Wednesday, June 18, 2008

COMMONWEAL Article by Catholic Theologian


Yes You Can: Why Catholics Don’t Have to Vote Republican


Gerald J. Beyer

Republicans often use overheated and oversimplified rhetoric regarding the affinity between Catholic teaching and their platform. As a result, many people mistakenly assume that a Catholic must vote Republican. David Carlin, former Democratic Rhode Island senator, seems to have fallen prey to this fallacy (“Two Cheers for John McCain,” Commonweal, May 9).

Like many other well-meaning Catholics, Carlin argues that “there is no logical way to vote for the presidential candidate of a party committed to the preservation and extension of abortion rights.” He maligns “Catholic in name only” types who resort to intellectual chicanery to justify voting for candidates who support “the slaughter of innocents.” In this context, it is interesting to ponder why so many distinguished Catholic public servants, activists, and theologians have endorsed Barack Obama, a Democrat, for the presidency.

As an institution, the Roman Catholic Church does not tell believers for whom or against whom they must vote, despite what some politicians, pundits, and pastors suggest. Rather, as the U.S. bishops write in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship (2007), “the responsibility to make choices in political life rests with each individual in light of a properly formed conscience.”


Certainly Catholics must seriously consider any candidate’s stance on “intrinsic evils” such as abortion, racism, and torture. Catholics may not vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil “if the voter’s intent is to support that position.” Yet Catholics may choose a candidate who does not unequivocally condemn an intrinsic evil for other “truly grave moral reasons.” Catholics ought to choose the candidate who is least likely to promote intrinsic evils and the most likely to promote “other authentic human goods.” So the question becomes: Are there “grave moral reasons” that permit Catholics to vote for Obama, or any other candidate, despite his or her prochoice stance, or would such a vote be “intellectually careless or downright disingenuous,” as Carlin asserts?

In the U.S. political context, where no candidate perfectly mirrors Catholic teaching on issues such as abortion, war, stem-cell research, poverty, discrimination, gay marriage, and immigration, voting should be a difficult matter of conscience for Catholics. Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship argues that these issues “are not optional concerns which can be dismissed.” While John McCain’s voting record on antiabortion legislation may be more consistent than Obama’s with Catholic teaching, he supports federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research—an intrinsic evil that Catholic teaching unambiguously condemns. He supported and promises to continue a war that the members of the Roman curia and the U.S. bishops deemed unjust. The bishops have called for a “responsible transition in Iraq...sooner rather than later.” They caution against a hasty withdrawal that would abandon U.S. legal and moral responsibilities to the people of Iraq. Yet they see continuing military operations there as a catalyst for the insurgency and unlikely to promote sustainable peace. The bishops also urge nonmilitary actions, such as diplomatic engagement with Syria, Iran, and other nations in the region that “address the underlying factors of conflict.” Is this the kind of “soft patriotism” tinged with “pacifism and cosmopolitanism” that Carlin rejects in the positions of Obama and other Democrats?

To return to the main question, what issues might weigh so heavily on the consciences of Catholics that they choose to endorse Obama? The obvious place to start is precisely the so-called war on terror and foreign policy more broadly. As is well known, Obama consistently opposed the war in Iraq and supports a timely and responsible withdrawal. In a speech in September 2007, he outlined his proposals to bring the war to an end. They include: talks with Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia; eschewing war with Iran; continued training of Iraqi forces; increasing aid for Iraqi refugees from $183 million to $2 billion; welcoming Iraqi refugees to the United States; a UN Iraqi war-crimes commission; and building schools throughout Iraq.
Not only is Obama’s position on the war and his strategy to end it more consonant with Catholic teaching, but his vision for the place of the United States in the international community much more closely resembles modern papal teaching on international relations. “I don’t want to just end the war,” Obama has said, “but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.” After his long conversations with Obama’s foreign-policy team, the journalist Spencer Ackerman reports that “the Obama doctrine” seeks to abandon “the politics of fear” and “spreading democracy” in favor of “dignity promotion” (“The Obama Doctrine,” American Prospect, March 24). In other words, Obama will pursue much more dialogue with other nations and attack the conditions that create misery and generate anti-American sentiment in impoverished countries. As Obama put it, we must “more effectively tackle the twin demons of extremism and hopelessness that threaten the peace of the world and the security of America.”
Obama ranks among the few politicians who embrace Pope Paul VI’s 1967 dictum, “development is the new name for peace.” More recently, one finds resonances between Obama’s understanding of U.S. global leadership and responsibilities and that of Pope Benedict XVI. In the pope’s address to the United Nations, he argued that the best way to eliminate inequality among nations and to increase global security is to promote human rights. Throughout his papacy, Pope John Paul II tirelessly advocated globalization that is guided by the principle of solidarity, which precludes marginalizing weaker nations. This requires creating a world community based on “mutual trust, mutual support, and sincere respect.” All nations must be equal dialogue partners, with the right to influence global decision making. Candidates who speak of “obliterating Iran” with nuclear weapons, as Sen. Hillary Clinton did, or of evicting Russia from the G-8, as McCain suggested, do not share the Catholic vision of a just internationalism guided by the principle of solidarity. Obama does. He has argued that U.S. global leadership requires much greater “investments in our common humanity.” In order to help people lead lives “marked by dignity and opportunity,” Obama proposes to double foreign aid to $50 billion by 2012, and to create a $2-billion Global Education Fund—akin to the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation.

Obama favors a robust U.S. military, judiciously deployed. He argues that the United States must restore its leadership position and protect its own security by promoting the welfare of impoverished and oppressed peoples: “We must do so not in the spirit of a patron, but in the spirit of a partner—a partner that is mindful of its own imperfections.” On his view, reaching out to other nations is not an exercise of charity, but a matter of “recognizing the inherent equality and worth of all people.” McCain, on the other hand, taunts Obama for his desire to negotiate with nations like Iran. Catholics who share recent popes’ understandings of international affairs should pray that if McCain becomes president, he does not lead the United States into a disastrous war with Iraq’s neighbor. Such an unjust “preventive” war would kill more innocent civilians. A vote for McCain breathes new life into the neoconservative foreign policy—sometimes disguised in the language of humanitarian intervention—that has wreaked havoc in Iraq during George W. Bush’s presidency. As Human Rights Watch Executive Director Ken Roth argues, the invasion of Iraq was not a humanitarian intervention because Saddam’s mass-murder of Kurds had ceased much earlier, “nor was such slaughter imminent.”

On the domestic front, Obama and the U.S. Catholic bishops believe we must more aggressively confront the enduring problem of racism. Both appreciate the progress that has been made over the past several decades. Yet, as Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua of Philadelphia has put it, the “intrinsic evil” of racism has remained “deeply rooted in American life.” In his 2001 pastoral letter Dwell in My Love, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago lamented persistent discriminatory housing patterns, devaluation and underrepresentation of minorities and their cultures, unjust judicial penalties for minorities, and the perpetuation of racist attitudes in American society. Likewise, Obama described the pernicious consequences of racism in his speeches in Philadelphia and at Howard University, and in his “Plan for Strengthening Civil Rights.” He contended that the educational achievement gap between black and white students in the United States stems from the inferior schools that many African Americans must attend. He criticized unfairly harsh penalties for first-time nonviolent offenders, which are disproportionally given to minorities. He also decried racial profiling and the attempt by the Justice Department to eliminate affirmative-action programs at U.S. colleges and universities.

Obama and bishops who have spoken out against racism propose many of the same remedies: ensuring that children of minorities and the poor have good educational opportunities; eliminating racial disparities in the justice system; and fair access to credit and housing for minorities. Obama’s ability to enter into dialogue with people of different ideological stripes and his profound understanding of racial injustice allow him to address racism in a way that McCain cannot. Obama alone has spoken passionately and persuasively on the issue and has a proven track record both as a community organizer among the disenfranchised and as a civil-rights attorney.

he U.S. bishops and recent popes have advocated a more just economic system in the United States. The late Pope John Paul II, for example, decried America’s neoliberal capitalism, which “considers profit and the law of the market as its only parameters” and fails to protect the weakest members of society. The U.S. bishops support policies including a living wage, affordable health care, welfare reform, and fair taxation. Obama opposes the “sink or swim” capitalism that has created unjust economic disparities in the United States. Yet Obama, like Pope John Paul II and the bishops, recognizes the potential of the market economy, guided by reasonable and just social policies, to advance the welfare of all members of society.

By contrast, John McCain professes faith in the unfettered forces of the market. He proposes little to advance the cause of health care for all or to end the mortgage crisis, and he supports tax cuts for the rich and for corporations. He embraces the “trickle down” economics that favors the accumulation of wealth by some at the expense of the many. Anyone vaguely familiar with the church’s social doctrine since Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum novarum (1891) knows that Catholic teaching eschews laissez-faire capitalism, which Republicans have religiously avowed since the Reagan revolution (though they have not always practiced it, as evidenced by Bush’s hefty farm subsidies). As Angus Sibley recently noted in these pages, John Paul II’s Centesimus annus insisted that “there are collective and qualitative needs that cannot be satisfied by market mechanisms” (“The Cult of Capitalism,” April 25). “We Catholics should not be shy about what distinguishes our recipe for the good society from that of libertarian theorists,” Sibley argued.
Of course, economic policy issues are matters of prudential judgment, which means Catholics may disagree on specific measures. It is difficult, however, to maintain that McCain will better adopt the church’s teaching on the preferential option for the poor, which is, to borrow a term from Catholic conservatives, non-negotiable. Catholic teaching holds that the justice of an economy and any particular policy must be measured by how it affects the most vulnerable. Since President Bush took office in 2000, 5.6 million more Americans have fallen into poverty. The administration’s slashing of antipoverty programs does not augur well for our nation’s poor, given that McCain would likely maintain the status quo. Yes, McCain has promised to make poverty a “top priority,” but actions speak louder than words. On several occasions McCain voted against minimum-wage increases and has never been on the front lines of the war on poverty. Obama has. From his efforts to empower the poor of Chicago’s Southside in his early adulthood to his recent cosponsoring of the Global Poverty Act, Obama has exhibited the will and know-how to fight poverty. His plans to tackle poverty share the Catholic emphasis on social change coming from the ground up. Recently Obama pledged to work with former Sen. John Edwards to halve domestic poverty in ten years. This plan, available on the Center for American Progress Web site (www.americanprogress.org), contains detailed proposals, not empty platitudes.

Perhaps the most important commonality between Catholic teaching and Obama’s proposals is one of philosophical orientation. Both stress the necessity of nurturing the virtue of hope. The Catholic tradition holds that without hope in one another there can be no justice, no spirit of solidarity among human beings. Without hope in one another, social trust disintegrates and dialogue breaks down. When that happens, we resolve to take care of our own interests. We take advantage of, or at least ignore, the downtrodden and the marginalized. Like Barack Obama, Catholicism embraces the language of hope and solidarity, without which change for the sake of peace and justice for all cannot occur. Naysayers who consider the language of hope utopian, impractical, or “soft” ought to take note of successful movements like Solidarnosc in Poland during the 1980s, which was imbued with the spirit of the Catholic tradition and the language of hope. It is no coincidence that Lech WaƂesa, the audacious electrician and leader of the Solidarity movement, titled his autobiography A Way of Hope.

Like David Carlin, many Catholics rightly oppose Sen. Obama’s prochoice position, which contradicts Catholic teaching. Still, they ought to consider his promise to reduce the number of abortions by fostering socioeconomic conditions that favor choosing life and by promoting abstinence as a way of reducing unintended pregnancies. They should also contemplate the fact that Republican presidents have not done a better job of reducing the number of abortions, as Daniel Finn has pointed out (“Hello, Catholics,” Commonweal, November 4, 2005). According to Finn, Republicans like Bush have championed the abortion issue without exerting much energy to eliminate current abortion practice. That may not satisfy the conscience of some Catholics; they may decide to vote against Obama. Still, such a choice must be made after sincerely attempting to discern which candidate will more fully advance values and policies akin to the Catholic vision of solidarity, social justice, and the common good. As the USCCB has taught, Catholics must examine a candidate’s stance on the full range of issues that ought to weigh on a Catholic’s conscience. Undoubtedly, many Catholics who support Obama have done just that. Catholics who endorse him should strongly encourage him to take steps to limit the evil of abortion. Finally, during this election season Catholic voters should not be duped into believing that the matter is already perfectly clear: Vote for McCain or be a bad Catholic! They ought to take their obligation to vote according to their consciences more seriously than that.

Gerald J. Beyer is assistant professor of theology at St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia.

60 comments:

Regina said...

Catholics don't have to vote either for the Republicans or the Democrats. That does not mean they should not deeply reflect on this decision.

shiloh said...

Not only are Catholic leaders beginning to see the light & focus on all the teachings of the bible ie regarding racism, torture, war, human rights, the environment, poverty, health care ... in other words, the common good & not have tunnel vision on the singular issue of abortion, but ...

along w/Catholics, evangelical church leaders are also starting to focus on the entirety of God's teachings when it comes to political considerations, which of course is a double whammy for republicans this election cycle.

Nothing is black & white when it comes to the pros & cons of any particular party anymore, especially after the Cheney/Bush/republican incompetence & corruption of the past (8) years.

Catholics/Protestants/Evangelicals etc. are beginning to see the light when it comes to presidential politics.

Praise the Lord!!!

take care

Donna the Democrat said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Katherine said...

It continually surprises me why McCain supporters, while claiming to be standing for Catholic principles, use obscene language that no decent Catholic should.

I raised my children not to have potty mouths and I cannot permit use of words that are not appropriate for a family blog. I want to thank the Obama supporters and the undecided voters here as well as some of the McCain supporters for keeping their comments clean.

Max said...

From the Commonwealth article;

"He (Obama) contended that the educational achievement gap between black and white students in the United States stems from the inferior schools that many African Americans must attend. "

While Obama's kids attend a private school, he is against school vouchers for impoverished black kids who are forced to attend government schools. What the teacher unions want, Obama gives. First class hypocrite.

Donna the Democrat said...

That is a lie, Shiloh. There is only ONE Authority for Catholics. And it is not Jeremiah I'm-a-Racist Wright. And stop deleting posts, Katherine. You are indeed evil.

Monday, February 04, 2008
Catholics and Politics:
Papal Reminders
THE THREE NON-NEGOTIABLES


Other matters may be relevant, but a present-day Catholic citizen should never place issues of lesser importance at the same level of "the three non-negotiables":



As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable.

Among these the following emerge clearly today:

[FIRST NON-NEGOTIABLE]

- protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;

[SECOND NON-NEGOTIABLE]

- recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family - as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage - and its defense from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;

[THIRD NON-NEGOTIABLE]

- the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.

These principles are not truths of faith, even though they receive further light and confirmation from faith; they are inscribed in human nature itself and therefore they are common to all humanity.

The Church’s action in promoting them is therefore not confessional in character, but is addressed to all people, prescinding from any religious affiliation they may have. On the contrary, such action is all the more necessary the more these principles are denied or misunderstood, because this constitutes an offence against the truth of the human person, a grave wound inflicted onto justice itself.
Benedict XVI
Address to the Members of the European People's Party

Mattheus Mei said...

angry Hillary supporter?

Mattheus Mei said...

oh and donna if you don't want Katherine to delete a comment then obey her rules, this is her space, or simply go else where.

Rustler45 said...

"Republicans often use overheated and oversimplified rhetoric regarding the affinity between Catholic teaching and their platform."

Ya know what the problem is here? It's the lack of affinity of the liberals/Democrats for truth. Truth is always simple and that just burns a liberal's axe.

Yeah, and it's "overheated" too.

Well just wait till they get to Hell then they'll know what "overheated" means. It means a crispy critter axe.

Rustler45 said...

Mattheus Mei said...
oh and donna if you don't want Katherine to delete a comment then obey her rules, this is her space, or simply go else where.

Hey Mat Mousey, we have seen Katherine pretend her rules were broken just to delete a post she didn't like.

There was nothing in that post that broke the rules so whine elsewhere yourself.

Katherine said...

donna rustler,

thank you for re-posting your comment without the obscenity.

Rustler45 said...

COMMUNISTWEAL is a better name for that publication which "Catholic theologian" writes in.

Rustler45 said...

"Like many other well-meaning Catholics, Carlin argues that 'there is no logical way to vote for the presidential candidate of a party committed to the preservation and extension of abortion rights.'”

And Beyer has a problem with that? Beyer you're a communist. A Catholic CANNOT support a part that promotes abortion.

Is that too simple for you Beyer?

Rustler45 said...

Hey Donna, Katherine/Betty thinks we're pulling the same little tricks that she pulls.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA

You just can't stand truth can you Betty Katherine?

Katherine said...

Rustler/Donna --

As moderator I have access to your IP address. I hope things are well in Washington State.

Anonymous said...

BS!!! This whole article. You dont care one bit, at all if unborn children are dying. Our Bishops, our Church makes it very clear that is not acceptable. Why dont you become an Anglican? You dont believe in your Church if you vote for this guy. You just dont.

Anonymous said...

From Nick DiMarzio, author of Faithful Citizenship:

"In our own country, despite significant victories that extend protection to the unborn, this modern slaughter of the holy innocents continues because of the policies of unscrupulous politicians," he said.

"Only in circumstances that are extraordinarily hard to contemplate may a Catholic voter support a proponent of so great an intrinsic moral evil," the bishop said.

shiloh said...

Donna the Democrat said...

[FIRST NON-NEGOTIABLE]
[SECOND NON-NEGOTIABLE]
[THIRD NON-NEGOTIABLE]


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Interesting to note the homosexual problem re: Catholic priests & of course the hypocrisy of the last (50) years re: homosexual priests & their deviancy as to child molestation, when gay priests were moved from one diocese to another to cover-up the sins within their hierarchy. Also interesting to note that at one point in time Catholic priests were allowed to marry. Nowadays they don't allow it for purely financial reasons imo it would cost the church too much money if they allowed priests to marry.

Also, regarding the sanctity of marriage, I will forgive McCain dumping his first wife because she was permanently scarred in a traffic accident, in favor of a younger, better looking, financially secure second wife whose family totally funded his political career & it goes without saying he violated the sanctity of marriage by having a long affair before he divorced his first wife & married his second. And of course McCain's well documented long history of womanizing during his naval career. And his well documented history of outrageous verbal abuse re: his current wife.

Yes, I will forgive McCain all his personal religious failings because all these documented negative character issues aside, he would be totally unqualified to be president anyways & I would never vote for him regardless.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!

And regarding the abortion issue, the republican party is being disingenuous, they really don't want to overturn Roe vs. Wade, they just want to continue to use it as a wedge campaign issue because it has long been a big fund raiser for republicans ie a cash cow. It's all about money as with every other issue re: republicans. The bottom line with republicans has always been the bottom line!

& Matt summed it up well when he said to Donna & Rustler, if you aren't happy with Katherine's blog, you can very easily go elsewhere, but as a rule trolls like to stay in one place a longgg time always wanting to be the center of attention ...

& feel free to disagree with anything I've said. Rational discussion of any topic without the personal attacks & childish use of bad language & ad hominems is always welcome.

take care

Anonymous said...

Shiloh,

You just dont care that unborn children will lose their lives, millions likely, if Obama is elected. I just wish you could admit that. In terms of your attacks on clergy, please pick another church, it is obvious that you think the Church should bend to what you believe not the other way around. A stiff neck.

Anonymous said...

this modern slaughter of the holy innocents continues because of the policies of unscrupulous politicians

What about the unscrupulous women who have abortions>

Max said...

Shiloh,

I don't know the whole story about McCain and his 1st wife, but I do know he is a saint compared to Obama.

You support a man who voted against a proposed law in Illinois to provide medical care to babies who survived abortions. He would allow them to die in agony without care. He is a poor excuse for a man.

Please spare me the line about Republicans not wanting to overturn Roe. Bush has appointed pro-life judges opposed by the Dems. A republican congress passed a partial birth abortion ban, again opposed by the dems.

On the otherhand, today a democrat controlled congress agreed to fund the war in Iraq with no timetables. They ran on ending the war. Guess they lied to you Shiloh.
Finally, you stated reps were all about the bottom line. Obama knows all about the bottom line. Tony "not the guy I knew" Rezco, Jim Johnson, Friends of Angelo-Chis Dodd, Kent Conrad.Your boys do quite well for themselves.

shiloh said...

Anonymous said...

Shiloh,

You just don't care that unborn children will lose their lives, millions likely, if Obama is elected. I just wish you could admit that. In terms of your attacks on clergy, please pick another church, it is obvious that you think the Church should bend to what you believe not the other way around. A stiff neck.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


If life were that simple, abortion is a complicated issue for many, not black & white 1) Nobody is in favor of abortion 2) Women, as to them having complete control over their own body is an important right & constitutional discussion, those is favor of a woman's right still believe in all the alternatives ie prevention, adoption & of course medical issues re: the woman's health giving birth is also important in my opinion & there is also the issue of rape.

Interesting to note, many on the right who are not in favor of abortion under any circumstances are also in favor of the death penalty & it's amusing watching these folk try to differentiate/rationalize between the two issues.

Being born Catholic brings up a whole other bag of worms. Why should one be born into any religion. The constitution says freedom of religion obviously being born into any religion is not freedom of choice, I digress. Also, there's this little thing in the constitution called separation of church & state.

I am a non church going Catholic, but still a believer in most of the Catholic church's religious teachings & catechism. My USN dog tags, which I still possess, says I am a Roman Catholic. My previous comment re: non-negotiable nonsense should tell you I'm rational/flexible when it comes to most issues. Not every issue is cut & dry imo & the concept of original sin says we all will need redemption at the final reckoning for all those true believers in eternity.

Mother Teresa passed away some ago & although she is now beatified & many consider her a saint, it has been recently reported she had doubts at many points in her missionary life re: her faith/religion.

btw, anonymous you should be grateful to Katherine for allowing you to post in her blog, many bloggers, including myself, do not allow anonymous posters.

Praise the Lord!!!

take care

shiloh said...

Max said...

Shiloh,

I don't know the whole story about McCain and his 1st wife, but I do know he is a saint compared to Obama.

You support a man who voted against a proposed law in Illinois to provide medical care to babies who survived abortions. He would allow them to die in agony without care. He is a poor excuse for a man.

Please spare me the line about Republicans not wanting to overturn Roe. Bush has appointed pro-life judges opposed by the Dems. A republican congress passed a partial birth abortion ban, again opposed by the dems.

On the otherhand, today a democrat controlled congress agreed to fund the war in Iraq with no timetables. They ran on ending the war. Guess they lied to you Shiloh.

Finally, you stated reps were all about the bottom line. Obama knows all about the bottom line. Tony "not the guy I knew" Rezco, Jim Johnson, Friends of Angelo-Chis Dodd, Kent Conrad.Your boys do quite well for themselves.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


McCain finished next to last in his class at Annapolis & would have not been selected for the Naval Academy if his father & grandfather were not admirals & was selected for the pilot program because of his families heritage, not because he was an obvious non-achiever. And this along with his second wifes family fortune is the only reason he has a political career, he'd be nowhere otherwise.

Unlike Obama, who is a rags to riches story of personal achievement & had to do all his own legwork to get to his current position in life as opposed to McCain & his current wife who were both born w/silver spoons in their mouths!

& you assume I am a Democrat. I am a life long Independent ...

take care

Max said...

Shiloh,

John McCain living the easy life in the Hilton for 5 years, except it was the Hanoi Hilton. Could have been freed earlier, but refused. Must've been the free room and board.

Also, I agree, Barry did all kinds of legwork, Tony Rezco, Jim Johnson, he ran real well with those guys. Rags to riches Barry Obama went to an exclusive Prep School in Hawaii.

If it wasn't for Barry's heritage, he would not be the dem nominee. His main talent is that he does a great job of reading a prepared speech.

take care

Rustler45 said...

"Rustler/Donna --
As moderator I have access to your IP address. I hope things are well in Washington State."

Alright Katherine, #1 exposing someone on the internet by telling others where their address locates them is grounds for lawsuit. Didn't you know that?

#2 I know you have access to my IP address therefore you already knew that me and donna are two different people. You lied then and you're still lying.

shiloh said...

Max said...

Shiloh,

John McCain living the easy life in the Hilton for 5 years, except it was the Hanoi Hilton. Could have been freed earlier, but refused. Must've been the free room and board.

Also, I agree, Barry did all kinds of legwork, Tony Rezco, Jim Johnson, he ran real well with those guys. Rags to riches Barry Obama went to an exclusive Prep School in Hawaii.

If it wasn't for Barry's heritage, he would not be the dem nominee. His main talent is that he does a great job of reading a prepared speech.

take care
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In McCain's own words, he was shot down over N. Vietnam because he was a lousy pilot & of course, as I previously discussed, he should have never been selected for the pilot program in the first place!

& we disagree on McCain's life of privilege/entitlement which has been well documented & your continuing to rail against Obama with mindless minutia is not going to change anyone's mind so why continue to be nauseating!

take care

shiloh said...

Rustler45 said...

"Rustler/Donna --
As moderator I have access to your IP address. I hope things are well in Washington State."

Alright Katherine, #1 exposing someone on the internet by telling others where their address locates them is grounds for lawsuit. Didn't you know that?

#2 I know you have access to my IP address therefore you already knew that me and donna are two different people. You lied then and you're still lying.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Too funny, you are obviously not very computer literate or internet savvy. 1) I can change my static IP address anytime I want & don't have to contact my ISP to do so. 2) If one has (2) pc's w/separate connections they will have (2) separate IP addresses if one is not using a router. 3) Katherine did not tell everyone your address, she just said you are living in Washington, which anyone can find out if they have an IP address, on the hand, if you continue your hate speech nonsense, Katherine can ban your or anyone's IP address from her blog & if anyone ever threatened her, she could use an IP address, notify that person's ISP & that ISP can notify the authorities.

Also, one can use a proxy IP address & post as (2) different users, a very simple process.

p.s. you obviously live in WA, eh. You should have kept quiet, because IP addresses aren't always an indication of where one lives because of the use of proxies.

You can't use an IP to find out one's exact address only their general location if it's not a proxy. Although you can find out one's exact home address by using the IP, notifying that person's ISP if it's regarding some kind of legal issue.

As I said, I can change my static IP anytime I want be afraid, be very afraid! ;)

take care

Katherine said...

Alright Katherine, #1 exposing someone on the internet by telling others where their address locates them is grounds for lawsuit. Didn't you know that?

Yes, but I know you conservatives hate trial lawyers, so you would never get a decent attorney. Go ahead and sue, sweetheart!

John J. Jakubczyk said...

I read all the comments and all the smart remarks but ask yourself - what are YOU doing to help prevent abortion? What ate you dong to help the mother and her unborn child?

Then ask what your vote WILL do in his election.

One candidate is supported by Planned Parenthood, the world's largest provider of abortion services. His name is Obama. He spoke to Planned Parenthood and endorsed their work. So when he tells some people he is not pro-abortion, it is misrepresenting his position.

The other candidate, John McCain, has a 35 year pro-life voting record. He adopted a baby girl from Bangladesh. He has his flaws as do we all. Yet he will defend and protect the people of this country in a way far superior than that of Obama.

I approach voting in the same way that I would invite a person into my house. If the candidate meets certain conditions, then he may pass the threshold and I can consider voting for him. If a candidate is not pro-life, he does not cross the threshold. If the candidate cannot defend and protect the "least of these my brethren," then I cannot trust he will protect anyone.

The innocent child has no one to stand up for him or for her. You and I have that calling to protect the little ones. Yes, we are suppose to protect and defend our brothers and sisters born as well. We are suppose to seek only that which is good, true and beautiful.

But we cannot stand by and let PP and pro-aborts like Obama continue to allow the killing under the word "choice." Otherwise, why have any laws to protect people from others who would harm them?

As Catholics we are held to a higher standard - after all we are suppose to know better.

Max said...

Shiloh said,

& we disagree on McCain's life of privilege/entitlement which has been well documented & your continuing to rail against Obama with mindless minutia is not going to change anyone's mind so why continue to be nauseating!


I guess you consider a baby born alive being denied medical care mindless minutia. I consider it murder.

I continue to be neaseating because if I really work hard enough I will be a professional at it, just like you.

take care

shiloh said...

Max said...

I continue to be neaseating because if I really work hard enough I will be a professional at it, just like you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your ad hominem attacks are unfortunate. The nauseating referred to your, rustler etc. continued Obama attacks re: Rezko, Johnson etc. After you use the same argument 3/4 times it becomes mute in any discussion, especially if said argument was weak to begin with ...

take care

Max said...

Shiloh said,

Your ad hominem attacks are unfortunate. The nauseating referred to your, rustler etc. continued Obama attacks re: Rezko, Johnson etc. After you use the same argument 3/4 times it becomes mute in any discussion, especially if said argument was weak to begin with ...



My ad ad hominem attacks are unfortunate but yours aren't? I guess your ad hominem attacks don't smell.

If the arguement is weak refute it. I use the same arguements because you can't. I will continue to talk about Rezco and Johnson because Barry's ties to them highlights how phony he really is. Facts to you are "mindless minutia". But thats no suprise, you are an Obama supporter.

take care

Rustler45 said...

Shilow, keep talking. The problem is that I didn't change my IP Address and had no need to. I only deal in the truth.

Katherine, on the other hand, had been caught lying more than once. And this is another one to add to the list.

You used the term "hate speech." That's because you can't argue your points and you don't like what I say.

Keep whinning Shylow.

Rustler45 said...

Katherine, makes no difference what you think. If harm comes to someone whom you have let their personal information become public then YOU are liable.

Katherine said...

Katherine, makes no difference what you think. If harm comes to someone whom you have let their personal information become public then YOU are liable.

bring it on.

Rustler45 said...

Thanks Betty Katherine for finally coming out in the open and showing your true colors.

We knew all along your "Bless you, Bless you," was phoney.

bob said...

when Obama was asked ("axed" for some of you) what his position was on the abortion bill, do you know what he said? "Pay it"

haha

shiloh said...

Hey, rustler & max, don't want to get in a battle of wits w/unarmed men so you both take care.

Katherine must find you both amusing in a degenerate sort of way, so she graciously allows you both to continue to post on her blog even though your contributions are grade school level at best ...

or as she has previously mentioned, both of you are great advertisements for voting for Obama & against McCain.

Correction, I believe I have just insulted grade school kids w/my comparison, lets lower the comparison to kindergarten & yes this post uses many ad hominems as any kindergarten kid would do, see, I'm lowering my standard to try to relate in the kind of conversation you can understand!

My last reply to you both, it's been real ... have a nice day! :)

take care

Max said...

Shiloh said,

Hey, rustler & max, don't want to get in a battle of wits w/unarmed men so you both take care.


Original line Shiloh, I wish I would have thought that one up!

But anyway,goodbye, farewell have a nice day, hope to hear from you again real soon. No hard feelings.

take care

Rustler45 said...

SHYSTER SAID: Hey, rustler & max, don't want to get in a battle of wits w/unarmed men so you both take care.

RUSTLER: Yeah shyster, it's a good thing you don't. I would be very embarrassing to get your axe kicked by an unarmed man. Remember, I am just in the 8th grade?

SHYSTER SAID: Katherine must find you both amusing in a degenerate sort of way....

RUSTLER: She's probably not going to be happy that one of her own called her degenerate, but I agree with you.

SHYSTER IN ALL HIS WIT AND KNOWLEDGE SAID: ...not have tunnel vision on the singular issue of abortion, but ...

RUSTLER: Do you know anything about the Catholic faith shyster? And you talk about unarmed? Do you not grasp NON-NEGOTIABLE?

Did you not read Scripture where Jesus says that you cannot disobey even one of the commandments and expect to see salvation? Are you a total dunce or what?

Maybe we better change your name to Dumbster.

DUMBSTER SAID: ...along w/Catholics, evangelical church leaders are also starting to focus on the entirety of God's teachings

RUSTLER: Did you not read the Catechism? Do you not believe it? Are you a heretic or just plain stupid? Or both?

DUMBSTER SAID: Nothing is black & white when it comes to the pros & cons....

RUSTLER ASKS: Now just where have we heard that before. I believe the snake used that line when talking to Eve. A liberal always uses that line when he starts to BS everybody.

I suppose abortion isn't just black and white? How about homosexuality? Is that a gray one too Dumpster?

It's so funny when dummy starts running his mouth and you hear the logic running from him.

Here we go! He did say the unspeakable. He said abortion is not black and white!

Dumbster, are you drinking?

Rustler45 said...

Hello Dumbster,

Here it is, Catholic teaching. And don't even begin to argue that it's not. It is black and white. It's real simple. Of course Mr. Beyer would call that overly simplistic, but what the hey.

Are you ready? Here we go Dumbster.

Under no circumstances can the life of the unborn baby be directly attacked.

Got that? Is that too black and white for you? It means there are NO situations where killing a baby, born or unborn is acceptable. NONE ZERO NADA.

Not for rape, incest, OR life of the mother.

If you think differently you are in direct oppostion to Catholic teaching.

Rustler45 said...

Philadelphia Cardinal Rigali: One Must Believe What the Church Teaches to Receive Communion

By John-Henry Westen

QUEBEC CITY, June 20, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Cardinal Justin Rigali, the Archbishop of Philadelphia is in Quebec City for the International Eucharistic Congress - a week-long event focusing on the Catholic belief that Christ Himself is present in Holy Communion.

Cardinal Rigali, who is also the President of the Pro-Life Committee of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, discussed with LifeSiteNews.com the issue of worthiness to receive Communion in the context of Catholics who support abortion and same-sex "marriage", contrary to Church teaching.

"We're talking about the very life of the church when we're talking about the Eucharist and participation in the Eucharist," said Cardinal Rigali. "St. Paul tells us that anyone who receives the Eucharist must be prepared. This is the apostolic catechesis."

"St. Justin in the second century tells us: 'The only people who are to go to Communion are people who believe everything we believe'. So it's a question of our faith."

The Cardinal referenced St. Paul warning that, "Anyone that approaches the body of Christ has to examine himself to see where he stands, because if you're not worthy then you're heaping condemnation on yourself."

The Cardinal noted that there are "many people who are confused on the faith, many people are confused on the issue of life." That is why, he said, "the Church has been putting in so much effort to try to clarify the absolute necessity to support, to promote, to cherish human life, and not to do anything to destroy it."

"We invite people to come to the Eucharist," he said, "but we are constantly reminding them 'just a moment now' this belongs to our tradition - the Eucharist is not just something we just receive; it's the body of Christ."

"We have to accept the teachings on the body of Christ and we have to accept the teaching of the body of Christ, which is the Church, on other things to be fully worthy," he said.

While he said that the prime responsibility is that of the person to examine himself before God regarding his worthiness to receive Communion, Cardinal Rigali added that "obviously the Church has an obligation to safeguard the Eucharist against abuses."

"We teach children who prepare for first Holy Communion to be worthy, to be in the state of grace," he said. "That's what we tell everybody - you have to be in the state of grace."

He concluded: "To be in the state of grace you must embrace what the Church embraces, you have to embrace the faith of the Church, and you're not free to receive the Eucharist if you don't embrace the faith of the Church. This is St. Paul, this is St. Justin, this is the whole history of the Church."

RUSTLER SAYS: It sure looks like you Probamas are on really shaky ground. This is probably far too black and white for you.

DOUGLAS FIELD said...

SENATOR OBAMA, PLEASE TELL AMERICA YOUR FEELINGS ON THIS US JUDICIAL INJUSTICE ???

LETS ALL HOPE OUR INTERNATIONAL MEDIA FRIENDS ALSO SHOW AN INTEREST
IN REPORTING ON THIS AMERICAN HORROR FACING THESE (TENS OF THOUSANDS)
FORGOTTEN AND TRAPPED POORER AMERICANS, AND HOW THIS POSSIBLE FUTURE
PRESIDENTIAL CONTENDER HANDLES THIS VERY SERIOUS ISSUE FACING AMERICA’S
LATINO AND BLACK AMERICAN COMMUNITIES ????

**WITH 80% OF THE BLACK AMERICAN VOTERS SAYING THEY SUPPORT SENATOR
OBAMA IN THIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, IT IS ONLY FAIR FOR EVERYONE TO
KNOW PRIOR BEING ELECTED OUR NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HOW
THIS DEMOCRATIC SENATOR TRULY FEELS ABOUT THIS AMERICAN JUDICIAL HORROR
CONTINUING TO INFLICT GRAVE HARM ON THE BLACK AMERICAN FAMILIES AND
THEIR COMMUNITIES NATIONWIDE ??????

*** WHEN GOD’S FACE BECAME VERY RED ***
THE US SUPREME COURT GAVE ENEMY COMBATANTS FEDERAL APPEAL HC RIGHTS
LAWYERS AND PROPER ACCESS TO US FEDERAL COURTS,AND POORER AMERICANS
(MANY EVEN ON DEATH ROW) ARE DENIED PROPER FEDERAL APPEAL LEGAL
REPRESENTATION TO OUR US FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL, AND ROTTING IN
AMERICAN PRISONS NATIONWIDE ?????????

**** INNOCENT AMERICANS ARE DENIED REAL HC RIGHTS WITH THEIR FEDERAL APPEALS !
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE $LOWLY FINDING OUT HOW EA$Y IT I$ FOR MIDDLE
CLA$$ AND WORKING POOR AMERICAN$ TO FALL VICTIM TO OUR U$ MONETARY
JUDICIAL $Y$TEM.

****WHEN THE US INNOCENT WERE ABANDONED BY THE GUILTY ****
The prison experts have reported that there are 100,000 innocent
Americans currently being falsely imprisoned along with the 2,300,000
total US prison population nationwide.
Since our US Congress has never afforded poor prison inmates federal
appeal legal counsel for their federal retrials,they have effectively
closed the doors on these tens of thousands of innocent citizens ever
being capable of possibly exonerating themselves to regain their
freedom through being granted new retrials.

This same exact unjust situation was happening in our Southern
States when poor and mostly uneducated Black Americans were being
falsely imprisoned for endless decades without the needed educational
skills to properly submit their own written federal trial appeals.

This devious and deceptive judicial process of making our poor and
innocent prison inmates formulate and write their own federal appeal
legal cases for possible retrials on their state criminal cases,is
still in effect today even though everyone in our US judicial system
knows that without proper legal representation, these tens of thousands
of innocent prison inmates will be denied their rightful opportunities
of ever being granted new trials from our federal appeal judges!!

Sadly, the true US *legal* Federal Appeal situation that occurs when
any of our uneducated American prison inmates are forced to attempt to
submit their own written Federal Appeals (from our prisons nationwide)
without the assistance of proper legal counsel, is that they all are in
reality being denied their legitimate rights for Habeas Corpus and will
win any future Supreme Court Case concerning this injustice!

For our judicial system and our US Congressional Leaders Of The Free
World to continue to pretend that this is a real and fair opportunity
for our American Middle Class and Working Poor Citizens, only delays
the very needed future change of Federal Financing of all these Federal
appeals becoming a normal formula of Our American judicial system.

It was not so very long ago that Public Defenders became a Reality
in this country.Prior that legal reality taking place, their were also
some who thought giving anyone charged with a crime a free lawyer was a
waste of taxpayers $$.

This FACADE and HORROR of our Federal Appeal proce$$ is not worthy of the Greatest Country In The World!

***GREAT SOCIETIES THAT DO NOT PROTECT EVEN THEIR INNOCENT, BECOME THE GUILTY!

A MUST READ ABOUT AMERICAN INJUSTICE:
1) YAHOO AND 2) GOOGLE
MANNY GONZALES THE KID THAT EVERYONE FORGOT IN THE CA PRISON SYSTEM.
** A JUDICIAL RIDE OF ONES LIFE !

lawyersforpooramericans@yahoo.com (424-247-2013)

Anonymous said...

Heya i'm fresh on here. I stumbled upon this website I have found It quite accessible and it's helped me out tons. I should be able to contribute & help others like its helped me.

Thanks, See Ya Later

Anonymous said...

Thank you, that was extremely valuable and interesting...I will be back again to read more on this topic.

Anonymous said...

Sweet web site, I hadn't come across catholicsforobama.blogspot.com earlier during my searches!
Keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

Brilliant website, I had not come across catholicsforobama.blogspot.com previously during my searches!
Continue the fantastic work!

Anonymous said...

Hi,

I have a question for the webmaster/admin here at catholicsforobama.blogspot.com.

Can I use some of the information from this blog post above if I give a backlink back to your site?

Thanks,
Jack

Anonymous said...

Thanks for sharing the link, but unfortunately it seems to be offline... Does anybody have a mirror or another source? Please reply to my post if you do!

I would appreciate if someone here at catholicsforobama.blogspot.com could post it.

Thanks,
Charlie

Anonymous said...

Greetings,

Thanks for sharing this link - but unfortunately it seems to be down? Does anybody here at catholicsforobama.blogspot.com have a mirror or another source?


Cheers,
Peter

Anonymous said...

I have decided never to vote again.
Then, I can avoid offending the Bishops by voting democrat, and I can avoid offending Jesus Christ of Nazareth by voting for the Party of Dives the Rich Man. I will support both the Prolife amendment and the
Singl Payer movement, so no one can accuse me of killing either the unborn or the poor who are living. But it is hard to vote correctly when the Bishops and Christ seem to oppose each other.

Anonymous said...

Hello,

I have a message for the webmaster/admin here at catholicsforobama.blogspot.com.

Can I use part of the information from your post above if I provide a link back to this website?

Thanks,
Peter

Rich Leonardi said...

You've got to love a group that calls itself "Catholics for Obama-Biden" features on its masthead a picture of BHO preaching in a Protestant church.

Anonymous said...

Hi there,

This is a message for the webmaster/admin here at catholicsforobama.blogspot.com.

Can I use part of the information from this post right above if I provide a backlink back to your site?

Thanks,
Jack

Anonymous said...

Hi,

This is a inquiry for the webmaster/admin here at catholicsforobama.blogspot.com.

May I use part of the information from this post above if I give a link back to this site?

Thanks,
Mark

Katherine said...

Certainly, Mark. God bless.

Anonymous said...

Hey - I am definitely glad to find this. great job!

Anonymous said...

Hi - I am definitely happy to discover this. Good job!

Anonymous said...

Hey - I am certainly glad to discover this. Good job!

Anonymous said...

Nice job, Thanks