Father McBrien Upset

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Lizzie:

Please tell me about this. I am quite interested.

Let me tell you the little I know about Santorum…He recently appeared on ?Raymond Aroya’s EWTN news and said his original venture as a politician had little to do with his being Catholic. He said that data regarding late term brain-crushing abortions woke him up. He said he knew then he should stop just dealing and fight for Catholic principles that revere life.

The EWTN show also mentioned that Santorum and his then pregnant wife were advised to abort because of a fetal defect but refused and they had the baby.This was arround the tme that Santorum decided to stand up for Caholic morals/principles.

If you know anything different, let me know. .

I believe what bones_IV is talking about is the fact that Senator Santorum backed and campigned for Senator Specter in a primary. Senator Specter is not pro-life, I believe he is fully pro-abortion. The republican running against Senator Specter in this primary, if I am not mistaken, was fully pro-life.

So when it comes down to it, is a person who claims to be pro-life truely pro-life when they back a person who is pro-abortion for election over a pro-life candidate?

 

[bones_IV]

I don’t apologize for telling the truth. As of right now, there are NO 100% pro-life candidates out there, not one. I just want people to think about this, if you settle for less than your best, than less than your best is just what your going to get.

 

[Jlcastagna]

Fr. McBrien is upset well that just made my day. The only thing that will top this is attending Mass today.
May God Bless and Protect Us,
Jlcastagna

Fr. McBrien your arms are to short to box with God!:yup:

 

[mercygate]

ByzCath:

I believe what bones_IV is talking about is the fact that Senator Santorum backed and campigned for Senator Specter in a primary. Senator Specter is not pro-life, I believe he is fully pro-abortion. The republican running against Senator Specter in this primary, if I am not mistaken, was fully pro-life.

So when it comes down to it, is a person who claims to be pro-life truely pro-life when they back a person who is pro-abortion for election over a pro-life candidate?

There was a lot more to this than that. I do not recall the details of Santorum’s rationale, but when I heard it at the time, it made a lot of sense; if memory serves it had something to do with what could be achieved in the big picture by backing the candidate. It was clear that Santorum was NOT playing both sides of the house here.

 

[bones_IV]

mercygate:

There was a lot more to this than that. I do not recall the details of Santorum’s rationale, but when I heard it at the time, it made a lot of sense; if memory serves it had something to do with what could be achieved in the big picture by backing the candidate. It was clear that Santorum was NOT playing both sides of the house here.

What do mean that Santorum was not playing both sides of the house? Don’t know what that expression means.

 

[bones_IV]

I should also point out that when Specter was running in the republican primary in Pennsylvania his opponent was truly pro-life. But Bush campaigned for him as well as Santorum. Why? He did what the White House asked. This is not the first time that he’s gone into a state and work for the election of a pro-abortion republcian. Sadly enough politics is the senator’s life.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

mercygate:

There was a lot more to this than that. I do not recall the details of Santorum’s rationale, but when I heard it at the time, it made a lot of sense; if memory serves it had something to do with what could be achieved in the big picture by backing the candidate. It was clear that Santorum was NOT playing both sides of the house here.

That is called rationalization.

We must keep this paragraph of the CCC in mind.

1789Some rules apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
• the Golden Rule: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”
• charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: “Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ.” Therefore “it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble.”

One may never do evil so that good may result from it.

What I remember from his argument is that it boiled down to the fact that he did not think the other candidate in the primary would win the seat where as he thought Specter would.

 

[mvinca]

ByzCath:

I believe what bones_IV is talking about is the fact that Senator Santorum backed and campigned for Senator Specter in a primary. Senator Specter is not pro-life, I believe he is fully pro-abortion. The republican running against Senator Specter in this primary, if I am not mistaken, was fully pro-life.

I guess everyone makes mistakes. I know some people on this forum want the perfect candidate, but we all know that won’t happen anytime soon. If the perfect candidate runs, then I’ll vote for him, but until then, I’ll vote for the best. Santorum is one of the best of the best. He has been a huge mover in the anti-abortion camp. His conservative social policy is also quite pleasing. Unfortunately, on the other side of the coin, is Specter, whom I was always ashamed of when I was a Pennsylvanian. Yet Philly will continue to elect him, just as when I was a New Yorker (upstate), the city continued to support people like Hillary. It gets frustrating, that’s for sure.

But I must say Santorum has done one awesome job so far.

That’s my 2¢

 

[bones_IV]

To support the candidate that is most in line with your beliefs is modernism, we must remain firm to the gospel of Christ.

 

[mvinca]

bones_IV:

To support the candidate that is most in line with your beliefs is modernism, we must remain firm to the gospel of Christ.

Where does the logic stop? Say Santorum supported someone who supported someone who supported someone who was pro-choice. Can I not vote for him then? Even though Santorum’s direct actions have been pro-life?

Or, since he works with Hillary Clinton on writing some legislation, who herself supports many of Satan’s crafty lies, should I note vote for him? The stuff he works on with her is good legislation, even though she leaves much to be desired as a legislator.

I am not a relative moralist (the result of Modernism) because I vote for the good candidate over the bad. I know there is an absolute morality, the teachings of Christ. But I know that bringing the nation back to this Truth will take some time. In my actions, I must always remain true to that Truth. But I don’t have control over everything. I must elect those who bring us closer to that truth. To not vote because no one is qualified (which would be no one since we are all sinners), I think would be equivalent to doing nothing when you know a wrong is being committed. (for what I have done and what I have failed to do.)

Although I must say it is refreshing to be the one who is being too liberal, so to speak. Usually I’m pegged as the conservative who is too much of an idealist and expects the world to shape up.

 

[bones_IV]

Unless the divorce law is reversed we will continue to have abortions in this country.

 

[bones_IV]

I can tell you that the partial-birth abortion bill would not have saved a single baby. It is a loophole that permits this type of infanticide if the doctor thinks that the mother’s life is at risk. The re-election of President Bush doesn’t change the fact that 98% of women use contraception. Nor does the nomination of Miers or Roberts change the fact that 98% of women use contraception. Mvinca, do you really think that God will eliminate abortion without the contraceptive mentality eradicated also? There will never, NEVER, be a conversion of hearts about abortion if there is not a conversion of hearts about contraception. The only way to end aborting children legally is to challenge the Supreme Court on the question left to us by the Roe v Wade/Doe v Bolton desicion: personhood. Unless the contraceptive mentality is rooted out of America…the Abortive mentality will remain.

 

[mvinca]

bones_IV:

I can tell you that the partial-birth abortion bill would not have saved a single baby. It is a loophole that permits this type of infanticide if the doctor thinks that the mother’s life is at risk. The re-election of President Bush doesn’t change the fact that 98% of women use contraception. Nor does the nomination of Miers or Roberts change the fact that 98% of women use contraception. Mvinca, do you really think that God will eliminate abortion without the contraceptive mentality eradicated also? There will never, NEVER, be a conversion of hearts about abortion if there is not a conversion of hearts about contraception. The only way to end aborting children legally is to challenge the Supreme Court on the question left to us by the Roe v Wade/Doe v Bolton desicion: personhood. Unless the contraceptive mentality is rooted out of America…the Abortive mentality will remain.

Now here is something we completely agree on. Once Americans start following the concepts of chastity, putting sex back into its correct context, these other things will follow.

 

[mercygate]

bones_IV:

To support the candidate that is most in line with your beliefs is modernism, we must remain firm to the gospel of Christ.

Which would mean that we forfeit our vote by abstention?

 

[bones_IV]

mercygate:

Which would mean that we forfeit our vote by abstention?

What is your definition of supporting a candidate? It’s not our job to tell people how to vote.

 

[Brad]

bones_IV:

Santorum may be a good man, but he’s not 100% pro-life especially regarding the primary that pitted Arlen Specter against another republican.

So who do you vote for Bones? It seems you have yet to ever find a candidate that meets your standards.

 

[Brad]

bones_IV:

I don’t apologize for telling the truth. As of right now, there are NO 100% pro-life candidates out there, not one. I just want people to think about this, if you settle for less than your best, than less than your best is just what your going to get.

So what is your solution?

 

[Brad]

bones_IV:

I can tell you that the partial-birth abortion bill would not have saved a single baby. It is a loophole that permits this type of infanticide if the doctor thinks that the mother’s life is at risk. The re-election of President Bush doesn’t change the fact that 98% of women use contraception. Nor does the nomination of Miers or Roberts change the fact that 98% of women use contraception. Mvinca, do you really think that God will eliminate abortion without the contraceptive mentality eradicated also? There will never, NEVER, be a conversion of hearts about abortion if there is not a conversion of hearts about contraception. The only way to end aborting children legally is to challenge the Supreme Court on the question left to us by the Roe v Wade/Doe v Bolton desicion: personhood. Unless the contraceptive mentality is rooted out of America…the Abortive mentality will remain.

You have to go back further - eliminate the “sex is for pleasure only” mentality.

Making abortion illegal will go a very long way towards attacking that mentality.

 

[Brad]

bones_IV:

To support the candidate that is most in line with your beliefs is modernism, we must remain firm to the gospel of Christ.

This is not modernism. Given 2 legitimate choices for victory, you must pick the one that is most in line with the truth.

Modernism is accepting un-truths as being true.

 

[buffalo]

Semper Fi:

Isn’t it highly possible that “Fr” McBrien is already automatically excommunicated? HOW does he keep his post at NOTRE DAME? :banghead:

Ask Fr Jenkins.
the newly elected President of ND.