Pope says Catholics "May" Vote for Pro- Choice Politicians.

[jvaz003]

This is a very poor excuse. Not only that but Catholics can not vote for a pro-choice candidate. What then-Cardinal Ratizinger stated, if you are not taking it out of context, is not under the the powers of infallibility, so in essence no Catholic has to follow it at all, especially if it us a matter of opinion which many have. If the power used the powers of papal infallibility, then fine you have an argument but you don't.

[CharlieChan007]

@jvaz003 Papal Infalibility has nothing to do with this issue. In fact, it has only been invoked once in the last century. Which means that virtually all of the pronouncments from the Vatican in the last 100 years have been outside its bounds.

[PaterNOSTER110289]

pope never said that.

[14alonso88]

you are not catholic stop pretending to be one. so your mom is a "believing" catholic, so you are not!!! how appropiate wearing priest attire to a holloween party!! you make me sick!!

yes there is a more important issue then life, tell me an important issue when you are dead.

no real document stated

[CharlieChan007]

@14alonso88 You sound very angry.

[SoldierofChrist12345]

This is misinformation & lies about The Pope!

[CharlieChan007]

@SoldierofChrist12345 What's the truth, "Soldier"? If I mispoke, I'm open to correction.

[redratfish]

Obama is not only pro choice, he is pro gay, pro stem cell, pro partial birth abortion, and FOCA. The people who voted for him have what reason to? He is supposedly against the death penalty? Yea right, as if thats going to be reapealed

[CharlieChan007]

"Pro gay"? I don't know what that means, nor do I have any idea why that matters to you or me. "Partial birth" is really not a medical term, and it is usually performed on a foetus who has absolutely no viability (such as a one who has no brain, just a stem, and is "alive" in the sense that its organs are functioning b/c it's physically connected to the mother). Stem cells are a good idea, in my opinion.

[redratfish]

Stem cells are good, except they can do the same thing now with adult stem cells that they need fetus stem cells for. Um and your idea of partial birth abortion is wrong, look on google anywhere. The baby is alive and is pulled out all but the head. The head is punctured by scissors and the brain is sucked out, then the corpse is pulled out.

I also notice you didn't mention FOCA

[CharlieChan007]

Google is not a source. The fact is, as I said, the majority of fetuses who are extracted in this manner are already brain-dead. I have no idea what FOCA is which why i didn't comment.

[CharlieChan007]

I'm not sure what this comment has to do with the video here, but I hear you.

[luckey86]

i wish people would stop using that word fetus its just a word to dehumanise the child so that people don't feel like what they are doing is wrong

[luckey86]

you guys relise that you can get the same stem cell from skin cells on your arm or body rather than from an embryo

[redratfish]

Yes this is true, I personally am in favor of adult stem cell reaserch. They can partially make it the same as an embryo (not fertilized of course) and not kill babies

[luckey86]

no partial birth is a form of abortion where they let the child get about half way out then kill him or her

[CharlieChan007]

Intact dilation and extraction is often performed on "babies" who are already brain dead.

[Mahdiarmy]

u know people like you makes me to think that you deserv this.

u really deserv to believe in the lies!

u deserv to not know the truth about 911 nor other issues. retards like u sir should be mixed with cows and pigs! no difference and indeed you are a homo sapiens, u are from a monkey after all! now u go back to sleep

[CharlieChan007]

Yes, Mahdiarmy. 911 was the work of the Illuminati or the Jews or whatever... It's amazing what people believe when they suspend the rules of evidence and reason. In the 16th Cent. people believed in witches and international Jewish conspiracies... oh... well, I guess some people still belive some of that stuff--See you at the Sabbot!

[Mahdiarmy]

so tell me retard:

how come every family member of 911 saying that 911 was made by CIA??

search for urself u braindead dog:

family members 911

[CharlieChan007]

Simply: "not" every family member of 911 believes that 911 was "made" by the CIA, Mahdiarmy.

[Mahdiarmy]

ok mr retard! if i am proving that "say" 10 family members is telling you something. shouldnt u look up that? shouldnt u respect them above everything else, shouldnt their words wieght much more than the government or the newschannel... really i am asking my self why you retards exists on earth and if it could be that you retards are the cause of todays world. you are useless and i dont feel pity for you. you simple deserv to be stupid idiot retard. go and buy urself a new life

[CharlieChan007]

ten family members is not "every" family member. Why don't you think about what you want to say before you type it; you just waste everyone's time. I "have" looked into these charges--there is nothing to them. Sorry.

[Mahdiarmy]

yes you are right. sorry my fault

[luckey86]

what? were you jacking off while you were typing this you didn't make any sense.

[CharlieChan007]

1. What if I was, are you jealous?

2. I would propose a remedial communications class for you.

[luckey86]

what do you mean remedial communications class what is it you are trying to say sir

[alogmail]

Marxist analysis; you quote nothing.

Bloody "liberation theology" no better than Tomas Borge's rubbish.

[alogmail]

How immoral is BHO the baby killer?

Obama will go down in history as "THE ABORTION PRESIDENT."

Obama's definition of a baby surviving a botched abortion: "a pre-viable fetus outside the womb..."

I much prefer that old fashioned definition of a baby: "BABY."

Did Obama learn abortion law in Red China?

Does Obama not believe that a BORN baby surviving a botched abortion has a soul?

[CharlieChan007]

Actually, the "pre-viable foetus" is one that would "not" survive the abortion--that's why it's called "pre"- viable. You have no fideltity to truth in context.

[alogmail]

The BABY is BORN and due all rights. Redefining "baby" does not change the fact that the baby is still a baby. Did you miss the word "surviving?" Marxist 'newspeak.'

Red China has successfully redefined millions to the grave. Gianna Jessen lived through Obama's abortion reality; hear her testimony.

[CharlieChan007]

There are times when, post procedure, the fetus is born, but is truley unable to live for more than a few moments, even in the presence of heroic attmepts to save them. That's "why" they are called "pre"-viable.

[alogmail]

BAIPA was necessary to protect the VIABLE, however they were defined.

Kennedy and Feinstein even voted for the federal version, as even they saw the need.

Jill Stanek and Gianna Jessen both have YouTube videos that elaborate.....

[alogmail]

BHO's views on the pre-born are remarkably similar to Josef Stalin's views of the born: "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths a statistic."

Actually BHO doesn't even believe one death is a tragedy, as he doesn't want young women "punished with a baby."

BHO's "compassion" is a lie. He is a stone cold socialist. This manufactured "Manchurian Candidate" didn't come with a conscience.

[CharlieChan007]

Obama is pro-choice on the abortion issue, as are most Americans. "Stone cold socialist" is a meaningless slogan. Most of what I have heard you say is no more than cliches and slogans. Do you read much, alogmail?

[alogmail]

I read in three languages, however imperfectly. Your relativism clouds your ability to think, Chan.

When the day comes where God shrinks the gray area to the thickness of a hair, where will you be Chan? I pray that you and others will not still be defending infanticide.

Do you believe in the "soul" or is life a blob of moving protoplasm just little more than "stone?"

You, Chan, are more than stone; is your heart "stone?"

The "slogan" is definitive to me, if not you.

[CharlieChan007]

I'm glad you speak three languages. Whether a fetus has a soul or not is an interesting question. It need not be answered in the negative to make a good argument for abortion being an option for women. It's a complex moral question which is not advanced accusing people of infanticide.

[alogmail]

I read in three, write in one, and speak in none, and am quite average at best in all regards, I assure you.

I was "pro-choice" once, until the realization of my own soul. A decades long transformation followed to acceptance of truths immutable that were once held by society at large, but lost.

There is no complexity regarding a born baby.

Years ago, when I was pro-abortion the boundary was "viability." Humans playing God defined that. I stopped playing God: will you Chan?

[CharlieChan007]

But that is "still" the standard. Viability is still the standard. There are already laws that protect a viable fetus being born.

[alogmail]

Society has slid off the slippery slope of abortion law interpretation. Anything goes unfortunately.

I refuse to slide with that foul mess. Even arch-abortionist Tiller has not been charged, nor others flouting the law.

I stopped playing God to my great relief; war, abortion, euthanasia and probably execution are sin.

[alogmail]

Disgusting. Who are you to speak for believing Catholics when you mock them in an ersatz "Halloween" costume, then proceed to misrepresent Church teaching?

ALL other rights are predicated on the one right that makes them possible; the right to life. It takes primacy. Period.

The relative choice in voting that you misrepresented is between two pro-abortion candidates.

Magesterium YES; and without the "interpretation" of the "liberation theology" that you mockers or pseudo-Catholics need.

[CharlieChan007]

I was just quoting the Pope, alogmail. Would you care to make a comment on that. I am waiting for someone to cite a source that shows me that the Pope makes that particular distinction that you claim he makes. Here's your chance to really show me up--what's the source? I will not tolerate mind vomit, so speak civilly.

[CharlieChan007]

kosimpson, I think it's more about what works than about what sounds good. Pro-choice people probably would argue the obvious point that they are not "pro" abortion at all. Intact dilation and extraction is a much misunderstood procedure; abstinence education is part of any reasonable sex ed. program, but abstinence "only" programs are measurable failures in terms of reducing pregnancy. Comprehensive sex edu. might well reduce the rate. Only time will tell. Let's see what actually happens? Pax!

[CharlieChan007]

I'm not sure that any of the sex education programs would have to be mandatory, but as long as they confine themselves to statements of fact and do not attempt to advocate behavior, I don't see a real problem. One could, I reckon, make a credible public health argument in favor of it. I suppose there are people who find evolution to be an inappropriate classroom topic.

"Pro-choice" is a term that is at least neutral, whatever its origin.

The death penalty is indeed a separate issue.

[CharlieChan007]

If Martino is a Catholic bishop, then he should also speak out against the death penalty when given the oppertunity; the church does not like single-issue priests. But it wouldn't make him a hypocrite.

[teton99]

"It is only if human life is respected from conception to death that the ethics of peace is also possible and credible," concluded the Pope. "It is only then that non-violence can express itself in every direction; only then that we truly welcome creation, and only then that we can arrive at true justice." Pope Benedict XVI

[CharlieChan007]

Thanks for the quote.

[teton99]

You have it wrong, Propitiate means if there is only prochoice candidates to chose from then the lesser evil must be chosen. The Church has stated that Life Trumps all other issues, because it is the foundation for all other issues. You are miss leading people.

[CharlieChan007]

If it turns out that in an Obama America that there are less abortions, ... IF... Then would it not have turned out that he was proportionatly the better candidate? --"If"?

If you have a link that shows this is the Pope's actual possition, I will be happy to include it... I am making an effort to include as much information on this as possible...I am attempting to understand the Catholic church's real possition on this, the Pope's actual one. People keep sending me slogans, not facts. PAX!

[obama4abortion]

Pro-life prayer of Pope John Paul II

O Mary, we entrust to you the cause of life. Look down upon the vast numbers of babies not allowed to be born.

Grant all who believe in your Son to proclaim the Gospel of Life.

Obtain for them the grace to accept the Gospel as a gift ever new, to bear witness to it resolutely, to the praise and glory of God, the Creator and Lover of Life.

Amen.

[CharlieChan007]

I respect your opinion, obama4. What I still don't understand however is what relevant point of theology, or of Canon Law or whatever, contradicts Benedict's previous statement. I am more than willing to admit ignorance if I am in error on this, but so far no one has shown me any evidence; they've just deleted my comments. lol.

Thanks in advance.

Pax!

[tkcgirl18]

This argument known as the lesser of two evils is certainly true. However, there is a key point. As you said, there must be proportionate evils. Abortion claims the lives of millions of babies. The most common reasons to vote for a prochoice candidate, such as the war, social concerns, or even the economy do not threaten to kill millions of people which would be necessary to establish these reasons as proportionate evils. Thus the obligation to vote against evil remains.

[CharlieChan007]

I don't think that that's so clear. In fact, I believe one could make an argument that abortion will not increase or decrease regardless of who is elected nationally in the U.S. Tuesday. I guess one could argue that the best way to reduce overall abortions would be to vote for a candidate who might, through public health initiatives, ease the social conditions that lead to abortions. I mean, I don't see how that would not be a reasonable argument if one feels this would be true. What'ya think?

[phobia2012]

But you can't guarantee things either way. If both candidates are promising to help fix the economy, but only one is against abortion, whether he will focus on abortion or not, we can only tell by what he promises, so we must vote for the one against abortion.

[CharlieChan007]

That would appear to ignore the substance of their plans to fix the economy, and to focus instead on the mere promise of it. Are we not allowed--in fact, responsible--to use our god-given reason to assess the relative merits of the likelihood a candidate's overall, proportional, impact? As you say, nothing is guaranteed, so why would we be bound to do nothing more than accept what a politician "says"?

[tkcgirl18]

However, as you said there must be a proportionate evil. Currently, abortion claims the lives of millions of babies. Thus, a proportional reason must claim the lives of millions of people. The current reasons such as the war, social issues, or even the economy simply do not carry the weight of millions of lives. Thus, they are not proportional reasons and this argument "the lesser of two evils" cannot apply.

[CharlieChan007]

I'm not saying that abortion is not a horrible thing. I'm saying that the Catholic who votes must follow his or her own conscience. And, according to the Pope, a Catholic "may" vote for a candidate who is pro-choice. I'm not trying to downplay their overall possition on the issue, but you are flat wrong to say that the official church possition is that a Catholic "cannot" vote for a pro-choice candidate... provided there are proportional reasons.

[TellTheTruthTV]

Catholics are required to have an informed conscience in regard to making such decisions. For the Catholic the "primacy of conscience" concept has no validity if that person is not applying the teachings of the church and acting according to them. Voting for pro-abortion candidate # 1 might be acceptable if all the other candidates were more or equally pro-abortion. However, in 2008 no such dilemna exsisted for voters. One candidate was clearly and proportionaly pro-abortion, the other pro-life.

[CharlieChan007]

Great, cite a source please. Let me go verify this.

[CharlieChan007]

I find no such clear statement. I know people on the Internet are saying this, but there is no source anyone has given me to contradict the Pope's special note: "When a Catholic doe not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presense of proportionate reasons." I see no contradiction to this that supports your statement: Please cite sources

[obama4abortion]

NOT TRUE!!