Karl Keating's E-Letter of September 14, 2004

**Forum Admin** · #1 Sep 14, '04, 10:09 am

Karl's E-Letter of September 14, 2004

Topics:

Voter's Guide Video
Voter's Guide Flak
Voter's Guide Competition
An Impossible Quiz

==========
http://www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040914.asp

==========
To subscribe to the free weekly E-Letter, go to:
www.catholic.com/newsletters.asp

Marauder · #2 Sep 14, '04, 10:58 am

Excellent e-letter Karl. Interesting thing from the "American Nuns". At least it sounds like their group is a little larger the Catholics for Choice. I wonder how many of the nuns in the group are validly ordained by the Catholic church.

But there is one thing that I would like to hear more on is the response to the Voter's Guide from more legitamate sources, like the USCCB (not just the USCCB lawyers), the press, the official spokespeople for the respective campaigns, etc. We knew there would be opposition on the far left, but what about some of the other people.

Gerry Hunter · #3 Sep 14, '04, 2:58 pm

Would it surprise anyone to learn that one of the principals of the National Coalition of American Nuns is Sister Jeannine Gramick, SL?
She was the one that helped found New Ways Ministry, which so mangled Catholic teaching that the CDF barred her and the co-founder from ministry to homosexuals, and who Dignity honoured with a lifetime achievement award in 1991.

Good that these folks band together. It makes it easier to warn our children about them.

Blessings,

Gerry

Tara · #4 Sep 14, '04, 3:59 pm

It seems to me that more and more nuns are
wanting to become feminists. What did God
make them?
Our feminity is wonderful, I would not want it
to be anything else. God does not err, therefore; if they want to be womanly then look
to God. He made us to be truly wonderful women
with love, compassion and just the right ability to nag.

Take a look at the world today. Is it better because of the women's liberation. No!! We have lost so much by trying to be like man. God have mercy on the women who try to change Hismoral ways.

Tara

joe100 · #5 Sep 14, '04, 4:02 pm

Seems to me that by the Catholic Voting site creating a Kerry friendly anti Voting Guide site with a biased quiz it is implicit recognition that Kerry does not support the 5 Non-Negotiables...

Slow Burn · #6 Sep 14, '04, 7:04 pm

After visiting the votingcatholic.org site mentioned by Karl, I noticed that apparently they have amended at least some of their question/answer sections. In particular, Karl noted that the section on abortion left no room for a response of absolute opposition to abortion. In addition to the ones mentioned regarding "exceptions in cases of rape and incest" and the "personal opposition but support right to choose", the third option now is stated as "I appose abortion in all circumstances." Do I sense a giving way to pressure from those like Karl who have called into question the "non-partisan" claim of the authors of the site? Intersting.

lsburk · #7 Sep 14, '04, 8:18 pm

Karl,

Great e-letter! I keep thinking about the "Irish" toast that goes something like, "For those that do not love us may God turn their hearts. If he cannot turn their hearts may he turn their ankles so that we will know them by their limp." Their souls are limping.

Scott

Pittsburgh Russ · #8 Sep 14, '04, 8:29 pm

Does anyone know what the complete story is on the article that the "Voting Catholic" site links to in its Press section indicating that Cardinal Ratzinger has stated that it is ok to vote for a pro-choice candidate?

http://www.freep.com/news/religion/abort7e_20040907.htm

lsburk · #9 Sep 14, '04, 8:36 pm

This is a completely bogus story that is not based in any truth at all. I urge you to go to http://cwnews.com/ to get the whole story. It is another attempt by the secular press to confuse the issue that catholics should be supporting the pro-life candidate.

Scott

j_arden · #10 Sep 14, '04, 9:44 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slow Burn

After visiting the votingcatholic.org site mentioned by Karl, I noticed that apparently they have amended at least some of their question/answer sections. In particular, Karl noted that the section on abortion left no room for a response of absolute opposition to abortion. In addition to the ones mentioned regarding "exceptions in cases of rape and incest" and the "personal opposition but support right to choose", the third option now is stated as "I appose abortion in all circumstances." Do I sense a giving way to pressure from those like Karl who have called into question the "non-partisan" claim of the authors of the site? Intersting.

I noticed this too. Karl lists the three options as:

1. "I oppose abortion except when the life of the mother is threatened or in cases of rape or incest, but I support anti-abortion legislation that makes no exception for the health of the mother."

2. "I oppose abortion in all circumstances, except for when the life of the mother is threatened."

3. "I oppose abortion in my personal life but publicly support the right of women to choose abortion."

But the site, as of this posting, lists these:

1. I oppose abortion in all circumstances.

2. I oppose abortion in my personal life, but publicly support the right of women to choose abortion.

3. I oppose abortion except when the life of the mother is threatened or in cases of rape or incest, but I support anti-abortion legislation that makes no exception for health of the mother.

So ... either the "except when the life of the mother is threatened" clause was dropped or Karl misquoted. I suspect the former. Also, Karl was right on in pointing out the somewhat convoluted wording of the questions. Take the current #3. If you support abortion rights for women whose health is endangered by their pregnancy, why would you also support legislation that contradicts it?

- JP

**Karl Keating** · #11 Sep 14, '04, 11:45 pm

Just for the record: The quotations were what was on the Catholic Voting Project site when I compose this week's E-Letter.

Maybe the organizers realized how evidently biased their survey was. I will have to see if topics other than abortion were changed too.

I do see that at the moment the group's discussion forums are up to 40 members, a gain of ten. Perhaps from the mention in the E-Letter?

Regenhund · #12 Sep 15, '04, 1:17 pm

One more thing I noticed about the votingcatholic.org quiz: In the question regarding stem cells, it makes no attempt whatsoever to distinguish between embryonic stem cell research and adult stem cell research when asking if you "support stem cell research to find cures to illnesses such as diabetes, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s."

So I either support killing embryos or I oppose curing disease?

Not very nuanced.

PKK · #13 Sep 15, '04, 4:05 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by j_arden

So ... either the "except when the life of the mother is threatened" clause was dropped or Karl misquoted. I suspect the former. Also, Karl was right on in pointing out the somewhat convoluted wording of the questions. Take the current #3. If you support abortion rights for women whose health is endangered by their pregnancy, why would you also support legislation that contradicts it?

- JP

I went on the site right while I was reading the email. It at that time did state the choices as Karl stated them, so they must have changed them.

Augustine · #14 Sep 15, '04, 5:18 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regenhund

So I either support killing embryos or I oppose curing disease?

Not very nuanced.

Exactly my thought. Worse yet, they imply that that's Kerry's position, whereas his position is specifically in favor of embryonic stem-cell research.

Debby Rust · #15 Sep 15, '04, 5:19 pm

Dear Karl,
Your e-letter is both informative and interesting. Thankyou for taking the time to write it.
I did notice a blurb about "minimum wage" and am fast realizing that such a topic can be one of controversy.
I case there is anyone interested in further "enlightenment" regarding the subject, I would direct one and all to read the encyclical "Laborem Exercens", written by His Holiness Pope John Paul ll,
from which I quote,

" Just remuneration for the work of an adult who is responsible for a family means remuneration which will suffice for establishing and properly maintaining a family and for providing security for its future. Such remuneration can be given either through what is called a family wage--that is, a single salary given to the head of the family for his work sufficient for the needs of the family without the other spouse having to take up gainful employment outside the home--or through other social measures such as family allowances or grants to mothers devoting themselves exclusively to their families. These grants should correspond to the actual needs, that is, to the number of dependents for as long as they are not in a position to assume properresponsibility for their own lives.
Experience confirms that there must be a social re-evaluation of the mother's role, of the toil connected with it and of the need that children have for care, love and affection in order that they may develop into responsible, morally and religiously mature and psychologically stable persons. It will redound to the credit of society to make possible for a mother--without inhibiting her freedom, without psychological or practical discrimination, and without penalizing her as compared with other women--to devote herself to taking care of her children and educating them in accordance with their needs, which vary with age. Having to abandon these tasks in order to take up paid work outside the home is wrong from the point of view of the good of society and of the family when it contradicts of hinders these primary goals of the mission of a mother".
Food for thought....and obedience.
God bless,
Debby