
"At the top of their list of Catholic moral convictions, the bishops put “defending the inviolable sanctity of human life from the moment of conception until natural death.”
This is especially important since Catholics often confront a dilemma in deciding how to vote: Can we support a candidate who may be attractive for many reasons but who supports abortion rights? Some partisan advocates have sought to excuse support for pro-abortion-rights candidates through a complex balancing act. They claim other issues are important enough to offset a candidate’s support for abortion rights.
But the right to abortion mandated in the United States by the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision is not just another political issue; it is in reality a legal regime that has resulted in more than 40 million deaths"
Although Supreme Knight Anderson's article was in the November issue and was a pitch for voters to vote pro-life, he had other, significant things to say to encourage pro-lifers:
It is time to put away the arguments of political spin masters that only serve to justify abortion rights. How should Catholics exercise their responsibility as citizens? The most important way is to build a culture of life.
It is time for Catholics to demand the end of Roe v. Wade. It is time to stop creating excuses for voting for pro-abortion-rights politicians. It is time that Catholics shine a bright line of separation between themselves and all those politicians who defend the abortion-rights regime of Roe v. Wade"
-----------------
I know Proposal 2 in Michigan may not be applicable to you, but false advertising IS something you should be tuned in to. Proposal 2 is on the ballot in Michigan next week and it seeks to expand the use of embryos for scientific research. I was so upset today when I watched the pro-Proposal 2 commercial on television. Pure propaganda. At the end of the commercial, it said something like: Vote for Proposal 2, it saves lives. They showed a picture of a small cell (probably an embryo, I don't recall exactly) and implied that it was just an extra thing that would be wasted. It continued the myth that we need to destroy embryos to cure diseases, thus the conclusion that Proposal 2 will save lives.
St. Paul warned the Corinthians (2 Cor. 11:1-11) to watch out for false prophets. The kind of deception this commercial promotes is inexcusable. Please be careful that you are not formed by such things. As scripture tells us, stick with what you know to be true. Don't be fooled!
Various excerpts on different issues from The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae)
Pope John Paul II:
(To find it online, go to: http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/evtext.htm)
14.) 14. The various techniques of artificial reproduction, which would seem to be at the service of life and which are frequently used with this intention, actually open the door to new threats against life. Apart from the fact that they are morally unacceptable, since they separate procreation from the fully human context of the conjugal act, 14 these techniques have a high rate of failure: not just failure in relation to fertilization but with regard to the subsequent development of the embryo, which is exposed to the risk of death, generally within a very short space of time. Furthermore, the number of embryos produced is often greater than that needed for implantation in the woman's womb, and these so-called "spare embryos" are then destroyed or used for research which, under the pretext of scientific or medical progress, in fact reduces human life to the level of simple "biological material" to be freely disposed of.
15. Threats which are no less serious hang over the incurably ill and the dying. In a social and cultural context which makes it more difficult to face and accept suffering, the temptation becomes all the greater to resolve the problem of suffering by eliminating it at the root, by hastening death so that it occurs at the moment considered most suitable.
Various considerations usually contribute to such a decision, all of which converge in the same terrible outcome. In the sick person the sense of anguish, of severe discomfort, and even of desperation brought on by intense and prolonged suffering can be a decisive factor. Such a situation can threaten the already fragile equilibrium of an individual's personal and family life, with the result that, on the one hand, the sick person, despite the help of increasingly effective medical and social assistance, risks feeling overwhelmed by his or her own frailty; and on the other hand, those close to the sick person can be moved by an understandable even if misplaced compassion. All this is aggravated by a cultural climate which fails to perceive any meaning or value in suffering, but rather considers suffering the epitome of evil, to be eliminated at all costs. This is especially the case in the absence of a religious outlook which could help to provide a positive understanding of the mystery of suffering.
74.) In order to shed light on this difficult
question, it is necessary to recall the general principles concerning cooperation
in evil actions. Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon
under 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. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by
the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct
participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral
intention of the person committing it. 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. Each individual in fact has
moral responsibility for the acts which he personally performs; no one can be
exempted from this responsibility, and on the basis of it everyone will be
judged by God himself (cf. Rom 2:6;