about me
I'm Emilie, a writer and mother to two young boys, married to my best friend and living in St. Paul, Minnesota. I was diagnosed with a soft-tissue sarcoma in August 2007, while pregnant with our youngest son. Cancer sucks. But we are trying to live life to the fullest in spite of it.
View my complete profile
lemmondrops ~ the books!
44 comments:
Me too :)
How exciting!! I've taken the day off work tomorrow so I can watch the results all night from London.
Emilie, I thought of taking a photo of my ballot but I wasn't sure if I could...
Great pic!
I SOOO wish I could vote! I can't wait to see the results.
Shannon
I love this country. I love that we can vote so peacefully. I love that we can vote without fear. I love that we can stare at the ballots and ink in a circle and trust that our vote really (unless something goes very wrong) counts. I love that we live with our election results for four years and then can change directions if needed. IT'S SOOOO GREAT!!!
--Laura S.
LOVE it, Emilie!!!
Great shot & great idea for a photo on your blog!
But he belives in abortion...how sad. Killing an unborn baby is murder !
He does indeed believe in killing babies and only God can make that choice.. I'm sorry but your wrong in this.. This is a child not a choice and Obama will make sure that abortion is fine and dandy at any and all times during the nine months of pregnancy.. God help this Country and forgive us for being so greedy that we would look past the unborn for our own selfish wants and needs.
BTW.. I thought you were Catholic.. I guess not!!
Wow, the trolls come out when the polls close. Take your platform voting elsewhere anons. I remain optimistic that we are on the cusp of great change and progress.
Great change indeed. Not a good place to be if you are in your mother's womb. Sorry, but I am not sure how you can write for CCL and support someone who is pro abortion. When FOCA is the first thing Obama states he will sign once elected. . . a very sad day indeed for the pro life movement.
Wow, the trolls come out when the polls close. Take your platform voting elsewhere anons. I remain optimistic that we are on the cusp of great change and progress.
Goosebumps indeed!
We have ourselves CHANGE! I am truly proud to be apart of this life changing, long over due moment.
What a good idea to snap that photo! I might copy it for myself, too.
Wasn't last night awesome?!?
I feel so proud of our president -- what a foreign, wonderful sensation!
This was one of my favorite phrases from his speech:
WHILE WE BREATHE, WE HOPE.
What a beautiful day, wasn't it??
Anon, thanks for making me aware of FOCA, but you are dead wrong for accusing Emilie of not being a good enough Catholic. Ridiculous. Take your fight somewhere else.
Celebrating our right to vote is what this is all about. I'm glad you had the choice to vote for someone else and not worry about being killed. Emilie, I still love the photo.
--Laura S.
Great shot of your ballot.
What a wonderful night for America. It feels so good to finally vote for a winning candidate I like.
Sharon
What a great idea to take that picture! I never thought of it but I did get to let my oldest son, he's 10, fill in the circle for me.
Love the photo. Love the goosebumps.
Emilie, don't let anon's comments get to you. (They probably didn't.)
Anon, first, there is a difference between being prochoice and being proabortion. Second, just because someone supports a candidate does not meant that person supports everything on the platform. To assume that Emilie is prochoice just because she voted for Obama is ridiculous. Whether she is prochoice or prolife is irrelvant to this post and is none of our business unless Emilie chooses to share. Last, your comment that a good Catholic couldn't vote for someone like Obama due to the abortion issue is equally unfair. That's like arguing that Christians in general shouldn't vote for McCain because he supported the war in Iraq and the anti-terrorism efforts in Afghanistan because both involved killing people, including documented cases of killing innocent people who just happened to be in the way of our offensives. No candidate's positions can completely align with Christian standards.
I just have to comment to say: way to go Rebecca!!! I agree with your statement 100%!!! This is something I have had to argue too many times with people, and you completely summed up everything I am thinking!!!
Here's what Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) told the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2004 when asked to comment on this issue:
"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."
Emilie, thanks for the informed response. As a Lutheran, I didn't know the Pope had issued that statement.
The key word there for Catholics was "presence of proportionate reasons." The Pope has also said that nothing outweighs the importance of life and the protection of the unborn. So I submit Emilie that you were mistaken in your interpretation of the Pope's teaching. There is never a proportionate reason that trumps life:
"As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today: the protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death; recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family — as a union between one man and one woman based on marriage…; and the protection of the rights of parents to educate their children."
Your pic scared me because in my polling place (in Wisconsin), Obama/Biden was listed first on the ballot. I thought I had mismarked mine. But my wife reassures me I filled in the correct circle. Whew!
P.S. But it was a great photo!
LOL Steve - that would give me a scare, too!
To those who have posted about the abortion issue:
This sort of discussion will get us nowhere. Instead of attacking me for my voting choice and insulting my intelligence by suggesting I have not thought through this issue (which I have, ad nauseum), let's try to find some common ground. I think we'd all agree that we'd like to see fewer abortions. Let's think of ways we can work together to make that happen.
That's cool. Just please do not insinuate that the official Catholic position was that it was okay to vote for a known pro-abortion candidate when the Pope and the bishops have written numerous papers that say just the opposite. You followed your own conscience. That conscience was not in line with church teaching. Such is life.
Let's all step back and take a deep breath, shall we?
The Church does not endorse specific candidates. PERIOD. There is a good reason for this; the Pope and bishops, in their wisdom, realize that choosing a candidate is a complex decision not reducible to black and white thinking. For instance, what if a particular candidate is against legal abortion but is an enthusiastic proponent of capital punishment? (George W. Bush, for instance.) Or what about the person who voted for McCain because of his abortions stance but also because he/she is racist--racism being yet another "intrinsic evil."
If you read the Pope's entire statement, it is clear that he considers many issues relevant, such as a candidate's support for the poor, workers' rights, and stance against wars of aggression (like Iraq, which Popes John Paul II and Benedict XIV have very clearly spoken out against). Perhaps we should let the Pope speak for himself rather than putting words into his mouth which he never said. If he didn't think proportionate reasons existed, he would not have mentioned them at all. It's simple logic.
Finally, as a graduate student in theology who has taken my share of courses in moral theology and Church law, I'm sick of some Catholics setting themselves up as judges of other Catholics. Let's look to the speck in our own eye, and leave the judging to God, who is after all the only one qualified to judge what is in the heart of anyone.
The Church does not endorse specific candidates. PERIOD.
Very true. However, the church is very, very clear about what the top priorities in deciding on a candidate should be and the right to life of the unborn is the top priority.
If you read the Pope's entire statement, it is clear that he considers many issues relevant,
I have read may of the pope's writings. What is clear is that although many issues relevant, not all are of equal importance. He references again and again the importance of the rights of the unborn as being of primary importance.
Perhaps we should let the Pope speak for himself rather than putting words into his mouth which he never said.
I did. The quote in my original OP was Pope Benedict.
I'm sick of some Catholics setting themselves up as judges of other Catholics.
The spiritual works of mercy are still part of the Catholic faith. They are in the catechism. There is no "jugement" in simply following the directives of the catechism- which is the sure norm for Catholics.
Again, why would the Pope have spoken of "proportionate reasons" if he believed they did not exist? I'm not denying that the Pope has unequivocally condemned abortion as intrinsically evil. But if he didn't believe "proportionate reasons" existed, he would have simply stated that Catholics are not allowed to consider anything but abortion when casting their votes.
That said, I totally agree with Emilie about finding common ground. Perhaps we, as a society, should examine more ways to support women both during and after their pregnancies and make this a national priority.
Anyone who has doubts about the Church's official position need only read the Pope John Paul II's 1999 revisiting of Pope Paul VI's historic encyclical, "Humanae Vitae." The pope does not mince words.
Depriving an innocent human being of life, and life undeniably begins at conception, is "always morally evil." He adds, "This tradition is unchanged and unchangeable."
There can be no yielding, he continues, to "convenient compromises" or the "temptation of self-deception." How can there be? "We are dealing," says the pope bluntly, "with murder."
A Catholic can vote for Obama. If he is willing to pay the price, he can do any fool thing he wants. After all, who among us hasn't done something foolish or sinful?
But most of us have better sense than to brag about it.
Ooops- I had a typo
Keep in mind Barbara, that Pope Benedict, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, was addressing the bishop has a theologian. This was not a pastoral letter and wasn't intended to be.
The bishops, in turn gave the people, pastoral guidance.
I totally agree with common ground. That would start perhaps with correct interpretation of what the church actually teaches and moving on from there, although I suspect that if the Freedom Of Choice act is passed (As President-Elect Obama promised) common ground is going to be much more difficult to arrive at.
Pax Christi
Goodness, I have to wonder, if being pro/anti abortion is your ultimate deciding factor in choosing a candidate, how is it that the casualties of war do not impact who gets your vote? Both candidates are supporters of war, and McCain himself has participated in one. I wonder, how does an unborn baby weigh more on the morality scale than our soldiers and the civilians overseas?
Emilie, please forgive me if I'm being disrespectful to your blog (I respect you very much!) but, I do legitimately wonder about this fact.
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, in paragraphs 34-37, addresses the question of whether it is morally permissible for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil – even when the voter does not agree with the candidate's position on that evil. The only moral possibilities for a Catholic to be able to vote in good conscience for a candidate who supports this intrinsic evil are the following:
a. If both candidates running for office support abortion or "abortion rights," a Catholic would be forced to then look at the other important issues and through their vote try to limit the evil done; or,
b. If another intrinsic evil outweighs the evil of abortion. While this is sound moral reasoning, there are no "truly grave moral" or "proportionate" reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year.
To vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion or "abortion rights" when there is a morally acceptable alternative would be to cooperate in the evil – and, therefore, morally impermissible.
I've read the Faithful Citizenship document, too, and I encourage all Catholics (and non-Catholics) to take a look at it. People can download it here, if interested:
http://www.faithfulcitizenship.org
It helps to read it in its entirety to get a full sense of the complexity of this issue; the bishops certainly agree that there are no black-and-white answers when deciding which candidate to support. That said, here are some passages that give an idea of how complex this is:
22. There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so
deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called “intrinsically evil” actions. They must always be rejected and opposed
and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. In our nation,
“abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the
condition for all others” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on
the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.
23. Similarly, direct threats to the sanctity and dignity of human life, such as human cloning and destructive research on human embryos, are also intrinsically
evil. These must always be opposed. Other direct assaults on innocent human life and violations of human dignity, such as genocide, torture, racism, and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war, can never be justified.
***
27. Two temptations in public life can distort the Church’s defense of human life and dignity:
28. The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and
intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.
29. The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture, war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed.
***
34. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s
opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.
35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.
37. In making these decisions, it is
essential for Catholics to be guided
by a well-formed conscience that
recognizes that all issues do not
carry the same moral weight and
that the moral obligation to oppose
intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience
formed by Catholic moral teaching.
Oops - forgot paragraph 36:
36. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil (my note: see paragraphs 22 and 23), the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.
I wonder, how does an unborn baby weigh more on the morality scale than our soldiers and the civilians overseas?
The Catholic church does teach a doctrine of just war. You can find that around paragraph 2309 in the Catechism of the Catholic church. So in some instances war is permissible if regrettable in Catholicism. There is never however, a just reason to deliberately end the innocent life of the unborn.
As Emilie has indicated from the Faithful Citizenship document:
that all issues do not
carry the same moral weight and
that the moral obligation to oppose
intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience
formed by Catholic moral teaching.
We know that President elect Obama has ALWAYS voted on the side of abortion even to the point of voting four times to deny medical care to infants born alive after a botched abortion attempt. He has promised to pass the Freedom of Choice Act allowing abortion in all states, at any time for any reason, and he has promised to appoint more justices like Ginsberg to the Supreme Court. This is what disqualified him as a licit moral choice.
The Catholic church does teach a doctrine of just war. You can find that around paragraph 2309 in the Catechism of the Catholic church. So in some instances war is permissible if regrettable in Catholicism.
This is absolutely true, Elena - but just as a point of clarity for anyone tuning in who doesn't follow Catholic issues, the church has strongly opposed the current war in Iraq.
As to Faithful Citizenship and how to interpret it, I think it's something each of us must wrestle with individually, with all its complexity and nuance. I'm comfortable with my decision, and you are comfortable with yours, and I respect that. As I said before, I hope Catholics on both sides of this issue can stop attacking each other and start working together on promoting ways to support pregnant women and encourage them to choose life over abortion. I think that's the big challenge ahead of us.
I just got this in my email this a.m. as I recive mail from Father Corapi:
The American people have now made it abundantly clear who they want to lead them, and the policies and practices that this president-elect has represented for some time, they can now claim as their own. Actions have consequences, and I am sure God has duly noted what our priorities are in the US of A. Economic matters would seem to take precedence over moral matters; money more important than life itself to most people (I guess they don’t consider almost 50,000,000 innocent children murdered by abortion part of life).
Now we shall see what the fruit of such a tree will be. I predict that we won’t have to wait long. In recent months we have seen “corrections” in the stock market, housing market, and banking industries. Now we’ll see if God orchestrates a “correction” in a country and a world that has demonstrated quite clearly that it prefers convenience and wealth to life itself.
Regardless of whatever happens next, remember there is still a God in Heaven and He loves you. He is infinitely merciful—and He is infinitely just as well.
God Bless You
Fr. John Corapi
I totally agree with you Emilie. It will be the biggest challenge in front of us. It will be an even bigger challenge if President-Elect Obama does everything he has promised to do to thwart the pro-life movement.
In the meantime, I will pray for him, that he is open to the will of God for him in his life, and for the future of our great country.
All I can say is we need to Pray, Pray, Pray that his heart will be changed and he will not pass FOCA.
Prayer is indeed very powerful and all things are possible with God!
Post a Comment