What's Wrong With Contraceptives?

Ever since January 20, 2012 when the Obama administration and The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that they would enforce a rule mandating that all private health care plans cover sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception, there have been a multitude of articles and columns written arguing the politics of  the ruling known as the HHS Mandate. 

What everyone hears about the mandate is that The Catholic Church is against contraception.  What most people don’t know is why. This is a good teaching moment not just for all Catholics but for all Christians, women, men, all people.  I will attempt to show that:

• The Bible teaches that contraception is sinful.  It goes against God’s “natural law.”
• Contraceptives cause abortions.  The “pill” is an abortifacient. 
• Contraceptives are not health care. There are many side effects that cause other health problems.
• The increase in contraceptive use can be tied to the decline in our culture.
• There is a better way.  It’s called NFP!

It is important to note that there are accepted uses of contraceptives such as to decrease ovarian, cancer, some uterine cancers, and for “hormone replacement therapy”.   These are accepted uses because they are not used to prevent conception, but actually used to treat a disease or medical condition.  The focus of this article is those contraceptive uses are used prevent children from being conceived. 

Contraception use dates back to as early as 1900BC when ancient scrolls described methods of birth control such as balls of wool and potions that were used to prevent conception. 

Up until 1930, all religions taught that the use of contraception was sinful.  Then the Anglican Church pressured for social reasons announced that contraception was ok in some instances.  Soon after, they completely caved in, allowing contraceptive use across the board.  By the 1960’s other Protestant churches followed suite.  Only the Catholic Church has remained true to the original teachings.  

What happened? Why did these other churches change their teachings? The Bible didn’t change. Jesus and the Apostles didn’t come back and say it was ok. God didn’t appear and hold a news conference on this. What authority did these religions have to change the teachings of the Bible?
These are teaching that have been taught for over 2,000 years. These interpretations are not open to public opinion.

Here’s what the Bible teaches.

1. Contraception is wrong because it goes against “natural law.” God created women for one purpose. Procreation! In fact His first command to humankind, He gave a blessing and said to be fruitful and multiply. (Genesis 1:27-28)

 

27 God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.

This command is repeated in Genesis 9:1 and Genesis 35:11.  It is obvious that birth control involves disobedience to this command because it is an attempt to prevent being fruitful and multiplying. 

2. Children are a Blessing from God while childlessness is a bad thing.  Psalm 127 compares children to a warrior whose quivers are full of arrows.  I know that if I were a warrior, I would want a lot of arrows.  (Psalm 127:3-5)

3 Children too are a gift from the LORD, the fruit of the womb, a reward. 4 Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children born in one's youth. 5 Blessed are they whose quivers are full. They will never be shamed contending with foes at the gate.

In 1 Chronicles 25: 5 God gave Heman 14 sons and 3 daughters.  In 1 Chronicles 26 4-5 Obed-edom was blessed with 8 sons. 

It is very obvious that birth control prevents children from being conceived.  It also prevents children from being born and people from receiving the blessings from God.  So you don’t want this blessing or don’t think you need it.  Think again.  Esau in Genesis 25:29-34 sold his blessing (birthright) for a bowl of stew.  For this in Hebrews 12:16,  Easau was called an immoral or profane person. 

Childlessness is not a good thing.  In fact, when God uses this as a punishment to the nation of Israel in Hosea 9:10-17, He prevents conception, pregnancy and childbirth and killed those children who survived.  God views childlessness or fewer children as a negative thing.   Check out how God rewards those who follow his laws in Exodus 23:25-26 and Deuteronomy 7:13-14 with lots of children. 

3. The Onan Incident. There was a Jewish law that when a mans brother passed away; it was his duty to go to his wife and perform for her and to raise up the offspring. (Genesis 38:8-10)

8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Unite with your brother's widow, in fulfillment of your duty as brother-in-law, and thus preserve your brother's line." 9 Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother's widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too.

God was obviously displeased with Onan’s disobedience to the law. His punishment for refusing to perform for his brothers’ widow would have just been public humiliation. (Deuteronomy 25:5-10)

 

5 "When brothers live together and one of them dies without a son, the widow of the deceased shall not marry anyone outside the family; but her husband's brother shall go to her and perform the duty of a brother-in-law by marrying her. 6 The first-born son she bears shall continue the line of the deceased brother, that his name may not be blotted out from Israel. 7 If, however, a man does not care to marry his brother's wife, she shall go up to the elders at the gate and declare, 'My brother-in-law does not intend to perform his duty toward me and refuses to perpetuate his brother's name in Israel.' 8 Thereupon the elders of his city shall summon him and admonish him. If he persists in saying, 'I am not willing to marry her,' 9 his sister-in-law, in the presence of the elders, shall go up to him and strip his sandal from his foot and spit in his face, saying publicly, 'This is how one should be treated who will not build up his brother's family!' 10 And his lineage shall be spoken of in Israel as 'the family of the man stripped of his sandal.'

But Onan went one step further by making himself infertile (Coitus interruptus). For that the penalty was death.

4.  This interpretation is carried into the New Testament in Acts 5:1-11 when Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead because they withheld part of a gift to God.  Remember that fertility is gift from God and cannot be withheld. 

5.  In Malachi 2:14-15 Marriage is looked at as a covenant not just with husband and wife but also with God.  And what does God require out of that covenant.  “Godly offspring”.  Matthew 19:5-6 and Ephesians 5:31 also refer to the marital covenant.  It what God wants out of that covenant is Godly offspring then it is apparent that contraception would violate the covenant preventing God’s ability to bring the married couple together.    

6.  In (1 Timothy 2:15) St Paul teaches us that bearing children/motherhood can be seen as a means of sanctification and salvation. 

15 But she will be saved through motherhood, provided women persevere in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

7.  In (1 Corinthians 6: 19-20) we are told that our bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit and we must give glory to God in our bodies by being open to His will. 

 

19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20 For you have been purchased at a price. Therefore, glorify God in your body.

8.  In Galatians 5:19-26; Revelation 9:21 and Revelation 21:8 the word “sorcery” is mentioned.  The Greek translation for this word is “pharmakeia”.  It is possible that this might refer to the birth control issue as “pharmakeia” in general was the mixing of various potions for secret purposes, and it is known that potions were mixed in the first century A.D. to prevent or stop a pregnancy.”

 

Also, check out what the Church Fathers had to say about this issue. The Church Fathers are those who came after the apostles.  Why is that important?  Remember, there was no official Bible until the year A.D. 405.  Some bishops had inspired lists of books and there was the Old Testament, so a good place to go would be the writings of the Church Fathers – those who came after the apostles.  For instance Clement of Alexandria in A.D. said, 

"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Check out more quotes from the Chruch Fathers here

Even the reformers, Martin Luther and John Calvin taught that contraception was evil. 

As you can see, according to the Bible contraception is sinful!  For a more complete list forBiblical references to contraception, check here.

Contraceptives cause abortions. 

The Pill is known as an abortifacient, in other words it is know to cause abortions. Here’s how. As all embryologists and medical textbooks will tell you, each and every human life begins at conception (fertilization).  That’s when 23 chromosomes from the mother (the ovum or egg) come together with 23 chromosomes from the father (the sperm) to create a new unique 46 chromosomed individual.  Once the sperm penetrates the ovum, a new human being has been created.  At this point this one cell has all of the information DNA needed to develop in to a mature adult.  Many stages of development will begin.  In fact our human bodies develop into adulthood.  During the first stage, that cell, now called the embryo will begin its journey down through the mothers’ tube toward the womb.  During the first week it will divide many times until it now has millions of cells.  After a week, this new human or embryo will implant within the lining of the mothers’ uterus.   

Some contraceptives, the Pill, Plan B, The IUD, Nuva Ring, Yaz and Yasmini, the mini pill, the patch, Depo-Provera, all contain hormones that affect the endometrium, or lining of the womb making it more hostile to implantation.  When this happens, the embryo is prevented from implanting.  It will not be able to attach to the uterine lining and dies. A very early ABORTION! 

Check out these links for more about how the Pill as an abortifacient:

http://www.lifeissues.org/abortifacients/index.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiCU46_lWeE

Contraception use is not health care. What are the many side effects?

Now pregnancy is being treated as a disease.  Pregnancy is not a disease.  The body is doing something that it was designed to do.  Contraception prevents that pregnancy.  Contraception is not really health care.  Health care is supposed to take that body that is not doing something and that it’s supposed to do and help it to do it.  Contraception does quite the opposite.  It takes a perfectly healthy body and renders it infertile.  No medical association recommends the use of hormonal contraceptives as routine preventive care for healthy women. They are only used for the disruption of normal fertility. To put it simple, these are purely elective treatments that prevent the natural and healthy consequences of a certain lifestyle choice.

But it doesn’t stop there…. There’s more.  Did you know that there are serious side effects to contraceptives?  Would you expose your loved ones, daughters, granddaughters, or nieces to asbestos, second hand smoke, mustard gas, ultraviolet radiation, formaldehyde, or radon gas?  Of course not!  These are all classified by the World Health Organization as Group 1 Carcinogens. That means that they cause cancer.  The Pill is also classified as a Group 1 Carcinogen.  Women who use the Pill have an increased risk of breast cancer.  Check out these links for how women who use the pill are more likely to get breast cancer. 

http://www.1flesh.org/argument_page/pill-breast-cancer-undeniable-link/

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/kah/kah_19breastcancerpill.html

Chris Kahlenborn, MD in tells what a woman should know about birth control:

Other side effects include high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke, heart attack, depression, weight gain, and migraines.  

Diabetics who take oral contraceptives may note increased sugar levels.  Some women who stop taking the pill do not return to their fertility (menstrual cycles) for a year, or longer.

The Pill does decrease ovarian cancer, and some uterine cancers, it also increases liver and cervical cancer.  And at least three studies have shown that the AIDS virus is transmitted more easily to women who are taking the Pill if their partners have the HIV virus. 

Check here for how the pill can cause cardiovascular issues. 

Contraceptives and the decline in our culture.

Increased contraceptive use can be partially attributed to a decline in our culture. 

 

That’s because  as Fr. Don Siciliano of Cinncinnati, Ohio says,
 

 love, marriage, sex and procreation are all things that belong interconnected.

Each of these is a gift from our Creator and meant to be enjoyed only within the Sacrament of Marriage. Further, it is God’s will that each and every act of sexual intimacy contain two elements

1. Must be open to life.
2. Must involve the physical union of husband and wife. 

 

Contraception violates that gift from God and says “no” to the possibilities of new life. 

When that happens, the marriage institution breaks down, families break down, and the culture breaks down. 

For more on this subject, check out Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae. 

Bishop Charles Chaput does a great job of summarizing Humanae Vitae in his 1998 Pastoral Letter.  

Janet Smith does a great job of addressing the issue in her talk “Contraception: Why Not? 

 

There is a better way!  It’s called NFP.

Does that mean that Catholics want women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.  NO! There is another way.  It’s called Natural Family Planning (NFP).  NFP is not just for Catholics.  NFP is for any couple who wants a positive, natural, healthy alternative to sexuality within their marriage or relationship.  This is also known as “fertility awareness”. NFP combines the calendar/rhythm method, the basal body temperature method, and the cervical mucus method.  Women are taught to know when their bodies are most fertile so they can abstain from intercourse during those times.  NFP can also be used the opposite, to help women get pregnant who are having difficultly doing so.  It can also be used as a means of regulating family size. 

NFP is not considered contraception because it does nothing to render the body infertile, withhold the gift of oneself to one’s spouse or to block the procreative nature of intercourse. Bishop Chaput says that

“The marriage covenant requires that each act of intercourse be fully an act of self-giving, and therefore open to the possibility of new life. But when, for good reasons, a husband and wife limit their intercourse to the wife's natural periods of infertility during a month, they are simply observing a cycle which God Himself created in the woman. They are not subverting it. And so they are living within the law of God's love. There are, of course, many wonderful benefits to the practice of NFP. The wife preserves herself from intrusive chemicals or devices and remains true to her natural cycle. The husband shares in the planning and responsibility for NFP. Both learn a greater degree of self-mastery and a deeper respect for each other. It's true that NFP involves sacrifices and periodic abstinence from intercourse. It can, at times, be a difficult road. But so can any serious Christian life, whether ordained, consecrated, single or married. Moreover, the experience of tens of thousands of couples has shown that, when lived prayerfully and unselfishly, NFP deepens and enriches marriage and results in greater intimacy -- and greater joy.”  

The advantages are that its safe – No drugs that cause breast cancer, increased blood pressure, blood clots, etc.  It is effective – When done correctly it is 99-100% effective.  It is very inexpensive – about $25 for a thermometer and charts, and the classes are free!  And most important it works within God’s ‘natural law”. 

Check out these other links for more information about NFP:

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/fertilityawarenessNFP.html

http://www.beginningcatholic.com/catholic-natural-family-planning.html

http://www.popepaulvi.com/

More helpful links:

http://catholicexchange.com/a-rare-gem-an-actual-homily-on-nfp-and-the-evils-of-contraception/

http://www.ewtn.com/library/marriage/cclbc.txt

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html

One Issue Voters and Making a Choice: God or My Job

It’s official.  I have finally been accused of being a one issue voter.  In a Facebook discussion with a fellow postal worker after I explained that I couldn’t vote for President Obama because of his radical pro-abortion record. She came back and told me that “ONE issue voters had helped Republicans destroy the middle class.  Then she tried to lay the guilt trip on me suggesting that a vote for a Republican would mean that my employer the US Postal Service would be privatized.  “Where do you think YOU will work after that?” she asked.  Finally she used the scare tactic that a vote for Romney would mean the elimination of the Federal Employees retirement benefits and my ability to retire before I die.  

Here’s my response: 

I guess I’m a one issue voter if that’s what you want to call me. I look at as not being a one issue voter; however one issue can disqualify a candidate. Let me ask you this and please give me an honest answer. Abortion is morally evil. Other things are also morally wrong such as terrorism, racism, slavery, rape, etc. Take any one of those issues substitute it for abortion. What if you were alive in 1860 with these same two candidates? All the other issues are the same but President Obama supports slavery, while Mitt Romney is against slavery. Would you still vote for President Obama?

Here’s what I do know. I will always follow my church and God. God is the reason that I am here on earth. He will get me to heaven. The Postal Service while it pays the bills is just that. It’s a career that I like. But it won’t get me to heaven. When it comes to God or the Postal Service, that’s an easy choice, I will always choose God. I can always find another job.

My church teaches me that there are “5 Nonnegotiable” issues. These are Abortion, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide, and The Redefinition of Marriage. Those issues are nonnegotiable because the Bible teaches us that these issues are intrinsically evil because they are always wrong. There are other issues such as health care, immigration, poverty, environment, and yes even the survival of the US Postal Service. But these other issues do not carry as much weight because the Bible does not tell us what levels various government programs should be funded at or whether the federal government, state, or local government, the private sector, or some combination of the above is best equipped to deal with certain problems.”

In the elections this year there is a clear difference between the two candidates. President Obama is the most pro-abortion president in modern time. He also promotes the other nonnegotiable issues. Mitt Romney on the other hand was also pro-choice at one time, but about halfway through his term as Massachusetts Governor, he had a conversion declaring that he was pro-life. What caused him to change? The pressure to change the law protecting embryos from lethal stem cell research. Romney sat down and had discussions with pro life doctors and came away convinced that all human life begins at conception. Romney still isn’t 100% pro-life as he leaves an exception for cases as rape or incest or to save the life of the mother. He also believes that federal funds should not be used to pay for it. The difference is clear.

Romney is also against same sex marriage while President Obama has gone on record as supporting it.

As a Catholic and as Christian, I have a moral obligation to use all of the means at my disposal as a voter to resist intrinsically evil public policies, even if it means subordinating their political preferences on other important concerns.” To vote for a candidate who supports these intrinsic evils because he or she supports these evils is to participate in a grave moral evil. It can never be justified because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy. Catholics who depart from Church teaching on these issues separate themselves from full communion with the Church. If I want to get to heaven I can’t do that.

 

Why a Catholic Can't vote for Obama

Catholics make up a big sized voting bloc.  One in four voters is Catholic.  Four years ago, when Barak Obama won the presidential election, 54 percent of voting Catholics side with the Democratic nominee.  Many bought into his “Hope and Change.  Most didn’t check out his pro abortion record as an Illinois Senator.  Or they just didn’t care.  Some voted for him because they and their families had voted Democrat for years.  Others were not well informed.

Now four years later, I can’t see Obama getting close to that 54%.  He will go down in history as the most pro abortion president.  On top of that his HHS mandate that religious employers (the Catholic Church) through their insurance companies provide contraceptives for their employees is sure to erode his Catholic support. I don’t how anyone can call themselves Catholic and support a President that is attempting to strip our God given rights of religious freedom out from under us.  But there will some who do. 

That 54 per cent hit close to home recently for me when I responded to a Facebook post for a Catholic friend and former co-worker who seemed to be supporting Obama.   Since then I’ve learned that some of my cousins also are Catholic for Obama.  I’m sure that there are many more Catholics that will side with the President, even though the Church teaches that it is wrong for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who is pro abortion when another candidate is pro-life.   That is the case this year.  Many priests refuse to bring up the political and moral issues such as abortion, homosexual marriage, and religious freedom as is the case in my parish.  The Catholic Church doesn’t have a good track record of teaching what it believes. On top of that, the mainstream media has not been fair in vetting Obama. 

 
A couple of weeks ago the Democratic and Republican parties held their conventions. I can say after watching both conventions, that I’m proud to be a Catholic Republican with the emphasis on Catholic.  At the RNC, the spotlight was on the religious values of Mitt Romney.  Helping to paint that picture were pro-life Catholics such as Jeb Bush, Rick Santorum, Susana Martinez, Marco Rubio, and of course VP candidate Paul Ryan.  They are all politicians that are guided by their faith.  They are all Catholics first. 

Former Denver, now Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput, in a recent column talks about what it means to have Catholic faith and public life.  He stresses that

“we need to be Catholics first and political creatures second”.  

He goes on to say that 

“Hell is real"

 and that,

‘if we do not help the poor, we will go to hell”.

Then he defines the poor as 

“people who are homeless or dying or unemployed or mentally disabled. 

 

and,

 They’re also the unborn child who has a right to God’s gift of life, and the single mother who looks to us for compassion and material support”.

Many Catholics try to weigh the life and moral issues versus the political issues.  As Catholic voters we can’t do that. At the DNC Julian Catsro, Kathleen Sebelius, Caroline Kennedy, Sister Simone Campbell, Eva Longoria, and VP Joe Biden also call themselves Catholic.  They all came out on to stage with the message “I am Catholic but…”  They showed their support for abortion, contraception, and gay marriage – all things that the Catholic Chruch teaches are evil.  Bishop Thomas Olmstead of Phoenix talks about “Rebutting the Catholic but syndrome” in a column from 2004.

I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry or what. My biggest problem with their message is how many times that they talked about values.  They wouldn’t know a value is it jumped up and bit them in the rear.  How do you have values when you deny and boo God three times?  How do you have values when abortion, contraception and gay marriage are at the center of your platform?  Those aren’t Catholic or Christian values! 

I have said many times in the past that the Catholic Church is not a smorgasbord where one can pick and choose what they want to believe.  That would be like ripping pages out of the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” or “The Bible” because you don’t agree with what is printed on those pages. We can’t do this! Those who do this are “Cafeteria Catholics”. 

We have an obligation as Catholics not only to learn what our Church teaches but to follow those teachings. Every time we receive Holy Communion we not only receive the True Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, we also affirm that we accept and believe all of the teachings of the Catholic Church.  That’s why we don’t have an open communion table.  That’s why the bishops of Sebelius, Biden,  and some other Cafeteria Catholics have asked them not to receive communion. 

So back to my friends and relatives who are Catholic.  What does the Church teach about voting?  Can we weigh the moral or life issues versus the social issues?  Not according to our Catholic bishops. Can we vote for Obama?  Simply put, the answer is no, because there is a clear cut distinction between Obama and Romney. 

Just this past week, the Bishops of Kansas had a column that ran in the local diocesan newspaper, “The Catholic Advance”. "Bishops: Election Year Priorities for Catholic Voters"  

 

They are clear that

 “not all political issues carry the same weight.” 

They list five of these issues as 

 

"Not Negotiable

1.      Abortion

2.      Embryonic Stem Cell Research

3.      Euthanasia

4.      Assisted Suicide

5.      The Redefinition of Marriage

 

"These issues are intrinsically evil. Something is understood to be intrinsically evil if it is evil in and of itself regardless of our motives or the circumstances. These matters are not negotiable for they contradict the natural law, available to everyone through human reasoning, and they violate unchanging and unchangeable Catholic moral principles.”

"Catholics who depart from Church teaching on these issues separate themselves from full communion with the Church.”

 

The Bishops separate other issues as public policy. 


These include: 

“immigration, poverty, environmental protection, criminal justice, health care, and many many others.

 

Catholics should not be indifferent to these issues because they bear directly upon the common good.  The bishops, however, do put a different weight upon them because

“Holy Scripture and Scared Tradition do not tell us what levels various government programs should be funded at or whether the federal government, state, or local government, the private sector, or some combination of the above are best equipped to deal with certain problems.”

 

The bishops go on to put a priority on the intrinsically evil issues.

 

“While it may run counter to the prevailing political culture, the moral imperative of ending abortion, which has claimed the lives of over 50 million unborn Americans since 1973, takes priority over even critically important issues like restoring America’s broken economy. Catholics have a moral obligation to use all of the means at their disposal as voters and as public officials to resist intrinsically evil public policies, even if it means subordinating their political preferences on other important concerns.”

Pope John Paul II in his 1988 exhortation “Christifideles Laici says 
 

“ Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights—for example the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture—is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic fundamental right and condition for all other personal rights is not defended with maximum determination.”

At this point I will emphasize that The Catholic Church is not trying to tell us what political party to belong to or vote for. Their job is to simply help us form our consciences. As most Catholic Bishops will tell you, it is not their duty to tell you for whom to vote, but they do have an obligation to speak out on moral issues.  The Catholic bishops said in their column: 

“The Church has a constitutional right, like other organizations, to express its viewpoint on matters of public policy. However, the Catholic Church is not a political interest group. Rather than instructing Catholics who to vote for, the Church’s role in the political process is to illuminate the moral dimension of the various political issues, and to form the consciences of Catholics so that they can make morally informed judgments as both voters and elected officials

 

Now let’s look at the two candidates.  How do they stack up on the non-negotiable issues?  In a perfect world both candidates would stand with the Church on all of these issues and we could then move on to the public policy issues.  That however is not the case this year. 

1. Abortion – President Obama is the most pro abortion president that this country has ever seen.  As an Illinois State Senator, he voted 3 times against laws that would protect babies born alive after failed abortions. He also has a 100% track record against bills that would ban partial-birth abortions.  Check out his complete pro abortion record asour president. 

At one time Mitt Romney was also pro-choice, but about halfway through his term as Massachusetts Governor, he had a conversion declaring that he was pro-life.  What caused him to change? The pressure to change the law protecting embryos from lethal stem cell research.  Romney sat down and had discussions with pro life doctors and came away convinced that all human life begins at conception.  Romney still isn’t 100% pro-life as he leaves an exception for cases as rape or incest or to save the life of the mother. He also believes that federal funds should not be used to pay for it.  The difference is clear. Here is what he would do if elected president.

2. Embryonic Stem Cell Research - There is also a clear choice here. During his first term as president, President Obama announced the signing of Executive Order 13505 Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells.  He also supports federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.  Romney while supporting stem cell research is against the practice of cloning or embryo farming as a source for cells because it takes away new life.  Mitt Romney believes that there should be ethical lines drawn, President Obama does not.

3 and 4.  Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide – There is not a clear choice between the candidates on these issues… President Obama on the issue

"one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don't stand to gain from the extra care.”

suggests that he would support euthanasia or assisted suicide.  Romney while not making any clear statements on the issues has gone on record as supporting the right of the family to make such decisions.  On this issue, I’m not sure I would trust either candidate with my life.  Note to self:  Make out living will!    

 

5. The Redefinition of Marriage - There is a clear choice here.   While President Obama has a history of flip flopping on this issue his latest statements suggest that he would support same sex marriage.  Mitt Romney is against gay marriage. 

“I believe we should have a federal amendment in the constitution that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and woman, because I believe the ideal place to raise a child is in a home with a mom and a dad."

 

It is obvious that neither candidate measures up 100% to the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Bishops of Kansas City in a Pastoral Letter 4 years ago addressed this possibility. In this case,

 

“the appropriate judgment would be to select the candidate whose policies regarding this grave evil will do less harm. We have a responsibility to limit evil if it is not possible at the moment to eradicate it completely.

 

The voter, who himself or herself opposed these policies, would have insufficient moral justification voting for the more permissive candidate.”

That is the case here as both candidates do not measure up 100%. It is obvious that President Obama is the most permissive candidate when it comes to the non-negotiable moral issues and that the policies of Mitt Romney would limit the evil. In this case a Catholic who votes for President Obama

 

“promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.” - BishopThomas John Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, IL

Those are the facts. That is why a Catholic can not vote for President Obama.  Does that mean that as a Catholic you have to vote a straight Republican ticket. No!!!  There are candidates who are pro-abortion in the Republican party, just as there are candidates who are pro-life in the Democratic party. As a Catholic you should always evaluate each candidate and race separately by the above standards.  Does this mean that we are one issue voters?  NO!  What it does mean is that one issue can disqualify a candidate. 

For more on this issue check out the "Voters Guide for Serious Catholics",  or listen to this radio show from Catholic Answers - "How to Vote like a Catholic".