Jakubczyk on Common Sense

Applying faith and reason to ideas, issues and events in today's world

My Photo
Name:

John J. Jakubczyk has been active in the Pro-Life Movement since 1975.  He served as President of Arizona Right to Life, Arizona's largest, oldest and strongest pro-life organization.  He was on the board of AzRTL for many years and now acts as the Arizona delegate to the National Right to Life Committee.  As the founder and president of Southwest Life & Law Center, he continues to use his legal skills to assist in advising, counseling and defending women, children, pro-life activists, organizations, as well as victims of abortion. A national speaker, motivator and adviser since the 1980s, he is very familiar with the history of the movement at the national level.   A founder and past president of Ville de Marie Academy, he served as a trustee for 15 years.  He has been an attorney in private practice for 35 years, is active in his church, married, the father of 11 children, and a proud grandfather.

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Sowing the seeds of confusion

After reading an article in The Times on New Jersey.com. I found it necessary to write the author Jeff Trently and correct him on a few errors. The letter below is self explanatory. Expect to see more of these efforts to sow confusion among Catholic voters as November comes closer.


Dear Mr. Trently,
Your article provides an incorrect assessment of the Catholic position and provides an easily misunderstood conclusion to the USCCB's document re faithful citizenship.
While it is absolutely correct that Catholics must form their consciences and follow those well formed consciences in voting - as in all actions - it is incorrect tot say that Catholics can vote for a pro-abortion candidate when there is a qualified pro-life candidate running for the same office. Indeed the pro-abortion candidate does not meet the threshold test when there is a candidate whose position on abortion is consistent wit church teachings.
Further there is no equal comparison between "racism" which is an "attitude" and abortion which allows for the destruction of a living human being. While racism is wrong and must be condemned, abortion - because it takes a life - is of a greater seriousness and is intrinsically evil.
Thus Catholics are not free to vote for pro-abortion candidates when there is a qualified candidate who opposes abortion. Since none of the candidates espouse any "racist" positions, the racism issue is a non issue in this year's national elections.
Your quotes appear to be selective and misrepresent the rest of the document. In fact one only may consider voting for a "pro-choice" candidate when there is no other alternative and voting for him will not cause any greater harm to the society.
Thus in the case of the national elections, where Obama is very pro-abortion and would repeal, rescind and otherwise lessen certain protections to women and unborn children, one cannot vote for Obama without violating the very clear directives of following a properly formed conscience that must always seek the protection of the weak and the oppressed.
The unborn child is the victim of exploitation and an aggressive attack upon its being. Thus one may argue that this War on the unborn by pro-choice advocates is never justified or permitted and must always be opposed. If one wants to bring up the War in Iraq as a counter-point, then the question becomes to what extent is supporting a candidate who supports the war against the unborn any better than opposing a candidate who supports the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq allows for individuals to make choices and to work out terms to end the hostilities. the war against the unborn has been waged by the liberal democrats and abortion extremists for 35 years and they have no intention to end the hostilities.
I would recommend that you consider that efforts by pro-abortion liberal Catholics and democrats to paint Obama as acceptable to Catholic voters is based upon a serious misreading of the teachings of the Catholic Church.
To form one's conscience, one must embrace goodness and truth. One must study the issues and the candidates and know what they propose and how they have voted. Finally one must pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is not going to counsel anyone to vote for a person who believes it is permissible to kill children, who regrets having voted with the Senate to allow the courts to consider saving Terri Schiavo's life and who believes that Planned Parenthood, the world's largest provider of abortion is a good organization.
I can cite to the text of the document if you question this analysis. However, I would ask you to read the document before presenting an article which can be misunderstood by the public.
The Bishops are not giving the pro-abortionists a pass this election. Church teachings do not change with the wind. The Church has always declared abortion an intrinsic evil. to support the killing of children puts one outside God's plan for the blessing of the human race. It puts one on the side of those who oppose the good,the true and the beautiful. Those who favor abortion have no respect for the inalienable right to life of all persons.
Thank you for considering these thoughts.
John J. Jakubczyk



One should read the booklet, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, if one has any questions one the role of ones conscience in determining how to vote. But let me help you because it is rather simple regardless of how one attempts to complicate the question.

question 1.
Where does the candidate stand on the life issues, i.e. abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide?
question 2.
What is the candidate's voting record on these issues?


question 3.
What does the candidate state he will do if elected to address these issues?

question 4.
Will the candidate's actions or policies cause harm to those at risk, i.e. the unborn, the elderly, the medically disables and dependent?


Deciding who to support is not that difficult this year. John McCain has a 25 year pro-life voting record, is endorsed by Arizona Right to life and the National Right to Life Committee and is committed to selecting judges who will value the sanctity of human life.

Barack Obama has a 100% pro-abortion record according to NARAL, is a proud supporter of Planned parenthood, wants to use tax dollars to pay for abortions, regrets having voted to allow the courts to consider saving Terri Schiavo's life. Barack Obama does not qualify to ask for my vote. He does not cross the threshold of life. He does not meet the basic qualifications to hold public office in my mind because he will not defend, protect and uphold the Constitution which recognizes the 5th and 14th amendment the right to life of all persons.

It is that simple.