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

[Spider42]

Pope Benedict wrote in a letter to the American Bishops on Communion and politcians

Yes, but then Cardinal Ratzinger prepared the Doctrinal Note on voting and, as Benedict XVI, gave the list of 11 principles in it special status (Sacramentum Caritatis).

The question is not ‘are life issues of special importance’. Rome’s doctrinal note reflects this, as does the document from the USCCB.

The question is, is it licit to ignore Rome’s and the local Princes instructions on voting and focus on a much tinier subset of church teaching recommended from a lay group?

My response would be, it seems unwise. The Vicar of Christ gave certain items special emphasis for a reason. Also, Rome specifically warns that there is moral peril in focussing too narrowly (see #4 in Rome’s Doctrinal Note, which is also directly quoted for this specific point in the USCCB document). Again, I believe that Rome made this point and the local princes reiterated it for a a reason.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Pope Benedict wrote in a letter to the American Bishops on Communion and politcians

---

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia

In an address Pope Benedict said

No one can claim to speak ‘officially’ in the name of the entire lay faithful, or of all Catholics, in matters freely open to discussion. On the other hand, all Catholics, and indeed all men and women, are called to act with purified consciences and generous hearts in resolutely promoting those values which I have often referred to as ‘non-negotiable

Pope Benedict wrote in Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis ‘non negotiables’ as

respect for human life, its defence from conception to natural death, the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman, the freedom to educate one’s children and the promotion of the common good in all its forms

Pope Benedict said in a speech to members of the European People’s Party

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable

All that is good. All that is true. Yet, I don’t see that as answering upon what authority the Catholic Answers organization has declared that there are ONLY FIVE NON-NEGOTIABLE ISSUES upon which candidates for office in government should be evaluated. Where do they get the authority to teach that there are ONLY FIVE? They teach it as if it is obvious, self evident, or that the pope has ordered this. The comments in this thread from Spider42 seem to make clear that Cardinal Ratzinger listed ELEVEN ISSUES, not FIVE. Thus, I wonder if the idea of “5 Non-Negotiables” should be rejected and regarded as a renegade conception. I’m just asking.

As far as I can see, there are two requirements for an issue to be regarded as “Non-Negotiable.”

(1) First, the issue must be an “intrinsic evil.”

Abortion and gay sex certainly fit that. But so does use of birth control devices, and they are not on the list of the 5 Non-Negotiables. Why not? Use of birth control devices is a HUGE issue in the USA and in the Catholic Church right now. Everyone’s talking about it. Why shouldn’t we be asking candidates for office, “Will you support a constitutional amendment to outlaw the sale and use of birth control devices?” If they say “no,” then we will immediately know that they are a supporter of intrinsic evil, and we can vote accordingly. Why shouldn’t we be asking candidates for office, “Will you support a constitutional amendment to outlaw all sex between homosexuals?” If they say “no,” then we will immediately know that they are a supporter of intrinsic evil, and we can vote accordingly.

(2) Second, the issue must be something that a government can regulate with legislation.

Since the government in the U.S. has formerly regulated abortion, gay sex, and birth control devices, and did so for most of the history of the U.S., it is obvious that these are acts which the government can regulate with legislation. Why then does the 5 Non-Negotiables include abortion and gay marriage but leave out the intrinsic evil of birth control devices? It makes no sense!

In sum:

(1) If a Catholic evaluates a candidate only using the 5 Non-Negotiables list, he or she may get the impression that the candidate supports no intrinsic evils at all, when in fact the candidate may support MANY intrinsic evils, such as use of birth control devices, and no-fault divorce and remarriage, and even the legality of gay sex (the 5 Non-Negotiables only lists gay marriage, and says nothing about gay sex between gays who don’t have a state marriage license).

(2) This promotion of this 5 Non-Negotiables lists leaves many Catholics to think that they personally can ignore any moral teaching of the Church that is not on the list of 5 Non-Negotiables. It makes them think that all the other teaching of the Church, such as use of birth control devices, or sex as part of dating, is something that is “negotiable” and not absolutely and always wrong.

 

[Mulligan2]

To the OP: You need to remember that we live in a pluralistic society as opposed to a religious theocracy. You are certainly free to “persuade” someone to adhere to the tenets you list above, but you cannot “coerce” behavior through the strong arm of government - especially when the behavior doesn’t not have any impact on you (apart from your displeasure).

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

To the OP: You need to remember that we live in a pluralistic society as opposed to a religious theocracy. You are certainly free to “persuade” someone to adhere to the tenets you list above, but you cannot “coerce” behavior through the strong arm of government - especially when the behavior doesn’t not have any impact on you (apart from your displeasure).

If the above “no coercion” principle is applied to gay marriage, then the 5 Non-Negotiables list is invalid, and the teachings of the pope are invalid, since gay sex in a committed relationship “behavior doesn’t not have any impact on you (apart from your displeasure),” to quote the comment above.

Furthermore, state governments in the USA, for most of the history of the USA, did in fact legislatively prohibit birth control divorces, no-fault divorce, blasphemy, all gay sex (not just in gay marriage), all sex between heterosexuals who were not married, and so on.

The State of Virginia, in the time when Thomas Jefferson was governor of that state, had laws on matters like these. Would anyone seriously content than Thomas Jefferson was governor of a theocracy?

Birth control devices were totally illegal to use or buy or sell in the State of Connecticut until 1965. Was that state a theocracy until it was liberated from that status by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Griswold vs. Connecticut?

What this thread is really about is whether the 5 Non-Negotiable list is a valid tool for evaluating candidates for public office. I have serious doubts about that. It seems to be very defective.

Yet, it has been used for, I think, about 20 years now. At election times I’ve actually heard Catholics yelling at each other, saying things like, “You can’t vote for that party, because that party supports INTRINSIC EVIL! Just read 5 Non-Negotiables list!”

The faultiness in that approach is that there are MORE than just 5 intrinsic evils that the government can and should legislate against. There are NOT just 5 Non-Negotiates. It may turn out that BOTH parties in an election support intrinsic evils, when all the intrinsic evils are taken into consideration.

So why are some Catholic lay organizations leading Catholics to believe that there are just 5 Non-Negotiables? Are they…what? What’s going on?

 

[Mulligan2]

If the above “no coercion” principle is applied to gay marriage, then the 5 Non-Negotiables list is invalid, and the teachings of the pope are invalid, since gay sex in a committed relationship “behavior doesn’t not have any impact on you (apart from your displeasure),” to quote the comment above.?

Yes, the 5 non-negotiables list is invalid.

Furthermore, state governments in the USA, for most of the history of the USA, did in fact legislatively prohibit birth control divorces, no-fault divorce, blasphemy, all gay sex (not just in gay marriage), all sex between heterosexuals who were not married, and so on

Yes, and in hindsight these laws seem absurd.

The State of Virginia, in the time when Thomas Jefferson was governor of that state, had laws on matters like these. Would anyone seriously content than Thomas Jefferson was governor of a theocracy? ?

Jefferson is one of my favorite presidents. If Jefferson were alive today he would be a staunch libertarian on these issues.

Birth control devices were totally illegal to use or buy or sell in the State of Connecticut until 1965. Was that state a theocracy until it was liberated from that status by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Griswold vs. Connecticut??

Yes, a landmark decision that codified privacy and common sense.

What this thread is really about is whether the 5 Non-Negotiable list is a valid tool for evaluating candidates for public office. I have serious doubts about that. It seems to be very defective.?

It is.

Yet, it has been used for, I think, about 20 years now. At election times I’ve actually heard Catholics yelling at each other, saying things like, “You can’t vote for that party, because that party supports INTRINSIC EVIL! Just read 5 Non-Negotiables list!”

The faultiness in that approach is that there are MORE than just 5 intrinsic evils that the government can and should legislate against. There are NOT just 5 Non-Negotiates. It may turn out that BOTH parties in an election support intrinsic evils, when all the intrinsic evils are taken into consideration.

So why are some Catholic lay organizations leading Catholics to believe that there are just 5 Non-Negotiables? Are they…what? What’s going on?

I’m not going to tell you how you should vote. Nor should anyone else. Each voter should study all of the issues and make up their own mind.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Yes, the 5 non-negotiables list is invalid.

Yes, and in hindsight these laws seem absurd.

Jefferson is one of my favorite presidents. If Jefferson were alive today he would be a staunch libertarian on these issues.

Yes, a landmark decision that codified privacy and common sense.

It is.

I’m not going to tell you how you should vote. Nor should anyone else. Each voter should study all of the issues and make up their own mind.

The comment above expresses a coherent philosophy, a libertarian one, I guess. I recognize that Jefferson was a libertarian. But, there seems to be one possible problem with the libertarian approach. How can libertarians make convincing principled arguments against leaders like Mussolini, Franco and Hitler, who scared the citizens of their countries with conspiracy theories? LIbertarianism goes right out the window when people think (correctly or incorrectly) that a malevolent cabal is about to take over their country and put their lives in danger. We have that going on right now, too.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Jefferson is one of my favorite presidents.

I always wonder how anyone can be a fan of Thomas Jefferson, since he sat on his porch and drank mint juleps all day, reading Cicero and John Locke, while his overseers were whipping his slaves bloody down in the fields. Jefferson got rich without breaking a sweat, and his slaves got to live one more day, if they were lucky. What kind of man gets rich off of brutalizing other men and women? Not a good man.

Writing about slavery, Jefferson wrote this: “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.” So he knew it was wrong. But he could not pull himself away from the ill-gotten gain that he got from beating, whipping, and working to death other men and women.

What’s to admire? If Jefferson tried to pull that today, he’d get the death penalty or multiple life sentences with no chance of parole.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

I always wonder how anyone can be a fan of Thomas Jefferson, since he sat on his porch and drank mint juleps all day, reading Cicero and John Locke, while his overseers were whipping his slaves bloody down in the fields. Jefferson got rich without breaking a sweat, and his slaves got to live one more day, if they were lucky. What kind of man gets rich off of brutalizing other men and women? Not a good man.

Writing about slavery, Jefferson wrote this: “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.” So he knew it was wrong. But he could not pull himself away from the ill-gotten gain that he got from beating, whipping, and working to death other men and women.

What’s to admire? If Jefferson tried to pull that today, he’d get the death penalty or multiple life sentences with no chance of parole.

Don’t forget Jefferson’s use of his female slaves as his personal harem. Sally Hemmings, call your office.

 

[pnewton]

Are you saying that the Church’s teaching on the intrinsic evil of the use of birth control devices IS NEGOTIABLE?

No, I of course I did not say that. Where did you get that idea?

The list of five was before the HHS mandate became an issue. The key word is current, as in current issue. There will be no legislative initiative to ban artificial contraceptive. That it is not a current issue, just like there will be no legislative effort to close the door on every Church except the Catholic Church. Therefore, one does not have to vote based on these two moral teachings, but can vote on realistic issues.

FYI - If you read my post you would note that no where did I defend the idea of five non-negotiables.

 

[pnewton]

Could you elaborate on that? I must admit, I had no idea that this guide existed until today (since the Church has official pastoral and doctrinal notes on voting), but I actually am a bit shocked by it.

Weird as this may sound, I actually went to wiki to see if I was off, but I was right. This did start with CA. Realize it was in 2004. What constitutes a current issue changes over time.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Answers

The purpose of the guide was to consolidate the Church teaching on what current issues represented areas of grave mortal sin.

 

[Bran_Stark]

(7) Prostitution (Prostitution is legal in State of Nevada. Thus, clearly, the U.S. Constitution does NOT forbid prostitution, and at any time in the future any state could legalize it. President Lincoln argued for the 13th Amendment to the Constitution by saying that as long as slavery was legal in any state and legal under the U.S. Constitution, it would eventually spread to all the states.)

There’s no dogma of the Catholic Faith saying that prostitution must be illegal. It may be immoral, yes, and it’s certainly wrong to promote it, but both St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that it’s permissible for the civil authority to* tolerate* it, in order to prevent still-worse debaucheries.

 

[pnewton]

All that is good. All that is true. Yet, I don’t see that as answering upon what authority the Catholic Answers organization has declared that there are ONLY FIVE NON-NEGOTIABLE ISSUES upon which candidates for office in government should be evaluated.

Where do you get the authority to post here? Yet if you post something with sound logic, or properly reference Church teach others may learn. The same is true with Catholic Answers, which has a lot more than just the booklet. However, they are not without authority. They are an official apostolate that is registered in their diocese. Their ministry has the approval to the local bishop.

Now if you want to for the sake of your conscience expand the items you consider non-negotiable and vote for no one, then that is your perogative, and it is a decision a Catholic may morally make. If you want to say birth control is equally important, for example, and vote for someone who wants to ban birth control and keep abortion, then you can choose to vote for no one still because such a person does not exist on the politcal scene. In fact, I would bet there is no one that wishes to enact legislation that prevents any of your added non-negotiables, but approves on the original five.

So you can surely choose to be more picky. If on the other hand one wishes to use the “no one’s perfect” line to vote pro-abortion, then Catholic teaching clearly says this is wrong.

This promotion of this 5 Non-Negotiables lists leaves many Catholics to think that they personally can ignore any moral teaching of the Church that is not on the list of 5 Non-Negotiables. It makes them think that all the other teaching of the Church, such as use of birth control devices, or sex as part of dating, is something that is “negotiable” and not absolutely and always wrong.

Actually, you are the first person I have heard since 2004 that has this issue.It is pretty easy to understand. Here is the online version.

catholic.com/sites/default/files/voters_guide_for_serious_catholics.pdf

Note, that the actual guide never says there are only five. It says it is these are five areas that “in play”. The appendix explains why these were chosen.

 

[fix]

What Rome teaches on voting is here:

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

There is a list of fundamental issues in #4, though the entire document is worth reading. The list in #4 is cited in a papal document, Sacramentum Caritatus, and described as “non negotiable”.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html (see 83)

This makes Rome’s document very hard for US Catholics to apply, since we would have to compromise on multiple “non negotiables” to vote for any major party candidate. So the USCCB provided this document:

usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/

I have seen the document derided by US Catholics who describe themselves as ‘conservative’, but I think that criticism is wholly unfounded. Several very conservative bishops (ex. Burke) oversaw it’s creation. The document itself quotes the Doctrinal Note from Rome above extensively and the part that seems to bother some US Catholics the most, the bishops’ explanation of how Catholics should apply proportionate reasoning in their voting with individual conscience as the ultimate arbiter, came from then Cardinal Ratzinger in a private letter to the bishops that was later leaked. I would have to agree with the late conservative theologian Fr. Richard Neuhaus, who praised the document for it’s theological accuracy.

That said, the document is not simple (nor is the Doctrinal Note from Rome). Application requires a lot of soul searching and reflection. But I would contend that our faith compels us to do what is right, not what is easy.

I’m sorry, I do not know where your list of 5 items in voting came from, other than it did not come from the Mother Church.

Several bishops have explained the USCCB document. None of them claimed one’s conscience can support any candidate depending upon how one informs their conscience. The problem with the document is not that it contains errors. The problem is dissenters claim they may vote for a pro abortion candidate based on that document. Truth cannot contradict truth. It cannot be that voting pro abortion is licit and not licit at the same time.

Proportionate reasons are not subjective and arbitrary.

 

[fix]

But look at #8:

“Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice.”

If we politically hold gays to our standards of chastity and marriage but not heterosexuals (a much larger group) with regards to divorce, an area of chastity on which we were directly instructed by Jesus, we fail this standard. We are being selective and unjust, undermining the faith basis for our activity.

I can’t comment on the specific lay guide above, I haven’t studied it, but I suspect that one reason that lay Catholics want a much simpler list is it is easier to fit to partisan politics. In the US, partisan loyalties ave very intense. But Jesus warned us of the dangers of serving two masters.

Your analysis of that quote is not accurate. You assert that it is unjust based on an erroneous position. First not all issues are at play in each election. Secondly, unequals must be treated unequally. That is a matter of justice.

Redefining marriage has a much greater impact on civilization than civil divorce as one example.

 

[fix]

Now if you want to for the sake of your conscience expand the items you consider non-negotiable and vote for no one, then that is your perogative, and it is a decision a Catholic may morally make. If you want to say birth control is equally important, for example, and vote for someone who wants to ban birth control and keep abortion, then you can choose to vote for no one still because such a person does not exist on the politcal scene. In fact, I would bet there is no one that wishes to enact legislation that prevents any of your added non-negotiables, but approves on the original five.

So you can surely choose to be more picky. If on the other hand one wishes to use the “no one’s perfect” line to vote pro-abortion, then Catholic teaching clearly says this is wrong.

Thank you for pointing this out. Clear and easy.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Where do you get the authority to post here? Yet if you post something with sound logic, or properly reference Church teach others may learn. The same is true with Catholic Answers, which has a lot more than just the booklet. However, they are not without authority. They are an official apostolate that is registered in their diocese. Their ministry has the approval to the local bishop.

**Now if you want to for the sake of your conscience expand the items you consider non-negotiable and vote for no one, then that is your perogative, and it is a decision a Catholic may morally make. If you want to say birth control is equally important, for example, and vote for someone who wants to ban birth control and keep abortion, then you can choose to vote for no one still because such a person does not exist on the politcal scene. In fact, I would bet there is no one that wishes to enact legislation that prevents any of your added non-negotiables, but approves on the original five.

So you can surely choose to be more picky. If on the other hand one wishes to use the “no one’s perfect” line to vote pro-abortion, then Catholic teaching clearly says this is wrong.
**
Actually, you are the first person I have heard since 2004 that has this issue.It is pretty easy to understand. Here is the online version.

catholic.com/sites/default/files/voters_guide_for_serious_catholics.pdf

Note, that the actual guide never says there are only five. It says it is these are five areas that “in play”. The appendix explains why these were chosen.

:doh2:

Ohhhhh…Now I get it - thanks for the drill-down. That indeed, may be the reason for the OP.

 

[Tighty_Whitey]

Why do we as Catholics have to view “No Fault” divorce as a non-negotiable. Millions of non Catholics get married in non Catholic services every year. We don’t live in a theocracy.

There are many reasons why birth control pills are prescribed that have nothing to do with preventing a birth. Why would such be a non-negotiable?

Exactly how is a politician supposed to try to legislate non-marital sex or blasphemy? I certainly understand the Church’s teaching on this issue, however, a politician is again working within a secular framework.

I can’t but help and shake my head and grimace at the OP’s naivete and failure to understand the erosion of our religious freedoms.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Weird as this may sound, I actually went to wiki to see if I was off, but I was right. This did start with CA. Realize it was in 2004. What constitutes a current issue changes over time.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Answers

The purpose of the guide was to consolidate the Church teaching on what current issues represented areas of grave mortal sin.

Thanks for the post above.

I went to the Wikipedia link given above.

Assuming this Wikipedia article on the Catholic Answers organization is correct, then I learned something I really did not know: the “5 Non-Negotiables” are an invention of the lay Catholics who run Catholic Answers. The “5 Non-Negotiables” did not come from the Catholic Church.

A tiny number of bishops may have endorsed them. But the pope and the U.S. bishops have both put out their own guidelines for Catholics to use for voting, and the guidelines of the popes and the bishops are radically different from this “5 Non-Negotiables” approach promoted by Catholic Answers. That is a shocker to me!

I have been a listening to Catholic Answers radio and have been reading conservative Catholic periodicals for years, and always got the impression that the “5 Non-Negotiables” was the official Catholic way of evaluating political officeholders and candidates for public office. Now it turns out: NO SO!

I think Catholic Answers owes us all an apology, and an explanation. Catholic Answers can do whatever it wants, as long as it stays within the pale of orthodoxy. But the lay Catholics of Catholic Answer have NO RIGHT to promote their own inventions and own opinions as if those are official teachings of the Catholic Church. Catholic Answers should just admit that they were promoting their own idea of a good POLITICAL STRATEGY to help one party win over the other, and that their “5 Non-Negotiables” list was not a list of the only serious moral issues in America today.

The essence of the shocking and I would say even scandalous nature of all this is that THERE ARE MORE THAN 5 NON-NEGOTIABLE MORAL DOCTRINES that are at stake in government legislation.

The Catholic Answers’ voters guide states plainly the criteria it used for selecting the “5 Non-Negotiables.” Here’s what it says:

“This voter’s guide focuses on five non-negotiable issues. These were selected because they involve principles that never admit of exceptions and because they are currently being debated in U.S. politics…”

See: catholic.com/sites/default/files/voters_guide_for_serious_catholics.pdf

Now, it is OBVIOUS that the legal sale and use of birth control devices and pills for contraceptive purposes fits into that above definition. People are constantly debating birth control. It has been debated on the floor of the U.S. Congress recently. The whole HHS mandate is all about birth control devices.

So, why did Catholic Answers leave out the legality of the sale and use of birth control
devices? Because they secretly dissent from the Church’s authoritative and constant teaching on this? I doubt that. The Catholic Answers web site clearly states that the use of birth control devices for contraception is an intrinsic evil which never admits of exceptions. So, why then?

There are other intrinsic evils that fit the definition above too: No-fault divorce and remarriage. A tiny few states have adopted the option of “covenant marriage,” which allows people to enter into a marriage that cannot be dissolved on a no-fault basis. But these are controversial, and being much debated.

So, why did Catholic Answers pick just those 5 issues?

All in all, I’ve learned a LOT from this thread. Thanks for all who contributed. I will learn to be less trustful of activist Catholic lay organizations that get involved in politics.

 

[fix]

Now, it is OBVIOUS that the legal sale and use of birth control devices and pills for contraceptive purposes fits into that above definition.

It is not obvious at all as the issue was not in play in the past elections.

People are constantly debating birth control. It has been debated on the floor of the U.S. Congress recently. The whole HHS mandate is all about birth control devices.

The debate is about religious liberty not the prohibition of drugs. You cannot ban drugs with illicit uses as all drugs may have illicit uses.

So, why did Catholic Answers leave out the legality of the sale and use of birth control
devices?

Because no one was advocating for that.

There are other intrinsic evils that fit the definition above too: No-fault divorce and remarriage. A tiny few states have adopted the option of “covenant marriage,” which allows people to enter into a marriage that cannot be dissolved on a no-fault basis. But these are controversial, and being much debated.

Was there a candidate promoting divorce law changes on a federal level?

 

[Spider42]

Proportionate reasons are not subjective and arbitrary.

That would seem to be one of two very important points. The first is the question, it is reasonable for lay Catholics to take it upon themselves to shrink, alter, and simplify a set of concerns addressed to all Catholics from the Holy See.

On this issue we have Rome’s list itself. In addition to spelling out 11 fundamental concerns, it appears to specifically warn that focusing narrowly on specific issues is a potential moral hazard:

“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.” #4

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

Of course, my interpretation of this paragraph could be incorrect, but then we can look to the USCCB, whose document does explain, in more detail, how one licitly balances the 11 issues raised by Rome and the specific tension raised above (single issue versus common good). The Bishops even identify the two most common mistakes made by their flock:

"27. Two temptations in public life can distort the Church’s defense of human life and dignity:

1. The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.3
2. The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture,4 war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed…
3. The Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made a similar point…"

usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-part-one.cfm (truncated for size)

30 is followed by an expanded version of precisely the same quote from Rome I just provided above, so it would seem that the USCCB’s interpretation of Rome’s meaning is indistinguishable from mine.

But you raise another very important point, we have an extensive doctrine on precisely how we are to develop our moral conscience (development itself is something that we are dogmatically required to do). We also have specific instruction from the Mother Church on an appropriate way to apply proportionate reasoning. This is covered in considerable detail in the Bishop’s document, but it did not originate with them.

It appears to have originated with the CDF. Then Cardinal Ratzinger corresponded with the bishops and explained suitable proportionate reasons in political context to them. The principles appear to be reasonably and accurately conveyed, but it is difficult to form an opinion since only a portion of the Cardinal’s instructions were, incorrectly, released and the Cardinal has expressly instructed lay Catholics not to try to interpret his letter for themselves.

The Doctrinal Note from Rome does not introduce the concept of proportionate reasons. It only references the concept of minimizing harm from Evangelium Vitae and specifically warns Catholics not to use it broadly. Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter does, but we are instructed not to try to use it ourselves. This leaves only the document from the USCCB. Which Catholic Answers voting guide does not reference at all…

I’m sorry, I don’t have time today to respond to all your points, but at the risk of over simplifying, it seems that some arguments are being made that Catholic Answers is doing a service by shrinking Rome’s list and analyzing current politics.

In response, I can’t help but think of the last sentence I quoted from Rome above:

“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.”

In that light, wouldn’t a “serious” Catholic weigh ALL the issues given special emphasis by the Holy See and give the local prince’s explanation on how to avoid a moral hazard identified by Rome serious and dutiful consideration (Lumen Gentium #25) instead of relying on a lay group’s judgement of doctrine, dogma, and political feasibility?

I don’t mean to be flippant, but it reminds me of my students. The ‘serious’ one’s read the entire assignment and give it real thought. It’s the lazy ones who rely exclusively on a simple cheat sheet.