Trudeau doesn’t speak for Catholics

The Telegram
Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

On May 8, as I was watching CTV News, I heard Justin Trudeau declare that the federal Liberal party will not accept candidates who harbour pro-life views. This viewpoint did not surprise me. He supports abortion, same-sex marriage, contraception, legalized marijuana and the use of swear words.

Justin Trudeau, the so-called Catholic politician, and other so-called Christian political officials, continue to oppose the church’s most important teaching on the sanctity of human life and sexuality.

Justin Trudeau is a disgrace to the Catholic church and Canadians. His personal beliefs and his actions to not support pro-life candidates in the Liberal party are not in alignment with the party itself or the Catholic church’s teaching.

Canada is a democratic country, and individuals, pro-life or pro-choice, should be allowed to run, be elected and serve in Parliament. It is unconstitutional and not democratic to disavow someone from being a part of a political party simply because they have an opposing opinion about a highly controversial topic.

I would recommend that people, both in or outside of the Liberal party, not support Justin Trudeau’s stance on not allowing people with different viewpoints to be a part of this political party.

Ted Deneschuk

Yorkton, Sask.

Organizations: Catholic church

Geographic location: Canada, Sask.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • Herb Morrison
    June 07, 2014 - 17:17

    Ideally, any Professing Christian"s will and God's will would be the same. As Christians we pray: "Thy will be done." Consequently, as Christians we must continually ask God to reveal what God would have us think, say or do that God's will might be revealed both to us, and, in addition , through us, to thiose around us. God works in and through all Christian people to make God's will known to the world. We all have free will. This includes the free will to choose whether or not be willing to surrender our free will, and think , speak and act in accordance with God's will. Unfortunately, we Christians don't always behave in accordance with God's will. Then we need to believe that a merciful, loving and forgiving God is willing and able to cleanse, heal, empower and renew our souls, so that we will once again be willing and able to be fit servants of God, who will use us to work God's will in the world, that God's name might be glorified among all people

  • Herb Morrison
    June 05, 2014 - 15:31

    Mr. Burke, as a Christian, I do not have free will. Initially, however, God, through Christ gave me the option to either accept or reject the Authority and Divinity of God/Christ; or to reject both the Authority and Divinity of God/Christ. I chose of my own free will to surrender my free will to God/Christ, to place myself under God's/Christ's authority, and to attempt to think, speak or act in accordance with God's will at all times. Free will is not a Christian concept.

    • Colin Burke
      June 05, 2014 - 17:24

      Mr. Morrison, when you say free will is not a Christian concept, do you mean that no denomination claiming to be Christian teaches that humans have free will, or that any denomination which teaches that is not truly Christian? Just curious. You're beginning to sound almost as if you believed yourself to be the only true Christian or at least the only one you can be fairly confident is truly Christian.

  • Herb Morrison
    June 04, 2014 - 17:06

    Mr. Burke. Jesus respects my right to make choices choice. I neither stated or implied that Jesus would either approve of or respect the choices that I make in whatever context I make a particular choice. Furthermore, on a daily basis I pray for forgiveness of my sins, by God's Grace, because of my faith in God and in Jesus as Saviour and Lord, I am freed from carrying around my sins. By Grace through faith, my soul is cleeansed of all of my transgressions.

    • Colin Burke
      June 05, 2014 - 07:02

      Sorry, Mr. Morrison. I seem to have misinterpreted your upholding the very Christian doctrine of free will as approval for abortion. Don't see how I could possibly have made that error; do you? If you can show me where I went wrong, I'll try to avoid such mistakes in future.

  • Herb Morrison
    June 03, 2014 - 18:35

    Mr. Burke, you are intitled to believe that abortion is wrong if you so choose to do so. Your ungodly, unscriptural, judgemental attempt to force your viewpoint down anyone elese's throat , not too forget your declaration that people who are pro-choice are no better than murderers, as I pointed out in my earlier post; flies in the face of what Jesus taught by example when He shows respect for a persons' right to choose, and is not a Christian concept, as I have effectively proven citing the pro-choice stance taken by Christ Himself. It follows logically that if Christ respects our right to choose spiritual life or spiritual death for our own souls, Christ would respect a mother's right to choose whether to let the baby in her womb live or die., saince the soul of that baby will end up in Heaven, safe in Jesus' arms.

    • Colin Burke
      June 04, 2014 - 10:05

      Mr. Morrison, it seems to me that according to your reasoning Christ would not disapprove of my murdering anyone I disliked if that person were innocent enough for his soul to end up in Heaven, safe in Jesus' arms? And if we are not to be at all judgemental, who can say that anyone we might murder is not so utterly innocent as the babe unborn? But thank you for acknowledging that the baby has a soul Jesus cherishes: most "pro-choice" kinda like to keep that quiet.

    • Colin Burke
      June 04, 2014 - 21:53

      Mr. Morrison, I do not choose to believe abortion is wrong; I am convinced of it by this simple process of reasoning: Killing an innocent person is murder. But causing an abortion is the killing of an innocent person. Therefore causing an abortion is murder. Your objecting to my "declaration," as you call it, that pro-choice people are "no better than murderers" seems to imply you believe that murderers themselves are "no better than" -- what? Do you believe everyone who commits murder is utterly despicably worthless, for instance? I don't; that would be judgemental of me, and, besides, I had as a newspaper reporter for more than 20 years attended too many murder trials for that. My seeing clearly, as I believe I do, that abortion is murder does not deprive me of all capacity for sympathy with women who feel compelled to seek abortions; I tend to feel, indeed, that those of us who more clearly see injustice for what it is may the more clearly realize mankind's need for God's mercy. It seems to me also that since Christ respects our choosing life or death for our souls, then logically he would respect a woman's choosing the death of her own soul by murdering her baby and so allow her soul to die if she did not repent of that, if that indeed was what she freely choose in the full knowledge, with a rightly formed conscience, of the nature of what she sought to have done to her child, which I doubt that many women do: most of those who have abortions may well be as confused about the nature of right and wrong as it seems to me that you may appear to be. I am sorry if my attempts at clarity seem belligerently to be an "ungodly, unscriptural, judgemental attempt" to force my "viewpoint" down your poor unwilling throat, but they appear to me, who admittedly am not qualified to judge my own case, simply to be the presentation of an irrefutable case against abortion which the pro-choice resent as belligerent precisely because they cannot refute it but do not want to accept it. Is it not true, I ask you, that killing an innocent person is wrong, or that abortion entails killing an innocent person? For if either of these statements is false, there goes much of the case against women's being allowed to kill babies. There may be other arguments against it, but this is chief one and the most logical.

  • Herb Morrison
    May 31, 2014 - 17:11

    Mr. Burke, when Jesus Christ left it up to mere mortals to choose the fate of our own immortal souls, you would need to concede that this represents the ultimate endorsement of a persons' right to choose, regardless to the context in which the choice is made. Jesus specifically stated, as is recorded in Scripture, that we have the right to either accept or reject the reality that God, through Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit is the only one who can support us Spiritually in this world, or provide eternal Spiritual life in Heaven following our physical demise The Scripture writer says that Jesus knocks at the door of our hearts offering the above-mentioned Spiritual support and eternal Spiritual life, and we are free to choose which course of action to take. You wanted to see the principle on which I base my pro choice stance? There it is.

    • Colin Burke
      June 03, 2014 - 08:22

      Mr. Morrison, I already knew that the fate of my immortal soul depends on the choices I make. But that does not explain why a person who performs an abortion while believing it to be murder should go unpunished while someone who might murder you out of sheer frustration at trying to get you to talk sense with regard to particular choices ought to be locked up for the rest of his life (I would prefer both of these to be beheaded, but maybe that's just me, as they say.) Why should the state punish one wrong choice as a crime while another essentially the same should affect only the sinner's soul? That is my question, and you have not yet answered that to my satisfaction.

  • Colin Burke
    May 31, 2014 - 07:52

    No, it is not unconstitutional and not undemocratic to prevent someone from using a party with which he disagrees, to get himself elected. An individual does not have to belong to the Liberal Party, or any other party, in order to seek election to Parliament. What applies to Catholics applies also to political parties: you belong to the group and follow its rules or you don't; you ought not to be part of it in order to subvert its purposes. Unfortunately, in Canada these days, that approach meets with more approval generally than actually opposing one's foes directly and physically: that would not be "democratically trusting to the vote," which is sacred and must be trusted exclusively, to the detriment of practicality in politics.

  • Herb Morrison
    May 30, 2014 - 16:19

    Mr. Burke. The Pro Choice Principle, which I embrace, coming as it does from the lips of Jesus Christ, as recorded in Scripture, constitutes the ultimate endorsement ofof a persons' right to choose. As a Christian I believe that the support, nurture and preservation of my immortal soul, or anyone elsesshould be my primary concern. I believe, as a Christian that God, through Christ, by tf the Holy Spirit is theonly true source of my spiritual well-being in this world and eternal Spiritual life in Heaven, following my physical death. Despite whast is at stake here, despite all the power that God, Christ, or the Holy Spirit have, Jesus tells me that I l have the right to choose between Spiritual life or Spiritual death. Jesus said that He stands t the door to peoples' hearts and it is up to the people in question to choose to either to let him into their lives or to choose tronot let Him into their lives. There you have it Mr. Burke, straight from the Almighty Himself, an endorsement of the principle of freedom of choice on which I base my belief in a persons' right to choose, within the context of any situation. Seeit? Satisfied??

  • Herb Morrison
    May 28, 2014 - 19:13

    Mr. Burke, I have no interest in rebutting the beliefs of Christians of any Christian Tradition, Iincluding the beliefs of Traditionally -minded Catholics, yep, I guess you could say I'm pro-choice within the context as well. However, I an not surprised that anyone raised in the hierarchial, authoritarian atmosphere of the Roman Catholic Trdition, would have difficulty comprehending, the principle of pro choice, which is your right. If something I post pertaining to my Christian beliefs conflicts with the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, my principle goal is to express my Beliefs, If in the process of expressing my Christian Beliefs, I rebuff your Tradional Roman Catholic Beliefs, it was not my primary intention to do so. I find your assertion to the contrary to be just a tad arropgant. You are entitled to believe as you wish, but your assertion that the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, and only the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, constitute the "God's Truth," if you will, is in my opinion, more likely to be the product of an overinflated ego or egos than it is to be a product of Divine inspirarion.

    • Colin Burke
      May 30, 2014 - 11:34

      Mr. Morrison, my rejecting various principles which favour allowing abortion does not necessarily mean I fail to comprehend them. One such principle might be the notion that the ability to choose anything validates whatever choices we make; it suggests that no choice anyone makes can ever be the wrong choice. That might seem, from the fact that pro-choice people appear never to accept any reason for not having abortion and never to reject any reason for having one, to be the principle which the pro-choice principally endorse. But maybe not, for it does not allow, apparently, of approval for one adult's murdering another just because he can make that choice. Maybe the principle you follow derives from the difficulty women have in actually choosing between abortion and bringing their child to term. If that were only a difficulty of choosing to experience one set of painful emotions rather than another, I should have no objection whatever to a woman's making that choice as freely as is possible in the circumstances. But I believe that the actual choice is between experiencing hardship and doing something wrong, and I believe that one must always avoid doing wrong. I can explain why I believe abortion is wrong if you have so far led so sheltered a life as never to have encountered moral arguments against it. Maybe the pro-choice principle you follow is neither of the ones I've suggested, but in that case I'd like to see it stated before you take it for granted that I find it difficult to understand it. That would be more convenient for me than my having to posit every whim which might occur to anyone pro-choice and asking whether it's the one you endorse.

  • Starr
    May 27, 2014 - 00:25

    What Justin Trudeau is doing is nothing short of bullying and denying citizens their democratic rights while exercising his own beyond the extend of the constitution and the law of the country. Also, if he wants to be Catholic (I am not Catholic) he needs to come in alignment with the Catholic church's teaching. Its as simple if you want to be part of the club you have to abide by he rules. He can't have one foot on either side. For someone whose father read the Bible to them and too them to church, he is not very smart - it seems he learned nothing from the Bible nor church doctrines.

    • Colin Burke
      May 28, 2014 - 09:30

      Exactly, Starr; he learned far more from his father, who legalized abortion in the first place, than from the Bible or church doctrines.

  • Charles Kennedy
    May 26, 2014 - 20:46

    My oh my.Those holier than thow Catholics have so quickly forgotten about the burning at the stake of non Catholic Christians,Bruno and the house arrest of Galilao.Oh yes and all the sex abuse by priests.If I were Catholic I would hide in the shadows and hope nobody would see me;not pontificate in the local papers

    • Colin Burke
      May 28, 2014 - 14:09

      At least Bruno and other heretics proved by being burned alive their own sincerity -- or at least the power of their malignancy -- beyond reasonable doubt. Would facing the same fate perhaps prompt you to look more closely into Catholicism's credentials or would you continue sincerely to scoff? For anyone can scoff while scoffing is fashionable and even practised by a secular eminence like Bob Wakeham.

  • You don't speak for ME!
    May 26, 2014 - 14:07

    You're right, Justin Trudeau doesn't speak for Catholics, he speaks for himself and the Liberal Party of Canada, which, as their leader, he has the right to do. He also has NOT said that the party, "will not accept candidates who harbour pro-life views", but that future Liberal candidates, while entitled to hold their own personal views, " will be expected to vote pro-choice on any bills" related to abortion. YOU, Mr. Deneschuk, also do not speak for Catholics, but only for you, yourself. Yet, in your letter, you are implying that you do speak for all Catholics. You definately do not speak for me. While I do not support any particular party and have voted for all three parties in the past, Justin Trudeau's decisive stance (and his willingness to publicly state this stance) on issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, contraception, and legalized marijuana has ensured that he will get my vote in the next election!

    • Colin Burke
      May 28, 2014 - 09:39

      Justin Trudeau has indeed the right, and indeed the duty, to speak for the Liberal Party. But it seems to me he is trying to make the party speak for him, which then would imply that the party was not necessary in the first place; speaking for the party is not the same as dictating to it.

  • Herb Morrison
    May 26, 2014 - 07:47

    I am not Roman Catholic. Speaking from a Protestant perspective, in my opinion. the time of more Traditionally -minded Roman Catholics would be better spent curbing their trendency to speak on behalf of all Christians, of an as if they have the God-given authority to do so. I find this perchance for doing so, to be offensive to say the least. Consequently, it might be a good idea for the afore-mentioned traditionally -minded Catholics, like Mr. Deneschuk to "put theirhis own house in order," before pointing a judgemental finger at Mr. Trudeau, and accusing him of doing the exact same thing, which Traditionally-minded Catholics routinedly do themselves, within the context of other situations.

    • Colin Burke
      May 28, 2014 - 09:48

      Mr. Morrison, might not your own time be better spent in actually rebutting the beliefs of Catholics than in complaining that Catholics act on what seem to be their beliefs?