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

[Bartolome_Casas]

The current 5 Non-Negotiables is a list of acts that are intrinsic evils according to the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church.

These are the intrinsic evils on the current 5 Non-Negotiables list:

(1) Abortion
(2) Euthanasia
(3) Embryonic Stem Cell Research
(4) Human Cloning
(5) Homosexual “marriage”

Some Catholics recommend using this list as a guide for voting for political candidates and political parties.

The current 5 Non-Negotiables are viewed as a valid “test” of the morality of a candidate or party because all of the acts on the list are intrinsic evils, which means that they are serious moral evils and can never be moral in any degree or in any situation.

I think they are called “Non-Negotiable” because a moral person in a legislature cannot/should not engage in “horse trading” over intrinsic evils with other issues that are not intrinsic evils.

For example, a legislator who submits to objective morality would never or should never agree to vote for a bill that legalizes Euthanasia as a tactic to get another legislator to vote for a bill to fund the construction of a bridge in the district he represents. Rather, a legislator who submits to objective morality would never under any circumstances vote for a bill that legalizes Euthanasia, and would never vote against a bill that re-criminalizes Euthanasia (in a situation in which it had already be legalized).

I just see one little problem with all of this, and, as far as I can see, the problem is not little, it is HUGE.

The problem is that current federal and state law in the U.S. already makes legal the following 8 intrinsic evils.

The Other 8 Non-Negotiables are:

(1) No-fault divorce and remarriage.
(2) Sale and use of birth control devices (in addition to the intrinsic evil of intentional contraception, birth control pills cause the intrinsic evil of abortion a certain percentage of the time, even if the users don’t know it).
(3) Pornography production, distribution, viewing and possession.
(4) Adultery.
(5) Any and all sex acts between two or more consenting heterosexual adults outside of legal marriage.
(6) Any and all sex acts between two or more consenting homosexual adults outside of legal marriage.
(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.)
(8) Blasphemy.

All 8 of those intrinsic evils above were formerly illegal in the laws of the U.S. states and/or the U.S. federal government.

These 8 intrinsic evils were made legal (and made widespread) in the U.S.A. by bills passed by legislators that repealed the former legal prohibitions. All this happened mainly since the 1960s. For most of U.S. history, these things were illegal.

Therefore, legislators could—and should–pass new bills that restore the traditional legal code that makes these 8 intrinsic evils illegal once again.

Given the grave harm done to souls, families and societies, a valid “test” for the morality of a legislator or candidate for the legislature, or for an organized party of legislators and candidates, would be whether they pledge to never vote the for those 8 Non-Negotiables in addition to the 5 Non-Negotiables currently being used for this purpose.

Yet, we never heard anything about these Other 8 Non-Negotiables. No one recommends that the morality of candidates or legislators or parties by judged by these Other 8 Non-Negotiables.

Why?

It can’t be because the 5 Non-Negotiables are all about the direct killing of innocent human life, since the 5 Non-Negotiables contains Homosexual “Marriage,” which doesn’t kill anyone.

Surely the legalization of birth control devices, and the legalization of no-fault divorce and remarriage have done at least as much harm to souls, families, and souls as the legalization of gay marriage. Yet, those intrinsic evils don’t make the list of the 5 Non-Negotiables that some people circulate at election time.

Why?

Who came up with this list of “the 5 Non-Negotiables”? For what reason? Why did thy omit all these other intrinsic evils that are the proper subject of government regulation?

I know that for several years I WAS MISLED. Like many others, I used the 5 Non-Negotiables list to evaluate candidates. I thought these were the only intrinsic evils at stake. But, thanks to the Catechism, and the Vatican web site, I’ve learned more.

At the very least, should not Catholics be informed that there are MORE than 5 intrinsic evils that are the proper subject of government legislation? Doesn’t BASIC HONESTY call for that?

But, even better, should we not start using the 13 NON-NEGOTIABLES to evaluate candidates at election time?

I don’t see this as a matter of politics. I see this as a matter of Catholics really knowing and seeing what is moral and what is immoral, what is an intrinsic evil and what is not an intrinsic evil. I think we Catholics are in danger of being misled by cynical, amoral people greedy for political power. As a Catholic Answers Forum moderator for this sub-forum has written:

“Rather, we ought to sentire cum ecclesia, to “think with the Church.” This means that we must not only believe the Creeds and declarations of the ecumenical councils and the infallible pronouncements of the Holy Father, but that we must also hold to the common sentence of the approved theologians.”

 

[Spider42]

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.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

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.

Spider42,

I will go now and read the web pages you cited.

I also appreciate your information about the voting guidelines issued by the U.S. Catholic bishops being in conformity with the teachings of Cardinal Burke and Cardinal Ratzinger.

I’m still puzzled about who came up with the 5 Non-Negotiables, and why so many conservative Catholics promote them. Perhaps those web sites you cited will give some insights.

Thank you very much.
Barto

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

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.

I don’t know what the ultimate origin of the 5 Non-Negotiables list is.

But Catholic Answers presents the 5 Non-Negotiables in its voters guide. Go to pages 3, 4 and 5 of the following PDF web page:
catholic.com/sites/default/files/voters_guide_for_serious_catholics.pdf

This Catholic Answers voter guide presents the whole 5 Non-Negotiables approach as if it is obvious or an official Catholic Church doctrine. But is it? I don’t know. But I don’t think so. Anyway, I am trying to learn about this.

Who said that there are ONLY FIVE non-negotiable intrinsic evils? Who decided this? Are Catholics bound to accept this view? Who said that this is the only way to judge candidates for public office?

Are we to conclude that the people at Catholics Answers think that the legality of birth control devices IS NEGOTIABLE? Use of birth control devises IS an intrinsic evil, and they formerly were illegal in some states of the U.S.

 

[ExGratia]

I think that the non-negotiables are probably in response to issues that come up during election season. For example, I have yet to see serious candidates debating fornication or no-fault divorce. Therefore, those don’t really apply during election season, and a longer list could be distracting. It could lead to less people voting, since people use “well, none of the candidates are perfect” as an excuse to not vote or even as an excuse to vote for the one who has less moral policies but will “do something” for them.

 

[Spider42]

But is it?

No, what I gave you above is official church doctrine (look at the links, they are all the Vatican and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops - also look at the bottom of the Doctrinal Note from Rome, it was prepared by then Cardinal Ratzinger, now our pope).

What you are linking to appears to be wholly the creation of a lay group. It is not from the Church. I don’t have much time to study it right now, but it is on the USCCB’s list of materials that are specifically NOT recommended for parish use.

We are an apostolic church, the modern apostles are the “authentic teachers”. This is non negotiable as well (Lumen Gentium, #25 - the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church).

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

…

What you are linking to appears to be wholly the creation of a lay group. It is not from the Church. I don’t have much time to study it right now, but it is on the USCCB’s list of materials that are specifically NOT recommended for parish use.

Can you be more specific about where this list can be found? I remember that the last few
years, the Catholic Answers booklet had an imprimatur. “Not recommended” does not say
that they can’t be used, but I would like to read the document.

 

[Spider42]

…and a longer list could be distracting.

Well, both Rome and the US Bishops argue that a longer list must be considered. Rome explains it this way:

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

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html (#4)

Look at the sentence in the middle:

“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.”

Let’s take an example, the same doctrinal note lists 11 examples of “fundamental and inalienable ethical demands”. According to our current pope, the entire list is “non negotiable” (Sacramentum Caritatis). Let’s look at just one:

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

If, for example, we decided that this was ‘too broad’, and simplified it to ‘gay marriage’ (which is included), we would be actually undermining the faith. Our position on gay marriage is derived from our understanding of the Sacrament of Marriage and our beliefs on the concept of Chastity. This is well explained here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

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.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Can you be more specific about where this list can be found? I remember that the last few
years, the Catholic Answers booklet had an imprimatur. “Not recommended” does not say
that they can’t be used, but I would like to read the document.

This document might help.

 

[Spider42]

Can you be more specific about where this list can be found? I remember that the last few
years, the Catholic Answers booklet had an imprimatur. “Not recommended” does not say
that they can’t be used, but I would like to read the document.

I’m accessing documents via a non public service. I will inquire if there are public versions. I’ll also check if I’m referencing an old list.

That said, I would have to say, the Doctrinal Note from Rome I linked above is addressed to all Catholics and contains a list of 11 examples of fundamental moral principles. That is has been described as “non negotiable” by Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation (Sacramentum Caritatis, also linked above).

At a glance, it seems that not only is the lay group’s list shorter, there is very little direct overlap. So using it would result in ignoring a significant number of considerations that the Holy See has expressly instructed us to consider in our political activity.

Not to deride the efforts of any Catholics, but the Apostles are the authentic teachers, with special moral authority. Ignoring their instruction in favor of a lay interpretation of Church doctrine is not something that I, personally, would ever recommend.

 

[pnewton]

I actually thing CA originated the term which has been used extensively in Catholic circles. There are five because there are five current issues in which the Church has non-negotiable teaching. However, if one reads the USCCB document and the one from Rome, they are only non-negotiable in their practice or their promotion. They apply to peolpe that commit these sins, and to politicians. Voters on the other hand are not held to absolute standards as the cooperation with evil is more remote.

As to their promotion by conservatives, well, you can blame the Democratic Party for allowing this. If they did not so consistently and actively promote abortion, they would not have let themselves open to such a solid attack.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Well, both Rome and the US Bishops argue that a longer list must be considered. Rome explains it this way:

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

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html (#4)

Look at the sentence in the middle:

“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.”

Let’s take an example, the same doctrinal note lists 11 examples of “fundamental and inalienable ethical demands”. According to our current pope, the entire list is “non negotiable” (Sacramentum Caritatis). Let’s look at just one:

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

If, for example, we decided that this was ‘too broad’, and simplified it to ‘gay marriage’ (which is included), we would be actually undermining the faith. Our position on gay marriage is derived from our understanding of the Sacrament of Marriage and our beliefs on the concept of Chastity. This is well explained here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

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.

WOW! The above is some of the clearest, orthodox Catholic explanation of anything I’ve read or heard in a LONG time! What a relief to read an HONEST and FULL explication of the Faith, without all the slanting, squishing, twisting, minimalizing, and hyperbole that so often is passed off at authentic teaching.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

I actually thing CA originated the term which has been used extensively in Catholic circles. There are five because there are five current issues in which the Church has non-negotiable teaching.

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

Is that TRUE?

The Catholic Answers web site, Catholic.com, has a track that directly says:

–“In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, “Human Life”), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.”

–“The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception.”

Those two quotes can be found on: catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

We also know that birth control devices are a proper subject of government regulation because the use and sale of such devices were TOTALLY ILLEGAL in the State of Connecticut until 1965, and became legal only because the U.S. Supreme Court rules that law in Connecticut to be unconstitutional because, said the majority of the Court, the U.S. Constitution contains a “right to privacy” in reproductive matters. In 1973, the Court used that same reasoning to make abortion a constitutional right. Of course, the U.S. Constitution actually says NOTHING about reproduction or privacy regarding reproduction.

Thus, as far as I can tell, it is IMPOSSIBLE to conclude that there are ONLY FIVE NON-NEGOTIABLES. The legalization of the use and sale of birth control devices certainly raises the count up to SIX.

Plus, as the original post in this thread shows, there appears to be at least a total of THIRTEEN.

Are you saying that the use of birth control devices is NOT A CURRENT ISSUE? How can that be, since the HHS Mandate issue is ALL about the use of birth control devices. If birth control devices were illegal, as the Church demands, there would be no HHS Mandate at all.

Thus, how on earth can anyone defend proposing this shrunken down list of 5 Non-Negotiables? That’s what I’m trying to learn!

 

[Spider42]

There are five because there are five current issues in which the Church has non-negotiable teaching.

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.

The document acknowledges the existence of a doctrinal note from Rome, it even cites it, but then chooses to put forth, not a subset of the list provided by Rome, one declared “non negotiable” by the pope, but a somewhat different list altogether. It then provides a formula for applying the list that is significantly at odds with the proper application of proportionate reasoning that is provided by the USCCB (a document that is neither cited nor acknowledged) and then Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter.

I cannot presume to know “Catholic Answers’” motives, but the document does give the distinct impression that it is offering an alternate, highly distorted application of faith.Some of the aspects of faith in Rome’s list of fundamental moral principles which the guide omits are also items which the Pope chose to highlight in his New Years address to the US.

Again, I can’t presume to know intent, but that sort of discrepancy is pretty disturbing from a Catholic point of view - essentially ‘Catholics should vote based on what we think is important, not what the Pope thinks is important…’ Not a very good fit with an apostolic church!

 

[Spider42]

WOW! The above is some of the clearest, orthodox Catholic explanation of anything I’ve read or heard in a LONG time! What a relief to read an HONEST and FULL explication of the Faith, without all the slanting, squishing, twisting, minimalizing, and hyperbole that so often is passed off at authentic teaching.

I can’t take any credit. All I do is pull big chunks from doctrinal documents from the Church!

The two main documents, Rome’s and the USCCB’s, really are meant to work together. Rome sets the doctrine and emphasis, the Bishops explain how to potentially apply it in our messy political system.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

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.

 

[Rence]

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.

Of course it would change the political climate: there are 8 more things important, straight from the Vatican, to consider that might otherwise be put on the backburner. That changes things quite a bit. But most people who have read the US Bishops’ guide know that already.

 

[anruari]

There is a hierarchy of evil.
Mass - Killing of the innocent and vulnerable is at the top of the list of social Justice.
We have been repeatedly told by our current Pope and his Predecessor that in the absence of a inviolable Right To Life, from the moment of Conception until a Natural Death, that any other talk of “Human Rights” is impossible and nothing more than a whitewash.

This issue must be tackled first.
How can you have a “right” to free speech, votes, healthcare, education, housing, employment, marriage, divorce, social welfare, non discrimination, or any other issue proposed by the multitude of religious or political viewpoints, if you do not first have a right to life?
Without that right nothing else matters.

Including “Gay Marriage” on a list of current most important voting issues is only due to it’s being a current front line issue. It’s an issue on the manifestos of every major candidate in every election in most of the western world.
We can make a difference on this issue NOW. other issues surrounding Mariage, monogomy etc aren’t the same “hot topic” this year.

---

My view on this:
Laws need to be prohibitive rather than permissive in nature (i.e. you legislate to prohibit murder… you dont legislate to permit specific licenced individuals to have a right to procreate)

An assessment of the proposed changes to the definition of Marriage needs not to look at “Gay Rights” on this issue. All men and women have a Right to get married. - They just need to find a person of the opposite sex who is eligible and willing.

The modern issue arises form a huge confusion on what marriage is.

It is not the acknowledgement by the state or faith group of a romantic attachement between to people. Being “In Love” has almost notingh to do with marriage.

Marriage is the instution by which new families are formed. The family is the God-Instituted structure in which children are best reared. It is the basic building block and the Foundation of all society.

Agreements by other people to live together and have contracts about inheritance, sharing of living arrangements and other such issues are not marriage. that is “Living in community”
If people want the State to give better legal status to other forms of long term living arrangement that’s the nature of democracy. But it is NOT marriage. it never will be. it does not form Family, any more than your co-workers in the office, military unit, or religious community are “Family”. Some people draw a strong analogy between these structures and family, but it’s a metaphor… not the real thing.

 

[_Abyssinia]

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

 

[Spider42]

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’m sympathetic to your frustration. Catholics are 25% of the electorate in the US, but we consistently cannot politically enact even relatively simple recommendations that the Vicar of Christ addresses directly to us.

But if we are going to address our faith as a zero sum game, where some teachings are sacrificed so that we can enact political change on others, the question arises, who sets the priorities?

The lay voters guide doesn’t choose a subset of Rome’s priorities, it by and large provides a completely alternate list altogether.

The Catechism I have is over 800 pages long. By identifying 11 key issues in voting, Rome has already greatly collapsed our faith. If lay Catholics, on their own, decide to simplify the faith further, there is always the very real possibility of distorting and undermining the faith as a whole.

For example, Rome includes a broad point about protecting the FAMILY on it’s list (see my post above), the lay guide shrinks this to “gay marriage”. So a voter might think that he is promoting our teaching on marriage by voting for a candidate who is divorced and an admitted adulterer, but vehemently opposes gay marriage. That is, the voter is supposedly promoting our belief in chastity and the sacrament of marriage by voting for a candidate who, personally and publicly, rejects both.

Similarly, the Church includes “respect for the Human Embryo”, which the lay guide shrinks to “embryonic stem cell research”. We recently had a national candidate that opposed embryonic stem cell research, but supported IVF in his immediate family. That’s not to say that Catholics in good conscience could not have voted for him via proportionate reasons, but it is “theologically incoherent” (to quote the Doctrinal Note on voting from Rome) to argue that the vote was based on this particular Catholic teaching. The candidate himself had directly participated in the creation and destruction of more human zygotes than have been used in all current embryonic stem cell lines!

What troubles me, personally, most about the lay guide is that it omits some items from Rome’s list which various popes have specifically identified as “life issues”. As the USCCB notes in it’s document, life issues carry special weight, because life is the most basic inalienable right of the human person (Christifidelis Laici #38).

As I’ve said repeatedly, I do not presume to know any motives and intentions behind this particular lay document. But if we want priorities, I would propose that we have to look the the Magisterium. That is their job, and the reason that they have the gift of authority.