A Catholic, Answers

Whoever frames the debate, most often wins the debate. If you already believe that the U.S. Constitution forbids an open political discussion within the context of a forum operated by a religiously affiliated organization, then you would be past hope. The First Amendment "Establishment Clause" prevents the establishment of a state-sanctioned religion, nothing more. All religions were meant to be permitted, in fact encouraged, to speak and worship freely. An individual was never expected, nor required, to check one's religious belief at the door of government chambers as if it was a firearm. (but that's a whole other battle) Contextual examination of the behavior of the Founding Fathers confirms their willingness, even zeal, to speak of God in the sphere of politics. Ample engravings in granite and marble testify to this. (without excavation... so far) Total "separation" of church and state is an invention of radical secularism.

Even now, we are cowering under the onslaught of Atheistic domination by being denied an open discussion of politics on this thread, because it might be construed an affront to Atheism, or in violation of some contrived precept, to validly explore whether or not certain individuals running for elected office, are qualified to represent us, according to the most basic template by which we are entitled to measure our lived experience - faith in God. We live in fear of a government arm, known as the IRS, who might inflict crippling sanctions upon any religiously affiliated organization designated as 501(c)3, for such a perceived infraction.

Someone on this thread has covertly characterized a particular political party as evil, according to the Catholic worldview, because of its stance on so-called reproductive "rights." The characterization is perfectly legitimate according to our authentic rights of Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech. Would actually referencing the name of that party somehow violate a conflicting right, that really doesn't exist anyway?

The "Other" political party, "traditionally" characterized as "Pro-Life," is currently driven by a Presidential nominee largely responsible for the latest, most egregious assault on limiting the Free Speech and the intercourse of ideas as they relate to faith - the legislation labeled "McCain-Feingold." Are we still allowed to identify specific legislation on a forum which might be subject to 501(c)3 status?

The Catholic Church in the United States, via the USCCB, has tip-toed around this issue in a most Politically Correct effort, while fashioning its toothless exhortation, "Faithful Citizenship." Our good shepherds have seen fit to remedy dissent from authentic orthodox Catholic teaching, by recommending remedial instruction to dissenters. Catholics holding political office have been in close proximity to the Abortion issue for 35+ years. What does that say about their intellectual grasp on a topic, or conversely, the bishops' timeliness on pastoral intervention?

Nancy Pelosi and Frank Pavone share something very much in common. They've both learned to compartmentalize their belief systems. Nancy believes her "personal preferences" shouldn't effect her public decisions or persona. Frank believes that, in election years, he can take a vacation from his long-established, theologically-based advocacy for the pre-born, in order to take up a politically-pragmatic approach to advocacy. I really think he believes it will be possible to resume, in December, where he left off last year, before he began his covert, PC, playing dirty within "secular" rules, campaign.

Where does that leave the confused who are sincerely looking for guidance? Rev. Pavone's henchmen are enthusiastically dis-informing people who are coming to the holy realization that abortifacients (which include oral, artificial contraception) can cause the newly conceived child not to attach to her mother's uterine lining. If Catholic belief is correct, that life begins at conception, (or as Fr. Frank has precisely promulgated, fertilization)then OOPS! ...we have a loophole. Actually, a more apt metaphor would be black hole. The Church believes human life, and therefore personhood, begins at conception. But medical terminology and protocol defines pregnancy as beginning with implantation of the young one. So, our little blastocyst is in "no-man's land" from the time he's fertilized until he's able to grab the wall. Worse yet, if she's so unlucky as to be fertilized in the Fallopian tube, she's fatally entrapped, and never gets a shot at the defining implantation festivity.

When a political candidate announces that he "believes life begins at conception," is he crossing the church-state "separation" line?... or is he merely giving cover to misguided clerics who would rationalize, then portray him as being "Pro-Life" and worthy of our vote as the "lesser evil?"

There is a candidate available, who has been buried under media blackout, and virtually muzzled-by-omission by the proclaimed Catholic face of Pro-Life, Fr. Pavone. This candidate is a Catholic, by the way. He is a third degree Knight of Columbus, definitively PRO-LIFE, who represents the non-cafeteria, non-liberal, orthodox viewpoint. But then, Catholics don't believe in miracles anymore. The people *had food in their pockets* Jesus just convinced them to share it.

As zab pointed out, Pavone has taken it upon himself to coerce, out of condemnation, the individuals who simply seek The Good, to participate in evil by compartmentalizing what he has taught them throughout his career, and bracket it temporarily, in order to pragmatically elect someone who is marginally less evil. It is a case study in our Holy Father's Dictatorship of Relativism.

Is it really all that complex? Jesus said we are to become as guileless as little children, who simply seek the Good. You say we can't change the world... at least right now. We have to regroup. "The System" is too messed up. We have to do at this instant, whatever works, even if it means stooping to the methods of the world. I guess Christ was commanding the impossible when He issued the Great Commission. How naive of Him!

I say, "Silly Satan... The Faithful are for God."