Bp. Finn of KC speaks on voting: “consider your eternal salvation”

His Excellency Bp. Robert Finn of Kansas City, MO, spoke on the radio about the election.  The Catholic Key has the report.

KCMO 710′s Chris Stigall interviewed Bishop Finn on the subject of the election this morning. As he has in the past, Bishop Finn emphasized the priority of life and had this to say, excerpt:

Chris Stigall: There are Catholics listening right now who are thinking strongly or are convinced that they will vote for Barack Obama. What would you say to them?

Bishop Finn: I would say, give consideration to your eternal salvation.

 

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

63 Responses to Bp. Finn of KC speaks on voting: “consider your eternal salvation”

  1. Derik says:

    Fr. Z.: The pre-election statment of Bishop Ronald Gainer is here if you think there is still time.

  2. ThomasB says:

    He was also on Mike Gallagher this morning. Excellent presentation. He’s a hardworking bishop.

  3. Gerard E. says:

    The lads are on a roll. Deo Gratias.

  4. Jim C says:

    The Archbishop across the River in Kansas City Kansas, Jospeph Naumann had a crystal clear letter read out all the Masses this past weekend. I just pray it is not too little too late.

  5. Brandon says:

    “This is Archbishop John Cardinal Foley, coming at you live from WECS220 on your AM dial talking about all things Sacred and Divine. Let’s go to some callers…”

    That’s what we need. We need Ecclesiastical Talk Radio. Anyone want to help fund it?

    We’ll call it Et Cum Spiri 220.

  6. Bradon: I tell ya…. I would be willing to do a call in talk radio show… on the air or over the net.

  7. Scott W. says:

    The Catholic Key is an excellent blog I recommend bookmarking and contributing in the comments.

  8. TNCath says:

    Now THAT’S a BISHOP! By the way, his recently hired Superintendent of Schools was once Director of Religious Education in our diocese. He didn’t exactly “fit in” with the prevailing zeitgeist in our diocese and moved on. Needless to say, our loss was their gain. Everything is definitely up-to-date in Kansas City! I’m glad to hear that the Catholic voice of Kansas City is once again coming from the bishop and not that anachronistic tabloid that has shed little light and much pain.

  9. EJ says:

    What a difference in tone from Archbishop Gregory’s pastoral letter.

  10. Anthony says:

    God give us more bishops like Bp. Finn!

  11. Jerry Boyd says:

    Maybe it is not coincidence that Bp Finn looks a lot like Bp Fulton J Sheen who some of us are old enough to remember watching on black and white television in the ’50′s. He was not shy about discussing WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES and why adherence to those teachings was cirtical in terms of our salvation.

  12. Steve says:

    I wished we had a bishop like him. Our priest is affraid to speak out and the bishop doesnt speak out on very important isssues. Just money is his concern and how fancy he can make the headquarters. I’m in Grand Rapids, MI.

  13. charles says:

    Is it possible to vote for Obama, or any candidate with a pro-choice platform, and earnestly pray that during his term in office he receives the wisdom and grace to reverse his position on Roe?

  14. Michael R. says:

    “Is it possible to vote for Obama, or any candidate with a pro-choice platform, and earnestly pray that during his term in office he receives the wisdom and grace to reverse his position on Roe?”

    Yeah. Like it would have been possible to vote for Hitler and earnestly pray that he would come to love the Jews.

  15. Chris says:

    I gotta say, that is one of the greatest things I’ve seen come out of a bishop’s mouth since, well, since I’ve been born.

  16. Lucia says:

    A bit dramatic, perhaps, but Michael R. is essentially right.

    Scratch that. The effects are as/more dramatic, but the outright Hitler hatred is perhaps a bit extreme.

  17. Piers-the-Ploughman says:

    Charles:

    No, I think you are better off voting for the pro-life candidate and earnestly pray the he/she change the economic/foreign policy position you think is wrong.

  18. Bob Ronau says:

    This reminds me of the last bit of Father Hardon’s Prayer for Discernment:

    …let me do what I will wish to have done at the moment of my death.”

    There is no better advice out there.

  19. Breviarylover says:

    God bless Bishop Finn, that was a great answer!

  20. Allen says:

    I would respectfully add the observation that the dozen or so bishops who have gone rogue with respect to the election have undermined the effectiveness of the Faithful Citizenship program. The rogue bishops get the headlines, even in media markets beyond their sees; thoughtful Catholics generalize the comments of those bishops to all bishops, then dispiritedly and sadly ignore the solid leadership that has been provided to them by the majority of bishops and the USCCB in general. It is possible, then, that Bp. Finn (and others), by such interventions, cause the opposite result than that which is intended.

  21. TJ says:

    This is sad.

  22. Jerry Boyd says:

    Allen–I’m somewhat confused by your comments, though I think I understand them and strongly disagree. If the “rogue” Bishops are those that have spoken out strongly on the need to put the abortion issue at the top of the list in our voting considerations I think they have done the true teachings of the Church justice. The majority of Bishops and the USCCB as a group have either stood silent or, as in the case of USCCB publications, failed to speak directly to the issue. It is the vagueness of “Faithful Citizenship” which has opened the door to mis-interpretation of actual Church teaching and the real responsibility Catholic voters have. If you are saying that the majority of Bishops and the USCCB have provided “solid leadership” I think you are wrong. The solid leadership has come from those who have spoken out clearly and unmistakenly on life issues. The majority and USCCB focus on “justice” issues which are meaningless unless life is assured from the beginning.

  23. ioannes says:

    Fr. Echert mentioned in yesterdays sermon the eternal salvation of the unborn also. Since the Church has not taught definitively on the matter how can we knowingly elect candidates who’s actions will bring about the death of millions of unbaptized pre-born babies and potentially deprieve them of Heaven. Even as we can hope that God’s mercy will somehow provide means for their salvation how can we even take that chance on them being eternally lost to Heaven.

  24. john gordon says:

    The Bishop will be on the Hugh Hewitt show about 3:45 p.m. (Pacifdic Time) coming up. If you don’t have hewitt locally, he can be listened to on http://www.krla870.com.

    John Gordon

  25. cthemfly25 says:

    That’s what we need to hear often. Thank you for that Bishop Finn audio. Perhaps, regardless of the election, we will witness a re-birth in our Church through the power of the Holy Spirit. Our Lady of Victory…pray for us.

  26. As much as I would hate to lose Bishop Finn in beautiful Kansas City, when is it time to start talking about red hats? He hasn’t really been a bishop for all that long, but it has been a pretty impressive tour of duty so far.

  27. Mark says:

    I think you’ve all missed something very important here, Father Z said he wants to do a call on radio program. I wish I could do something to help Father, but I wouldn’t know where to begin.

  28. John Enright says:

    I wanted to say something on this issue, except that everything I wanted to say has already been said by very precise and intelligent posters. So, ditto to just about everything!

  29. Chris says:

    Charles, the one thing to rememebr is that economic issues, regardless of the muddied focus coming out of the second vatican council, take a huge back seat to abortion. Abortion, unlike all other issues (besides contraception, which is simply an extention of and, in some cases as with the “pill,” is abortion) are simply just issues. They are not intrinsically evil like abortion and contraception.

    Therefore abortion must top all other issues when you vote. And, in a perfect world if contraception is actually being debated (Sarah Palin recently said “I’m totally pro-contraception), then you can decide between the anti-abortion candidate and the pro-life candidate who also opposes contraception knowing it’s offensive to our Lord.

    Now wouldn’t that be a heck-of-an election: deciding between a candidate who is anti-abortion and one that is anti-abortion and anti-contraception!!!

  30. RichR says:

    Nuf said, Your Excellency. Good job!

  31. Luke says:

    Is it okay to vote for Ralph Nader? I like his stances, except abortion, but he’s not really running on that plus I’m voting for him with recognition that he won’t win. Mostly, it’s a protest vote against the blood-sucking corporatization of this country. I have reasoned thus far: I can’t vote for a Republican – that party is morally and intellectually bankrupt and has devastated this country. I can’t vote for Obama because he is very interested in expanding abortion rights.

    So there. I don’t want to be excommunicated. I don’t want to go to Hell either. Someone tell me this is okay.

  32. TJM says:

    “Social justice” has become a joke, particularly in the US where our “poor” are considered upper middle class in much of the developing world. Social justice has become a code word used by leftists to justify pillaging the productive members of society through higher taxes so that our “betters” in government can redistribute our wealth (and pay for abortions). I’ve come to the conclusion, rather sadly, that social justice types are state worshippers masquerading as Christians. And make no mistake, Party trumps Church every time. Tom

  33. Luke says:

    I’ve come to the conclusion that a lot of Christians think the Republican Party is the Vicar of Christ on earth. Christ is a fine idea to think about on Sunday, but actually applying His and the Church’s teachings to our daily life? Nah. The Sermon on the Mount is a nice story, but Christ didn’t actually care about the poor people – after all, he said they’d always be with us. And everyone knows a polis, a self-governing community of citizens like the USA, can not do things like “justice” or “peace” or “social work” – those are entirely individual! Christ would never want a body of citizens working towards goals like those!

    I have a hard time believing any Catholic, any Christian, can rationalize giving up on social justice.

    May God have mercy on me and grant me the wisdom I need if I have interpreted anything wrong in this post.

  34. David2 says:

    Luke, I wonder how many people who expound upon the sermon on the mount are actually familiar with it. Consider, for example, Matthew 5, Verse 21:

    “You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill. And whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.”

    Though not part of the Sermon on the Mount, consider Matthew 25:40, which says “Then the King shall answer them, Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done unto the least of these, my brethren, ye have done unto me.”

    One candidate has supported infanticide in opposing Infants Born Alive Protection Act, not one, but three times.

    One candidate has promised to sign the diabolical and mis-named “Freedom of Choice Act” which will remove all impedements to a State funded abortion up until birth iteslf, for anyone who might want one.

    One candidate has promised to appoint only pro-death judges.

    THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUE IS THE PROTECTION OF THE UNBORN.

    Nobody is talking about giving up on social justice. Indeed, I would venture that those who do not oppose abortion with all their heart, with all their soul, with all their mind, and with their every vote, are hipocrites, paying lipservice to social justice, while drenching their hands, their very souls, in the blood of the weakest.

    There is an hierarchy of Christian teachings, the most fundamental of which is the right to life – “thou shalt not kill”.

    It has nothing to do with party affiliation.

    Vote Democrat and partake in slaughter. It is as simple as that.

  35. Jordanes says:

    Luke, it would not be acceptable to vote for Ralph Nader, since he is pro-abortion. While you disagree with his stance on abortion and intend you vote as a protest, still there are better protest candidates than Nader, whose positions on abortion would not implicate you in material cooperation in evil. If you just can’t vote for someone like McCain, there
    are candidates like Baldwin and Keyes or Barr who also reject the “blood-sucking corporatization” of the U.S. If there weren’t better alternatives, a vote for Nader could be justified, but as it stands now it would be just as wrong to vote for him as it would be to vote for Obama.

  36. Nick says:

    According to the polls, Obama and McCain are very closely matched. I pray McCain will be elected. For the sake of Jesus’ sorrowful Passion, I pray abortion may not be legalized!

  37. Nick says:

    I just found this at The Deacon’s Bench ( http://deacbench.blogspot.com ):

    “My fellow citizens of the United States of America should be deeply concerned about any candidate for the presidency who supports legislation which permits the destruction of human life at its very beginning, the killing of babies in the womb, or legislation which violates the integrity of marriage and family life. The safeguarding and promoting of human life, from the moment of its inception, and of the integrity of marriage must be the fundamental planks of any political agenda. A good citizen must support and vote for the candidate who most supports the inalienable dignity of innocent and defenseless life, and the integrity of marriage. To do otherwise, is to participate, in some way, in the culture of death which pervades the life of the nation and has led to so much violence, even in the home and in educational institutions.” — Archbishop Raymond Burke, November 3, 2008, Inside the Vatican.

  38. Luke says:

    I’m just going to vote for myself. I don’t meet the age requirement, but I don’t even care. I have no candidate who represents my collective concerns.

  39. Erik says:

    I’ve been struggling with all of this for several months now, and would like to hear what all of you have to say. Both McCain and Obama support abortion to a greater or lesser extent, so a vote for either would be a choice of the lesser of two evils. I’m uncomfortable choosing evil and don’t feel like throwing my vote away on a third party as I did in ’04. I also live in a safely Red state, and the people don’t elect the president, so the lesser of two evils has already been chosen for me. Do I, as a Catholic, have an obligation to vote? The CCC seems to oblige us to social participation but not political participation. Thank you for your thoughts.

  40. brendon says:

    I have a hard time believing any Catholic, any Christian, can rationalize giving up on social justice.

    I’m sorry, but voting for the Democrats is not equivalent with supporting social justice. Indeed, I would argue that the Democrats are wrong on social justice, and not just because they are wrong on abortion and the family and are thus rendered incapable of truly working for the common good because their very policies undermine its basic foundations. Centralized, statist redistribution of wealth is nearer to socialism than Catholic Social teaching. The party’s continual ignorance and dismissal of subsidiarity and its analogue in the American political tradition, federalism, should give anyone pause.

    No, I am quite willing to admit that there are many issues of political principle on which the Republican party is bad. But I cannot think of a single one on which the Democrats are not worse.

  41. Chris M says:

    It’s not the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S job to provide social justice. It’s OURS! Get off your duff and DO SOMETHING about it, don’t just pay taxes passively and expect that to be your ticket to heaven! Sheesh.

    Also, just VOTING pro-life is no longer enough. Every 4 years we whine and moan about how we never get good candidates and wind up voting the “lesser evil” into office. Well maybe we should try to change this horrible cycle we’re all stuck in by taking some of our precious time IN-BETWEEN elections to try to get better candidates or influence the major parties to do a better job at representing us.

    Ugh. Four years of ‘Change’. I think ‘Change’ is all we’ll have left by the time he’s done.

  42. Dan H says:

    I am living in a safe Blue State however I am going to follow my common sense and GO WITH LIFE! There is nothing in my mind that is more important than life. So as my Bishop has told his flock … “Look at this picture and tell me what you see.” I can tell you what I see; I see the future and I can’t stand to see it destroyed just because the economy is bad. Thank you Cardinal Egan and I hope other will take this to heart when they go vote. The economy will recover as always however 50 million babies are not coming back. Vote … Country First!

  43. Janet says:

    Concerning “red state, blue state”, I am showing my age here, but there was a time when the color blue was associated with the Republican party, and the color red was the Democratic party. Can anyone tell me when it was reversed, and why?
    As a pure speculation on the “why”, the color blue seems linked to adjectives like ‘valor’ and ‘purity’, whereas red seems to bring up more negative connotations. Did the national ‘liberal’ media perhaps switch the colors as a subtle means of making the Republican party seem slightly bad or even evil? Just a speculation, though. Facts would be more welcome.

  44. Luke says:

    “It’s not the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S job to provide social justice. It’s OURS! Get off your duff and DO SOMETHING about it, don’t just pay taxes passively and expect that to be your ticket to heaven! Sheesh.” Oh yeah, the ‘you must be lazy’ routine.

    Yes, the big bad federal government, of which we are of no part; we are merely the oppressed, dragged down by the chains of FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

    A lot has changed since 1776. But one thing hasn’t – the idea that we as an entire country, not just as separate individuals, but the entire body can come together to do good.

    Charity is needed when justice is not present. Let’s work for justice – social justice. Caring for the poor, caring for the sick, caring for the imprisoned. Protecting Life at all stages.

    The Republicans leach on to one issue and suck it dry every four years. It’s a fact: a president won’t stop abortion. Even if Roe was overturned, states would decide to have abortion or not. And you would have states like California that would still have over 100,000 abortions a year. Would you be happy with that? Last year, only the Democrats for Life introduced a bill seeking to curb abortion with the Pregnant Women Support Act.

    For the past 40 years, a Republican has been president for all but 12. Bush and his friendly Congress just had 6 of the past 8 years in power. Thanks to the Republicans, we have not just abortion still, we also have 1.) unnecessary wars sucking Life out of our soldiers and out of foreign human beings 2.) a skyrocketing national debt 3.) an executive branch wildly out of control with power 4.) torture of prisoners 5.) warrentless wiretapping 6.) an entirely divided nation sick of the whole process

    But by God, at least he SAYS he doesn’t support Roe v. Wade! At least he will appoint conservative judges, that as I mentioned, at best can overturn Roe v. Wade, then sending into the states where the more liberal of them can continue the slaughter.

  45. Brian Day says:

    Janet,

    See this wikipedia entry on red state – blue state origins: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states

    The 2000 election was the first time that the colors “standardized” on the blue-Democratic red-Republican color scheme.

  46. Brian Day says:

    Luke,

    Wow, you have the democratic talking points down cold.

    Seriously though, please study the Catholic concept of subsidiarity. Think about it, pray about it. Then come back and tell why you think the federal government is the best vehicle for “social justice”.

  47. Luke says:

    I’m all for it, Brian Day.

    Listen, I don’t like sounding or being thought of as if I’m against the Catholic Teaching. If I am, I wish to be changed entirely.

    It’s just – well, I truly do think a lot of people have their politics shape their religion, and not the other way around. I’m not saying the Democrats are all that great – I’m not saying that at all. I’m just saying the Republicans aren’t the defenders of Christ, yet they have the monopoly on Him. And it’s because they are loud.

  48. RBrown says:

    Luke,

    It is not merely talk.

    Reagan nominated Robt Bork to the Supreme Court. The Dems lined up against him, attacked him personally, and the nomination failed. Anthony Kennedy was nominated in his place.

    It is well known that Bork would have voted to overturn Roe. Kennedy, however, upheld it, giving the pro Roe Justices the 5 votes they needed.

    All thanks to the Dems.

  49. Luke says:

    I’m not sure how noting Reagan nominated a pro-Roe justice just because his first nomination didn’t pass is a great way to add to the argument in favor of the Republicans as being truly concerned with abortion. Not to mention his selection of O’Conner who was in the majority in Casey. Oh, and Bush’s selection of Souter.

  50. RBrown says:

    I’m not sure how noting Reagan nominated a pro-Roe justice just because his first nomination didn’t pass is a great way to add to the argument in favor of the Republicans as being truly concerned with abortion. Not to mention his selection of O’Conner who was in the majority in Casey. Oh, and Bush’s selection of Souter.
    Comment by Luke

    1. It has been the Dem party platform for some years that women have a right to abortion. It has also been the Repub platform for some years that Roe should be overturned.

    2. How many Justices do you think the Dems will nominate who will vote to overturn Roe? If you think the answer is anything but zero, I have bridge I’d like to sell you.

    3. I agree about the nomination of O’Connor. And Bush41 was a fool when he appointed Souter on the recommendation of pro abort Warren Rudman.

    4. My point is that, even counting those mistakes, with Bork on SCOTUS Roe would have been overturned.

    5. I have never really been optimistic that Roe would be overturned. Conservative Justices often have conservative temperaments (e.g., Kennedy), and those with conservative temperaments tend to favor stare decisis.

  51. RBrown says:

    There is also the matter of fed funds being used to pay for abortions. The Repub platform opposes it.

  52. James says:

    You know what, Luke ? You won my rant lottery. I’ve just about had enough of “good” Catholics like yourself this election season, and I’m going to say my piece.

    Yes, there ARE people who let their politics shape their religion, and you are apparently one of them. For some reason that I will never even begin to fathom, there are a huge number of Catholics ( and a growing number of Evangelicals) who feel that because the Democratic party spouts a lot of rhetorical baloney about “peace” and “caring for the poor”, that good Christians ought to vote for them. This is despite the fact that they take exactly the wrong stand on nearly every moral issue there is.

    Please tell me : how is it that someone who purports to take the teachings of the Church seriously will vote for a candidate who thinks abortion should be legal in every circumstance ? Or that homosexuality ought to treated by society as something that is “normal” and acceptable, even something to be praised ? Or that the hard-working families of this country should be taxed even more to expand a socialist agenda that has failed, and indeed has increased poverty and dependence on government ?

    You don’t like the war ? Great, welcome to the rest of us. It has been, however, largely successful. We’ve not had an attack from Islamo-fascists on our soil for the last 7 years, and Iraq is on her way to a real democracy, no thanks to the left. That party wants us to follow policies of weakness and appeasement, which have never led to any result other than more war. This war will be over within a few years no matter what. If Obama is elected, abortions will go even higher than the 3000 per day mark they are at now. HOW ON EARTH CAN YOU POSSIBLY JUSTIFY THAT ??? Have not enough good bishops, God bless them, spoken out about this ? Can you understand that giving poor people more food stamps is not an equal trade off for more abortions ?!? Can you not see that whatever loveliness the left promises ( and NEVER delivers), it is not an acceptable trade-off for ignoring the teachings of the Church ?

    Now, do I think the GOP is perfect ? No, of course not. That party has problems itself. It is not a “Christian” party; it does not always advance Christian ideas, nor is successful when it does try to. So THAT’S the reason for voting Democrat, because the GOP is imperfect ?! Good Lord, preserve us ! Grow up and join the responsible adult world, will you please ? Don’t you know this is not a Battle against flesh and blood ?

    I’m sorry to say it, but I think there are a lot of liberals out there who just want to vote for liberals because they like that agenda, and to hell with the Church. The gymnastics you people engage in to justify those choices are astounding. And those who do who are Catholics are MOST often the ones who attend Mass irregularly and wouldn’t darken the door of a confessional if you paid them; they don’t listen to the Church on much else, either. Does that include you, Luke ? Hmmm, does it ? If not, sorry. But I’d be willing to bet that it does.

    I apologize for the rant, Fr. Z. I just can’t take it any more.

    Mater Dei, pray for the United States today !

  53. jarhead462 says:

    James: A-M-E-N!!!
    Semper Fi!

  54. James says:

    And Luke, it appears to me that you may be more orthodox than I had originally supposed… if that’s the case I am very sorry for suggesting otherwise. Yet… if you wanted an alternative party, why not the traditional Constitution Party ? How on earth could Nader even be a choice ? Our Lord commanded us to care for the poor. He did NOT lecture the Romans for not caring for the poor. Government does a horrible job at charity, and I am very suspect of people who think it is the function of government to do the things Christ commanded US to do.

  55. Chris M says:

    “Charity is needed when justice is not present. Let’s work for justice – social justice. Caring for the poor, caring for the sick, caring for the imprisoned. Protecting Life at all stages.”

    My friend, I agree. However, taxation is NOT charity! Charity is a gift given freely. Taxation is forced under penalty of law.

    If we want people to be more charitable, trying to FORCE them to give up their hard earned money is probably not the way to go.

    I’m no fan of the current administration, but I’m not letting my anger and disappointment with them drive me to make a terrible mistake and automatically vote for the other party. which has essentially vowed to enshrine abortion on demand as a “right” and accelerate the normalization of homosexual relationships. (Two intrinsic evils if you’re keeping score)

  56. Henry says:

    Most of the preceding posts all miss the only pertinent point — which is what Obama will most certainly do if elected.

    He has promised that he will nominate only hardline pro-abortion judges. We can count on his word in this, if in nothing else.

    And we can count on a Democrat-controlled Senate consenting to such appointments.

    So, if Obama is elected, it will happen. No speculation on what a Republican administration would do is needed to make your decision.

  57. Brian says:

    If all Catholics voted only for pro-life candidates, the Democrats would drop their pro-abortion stance or they would lose every race. Abortion would become illegal. The Supreme Court would be filled with justice who oppose Roe v Wade, states would make abortion illegal.

    If only Catholics would do the right thing, millions of innocent lives would be saved. The fault lies with deluded Catholics.

  58. James says:

    Brian,

    Well said, brother. To think we might have had Giuliani as the GOP candidate makes me shiver. I have vowed that I will NEVER under any circumstances vote for a pro-abortion candidate. If all Catholics and Evangelicals would do the same the Dems would turn on a dime.
    Or if they didn’t, they’d never win again.

  59. Anthony says:

    I believe what Luke is trying to say (and I agree) is he is not pro-republican OR pro-democrat. To suggest that either of the two parties epitomizes Catholic teaching is just bologna. Are we to believe that all we have to do is vote Republican?

    Because of his stance on abortion, there is no way on earth I will be voting for Obama, but that does not automatically make McCain my man. I love the fact that these great bishops are speaking out against abortion, but they are not (and I realize they cannot) publicly supporting the Republican party either.

    I will also be voting for a third party this year. May God have mercy on me if there is error in my logic, and may He grant me the graces to know my lowliness.

    Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum

  60. Frank H says:

    Anthony, when you say you would never vote for Obama, by implication that means you do not want him to win. A third party vote can have no impact on whether or not Obama wins, but a vote for McCain just might! Hope you’ll reconsider!

  61. LouisianaCatholic says:

    With respect to the GOP vs the DEMS, it is clear that all of the gains made on the pro-life front were the result of Pro-Life activist in the GOP, with Pro-Life Catholics taking the lead. Henry Hyde, former Rep from ILL, sponsored the Hyde Amendment in 1976, which was signed by Gerald Ford. This banned tax payer funding of abortion. All of the laws that imposed restrictions on abortion on demand (partial birth, parental notification, waiting periods before actual abortion, etc), were upheld by a court led by GOP appointees (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts), all Catholic by the way. Also, Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, while being a centrist on this court, may move towards the other 4 Catholic judges, if a consensus can develop on Roe. Surprisingly, the most liberal justice, Bader-Ginsberg, recently stated while favoring the outcome of Roe, noted that it is a decision that was made on poor principles, and in hindsight felt that the entire Abortion issue should have been argued in the legislative process (I think my rendering of her statements is accurate).

    Perhaps she recognizes what Justice Scalia said recently on 60 Minutes, the U.S. Constitution says nothing about abortion, one way or the other, thus the Roe Decision is in violation of the Constitution pure and simple. Thus, if the next President is going to potentially appoint maybe 2 Justices with John Paul Stevens being 88 years old and Ginsberg herself being 75, it is clear that McCain is more likely to appoint justices with the judicial philosophy of at least Kennedy, and more likely Roberts whom McCain stated is the model for the type of appointee.

    Regards

  62. Brandon says:

    The radio thing… Might be something we should *honestly* look into Father…

  63. RBrown says:

    Perhaps she recognizes what Justice Scalia said recently on 60 Minutes, the U.S. Constitution says nothing about abortion, one way or the other, thus the Roe Decision is in violation of the Constitution pure and simple. Thus, if the next President is going to potentially appoint maybe 2 Justices with John Paul Stevens being 88 years old and Ginsberg herself being 75, it is clear that McCain is more likely to appoint justices with the judicial philosophy of at least Kennedy, and more likely Roberts whom McCain stated is the model for the type of appointee.
    Regards
    Comment by LouisianaCatholic

    The Pro abortion Harvard law professor Allen Dershowitz himself admits that Roe is bad law.