Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 1 of 6  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Fr. Corrapi on abortion
9 years ago  ::  Oct 30, 2008 - 9:04PM #1
angpuppy
Posts: 520
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkDVzLAdtZE

Parts transcribed here:
Anyone -- now read my lips -- any Catholic who votes for a pro abortion candidate is cooroperating in gross moral evil.  You can say you don't intend to do it, but you're doing it.  It remains a gross evil regardless of your intentions.  You are perpetuating, you are securing a gross moral evil -- genocide.

Over 48 million of His beloved children have been slaughtered on the altar of convinence of this country.  And every one of us who votes for a pro abortion candidate is voting for evil.  You're voting to perpetuate this holocaust, and we said never again.

Are we so morally numb, so blind, so deaf that we can't see what we're doing?  Or do we see it and we don't care?  Is it either disinterest or is it cowardess?

Let me ask you a question: if more than 48 million unwanted women over the age of 60 were executed by having their heads ripped off in the last 30 to 40 years, would you care?  Would you be indifferent?  I hope so.  You think a child in the womb is less human than a 60 year old?  You would be wrong.  From the moment of creation, human dignity adheres.

Why is every human being noble? Valuable? Precious? Unrepeatible? Because God almighty created that individual human being.

Only partial transcript.  Hear the rest on the video
Quick Reply
Cancel
9 years ago  ::  Oct 31, 2008 - 2:30AM #2
gilg
Posts: 5,200
If the only reason one votes for a candidate is because of his pro-abortion stand then the logic presented by Fr Corrapi makes sense. If there are other reasons for voting, then we should follow what the Pope says and what the USCCB says. Unfortuantely, at least in the Presidential race, we don't have a pro-life candidate, yet many people have been conditioned to believe that Republicans are pro-life.

I wonder what the effect of clergy becoming political endorsers under the cover of Catholicism will be on Catholicism? My fear is that the maverick priests and bishops that are going outside of official positions will damage the moral authority of the Church.
Quick Reply
Cancel
9 years ago  ::  Oct 31, 2008 - 6:39AM #3
Tmarie64
Posts: 5,277
I'm not voting for a "pro-abortion" candidate.  I'm voting for a pro CHOICE candidate.  He, like 99% of all pcers, is not "pro abortion".  We don't WANT abortions, but we think they should be legal for women who, for whatever reason want one.
James Thurber - "It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers."
Quick Reply
Cancel
9 years ago  ::  Oct 31, 2008 - 10:53AM #4
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,750
Angpuppy,

I wonder what Fr. Corapi thinks about voting for a candidate who supports continuing an unjust war. Or what he thinks about voting for a candidate who supports the death penalty as practiced here in the US (both Obama and McCain are pro-death penalty). Or what he thinks about supporting a candidate who supports embryonic stem cell research (McCain and Obama do, you know).

Fr. Corapi is entitled to his opinion on how catholics should vote. His is one of many voices in the church.
Quick Reply
Cancel
9 years ago  ::  Oct 31, 2008 - 3:56PM #5
jane2
Posts: 14,295

fr. Corapi is flying in the face of current Church teaching: that of the US bishops and Benedict. He's the heretic!!
discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
9 years ago  ::  Oct 31, 2008 - 8:39PM #6
jane2
Posts: 14,295

friendofsaints&angels wrote:

I didn't hear this particular speach from Father John Corapi, but I would reccomend listening to anything that I have heard him preach about in the past. His words will hit people between the eyes like a 2x4, and it seems that the Holy Spirit truly speaks through this man. He is an excellent teacher of the Cathecism of the Catholic church, and can be heard every day on a Catholic radio station called Relevant Radio, and he can also be seen on Sunday nights on EWTN. love him or hate him, it seems that everyone has an opinion about him. I think that the Catholic church needs more priests like Father Corapi. just like in the days of Sacred Scripture, He speaks the truth and people are offended by it, I love it!!!

www.relevantradio.com

www.ewtn.com

www.fathercorapi.com



Father Corapi is corrupting the official postions of the USCCB and Pope Benedict with the message he is presenting on this topic about voting.
It is his opinion, simply and he is over-riding the hierarchy with it.

If this Relevant Radio and EWTN float your boat even when they contradict official teaching you can go on listening. Many of us know Corapi for just what he is--a disobedient Catholic at this point.

Being Catholic is not just about the warm fuzzies.

discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
9 years ago  ::  Oct 31, 2008 - 9:19PM #7
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,750
Long ago when I watched EWTN once in a while I would listen to the good padre once in a while. I just couldn't get over what a blow-hard he is! Sorry folks, but that's the impression he gives me.
Quick Reply
Cancel
9 years ago  ::  Nov 01, 2008 - 12:08AM #8
jane2
Posts: 14,295

newsjunkie wrote:

Long ago when I watched EWTN once in a while I would listen to the good padre once in a while. I just couldn't get over what a blow-hard he is! Sorry folks, but that's the impression he gives me.



I agree. EWTN generally presents its own version of Catholicism.

discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
9 years ago  ::  Nov 01, 2008 - 12:21PM #9
angpuppy
Posts: 520
[QUOTE=gilg;862332]If the only reason one votes for a candidate is because of his pro-abortion stand then the logic presented by Fr Corrapi makes sense. If there are other reasons for voting, then we should follow what the Pope says and what the USCCB says. Unfortuantely, at least in the Presidential race, we don't have a pro-life candidate, yet many people have been conditioned to believe that Republicans are pro-life.

I wonder what the effect of clergy becoming political endorsers under the cover of Catholicism will be on Catholicism? My fear is that the maverick priests and bishops that are going outside of official positions will damage the moral authority of the Church.[/QUOTE]

The life issue is still the most important.  If you have a pro life and a pro choice candidate, than you vote for the pro life one.  If you have two pro choice candidates, then you vote for the one who will do the least evil.  So you may have a candidate that will help brings laws that will restrict access to abortion, that may put justices on the court that may be a help in someday overturning Roe Vs Wade, but he may also be for the death penalty and not really consider the issue that important.  Then on the other hand, you have a candidate that promises to get rid of restrictions to access of abortion, will put only pro choice individuals in the Supreme court and will fight hard to get an abortion rights amendment added to the constitution to safeguard the Roe Vs. Wade decision.

The one to do the least damage would be the first. 

ONLY if you have two candidates who are on equal terms on the abortion issue, would it be prudent to overlook the life issue and vote based on other things.  The USCCB and the Pope all affirm this.  Where they clarify is with any moral decision, there is a hierachy of values and whatever is of a higher value must be placed above others.  So if you can find an issue that truly is more important than the genocide of millions of unborn children in this country, you would put that above the abortion issue.  There is of course the question:  what is more important than protecting the lives of innocent children whose deaths are being promoted and legimitmized?

We are arguably in an unjust war, however there is room for debate on this issue.  It is negotionable.  The abortion issue is nonnegotionable.  It doesn't matter if you find out your child will likely die within hours after being born, it is immoral to take the life of child, and it is unjust for a country to not only make this legal but to promote it as a solution to poverty, global warming or anything else.  You can't kill.  Our country is engaging in a terrible evil that must be stopped.

Vote how you like, but don't fool yourself into believing that if you vote for someone who supports abortion, your conscience is truly basing itself on Christian moral principles.

Let me explain.  There are some Catholics (a friend of mine imparticularly) who believe that the democrates solution to abortion is to aleivate the "need" for abortion by increasing access to contraceptives and alleviating poverty.   Obviously, helping in other ways besides just making it illegal must be done, but its like trying to stop the Holocaust by encouraging the Jews to convert to another faith.  Obviously people will still be killed regardless of these measures, and overall it doesn't get to the real point. 

If you go by what Christian morality teaches us about suffering, human dignity, and innocense, you come up with very strict  guidelines.  The slaughtering of human innocense is never justifed.  It doesn't matter if its rape, incest, or poverty or any other rationalization for it. 

The only possibly thing that can be rationalized falls under the principle of double effect.  This is where you have a situation where the death of the child cannot be avoided and where the mother's life is in danger.  To save her life, you give her treatment that may increase the chances of her child dying or may indirectly cause her child to die.  Its unavoidable.  Either both die, or only one lives.   That's it.  That's the only possible thing that can rationalize it.  What you have to avoid is falling into the principle of the means to the end.  This would mean that if you have cancer, and your treatment means risking either that the child will die or become disabled, the morally right thing to do would be to delay treatment as much as you can, and to take the treatment while hopping your child survives it.  It would be wrong to abort the child and then take the treatment because you'd rather have no child than a disabled one. 

Again this all deals with the value of human life.  The law is never going to be as restrictive as the actual moral law, as the moral law requires extraordinary heroic virtue.  We are often faced with moral decisions where the right thing to do is the hardest thing to do, where we must choose to put someone else's life and happiness above our own.  It is a dying to self, likened to how God became man and suffered and died for us out of love for us.  It must always be measured by love.  Love puts the other above self and suffers for the other.  It never deminishes the value of the other because they aren't smart enough or independant enough.  Every life is precious.  And it never sees death as a way to escape suffering.  You don't kill someone because you think they'll be born into poverty and thus have a life not worth living.  EVERY LIFE IS WORTH LIVING!

Because abortion is so horrendous, it must be restricted.  I'm not saying restrict it to the point of killing people and putting every legal loophole.  When it comes to differenciating between a means to an end and the principle of double effect, the courts would get in the way.  That judgment has to be made by the individual with her conscience. 

However, a direct abortion, the most common reasons for having an abortion are horrendously wrong.  Thus they must be restricted.  Which is why we need to push for laws that at the very least restrict access to abortion.  Ideally, you would have abortion legal only in cases to save the life of the mother.  Then it becomes a true decision between the mother and her doctor.  She shouldn't be pressured into having an abortion, and it would be completely a heroic decision if she found she was able to save her life while dying for her child.  Morality doesn't mandate she do that, but it is a heroic thing to do.  How many parents when they die their child dying say from cancer don't wish they could switch places and die in place of their child?

The unborn children should not be looked upon any differently than all children.  Their lives ought to be protected and safeguarded by the law.  The idea that there are any unwanted children is not a problem with the children's existence, its a problem that we are valuing people based on whether or not we have a desire for them. 

All of these moral principles are based on the example of Christ's saving act of suffering and dying for us.  It is also based on the Genesis creation account where it says humanity was made in God's image and likeness.  It follows the principle that humanity has dominion over all of creation.  It follows the command to love your neighbor.  It also follows the very basic principles of the Sermon on the Mount and how the moral law is radicalized.  That's the morality of it.

When it comes to a country's law, its not as strict as morality.  A countries law restricts the grossest forms of immorality, where people's dignity are most obviously violated, disgarded and at worst killed.  These children need to be protected by the law. 

No politician is ever going to be completely pro life, but when you have a candidate who will work to restrict access to abortion and a candidate who will work to increase access to abortion, it is clear that you can't consider them as being on morally equal ground.
Quick Reply
Cancel
9 years ago  ::  Nov 01, 2008 - 1:05PM #10
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,750
Angpuppy, neither McCain nor Obama fits your definition of "pro-life." Both support what you consider "intrinsic evil." For example, McCain supports exceptions for the rape and incest in anti-abortion legislation (source: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/d … tions.html). He supports embryonic stem cell research. In a moment of candor, back in 2000, when asked what he'd do if his then teenage daughter Meaghan got pregnant, McCain said, "The final decision would be made by Meghan with our advice and counsel," McCain said, speaking of himself and his wife Cindy. source: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITIC … .abortion/. This is how the majority of Americans feel, and I wouldn't be surprised that if, when asked, most Catholics would answer similarly. Even McCain's strongly "pro-life" running mate stated she disagrees with Roe v Wade because she thinks it's an issue the states should decide on (that was in one of her interviews with Katie Couric). So I guess she's fine if it's legal in some states. She also said she thinks the Constitution includes a right to privacy, which was the basis for the RvW decision.

I don't think legal prohibitions on abortions work. I have looked up information about the number of abortions that occur where it is illegal, and those numbers are huge. Take a look, if you can stomach it, at what lengths desperate women facing unwanted pregnancies will go to in a Catholic country where abortion is illegal: http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNew … 4620070905

Regarding  "Vote how you like, but don't fool yourself into believing that if you vote for someone who supports abortion, your conscience is truly basing itself on Christian moral principles."  there are plenty of illusions and delusions in the minds of people, including Catholic priests and bishops and religious people of other denominations and faiths. I wonder how many of them have spent time critiquing their own thinking, as opposed to the time spent critiquing the thinking of others.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 6  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook