An interesting conversation

[SoCalRC]

The problem is that society is slowly beginning to devalue human life. So, we are finding fewer public figures who are willing to take a strong stance on such issues.

That is the underlying logic of the Church’s position. If you compromise on life in any form, you debase it over all.

When we compromise, as in ‘OK, so we not only allow stem cell research, we provide Federal funds for it - but at least it is only some stem cell lines…’ (IE, the President’s position), we demonstrate that our aversion perhaps isn’t as intense as we say.

Compromising is understandable, I feel great intensity about unjust war, with images of wounded vets living in squalor and US troops foraging in trash dumps to up armor their vehicles. Similarly, some Catholics probably share Pope Benedict’s seemingly grave concerns for climate change and the environment. It is, as the Pope has noted, a pro life issue that effects all of humanity. And, obviously, there are folks who think that abortion is the prinicple threat to the faithful.

The problem isn’t that we have different empathy levels for different aspects of Church teaching. Nor is the problem that we compromise, we are all sinners and all fail to live up to Christ’s standard. The problem is when we start telling ourselves that we aren’t compromising, but acting in an inarguably rightous fashion, in moral superiority to any other point of view.

This can create awkward situations indeed. Consider Vern’s often repeated position. Any Catholic who compromises in voting his faith with regards to ‘choice’ (ie, secular law) is, in Vern’s own words, immoral and a detriment to the faith. The idea that the fellow Catholic might actually strongly agree that abortion is bad, but not agree on the priority or effectivness of secular law is “just an excuse”.

But, on the flip side, a Catholic like myself, who will vote for neither pro-choice OR a war that my concience and two Popes say is unjust is also, in Vern’s words, a detriment. In fact, he repeatedly compares that position to being pro-abortion. Somehow, my voting my concience, is a detriment to Vern’s own morally superior path.

This creates a strange situation. The Church tells us that some moral principles do not permit compromise in voting (the document I linked to above lists 9 examples, of which abortion is just one). But encouraging Catholics to compromise less makes me a detriment, and Catholics who don’t compromise ‘just so’ are also a detriment. The question then becomes, who arbitrates moral authority? In the Dogmatic Constitution and the Catechism, it would seem to be the Magesterium, but that position has seemingly already been discarded, even though it is compromise on life that devalues it in the first place…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Why is it Catholic doctrine is interpreted by some to mean, “Unless we have perfect candidates, we can’t vote?”

Or, “If we don’t have perfect candidates, there is no moral guidance at all?”

 

[fix]

Why is it Catholic doctrine is interpreted by some to mean, “Unless we have perfect candidates, we can’t vote?”

Or, “If we don’t have perfect candidates, there is no moral guidance at all?”

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects…

Evangelium vitae

So, we see the pope expects Catholics to reason morally.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Evangelium vitae

So, we see the pope expects Catholics to reason morally.

And therefore they should refrain from raising smokescreens.

Given two candidates, one of whom espouses the pro-life position (albeit imperfectly) and one who espouses the pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

 

[fix]

And therefore they should refrain from raising smokescreens.

Given two candidates, one of whom espouses the pro-life position (albeit imperfectly) and one who espouses the pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

No, I cannot see how they could.

I, also, am wondering where are these other flawless candidates that support the Catholic position totally?

 

[vern_humphrey]

No, I cannot see how they could.

I, also, am wondering where are these other flawless candidates that support the Catholic position totally?

The Candidate Fairy brings them – if you leave your voter registration card under your pillow.

And if the Fairy doesn’t bring a perfect candidate, all bets are off, and it’s morally licit to vote any way you choose. Provided you can rationalize it to yourself.

 

[deb1]

And that is why we must support those who take a strong pro-life stance, and reject those who are pro-choice.

Again and again, I say, if you idenfify with either party, purge your party. Deny pro-choice candidates the nomination. Support pro-life candidates for the nomination – and not just for the Presidency, but for every elected office.

And look at what the parties say they stand for:

From the Republican Party Platform for 2004:

From the current Democratic Party Platform:

I am SLOWLY putting up the platforms of all the canidates on my blog so people can be informed. I highlight in red what each one’s views on abortion is. I think that I only have three candiates up but I am putting some more up tomorrow.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I am SLOWLY putting up the platforms of all the canidates on my blog so people can be informed. I highlight in red what each one’s views on abortion is. I think that I only have three candiates up but I am putting some more up tomorrow.

Good for you.

Let’s work to keep the Republican Party’s planks on right to life, and to eliminate the Democratic Party’s pro-abortion planks.

Yesterday was the Annual Right to Life march. I attended the march in Little Rock, and we circulated a petition to do just that. Now if my Republican friends will hammer the Republican Party and tell them not to back down, and my Democratic friends will get the Democratic Party not to renew that odious plank, we’ll have made real progress.

 

[SoCalRC]

Evangelium vitae

So, we see the pope expects Catholics to reason morally.

Actually, that would appear to be quite false. Notice that “limiting the harm” applies to elected officials contronted with no other choice. However, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (who we look to if we wonder, for example, if the Pope is speaking Ex Cathedra), has explained how this doctrine applies to the laity:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

From #4:

“John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a «grave and clear obligation to oppose» any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them.”

Notice that it does not list just fetal life, but any law that attacks ‘human life’. Pope John Paul II explained what is meant by this in CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, which, in turn, reflected the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. Regarding the concept of limiting the harm, the explaination goes on:

As John Paul II has taught in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae regarding the situation in which it is not possible to overturn or completely repeal a law allowing abortion which is already in force or coming up for a vote, «an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality».

Having introduced the concept of limiting the harm, in a very specific moral context, the document immediately goes on to explain that it is quite limited and should not be abused:

In this context [Limiting the Harm], it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.

When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning…

There are then 9 examples given of such laws. Abortion, Euthenasia, and protection of the human embryo are three of them. So, for example, I would construe that to mean that I cannot vote for George W. Bush because he signed a bill making it easier to removed hydration and nutrition from patients who cannot pay and not only permits stem cell research, but provides Federal funding for it.

The list also includes things like:

Analogously, the family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such.

So, I would interpret this to mean that I cannot vote for **** Cheney, who has publicly supported his daughter’s alternate lifestyle and her use of a procedure we believe violates the rights of the human embryo to bring a child to such a union.

This is no smokescreen, it is an explanation of actual Church Doctrine from the office of the Holy See whose job it is to explain, you guessed it, proper application of Church Doctrine. Should you or Vern choose to ignore it, so be it. We are all sinners who fail to fully live our Faith, but please stop asserting that you have a superior understanding of Church doctrine than the Holy See. After all, the document in question was authored in 2002 by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope) and approved by Pope John Paul II, who previously promolgated EVANGELIUM VITAE and is certainly most aware of his own intent.

 

[SoCalRC]

Why is it Catholic doctrine is interpreted by some to mean, “Unless we have perfect candidates, we can’t vote?”

Or, “If we don’t have perfect candidates, there is no moral guidance at all?”

No, it just means that there is a minimum bar that the Church considers acceptable. You choose lowering the bar instead. Fine. Just stop asserting that the Church endorses compromising on things like euthanasia or stem cell research.

Having collapsed voting Catholic to just a single issue from the Holy See’s list of non negotiables, abortion, one would think that at least THAT teaching would be asserted without compromsise. But we can see from this conversation that you are willing to compromise from Catholic teaching even on that…

 

[vern_humphrey]

No, it just means that there is a minimum bar that the Church considers acceptable. You choose lowering the bar instead. Fine. Just stop asserting that the Church endorses compromising on things like euthanasia or stem cell research.

When did I ever say such a thing?

Either give me a quote where I said it, or apologize.

Having collapsed voting Catholic to just a single issue from the Holy See’s list of non negotiables, abortion, one would think that at least THAT teaching would be asserted without compromsise. But we can see from this conversation that you are willing to compromise from Catholic teaching even on that…

No, you are willing to pretend that, but I never said it.

 

[SoCalRC]

When did I ever say such a thing?

From this thread:

And therefore they should refrain from raising smokescreens.

Given two candidates, one of whom espouses the pro-life position (albeit imperfectly) and one who espouses the pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

Seems like ‘compromise’ on even abortion to me. I’ve pointed out that the GOP is not in alignment with the Church regarding stem cell research or euthanasia in the past - you derided the comments as standard “abortionist apologist” arguments, which seems like a willingness to compromise on those issues as well.

Now, regarding your claim of smoke screens, also in this thread you said:

And if the Fairy doesn’t

bring a perfect candidate, all bets are off, and it’s morally licit to vote any way you choose. Provided you can rationalize it to yourself.

Which are points of view I not only have never expressed, they are in direct opposition to what I have repeatedly stated.

If you are actually interested in avoiding ‘smoke’ and looking at substance, let’s stay with the current exchange.

Fix took a quote from Evangelium Vitae and extrapolated permission to the laity on voting. You not only endorsed the interpretation, you used it as supposed evidence that what I had quoted was a ‘smoke screen’. However, it would be hard to come up with situation where the two of you are more demonstrably wrong.

We don’t have to argue about a proper interpretation of John Paul II’s words. Subsequent to the promulgation of Evangalium Vitae, the Church was concerned enough about miss-interpretations, that it elabortated on the teaching in a Doctrinal Note in 2002 (which I quoted).

That document directly and explicitly refutes Fix’s interpretation, there is no moral relativism permitted for the laity when it comes to voting and teachings the Church considers fundemental.

In this case, we are particularly fortunate. The Pope who promulgated Evangelium Vitae approved the expanded explanation of the teaching. So Fix and I are not arguing over interpretation, Fix is assigning an interpretation to John Paul II’s words that John Paul II himself has specifically refuted.

Further, the Doctrinal Note was signed by then Cardinal Ratzinger as “Prefect”. So, by virtue of declaration of the office, we know that any attempt to extract a similiar missinterpretation of Church teachings from Ratzinger’s other writings is also illicit.

You and Fix are promoting an interpretation of a Pope’s words that the Church has not only refuted, but identified as a possible detriment to the entire faith and an attack on fundemental moral law. This has now been brought to your attention, repeatedly.

Rather you desist and apologize to the Catholics you have mislead is entirely up to the two of you, I demand nothing.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Good for you.

Let’s work to keep the Republican Party’s planks on right to life, and to eliminate the Democratic Party’s pro-abortion planks.

Yesterday was the Annual Right to Life march. I attended the march in Little Rock, and we circulated a petition to do just that. Now if my Republican friends will hammer the Republican Party and tell them not to back down, and my Democratic friends will get the Democratic Party not to renew that odious plank, we’ll have made real progress.

Alas, it seems that the Republican party’s position is sliding away from truly pro-life into the realm of “I’m against it, but the government doesn’t have the right to ban it”. Say goodbye to the myth that there’s a pro-life party in American politics.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Chancellare]

Most democrats are pro-choice, though. The party’s official stance is pro-choice. Every single Democrat candidate that is running for president is pro-choice.

It’s a bit sad that the term ‘Pro-choice’ has become synonymous with abortion by default. If people will just pause and think beyond the catch words, all it takes is an understanding of the crime of murdering a fetus and a vast majority of the so-called liberals will come to their senses and think ‘pro-life’ without having to admit it.
IMHO it is time for us to lessen the use of labels and bring the thinking process beyond the catch phrase.
I think OP’s effort is paying back.

 

[fix]

Actually, that would appear to be quite false. Notice that “limiting the harm” applies to elected officials contronted with no other choice.

The pope was describing the Church’s postion regrading cooperation with evil. It is not exclusive to elected officials as cardinal Ratzinger pointed out in another note. And, I would add the elected official does have a choice. He could not vote at all.

However, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (who we look to if we wonder, for example, if the Pope is speaking Ex Cathedra), has explained how this doctrine applies to the laity:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

From #4:

Notice that it does not list just fetal life, but any law that attacks ‘human life’. Pope John Paul II explained what is meant by this in CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, which, in turn, reflected the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. Regarding the concept of limiting the harm, the explaination goes on:

Having introduced the concept of limiting the harm, in a very specific moral context, the document immediately goes on to explain that it is quite limited and should not be abused:

There are then 9 examples given of such laws. Abortion, Euthenasia, and protection of the human embryo are three of them. So, for example, I would construe that to mean that I cannot vote for George W. Bush because he signed a bill making it easier to removed hydration and nutrition from patients who cannot pay and not only permits stem cell research, but provides Federal funding for it.

The list also includes things like:

So, I would interpret this to mean that I cannot vote for **** Cheney, who has publicly supported his daughter’s alternate lifestyle and her use of a procedure we believe violates the rights of the human embryo to bring a child to such a union.

This is no smokescreen, it is an explanation of actual Church Doctrine from the office of the Holy See whose job it is to explain, you guessed it, proper application of Church Doctrine. Should you or Vern choose to ignore it, so be it. We are all sinners who fail to fully live our Faith, but please stop asserting that you have a superior understanding of Church doctrine than the Holy See. After all, the document in question was authored in 2002 by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope) and approved by Pope John Paul II, who previously promolgated EVANGELIUM VITAE and is certainly most aware of his own intent.

I have no idea why you keep stating what you do as it is confusing and obfuscating. Are you denying the Church says a voter may vote to limit evil if only two candidates have a chance of winning any particular election?

You leave out the concept of proportionate reasons in these cases. It seems you leave off the parts you do not like, simply repeat certain passages you do like, never reconcile them appropriately, and then draw erroneous conclusions.

 

[fix]

That document directly and explicitly refutes Fix’s interpretation, there is no moral relativism permitted for the laity when it comes to voting and teachings the Church considers fundemental.

Rubbish. What the document does not say is that your interpretation is correct. I stand by that document and the note from Cardinal Ratzinger. I leave the interpetation to Rome, not you.

 

[fix]

The Candidate Fairy brings them – if you leave your voter registration card under your pillow.

And if the Fairy doesn’t bring a perfect candidate, all bets are off, and it’s morally licit to vote any way you choose. Provided you can rationalize it to yourself.

Right, or those who tacitly support abortion make circuitous arguments without merit in an attempt to dismantle Church teaching.

 

[vern_humphrey]

From this thread:

It must take impressive mental gymnastics to arrive at** that** conclusion!

Seems like ‘compromise’ on even abortion to me.

It “seems” like it to you? Your spin is to be accepted as the truth?

I’ve pointed out that the GOP is not in alignment with the Church regarding stem cell research or euthanasia in the past -

Please cite that plank of the Republican Party that endorses stem cell research or euthanasia.

you derided the comments as standard “abortionist apologist” arguments, which seems like a willingness to compromise on those issues as well.

“Which seems like a willingness to compromise?” You put your spin on it, and that makes it so?

Now, regarding your claim of smoke screens, also in this thread you said:

Which are points of view I not only have never expressed, they are in direct opposition to what I have repeatedly stated.

By your own standards, others get to interpret what you say – and you have to accept that.

If you are actually interested in avoiding ‘smoke’ and looking at substance, let’s stay with the current exchange.

Fix took a quote from Evangelium Vitae and extrapolated permission to the laity on voting.

“Extrapolated permission to the laity on voting?” What does that mean in English?

You not only endorsed the interpretation, you used it as supposed evidence that what I had quoted was a ‘smoke screen’. However, it would be hard to come up with situation where the two of you are more demonstrably wrong.

But since your position seems like a smokescreen to me, it must be a smokescreen, by your own standards.

We don’t have to argue about a proper interpretation of John Paul II’s words. Subsequent to the promulgation of Evangalium Vitae, the Church was concerned enough about miss-interpretations, that it elabortated on the teaching in a Doctrinal Note in 2002 (which I quoted).

That document directly and explicitly refutes Fix’s interpretation, there is no moral relativism permitted for the laity when it comes to voting and teachings the Church considers fundemental.

So you accuse him of moral relativism? Directly?

In this case, we are particularly fortunate. The Pope who promulgated Evangelium Vitae approved the expanded explanation of the teaching. So Fix and I are not arguing over interpretation, Fix is assigning an interpretation to John Paul II’s words that John Paul II himself has specifically refuted.

“So Fix and I are not arguing over interpretation, Fix is assigning an interpretation.”

Is there an English version of this available?

Further, the Doctrinal Note was signed by then Cardinal Ratzinger as “Prefect”. So, by virtue of declaration of the office, we know that any attempt to extract a similiar missinterpretation of Church teachings from Ratzinger’s other writings is also illicit.

“Illicit?”

It is your spin that someone is assigning a “misinterpretation.”

You’re pulling the standard ploy of pretending you know what others think, and then accusing them of thinking it.

You and Fix are promoting an interpretation of a Pope’s words that the Church has not only refuted, but identified as a possible detriment to the entire faith and an attack on fundemental moral law. This has now been brought to your attention, repeatedly.

Once again, you’re pulling the standard ploy of pretending you know what others think, and then accusing them of thinking it.

Rather you desist and apologize to the Catholics you have mislead is entirely up to the two of you, I demand nothing.

And all this is your spin, your interpretation of what others think.

Are you going to accuse everyone else of “heresy” and “schism” again, and pronounce “anethema” on us?

 

[fix]

Just to be clear:

Cardinal Ratzinger stated that 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 a candidate’s permissive stand on abortion.” But the question of the moment is whether a Catholic may vote for a pro-abortion candidate for other reasons. The cardinal’s next sentence answered that question: A Catholic may vote for a pro-abortion Catholic politician only “in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

What are “proportionate reasons”? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong. Then we must consider the scope of the evil of abortion today in our country. America suffers 1.3 million abortions each year–a tragedy of epic proportions. Moreover, many supporters of abortion propose making the situation even worse by creating a publicly funded industry in which tens of thousands of human lives are produced each year for the purpose of being “sacrificed” in biomedical research.

Thus for a Catholic citizen to vote for a candidate who supports abortion and embryo-destructive research, one of the following circumstances would have to obtain: either (a) both candidates would have to be in favor of embryo killing on roughly an equal scale or (b) the candidate with the superior position on abortion and embryo-destructive research would have to be a supporter of objective evils of a gravity and magnitude beyond that of 1.3 million yearly abortions plus the killing that would take place if public funds were made available for embryo-destructive research.

 

[fix]

More clarification:

Formal versus Material Cooperation in Evil
Voters are rightly concerned about the degree to which their vote represents cooperation in the evil which a candidate embraces. Obviously, voting for a candidate whose principles exactly coincide with Catholic teaching would eliminate that worry. However, that is a rare, if not non-existent, situation. Even those who embrace Catholic principles may not always apply them correctly. The fact is that most candidates will imperfectly embrace Catholic principles and voting for ANY candidate contains many unknowns about what that candidate believes and will do.

The moral distinction between formal and material cooperation allows Catholics to choose imperfect candidates as the means of limiting evil or preventing the election of a worse candidate. The justification of doing that is described above. Formal cooperation is that degree of cooperation in which my will embraces the evil object of another 's will. Thus, to vote for a candidate because he favors abortion is formal cooperation in his evil political acts. However, to vote for someone in order to limit a greater evil, that is, to restrict in so far as possible the evil that another candidate might do if elected, is to have a good purpose in voting. The voter’s will has as its object this limitation of evil and not the evil which the imperfect politician might do in his less than perfect adherence to Catholic moral principles. Such cooperation is called material, and is permitted for a serious reason, such as preventing the election of a worse candidate. [cf. *Gospel of Life

74]