An interesting conversation

[SoCalRC]

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.

Seemingly not, as I explain here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3222999&postcount=214

Rome clearly and expressly explains the meaning of Limiting the Harm. The explanation is affirmed as being true Doctrine by then Cardinal Ratzinger and approved by Pope John Paull II, who actually introduced the teaching.

Attempting to assign an alternate interpretation to other statements of Cardinal Ratzingers is to accuse the Cardinal of heresy. Any attempt to assign an alternate interpretation to Evangelium Vitae, in the context of lay Catholics voting, is, itself heresy. Since Pope John Paul II wrote the encyclical and approved the Doctrinal Note after.

 

[SoCalRC]

More clarification:

Are you asserting that a lay aritcle has more authority than a Doctrinal Note prepared by our current Pope and approved by the Pope who wrote the Encyclical in question?

In Catholicism, not all moral opinions are equal.

 

[fix]

Seemingly not, as I explain here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3222999&postcount=214

Rome clearly and expressly explains the meaning of Limiting the Harm. The explanation is affirmed as being true Doctrine by then Cardinal Ratzinger and approved by Pope John Paull II, who actually introduced the teaching.

Attempting to assign an alternate interpretation to other statements of Cardinal Ratzingers is to accuse the Cardinal of heresy. Any attempt to assign an alternate interpretation to Evangelium Vitae, in the context of lay Catholics voting, is, itself heresy. Since Pope John Paul II wrote the encyclical and approved the Doctrinal Note after.

You deny the authority of the Pope through Cardinal Ratzinger? You are the one positing an alternative interpretation. Do you deny the explanation by the archbishop?

 

[fix]

Are you asserting that a lay aritcle has more authority than a Doctrinal Note prepared by our current Pope and approved by the Pope who wrote the Encyclical in question?

In Catholicism, not all moral opinions are equal.

Are you claiming your non authoritative interpetation of Church documents is superior to a bishop or theologian loyal to Rome? Superior to then Cardinal Ratzinger?

 

[SoCalRC]

You deny the authority of the Pope through Cardinal Ratzinger? You are the one positing an alternative interpretation. Do you deny the explanation by the archbishop?

I think you are very, very, confused. I am quoting a DOCTRINAL NOTE, from the VATICAN. It carries the fullest authority of the Church and is the ultimate authority on Church doctrine.

You are quoting articles from sources other than the Vatican, which use documents from a different context from Cardinal Ratzinger, which would both attack the authority of then Pope John Paul II and the Cardinal in his capacity as Prefect.

Are you contesting what the words say, or arguing that the Pope and Cardinal did not mean what they say, or that you simply are better at interpreting the Faith, or what?

I am repeatedly arguing that Catholics should follow the VATICAN as closely as possible and look to the VATICAN for authority.

You and Vern seem to object to that concept because it might restrict your secular voting options. But the Church does not care about your poltiics, it cares about Catholics following the Faith.

 

[fix]

I think you are very, very, confused. I am quoting a DOCTRINAL NOTE, from the VATICAN. It carries the fullest authority of the Church and is the ultimate authority on Church doctrine.

Every document can be clarifed as is the job of the living magisterium. Why do you think Cardinal Ratzinger issued the note he issued? Just for fun? Do you think your authority is greater than his?

You are quoting articles from sources other than the Vatican, which use documents from a different context from Cardinal Ratzinger, which would both attack the authority of then Pope John Paul II and the Cardinal in his capacity as Prefect.

No, that is insulting to those loyal Catholics who help explain the faith. You reject archbishop Myers explanation?

Are you contesting what the words say, or arguing that the Pope and Cardinal did not mean what they say, or that you simply are better at interpreting the Faith, or what?

I am saying the words of JPII and Cardinal Ratzinger do not contradict each other. They clarify each other.

I am repeatedly arguing that Catholics should follow the VATICAN as closely as possible and look to the VATICAN for authority.

Then why do you deny Vatican authority when they issue clarification on voting?

You and Vern seem to object to that concept because it might restrict your secular voting options. But the Church does not care about your poltiics, it cares about Catholics following the Faith.

You mean your misunderstanding of the teaching means one is bound in a way the Church does not bind.

 

[SoCalRC]

Every document can be clarifed as is the job of the living magisterium. Why do you think Cardinal Ratzinger issued the note he issued? Just for fun? Do you think your authority is greater than his?

No, I think that the Pope’s is. Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a letter to the Bishops, which is only fractionally quoted and concerned a theological question of infallible teachings.

The document I am quoting is addressed to the laity, is specifically concerned with applying Catholic teaching to voting, was also written by Cardinal Ratzinger, and was approved by the Pope. It is also not just a letter, but a more formal Doctrinal Note.

Now, which is a more authoritive source? An inference from a letter from a Cardinal to a different audience on a different subject, or an official Church document, with Papal approval, that specifically addressed the laity on the exact subject at hand?

If you believe in Papal authority, there is no question. So it only comes down to interpretation. I am not quoting snippets, but long sections. I think the words clearly speak for themselves. If you can show me where the nine examples given that are excluded from an appilcation of limiting the harm and which are identified as the essence of moral law, abridged only at the risk of detriment to the whole Faith, are still allowed to be negotiable, I’m happy to listen.

Otherwise, I am going to continue to suggest that Catholics get Church Doctrine from the Church, not the laity.

 

[fix]

No, I think that the Pope’s is. Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a letter to the Bishops, which is only fractionally quoted and concerned a theological question of infallible teachings.

It specifically addressed the issue Vern brings up. Specifically.

The document I am quoting is addressed to the laity, is specifically concerned with applying Catholic teaching to voting, was also written by Cardinal Ratzinger, and was approved by the Pope. It is also not just a letter, but a more formal Doctrinal Note.

Yes, but that does not answer every specific question. The cardinal wrote what he did in that note to the bishops for a reason. He could have said there is no way to limit evil so tell everyone to stop voting.

Now, which is a more authoritive source?

That is not the issue here. Are you claiming that the Ratzinger note was wrong? That EV carries more weight does not prove that Ratznger’s words do not apply to Catholic voters. Unless, you mean he was wrong?

An inference from a letter from a Cardinal to a different audience on a different subject, or an official Church document, with Papal approval, that specifically addressed the laity on the exact subject at hand?

Again, do you claim his words were wrong or at odds with the Pope’s teaching?

If you believe in Papal authority, there is no question. So it only comes down to interpretation. I am not quoting snippets, but long sections. I think the words clearly speak for themselves.

The Pope addresses formal versus material cooperation with evil. Do you think that only applies one very specific case?

If you can show me where the nine examples given that are excluded from an appilcation of limiting the harm and which are identified as the essence of moral law, abridged only at the risk of detriment to the whole Faith, are still allowed to be negotiable, I’m happy to listen.

You ask the wrong question. The question is- using EV can it be shown one may vote to limit evil. Answer from EV-YES.

Otherwise, I am going to continue to suggest that Catholics get Church Doctrine from the Church, not the laity.

They can and do. What they ought not do is listen to your interpretation. Take a look at archbishop Myers column. Do you have greater authority to interpret papal documents?

 

[FLCathMom]

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.
.

With all due respect, I think you are misreading this passage. I see it as a further explanantion of why a politician must never vote for abortion. One can not justify voting for abortion with the idea of “limiting the harm” caused by an pregnancy such as poverty or health risks to the mother.

I also do not see this as a prohibition against voting for a candidate. This says we must not vote for certain laws, but Americans do not vote for laws, we vote for candidates, and we must vote for the one who will do the most to limit the harm to the defenseless.

 

[vern_humphrey]

With all due respect, I think you are misreading this passage. I see it as a further explanantion of why a politician must never vote for abortion. One can not justify voting for abortion with the idea of “limiting the harm” caused by an pregnancy such as poverty or health risks to the mother.

I also do not see this as a prohibition against voting for a candidate. This says we must not vote for certain laws, but Americans do not vote for laws, we vote for candidates, and we must vote for the one who will do the most to limit the harm to the defenseless.

Isn’t it simple? All we have to do is understand the Church, and it offers us clear guideposts. No need to read into it, no need to take a sentence from here, a word from there, a letter or two from somewhere else to concoct a doctrine.

Given two candidates, one of whom espouses the pro-life position (albeit imperfectly), and the other espouses the pro-choice position, a Catholic cannot morally vote for the latter.

Even SoCalRC admits that – but still wants to fight about it.

 

[SoCalRC]

I also do not see this as a prohibition against voting for a candidate. This says we must not vote for certain laws, but Americans do not vote for laws, we vote for candidates, and we must vote for the one who will do the most to limit the harm to the defenseless.

Actually, that is a legitiamate theological argument. Closer to the content of Cardinal Ratzingers’ letter that is being misapplied. In it, the Cardinal argues the concept of complicency.

This is a theme that Pope Benedict has seemingly returned to in public statements as well. Most theologians, for example, were surprised that the Pope seemingly accepted Cardinal Burke’s interpretation of voting and grievous public sin.

As a very conservative Catholic, I error on the side of compliance. I strive to vote in complience with the 9 broad principles in the Vatican document as well as the 10 issues identified as being of particular interest to US Catholics in a document distributed by the USCCB. I respect that other Catholics choose to compromise for what they see as pragmatic means. I just do not appreciate attempts to claim that their compromises are the only clear choice in Church teaching.

Look at the example here, first I am quoted Evangelium Vitae, then I am shown fragments of a letter from a Cardinal to the Bishops. Then there is noise about Papal authority - the whole time of which I am pointing to a document from the Vatican, expressly on the proper application of the principels involved.

 

[SoCalRC]

Isn’t it simple? All we have to do is understand the Church, and it offers us clear guideposts. No need to read into it, no need to take a sentence from here, a word from there, a letter or two from somewhere else to concoct a doctrine.

How odd, you are agreeing with an interpration that relies on a distinction between voting for law makers, and actual laws. That is, it hinges on a single phrase.

I accept it as reasonable form of theological discussion. Just as voting for a law for abortion was not seen the same as procurring an abortion, until the Church made the connection explicit over the last 125 years. However, you are accepting it as an argument of convenience, becase the distinction that makes some of the ‘non negotiables’ optional would effect all of them, including pro-choice…

 

[vern_humphrey]

I said:

Originally Posted by vern humphrey
Isn’t it simple? All we have to do is understand the Church, and it offers us clear guideposts. No need to read into it, no need to take a sentence from here, a word from there, a letter or two from somewhere else to concoct a doctrine.

And you said:

How odd, you are agreeing with an interpration that relies on a distinction between voting for law makers, and actual laws. That is, it hinges on a single phrase.

Please find within that statement any “agreement with an interpration that relies on a distinction between voting for law makers, and actual laws.”

I accept it as reasonable form of theological discussion.

But I don’t accept your characterization of my comment. As I said, please find within my quoted statement any “agreement with an interpration that relies on a distinction between voting for law makers, and actual laws.”

Just as voting for a law for abortion was not seen the same as procurring an abortion, until the Church made the connection explicit over the last 125 years. However, you are accepting it as an argument of convenience, becase the distinction that makes some of the ‘non negotiables’ optional would effect all of them, including pro-choice…

No, you are pretending what my point is.

My point is quite simple; Given two candidates, one of whom supports the pro-life position (albeit imperfectly) and one who supports the pro-choice position, a Catholic cannot morally vote for the latter.

If you believe differently, speak up.

 

[SoCalRC]

With all due respect, I think you are misreading this passage. I see it as a further explanantion of why a politician must never vote for abortion. One can not justify voting for abortion with the idea of “limiting the harm” caused by an pregnancy such as poverty or health risks to the mother.

In case it wasn’t clear. I agree. CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI elaborates the same argument further. I never believe it is acceptable to vote for abortion. However, I also believe that it is never permissible to abridge the right to life in any fashion.

I also do not see this as a prohibition against voting for a candidate. This says we must not vote for certain laws, but Americans do not vote for laws, we vote for candidates, and we must vote for the one who will do the most to limit the harm to the defenseless.

Actually, I just re-read the passage. And, again, while I respect your opinion (the same argument has been proposed by other theologians), I think it imay be splitting too fine a hair. From the document:

In this context, 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…

Yes, the sentence can be parsed as “with laws”, but the paragraph, as well as the one proceeding is discussing a more generic interpretation. Since they are described as a “fundamental and inalienable ethical demands”, I try not to split hairs between voting for laws that abridge them, or politicians whose stated political goal it to abridge them.

 

[SoCalRC]

IAs I said, please find within my quoted statement any “agreement with an interpration that relies on a distinction between voting for law makers, and actual laws.”

How about “Isn’t it simple?”

Since you agreed with the point unconditionally, I assumed you understood it. I will strive not to over estimate your reading and comprehension skills in the future…

 

[vern_humphrey]

How about “Isn’t it simple?”

Nonsensical reply noted.

Since you agreed with the point unconditionally, I assumed you understood it. I will strive not to over estimate your reading and comprehension skills in the future…

Personal insult noted.

 

[fix]

Nonsensical reply noted.

If you ever read the threads on liturgical “abuses” you will see that the Pope issues some document to be obeyed. The bisops or the laity will read it and ask the appropriate curia for information on how to understand the document. The curia will reply and some one here will claim the curia has no authority in the matter.

So, here we have the Pope issuing a document. Cardinal Ratzinger gives the bishops instruction in how these items are to understood. Then we have a poster claiming that Vatican offical has no authority in the matter. Go figure.

 

[fix]

More wisdom:

Many Catholics are troubled by the idea of a lesser of two evils or material cooperation with evil. They conclude that they can only vote for a person whose position on the gravest issues, such as abortion, coincides exactly with Catholic teaching. To do otherwise is to betray their conscience and God.

                Sometimes this view is based on ignorance of Catholic teaching, a sincere doubt that it is morally permissible to vote for someone who would allow abortion in some circumstances, even if otherwise generally pro-life. It is also perhaps the confusing expression "lesser of two evils," which suggests the choice of evil. As I have explained above, the motive is really the choice of a good, the limitation of evil by a worse candidate.

               Sometimes this view is motivated by scrupulosity - bad judgment on moral matters as to what is sin or not sin. The resulting fear of moral complicity in the defective pro-life position of a politician makes voting for him morally impossible. This situation is different than ignorance, however, in that the person simply can't get past the fear of sinning, even when they know the truth...

Now some lay poster will claim this theologian is not the pope. Meaning I must accept the interpretation of the lay poster over that of a loyal lay theologian.

And such reasoning is valid?

 

[vern_humphrey]

More wisdom:

Now some lay poster will claim this theologian is not the pope. Meaning I must accept the interpretation of the lay poster over that of a loyal lay theologian.

And such reasoning is valid?

We’ve already been asked to accept the interpretation of the lay poster over that of a bishop, on the grounds that “I don’t live in his diocese.”

 

[jsphbeale]

“Favors” need to be done within the limits of the law or not done at all. I have no reason to believe that this particular judge is not acting entirely within his legal limits or that the nonprofit in question doesn’t “deserve” support, but your reply certainly makes it sound as if you believe he is doing something covert and therefore should hide it.

I agree with you and did not mean that he should hide it if were illegal but rather at times in politics it’s best not to throw everything you do in front of the media because there is always someone who will turn things against you. I am never for stealing. Period.