Bishop orders priests to read anti-Obama letter at Sunday sermons

[Prodigal_Son1]

No. I do not believe you have interpreted them correctly.

The debate, over interpretation, is among many Catholics. Why do you think the Church, unified, doesn’t make a clear clarification to remove any mistakes?

 

[Al_Moritz]

Two things.

1. Having a perfectly formed conscience is not possible. It’s like creating a perfect sphere. Not possible whatsoever. You may think you have a well-formed conscience, but no person in history has had what you claim, save for Mary and Jesus. The implication of perfection is the conscience is flawless from the beginning of time to the end of time.

Nowhere did I say that I have a ‘perfectly formed’ conscience. I said ‘properly formed’.

1. EVEN IF you think your conscience is well-formed, or properly formed, there are numerous people, myself among them, who think the same thing, and believe the EXACT opposite of what you believe.

I am aware of that. But as others have pointed out, I have read the relevant Church documents correctly. I trust that you have properly formed your conscience according to what you perceive as the correct reading of the Church documents, but I and others have pointed out that these documents need not be read your way, a way that seems rather selective.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I would just add that Catholics really need to be aware that in the current atmosphere of heresy and dissident teaching coming even from some of our pulpits, that it is not individual priests or even bishops that we follow in the formation of our conscience. It is, rather, the infallible teachings of Holy Mother Church through her entire Magisterium.

 

[Mickey]

The debate, over interpretation, is among many Catholics. Why do you think the Church, unified, doesn’t make a clear clarification to remove any mistakes?

Whatever do you mean? The Church is very clear on the matter.

 

[Mickey]

If you can’t see that Catholic priests being ordered by their Bishop to tell parishioners-- at Sunday Mass, no less-- that they are rejecting Jesus and committing a grave sin if they vote for Obama is endorsing a “particular” candidate then…well…to quote Paul Newman as Butch: I can’t help you, Sundance.

Except in most cases…that is not what is happening. The priests and bishops are telling their parishoners that the Church stands against abortion, infanticide, contraception, and gay “marriage.” There is only one candidate who champions all those issues. And so the individual Catholic must put two and two together.

If you can’t see that…then I can’t help you Sundance.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Whatever do you mean? The Church is very clear on the matter.

Catholics appear to be split, almost evenly, on the interpretation of some Church documents;e.g. voter’s guide. Catholics, after the last election, stated the guide was vague and could be interpreted a couple of ways. Before this election the Bishops revisited the issue. Then the same guide was released, with no change in wording.

We have clergy who say to vote one way is a mortal sin, and others who say it is not. This seems to indicate a unified instruction that all Catholics can feel assured they have not misinterpreted a document.

 

[wynnejj]

=If people refuse to accept there are serious environmental problems harming and killing people and even more serious ones in the pipes or in process that could kill off a large portion (perhaps all) of life and humanity, so be it. Vote your mind and your conscience.

Environmental issues are indeed important issues. The only problem with the environmental issue camp is its often close ties to the population control camp. And also its attempt to make inroads to a “new world order” world government controlling autonomous countries with “environmental tax penalties” through agencies that are elected how? The social justice anti-poverty camps have similar problems in their agendas. One would think that in order to fight the war on poverty, one would have to throw out the baby with that environmental waste water. Global family planning is tightly linked with all the social justice and environmental protection movements. And for supposed solidarity purposes, they deny the need for the principles of subsidiarity. Church & Family are under attack by the “family planning” wings of both the social justice and environmental protection movements.

 

[Mickey]

Catholics appear to be split, almost evenly, on the interpretation of some Church documents;e.g. voter’s guide. Catholics, after the last election, stated the guide was vague and could be interpreted a couple of ways. Before this election the Bishops revisited the issue. Then the same guide was released, with no change in wording.

We have clergy who say to vote one way is a mortal sin, and others who say it is not. This seems to indicate a unified instruction that all Catholics can feel assured they have not misinterpreted a document.

I disagree. If half the people are interpreting these guidelines to mean they can vote for a candidate that supports abortion/infanticide, contraception, and gay “marriage.”…then they are the ones who are misinterpreting it.

The vast majority of clergy are saying that it is intrinsically evil to vote for a candidate who supports abortion/infanticide, contraception, and gay “marriage.”

Again…I think it is very clear.

 

[Ohana]

The directives I have seen from the Bishops, including an online talk by Bishop of Springfield Illinois, speak to the issues, not the man. It is pretty clear who falls on which side of the argument, but the Bishops have stayed clear of that trap. Bishop of Springfield is a lawyer, very good at mounting a legally defensible argument.

I have to admit, I find this a very difficult election because of the needs of women, not for abortion but for care. Women are again "throw-away people. The needs of our gay brothers and sister, and others who will be marginalized by this action is also a source of sadness to me.

I leave it in God’s hands.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I disagree. If half the people are interpreting these guidelines to mean they can vote for a candidate that supports abortion/infanticide, contraception, and gay “marriage.”…then they are the ones who are misinterpreting it.

The vast majority of clergy are saying that it is intrinsically evil to vote for a candidate who supports abortion/infanticide, contraception, and gay “marriage.”

Again…I think it is very clear.

In reading many of those ‘saying’ we see a qualification of ‘if it is the voter’s intent to support that candidate’s position.’ Cardinal Ratzinger wrote it in 2004, it was used in the voter’s guide in 2008, and remains not clarified for this election. It was even specifically identified as the ‘vague’ language to cause the Bishops to revisit the guide before releasing it, unchanged, this year.

What makes a part of them correct in their interpretation over others?

Assuming half of Catholics have misinterpreted the guide, why doesn’t the Church make a distinct clarification as to remove any possibility of a misinterpretation to prevent millions of Catholics going astray?

 

[Mickey]

Assuming half of Catholics have misinterpreted the guide, why doesn’t the Church make a distinct clarification as to remove any possibility of a misinterpretation to prevent millions of Catholics going astray?

I suppose the Church feels that it needs no clarification. To me, and many others it seems very clear. Nothing trumps the intrinsic evil of abortion…and in the case of this election there are many other issues that fly in the face of Catholics…and all Christians in general. I am not Catholic (although I was for many years) and it seems very clear to me. However, if you and others see discrepancy or lack of clarity…then perhpas you should write a letter to the Vatican. They will answer you. I wrote to the Vatican a number of years ago…and though it took a long time for them to answer…they answered my inquiry.

 

[JimG]

Except in most cases…that is not what is happening. The priests and bishops are telling their parishoners that the Church stands against abortion, infanticide, contraception, and gay “marriage.” There is only one candidate who champions all those issues. And so the individual Catholic must put two and two together.

If you can’t see that…then I can’t help you Sundance.

Exactly. It’s pretty simple. The Church opposes abortion,infanticide, contraception, abortion inducing drugs, same sex marriage, contraception. One party endorses all those things, and also proposes to force its view on Catholic institutions. Putting two and two together is pretty basic here.

 

[Suudy]

“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation with evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stance on abortion or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share the candidate’s stance in favor of abortion or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

• Cardinal Ratzinger

Emphasis mine. Again, the key word here is “proportionate”. Every time I see this quote posted by an Obama supporter, they focus on the “for other reasons” or “remote material cooperation” clauses, while completely ignoring “proportionate”.

Emphasis mine. So, you see, just because a candidate is “pro-abortion” doesn’t mean he or she must be written off. This is where other issues come into play; namely social, economic, and foreign issues.

What social, economic, and foreign issues come close to be proportionate reasons to offset Obama’s clear support of abortion, gay “marriage”, and other intrinsic evils?

War is not an intrinsic evil. Capital punishment is not a intrinsic evil. What other issues are there?

Any Catholic can in good conscience vote for Obama despite what some members around here would like them to believe. I certainly cannot vote for a Romney/Ryan ticket after their demonstration of disdain for the poor, stated refusal to provide humanitarian aid unless there’s some selfish motive behind it that benefits the US, or their desire to rob the poor to give to the rich.

Bollocks.

Where is there “disdain for the poor”? Do you really think Romney/Ryan want the poor to suffer and remain poor? Or do they just have fundamentally different ideas about the best way to help?

Where has he stated refusal to provide humanitarian aid? Or are you imputing a “selfish motive”? Again, could it be fundamentally different approaches?

Finally, even if Romney/Ryan had disdain for the poor and wanted to refuse humanitarian aid, how does this rise to the level of even a single abortion? Again, the key word is proportionate, and no amount of implied hard-heartedness on behalf of the R/R ticket towards the poor would offset Obama’s clear support of intrinsic evils.

 

[Suudy]

1. 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.

Emphasis mine. Again, people focus on the permissibility of voting for a candidate that supports intrinsic evils, but ignore the proportionality requirement of such a choice.

What is more “truly grave” than the lives of innocent unborn children?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I suppose the Church feels that it needs no clarification. To me, and many others it seems very clear. Nothing trumps the intrinsic evil of abortion…and in the case of this election there are many other issues that fly in the face of Catholics…and all Christians in general. I am not Catholic (although I was for many years) and it seems very clear to me. However, if you and others see discrepancy or lack of clarity…then perhpas you should write a letter to the Vatican. They will answer you. I wrote to the Vatican a number of years ago…and though it took a long time for them to answer…they answered my inquiry.

I can see the validity of those claiming rights to vote their conscience. It also seems to suggest no clarification needed means form your conscience and vote accordingly, which makes both sides of the argument correct over their individual choice.

Is it wrong for a Catholic to vote for Obama?

All people have an obligation to inform their consciences regarding the moral choices they make in life. For Catholics to deliberately refuse to inform their consciences with the teachings of the Church or if they deliberately disobey the moral teaching of the Church, they can sin mortally if the choice is a serious one. But if people sincerely follow their consciences, whether their consciences are well informed or through not fault of their own they are not, they do not sin by acting on them.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Exactly. It’s pretty simple. The Church opposes abortion,infanticide, contraception, abortion inducing drugs, same sex marriage, contraception. One party endorses all those things, and also proposes to force its view on Catholic institutions. Putting two and two together is pretty basic here.

Wouldn’t our Church as a whole be obligated to make a further ‘simple’ clarifications to correct the error if millions of people were in err from the last election?

 

[Mickey]

which makes both sides of the argument correct over their individual choice.

Not really. At best, I think the side which might somehow justify voting for the pro-abortion/infanticide, pro-contraception, pro gay “marriage” candidate…might fall under the Catholic teaching of “invincible ignorance”.

But even that is questionable.

 

[Mickey]

Wouldn’t our Church as a whole be obligated to make a further ‘simple’ clarifications to correct the error if millions of people were in err from the last election?

The bishops and priests are clarifying it from the pulpit.

Otherwise, write a letter to the Vatican.

 

[Tigg]

I can see the validity of those claiming rights to vote their conscience.

And the next logical question would be, whom am I listening to in the formation of said conscience.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And the next logical question would be, whom am I listening to in the formation of said conscience.

I use scriptures, the Catechism, early Church fathers, many documents of more current men of the Church, and several voting guides.

When reviewing only the teaching of conscience, one must act in accordance of their conscience and no one should force another against their conscience.