May I ask a Question?

[gilliam]

koda:

With all due respect, he is quoted in the interview and I have never seen a denial. I know you really like Bush, but give those of us who feel differently the respect to believe the sources that, to us, are legitimate. And this has nothing whatever to do with the 9/11 “facts.”

Look at the quote again. He was quoted as talking about people coming to his office. Who knows what past history he had with those people. I don’t know them from Adam.

 

[gilliam]

Vaclav:

The interviewer in the selection above was Tucker Carlson, a conservative interviewer. I think that’s why most people found it believable. Though I agree with the poster that President Bush can make awkward gestures and smile at bizarre times. So it is difficult to tell what was meant…

Very true. He was not my choice for President during the Republican primaries, and that was one of the reasons.

 

[johnnykins]

Vaclav:

I’ve read a number of threads on here that seem to degenerate into a real nasty verbal war between “liberals” and “conservatives.” By the way, for Europeans, liberals means something else entirely and it might be more accurate to say “leftists.”

I’m working towards converting and am a bit concerned. I’ll be honest, I don’t really believe in the War on Terrorism or the Iraq Invasion. Primarily I don’t have that much faith in politicians, nor do I believe the machinery of war has the ability to change hearts and minds.

I have little respect for President Bush, but that doesn’t mean I find the Democrats any more appealing than the Republicans. Suffice it to say that I’ve done enough work with politics to have succesfully lost respect for most politicians. I don’t find the economic arguments appealing from either side.

So my question is this: can I find a place within Catholicism where I don’t have to be told how to vote and why one party is more “godly” than another, etc. To be honest you all are about twenty years behind the evangelicals in this process and I’ve never found it appealing then or now.

I’d rather put my faith in Christ and my time and effort into learning more about His Church.

I read somewhere that Jesus would have voted for Bush in 2004. I’d hope that he’d not have voted at all when faced with a candidate that supports abortion and a candidate who mocked and laughed at a woman before he had her put to death.

Just my opinions and I don’t want to cause trouble or start any more left versus right battles.

There is a saying in the USA that one should never discuss money, politics or religion in polite company. Naturally, these forums must not be “polite company”

Don’t let either side bother you. We all know folks get exercised by politics and religion. The Church provides guidance on many moral issues that have political implications - some more so than others. I, for one, voted for neither Bush nor Kerry. One good thing about most of western political systems is that there is a secret ballot and only you and God need to know who you voted for.

 

[koda]

gilliam:

Look at the quote again. He was quoted as talking about people coming to his office. Who knows what past history he had with those people. I don’t know them from Adam.

In the quote he says “please don’t kill me” - therefore, one draws the conclusion that he was mimicing Tucker as she was the one scheduled to be killed, not people coming to his office.

 

[Della]

johnnykins:

There is a saying in the USA that one should never discuss money, politics or religion in polite company. Naturally, these forums must not be “polite company”

You’re quite right. We aren’t concerned with having a tea party here. We are interested at getting at the truth, and sometimes people just don’t want to hear it no matter how nicely it is put (not speaking of you, however ).

Don’t let either side bother you. We all know folks get exercised by politics and religion. The Church provides guidance on many moral issues that have political implications - some more so than others. I, for one, voted for neither Bush nor Kerry. One good thing about most of western political systems is that there is a secret ballot and only you and God need to know who you voted for.

And I put it to you, that by voting for a third party candidate who didn’t have chance in heck of winning, you voted against the person whose ideas came the closest to your own who did have a chance of winning. Think about that and see if it isn’t the plain truth of the matter.

 

[gilliam]

koda:

In the quote he says “please don’t kill me” - therefore, one draws the conclusion that he was mimicing Tucker as she was the one scheduled to be killed, not people coming to his office.

Pretty thin…your accusing someone who we have seen, over and over again, crying over the death of people on the slimest of evidence. I simply think if people want to find fault with someone, they will.

 

[koda]

gilliam:

Pretty thin…your accusing someone who we have seen, over and over again, crying over the death of people on the slimest of evidence. I simply think if people want to find fault with someone, they will.

I don’t know, this is the same guy who made that totally tasteless joke about looking under the rug for the WMD, and we got that on video.

I know you are a good person and that you try to be fair, but I also realize that it is impossible to tarnish this man in your eyes; you just ignore anything and everything that makes him look even slightly bad, or even human. But don’t lump those of us that don’t agree with you as ingorant fools who can be taken in by any story because we find things credible that you don’t.

 

[aimee]

koda:

I don’t know, this is the same guy who made that totally tasteless joke about looking under the rug for the WMD, and we got that on video.

I know you are a good person and that you try to be fair, but I also realize that it is impossible to tarnish this man in your eyes; you just ignore anything and everything that makes him look even slightly bad, or even human. But don’t lump those of us that don’t agree with you as ingorant fools who can be taken in by any story because we find things credible that you don’t.

He doesn’t try…he is fair…

You should try it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Della:

You’re quite right. We aren’t concerned with having a tea party here. We are interested at getting at the truth, and sometimes people just don’t want to hear it no matter how nicely it is put (not speaking of you, however ).

And I put it to you, that by voting for a third party candidate who didn’t have chance in heck of winning, you voted against the person whose ideas came the closest to your own who did have a chance of winning. Think about that and see if it isn’t the plain truth of the matter.

Who will not vote for the lesser of two evils automatically helps the greater evil prevail.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Vaclav:

I was fortunate enough in Univeristy to be able to read works by Saint Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Abelard, Barnard, and other notable scholastics. I enjoy those writings a great deal and the early history of the Church is always enjoyable for me.

Since you are converting, I would recommend that you read up on the basics before trying to apply advanced teachings.

Sister Joan Prejean has some ideas on Gospel of Life questions, but is she the Pope? With what authority does Sister Prejean speak? Here are the writings of three popes on the Gospel of Life.

Donum Vitae

Humanae Vitae

Evangelium Vitae

Also, you have suggested that the discussions on this forum get “nasty.” Is the assumption that everyone participating here is Catholic and has Catholic goals? How would you know this for sure?

 

[QuicumqueVult]

Vaclav:

To be honest you all are about twenty years behind the evangelicals in this process and I’ve never found it appealing then or now. … I read somewhere that Jesus would have voted for Bush in 2004. I’d hope that he’d not have voted at all when faced with a candidate that supports abortion and a candidate who mocked and laughed at a woman before he had her put to death. …

Welcome to the club, Vaclav my brother in Christ. There really is no American party a Catholic could vote for with a pure conscience.

I voted for Bush as the ‘lesser of two evils’ candidate. But I felt dirty afterward and I still do, even though I now live in the UK.

There is no true ‘pro-life party’ in America, nor in Britain, come to that. I am prolife to the core I hope: the philosophy of personalism, as developed under the pontificate of John Paul II, and spelt out in Evangelium Vitae, demands logically and pastorally that we protect human life from natural conception unto natural death.

Name a single political party in America or Europe with such a logically consistent public political platform.

You are quite correct to state that the evos (Britspeak for evangelicals) are way ahead on this. They think with both sides of the brain, to use a sad and disproved dichotomy.

The living idea of a Magisterium trumps everything in my view. The sheer logic of Catholicism commends itself to our allegiance. But we must admit, once we’ve read widely and deeply, that we can can and must learn from each other, Catholic and otherwise.

 

[MikeWM]

Vaclav:

I’m working towards converting and am a bit concerned.

You’re making the right choice to convert, but you’d expect me to say that Welcome

I sincerely hope that no-one - whatever their political views - is put off Catholicism by the political debates here.

I would suggest you read the recent official political advice from the United States Bishops here

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/index.htm

and from the England and Wales Bishops here

catholic-ew.org.uk/election/

With this you can see what the ‘official’ advice is on voting. It is a complicated issue. No mainstream political party in either the USA or the UK fits the Catholic mold perfectly.

Mike

 

[gilliam]

koda:

I know you are a good person and that you try to be fair,

Thank you, I try, but fail more often than I like.

but I also realize that it is impossible to tarnish this man in your eyes;

Actually, you don’t know what I think about Bush and you wouldn’t reading this forum. I tend to defend the man here because he is attacked so often. I think of him as a Texas rancher with failings as most men have. He is not perfect, and he is not a saint (I don’t know any rancher who is). I have voted for him twice because there was not a better person running. That is the problem a lot of us face.

you just ignore anything and everything that makes him look even slightly bad, or even human. But don’t lump those of us that don’t agree with you as ingorant fools who can be taken in by any story because we find things credible that you don’t.

I try not to ignore anything, and I seldom lump anyone into any category. I have learned over the years that to do so is usually a quick path to error.

take care,

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

A book on Mary I really liked is called The Reed of God by Caryll Houselander. I am not sure of the correct spelling for the author.

It is very good, easy to read, and only about 130 pages. It is very spiritual.

Another older book but that is 500 pages is called the Glories of Mary by St Alphonsus Ligouri and it is harder to read.

if you want to read both i suggest the shorter one first and then if you are still interested to continue with the one by St Alphonsus

 

[QuicumqueVult]

For Marian study, may I recommend a classic text from the ‘history of doctrines’ perspective by Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, Sheed and Ward, London, 1965.

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

on the political matter i must say that i agree with you. As I am catholic, i can say that this website is slanted because it attracts a type of person that likes to argue. i think this website represents a small niche of the whole catholic church.

I have to say that there are a number of converts as well as protestants posting here so it may take time to discern who is who until you get more familiar with the different people you will encounter over the next few years…

i have observed in my area that the protestants are really pushy and rabid about the political agenda of bush. the protestants in my opinion are backing up bush 100% and the catholics are split.

they identify with bush because he talks their religious lingo so i think that is what is going on there. and he isn’t catholic which they would vote against any catholic in a heartbeat because they really believe, even though its not true, that the pope would have political control of america if a catholic got elected president.
its like they think a catholic would already have had a close personal relationship with the pope going back years and years. they are just silly…the things they come up with.

the irony is this: to them, bush can do no wrong. its as if he is their pope and that his views and decisions are infallible.

also i have observed that the type to vote for bush are miliatary. i also have to say that it seems like men would tend to vote for bush, while women would tend not to vote for bush unless they have a family connection to the miliatary.

but most of this division was accomplished during his first campaign…he appealed to certain interest groups that have very specific values and not others. so the research was done years ahead of time…don’t forget that it was basically a 50-50 split and had to be decided at court level who won the election.

bush didn’t really rise in popularity till 9/11.and that is mostly an emotional reaction based on fear and revenge. but this played right into his agenda since he was looking for a reason to attack iraq even during his presidential campaign. they were preparing the country for war during their poliitcal campaign…which is how they got the miliatary vote.

 

[gilliam]

Vatican2Rocks!:

on the political matter i must say that i agree with you. As I am catholic, i can say that this website is slanted because it attracts a type of person that likes to argue. i think this website represents a small niche of the whole catholic church…

“In the News” is an oddity in the Catholic Answers Forums. We tend to argue more here. Take a look around the other forums.

 

[Hildebrand]

QuicumqueVult:

You are quite correct to state that the evos (Britspeak for evangelicals) are way ahead on this. They think with both sides of the brain, to use a sad and disproved dichotomy.

In the UK, there is much more parity between the two main parties on abortion than there is in the States.

In the UK, the Labor Party supports keeping abortion legal for the first 24 weeks. The Conservative Party supports loweing it to 20 weeks. The later is a recent development and a move to get ethical votes.

Here in the States, the Democratic Party supports abortion in all three trimesters and sometimes even in cases of infanticide. The Republican Party generally opposes abortion, except in the case of rape, incest, and life of the mother.

 

[MikeWM]

Hildebrand:

In the UK, there is much more parity between the two main parties on abortion than there is in the States.

In the UK, the Labor Party supports keeping abortion legal for the first 24 weeks. The Conservative Party supports loweing it to 20 weeks. The later is a recent development and a move to get ethical votes.

Not quite the case. These are not ‘official’ party positions. Things such as abortion are ‘conscience’ issues, they are not voted on on party lines, and are not campaigned on at the party level. That has been the case in the UK for decades.

The 20 weeks thing was not an official policy, it was just a response the party leader Michael Howard gave to a question from a journalist asking for his personal view. Not to mention that he misstated his previous position when he said he had previously voted in 1990 for 22 weeks on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, because he hadn’t, he’d voted for 24, which became the current law.

The most notable pro-Life MP was David Alton, who was in the Liberal party. He gave some wonderful speeches.

Here in the States, the Democratic Party supports abortion in all three trimesters and sometimes even in cases of infanticide.

I think you mean supports the (erroneous) choice to have an abortion.

Infanticide?

The Republican Party generally opposes abortion, except in the case of rape, incest, and life of the mother.

Which is a non-sensical position. What’s the logic of exceptions for rape and incest?

Mike

 

[Geldain]

MikeWM:

Infanticide?

Many, including myself, consider the abomination known as partial-birth abortion to be infanticide.

Which is a non-sensical position. What’s the logic of exceptions for rape and incest?

Mike

Good question. I’ve never been able to understand the notion it’s okay to kill these babies because the father raped the mother or because the baby was created via incest–cuz’ it’s God who creates us all. A baby is a baby is a baby, from where I sit.