Bishops Must Rebuke Pro-Abortion “Catholic” Groups in 2012 Election

[juliee]

Bishops Must Rebuke Pro-Abortion “Catholic” Groups in 2012 Election

Every four years the Catholic bishops publish a document entitled “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” If tradition holds, a new version of “Faithful Citizenship” is due to be approved at the bishops’ annual Baltimore meeting in November

lifenews.com/2011/07/14/bishops-must-rebuke-pro-abortion-catholic-groups-in-2012-election/

 

[Namwalker]

Bishops Must Rebuke Pro-Abortion “Catholic” Groups in 2012 Election

Every four years the Catholic bishops publish a document entitled “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” If tradition holds, a new version of “Faithful Citizenship” is due to be approved at the bishops’ annual Baltimore meeting in November

lifenews.com/2011/07/14/bishops-must-rebuke-pro-abortion-catholic-groups-in-2012-election/

I believe that they should reaffirm their belief in this tenet. But why is it that they do not turn their backs on the very politicians and judges who do not follow those same tenets

 

[Krakatoa]

There is really no such thing as a pro-abortion Catholic. If one will not assent to and accept the teachings of the Church, he or she is not a true member of the Church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There is really no such thing as a pro-abortion Catholic. If one will not assent to and accept the teachings of the Church, he or she is not a true member of the Church.

Did you even read the article?

 

[Ender]

Every four years the Catholic bishops publish a document entitled “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” If tradition holds, a new version of “Faithful Citizenship” is due to be approved at the bishops’ annual Baltimore meeting in November

Every four years the Catholic bishops publish a document the net effect of which is to give moral cover to Catholics who’s chosen politicians support issues which the Church opposes. I have little expectation that the document they produce this year will be any different.

Ender

 

[FaithBuild18]

There is really no such thing as a pro-abortion Catholic. If one will not assent to and accept the teachings of the Church, he or she is not a true member of the Church.

I second this notion.

 

[FaithBuild18]

Did you even read the article?

I think you misunderstood his point.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I think you misunderstood his point.

The topic states 'pro-abortion Catholic groups, but the article does not speak of Catholics supporting abortion, but voting for a pro-abortion candidates for other reasons.

 

[turtle18]

Every four years the Catholic bishops publish a document the net effect of which is to give moral cover to Catholics who’s chosen politicians support issues which the Church opposes. I have little expectation that the document they produce this year will be any different.

Ender

So true…and then they wonder how gay marriage gets passed?

I am constantly AMAZED that of all the work the bishops do, the only thing that ever gets filtered down to the parish level is the Faithful Citizenship documents. The bishops spend countless hours, conferences, etc on defending marriage and other issues, etc, but that never filters down to the parish level.

 

[Ender]

I am constantly AMAZED that of all the work the bishops do, the only thing that ever gets filtered down to the parish level is the Faithful Citizenship documents.

Faithful Citizenship was a political document, not a moral one. Despite being presented as a moral guide on “forming consciences”, it was prepared in such a way that it did not form consciences but rather confirmed them in whatever way ones political inclinations had already formed them. That document contained something for everyone and the careful reader had no trouble finding statements that justified his choices.

Did your man support abortion? No problemo: #42. As Catholics we are not single issue voters.

Did he support gay marriage and euthanasia? So what - the other guy supported the death penalty, the Iraq war, and opposed increasing the minimum wage so he’s no better. Helpfully, Faithful Citizenship implied agreement: #45. Catholic teaching about the dignity of life calls us to oppose torture, unjust war, and the use of the death penalty; to prevent genocide and attacks against noncombatants; to oppose racism; and to overcome poverty and suffering.

One cannot help but wonder if this is what the bishops meant for their document to do or if they simply didn’t understand what they had done. Neither possibility fills me with hope.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So true…and then they wonder how gay marriage gets passed?

I am constantly AMAZED that of all the work the bishops do, the only thing that ever gets filtered down to the parish level is the Faithful Citizenship documents. The bishops spend countless hours, conferences, etc on defending marriage and other issues, etc, but that never filters down to the parish level.

What about the parishes that never passed the Faithful Citizenship documents to their parishioners? We see some speak of ‘not true member of the Church’, without consideration.

We’ve seen threads questioning individual parishes on these forums. Are members of those parishes ‘not true members of the Church’?

It seems to me that there is a diversity that exists, and it’s not always an individual’s fault. They follow what they’re taught, according to their own knowledge and understanding. In the face of such diversity, Catholics need one clarifying voice.

There are many topics we, as individuals, may find repulsive. That’s not a license to drop Christian charity required of all Christians. Without the appropriate authority one shouldn’t ‘remove’, or attempt to cause doubt, to another person’s ‘membership’ in the body of Christ, which is His Church. We are to hate the sin, but should not project hate towards those we believe to be in sin. That teaching is no where in scriptures, or the true Church.

There were many Catholics who voted for Obama, for what they explain to be other reasons, yet some Catholics continue to say, ‘they are pro-abortion Catholics’. This is a false accusation. I pray there is a unified voice this election. Without it, the divide will certainly widen.

 

[Ender]

There were many Catholics who voted for Obama, for what they explain to be other reasons, yet some Catholics continue to say, ‘they are pro-abortion Catholics’.

Yes there were, a situation the Faithful Citizenship document helped bring about, but the issue is not why they voted as they did but whether voting for a pro-abortion politician “for other reasons” is justifiable. Whatever their reasons, the result of their votes was to further the cause of those who do support abortion.

I pray there is a unified voice this election. Without it, the divide will certainly widen.

I guess the divide will continue to widen then … unless the clergy decide to unequivocally oppose politicians who support abortion, which seems unlikely to happen in my lifetime.

Ender

 

[manualman]

The fatal flaw in “Faithful Citizenship” in the past has been its failure to assign priorities to moral issues in modern society.

Imagine if a significant political party held that “Native Americans should lose all treaty rights, be sterilized if found to be alcoholics, and executed if they fail to integrate into conventional society.” Would ANYBODY argue that this group could be voted for if they also opposed the Iraq war, supported universal health care and extended unemployment benefits? Would anybody fall for that as a moral equivalence? Of course not.

The USCCB has simply not tried hard enough (in the guide) to make it clear that some issues are drastically more important than others because they have far more drastic consequences. As a result, catholics have little impact in elections because we largely cancel each other out. If we prioritized our goals, within 8 years we’d see BOTH political parties opposed to abortion, it could be outlawed and we could move on to other priorities like war, immigration justice and the like. We’re THAT big a potential voting bloc. But instead, we’re NO sort of voting bloc at all, just a self defeating bunch of fools.

 

[Trader]

The topic states 'pro-abortion Catholic groups, but the article does not speak of Catholics supporting abortion, but voting for a pro-abortion candidates for other reasons.

Pope Benedict did not support the possibility of voting for a pro-abortion candidate for “other” reasons, but for “proportional” reasons. We need to be careful with our use of language because its misuse is a primary tool of the other side. They already use “pro-choice” without reference to what choice they support, and have redefined pregnancy from fertilization to implantation.

The most common proportional reason is that both candidates support abortion. The 2010 election in Illinois for the US Senate featured two candidates with 100% approval ratings from Planned Parenthood. Illinois voters of conscience needed to base their vote on other issues and on who, in their judgement, would do the least harm.

 

[manualman]

The most common proportional reason is that both candidates support abortion. The 2010 election in Illinois for the US Senate featured two candidates with 100% approval ratings from Planned Parenthood. Illinois voters of conscience needed to base their vote on other issues and on who, in their judgement, would do the least harm.

That’s a whole other can of worms. THIS Illinois voter put his vote on a solidly pro-life candidate for Senate. he barely registered in the polls, but I did NOT vote for pro-abortion Mark Kirk.

 

[BVM_1221]

Bishops Must Rebuke Pro-Abortion “Catholic” Groups in 2012 Election

Every four years the Catholic bishops publish a document entitled “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” If tradition holds, a new version of “Faithful Citizenship” is due to be approved at the bishops’ annual Baltimore meeting in November

lifenews.com/2011/07/14/bishops-must-rebuke-pro-abortion-catholic-groups-in-2012-election/

You have to remember that the tax-exempt status of the Church depends on complience with laws. Especially the one that says Churches cannot endorse nor oppose specific candidates or parties. The Bishops have to figure out a way to say “No matter how much the rest of the GOP platform stinks, hold your noses and vote Republican”, without making it mandatory.

Unless made mandatory under penalty of sin, many Catholics will try to find a way to vote Democratic, because they are disgusted with the Republicans. It’s all in the wording. :tsktsk:

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Pope Benedict did not support the possibility of voting for a pro-abortion candidate for “other” reasons, but for “proportional” reasons. We need to be careful with our use of language because its misuse is a primary tool of the other side. They already use “pro-choice” without reference to what choice they support, and have redefined pregnancy from fertilization to implantation.

The most common proportional reason is that both candidates support abortion. The 2010 election in Illinois for the US Senate featured two candidates with 100% approval ratings from Planned Parenthood. Illinois voters of conscience needed to base their vote on other issues and on who, in their judgement, would do the least harm.

Pope Benedict’s statement was not as clear as you’re presenting. Even you, yourself, say ‘the most common’, leaving others to view other reasons, or proportionate reasons. That’s what the article, and many other articles popping up on the same subject, state, when referencing ‘vague’ language and asking for clarification.

When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/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.

I have yet to see a defining of proportionate reasons by the Pope. If as so many accuse, that many Catholics have endangered their eternal lives and separated themselves from the Church, surely the one voice would speak the correction necessary, or the clarification needed, to pull them back into line.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You have to remember that the tax-exempt status of the Church depends on complience with laws. Especially the one that says Churches cannot endorse nor oppose specific candidates or parties. The Bishops have to figure out a way to say “No matter how much the rest of the GOP platform stinks, hold your noses and vote Republican”, without making it mandatory.

Unless made mandatory under penalty of sin, many Catholics will try to find a way to vote Democratic, because they are disgusted with the Republicans. It’s all in the wording. :tsktsk:

Are you suggesting that money, more specifically saving a tax exempt status, is more important to His Church than correcting the flock that may have strayed, endangering their eternal salvation and possibly separation from the Church? Wouldn’t that be placing money through a tax exempt status over the issue of abortion?

If it were ‘no matter how much the rest of the GOP platform stinks, hold your noses and vote republican’, it seems the Church would say, ‘no matter how bad taxes stink, hold our noses and pay them to guarantee our instructions are followed to the letter.’ That would seem more appropriate that complying with an ‘unjust’ law.

 

[BVM_1221]

Are you suggesting that money, more specifically saving a tax exempt status, is more important to His Church than correcting the flock that may have strayed, endangering their eternal salvation and possibly separation from the Church? Wouldn’t that be placing money through a tax exempt status over the issue of abortion?

If it were ‘no matter how much the rest of the GOP platform stinks, hold your noses and vote republican’, it seems the Church would say, ‘no matter how bad taxes stink, hold our noses and pay them to guarantee our instructions are followed to the letter.’ That would seem more appropriate that complying with an ‘unjust’ law.

Me? Suggest anything?? I am shocked…SHOCKED…at such an idea. :bigyikes:

But now that you have mentioned it…

The Church does a lot of good service, from food banks, to homeless shelters, to schools, to a lot of things. All of which require lots of money. Loss of that money from loss of tax-exempt status would end many such service programs. This may or may not be a “proportional” arguement, or whatever you want to label it, for keeping our tax exempt status, but it is something to think about.:tsktsk:

As a modest example, which involves me the Church sponsers retreat centers, most of which would go under from loss of tax exempt status. These retreat centers frequently have weekends for those working 12-step programs. Yup, me, a recovered alcoholic with 27 years sobriety. I’d hate to see this resource be lost to those who still struggle with alcoholism, and other problems.:sad_yes:

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Me? Suggest anything?? I am shocked…SHOCKED…at such an idea. :bigyikes:

But now that you have mentioned it…

The Church does a lot of good service, from food banks, to homeless shelters, to schools, to a lot of things. All of which require lots of money. Loss of that money from loss of tax-exempt status would end many such service programs. This may or may not be a “proportional” arguement, or whatever you want to label it, for keeping our tax exempt status, but it is something to think about.:tsktsk:

As a modest example, which involves me the Church sponsers retreat centers, most of which would go under from loss of tax exempt status. These retreat centers frequently have weekends for those working 12-step programs. Yup, me, a recovered alcoholic with 27 years sobriety. I’d hate to see this resource be lost to those who still struggle with alcoholism, and other problems.:sad_yes:

Then according to your analogy, some could consider social programs as proportionate reasons and vote for other candidates?

There’s no difference in the arguments, that I can see. The Church can protect itself and let millions of Catholics risk separating themselves from the Church and endanger their eternal salvation for social programs, over abortion. Catholics who say they voted for other candidates also mention other reasons, they feel proportionate. They specifically mention social programs to guarantee a quality of life for all, among those reasons.