More female babies are aborted than male babies. So, it would lead one to believe that you really can’t be pro-women if you are not pro-motherhood. AND, you can’t be pro-women if you are not pro-life. Another thought: Only in non-Christian cultures does gender-specific abortions still happen.
Margaret Thatcher once wisely said, “Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren’t.”
Margaret Thatcher had it right, the more you claim, the less you probably are. The recent march of the ‘pussyhat’ protesters seemed to confirm that. Carrying signs with disgusting slogans and demeaning anyone that disagreed with them doesn’t leave one with a feeling of any real accomplishment. A peaceful discussion, common sense, and a sense of fair play might promote conversation but how can one do so with the yelling and shoving that goes on once you are perceived as a ‘non-believer’?
The event was promoted as a way for ALL women to come together and voice their needs, desires, wants, etc., as citizens of the United States. Unfortunately, their cause lost some ‘moral’ traction when they only allowed their agenda to be heard and disrespected the women who advocated pro-life. Seems to me that the pro-life women were fighting for the future women the other marchers were fighting so hard to have aborted.
Deep sigh listening to the readings at Mass this morning. It was on Maccabees relating to the widow and her sons that had rather face a tortured death than eat pork which was against their religion. Father explained that in today’s world, we would wonder about how important eating or not eating pork would really be. Father said it was their Jewish faith of long standing and the rules and laws of their religion meant something important to them. To break any of the laws, even that of eating pork would be like a ‘death’ to their soul. Guess with the past two elections, a lot of Catholics took their political party a lot more seriously than possibly following all the dictates of our religion. Praying that in this historical election coming up, they think twice on their vote and leave Hillary in the dust and vote for the party that has more concern for the unborn. The last two elections got obama into office with over 50% of the Catholic vote. Should be interesting on Election Day to find out how many Catholics decided to eat the ‘pork’ again this time around and leave some laws of their faith in the dust.
Not that we shouldn’t already know this but for the Catholics who vote without thought to how their Faith may view HOW they vote, here is a thought:
Cardinal Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict XVI in 2005 wrote a letter in 2004 forbidding Catholics from voting for pro-abortion candidates.
The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. […] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73).
Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. […] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).
Then Cardinal Ratzinger reinforces his opinion in the footnote:
[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.
Fr. Jay Scott Newman reinforced Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter in 2008:
“Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ’s Church and under the judgment of divine law.”
I know there are voters who emote instead of think but to actually speak with one today was still shocking to my conservative BUT informed system. There is a cashier at one of the stores we shop who we have gotten to know a bit over the years. He is adamantly Catholic and supposedly Republican . . . except this election. He is voting for Hillary. I said that she is strongly in favor of abortion at any stage and plans to increase taxpayer support of it. He said that he is more afraid of a nuclear holocaust under a Trump administration than abortion. I’m thinking to myself that he actually said he would sacrifice the sure death of the unborn babies on the off chance that Hillary, herself, won’t do anything stupid. He says he doesn’t want to see the end of the world and unborn seemingly, in his view, are an election byproduct that doesn’t matter all that much. I mentioned that Hillary had been rather free with top secret information and he said that doesn’t matter in the long run. I wonder if he had even stopped to think of the stupidity of his stance. He thinks there is a strong chance of Trump exploding the world and destroying generations of people. Worldwide, since 1973, over one point two billion babies have been aborted. Sounds like a generation or two has already been destroyed.
It is sad. The gentlemen is a very prayerful Catholic but is dipping into the heresy of liberalism because he is afraid rather than voting for life and trusting in God.