Are Intrinsic Evils included in the Catholic Church's Teachings regarding Social Justice?

[etspiri2sanctus]

I have been wondering why the USCCB does not include Intrinsic Evils as issues in their statements on Social Justice, or do they? Have I missed their statements on these issues? If I have, why do over half of the catholics in the US disregard their directives when voting? Lack of catechesis, or what?

 

[St_Francis]

Are you referring to a specific document put out by the USCCB?

In the document about voting, strong language was used by the bishops wrt instrinsic evils such as aboriton, but the comments were brief, and then they went into great detail about how to balance issues, giving Catholics who were so inclined an apparent “out” on the evil of voting for someone as supportive of abortion as Obama.

They had promised to fix the lack of clarity after the previous presidential election, and promised again to fix it this last time. So hopefully they will do so at some point.

 

[markomalley]

I have been wondering why the USCCB does not include Intrinsic Evils as issues in their statements on Social Justice, or do they? Have I missed their statements on these issues? If I have, why do over half of the catholics in the US disregard their directives when voting? Lack of catechesis, or what?

First of all, I think that it is important to call one thing in mind: the USCCB’s declarations on social justice or issues regarding intrinsic evils (such as their voting guides) have absolutely no force of law (unless the decree or publication has been ratified by the Holy See).
Can. 455 §1. A conference of bishops can only issue general decrees in cases where universal law has prescribed it or a special mandate of the Apostolic See has established it either motu proprio or at the request of the conference itself.
§2. The decrees mentioned in §1, in order to be enacted validly in a plenary meeting, must be passed by at least a two thirds vote of the prelates who belong to the conference and possess a deliberative vote. They do not obtain binding force unless they have been legitimately promulgated after having been reviewed by the Apostolic See.
§3. The conference of bishops itself determines the manner of promulgation and the time when the decrees take effect.
§4. In cases in which neither universal law nor a special mandate of the Apostolic See has granted the power mentioned in §1 to a conference of bishops, the competence of each diocesan bishop remains intact, nor is a conference or its president able to act in the name of all the bishops unless each and every bishop has given consent.
In other words, the statements made by your bishop in regards to the territory of your particular church has importance (again, provided it lines up with the Universal Magesterium). Such a statement can be considered binding if given in an area within his control. But any statement issued by the USCCB, unless it has been given a recognito by the Pope, should be taken as strictly advisory. (Naturally, your local bishop can adopt the positions as his own positions…)

You would do far better, in regards to political issues, to refer to the 2002 CDF document, The Participation of Catholics in Political Life, and take a look not only at that document but the documents it references in its footnotes. That document has more legal force than anything issued by the USCCB on the subject.

As far as the voting habits of individual Catholics, the most charitable rationale I would give is that it is due to very poor catechesis on their parts.

 

[etspiri2sanctus]

Are you referring to a specific document put out by the USCCB?

In the document about voting, strong language was used by the bishops wrt instrinsic evils such as aboriton, but the comments were brief, and then they went into great detail about how to balance issues, giving Catholics who were so inclined an apparent “out” on the evil of voting for someone as supportive of abortion as Obama.

They had promised to fix the lack of clarity after the previous presidential election, and promised again to fix it this last time. So hopefully they will do so at some point.

I was talking about the USCCB’s documents regarding voting. These are not, clear. Although Intrinsic Evils were briefly commented upon, their further discussion regarding “Social Justice” were distracting from those evils which should have been dealt with extensively such as the five Intrinsic Evils being promoted during the past POTUS election. The Bishops gave a great loophole to those catholics who believe in supremecy of conscience with no recognition given to the teachings of the Church regarding great evils. I call it conscience departmentalization.

 

[Vince1022]

I was talking about the USCCB’s documents regarding voting. These are not, clear. Although Intrinsic Evils were briefly commented upon, their further discussion regarding “Social Justice” were distracting from those evils which should have been dealt with extensively such as the five Intrinsic Evils being promoted during the past POTUS election. The Bishops gave a great loophole to those catholics who believe in supremecy of conscience with no recognition given to the teachings of the Church regarding great evils. I call it conscience departmentalization.

Yes, the USCCB notes “intrinsic evils” in its teaching on Faithful Citizenship.

faithfulcitizenship.org/

For instance, racism, torture, et. al. are noted there as intrinsically evil (see para 23) along with of course e.g. abortion and euthanasia.

Hope this helps

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I was talking about the USCCB’s documents regarding voting. These are not, clear. Although Intrinsic Evils were briefly commented upon, their further discussion regarding “Social Justice” were distracting from those evils which should have been dealt with extensively such as the five Intrinsic Evils being promoted during the past POTUS election. The Bishops gave a great loophole to those catholics who believe in supremecy of conscience with no recognition given to the teachings of the Church regarding great evils. I call it conscience departmentalization.

I agree. We heard a lot in our area about offering “hospitality to aliens,” i.e. illegal immigrants but nothing clear about the non-negotiables.

We heard NOTHING at all about anything political before the Nov. 2 mid-term elections. Very very disappointed in that aspect of the Church.

 

[Vince1022]

I agree. We heard a lot in our area about offering “hospitality to aliens,” i.e. illegal immigrants but nothing clear about the non-negotiables.

We heard NOTHING at all about anything political before the Nov. 2 mid-term elections. Very very disappointed in that aspect of the Church.

Do you mean that offering hospitality to aliens is “negotiable” according to Catholic teaching? I wasn’t sure what you meant. Thanks.

 

[markomalley]

I agree. We heard a lot in our area about offering “hospitality to aliens,” i.e. illegal immigrants but nothing clear about the non-negotiables.

We heard NOTHING at all about anything political before the Nov. 2 mid-term elections. Very very disappointed in that aspect of the Church.

I sort of like what Archbishop Gomez (to co-adjutor of Los Angeles) has said about the topic (from 2008):

• Now, it’s true that the right to immigration is not absolute. Church teaching recognizes the government’s right to regulate immigration. To weigh immigration’s impact on the economy and our national security.
• As we stress the Church’s moral principles, we need to be more sensitive to people’s fears. My friends, the opponents of immigration are also people of faith. Many of them, unfortunately, are Catholics. They are hard-working Americans, and our brothers and sisters.
• They are afraid. And their fears are legitimate. They’re afraid of another terrorist attack carried out by foreigners able to cross our borders without any trouble. They’re afraid that an influx of foreign workers will drive down their wages or cause them to lose their jobs. These are not baseless fears. And as this financial crisis unfolds on Wall Street, those fears are only going to get worse.
• The fact is that millions of immigrants are here in blatant violation of U.S. law. This makes law-abiding Americans angry. And it should. Why should they obey the laws if others aren’t punished for breaking them? As advocates, we can’t ignore this fact or somehow argue that our immigration laws don’t matter.
• We have to make sure that our laws are fair and understandable. At the same time, we have to insist that our laws be respected and enforced. Those who violate our laws have to be punished.

Or you have the words of Pope Benedict (from 2010):
…States have the right to regulate migration flows and to defend their own frontiers, always guaranteeing the respect due to the dignity of each and every human person. Immigrants, moreover, have the duty to integrate into the host Country, respecting its laws and its national identity.
Or these words (from 2008):
Moreover the latter illegal migrants should also be made aware of the value of their own life, which is a unique good, always precious, and must be protected from the grave risks to which they are exposed in the search to improve their condition. They illegal immigrants should also be made aware of the duty of legality which is obligatory for everyone.
There is a fundamental difference between offering hospitality to immigrants and regulating the flow of illegal immigrants, as the two quotes above illustrate.

Unfortunately, there are too many who don’t recognize that fundamental difference. Thanks be to God that the incoming Archbishop of Los Angeles recognizes it and Thanks be to God that the Holy Father recognizes it.

 

[thinker]

I heard his Eminence Cardinal Mahony speak last night on immigration.
I found more substance and better explanation in the words of Pope Benedict:
At the same time, States have the right to regulate migration flows and to defend their own frontiers, always guaranteeing the respect due to the dignity of each and every human person. Immigrants, moreover, have the duty to integrate into the host Country, respecting its laws and its national identity.
MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI FOR THE 97th WORLD DAY OF MIGRANTS AND REFUGEES (2011) “One human family”
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/migration/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20100927_world-migrants-day_en.html
Why can’t those who state the wisdom of the Church - particularly Churchmen - state the full wisdom of the Church?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I agree. We heard a lot in our area about offering “hospitality to aliens,” i.e. illegal immigrants but nothing clear about the non-negotiables.

We heard NOTHING at all about anything political before the Nov. 2 mid-term elections. Very very disappointed in that aspect of the Church.

Non-negotiables as determined by whom? A lay apostolate?

I believe that there are more than 5, but then one would be forced to look at both major American political parties with a jaundiced eye.

 

[etspiri2sanctus]

Non-negotiables as determined by whom? A lay apostolate?

I believe that there are more than 5, but then one would be forced to look at both major American political parties with a jaundiced eye.

One must look to the definition of what an Intrinsic Evil is. Study what the magisterium has said and form one’s conscience accordingly. An Intrinsic Evil is an absolute that does not have absolute good as its purpose and may never, never be accepted, or done. There are many evils in the world, (caused by individual and nations) but not all are Intrinsically Evil, such as just war, the care of the poor, economics. These can be decided upon using prudential judgement, ie many opinions could be acceptable as to how these could be handled, but never the absolute evil of the Intrinsic Evils such as taking a life for a prudential reason.

If the US government spent the money given to Planned Parenthood and foreign nations to enable the killing of the innocent on women’s shelteres, pregnancy centers and Christian counciling centers, perhaps these women would not feel so torn about their lives and the ability to raise a child.