have is at the top of your head.
----------------------------------------------
Seems like the only point you have is to bash the Catholic church when you don't agree with it. Looks like it just pops at the top of your head without much thinking.

Surprise,
BTW on the top of your head, can we agree that atheims holds the record for mass murder now?

I cannot see someone who does all this and can disagree with the church on the #1 fundamental issue.

Allow me to remind you:

The majority (58%) of Catholic voters call themselves prochoice, and 62% believe "it should be legal for a woman to have an abortion."

Seventy percent of Catholic voters don't believe that Catholics have a religious obligation to vote for candidates who oppose legal abortion.

By the way, it is not "the #1 fundamental issue." If you're looking for the fundamental issues of the Catholic Church, I'll refer you to the Nicene Creed. It doesn't mention abortion anywhere.

Seems like the only point you have is to bash the Catholic church when you don't agree with it.

When did I bash the Catholic Church? It was you who proclaimed that approx. 2/3 of Catholics are not "true Catholics." I have no desire to bash the Church; I just recognize it has been wrong in the past, and has corrected itself.

can we agree that atheims holds the record for mass murder now?

I have no clue how this could possibly relate to our discussion. I'll leave you to your hobby of dreaming about who has killed more people.

"I just said that MMFA's position paper was crap."

So the country is not becoming more liberal? What data do you use to cite this? Do you have any evidence at all to counter their arguments since you don't agree?

jp2:

"After extensive research, I have concluded that the sky is blue because blue is my favorite color."

By your reasoning, you cannot refute my utterly irrelevant assertion because you cannot disprove my conclusion.

J.

The majority (58%) of Catholic voters call themselves prochoice, and 62% believe "it should be legal for a woman to have an abortion."
Seventy percent of Catholic voters don't believe that Catholics have a religious obligation to vote for candidates who oppose legal abortion.
-------------------------------------------------
In contrary to the teaching of the church. Catholic church doesn't run by popular opinion. This shows that you really don't know the Catholic church. If you want to go by the popular opinion, then leave the Catholic church, it is not for you. If you don't want to accept the Pope 's authority in the Catholic church, then Catholic is simply a convenient label and one should leave the church.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/may/07050901.html
Pope Supports Excommunication for Pro-Abortion Politicians - "Incompatible with Receiving Communion"

By John-Henry Westen

ROME, May 9, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A reporter aboard the Alitalia plane chartered to transport the Pope to Brazil Wednesday asked Pope Benedict XVI if he supported the Mexican bishops in their warning to politicians who supported legalizing abortion that they would face excommunication. The Pope responded saying, "Yes, this excommunication was not an arbitrary one but is allowed by Canon law which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving communion, which is receiving the body of Christ."

When did I bash the Catholic Church? It was you who proclaimed that approx. 2/3 of Catholics are not "true Catholics." I have no desire to bash the Church; I just recognize it has been wrong in the past, and has corrected itself.
-------------------------------------------------
The Catholic church has corrected itself to the position that abortion is an INTRINSIC evil and you are willing to disregard that teaching.

can we agree that atheims holds the record for mass murder now?
I have no clue how this could possibly relate to our discussion. I'll leave you to your hobby of dreaming about who has killed more people.
------------------------------------------------
Why are you so afraid to admit the obvious? What does the inquisition have to do with adhering to the teaching of the Catholic church?

Surprise,
In case you might need to brush up on the Catholic teaching to understand what the pope meant by canon law. Feel free to support abortion, but shouldn't call oneself Catholic for honesty's sake.

http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu70.htm

1. The following two sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church state:

# 2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," [CIC, can. 1398] "by the very commission of the offense," [CIC, can. 1314] and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. [Cf. CIC, cann. 1323-1324] The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society. [1463]

# 1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. [Cf. CIC, cann. 1331; 1354-1357; CCEO, can. 1431; 1434; 1420] In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication. [Cf. CIC, can. 976; CCEO, can. 725] [982]

Q. 2. What does that mean in simple English?

A. 2. It means that anyone who has an abortion, participates in an abortion, or supports an abortion, he or she, by the previously mentioned actions, is automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church. (C.C.C. # 2273)

You didn't tell me where I bashed the Church. You also didn't support your assertion that abortion is the #1 fundamental issue in Catholicism (I thought it was the trinity. Silly me).

This shows that you really don't know the Catholic church.

Or that you don't. Simply believing that abortion should be legal is not the same thing as having or performing an abortion, friend. Latae sententiae excommunication is reserved for those who procure a completed abortion. The majority of Catholics may believe that abortion should be legal, but that doesn't mean they would have one.

What does the inquisition have to do with adhering to the teaching of the Catholic church?

The inquisition was designed to force people to adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church. Considering your talk of "true Catholics," I'm suggesting that's the sort of behavior you may condone, or at least lament the passing of. In any case you think the Church should be purged of those who disagree with anything in the catechism.

It is amusing that you keep telling me how little I know about my own religion, when it's clear all you know about it is what you've found on Google.

Latae sententiae excommunication is reserved for those who procure a completed abortion.
------------------------------------------------
The pope spells it out for you my "friend". If you want to be a Catholic, you had better listened to him, otherwise get out of the Catholic church

A reporter aboard the Alitalia plane chartered to transport the Pope to Brazil Wednesday asked Pope Benedict XVI if he supported the Mexican bishops in their warning to politicians who supported legalizing abortion that they would face excommunication. The Pope responded saying, "Yes, this excommunication was not an arbitrary one but is allowed by Canon law which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving communion, which is receiving the body of Christ."

In any case you think the Church should be purged of those who disagree with anything in the catechism.
-------------------------------------------------
Don't try to spin here. The church and the pope clealy spell out that supporting abortin is a sin grave enough to be excommunicated. If you know that and intentionally violated it, then you should leave the church for honesty 's sake.

If you are interested in history, maybe you should remember that abortion is pushed by regimes lile Nazi Germany and communist regimes. Forced abortions and persecution of religious people, esp. Catholics, are being done today by atheistic fundamentalists in China, North Korea etc... The secular left has been also bashing the Catholic church using the inquisition etc... on the top of their heads. So if you are really interested in learning about history, you may want to adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter of abortion.

If you want to be a Catholic, you had better listened to him, otherwise get out of the Catholic church

It's laughable that a non-Catholic like yourself is willing to tell people to leave their faith. I urge you to find a Catholic priest and ask him if he thinks the members of his congregation that believe abortion should be legal should leave the Church. As far as your example with the Mexican bishops, it is true that many in the Church, including the Pope, advocate excommunication of politicians who want to legalize of abortion. Notice how no one is talking about excommunication for non-politicians who hold this view. If you know of any case where the Church has excommunicated an ordinary Catholic for believing abortion should be legal, show it.

The church and the pope clealy spell out that supporting abortin is a sin grave enough to be excommunicated.

You don't understand what they're saying, but that's not surprising as you don't seem to understand much about Catholics. Just holding an opinion does not "support an abortion" in the eyes of the Church, or 2/3 of American Catholics would have been excommunicated by now. Have they?

If you know that and intentionally violated it, then you should leave the church for honesty 's sake.

Once again, a non-Catholic telling Catholics how to exercise their faith. Funny.

If you are interested in history, maybe you should remember that abortion is pushed by regimes lile Nazi Germany and communist regimes.

Ok, so what?

Forced abortions and persecution of religious people, esp. Catholics, are being done today by atheistic fundamentalists in China, North Korea etc...

And...?

The secular left has been also bashing the Catholic church using the inquisition etc... on the top of their heads.

This doesn't even make sense. Try to learn to write.

So if you are really interested in learning about history, you may want to adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter of abortion.

That would have nothing to do with learning history.

Well, you've got a whole lot of nonsense mixed in with your demands that Catholics do as you say, even though you aren't even part of the Church, and clearly understand little about it. Maybe you should stop pretending you know about other people's religions just because you can look them up on google.

a non-Catholic telling Catholics how to exercise their faith. Funny.
----------------------------------------------
Your post is simply spin. It is funny that when the pope, the head of the Catholic church clearly said

A reporter aboard the Alitalia plane chartered to transport the Pope to Brazil Wednesday asked Pope Benedict XVI if he supported the Mexican bishops in their warning to politicians who supported legalizing abortion that they would face excommunication. The Pope responded saying, "Yes, this excommunication was not an arbitrary one but is allowed by Canon law which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving communion, which is receiving the body of Christ."

Pick it up with the leader and the canon law of the church. It is funny to me that people proclaimed to be Catholic yet openly disregarding a key teaching that the church considered grave enough for ex-communication.

The spin on the top of your head is funny though. Just like saying murder is a grave sin, but I simply say that murder should be legal! Basically, you said that your church says that the politician supporting legalized abortion should be communicated. You as a lay Catholic, has no obligation not to vote for those politicians knowing fully well the teaching of your church on the matter? That 's really amusing spin to me as an outside observer (which seems to know a little more about the teaching of your church).

I didn't understand any of that post. Learn to write a coherent sentence.

Surprise,
If you are interested in learning more abouth the Catholic teaching, here is a good one from the archbishop of Saint Louis.

St. Louis Archbishop Burke Confirms Voting For Pro-Abortion Candidates is a Sin

To Christ's Faithful of the Archdiocese of St. Louis: 'On Our Civic Responsibility for the Common Good'

30. Some Catholics have suggested that a candidate's position on the death penalty and war are as important as his or her position on procured abortion and same-sex "marriage." This, however, is not true. Procured abortion and homosexual acts are intrinsically evil, and, as such, can never be justified in any circumstance. Although war and capital punishment can rarely be justified, they are not intrinsically evil; neither practice includes the direct intention of killing innocent human beings. In some circumstances, self-defense and defense of the nation are not only rights, but responsibilities. Neither individuals nor governments can be denied the right of lawful defense in appropriate circumstances (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 2265 and 2309). While we must all work to eradicate the circumstances which could justify either practice, we must stop the killing of innocent unborn children and the practice of euthanasia, and safeguard marriage and the family now. One cannot justify a vote for a candidate who promotes intrinsically evil acts which erode the very foundation of the common good, such as abortion and same-sex "marriage," by appealing to that same candidate's opposition to war or capital punishment.

I didn't understand any of that post. Learn to write a coherent sentence.
------------------------------------------------
Fine, it means that you cannot defend your indefensible position anymore. That 's why you have to resort to this cheap ad-hominen distraction.

I have pasted the newsletter from the archbishop of Saint Louis. Any more excuse for not understanding the teaching of "your" church?

As Cardinal Ratzinger has said, "Catholics would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present themselves for Holy Communion, if they were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stance on abortion or euthanasia." This would separate one from the community of the Church.

If one had a properly formed conscience admitting the grave evil of abortion and euthanasia, as the Church teaches, and does not share a candidates stand in favor of abortion and euthanasia, but votes for the candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation which can be permitted, Cardinal Ratzinger states, if proportionate reasons are present, e.g., the candidate would limit abortions.

Fuzzy.

Any more excuse for not understanding the teaching of "your" church?

I understand the teachings of my Church, I just can't understand the gibberish you write. Learn to write the English language in a coherent way.

Surprise,
Now Cardinal Ratzinger has become a pope, and he made it clear again. BTW, where is the link to the full doc that you cut and paste from?

A reporter aboard the Alitalia plane chartered to transport the Pope to Brazil Wednesday asked Pope Benedict XVI if he supported the Mexican bishops in their warning to politicians who supported legalizing abortion that they would face excommunication. The Pope responded saying, "Yes, this excommunication was not an arbitrary one but is allowed by Canon law which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving communion, which is receiving the body of Christ."

I understand the teachings of my Church,
--------------------------------------------
and you are willfully and openly disregard it? The rest of your post is cheap ad-hominen attack typically used by spinners when they run out of args for their spins.

Your quote comes from a reporter and does not mention voters. Mine comes from the Pope himself (while Cardinal) and does. You can find it here.

and you are willfully and openly disregard it?

How have I disregarded it? (if in fact you are saying I have. I can't tell)

The rest of your post is cheap ad-hominen attack typically used by spinners when they run out of args for their spins.

It's not an ad hominem attack; I really can't understand some of what you have written.

Surprise,
From your very own source. So now we have the pope and two archbishops stating clearly that you cannot vote for politicians supporting abortion. Any more excuse for openly disregarding the church teaching?

But the teaching of the church, which corresponds with reality and the natural law, is that all life issues are not equal or the same. In fact, there is one which is primary, life itself. It is so basic and foundational that if it is not upheld, all other issues and rights are meaningless. Opposition to abortion binds every Catholic under pain of mortal sin and admits of no exceptions.

It was for this reason that I stated in October of 2000 that you cannot vote for a politician who is pro-abortion when you have a choice and remain a Catholic in good standing. For some Catholics this is a hard teaching, but I am simply repeating church teaching: "Human life is sacred because from the beginning it involves the creative action of God (Gospel of Life, par. 53)...the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being (abortion and euthanasia) is always gravely immoral (Gospel of Life, par. 57, 65)...protecting the mother's health does not justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being (Gospel of Life, par. 58)."

If you want to talk about who Catholics should vote for, that is an interesting discussion, and one more welcome than your demanding that Catholics leave their Church (you have no place to make such demands). Who do you think Catholics should vote for in 2008 if it is a pro-choice Democrat against pro-choice Giuliani? Given no pro-life choice, the Pope has stated that voting for a pro-choice candidate for other reasons is acceptable.

Surprise,
Don't spin anymore. The question for you after all this discussion is the following:
Do you agree now that as a Catholic you have the moral/religious obligation not to vote for pro-abortion politicians?

Do you agree now that as a Catholic you have the moral/religious obligation not to vote for pro-abortion politicians?

I believe that is what the Church teaches, yes, and thus Catholics should follow that. My point from the beginning is that your calls to purge the Church of the majority of Catholics who are pro-choice in some way or another are wrongheaded, not supported by the Church (unless there have been mass excommunications I haven't heard about), and insulting coming from a non-Catholic.

Do you agree now that as a Catholic you have the moral/religious obligation not to vote for pro-abortion politicians?

I believe that is what the Church teaches, yes, and thus Catholics should follow that. My point from the beginning is that your calls to purge the Church of the majority of Catholics who are pro-choice in some way or another are wrongheaded, not supported by the Church (unless there have been mass excommunications I haven't heard about), and insulting coming from a non-Catholic.
------------------------------------------------
Good! But don't spin. Where did I call for purging the pro-choice Catholics from the church. That 's the job of your church. I simply said
this
As a result, no true Catholic can support the dem party and the secular left in general.

So the question is the following:

As a Catholic, based on your church teaching, how can you justify the support for the dem party that openly support abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage (which the church considers as INTRINSIC evils)?

As a Catholic, based on your church teaching, how can you justify the support for the dem party that openly support abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage (which the church considers as INTRINSIC evils)?

I don't have to justify it; people justify their own choices. Also, you may not know this but there are many pro-life Democratic politicians out there. There are also many who oppose euthanasia and gay marriage.

I can explain support for candidates who advocate positions contrary to Church doctrine in two ways: either the pro-life candidate is considered the better of the two in terms positions consistent with Catholic doctrine (willingness to support a pro-choice candidate over a pro-war candidate, for instance), or the voter disagrees with Church doctrine on the issue but is not willing to leave the Church because of that disagreement. Either way it is between that particular parishioner, their priest, and God. Your opinion doesn't matter at all.

I don't have to justify it; people justify their own choices. Also, you may not know this but there are many pro-life Democratic politicians out there. There are also many who oppose euthanasia and gay marriage.

I can explain support for candidates who advocate positions contrary to Church doctrine in two ways: either the pro-life candidate is considered the better of the two in terms positions consistent with Catholic doctrine (willingness to support a pro-choice candidate over a pro-war candidate, for instance), or the voter disagrees with Church doctrine on the issue but is not willing to leave the Church because of that disagreement. Either way it is between that particular parishioner, their priest, and God. Your opinion doesn't matter at all.
-------------------------------------------------
Yup, it is the voter 's choice for sure. But we should be honest enough to admit that the choice is in open defiance of the clear teaching of the church (people said that they have no religious obligation not to vote for pro-abortion politicians).

Just try to learn from the principles laid out by arbishop Burke in the link I provided for you. For your convenience, I repeat it here

30. Some Catholics have suggested that a candidate's position on the death penalty and war are as important as his or her position on procured abortion and same-sex "marriage." This, however, is not true. Procured abortion and homosexual acts are intrinsically evil, and, as such, can never be justified in any circumstance. Although war and capital punishment can rarely be justified, they are not intrinsically evil; neither practice includes the direct intention of killing innocent human beings. In some circumstances, self-defense and defense of the nation are not only rights, but responsibilities. Neither individuals nor governments can be denied the right of lawful defense in appropriate circumstances (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 2265 and 2309). While we must all work to eradicate the circumstances which could justify either practice, we must stop the killing of innocent unborn children and the practice of euthanasia, and safeguard marriage and the family now. One cannot justify a vote for a candidate who promotes intrinsically evil acts which erode the very foundation of the common good, such as abortion and same-sex "marriage," by appealing to that same candidate's opposition to war or capital punishment.