From a reader about the Bishop of Corpus Christi, Texas:
Catholic Bishop Rene H. Gracida Releases Radio Ad Stating no Catholic can Vote for Barack Obama in Good Conscience
MEDIA ADVISORY, October 24 /Christian Newswire/ — Today – perhaps in an eleventh hour answer to prayer for the unborn – Bishop Rene H. Gracida has released a stunning radio ad concerning Catholics voting for Barack Obama. His ad is recorded in English and Spanish.
Bishop Gracida boldly states:
"This is Bishop Rene H. Gracida, reminding all Catholics that they must vote in this election with an informed conscience. A Catholic cannot be said to have voted in this election with a good conscience if they have voted for a pro-abortion candidate. Barack Hussein Obama is a pro-abortion candidate."
The commercial can be heard in English and Spanish at www.randallterry.com.
Bishop Gracida has offered this radio spot without charge for all who want to use it. All faithful Catholics are invited to download the mp3 file, and place this ad on their local radio station(s).
They must simply contact their local radio station (s), and pay for the ad as an "independent expenditure." The station can download the audio file to play on the radio. The mp3 file is also available at www.randallterry.com.Moreover, permission is granted for the ad to be downloaded, sent as a file, or posted on any web site in America.
If this ad receives the airplay it deserves, it could sink Obama’s campaign by jolting Catholic voters back to their senses and moorings. Over 50% of Catholic voters have been seduced into ethical quicksand by errant Catholics who are partisan supporters of Obama and have betrayed the lives of innocent unborn children.
Contact: Randall Terry. 904 687 9804
Christian Newswire
Loading ...
As pleased as I am to read this, unfortunately there are too many cafeteria Catholics out there who will simply ignore this. But I hope and pray
that I am badly mistaken. This bishop is to be commended. Tom
Brick by brick. Deo gratia.
Please be aware that Bishop Gracida is the _retired_ bishop of Corpus Christi, TX. This is not to say that his words are without merit. This comment is only to clarify the scope of his statement. While Bishop Gracida should be commended for his consistent and prophetic pro-life stance, his words should _not_ be understood as coming from a sitting, territorial bishop.
Of course, the gratuitous use of Obama’s middle name in the ad opens the door to the (not unreasonable) interpretation that its simply a bitter political hit job. It adds nothing – nothing – to the informational content of the ad nor to its argument, but instead is purely inflamatory. Obama is by profession a Christian and has worshipped as such for 20 years (regardless of what one may think of the wackiness of his home church’s pastor’s theology). But the inclusion of “Hussein” in the text feeds the incorrect but still relatively common whisper campaign that he is a Muslim. A smear that in all likelihood was first perpetuated by no-friend-to-the-pro-life-cause Hillary Clinton, I might add.
Those who fight on the side of the good should be careful to conduct themselves with with goodness and charity. First of all because its the right thing to do. Second of all because its tactically more effective. That was the secret of the original civil rights movement – conduct yourself in a way that is above reproach and over time your enemies will have to engage with the substance of your arguments because you leave them no room to criticize you on secondary matters.
A person’s middle name is his middle name — get over it, sd. Are we to wait until after the election to get the FULL family picure of BHO? If he were the Republican candidate, his entire family, five generations back, would have been dragged through the Media’s mud at least five times by now. There’s a whole heck of lot we should know about Barack Hussein Obama that the “Media” is keeping from us.
“Aask not what your country and can do for you; raather, aask what you can do for your country.” John McCain has done and great deal. What has O. H. Obama done?
I’m struck by the incredible bravery of this holy man.
I have no doubt that the “separation of church and state” folks will be all over this if it makes it to major markets with threats of lawsuits and government interventions. And, although I find sd’s comments above to be a typical rabbit hole, it’s clear that the rules of debate and what constitutes “goodness and charity” have been seconded by the liberals (especially those in favor of publicly funded abortion on demand), rendering the use of Obama’s full name as “hate speech” or “racially provocative.”
The threats have been issued, the courts will be employed, the full force of governmental control in the name of “fairness” will be brought to bear on those of us who dare to say out loud what the good bishop has said. Nevertheless, we must remain firm, and be willing to state without equivocation that evil is evil. We must ignore, or better still stand up to, the protestations from the opposition of “being a Christian,” raise questions about affiliations with confessed domestic terrorists and hate-filled preachers, and leave the straw dog of one’s middle name aside.
sd, I agree with David Andrew, it’s his name, just like Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Lyndon Baines Johnson (I didn’t even need to look those
up, because they were so ingrained in us by the press). I also concur that it’s frightening that the Media is so partisan that it’s depriving the public
of information it needs to make a thoughtful decision. Lastly, let’s see if the New York Slimes carries this story. I’m not holding my breath. Tom
I have to agree with sd, and I think that those arguing him are missing his point. It is his middle name, but there’s really no need to use it, and all it does is give the other side ammunition to distort his words and use against the Bishop and gives them a reason to dismiss his true message. You know that when you use Obama’s middle name people on his side will demonize you and people will just ignore you, so why use it? Even if you don’t mean it in a bad way, there’s no point. Just argue the facts.
Unfortunately when a priest or bishop tells the wayward sheep of his flock that they should not be voting for a candidate that is pro-choice, all they hear is a cleric on his high horse telling them to vote for McCain. But there are other choices, aren’t there?
I wonder if it was a message released by a retired bishop specifically to help disarm those who will try to push the Separation of Church and State issue. They can’t sue the Diocese of Corpus Christi. Will they try to sue the Vatican?
Aaaand the Catholic bishops continue their quest to shoot themselves in the foot on life issues. How many voters will be persuaded not to vote for Obama? How many didn’t know any of the information the bishop was saying? Will this even impact the redness of a state like Texas? Or, more importantly, how many people will vote for Obama just because they don’t like doing what his excellency tells them to do?
As someone unfortunately forced to vote Republican out of fear of Obama, these bishops spouting off annoys me to no end. It’s only helping the pro-abortion side, and yet they do it more and more.
What should they do, Gavin?
Why should it matter who one votes for since pro-life candidates are so half-hearted on this issue…and I am being generous when I state that. (BTW I am not voting.)
TJM wrote:
“I agree with David Andrew, it’s his name, just like Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Lyndon Baines Johnson (I didn’t even need to look those
up, because they were so ingrained in us by the press).”
No, you know those names not because “the press” ingrained them in you but because those men chose to go by their full names. Obama does not, which is perfectly reasonable given that his middle name (which he did not choose) is the name of the head of state of a country that we went to war with.
If, in 1950 a man (born in 1900) with the middle name of “Adolph” ran for office it would be perfectly reasonable for him to not highlight that fact in his campaign literture. And it would have been fairly lousy behavior for his political opponents to keep bringing it up. Not because its not “accurate” but because its not relevant except to play on the biases of uninformed bigots.
TJM also wrote:
“I also concur that it’s frightening that the Media is so partisan that it’s depriving the public
of information it needs to make a thoughtful decision”
And how exactly does Obama’s middle name give the public what it needs to make a “thoughtful decision?” Is muslim blood a proper criteria for evaluating a candidate for office?
H.E. Bp. Gracida is a long time supporter of the TLM. In fact, he offered the first ever Pontifical Solemn Nuptial Mass in the EF since the close of the Council. http://lalemantpolyphonic.org/sacredCD/
Gavin, by your logic the Bishops should be silent and not speak as shepherds of the Church? The truth should be spoken, whether or not people choose to follow it. Look what happened to Christ. He got crucified for speaking the truth.
This holy man is used to standing out among the crowd – even if it’s unpopular.
I would have thought that the bishop would have been a native Spanish speaker. But short and sweet message.
This is absurd. I can vote, in good conscience, for the candidate I think will help this country and our people the best. This election is not about abortion. Abortion is morally evil and needs to be stopped, but so is helping starving children remain malnourished, elderly people not receiving the medical care they need, shopping at stores that support immoral activity. We all need to stop playing this stupid game because on some level we all participate in corporate sin and this election won’t change that or stop eahc of us from still doing some evil, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Plus, the US Bishops are supposed to be teachers, not dictators who tell us what and how to do it. They are not suppored to get involved by supporting a particular candidate because that violates the laws of a tax exempt corporation. Look at what’s happening to Bishop Serratelli, poor guy! I like him, but I htink many of our bishops have cross the line. I know most of you will disagree with me and I’ve been called every name in the book already by many who think I am just a liberal lunatic. I guess they’re wrong because they certainly don’t know me, my views, or my relationship with the Risen Lord. I think we all just need a good dose of education and really form our conscience in prayer, by participation in the sacramental life of the Church, in spiritual direction, and counsel – by doing all that, I should be able, with the grace of God, vote with my conscience.
“I can vote, in good conscience, for the candidate I think will help this country and our people the best. This election is not about abortion. Abortion is morally evil and needs to be stopped, but so is helping starving children remain malnourished, elderly people not receiving the medical care they need, shopping at stores that support immoral activity.”
Stop trying to change the subject. All of those issues have merit, but do not rise to the moral gravity of abortion.
“Plus, the US Bishops are supposed to be teachers, not dictators who tell us what and how to do it.”
What are they supposed to do when some many in their flock go astray? Keep quiet?
“I know most of you will disagree with me and I’ve been called every name in the book already by many who think I am just a liberal lunatic.”
I don’t know about the “lunatic” part, but if it talks like a liberal and suggests that people should act like liberals….
Obama voted against protecting the lives of babies born alive because of botched abortions. How could anyone in good conscience want someone so morally bankrupt to lead the country? It’s not about “one issue”. It’s about morality and character. I’d like my country’s leader to have both.
Nancy Larrick
sd, no you’re mistaken. The press always used those president’s middle names because that was the press’ style. The press is witholding Obama’s middle name
because, partisans that they are, figure it would hurt their annointed one. The middle name has nothing to do with the fact that the press is
amazingly uninterested in any information regarding his past, his past connections, or ideas that might not play well with American voters. I call
him the “stealth” candidate. Although some, would refer to him as the Manchurian candidate. What some of these posters tell me is that the
Church has done an abysmal job in forming consciences in recent decades. Tom
I don’t hold any brief for Barack Obama but the press does not ordinarily refer to Presidential candidates’ middle names. It’s rare that one sees John McCain referred to as John Sidney McCain; and while George W. Bush’s middle initial is often used it is mainly to distinguish him from his father. I don’t recall the last time I saw him referred to as George Walker Bush.
Gov. Palin is anti-abortian, but she is a firm supporter of artificial contraception, would that be a problem for a Catholic to vote for her?
TJ,
Brother, you can’t vote for someone who supports an intrinsic evil such as abortion, no matter what your conscience dictates. Despite our good intentions, we can be objectively wrong and our conscience can be erroneously formed.
The Bishops have every right and duty to tell us not to vote for someone who supports an intrinsic evil! They have to answer to Christ and so will we! It is their obligation before God to guide their flock in truth.
TJM:
I spend a lot of time following politics – readings lots of online and offline sources. And for the life of me couldn’t tell you John McCain’s middle name, or for that matter could come up with the middle names of John Kerry, Al Gore, Bob Dole or Michael Dukakis. Or Jimmy Carter or Harry Truman or Adlai Stevenson. I know the middle names of both Bushes – but that’s because the elder chose to go by his full name and the press would sometimes explain the younger’s middle name in relation to his father’s. Same with Ronald Wilson Reagan, who sometimes went by the full name, and William Jefferson Clinton, who did likewise.
The press isn’t “widthholding” Obama’s middle name. The press doesn’t refer to someone by their middle name unless that person goes by their middle name. Obama doesn’t, and so the press doesn’t use his middle name.
Again the question: what charitable reason would a political opponent have for using Obama’s middle name?
Please note that Bp. Gracida ALWAYS refers to every politician by their FULL name. Early in the race he wrote extensively on Fred Thompson, always referring to him as Fred Dalton Thompson. He did same for Hilary Rodham Clinton and so on.
Here’s a photo of H.E. at the above-mentioned TLM:
http://lalemantpolyphonic.org/sacredCD/pictures/pictures_JPEG/15_3_SMALL.jpg
The fact is that it appears that Obama will indeed win and the democrats may well take the Senate and the House of Representatives. Then the pro-life forces including the bishops are going to have to work with the Democrats and that is not at all a bad thing.
When I was younger the Republicans were the party of the Episcopalians, the Methodists and the Presbyterians. they were also the party of the upper classes. Catholics and Jews were more likely to be Democrats. After de-segregation the South became Republican and the Evangelicals, who traditionally didn’t vote were rounded up by Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority and delivered to the Republicans and that is roughly how things stand today. Sarah Palin was not brought in to win the Catholic vote but to shore up the Protestant Evangelical vote.
Generally, Catholics, especially in the north east where they exist in large well educated numbers, have remained with the Democrats and there is little incentive for them to ally themselves with with the rural Pentecostals and Protestant Evangelicals who gave the world George W. Bush.
The matter of the loss of Catholic influence in the Democratic Party speaks very much to the failures of the Catholic Church in the Post Vatican II era. Win back the Cathoilcs and you will win back the Democrats. Win back the Democrats and win the war against abortion.
sd, I don’t know. Why not ask Hillary Clinton whose campaigned first introduced his name into the lexicon.
TJB – no facts please. We don’t want to
muddy the waters with facts.
Tom
Early in the race he wrote extensively on Fred Thompson, always referring to him as Fred Dalton Thompson. He did same for Hilary Rodham Clinton and so on.
Fred Thompson has gone by Fred Dalton Thompson (at least he did when he was on Law & Order) and Hillary Clinton has gone by Hillary Rodham Clinton.
What if the press started referring to Bobby Jindal by his given name (Piyush)? Would that be OK, even though he doesn’t ordinarily go by it?
Shrub the Second
William Jefferson Clinton
George Herbert Walker Bush
Ronald Wilson Reagan
James Earl Carter
Gerald Ford… ahah, there’s one
Richard Milhous Nixon
Lyndon Baines Johnson
John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Dwight David Eisenhower
Harry Something Truman
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
If BO wins and follows the trend of presidents since FDR he will be “Barak Hussein Obama” forever. The only two I can think of who don’t have middle names that immediately come to my mind are Gerald Ford and Harry S. Truman.
How can anybody forget Gerald Rudolph Ford? :-)
David and Joannes and TJ,
If Obama wins, the cause of murdering innocent infants will win. Indeed, that cause can only win because of the vote of Catholics, all of whom, no doubt, believe their conscience is clear – while babies die by the millions.
This weekend I held a precious, newly born, premature, infant boy who weighed under five pounds. If the mother had been so inclined and felt depressed, Obama would have supported allowing her to murder that child just prior to his birth.
If Catholics refused to support pro-abortion Democrats, pro-abortion Democrats would disappear from the public scene.
Legalized abortion is the fault of Catholics who numb their conscience to their personal responsibility for this evil.
Who is Shrub the Second? Oh, I forgot, the first real Catholic American president, except to lefties and abortion supporters. Tom
TJM said: Who is Shrub the Second? Oh, I forgot, the first real Catholic American president, except to lefties and abortion supporters.
Okay, “Shrub the Second” is disrespectful, but really, I wish people wouldn’t say such silly, embarrassing things as calling President Bush “the first real Catholic American president.”
TJ said: This is absurd. I can vote, in good conscience, for the candidate I think will help this country and our people the best.
Not if you have a properly formed conscience you can’t. Judging from your comment, it’s evident that yours has not been properly formed in the Catholic faith.
Abortion is morally evil and needs to be stopped, but so is helping starving children remain malnourished
I don’t know of any candidates running this year on a platform of helping starving children remain malnourished, but I know of a candidate who is running on a platform of explicit and unapologetic support for the mass slaughter of babies.
elderly people not receiving the medical care they need
Again, which candidate is running on a platform of making sure elderly people don’t receive the medical care they need?
shopping at stores that support immoral activity.
I doubt that’s something that even Barack Barry Hussein Soetoro Obama Dunham has come out in support of.
Plus, the US Bishops are supposed to be teachers, not dictators who tell us what and how to do it.
Neither Bishop Gracida, nor any other U.S. bishop, is acting as a dictator in teaching us whether or not it is licit to support a politician who expressly favors monstrous evil.
They are not suppored to get involved by supporting a particular candidate because that violates the laws of a tax exempt corporation.
Yes, and it’s also legal to kill unborn children in this country. That doesn’t mean the law is just. A bad law is no law at all. There is nothing wrong with a bishop exercising his divine right to teach us how to vote and how not to vote.
Look at what’s happening to Bishop Serratelli, poor guy!
The frivolous lawsuit against him will be dismissed — and anyway we Christians glorify God when we are persecuted for the sake of righteousness.
dcs –
Barack used to go by Barry and was even registered in school under this name (among the many names he seems to have used in his life). But his campaign has forbidden its use, along with that of the candidate’s middle name. I think the Bishop was just following his usual practice. And if Bobby Jindal ever does run for president, I’m sure he’ll have to register officially as Piyush, unless he has changed it. Obama could have changed his middle name if he didn’t want it used.
That said, I think it’s great that Bp Gracida issued this statement in Spanish as well. I think we’re really dropping the ball on getting Hispanic Catholics more involved in this. They are generally pro-life, although of course they are one of the prime targets of Planned Parenthood, “Catholics for a Free Choice,” and the big foundations that fund these organizations.
Barack used to go by Barry and was even registered in school under this name
It is true that his parents registered him in school under the name Barry. It’s also true that he went by “Barry” among his friends until he was in college. I went by a nickname when I was in high school and college, too.
I think it’s generally considered polite to call people what they want to be called.
botw writes:
If BO wins and follows the trend of presidents since FDR he will be “Barak Hussein Obama” forever. The only two I can think of who don’t have middle names that immediately come to my mind are Gerald Ford and Harry S. Truman.
Harry Truman didn’t have a middle name at all. The ‘S’ stood for … ‘S’. Of course knowing the tenor of some threads on this site, we can now have a big debate over whether one should put a period after the ‘S’ or not.
Gov. Palin is anti-abortian, but she is a firm supporter of artificial contraception, would that be a problem for a Catholic to vote for her?
I would not think that this would be a problem unless she favored using federal monies for contraception, sterilization, etc. in which case it would be remote material cooperation in evil (unless one agreed with those policies in which case it would be formal cooperation in evil). Remote material cooperation in evil can be justified for proportionate reasons. And though I won’t be voting for McCain myself, I can see how a vote for the McCain/Palin ticket could be morally justified.
Priceless.
“Gov. Palin is anti-abortion, but she is a firm supporter of artificial contraception, would that be a problem for a Catholic to vote for her?”
Artificial contraception is never morally justified and the law should reflect this truth.
If Catholics were given the choice of voting for a candidate who was truly pro-life (i.e. anti-contraception, anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-embryonic stem cell research) then, of course, they must reject the pro-contraception candidate in favor of the candidate who is correct on these issues which are fundamental to human and family life.
Mark R,
I’m sorry to hear that you are not going to vote. John McCain might not be the perfect candidate on abortion, but he is a heck of a lot better than Obama. As people who respect the natural law, we should do all we can to at least limit the evils of abortion by voting for the candidate who will do the least amount of damage. Who knows? McCain may even appoint judges to the Supreme Court who will overturn Roe v. Wade. We know for sure that Obama will not.
Don’t give up hope. Please vote. :-)
Pax Christi!
TJ, This election IS about abortion. Liberal democrats don’t want it to be about abortion, because the majority of people in this country do not support killing of unborn babies. You said “Abortion is morally evil and needs to be stopped, but….” There’s no ‘but’,TJ. Whoever refuses to protect innocent life lacks the wisdom to lead and the moral authority to speak to war and poverty.
I think that old sin Pride is affecting a lot of liberals. Liberals are all about social justice, and accepting the evil that is abortion would force them to vote Republican.
Please vote. If we do not use our freedom, we shall lose it.
All these arguments need prayer and fasting. Abortion is THE issue. However, BO is also a blatant socialist, a form of government condemned by the Catholic Church in Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno. These two serious issues merit not only rational consideration, but active participation in the democratic right to vote.
Barack Obama publicly bragged that his middle name was Houssein, and said it was a point in his favor and a reason to vote for him. Now he tries to stigmatize people for using it??
He cannot have it both ways. But he often tries to. This is one of the most pro-abortion candidates of all time, and yet he clapped at the Al Smith dinner when McCain praised the Pro-Life effort.
David Andrew, I’m glad someone appreciates my oddball sense of humor . . . .
Jordanes, not silly at all in in the present political milieu. You don’t recall that Clintoon was the first “Black President.” Keep up, keep up. By the way, Bush’s positions on abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage are squarely Catholic positions, in contrast to John Kerry and Joe Biden, alleged Catholics, who have decidedly non-Catholic positions on these matters (we used to call that heresy in less polite times). Tom
Liberals are not all about “social justice” because social justice begins with children in the womb. Tom
TJM said: Jordanes, not silly at all in in the present political milieu.
That’s not saying much.
You don’t recall that Clintoon was the first “Black President.”
Yeah, I though that was pretty stupid too.
By the way, Bush’s positions on abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage are squarely Catholic positions
Well, not squarely, but yes, pretty close to the Catholic positions.
Why is everyone afraid to mention that voting for John McCain is also unacceptable, as he supports embryonic stem cell research and using federal funds to support it?
Mike, McCain’s position is by far the lesser of two evils, so it is entirely acceptable to choose it. It is simply dishonest to pretend that the two positions are comparable.
There are complete pro-life 3rd party candidates out there, so wouldn’t it be better to suggest that we vote for them, than to imply that McCain is the only choice we have? Americans (people in my circle, anyway) don’t like to be told they “have” to do something, whether is be in the negative (don’t vote for X) or positively (only vote for Y).. but usually if a third option is given (we can’t support this position of X, or that one of Y – but here’s a bunch of good people that are acceptable, here’s where they differ – choose which one you can more support)…
Imagine an election where both the leaders were pro-life and the issues we’d be discussing as a Church is whether to commit more energy to ending global poverty or cleaning up our environment…
Let me explain why I believe John McCain’s position is MORE dangerous and frankly scarier than Obama’s (assuming both candidates are sincere in their beliefs). Obama does not believe life begins at conception, he claims to ‘not know’ – he “errs on the side of letting another figure it out for themself” (I don’t agree, but nevertheless…) John McCain believes that life truly begins at conception, he then goes on to support embryonic stem cell research – meaning he has somehow justified experimenting on living human persons. How can a man who truly believes that this is a baby being experimented on and is for funding this with all our money be someone a Catholic can support?
If we look at both these people at face value – McCain is okay with murder, Obama is naive. I pray for Obama to open his eyes, McCain’s eyes are already open – he somehow found a way to reconcile the killing of babies for the sake of scientific advancement…
Mike said: There are complete pro-life 3rd party candidates out there, so wouldn’t it be better to suggest that we vote for them, than to imply that McCain is the only choice
we have?
Practically speaking he is the only choice, since he’s the only candidate with any chance of defeating Obama. There are third party candidates whose positions are not objectionable the way some of McCain’s positions are, but since all of those candidates will lose, those who want to prevent Obama’s election will have to vote for McCain. McCain’s stance on embryonic stem cell research would rule him out altogether if it weren’t for the fact that Obama supports not only stem cell research but also abortion and represents the party of homosexual pseudomarriage. Obama also has said he will sign the so-called Freedom of Choice Act, which would destroy the pro-life movement and bar Catholics from working in health care. Since Obama is an unspeakably worse candidate than the very far from perfect McCain, a lot of Catholics will be voting for McCain this year to try to save Catholic hospitals and the pro-life movement. With McCain there is at least a chance that things won’t get too much worse, but with Obama there is no doubt things will get a lot worse. That’s how a Catholic can “support” a candidate like McCain in spite of his evil stem cell policy.
Mike, John McCain’s position on embryonic stem cell research, like President Bush’s is that it can be allowed (and even Federally funded) if it uses cells that come from preexisting lines, or from sources that do not require the destruction of embryonic human beings. (Such sources include, for example, umbilical-cord blood.)
Catholics properly object to the “preexisting lines” exception, which allows the use of human embryos as raw material for experiments. However, these are “preexisting lines”. The right choice would be to give them a proper burial, but they have already been “harvested”. It is already too late to allow them to come to term for a natural birth.
McCain opposes the use of any new embryo for research, since that would be (as you say) “killing of babies for the sake of scientific advancement”. Obama opposes providing medical care to babies who are born alive from a “botched” abortion. That is not “naive”. Nobody could be THAT stupid. That is evil, and must be opposed.
Regarding McCain’s positions, it is also worth remembering that he is a politician,
which is the art of the possible. From memory, I think that he doesn’t “support”
a Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as a starting negotiating position,
but I think I’ve heard him, or perhaps a surrogate, say that he would support such
a federal amendment if (as is happening now) the states start getting involved in a
“full faith and credit” problem (i.e., if MA has “gay-marriage”, a PA “couple” can
go there to get married, and PA must then “recognize” their marriage.
In real world politics, one doesn’t always start the bidding with one’s bottom-line
position, because it may be a) harder to get, and b) not necessary in the circumstances.
I personally think Catholics need to find ways to work with non-Catholics in politics
and other fields, rather than look to some sort of “Catholic Action” approach, which
was tried in a Europe for serious reasons, but had the downside (i.e., “moral hazard”)
of causing many Catholics to either a) begin to oppose the “official” Catholic party,
or b) to become completely blase about politics in general. (That may be one of the
reasons why Europe today is so Socialist.)
Candidates don’t have to be “squeeky clean”, but there should NOT be major impedi-
ments to supporting them, as I believe there are in the Case of Obama.
What has worked for Catholics in this country is cooperation with others in matters
regarding the natural law, call it what you will (i.e., “human rights”, etc.).
Emilio,
There are good Catholic theologians (Janet Smith among them) who have demonstrated well that the use of EXISTING stem cell lines which were originally derived from aborted tissues is morally permissible. This is because these are cell cultures that continue to produce new cells. Although, the culture was original derived in an immoral fashion, that does not mean that a scientist, who objects to the method of origination, could not use the cells for experiments. This is why what Bush did on stem cells was a very Catholic thing – he said, you can use the cell lines you already have, but you may not harm any babies.
There are others who can explain this much better than me.
Thanks
H.E Rene Henry Gracida is Bishop Emeritus of the Diocese of Corpus Christi. He was one of the first bishops in the United States who had the courage to declare the excommunication of a local “Catholic” doctor and his “Catholic” nurses for performing and assisting in the murder of the innocent by abortion. He did this at a time when many of the politically correct bishops of our nation refused to apply similar canonical sanctions.
As a friend of Catholic tradition, he has ordained men for the Fraternity of Saint Peter, and invited its priests to come to Corpus Christi. During his time as Ordinary of Corpus Christi both priests and members of the faithful opened to Catholic Tradition were blessed with encouragement and support. Since his retirement things have not been the same. We are however, looking forward to better times.
In my opinion, Bishop Gracida is a man of tremendous courage and orthodox faith. As one who had the privilege of being ordained to the Holy Priesthood at his hands, I am grateful to God for his strong Catholic witness.
Thank you supertradmom! I was at a loss for how to google the church’s teaching on socialism this morning.
Deo gratias for Bp. Gracida! He is a courageous bishop. His radio ad is actually being aired on radio stations in the U.S.! Click here for more info.
Thank you Bishop Gracida. It is time ‘cafeteria Catholics’ went back to the basics and study the Baltimore Catechism and learn the teachings of the Catholic Church. Obviously, there are some respondents who just don’t get it. God bless you Bishop Garcida.
I still don’t understand how McCain can compromise on how to use what he truly believes is a living person. The stand is logically unintelligible – if “existing embryonic stem cells” are persons, then experimenting on them (as one would do on a chimp or dog) for scientific advancement is morally impermissible.
Logically the McCain (and Bush) position(s) is far more frightening, as he sees these embryos as living persons, and can still justify allowing these things.
Mike said: The stand is logically unintelligible – if “existing embryonic stem cells” are persons, then experimenting on them (as one would do on a chimp or dog) for scientific advancement is morally impermissible.
Embryonic stem cells are not persons. There are only three kinds of person: the hypostases of the Holy Trinity, angels and demons, and humans. Stem cells are part of what human embryos are made of, but they are not persons any more than my stomach is a person.
McCain’s position is that federal funding should not support the creation of new embryos for the purpose of embryonic stem cell Nazi science, but can be allowed for research using stem cell lines that already exist. That is not a satisfactory position, but it’s not the same as supporting the creation of new embryos for the purpose of killing them to extract their stem cells.
Use of existing embryonic stem cell lines is not immoral. As long as a scientist did not in any way encourage the creation of a stem cell line, it is not immoral for him to use the cells which are derived from an original evil act. It is the creation of NEW stem cell lines which necessitates killing an embryo (usually a frozen one). So, even though McCain does not want embryos created in order to be killed, he does unfortunately allow for existing embryos to be killed. Hopefully, McCain will continue the policy of Pres. Bush on this issue.