What Ratzinger Said
From Jimmy Akin. This is good! Read it, share it with other Catholics.
Many suggested Cardinal Ratzinger was giving his blessing to voting for pro-aborts if there were enough other good things about them. But having a number of good points is not enough. As the Cardinal indicated, there must be counterbalancing reasons proportional to abortion.
Such reasons are not easy to come up with, particularly for candidates seeking offices that have the ability to significantly impact abortion law. These include the presidents who nominate Supreme Court justices and the senators who confirm them.
One wants to weed out pro-abort candidates on the lowest level possible so that they can’t use their political track record to get elected to higher office, but the more impact the office has on abortion policy, the more weighty a reason must be to allow a vote for them.
What kind of reason would be needed to vote for a pro-abort candidate for president? Something unimaginably huge.
The Abortion Numbers
Consider: A million and a half new Americans are murdered every year by abortion.
While particular historical circumstances increase or decrease the number of Supreme Court appointments a president gets to make (some presidents get many and some get none), if we average out the differences then it turns out that a pro-abort president on average could extend the abortion holocaust by four years equivalent to the four year term he spends in office.
At a million and a half kids killed per year, that means that a pro-abort president would be responsible for extending the abortion holocaust to include six million additional murders.
When one takes into account the fact that about half of the recent presidents have had second terms, that would mean a pro-abort president would be responsible for extending the abortion holocaust to include approximately nine million Americans.
No other issue involves numbers that high. Nothing short of a full-scale nuclear or biological war between well-armed nation states would kill that many people, and we aren’t in imminent danger of having one of those.
Not even terrorists with WMDs could kill that many people. As vital as the issue of terrorism is, it does not get us up into the number of deaths caused by abortion. It would take three thousand 9/11-size events in a president’s average term of office (more than one a day) to rack up sufficient deaths to make terrorism proportionate to abortion. Al-Qa’eda simply does not have enough suicidal fanatics to make terrorism proportionate to abortion.
Jobs? The economy? Taxes? Education? The environment? Immigration? Forget it. We do not have nine million people dying in a typical president’s term of office due to bad job programs, bad economic policies, bad taxes, bad education, bad environmental law, bad immigration rules—or even all of these combined. All of them together cannot provide a reason proportionate to the need to end abortion.
Make no mistake: Abortion is the preeminent moral issue of our time. It is the black hole that out-masses every other issue. Presenting any other issues as if they were proportionate to it is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
posted by David at 7:13 AM
Track with co.mments
Rate this post:
5 Comments:
Oh, ho ho ho now! Shall we look to people who will interpret the mightly words of Ratzinger? Then here's another 'interpretation' of Ratzinger:
http://www.freep.com/news/politics/abort7e_20040907.htm
Or perhaps we should just take Alan Keyes' holy writ and declare Gays and abortionists evil and condemn them to hell- sorta like you would like to do.
The point is the secular press is misrepresenting this. If you wish to believe and trust them over a well known Catholic apologist, fine by me. Your loss. I would be interested in where you think Mr Akins is wrong.
And to throw Alan Keyes into the mix here is just a distraction. Still, I suspect that Ambassador Keyes like myself, follows the thinking "hate the sin, love the sinner."
Keyes was just thrown in to publically display widespread private sentiments amongst the sanctimony that surrounds us all. The point is, Ratzinger does has stated that the Catholic Church does not condemn citizens for voting for someone like Kerry, but this website seems to do so. Do you and Akin have some special knowledge of Kerry that Ratzinger does not?
No one has the statement quoted verbatem from him. Only the Bishops have that and to my knowledge they have not released it, so then it depends on what newspaper or periodical you read as to whether or not you are getting correct information. If you read a more "progressive" Catholic newspaper, as the one you have quoted, you will find that they didn't put the entire statement in it. Not only that the minute they state that they are progressive you should know that they have an agenda to change the church. They have stated it over and over, they don't like kneeling, they don't think that communion should be refused for any reason, they are even taking the gender out of prayers to be politically correct. They want parishes to be able to choose thier own Priests (which supports the idea of Priest shopping for issues you don't agree with in church doctrine) We are one church with many ideas, but those ideas should not waiver from the black and white issues of our faith. If you read one from the Ratzinger Fan Club (and yes there is one) you will see his exact statements. Here is the most recent statement that the Cardinal made in recent weeks on Catholics and politicians:
Aug 16: "A politician who takes a different position, which does not respect the image of God (in man) and the inviolability of the human person, is also in opposition to the rational elements of faith."
One last thing about this is that the Bishops do not answer to the Catholic Bishops Council, they answer to the Holy See, and they are not answering to him correctly by making statements against the rules of the church.
Abortion Numbers:
1.4 Million
Deaths Caused by Smoking:
22 Million
Post a Comment
<< Home