Green Bay bishop urges parishioners to vote against candidates who support abortion..

[djones520]

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20121026/GPG010404/310260362/Bishop-urges-vote-against-candidates-who-support-abortion-gay-marriage?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE


Bishop David Ricken, the leader of the Catholic Diocese of Green Bay, noted in a recent letter to parishioners that voting for candidates who support what he calls “intrinsically evil” positions, such as abortion and gay marriage, could “put your own soul in jeopardy.”

Ricken’s letter, dated Oct. 24, notes that the church has a responsibility to “speak out regarding moral issues, especially on those issues that impact the ‘common good.’” It goes on to note principles to keep in mind in the voting booth on Nov. 6, including abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning and gay marriage.

“A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program that contradicts fundamental contents of faith and morals,” Ricken said in the letter. “Some candidates and one party have even chosen some of these as their party’s or their personal political platform. To vote for someone in favor of these positions means that you could be morally ‘complicit’ with these choices which are intrinsically evil. This could put your own soul in jeopardy.”

While Ricken’s letter does not specify who should get parishioners’ votes, Republican candidates typically oppose abortion rights while Democrats, to a large degree, support them.

On the abortion issue, for example, President Barack Obama and Republican rival Mitt Romney have different views. The Democratic incumbent supports access to abortion without restriction, mandating free contraception for women and changing his mind this year to endorse gay marriage. Romney is socially conservative, opposing gay marriage and abortion rights and saying the government should not mandate free contraception.


I wonder if this will have any effect in the swing state. Not quite as important as Ohio, but it will certainly help mitigate Ohio if Romney takes it.

[SaintLouieWoman]

Generally I don't think churches should stick their noses into the electoral process. But what this bishop says should be obvious to Catholics. If they follow their faith, they should not be voting for someone who goes against all the tenets of that faith. I know some folks who are devout Catholics, involve themselves in retreats, but at least one of them still supports Obama. I asked how they reconcile those beliefs and didn't get much of an answer, other than a dirty look.

Here's hoping it helps, but kind of doubt it.

[Elspeth]

It's not like Catholics don't get the abortion lecture all the time. It's no surprise where the church stands, and it should really go without saying at this point.

On the other hand, churches have to be careful not to lose their tax exemption, which would be the death of some of them.

[Rockntractor]

.

On the other hand, churches have to be careful not to lose their tax exemption, which would be the death of some of them.

The IRS has threatened this since the 50's but I have never found an instance where they have actually done this to a church.

[SaintLouieWoman]

The IRS has threatened this since the 50's but I have never found an instance where they have actually done this to a church.

I wonder if they've ever checked some of those churches like the Reverend Wright's. Or where the pols like Clinton and Obama appear, maybe doing a tad of politicing?

[Rockntractor]

I wonder if they've ever checked some of those churches like the Reverend Wright's. Or where the pols like Clinton and Obama appear, maybe doing a tad of politicing?

They threaten people but from what I have heard have never revoked any nonprofit status from any church, being able to threaten caries weight but were it ever tried in court they might lose and could no longer use the threat.

[Rockntractor]

From the founding of the country until 1954, churches and other nonprofit organizations were permitted to expressly endorse or oppose candidates for political office. That changed when Lyndon Baines Johnson ran for United States Senate. He was opposed by a nonprofit organization (not a church), and after he won the election, he proposed legislation to amend the Internal Revenue Code to prohibit nonprofit organizations, including churches, from endorsing or opposing political candidates. The Code was amended in 1954 without any debate regarding the impact of the bill.

The Internal Revenue Code now expressly prohibits churches and other nonprofit organizations from directly endorsing or opposing political candidates. From 1954 to the present, only one church has ever lost its IRS tax-exempt letter ruling, but even that church did not lose its tax-exempt status for opposing then-Governor Bill Clinton for President in 1992.
http://www.thewordout.net/pages/page.asp?page_id=52073