YOUR ROLE AS A CATHOLIC VOTER Catholics have a moral obligation to promote the common good through the exercise of their voting privileges (cf. CCC 2240). It is not just civil authorities who have responsibility for a country. "Service of the common good require[s] citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community" (CCC 2239). This means citizens should participate in the political process at the ballot box. But voting cannot be arbitrary. "A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law that contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals" (CPL 4). Some things always are wrong, and no one may vote in favor of them, directly or indirectly. Citizens vote in favor of these evils if they vote in favor of candidates who propose to advance them. Thus, Catholics should not vote for anyone who intends to push programs or laws that are intrinsically evil. THE FIVE NON-NEGOTIABLE ISSUES These five issues are called non-negotiable because they concern actions that are always morally wrong and must never be promoted by the law. It is a serious sin to endorse or promote any of these actions, and no candidate who really wants to advance the common good will support any of the five non-negotiables. 1. Abortion The Church teaches that, regarding a law permitting abortions, it is "never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it" (EV 73). Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide. The child is always an innocent party, and no law may permit the taking of his life. Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest, the fault is not the child's, who should not suffer death for others' sins. 2. Euthanasia Often disguised by the name "mercy killing," euthanasia also is a form of homicide. No one has a right to take his own life (suicide), and no one has the right to take the life of any innocent person. In euthanasia, the ill or elderly are killed out of a misplaced sense of compassion, but true compassion cannot include doing something intrinsically evil to another person (cf. EV 73). 3. Fetal Stem Cell Research Human embryos are human beings. "Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo" (CRF 4b). Recent scientific advances show that any medical cure that might arise from experimentation on fetal stem cells can be developed by using adult stem cells instead. Adult stem cells can be obtained without doing harm to the adults from whom they come. Thus there no longer is a medical argument in favor of using fetal stem cells. 4. Human Cloning "Attempts . . . for obtaining a human being without any connection with sexuality through 'twin fission,' cloning, or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union" (RHL I:6). Human cloning also ends up being a form of homicide because the "rejected" or "unsuccessful" clones are destroyed, yet each clone is a human being. 5. Homosexual "Marriage" True marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recognition of any other form of "marriage" undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement. "When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral" (UHP 10). WHICH POLITICAL OFFICES SHOULD I WORRY ABOUT? Laws are passed by the legislature, enforced by the executive branch, and interpreted by the judiciary. This means you should scrutinize any candidate for the legislature, anyone running for an executive office, and anyone nominated for the bench. This is true not only at the national level but also at the state and local levels. True, the lesser the office, the less likely the office holder will take up certain issues. Your city council, for example, perhaps never will take up the issue of human cloning. But it is important that you evaluate every candidate, no matter what office is being sought. Few people achieve high office without first holding low office. Some people become congressional representatives, senators, or presidents without having been elected to a lesser office. But most representatives, senators, and presidents started their political careers at the local level. The same is true for state lawmakers. Most of them began on city councils and school boards and worked their way up the political ladder. Tomorrow's candidates for higher offices will come mainly from today's candidates for lower offices. It is therefore prudent to apply the same standards to local candidates as to state and national ones. If candidates who are wrong on non-negotiable issues fail to be elected to lower offices, they might not become candidates for higher offices. This would make it easier to elect good candidates for the more influential offices at the state and national levels. HOW TO DETERMINE A CANDIDATE'S POSITION 1. The higher the office, the easier this will be. Congressional representatives and senators, for example, repeatedly have seen these issues come before them and so have taken positions on them. Often the same can be said at the state level. In either case, learning a candidate's position can be as easy as reading newspaper or magazine articles, looking up his views on the Internet, or studying one of the many printed candidate surveys that are distributed at election time. 2. It often is more difficult to learn the views of candidates for local offices because few of them have an opportunity to consider legislation on such things as abortion, cloning, and the sanctity of marriage. But these candidates, being local, often can be contacted directly or have local campaign offices that will explain their positions. 3. If you cannot determine a candidate's views by other means, do not hesitate to write directly to him and ask how he stands on each of the non-negotiables. HOW NOT TO VOTE 1. Do not base your vote on your political party affiliation, your earlier voting habits, or your family's voting tradition. Years ago, these may have been trustworthy ways to determine whom to vote for, but today they are not reliable. You need to look at each candidate as an individual. This means that you may end up casting votes for candidates from more than one party. 2. Do not cast your vote based on candidates' appearance, personality, or "media savvy." Some attractive, engaging, and "sound-bite-capable" candidates endorse intrinsic evils and so should be opposed, while other candidates, who may be plain-looking, uninspiring, and ill at ease in front of cameras, endorse legislation in accord with basic Christian principles. 3. Do not vote for candidates simply because they declare themselves to be Catholic. Unfortunately, many self-described Catholic candidates reject basic Catholic moral teaching. They are "Catholic" only when seeking votes from Catholics. 4. Do not choose among candidates based on "What's in it for me?" Make your decision based on which candidates seem most likely to promote the common good, even if you will not benefit directly or immediately from the legislation they propose. 5. Do not reward with your vote candidates who are right on lesser issues but who are wrong on key moral issues. One candidate may have a record of voting exactly as you wish, aside from voting also in favor of, say, euthanasia. Such a candidate should not get your vote. Candidates need to learn that being wrong on even one of the non-negotiable issues is enough to exclude them from consideration. HOW TO VOTE 1. For each office, first determine how each candidate stands on each of the five non-negotiable issues. 2. Eliminate from consideration candidates who are wrong on any of the non-negotiable issues. No matter how right they may be on other issues, they should be considered disqualified if they are wrong on even one of the non-negotiables. 3. Choose from among the remaining candidates, based on your assessment of each candidate's views on other, lesser issues. WHEN THERE IS NO "ACCEPTABLE" CANDIDATE In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more of the five non-negotiables. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one. Copyright © 2004, Catholic Answers. All Rights Reserved.

BUSH: RIGHT FOR CATHOLICS BUILDING A CULTURE OF LIFE: President Bush is the most pro-life president in history. On his first day in office President Bush Reactivated Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City Policy which prevents international organizations from receiving federal funds for performing or actively promoting abortion. He has signed into law the Born Alive Infants Act, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, and Laci & Connor Peterson’s Law. DEFENDING TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE: President Bush believes in the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman, and has endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment. To prevent activist judges from unilaterally legislating the definition of our most fundamental social institution, the President has called on Congress to pass an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. APPOINTING & NOMINATING JUDGES WHO WILL PRESERVE TRADITIONAL VALUES: President Bush is opposed to appointing liberal judges who want to impose their own personal opinions in striking down our laws that preserve traditional values. He has made recess appointments to those qualified conservative judges the Senate refuses to give a fair vote. FUNDING STEM CELL RESEARCH: The President developed a policy that will allow us to explore the promise of stem-cell research without undermining the ethical principles that have guided medical research in this country for decades. In FY03 the Administration provided $190.7 million for human non-embryonic stem cells (adult stem cells, including those from cord blood, placenta, and bone marrow). OPPOSED TO HUMAN CLONING: The Bush Administration unequivocally is opposed to the cloning of human beings either for reproduction or research. PROMOTING HUMAN RIGHTS: President Bush has made it a top priority of his administration to combat the scourge of trafficking in persons, especially women and children. Since 2001, Human Trafficking Prosecutions have tripled. The President has proposed over $150 million over two years to combat worldwide trafficking in persons, predominantly women and children forced into sexual slavery. Copyright © 2004, CatholicsforBush.com. All Rights Reserved.

Get the Full Bush Record

KERRY: WRONG FOR CATHOLICS John Kerry is the First Presidential Candidate to be endorsed by Planned Parenthood Action Fund. In 1984, Kerry said he would vote against “Any restrictions on age, consent, funding restrictions, or any law to limit access to abortion.” John Kerry voted at least six times against banning partial birth abortion, and he voted at least 25 times in favor of using taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions in the United States. Senator Kerry opposes requiring parental consent or notification for a minor daughter’s abortion. In 1996, Kerry was one of just 14 Senators to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act which banned Federal recognition of Gay Marriage and Same-Sex Partner Benefits. 85 Senators voted in favor of the Act and it was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. John Kerry has been an obstruction in the Senate blocking these qualified judges. Senator Kerry said he would filibuster any pro-life Supreme Court Nominee. Kerry says he would allow unrestricted embryonic stem cell research. Kerry was one of several Senators to sign letter to President Bush, urging allowance of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. He voted against the ban on fetal tissue research on cells from aborted fetuses and voted against disclosure of fetal tissue from abortions. Human Cloning – In 1998, Senator Kerry voted against invoking cloture to Human Cloning Prohibition Act. Copyright © 2004, CatholicsforBush.com. All Rights Reserved.

Click here to watch the Voter's Guide Video

THE CALIFORNIA PRO-LIFE COUNCIL NOVEMBER 2 VOTER GUIDE The following information is based on the candidates’ voting records, public statements, interviews and responses to a questionnaire sent to all candidates by the California ProLife Council. We have reported the candidates’ positions on three issues: 1) Does the candidate support the legal protection of unborn children? 2) Does the candidate oppose the use of government funds to pay for abortions? 3) Does the candidate oppose legalizing physician-assisted suicide? (Y=Yes) (N=No) U.S. President: George W. Bush (R) Y Y Y John F. Kerry (D) N N N © Copyright 2004 CPLC

THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT Vote and Pray for Life on November 2 BY MARIA ELENA KENNEDY Tuesday, Nov. 2, is election day in California, and Catholics are being urged to vote in accordance with the teachings of the Church, especially on the most fundamental issue of all: human life. "An honest look at what an abortion is, and at how many victims it claims, is enough to reveal that nothing outweighs its gravity among the many 'life issues,'" explains Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life. "Multiple Church documents have confirmed this insight, repeating over and over that the abortion tragedy demands urgent attention and priority." Fr. Pavone continues, "Yet the truth is even deeper than the statement, 'Being wrong on abortion outweighs being right on other issues.' The full truth is, if you are wrong on abortion you can't be right on other issues. To permit abortion, but then to cry out for the right to work, housing, education, health care, and so forth, is to say that these other rights belong to some people but not to all."... ...Please vote and pray for the pro-life candidates... PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES Pro-life incumbent Republican George W. Bush is being challenged by pro-abortion John Kerry, a Democrat. Kerry, who says he is a Catholic, has been repeatedly criticized by bishops and lay Catholic organizations for continuing to receive Holy Communion despite his unwavering support of abortion... © Copyright SD NewsNotes

MORAL DUTIES CONCERNING VOTING . . . The Holy Father enunciated this principle of the lesser evil with respect to legislation, which while not obtaining the goals which Catholic principles would demand, nonetheless, excludes even worse legislation, or corrects, in part, legislation already in force that is even more opposed to Catholic principles. A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. ... In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects. [Gospel of Life 73] This same principle has immediate bearing on choosing among candidates, some or even all of whom may be anti-life and anti-family. Voters should try to minimize the damage done to society by the outcome of an election, even if that outcome is not wholly satisfactory by Catholic principles . . . . . . However, I think it is most frequently motivated by a sincere desire to elect someone whose views they believe coincide best with Church teaching. This is certainly praiseworthy. Yet, human judgments in order to be prudent must take into account all the circumstances. Voting, like politics, involves a practical judgment about how to achieve the desired ends - in this case the end of abortion as soon as possible, the end of partial-birth abortion immediately if possible, and other pro-life political objectives. A conscience vote of this type could be justified if the voter reasonably felt that it could achieve the ends of voting. The question must be asked and answered, however, whether it will bring about the opposite of the goal of voting (the common good) through the election of the worst candidate. That, too, is part of the prudential judgment . . . © Copyright http://www.ewtn.com/vote/voting_faq.htm

PRO-LIFE ADVOCATES: VOTE FOR PRESIDENT BUSH by Steven Ertelt October 31, 2004 Steven Ertelt is the Editor and CEO of LifeNews.com. For pro-life advocates, the choice in this November's presidential elections is clear: President George W. Bush deserves your vote. President Bush has compiled a record during his first term in office that can only be described as extraordinarily pro-life. And, when it comes to the key battles and judicial appointments over the next four years, only President Bush can be trusted to advance the cause of life. From the moment President Bush was inaugurated, he began implementing pro-life policy. On his first day in office, he reinstituted the Mexico City Policy that prohibits taxpayer funding of groups that perform or promote abortions in other countries. Not only did he bring back the policy that Bill Clinton ditched, he expanded it to include any funding given to groups in the entire State Department budget and threatened to veto Congressional legislation that overturned his decision. ABORTION: On abortion issues, President Bush has been a solid pro-life advocate. He signed the ban on partial-birth abortions -- the first legislation since the Roe v. Wade decision that made any type of abortion illegal. Abortion advocates have sued to overturn the ban and the Bush administration has solidly defended it in court. President Bush also signed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. The measure makes sure that unborn children who survive botched abortions receive proper medical care instead of being left to die or purposefully killed after birth. Bush has also repeatedly denied federal funds to the UNFPA. This is a UN agency that has supported Chinese population control officials when they force women to have abortions or parents to be sterilized because they want more than one child. Most importantly, President Bush has nominated pro-life judges to important federal court positions. This signals that he will appoint judges to the Supreme Court that will give the pro-life community a chance to overturn Roe vs. Wade. The next president could determine the legalization of abortion for the next 30 years via Supreme Court appointments. Bush's consistently in appointing judges who are pro-life or will uphold the pro-life laws that are passed is good news for the future. HELPING WOMEN: Despite claims by abortion advocates that John Kerry is a better advocate for women, President Bush has done more for pregnant women. Bush signed what became known as Laci and Conner's Law that protects pregnant women from tragic acts of violence. When a criminal assaults a pregnant woman and kills or injures her baby, common sense tells most people that there are two victims. The bill recognizes that fact and allows prosecutors to charge criminals for both crimes. Sadly, John Kerry's common sense didn't kick in and he returned to Washington from the campaign trail specifically to vote against the bill, despite letters to him from Laci Peterson's parents and family backing it. President Bush also helped pregnant women and their babies obtain medical care during the pregnancy. By allowing unborn children to be covered under the federal CHIP health insurance program, poor pregnant women could qualify for coverage. Groups that help pregnant women cite the lack of medical insurance as one financial reason that compels some women to have abortions. Several states have signed on to the program and the number of abortions should drop as a result. EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH: President Bush has been thoroughly blasted for his August 2001 decision to prevent taxpayer funding of any new embryonic stem cell research conducted after that point. John Kerry claims the policy prevented all funding of all research. Instead, while is seeks to defund new research destroying human life, Bush's policy authorized more than $190 million for adult stem cell research. That more ethical and effective alternative has already produced 140 treatments while not one single human patient has ever been cured from using embryonic stem cells. Members of Congress and biotech lobbyists are working overtime to use your tax dollars to pay to destroy unborn children "left over" from in-vitro fertilization in order to obtain their stem cells. To his credit, President Bush has resisted calls to do that. HUMAN CLONING: The pro-life community couldn't have asked for more from President Bush when it comes to opposing human cloning. The president, on many occasions, vocally backed bills in Congress that would ban both forms of human cloning. The Bush administration also played a key role in promoting a human cloning ban treaty at the United Nations that will receive a second vote next month. ASSISTED SUICIDE: President Bush has taken a clear stand against assisted suicide and euthanasia. The Bush administration declared that federally controlled drugs could not be used in assisted suicides in the state of Oregon, the only state where the practice is legal. All of the assisted suicides there have involved such drugs. Attorneys for the president have vigorously defended the decision in court. President Bush also has spoken out in favor of Terri Schiavo's family and their efforts to defend their daughter's right to live. ABSTINENCE FUNDING: President Bush has strongly supported abstinence-only education. In addition to increasing funding, President Bush, in his January State of the Union address, called on Congress to triple the amount of money it is dedicating to these important programs. JOHN KERRY: John Kerry's position on these key issues is clear. He will do everything in his power to advocate abortion and pay for it with your tax dollars. He would overturn the Mexico City Policy, fund the UNFPA, and back legislation that would overturn other pro-life policies. John Kerry will also use your tax money to destroy human embryos for research, has said he supports assisted suicide, and would likely refuse expanding funding for abstinence education. Kerry's commitment to a human cloning ban in Congress and at the UN is doubtful. He has already endorsed a "clone and kill" version that bans human cloning for reproduction but allows unborn children to be cloned and killed in research. Most importantly, Kerry has repeatedly said he would appoint pro-abortion judges to key federal courts and pro-life advocates have no chance of a pro-life nominee to the Supreme Court during a Kerry administration. Abortion will be legal, but certainly not safe or rare if John Kerry is elected. VOTE FOR BUSH: President Bush is a man with clear pro-life values and he has taken every occasion during his presidency to implement public policy that values the dignity and worth of human life. Important battles to protect human life are still to come and we need a president who will help turn back efforts to expand abortion, human cloning, destructive research, and assisted suicide. That's why LifeNews.com encourages you to vote to re-elect President George W. Bush. © Copyright LifeNews.com

LEADING CATHOLIC SAYS MOST PRIESTS WILL BACK PRESIDENT BUSH OVER JOHN KERRY by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor November 1, 2004 Staten Island, NY (LifeNews.com) -- A priest who is one of the leading pro-life advocates in the United States says his conversations with Catholic officials across the country lead him to believe that most priests will vote for President Bush in tomorrow's election. "I travel the country constantly, meeting with priests every day. They are disgusted with Kerry," Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life said Monday. "He gives a bad name to the Catholic religion by creating the impression that one can be a Catholic and just throw key teachings out the window," Pavone said. His comment refers to Kerry's claim that he cannot legislate the Catholic Church's view against abortion. "The President understands Christian moral values far better than John Kerry does. In fact, the President, though not Catholic, also understands Catholicism better," Father Pavone explained. "It is a religion that does not allow us to privatize human rights to the realm of personal belief. That is why Kerry is wrong when he refuses to protect the most vulnerable among us -- children still in the womb -- from the violence of abortion." Whether Catholic voters should cast their vote based mostly or solely on pro-life issues such as abortion and human cloning has been a subject of considerable debate during the elections. Election ads run by a group called Pax Christi, described abortion as one of many issues Catholics should consider when voting. It included hundreds of signatures of those who agreed, including 50 priests. Another group, Catholics for Political Responsibility, is airing two radio spots in rotation on 15 Ohio radio stations in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Akron, and Toledo bashing President Bush. Sidney Callahan, co-director of the group, says the organization opposes Bush because of his involvement in Iraq. But for Catholics like Pavone, support for abortion disqualifies a candidate for public office -- especially when the candidate claims to be a Catholic. "I am not saying that everyone has to be a Catholic, nor am I saying that a president has to be one," Pavone said. "I'm simply saying that if one claims to be a Catholic, then that person should adhere to what Catholicism teaches." Retired Corpus Christ, Texas Bishop Rene Henry Gracida agrees and appears in ads in the key battleground states of Ohio and Pennsylvania. "Voting responsibly this year means voting for candidates who are pro-life," Bishop Gracida explains. "Before one can give priority to social questions such as war, the economy, social security and health care issues, one must recognize that all such issues must first of all be based on respect for human life" Gracida says. © Copyright LifeNews.com

PRO-LIFE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Letter 74 Many pro-choicers say they are "personally opposed to abortion." But they also say, "I cannot impose my belief on others." Are these people as tolerant on other issues? Surely they are also opposed to holding up convenience stores, running red lights, and wife-beating. Do they balk at imposing their beliefs on others regarding these issues? If one is opposed to abortion, he must recognize that it involves taking life. It is possible to hold up a convenience store, run a red light, and beat your wife without taking a human life. It is not possible to practice abortion without taking human life. Why are abortion rights advocates willing to impose their beliefs on robbers, reckless drivers, and wife-beaters, but not on women? Why are women entitled to a special grace pro-choicers won't grant to others? Pro-choice people seem to think that masked gunmen, reckless drivers, and wife beaters can be held to a higher standard than ordinary women. Masked gunmen, drunk drivers, and wife beaters can be required to act civilized. Why do people who advocate women's right to have abortions think women can't be civilized as well? I suggest that these people hold women just as accountable for their behavior as they do everyone else. Women should refrain from harming others. It's not too much to ask. Letter 75 Some politicians say they are "personally opposed to abortion." But they also say, "I cannot impose my belief on others." What do these people think we elected them for? Every time they vote for a law, they are imposing their beliefs on somebody. Recently, environmentally conscious legislators imposed their beliefs on motorists, requiring them to have emissions testing done on their cars every other year. Many people believe this was a thinly veiled attempt to keep poor people dependent by taking their cars away. That didn't stop these legislators from acting on their belief that the emissions test is more important than poor people having transportation to get to work. Many people will no longer be able to afford their own cars, and will lose their jobs as a result. This law will have a powerful impact on their lives. Obviously these politicians were willing to impose their beliefs on the working poor, regardless of how much their beliefs hurt them. Why are they so unwilling to act on their beliefs when it comes to abortion? They won't let poor people drive old cars, but they'll let women abort their children. Such legislators have some strange priorities. They'll take away a poor mother's car, then tell her to take heart--sure, she'll have to go on welfare, but she'll always be able to get an abortion! Small comfort that is. These lawmakers should be ashamed. Letter 76 Some politicians say they are "personally opposed to abortion." But they also say, "I cannot impose my belief on others." This is a classic example of fence-sitting--of trying to please both sides. This kind of politician says what one side wants to hear, then does what the other side wants him to do. This is called hypocrisy. It is a sign that somebody can't be trusted. As the Indians used to say in the old Westerns, this sort of person "speaks with forked tongue." If a politician who engages in fence-sitting believes what he says--that he really is opposed to abortion--then he is publicly admitting that he can be bought. After all, the major pro-abortion groups can be among the biggest campaign donors to this sort of candidate. If a politician really is opposed to abortion and accepts these contributions, he is willing to sell his own beliefs. If he isn't selling out, then he doesn't see anything wrong with abortion. That makes him a liar. It means that all his talk about opposing abortion is a trick to avoid losing pro-life votes. Either way, this sort of politician is a snake in the grass. I believe he is untrustworthy, and I will impose that belief in the ballot box next election. Unlike him, I stand up for what I believe in. Letter 77 A congresswoman recently said that she is "personally opposed to abortion." But she also said, "I cannot impose my belief on others." What she is really saying is, "I'd rather be popular than honorable." The primary reason someone would be opposed to abortion lies in the belief that it takes a human life. Another concern could be for the women who are injured, killed, and raped in America's legal abortion clinics. This congresswoman has never said why she opposes abortion. She has just made it plain that whatever her concerns are, she is willing to lay them aside for the sake of popularity. We have names for people like that where I come from, most referring to a willingness to lay one's lips on the posteriors of others. So congresswoman, if the name fits, wear it. Letter 78 Recently, I heard a politician say he is "personally opposed to abortion" but that he couldn't impose this belief on others. It is hard for me to imagine a more cowardly statement. The primary reason someone would be opposed to abortion lies in the belief that it takes a human life. Another concern could be for the women who are injured, killed, and raped in America's legal abortion clinics. In either event, this person is willing to look the other way while these things happen if doing so allows them to avoid taking a courageous political position. I really hope that American society hasn't fallen so low that statements like this pass for political leadership. Can you imagine Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, or Winston Churchill saying they wouldn't stop someone from committing murder as long as the person who did it said it wasn't murder? The real question is: What will the long-term consequences be for a society that elects leaders who say they wouldn't do anything to stop what they admit is wrong? That doesn't fit any definition of courage or leadership I know. It's certainly not the kind of political and personal courage this country was founded upon. In reality, it's just your standard, garden-variety political cowardice. Letter 79 Recently, I heard a politician say he is "personally opposed to abortion" but that he couldn't impose this belief on others. It is hard for me to imagine a more cowardly statement. The primary reason someone would be opposed to abortion lies in the belief that it takes a human life. Another concern could be for the women who are injured, killed, and raped in America's legal abortion clinics. During the Second World War, Oskar Schindler risked everything--his reputation, his business, his life--to rescue Jews because he was opposed to what his countrymen were doing. He pretended that he approved of dehumanizing the Jews in order to divert attention from the fact that he was saving them. People like the politician mentioned above do the opposite. They pretend to disapprove of what their countrymen are doing in order to let them continue to do it. If Oskar Schindler was a hero, what does that make these folks? Letter 80 Some people say they are "personally opposed to abortion." But they also say, "I cannot impose this belief on others." It is sickening how many people are willing to embrace this cowardly philosophy. French existentialist and Nobel Prize-winning author Albert Camus wrote, "We shall know nothing until we know whether we have the right to kill our fellow men, or the right to let them be killed." Have the "personally-opposed pro-choicers" ever sat down and really thought about whether they have the right to look the other way while their fellow human beings are killed? Do they have the right to go about their business while their youngest brothers and sisters are brutally torn limb from limb? Do they really have the right to allow such barbarity against others? When it comes to abortion, the question is not whether others have the right to step in. It is whether they have the right to remain silent while the killing continues. Letter 81 Some people express the notion that although abortion is wrong, "it is not an area where one person has the right to impose his beliefs on others." Would they feel that way if they were in the baby's shoes? I know that if someone was about to slice me up with a knife, I'd want somebody to impose his beliefs on the situation for my protection. It's easy to take the "I shouldn't be involved" attitude toward abortion because once you are born, you will never be a target of abortion. If any other kind of killer were on the loose, I imagine these people would have a different attitude. Letter 82 Some politicians say that although abortion is wrong, "it is not an area in which the government has a right to interfere." What do they think the government should interfere with? It is the job of the government to protect the weak from the strong. To protect ordinary citizens from burglars and carjackers. To protect children from child molesters. To protect consumers from seedy con-artists. If one person or group tries to wrong another person or group, it is the job of the government to intervene. Is the government supposed to intervene when no wrongdoing is afoot? Would these politicians rather have the government control what color cars we drive, how many people attend baseball games, or the amount of ice cream on pie a la mode? If the government won't intervene when life is at stake, it has no business governing. Abortion is an unregulated industry that produces injuries, death, and sexual assault of women at an alarming rate. One would think that of all industries, one that produces only corpses, mutilated bodies, and rape victims would be the one held most accountable--if not shut down entirely. The politicians I mentioned earlier are probably not opposed to government regulation of the transportation, manufacturing, and service sectors. What is it about producers of dead babies and victimized women that these politicians consider them to be above the law? Letter 83 A political candidate recently stated that although she considers abortion wrong, "the government should not interfere with people's private choices." What nonsense! The government interferes with people's private choices all the time. That's why we have a government. There is nothing intrinsically noble about choice. There are many choices societies simply can't allow individuals to make. Total freedom for each individual is anarchy. The government has forbidden many choices, both public and private. The choice to have sex with children and the choice to dump antifreeze in the city reservoir are both forbidden. I have never heard this candidate protest these limits on choices. Restricting choices is exactly what laws are meant to do. Every law ever passed--from speed limits to bans on insider trading--were passed to deny someone the legal ability to make a particular choice. Many choices that we may not legally make are not nearly as deadly and far-reaching as abortion. We may not legally choose to fish without a license, sunbathe nude in our front yards, or pick flowers in state parks. The decision of the government to interfere is based on what is in the best interests of the community. Considering that abortion results in dead babies, injured women, and damaged families, it is certainly a better candidate for government interference than nude sunbathing. The shame is that this candidate is too infatuated with abortion to see this. Letter 84 A leader in the pro-abortion movement quoted Richard Nixon as saying, "On abortion the state should stay out of it. Don't subsidize and don't prohibit." That's like saying that if we neither subsidize nor prohibit lynching blacks, we're staying out of racism. To permit something is to give it official sanction. Imagine for a moment saying that the government was going to "stay out of" domestic violence by taking this kind of hands-off attitude. No more restraining orders. No more jailing abusive husbands. Are we supposed to believe that this would solve the problem? Allowing abortion is being involved. It is promoting and protecting abortion. Is that what we really want to do? Letter 85 A local pastor recently commented that he must remain "abortion neutral." He said his job "is to save souls, not to save bodies." Obviously he's recognizing that human bodies are involved here. The bodies of babies--of children. People who drag their religion into their beliefs about abortion seem to have some strange ideas. They recognize that abortion kills children, then claim that the Bible thinks this is a fine thing to do. Perhaps this pastor thinks that when Jesus said, "Let the little children come to Me," he meant we were supposed to dispatch them directly to the afterlife. Or perhaps the pastor has a unique interpretation of "as you do to the least of these My brothers and sisters, you do to Me." I guess he figures that if Jesus was willing to be crucified once, He won't mind being dismembered 4,000 times a day. If the pastor meant what he said about saving souls, not bodies, he'd put it into practice. He'd drown people at baptism. That way he'd make sure they go straight to heaven. In all seriousness, it isn't the preservation of souls that seems to concern this man. It's the preservation of pro-abortion dollars in the collection plate. Letter 86 I've heard pro-choice pastors say some interesting things regarding abortion. The strangest was, "As a pastor, my job is to nurture souls, not control bodies. And besides, an aborted child would just go to heaven anyway." This is the way a so-called "leader" in the church justifies not taking a stand. People who claim to be church leaders, but who won't stand up against an evil of this magnitude, deserve no more sympathy than someone who actually does the killing! Would this pastor apply this "they-go-to-heaven-anyway" standard across the board? If he saw that one of his own children was about to be murdered, would he try to stop it or would he shrug it off because they're going to go to heaven anyway? Or imagine for a moment that he was on a jury that just convicted someone of murder. If he was convinced that the murderer's victim went to heaven, would he let him go free? By this guy's logic, the very best thing to do is murder saintly people like Albert Schweitzer and Mother Teresa since then the saints will go straight to heaven without the possibility of turning away from God later in life! The fact is, this whole line of reasoning is ridiculous. You don't excuse the guilty for killing the innocent. You hold them accountable. Pro-abortion pastors know this and they ought to be ashamed. Letter 87 I've heard pro-abortion pastors say some interesting things regarding abortion. The strangest was, "As a pastor, my job is to nurture souls, not control bodies." How can any pastor nurture souls if he never looks at the spiritual implications of things his parishioners are doing? This same pastor encourages his congregation to embrace abortion in the name of "the individual spiritual journey." What about other options open to souls as they "discover meaning?" After all, some of his flock might want to explore cheating on their spouses. Some might be sexually attracted to children. I've never seen the pastor celebrating these "deeply personal explorations of the meaning of life." Some of his flock might want to explore their dark side. But the pastor has not fought to decriminalize rape, torture, and murder. How can he allow the law to limit his parishioners' access to these deep and significant explorations of human limits? It is interesting to note that a number of this pastor's parishioners are employed at the local abortion centers. Could it be that this guy is only concerned with those spiritual journeys that lead toward the collection plate? Letter 88 A pastor at the local church claimed that as a pastor he must remain "abortion neutral." He said his job "is to save souls, not to save bodies." He went on to argue that aborted babies, being sinless, go to heaven anyway. I wonder if he applies this "they-go-to-heaven-anyway" standard across the board. If, after the alter call, an ax murderer came into the sanctuary and started hacking at the new converts, would he look on with a smile, pleased to know that all of these people were going straight to heaven? Or would he intervene, if only to call the police? If he was a juror on a murder trial, and was convinced that the victim had gone to heaven, would he vote for acquittal? Does he really think that killing is fine as long as one only kills the innocent? This is a strange morality, indeed. The fact is, the pastor wants to fool himself into believing that there is some excuse for him to stay uninvolved. But in the meantime, babies are dying, and women are bringing great grief and remorse upon their souls. You'd think a pastor would care about that sort of thing. And maybe he would if it didn't require courage. Letter 89 In March of 1964, the killing of a New York woman made national headlines. Kitty Genovese was brutally murdered while dozens of people looked the other way. Many bystanders, when interviewed later, said they ignored Kitty's cries because they did not want to get involved; it was none of their business. This ugly scenario is repeated over 4,000 times a day, as children are killed in America's abortion mills while the church looks the other way, does not get involved, claims that it is none of their business. The most powerful enemy of women and children is not Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, or any other pro-abortion group. It is the church. Pastors who know abortion is murder do not speak out for fear of offending someone. Others claim that the church is supposed to save souls, not bodies, although they might take a different attitude if it was their bodies that were about to be dismembered. Other pastors claim they are not taking a position at all. But when a man sees evil and does nothing, he has taken a stand, giving the evil his tacit approval. Whatever excuse they give, these people are moral cowards who would rather be popular than right. They choose the comfort of being Satan's silent partner rather than face the risks of being an outspoken servant of God. Letter 90 Every day in this country, over 4,000 babies are killed, and an unknown number of their mothers are maimed or killed in abortion clinics. The abortion industry would collapse if the Body of Christ would stand up and say, "No more!" But it isn't happening. There are people with strong views on both sides of the abortion issue sitting in front of every pastor every Sunday morning. The pro-lifers want him to speak out against abortion and engage the church in the pro-life effort. The pro-aborts, on the other hand, are content if he says nothing, because silence means approval. If he starts speaking out, angry pro-aborts will cut off financial support and leave the church. On the other hand, pro-lifers prove every Sunday that they are willing to attend, participate in, and financially support a church that says nothing and does nothing against abortion. They might rail at him occasionally, but next Sunday they'll be in the pews, dropping their money into the collection plate. Clearly, the pro-aborts have provided more incentive to pastors to keep quiet than we have for them to speak out. We need to send out a new message that if the church is going to remain silent, giving aid and comfort to the enemies of God, they are going to do it without our money. We may discover that if we make the risk of silence as great as the risk of speaking out, the church might decide to start preaching the truth. Hey, don't laugh. It could happen. Letter 91 Because the church has traded its moral authority for comfort and popularity, it has gotten to the point where if you show Americans a plastic garbage bag full of aborted babies, many will be more concerned about whether the plastic bag is going to be recycled than about the babies inside. The reason abortionists can go on killing babies and maiming and killing their mothers is the silence of the churches. Every time a pro-lifer puts tithes or offerings in the collection plate of a cowardly church that won't take a stand, he is giving money to the pro-life movement's biggest enemy. We refuse to support politicians who abandon the unborn, and we refuse to give our money to businesses that support Planned Parenthood, yet we give our money and support to pastors who passively support abortion with their deafening silence. We hold our church leaders to a lower standard than we do our plumbers, or even our political leaders. This has to change. Pro-life Christians should give their tithes to organizations that practice Christianity. A crisis pregnancy center is far more active on the behalf of Christ than a church that stands idly by as the least of our brothers and sisters are maimed and killed. I would encourage every Christian to sow seed into the Kingdom, not give it to a church that, in its silence, is aiding the enemy. It's the least we can do. © Copyright Priests For Life

IS PRESIDENT BUSH PRO-LIFE IF HE SUPPORTS THE IRAQ WAR? From Jessica Steinmetz, Your Guide to Christianity - Catholicism. How can President Bush say that he's pro-life yet support the Iraq war? If Catholics are supposed to vote for the pro-life candidate, how can they support President Bush if lives are being ended in Iraq? Despite the war, President Bush remains pro-life far more than the Democratic candidate. Catholic Teachings Like in any religion, one can either follow or not follow the Church teachings. In Catholicism, it is believed that abortion is an act of murder. It should be a crime because abortion kills human life. A Catholic has a choice to respect this teaching or not respect it. However, the fact remains that abortion is wrong and Catholic Church teaches against it. Now we have a Democratic presidential candidate, who is Catholic and a politician, supporting abortion by supporting laws keeping abortion legal. This person's advocacy and public support of abortion is completely different than the Catholic Church position. He not only puts his soul at risk, but also jeopardizes others by creating scandal. By supporting abortion, he is not following the Church teaching and making his own morality. It is clear Church teaching that abortion is immoral and Catholics should not support it in any way. By supporting him, they are forced into supporting abortion. WAR I understand that many think that the war on Iraq is immoral. I can respect that opinion, however, the Iraq war is not against the Catholic Church teachings. War can be just, but abortion can never be. Abortion is strictly death. President Bush went to war with Iraq to protect America and other countries from terror. Even the Democratic candidate supported the war. President Bush has saved lives of Iraq people who were constantly threatened to be killed by Sadaam. President Bush has improved the lives of the Iraq people. They have freedom even religious freedom. He improved people and sent a message that America does not tolerate terror. Yes, it is very sad that people die during war. I have a brother who is fighting in Iraq so I know how it feels to worry each day. However, if we don't deal with terrorism now much more blood will be spilled and we might never win. Abortion, on the other hand, is not a negotiable question. Each abortion takes an innocent human life deliberately. Abortion kills far more people than war and there isn't any justifiable reason. With that said, like any crime that is against murder of human beings, abortion should be illegal. PRO-LIFE CANDIDATE President Bush is the pro-life candidate. He went to war to protect and help people. He's not advocating killing. However, abortion only has one mission and that is to kill human life. © Copyright About Catholicism

THE WAR IN IRAQ "Consider, for example, the war in Iraq. Although Pope John Paul II pleaded for an alternative to the use of military force to meet the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, he did not bind the conscience of Catholics to agree with his judgment on the matter, nor did he say that it would be morally wrong for Catholic soldiers to participate in the war. In line with the teaching of the catechism on "just war," he recognized that a final judgment of prudence as to the necessity of military force rests with statesmen, not with ecclesiastical leaders. Catholics may, in good conscience, support the use of force in Iraq or oppose it." -Archbishop John J. Myers