Aren't there 13 Non-Negotiables, not just 5?

[fpt]

I am surprised by this statement, though I would hope perhaps it was made from ignorance. Surely you do not support pedophilia being legal and simply a moral choice that one can choose to make or not make, do you?

If not, then why should a child not be able to have consentual sex with an adult? I have never heard one answer that would also not make underage sex between children equally subject to legal restraing.

No, I reject your unsubstantiated claim about the above saints unless you can show me where they supported legalized child sex.

For being clear, this is my catholic political and juridical opinion:

1. About Prostitution:

The proxenetism should be punished by the penal law of state. The proxenet (the procurer) should be punished by the penal laws of State; The brothels should be banned by the penal laws of State;
**
The sexual traffic and the sexual slave have to be banned and punished: the supplier, the buyer and the owner of sexual slaves should be punished by the penal laws of the State**;

The promotion of the prostitution should be banned and punished by the penal laws of the State;

The prostitution on the public place should be punished by the penal law of State;

The physical violence on the prostitute should be punished by the penal laws of the State, but the acception of the physical violence does not have to be full of radical feminism, full of sexism from male (the machism) and has to be in function of this very special situation where the rules of game are not the same than in the real world: the level of the acception of physical violence should be stricter than in the other situations (see a special case law of the violence on prostitutes); the judicial debate about the means of proofs;

The prostitution under the legal age of the majority (between a person of 18 years and more, the client, and a prostitute under 18 year old) should be punished by the penal law of the state. Only, the client of 18 years and more should be punished the penal laws of State, not the prostitute under the age of 18 year old;

The sexual acts for money between two adults in the private place (in a bedroom, at home, in a motel, in a hostel, in a flat, in a house), should not be banned, prohibited and punished by the penal laws of State. The client and the prostitute should not be annoyed by the penal laws of the State;

1. About homosexuality:

The civil law of State does not have to recognize the “marriage” for the same sex persons. The State has no natural power to redefine the marriage: no natural rights to change the acception of what is the marriage;

The penal law of State does not have to criminalize the homosexual acts of the same sex persons who are consenting adults, in their bedroom, at home. It is not the business of State;

The promotion of homosexuality in school (primary school, secondary school, and Grammar school) should be banned by the penal law of State; The homo-education does not have to be normalized and banalized by the school;

1. About forcination, adultery, polygamy and polyandry and other.

The premarital sex between two consenting adults, in their bedroom, at home, does not have to be criminalized by the penal law of State;
**
The forcination between two consenting teenagers in their bedroom, at home, does not have to be criminalized by the penal law of State;**
**
The adultery between two consenting adults in their bedroom, at home, does not have to be criminalized by the penal law of State;**

The civil law of State does not have to recognize the polygamy and the polyandry, and the polygamy and the polyandry have to be banned by the penal law;

The civil law of State does not have to recognize the “marriage” between three persons and more;

The rape on woman by a man or the rape on woman by a woman or the rape on man by a woman or the rape on man y man has to be punished by the penal law of State;

The conjugal rape on the wife or on the husband has to be punished by the penal law of State;

**The sexual violences on a woman or on a man have to be punished by the penal law of State;

The sexual acts of pedophilia have to be punished by the penal law of State;**

 

[fpt]

I am surprised by this statement, though I would hope perhaps it was made from ignorance. Surely you do not support pedophilia being legal and simply a moral choice that one can choose to make or not make, do you?

If not, then why should a child not be able to have consentual sex with an adult? I have never heard one answer that would also not make underage sex between children equally subject to legal restraing.

**Of course, pedophilia is immoral and has to be punished by the penal law (the two spheres, the morality – the moral and the ethic --, and the penal legality of State).

The protection of law of State makes focus on the consenting of each sexual partner, not more not less. Between an adult and a child, there is no equality and equity about the sexual maturity, about the sexual liberty, about the sexual conscience, about the knowledge of the sexual matters, about the sexual will. The moral and legal issues are, only, here, not more not less.**

No, I reject your unsubstantiated claim about the above saints unless you can show me where they supported legalized child sex.

**
It is a misunderstand, I have never said that some Saints were in favor the legalization of sex between childs and adults.**

 

[fpt]

pnewton

*On a practical note, pre-marital sex has had a terrible effect on our nation. Marriage is deemed as optional. Kids are raised in homes more and more with one parent. Abortion is used as contraception. Especially among young people the cost of pre-marital sex can be measured in lives broken, as well as dollars. I would have no problem making it illegal, as a start for any underage sex. *

The direct and voluntary abortion (catholic defintion in link with the natural moral order of human being) has to be banned and punished by the penal law; The promotion of abortion has to be banned and punished by the penal law;
**
But, the sex between teenagers, not. Do you want to put in jail the teenagers because of a consenting forcination. Are you serious??? **

Pedophilia is illegal based on the sound principle that children do not have the legal right to consent to sex. Yet we turn a blind eye when it is two children and the harm is doubled.

It is more complex, (It is false in part), the moral issue and thus the legal issue of the penal law are linked to the presumption of consenting about the sexuality: no sexual maturity, no sexual liberty, no sexual conscience, no knowledge of the sexual matters, no sexual agreement. no sexual volition. Actually, the question is in link with the personnal liberty.

Pedophilia has to stay illegal, of course.

Because of our lax legal system, children are having abortion after abortion** (okay it is wrong, thus the direct and voluntary abortion (catholic defintion in link with the natural moral order of human being) has to be banned and punished by the penal law)
** or birth after birth even before they get out of high school (in this situation, no abortion, it is better)

The actual monetary cost is staggering. This cost is shared by each and every American. You want to criminalize sex between teenagers in reason of cost, of money. It is very not fair, it is materialistic.

 

[shocktrooper]

For what it is worth, I have never claimed that all teachings have equal weight. In fact, my biggest complaint about the CA list is that it drops items that the Church has identified as life issues - which carry special weight. I have simply quoted the Church’s warnings that it is morally dangerous to try to isolate and elevate a very select subset of teachings.

I understand and agree with this position, but again, I do want to defend CA just by saying there were obvious (according to the electorate) issues at play this past election and zooming in on those were a priority for them.

I think you and I are in agreement that the non-negotiables are issues that we cannot support by voting for a bill that allows for them or a candidate that advocates them and wants to make them legal or more legal. For example, if one candidate is in support of legislation for homosexual “marriage” or even “unions”, and the other does not, then our options for voting as a faithful Catholic are clear as long as there are no other intrinsic evils in play that favor the candidate in support of homosexual marriage. We either don’t vote, which is allowed, or we vote for the candidate that is less likely to put forth these intrinsically evil agendas.

The problem is that, in treating the faith as a zero sum game in politics, we potentially undermine the very teachings we are trying to protect. An example I gave earlier was how collapsing the Church’s list item “Family” to “Gay Marriage” can fool Catholics into voting in theologically incoherent ways (‘supporting’ marriage by voting for candidates who, themselves reject our concepts about the Sacrament very publicly, etc.)

I agree with this completely.

So their interpretation of the same quote from Rome seems a little different then yours, they take Rome to mean that either approach would be a mistake. Ignoring the special significance of some teachings, or using those teachings as an excuse to ignore other fundamental ethical demands.

I agree that we should not dismiss our obligation towards other issues such as no fault divorces, fornication, etc, and only focus on the protection of marriage. I agree with you that contraception and no fault divorces have done just as much if not more damage to the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. One caveat I would like to mention is in agreement with others here, and that is we have to stop the progression of sin and then work our way backwards. In warfare, temporal or spiritual, we must battle the sin most prevalent and active, not to the ignoring of the others but simply because of the life and death situation. Yes, we need to battle on all fronts, but the force applied to one front may be different from another. With that, the leadership as a whole in the Church, not just CA, has to do a better job on those issues not on the top 5 list.

The problem I have with your interpretation is that who decides which issues are of ‘prudential judgement’?

I don’ t think it is a problem. You and I are in agreement that only Mother Church is the one that can make these decisions.

CA has elected to drop issues that Rome has described as “fundamental and inalienable ethical demands” (#4) in its doctrinal note. Rome’s list was given even more weight in Sacramentum Caritatis.

I agree; CA has done this.

We are an apostolic church, if the Vicar of Christ promulgates a document that tells us that certain “moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation” must be considered by all Catholics in voting and a lay group produces a document that omits most those items altogether, where should Catholics be looking?

Again, I agree. But one can easily make this same point regarding the USCCB and their way of writing as opposed to Rome.

In the bishops’ defense, they have no choice. They must use Rome’s list, not just the items they want, and they must be theologically accurate. If you try to vote Rome’s list of 11 items in their entirety, there are no easy choices. A great deal of thought and soul searching is required. Sure, a simplified, forceful list is ‘easier’, but as you note, these long documents from the Church are not even remotely close to all of Church teaching. How much more spiritually risky is it to rely on a simple power point style presentation that offers an alternate list from Rome’s and ignores the explanations of the local princes altogether?

Here in the U.S., Catholics are severely uneducated regarding the Church’s teachings, not only on life issues but on dogma and doctrine. This is an area that CA helps out with. I commend the “Year of Faith” but I think in the end, if it is not done as Rome intends, not much will change. I personal experience backlash in my parish when trying to push clear teachings that are not popular to the ear. I won’t say anymore about this.

My apologies for not responding to you sooner. I only have a limited amount of time that I can spend here, and I have to approach these conversations with some care. I’m also used to reading, reflection, prayer, etc. between theological comments and this is a very different environment.

Not a problem at all. I should do the same more often.

I applaud your efforts in studying the Church’s documents in this area and am most happy to have you as a brother in Christ.

Same to you, Spider42.
Pax Christi!

 

[Spider42]

Again, I agree. But one can easily make this same point regarding the USCCB and their way of writing as opposed to Rome.

I’m not sure that is fair. The bishops are the local princes. It is their job to help us apply teachings to our local circumstances, and they have special status and authority to do so.

There* is *a difference between the Doctrinal Note and the USCCB document. If one takes Rome’s document alone, it would be incredibly difficult for US Catholics to participate at all. Note that Rome only mentions the concept of ‘limiting harm’ (EV) and stresses that the principle is very limited and should not be improperly expanded. The document also uses words like “does not permit compromise”.

The USCCB document introduces the concept of ‘proportionate reasons’, and gives careful instructions on how to balance and weigh different obligations.

The bishops did not invent this out of thin air. This came from their dialog with then Cardinal Ratzinger in his capacity as Prefect. Some of that correspondance has leaked, but it is not intended for lay interpretation. Still, some of the examples from Ratzinger are surprising, like Catholics licitly voting for a ‘pro choice’ candidate.

In theology circles, the bishops’ document is widely praised, both from ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ leaning theologians (though those terms don’t really overlap US political definitions very well).

The CA document is, well, not so theologically sound. It starts by setting a standard of ‘intrinsic evil’, but then does not apply the Catholic understanding of intrinsic evil (Veritatis Splendor). CA’s judgement then produces a list with little resemblance to Rome’s or the local princes’, and immediately after identifying their list as ‘non negotiable’, CA gives a very simple formula for compromise and exception. It’s understandable why they do this. Truly ‘non negotiable’ would leave Catholics unable to vote for a major party candidate even with the exceedingly narrow list.

But in Catholic doctrine, intrinsic evil cannot be compared in relative terms. It is not valid to say that politician A is a more moral choice because he has only molested 3 children while his opponent has molested 30. Intrinsic evil is a line that cannot be licitly crossed (again Veritatis Splendor). So Ratzinger and the USCCB’s instructions focus on recognizing evil as evil and insuring that any cooperation with it is truly remote, for the sake of the spiritual well being of the voter as well as the integrity of the faith.

Again, simplification can lead to theological incoherence. Let’s say candidate A says abortion is a difficult and personal choice, candidate B says abortions only in the case of rape, incest, or maternal health. If we truly accept abortion as intrinsically evil, then how is this different from the child molestation comparison above?

CA would seem to imply that there is only one choice. The bishops’ approach is more demanding (see the discussion of what to do when all candidates hold an intrinsically evil position). Still, both formulas could readily arrive at B. The big difference is that, in getting there, the bishops’ way makes you first accept that the positions are, in fact, both evil and do the soul searching required to make sure that your connection to the evil is “remote”. The CA approach gives the impression that voting for B is directly promoting good, as opposed to consciously and coherently attempting to constrain evil. That is, it encourages you to support B *because of his positions, not in spite *of them. Like family vs. gay marriage, this can lead to a distorted understanding of the faith.

Further, the bishops make it clear that whenever we are cooperating with evil, even for the best of intentions, there is moral ambiguity, doubt, and peril. The CA guide, intentionally or not, gives the impression that a very simple formula is the one true or “serious” expression of faith - even though we have seen that the simple instructions can easily result in theologically incoherent votes. So while the bishops point out that which issues can be best promoted and how is open to legitimate disagreement and stress that we are still one body of the faithful, a search here shows that CA’s guide is often used as a weapon to criticize other Catholics about the seriousness of their faith.

Let me be clear, I would not presume to know CA’s intentions. I accept on face value that they are doing their best to promote the faith. I am just trying to explain why, from a theological point of view, I am much more comfortable with the USCCB’s document than CA’s, and that my constant pointing to the Church is simply how I understand my duty as a Catholic, not a reflection on CA in particular.

Dominus vobiscum

 

[pnewton]

The forcination between two consenting teenagers in their bedroom, at home, does not have to be criminalized by the penal law of State;

The sexual acts of pedophilia have to be punished by the penal law of State;

Understand that I believe this to be a logical disconnect in our justice system. Children are presumed to be able to consent to sex in one case, and not presumed to consent to sex in the other. The damage of underage sex is not dependent on the age of the partner.

You want to criminalize sex between teenagers in reason of cost, of money. It is very not fair, it is materialistic.

That’s like saying penalizing vandalism is materialistic because it costs taxpayers. The whole idea that nobody is hurt by all this rampany teen sex is simply not true. Every tax-payer is ponying up for services for teen pregnancies. This is one topic I will seriously promote, though it is unlikely to ever happen. Teenagers (and younger) simply are not responsible enough for every activity adults do.

 

[shocktrooper]

I’m not sure that is fair. The bishops are the local princes. It is their job to help us apply teachings to our local circumstances, and they have special status and authority to do so.

I think we should just present a clear case to separate the wheat from the chafe. Let’s use the last presidential election here in the US. You and I both know the positions of each candidate, I hope. Now, without spelling out each of the candidate’s positions here, it is perfectly clear that a faithful Catholic could not vote for Obama, but yet over 50% of Catholics voted for him. There is nothing in the USCCB document or the Doctrinal Note that would have allowed for a Catholic to vote for Obama. You are correct, as noted above, that one could licitly vote for a pro choice candidate, Romney, but only because he would not have pushed for additional policies supporting abortion and the other candidate is much more extreme and would stack the supreme court with judges that would never overrule R vs W.

Unfortunately, I think the USCCB document has been used to convince Catholics they could vote for Obama because of his immigration rhetoric and his healthcare for all mantra, which burned the American bishops, and let’s not forget his global climate policies. People were convinced that climate change policy, immigration policy and healthcare policy were all issues equal to that of an intrinsic evil, which they are not. They all need to be considered and acted upon, but carrying out these things are subject to prudential judgment. They are not equal, thus they do not justify voting for a candidate that supports abortion, gay marriage, and violating religious freedom.

 

[Spider42]

I think we should just present a clear case to separate the wheat from the chafe. Let’s use the last presidential election here in the US. You and I both know the positions of each candidate, I hope. Now, without spelling out each of the candidate’s positions here, it is perfectly clear that a faithful Catholic could not vote for Obama, but yet over 50% of Catholics voted for him.

I’m really reluctant about responding to this. Not just because of forum rules, but also because I have no desire to hurt or offend anyone. But this is close to what we’ve been discussing, so please try to not be offended by my comments, they are in no way intended to be critical of you. Also, do not assume any political beliefs or actions on my part. I’m not trying to make a political point, only a theological one. That is, I really only want to convey the principle, not take sides in any particular political application.

The problem with your comment above is, if we apply Rome’s doctrinal note alone, there is no way Catholics could have licitly voted for Romney either. A number of his campaign positions fell squarely into ‘intrinsically evil’, including high priority considerations like abortion and respect for the human embryo.

There is nothing in the USCCB document or the Doctrinal Note that would have allowed for a Catholic to vote for Obama.

Actually, there is, it is under the clause of when both politicians hold intrinsically evil positions (#36). Catholics are never required to politically support evil, intrinsic or otherwise, but it can be done licitly, provided that the conditions are met for the support of evil to be ‘remote’ or ‘double effect’.

Unfortunately, I think the USCCB document has been used to convince Catholics…

Well, it’s a Catch 22. We have a candidate who flip flopped on Roe v. Wade late in life, still holds public position on abortion that is intrinsically evil, who personally profited from abortion, who personally invested millions of dollars into fetal stem cell research, and who promoted and paid for IVF within his own immediate family and publicly defends that decision.

We don’t have to get to all the other items on Rome’s list for that candidate to be a moral problem. But, if the Church (via the local Princes) presents us with a formula by which we can weigh matters and vote for this candidate, and that formula involves judgement about things like probable harm and good, then we have to accept, with true Christian charity, that different Catholics are going to reach different conclusions.

As someone who resonates to Church teaching on life intensely, the problem I have with a publication like CA is that it can deceive Catholics into describing someone who has just publicly declared that certain abortions are morally just (rape, incest, maternal health), has spoken favorably about euthanasia in the form of doctor assisted suicide, has personally profited from treating the human fetus as biological waste, who attempted to profit from the aborted child via stem cells, and who defends his close personal involvement with the intentional creation and destruction of embryos via IVF as ‘pro life’.

Look back to my point from earlier. When we go from describing our actions as ‘struggling to be less pro-death’ to ‘voting pro life’, we start to undermine Church teaching itself. Precisely what Rome and the bishops warn about.

Again, I mean no disrespect to any other Catholics. I agree with the bishops, it is no easy spiritual task to struggle with seriously imperfect choices in our current culture of death - I presume that all my fellow Catholics have done their best to vote their moral consciences and would never presume that my political choices, always made after much angst and prayer are, in any way, superior.

But I do, personally, find it troubling that, in the name of ‘simplifying’, CA has, based on searching this forum, managed to distort understanding of right-to-life, the most fundamental of the inalienable rights of the human person (Christifideles Laici #38) for many of the same Catholics that CA professes to want to help.

 

[Linux]

Actually, there is, it is under the clause of when both politicians hold intrinsically evil positions (#36). Catholics are never required to politically support evil, intrinsic or otherwise, but it can be done licitly, provided that the conditions are met for the support of evil to be ‘remote’ or ‘double effect’.

Wow.

 

[BroomWagon]

I’m really reluctant about responding to this. Not just because of forum rules, but also because I have no desire to hurt or offend anyone. But this is close to what we’ve been discussing, so please try to not be offended by my comments, they are in no way intended to be critical of you. Also, do not assume any political beliefs or actions on my part. I’m not trying to make a political point, only a theological one. That is, I really only want to convey the principle, not take sides in any particular political application.

The problem with your comment above is, if we apply Rome’s doctrinal note alone, there is no way Catholics could have licitly voted for Romney either. A number of his campaign positions fell squarely into ‘intrinsically evil’, including high priority considerations like abortion and respect for the human embryo.

Actually, there is, it is under the clause of when both politicians hold intrinsically evil positions (#36). Catholics are never required to politically support evil, intrinsic or otherwise, but it can be done licitly, provided that the conditions are met for the support of evil to be ‘remote’ or ‘double effect’.

Well, it’s a Catch 22. We have a candidate who flip flopped on Roe v. Wade late in life, still holds public position on abortion that is intrinsically evil, who personally profited from abortion,** who personally invested millions of dollars into fetal stem cell research, **and who promoted and paid for IVF within his own immediate family and publicly defends that decision.

We don’t have to get to all the other items on Rome’s list for that candidate to be a moral problem. But, if the Church (via the local Princes) presents us with a formula by which we can weigh matters and vote for this candidate, and that formula involves judgement about things like probable harm and good, then we have to accept, with true Christian charity, that different Catholics are going to reach different conclusions.

As someone who resonates to Church teaching on life intensely, the problem I have with a publication like CA is that it can deceive Catholics into describing someone who has just publicly declared that certain abortions are morally just (rape, incest, maternal health), has spoken favorably about euthanasia in the form of doctor assisted suicide, has personally profited from treating the human fetus as biological waste, who attempted to profit from the aborted child via stem cells, and who defends his close personal involvement with the intentional creation and destruction of embryos via IVF as ‘pro life’.

Look back to my point from earlier. When we go from describing our actions as ‘struggling to be less pro-death’ to ‘voting pro life’, we start to undermine Church teaching itself. Precisely what Rome and the bishops warn about.

Again, I mean no disrespect to any other Catholics. I agree with the bishops, it is no easy spiritual task to struggle with seriously imperfect choices in our current culture of death - I presume that all my fellow Catholics have done their best to vote their moral consciences and would never presume that my political choices, always made after much angst and prayer are, in any way, superior.

But I do, personally, find it troubling that, in the name of ‘simplifying’, CA has, based on searching this forum, managed to distort understanding of right-to-life, the most fundamental of the inalienable rights of the human person (Christifideles Laici #38) for many of the same Catholics that CA professes to want to help.

I think I will accept the positions of Pro-Life Organizations and that of Archbishop Chaput who endorsed Governor Romney not yours, especially when you make statements that he profitted from Fetal Research, this has been shown to be a falsehood and Calumny needs to be considered as possible here. Ted Kennedy was once pro-life in 1968 but I could not justify voting for him because at one time because he was pro-life. Governor Romney ran on the platform of the Republican party. There is also a chance that Spider42’s position is actually pro-abortion since he/she is speaking someone down that pledged to defund Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. Also, Planned Parenthood spents millions of dollars for anti-Romney, pro-abortion advertisements, yet, Spider42 is siding with Planned Parenthood in this anti-Romney diatribe. Also, the Vice President Candidate Paul Ryan is a solid Catholic Pro-Lifer.

I would not trust Spider42’s analysis: " who personally invested millions of dollars into fetal stem cell research, " is totally unsubstantiated, it is a sin to spread falsehoods against an individual.

To say that Romney has profited from human’s being treated as biological waste is totally fabricated and untrue. Possibly along with these other assertions.

 

[BroomWagon]

This post in the “Ask an apologist” furthermore seems to invalidate Spider42’s criticisms:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=720147

Amythyst Amythyst is offline
New Member

Join Date: July 3, 2012
Posts: 18
Religion: Catholic
Default If all candidates are for abortion, is it a sin to not vote at all?
Romney’s platform is that he is okay with abortion in cases of rape and incest. Obama’s platform, as we know, is abortion any time, for any reason. So, if voting for a pro-abortion candidate is a sin, Obama is out, definitely. But, Romney would allow some innocent babies to die, through no fault of their own. Is allowing ANY baby to be killed okay? Can I morally vote for that?

Is it a sin to vote at all under these circumstances? Is it a sin not to vote?

Fr. Vincent Serpa Fr. Vincent Serpa is offline
Catholic Answers Apologist

Join Date: May 4, 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,943
Default Re: If all candidates are for abortion, is it a sin to vote at all?
Dear friend,

While we want to prevent all babies from being aborted, we need to save as many as possible. Isn’t it better to save some than to save none?

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

I believe I will take a Clergy Members word here rather than Spider42’s statement which clearly contains falsehoods.

Note here, Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider was against Romney as well.

Washington, D.C., October 17, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Planned Parenthood’s political division announced yesterday their plans for an additional $828,000 in anti-Romney radio advertising in the swing states of Virginia and Colorado in the critical final days before the election. This brings their total investment in the U.S. election to $5.7 million, with much of that money being spent in those two states.

The new ad blitz was announced after a new USA Today/Gallup poll showed women in swing states moving toward Mitt Romney, with the two candidates now in a statistical dead heat among women in the states that could well decide the election.

The Planned Parenthood ad slams Romney for supporting a reversal of Roe v. Wade, and for his plan to block federal funding of Planned Parenthood.

lifesitenews.com/news/planned-parenthood-spends-another-800k-on-anti-romney-ads-in-swing-states

Representative Boehner has said recently that he will do all to get Planned Parenthood defunded nationally just like Romney’s position.

These politicians stick their necks out for us for some of us to subject them to malicious falsehoods.

 

[shocktrooper]

The problem with your comment above is, if we apply Rome’s doctrinal note alone, there is no way Catholics could have licitly voted for Romney either. A number of his campaign positions fell squarely into ‘intrinsically evil’, including high priority considerations like abortion and respect for the human embryo.

Two points here:
1- I am not sure I would continue saying that Rome’s doctrinal note would have prevented us from voting for either candidate, but the USCCB’s document does provide that cover. Regardless of what side you take, this pins the USCCB against Rome, which I don’t think would be good. Although, this does strengthen my point made earlier that the USCCB document, because of language, may lead some to think they can do something in which they can’t.

2- I don’t remember Romney running on a platform that would advance his personal, though sinful, positions into the public arena via federal powers. You mention above “respect for the human embryo” and although I don’t know much about this position of his besides the fact that he does personally support it, I would like to know what policy he was actively pushing that was going to perpetuate it.

Actually, there is, it is under the clause of when both politicians hold intrinsically evil positions (#36). Catholics are never required to politically support evil, intrinsic or otherwise, but it can be done licitly, provided that the conditions are met for the support of evil to be ‘remote’ or ‘double effect’.

Here is paragraph 36 from the USCCB doc, along with those paragraphs that straddle it…

There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable
position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.
Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to
advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental
moral evil.

1. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic
   human goods.

1. In making these decisions,** it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience** that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue.

These paragraphs, in no way, say that a faithful Catholic, who should vote with a WELL-FORMED CONSCIENCE guided by the Church, could conclude that it is morally acceptable to vote for a candidate such as Obama, when you had other options that did not violate our faith.

IMO, your interpretation falls apart because your starting premise is faulty. Your starting premise seems to be that Obama and Romney are candidates in which we can’t vote for because of their positions on intrinsic evils. I can understand this to a degree and that degree is, yes, both candidates do support at least one intrinsic evil personally and have supported or supports their personal belief publicly. However, unlike Obama, Romney did not run on a political platform that supported federal government policy that would make such intrinsic evils licit throughout the country. This is the ultimate reason why Obama was not a choice for faithful Catholics but Romney was. The conditions that paragraph 36 speaks of were never met this past presidential election.

We were voting for the president of the United States, so our vote needed to take into consideration the candidates policies that would affect the country as a whole via law and not the candidates personal beliefs on a given issue unless that personal belief was going to be thrust upon the country as a whole or even partially. Romney was not pushing for universal healthcare stemming from federal powers, he was not directly attaching the Catholic Church via immoral provisions within that healthcare policy, nor was he pushing for legislation to make homosexual behavior normal, nor was he actively proposing policy that would support the killing of unborn or already born humans. Any Catholic with an inkling of understanding regarding their faith and the candidates policies would conclude that, according to the Church’s documents, one had two options this presidential election: 1- not vote; 2- vote for Romney or another candidate other than Obama.

And for the record, Romney was not my preferred candidate and I did not like the position I was put in by our political parties, but I have concluded that our politicians are formed by the people and not the other way around. We have Obama in office because of the sinfulness of our nation; we will reap what we sow.

 

[shocktrooper]

continued…

Well, it’s a Catch 22. We have a candidate who flip flopped on Roe v. Wade late in life, still holds public position on abortion that is intrinsically evil, who personally profited from abortion, who personally invested millions of dollars into fetal stem cell research, and who promoted and paid for IVF within his own immediate family and publicly defends that decision.

Non sequitur…Romney never ran on a platform (not that I know of) that was going to use federal powers to make any intrinsic evil legal or more legal. Now if he was, it was not an issue that was brought out into the light very clearly.

We don’t have to get to all the other items on Rome’s list for that candidate to be a moral problem. But, if the Church (via the local Princes) presents us with a formula by which we can weigh matters and vote for this candidate, and that formula involves judgement about things like probable harm and good, then we have to accept, with true Christian charity, that different Catholics are going to reach different conclusions.

Again, the premise is wrong which is why this last statement is false also. For Obama, there was no “probable harm”, but definite based off his current statements and action via legal maneuvers. Romney, on the other hand, may have pushed some of these things but his statements or actions did not lead one to believe he would; in fact, he gave reason to believe he would do just the opposite of Obama concerning certain issues if given the chance. If one voted for Romney and he did some of the things he said he was not going to do, or did some things contrary to our faith that was not touched upon during the election, then our cooperation would have been “remote” since our vote for him was cast with no knowledge of these intentions. With Obama, this “remote” cooperation is not remote but “direct” since his platform was clearly laid out to the populous and their vote for him was cast knowing his intentions and current law being debated or passed.

 

[Spider42]

I would not trust Spider42’s analysis: " who personally invested millions of dollars into fetal stem cell research, " is totally unsubstantiated, it is a sin to spread falsehoods against an individual.

To say that Romney has profited from human’s being treated as biological waste is totally fabricated and untrue. Possibly along with these other assertions.

Actually, both claims are part of the public record. Bain Capitol’s investment in “Stericycle” has been very lucrative. Although there is some sworn public documents signed by Mr. Romney that contradict it, I have taken Mr. Romney’s at his word that he did, in fact, leave his management role at Bain Capitol in 1999, so I do not presume that he had a say in the investment itself. But he most assuredly received deferred compensation from Bain, so he did profit from a company that treats the human fetus as biological waste.

Mr. Romney’s own financial statements included his investment in Fresenius Medical Care, a German firm involved with fetal stem cell research. Mr. Romney sold most (but seemingly not all) those shares, along with holding in companies like Komatsu and Schlumberger, which have received intense scrutiny for their dealings with Iran, in 2010, just prior to his presidential campaign.

I’m well away of our Catholic obligations to the 8th Commandment, including CCC 2478. That’s part of the reason I was so reluctant to reply, I did not want to tempt people to ignore it.

And, again, I have never asserted that Catholics could not licitly vote for Mr. Romney. I was simply making the point that we Catholics generally have to apply proportionate reasons to vote for a major party candidate and this last presidential election was no exception.

Which, by the way, is precisely the same argument made by Fr. Serpa and Archbishop Chaput. My point is that for eucharistic consistency, we must grant other Catholics the same principles we use ourselves. If it is potentially licit to politically support intrinsic evil in one candidate, it is potentially licit to politically support evil in another. If application can only be accepted for a specific desired result, it is an argument of convenience, not true conviction.

We also cannot develop an adversarial relationship to the truth.

[T]he Church teaches that authentic freedom does not exist without the truth. «Truth and freedom either go together hand in hand or together they perish in misery». In a society in which truth is neither mentioned nor sought, every form of authentic exercise of freedom will be weakened, opening the way to libertine and individualistic distortions and undermining the protection of the good of the human person and of the entire society.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html (#7, quoting Fides et ratio)

It’s worth noting that I not only specifically used items readily available in the public record and limited the claims based on Romney’s own explanations, I also made a point of picking items that have been well covered in Catholic News Services, Crisis Magazine, and the Jesuit publication America in the past.

As I preemptively noted, the reactions here were somewhat predictable, so I wanted to at least use the opportunity to reinforce the one point I have made repeatedly in this thread:

Catholics should look to the Church and her authentic teachers, not lay groups, for proper spiritual guidance.

 

[Spider42]

For Obama, there was no “probable harm”, but definite based off his current statements and action via legal maneuvers.

Brother, I am not going to take the position of an Obama apologist. I do not take resulting the attacks on my character personally, but they dilute the only message that I have presented worth hearing, that we are blessed with authentic teachers who, in communion with Rome, teach with the authority of Christ. We should look there, not to lay groups with unknown objectives.

I have no doubt that the certainty of your own moral conscience is engaged, and I would never presume to argue that you should ignore it, because to do so would mean your damnation:

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.” CCC 1790

But Catholics, in good conscience, cannot ignore the second sentence above. We are not God, we are all sinners and our moral consciences are never perfectly formed.

Both the USCCB document and the Doctrinal Note from Rome give us some latitude for pragmatism and action:

Christian faith has never presumed to impose a rigid framework on social and political questions, conscious that the historical dimension requires men and women to live in imperfect situations, which are also susceptible to rapid change.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html (#7)

In political speech, certainty and absolutism is the norm. For example, in 2008 I heard numerous claims that abortion rates would undoubtedly soar under an Obama administration, but objective reality is always murkier. For those of us who follow abortion closely, one of the greatest surprises of the great recession has been that abortion rates have fallen, not gone up. Historically there is a strong statistical correlation between poverty and abortion rates, so many people, including myself, expected the opposite.

I’m not postulating that Obama directly lowered rates, I’m simply noting that the exact cause cannot be known with certainty. Since MY judgement is far from infallible, I, personally, am neither going to deride Catholics who are confident that the answer to abortion lies in transforming the supreme court and achieving prohibition in secular law. Nor am I going to deride Catholics who note that it was GOP majority court that gave us Roe, a GOP majority court that gave us Casey, and a GOP majority court with 5 Catholic members that cited Roe and Casey instead of overturning it with Carhart, and believe that they best serve life by pragmatically focussing on other political approaches, like resisting Objectivism/Randianism, an important life issue raised by the USCCB and given weight by Pope Benedict XVI.

Wether I am welcome or not, resented or not, you are all still my brothers and sisters in Christ. According to the Gospels and Rome, loving our ‘enemies’ remains the best earthly expression of our unconditional love for God.

 

[fix]

Which, by the way, is precisely the same argument made by Fr. Serpa and Archbishop Chaput. My point is that for eucharistic consistency, we must grant other Catholics the same principles we use ourselves. If it is potentially licit to politically support intrinsic evil in one candidate, it is potentially licit to politically support evil in another. If application can only be accepted for a specific desired result, it is an argument of convenience, not true conviction.

It cannot be licit and illicit to vote for the same candidate. If you can justify supporting the candidate who supports more evil then there is no reason for the Church to offer guidelines as anything goes based on personal ideology.

 

[shocktrooper]

Brother, I am not going to take the position of an Obama apologist. I do not take resulting the attacks on my character personally, but they dilute the only message that I have presented worth hearing, that we are blessed with authentic teachers who, in communion with Rome, teach with the authority of Christ. We should look there, not to lay groups with unknown objectives.

I agree, which is why my arguments have all been based off the same Church documents you base yours off of.

But Catholics, in good conscience, cannot ignore the second sentence above. We are not God, we are all sinners and our moral consciences are never perfectly formed.

This is not completely true. I think we have many canonized saints that testify to the possibility of one having a perfectly formed conscience, at least up to or at death. Also, a Catholic must obey a certain judgment of his well formed conscience. If one obeys a malformed conscience that was somewhat formed by that same person, then that person is still culpable to some degree if not completely, regardless of following the certain judgment of his conscience. Slothfulness or the lack of desire to learn such moral truths makes one culpable. I think you would be hard pressed to find an American that has truly seeked the natural and moral law and come up empty.

We need, as Catholics, to look to the Church when forming our conscience and not to ourselves, since we can be deceived by our own selfish desire to preserve the sins in our lives.

 

[Spider42]

This is not completely true. I think we have many canonized saints that testify to the possibility of one having a perfectly formed conscience, at least up to or at death.

No, the development of the conscience is a life long endeavor for all of us:

“The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.” CCC 1784

Saints are not an exception:

“The Beatitudes depict the countenance of Jesus Christ and portray his charity. They express the vocation of the faithful associated with the glory of his Passion and Resurrection; they shed light on the actions and attitudes characteristic of the Christian life; they are the paradoxical promises that sustain hope in the midst of tribulations; they proclaim the blessings and rewards already secured, however dimly, for Christ’s disciples; they have begun in the lives of the Virgin Mary and all the saints.” CCC 1717

If you study the lives of the saints, you will find that they are all quite human, hence fallible. Many committed horrific acts before committing themselves to life in Christ. All continued to make mistakes throughout their lives, but they managed to do great works for the Church and their fellow children of God in spite of their humanity and its inherent limitations. That’s why they are such great models for us to emulate and why we beseech them as intermediaries in prayers of intercession.

It is a common misconception. Look at how virtually all modern saints have their detractors, people who presume that human error and lack of perfection automatically disqualifies them. But the Church doesn’t ‘make’ saints, it only recognizes them. Saints become saints through their own lives and the grace of God, but they never stop being human. And like all Catholics, they remain obliged to mimic our one perfect model, Jesus (CCC 520), including in his humility (CCC 525-526)

Humility is a requirement placed on us with our Baptism (CCC 2540). It is the foundation of prayer (CCC 2559). And one of the many reasons we honor Mary, Mother of God (CCC 725).

I generally write and think like a Canonist and a Theologian, but I’ll bow out of this conversation with something personal (and I’ll have to bow out; attacking my theology doesn’t bother me but attacks on what I say below will tax my own Christian charity and tempt me to disobedience in my own obligations).

When I was a young man, I served my country on the battlefield. I had my two closest friends die in my arms over the course of three days. I was never able to discuss my experiences with my wife. I might have, later in life, but I buried her and our three children after the same funeral Mass before I was 30.

I’m explaining this because I hope it will make it clear why, no matter how many differences I have with John Kerry or Joe Biden, and there are many, I will never be convinced that either is a lesser Catholic than myself. We are brothers, joined by experience. I know that both men have been through a test of faith that most people will, to their great fortune, never understand. That they still identify with, and actively practice our faith tells me all I need to know. Each has been sustained by a connection to God that I would be embarrassed to belittle or deride.

In the decades that have passed since, all my study in theology, Church history, Canon Law, etc. as well as all my time active in my parish and various ministries has taught me that my bond of brotherhood and sisterhood extends much farther, to every child of God. I just have to keep expanding my heart to see it.

In my own spiritual development, one of my largest steps so far was seeking out and making peace with the family of the drunk driver that killed my family. The person I had hated with a black heart was loved deeply by a woman and child who had prayed for my family every day for 15 years. Although I still slip from time to time, thanks to their eyes I have largely come to view the man who took everyone I truly *loved as myself *from me as just another human sinner like me whose mistakes just happened to end tragically.

If a non-Catholic, who killed my family in an irresponsible act, is my spiritual equal, a fellow child of God, how could a fellow Catholic, trying to live our faith, not be? Just because they are not in lock step with me politically?

Up until this post, I have tried to dutifully reflect Church teaching as it has been taught to me. But since I am sharing my own Christian Testimony, I’ll end with my opinion. And it is just my opinion, not a reflection on anyone here.

1. If we start arguing that Bishops in communion with Rome mislead and lay groups properly correct, we stop being Catholic - because our acts defy our regular proclamation that we believe in an apostolic church (Nicene Creed).
2. If we start arguing that everyone who is not in lock step agreement with us is a lesser Catholic with obviously flawed, or even evil intentions, we stop being Christians, because we are no longer modeling Christ.

With my opinion expressed, I hope the Peace of Jesus Christ is with you all, and I thank you for all the interesting correspondence during my visit. It has been very educational. Thank you.

 

[SuperLuigi]

We have enough trouble getting Catholics to acknowledge FIVE non-negotiable issues for voting, let alone 13 or more! Not that we should stop trying to educate malformed consciences, but that we recognize that just having Catholics vote from the 5 non-negotiables would change the political climate in this country in a HUGE way! It’s a question of priorities.

I agree.

Banning something like pornography would be like Prohibition, and we all know how that worked out!

Government is not always the answer to everything.

 

[SuperLuigi]

For being clear, this is my catholic political and juridical opinion:

1. About Prostitution:

The proxenetism should be punished by the penal law of state. The proxenet (the procurer) should be punished by the penal laws of State; The brothels should be banned by the penal laws of State;
**
The sexual traffic and the sexual slave have to be banned and punished: the supplier, the buyer and the owner of sexual slaves should be punished by the penal laws of the State**;

The promotion of the prostitution should be banned and punished by the penal laws of the State;

The prostitution on the public place should be punished by the penal law of State;

The physical violence on the prostitute should be punished by the penal laws of the State, but the acception of the physical violence does not have to be full of radical feminism, full of sexism from male (the machism) and has to be in function of this very special situation where the rules of game are not the same than in the real world: the level of the acception of physical violence should be stricter than in the other situations (see a special case law of the violence on prostitutes); the judicial debate about the means of proofs;

The prostitution under the legal age of the majority (between a person of 18 years and more, the client, and a prostitute under 18 year old) should be punished by the penal law of the state. Only, the client of 18 years and more should be punished the penal laws of State, not the prostitute under the age of 18 year old;

The sexual acts for money between two adults in the private place (in a bedroom, at home, in a motel, in a hostel, in a flat, in a house), should not be banned, prohibited and punished by the penal laws of State. The client and the prostitute should not be annoyed by the penal laws of the State;

1. About homosexuality:

The civil law of State does not have to recognize the “marriage” for the same sex persons. The State has no natural power to redefine the marriage: no natural rights to change the acception of what is the marriage;

The penal law of State does not have to criminalize the homosexual acts of the same sex persons who are consenting adults, in their bedroom, at home. It is not the business of State;

The promotion of homosexuality in school (primary school, secondary school, and Grammar school) should be banned by the penal law of State; The homo-education does not have to be normalized and banalized by the school;

1. About forcination, adultery, polygamy and polyandry and other.

The premarital sex between two consenting adults, in their bedroom, at home, does not have to be criminalized by the penal law of State;
**
The forcination between two consenting teenagers in their bedroom, at home, does not have to be criminalized by the penal law of State;**
**
The adultery between two consenting adults in their bedroom, at home, does not have to be criminalized by the penal law of State;**

The civil law of State does not have to recognize the polygamy and the polyandry, and the polygamy and the polyandry have to be banned by the penal law;

The civil law of State does not have to recognize the “marriage” between three persons and more;

The rape on woman by a man or the rape on woman by a woman or the rape on man by a woman or the rape on man y man has to be punished by the penal law of State;

The conjugal rape on the wife or on the husband has to be punished by the penal law of State;

**The sexual violences on a woman or on a man have to be punished by the penal law of State;

The sexual acts of pedophilia have to be punished by the penal law of State;**

Here in the US, we follow the Anglo-Saxon tradition of contracts and torts.

Under the Constitution, which has been gravely misunderstood by various courts and politicians over the last 210 years, all of these social and criminal laws are determined by the individual states, not Washington, DC.

To quote Jason Lewis: The framers of the Constitution wrote it so that it would protect us from government and foreigners, and the states exist to protect us from each other essentially.

So in the Constitution, each state determines its own social policy.