Tuesday, August 17, 2004

Debating 'Catholics for Kerry'

Frank, ("Just Being Frank") has brought to my attention his blog, in which he mentions:

. . . I had the opportunity to have some discussions with some of the good folks at the Yahoo! Group, Catholics for Kerry, whose sister site accuses Bush of being the Anti-Christ. Unfortunately, they banned me from the group because, alas, I am not a Catholic for Kerry. But I had a few revealing conversations with several of the members via e-mail.

Church teachings forbid any Catholic from voting for politicians that threaten the most basic of natural laws. (Indeed, universal morality forbids any individual from voting for those politicians.) So the first question facing every voter is, which candidates, if any, threaten the most basic of natural laws?

The Church wisely leaves Catholics to determine the answer to that question. As Colorado Springs Bishop Michael Sheridan wrote, "when Catholics go to the polls to vote, they take their consciences with them". When we vote, we better make sure that our votes are moral.

I am almost certain that both Ralph Nader and John Kerry threaten the most basic of natural laws and that voting for either is therefore wrong. I am slightly less certain -- but believe nonetheless -- that George W. Bush is the morally best choice for president. In the article linked below, I lay out my case.

Frank does take some time arguing in defense of the U.S. war on Iraq -- what some readers might consider tangential to a discussion of Kerry and abortion, but is evidently necessary in countering a common tactic of Kerry Catholics: bringing up the war (or capital punishment) as a means of diverting attention from Kerry's abominable record on abortion, or the 'casualty rate' of abortion itself (1.3 million annually).

However, one needn't agree with the Bush Administration's action on Iraq to find that Frank makes a very compelling case as to why Catholics should not -- indeed, cannot -- vote for Kerry.

Furthermore, his display of courtesy and charity in engaging the opposition in debate (I use the term loosely, since the other side has a tendency to dodge the issues, and offers little in the way of coherent arguments) is truly commendable and a model for emulation.

All in all a good read and a welcome addition to the blogroll!

No comments:

Post a Comment