Mr Aroyo certainly has never interviewed the people in the pews where I go to Mass or he would have gotten a very different result to his "scientific" poll. The fact is that 70% to 75% of Catholics here will vote pro-life if at all possible. We do not see abortion as a dead political issue. We also do not resent our local Bishop's prolife stand nor his guidance when he reminds us that we must vote for life whenever possible. Unlike some Catholics who are obviously ill informed or just not able to be informed, we here are able to read and understand the writtings of the Vatican and we know that it is never a mistake for our heirarchy to stand for Catholic principles even to command that we vote for those principles no matter which party we have to vote for. Tell me, what if the Cardinal was to command that we vote for the candidates who are against theft? Would you have written such a column against it Mr. Aroyo? I don't think so. Preaching against theft would not touch that liberal nerve that was so solidly tweaked by Cardinal Burke's pro life stand because no matter what you say abortion is still a very live political issue with you as it is with us.
Ipsa Conteret.

Please tell me how the adherents of the Roman Papacy are any different than the Mullahs of Islam? Women are breeding stock in both of your views. Rapists,child abusers, pedophiles,incestors all seem to hold more sway in Catholicism than the simple idea of a woman or young girl having a say over the consequences of her abuse. I'm even suggesting that in the year 2010 that any female under any circumstance has the right to decide when she will bear a child.All of you folk out there who claim life is precious, what about the right of the existing life that you would impose a pregnancy that is not wanted? Your specious arguments amount to nothing more than punishing any woman who might have engaged in sex with or without her consent. Your arguments amount to nothing more than panyty sniffing purveying of piety and palaver. Get a grip, if you are losing sleep over the abortion issue then you are probably in need of some medication.

Well, thank you, Mr. Stevens-Arroyo.

You speak for many Catholics who find the Church hierarchy archaic, narrow, and, sometimes, wrong. And sometimes they are loving, brilliant, and right.

We have learned much in the 2000 years since Christ lived and died. We have learned that women are not the source of evil, they are not stupid, they are capable of making decision and leading.

Put women in the priesthood, put the heads of orders of nuns in top positions in the Curia to advise the Pope.

Require any member of a religious order who abuses a child to face civil prosecution, support the civil authorities in investigating abuse, and, once the person gets out of prison, only accept them back into a monastic order that is cloistered. And send Cardinal Law back to face the music.

Stop trying to force a religious view of homosexuality as a sin onto the world as a civil wrong. What non-Catholic consenting adults to in the civil world is not a Church issue. Allowing a homosexual couple tax benefits and rights of survivorship are not Church issues. Deny Church sacraments all you want, but get out of the position of trying to dictate civil rights and benefits.

Is the world still flat and does the sun still circle the earth?

SHAME ON OLD RELIGION. PRAISE in NEW-RELIGION.

___

Response to Erik Walker Wikstrom from "GUEST VOICES" at "Lao Tzu's wisdom for a post-election nation [Acrually a PRE-Apocalyptic Nations/USA at That!??)

By Erik Walker Wikstrom" under; "To "b>Lao Tzu's wisdom for a POST-ELECTION? Nation
By " LAO... Once Said, "Keep YE Friends Close but Keep Yo/Ye Enemies Even Closer"!" [Similar Said].

___

Shame on "Lao Tzu's wisdom" for a post-election nation via: By: Erik Walker Wikstrom.

OYE...!??????????

ClementFinn quotes "Gaudium et Spes":

"Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation . . . . all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed."

Very true. How did I miss the lines of Catholics protesting outside of Republican Headquarters while the Bush administration was waterboarding prisoners, creating Guantanamo, renditioning prisoners, and capping it off with an invasion of Iraq? Yes, I know the pope said, "Naughty, naughty," but no American Catholic money was raised to defeat the politicians who pursued these evil policies. No Catholics gathered outside military bases to pray the rosary with graphic pictures of Iraqis mutilated in bombing attacks. There is still not an official peep from American Catholics, as these policies are still being pursued.

Somehow all the American RCC money and power, controlled by an all male hierarchy, can only be mustered against abortion, which just HAPPENS to interfere with a woman's right to control her own body rather than America's right to use force anywhere in the world for its own ends. What an amazing coincidence.

I'd have a lot more respect for the RCC political activity in the abortion arena if it put the same energy into opposing America's self-interested (OIL!) national aggression and global corporate exploitation. But no, it's nothing but papal logorrhea when it comes to any issue except abortion.

I can understand that pregnant women are an easier target than the rich and powerful. The focus on abortion alone shines an especially ironic light on the term "Christian soldiers." O, brave soldiers, harrassing women entering clinics, encouraging the murder of doctors and shedding crocodile tears for embryos. Try taking on the military-industrial complex if you want a worthy cause. I'm not holding my breath.

This has got to be one of the most ignorant columns I have ever seen. If Mr. Arroyo is going to quote "Gaudium et spes" he might try reading the whole document especially its teaching on abortion, and I quote: "Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator."
"Gaudium et spes" section 27.
Also in sec.51 of Guadium et spes:
"God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes"
Mr. Arroyo needs a trip to a decent, and perhaps elementary theology class. Or is it a reading comprehension problem?
The Church's teaching on abortion and the duty of Catholics to oppose it is quite clear.

Your article is very good but why does the RCC administration constantly want to speak out with their dark age views? When most RCC USA members will not even comply with them. It would be interesting to know what Burke's views are on the case of the 9 year old (80 lb) girl raped by her stepfather with twin fetuses of four months in Brazil in 2009. Would Burke say bring those lives to term?
Three guesses but the first two don't count of what the average RCC parent would do with a pregnant child under age 14?

When has the GOP ever kept its promise, not when Reagon was president, nor when Bush was president, and they had majorities in both houses, at various times during their presidencies. Government doesn't have the power to change the hearts and minds of its people, only God has that power, and God isn't spelled GOP.

Dear Anthony,
I find myself particularly sad after reading this article. You seem to have confused the Magisterium's responsibility to teach with the laity's responsibility to hear and accept that teaching. The laity have a responsibility to develop a well-formed conscience and listening to the teachings of the Magisterium is part of building that well-formed conscience.
This article seems to imply that 'voting your conscience' is simply the right to do whatever the individual feels is correct. As you well know as a Catholic, nothing could be further from the truth. As with all sin, the desire to do something is a poor guidepost for its 'correctness or sinfulness'. In fact, there are a lot of things I strongly desire to do which I know are sinful. Following ones properly formed conscience may, in fact, involve acting contrary to my initial and/or continuing desires.
The willful killing of unborn human beings can be nothing less than mortally sinful, regardless of whether the laws of the US, or any other political jurisdiction, treat it as the crime of murder. Lets hope it remains an important political issue for the Catholic laity, and perhaps you too Anthony.

Apart from whether American Catholics SHOULD vote according to direction from the RCC hierarchy, the author has correctly noticed that they AREN'T doing that any more. Not surprising. Think about the recent Pew poll that found "Even many Catholics are unaware of their church’s teaching on this topic [transubstantiation]; while 55% of Catholics get the question right, more than four-in-ten Catholics (41%) say the church teaches that the bread and wine are symbols of Christ’s body and blood, and 3% say they do not know what the church’s teaching is."

Probably half of American Catholics aren't even aware of the Church's obsessive focus on abortion as the one and only important political issue. They give the Church too much credit.

Perhaps, Anthony -- nice saint name -- meant to say:

The disappearing Anti-Life politician?

Saying that abortion has a "vanishing political future" is the most callous use of euphemism. It shows not only the clear agenda of the author- which is, not that Catholics learn to think for themselves but that they begin to push en masse such liberal platform issues as abortion, which clearly goes against Scripture and does represent "a weakening of commitment to the Gospel", despite what the author might claim- but shows also that the author is not prepared to deal with his own barbaric and murderous leanings. By invoking such a euphemism, it seems the author is trying to wish away the fact that he supports an agenda that has murdered MILLIONS more than the Holocaust schemers ever could have dreamed of; that the author is not emotionally ready or mature enough to write about such a sensitive issue as abortion. If you are going to support such a murderous agenda, at least have the respect for the innocent lives you are taking to admit to it.

And since you claim to be a representative of the Church, let's forget all this political posturing and go straight to the heart of the matter. When Christ demanded we defend the least of the these, I can't help but think that in this case he meant the God-given innocent child in the womb and not the apathetic, selfish, and unloving female who has rejected what God called her to nurture and defend. If you truly are a Christian, you believe that life is a gift from God, not carelessly given. And it shouldn't be carelessly cast away.

Why can't we all just throw away our politics and defend God-given LIFE in every respect? NO abortion, NO war, NO capital punishment. If you agree with some, but not all of these stances, you aren't a true defender of life.

I can't imagine having the pastor of my church tell me which candidate to vote for, or whether I should vote Yes or No on a constitutional amendment. That would be grounds for me to seriously reconsider my membership.

The author seems to take a sick delight in his fantasy that citizens are becoming inured to the barbarism of the abortion industry, and apathetic about the most grave injustice confronting American society. What a despicable attitude.

The author's spectacularly invincible ignorance is in evidence (again) on the subject of conscience. A mature conscience is the product of learning, and the bishops are our primary teachers. The author supposes that conscience gives us permission to go with the flow, but that is backwards: a properly formed conscience compels us to go AGAINST the flow.

Titling this column "Catholic America" is deceptive to the point of outright fraud. A more accurate title would be: "Inchoate Post-Post-Catholic Liberal Muttering".