Catholic.com presidential poll

[Ridgerunner]

It’s painful to think that neither party is close to Catholic teaching. The Republicans used to be closer, but have been drifting away with their love of unjust wars, torture, targeting enemy combatants and racism.

Whether a war is just or unjust is a matter of prudential judgment. One person’s view of whether a particular war is just or unjust is not obligatory on another. The same holds true with undefined concepts like “torture”, “targeting enemy combatants” and “racism”. I have repeatedly challenged anyone on here to define “torture” in a way that includes all things rightly to be considered “torture” while eliminating those things that are merely unpleasant. No one has yet, and neither has the Church.

It is rash judgment to assert that Repubs or anyone has “drifted away” from the teachings of the Church based on one’s own prudential judgments, and the Church considers rash judgment sinful in itself.

On elective abortion, though, there is no prudential judgment to be had because it’s binary. An innocent child is either deliberately killed or it is not. Alive is alive and dead is dead. There’s no “in between” and no argument whether the aborted child is alive or dead. It’s always dead. That’s why supporting it and those who promote it is always gravely wrong, always and every time.

Conflating that moral absolute with things in which prudential judgment is allowed, is just one more invitation to moral relativism. The Catholic Church condemns that.

 

[Crossbones]

No, it’s not a matter of reading one document and self-interpreting it. Others here, most notably Estesbob, have produced quotes from other bishops and the Pope himself. One should encourage a thorough reading. Those statements are consistent.

And there have been statements made by posters like myself and Estesbob in connection with the direct quotes, pointing out that some of the quotes were made in direct response to limited questions, and the context must also be taken into consideration along with the other statements made by the churchmen.

There have also been statements made by others encouraging a selective reading of one thing only, combined with one’s relativistic interpretation of it in order to encourage Catholics to vote for pro-abortion candidates. That’s a very wrong thing to do.

Right, I think it is important for a Catholic to read all of those as well as Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship to determine for themselves what the Catholic Church teaches instead of depending on the personal interpretation of others because that interpretation might be flawed. Anyone can follow the threads and see the difficulties in following someone’s personal interpretation.

 

[sallybutler]

Right, I think it is important for a Catholic to read all of those as well as Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship to determine for themselves what the Catholic Church teaches instead of depending on the personal interpretation of others because that interpretation might be flawed. Anyone can follow the threads and see the difficulties in following someone’s personal interpretation.

From what I’ve been told in these forums, you are not allowed to rely on this document. You must read additional documents that will explain how to correctly interpret this document.

 

[Crossbones]

Whether a war is just or unjust is a matter of prudential judgment. One person’s view of whether a particular war is just or unjust is not obligatory on another. The same holds true with undefined concepts like “torture”, “targeting enemy combatants” and “racism”. I have repeatedly challenged anyone on here to define “torture” in a way that includes all things rightly to be considered “torture” while eliminating those things that are merely unpleasant. No one has yet, and neither has the Church.

It is rash judgment to assert that Repubs or anyone has “drifted away” from the teachings of the Church based on one’s own prudential judgments, and the Church considers rash judgment sinful in itself.

On elective abortion, though, there is no prudential judgment to be had because it’s binary. An innocent child is either deliberately killed or it is not. Alive is alive and dead is dead. There’s no “in between” and no argument whether the aborted child is alive or dead. It’s always dead. That’s why supporting it and those who promote it is always gravely wrong, always and every time.

Conflating that moral absolute with things in which prudential judgment is allowed, is just one more invitation to moral relativism. The Catholic Church condemns that.

I’m sure Catholics can determine for themselves what torture is (certainly, Donald Trump has no trouble knowing that waterboarding is torture), whether or not Donald Trump was talking about targeting noncombatants when he said he’d go after terrorist’s families for ‘retribution’ and ‘to make them suffer’, whether the Iraq War was a just war and whether commenting on a judge’s race as somehow making him unqualified to handle a case is racism.

You’ve made your position on these issues very clear.

 

[Crossbones]

From what I’ve been told in these forums, you are not allowed to rely on this document. You must read additional documents that will explain how to correctly interpret this document.

I’m sure that the vast majority of bishops that approved the document felt it was sufficient for lay people to understand. It is unfortunate that some feel the need to put in their personal interpretation which include confusion about ‘may’ not meaning ‘must’ to have it say something that most with a normal reading would not find. Of course, the additional comments by bishops are valuable ways for Catholics as well and should be taken into consideration as well.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m sure Catholics can determine for themselves what torture is (certainly, Donald Trump has no trouble knowing that waterboarding is torture), whether or not Donald Trump was talking about targeting noncombatants when he said he’d go after terrorist’s families for ‘retribution’ and ‘to make them suffer’, whether the Iraq War was a just war and whether commenting on a judge’s race as somehow making him unqualified to handle a case is racism.

You’ve made your position on these issues very clear.

Nor has Donald Trump ever defined “torture”. As we know, one of the assistant attorneys general under Bush didn’t think waterboarding was “torture”. So now we think we know Trump’s definition is different from his. And that’s all we know. Besides, Trump doesn’t get to decide what the Catholic Church teaches or what its applications are.

I don’t purport to hold Judge Curiel guilty of racism. But I do think he should have recused himself in this case to prevent even a mild appearance of it. Judges are supposed to do that, and when he is a member of an association called “The Race” that is exclusive to people of particular ancestry, especially when he’s on a committee within the La Raza lawyers’ association to get scholarships for illegals while Trump is trying to prevent illegal immigration, he created a potential appearance of it. And as it develops, it can only grow.

But you’re correct in saying that things like just war, particular things that might be thought of as “racism” and even what constitutes “torture” are fact-based and can be thought of in different ways.

But death is death. It’s an absolute, which makes abortion an absolute since death of the child is always intended and almost always accomplished. There are no facts to “interpret” with that.

 

[CrossofChrist]

It is rash judgment to assert that Repubs or anyone has “drifted away” from the teachings of the Church based on one’s own prudential judgments, and the Church considers rash judgment sinful in itself.

I don’t think it would be wrong to use prudence and come to the conclusion that the Republicans don’t fully embrace Catholic social teaching. In fact, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship anticipates a situation where US Catholics don’t feel completely at home with either party:

16. As the Holy Father also taught in Deus Caritas Est, “The direct duty to work for a just ordering of society is proper to the lay faithful” (no. 29). This duty is more critical than ever in today’s political environment, where Catholics may feel politically disenfranchised, sensing that no party and too few candidates fully share the Church’s comprehensive commitment to the life and dignity of every human being from conception to natural death. .

 

[CrossofChrist]

Of all the options Republicans had, they chose Trump. It makes one pause and think about how serious the base really is about creating a culture of life.

I’m disappointed.

 

[GaryTaylor]

cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/paul-ryan-endorses-donald-trump/

“I feel confident he would help us turn the ideas in this agenda into laws to help improve people’s lives. That’s why I’ll be voting for him this fall,” Ryan wrote.
He added, “It’s no secret that he and I have our differences. I won’t pretend otherwise. And when I feel the need to, I’ll continue to speak my mind. But the reality is, on the issues that make up our agenda, we have more common ground than disagreement.”

Late Thursday afternoon, Trump tweeted his appreciation for Ryan’s support.
“So great to have the endorsement and support of Paul Ryan. We will both be working very hard to Make America Great Again!” Trump said.

 

[CrossofChrist]

It is rash judgment to assert that Repubs or anyone has “drifted away” from the teachings of the Church based on one’s own prudential judgments, and the Church considers rash judgment sinful in itself.

Maybe the Republican Party doesn’t support anything that is officially contrary to Catholic teaching. But I think that a person can use prudence and come to the conclusion that the Republican Party basically misses the point, that its approach to the issues indicates that it doesn’t truly embrace Catholic social teaching.

Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship anticipates the situation for U.S Catholics where neither party embraces CST:

*16. As the Holy Father also taught in Deus Caritas Est, “The direct duty to work for a just ordering of society is proper to the lay faithful” (no. 29). This duty is more critical than ever in today’s political environment, where Catholics may feel politically disenfranchised, sensing that no party (emphasis mine) and too few candidates fully share the Church’s comprehensive commitment to the life and dignity of every human being from conception to natural death. *

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It’s good that people should read it, along with the statements of the other bishops like Burke, Chaput. It would help to read what the Popes have said.

But it’s not helpful or good to encourage Catholics to believe, wrongly, that the Church teaches that one cannot or should not vote on the basis of abortion alone.

That is exactly what Faithful Citizenship encourages.

The Church actually teaches that we must oppose it with our votes UNLESS there is an equally grave or greater evil to be opposed in doing it. In this election, there is none equal to the annual killing of a million innocent children.

As many times as this mantra has been repeated, I have never seen an authoritative Church teaching document that demands this.

Nor is it right to encourage Catholics to ignore Church teaching as a legitimate moral “choice”.

Strawman argument. That is not the position of those who say you can vote for a Democrat.

Nor is it right to encourage Catholics to interpret one document “for themselves”.

The idea that Catholics do not have the capacity to interpret a document that is directed specifically at them by their current Church leaders is repugnant. The personal interpretation you speak of is regarding scripture, which is not a direct teaching document from the Church, but is a resource that doctors of the Church augment with their analysis. Protestantism wrongly dismissed the role of the Church in interpreting scripture. But there has never been a “Catholic” principle that says that every document from our bishops needs some other bishop to interpret it for us.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Correct-what we see is the usual misstatement of church teaching from those trying to support their vote in support of evil. What Faithful citizenship says is a candidates position of a single issue will not require a Catholic to vote for them but their stance on a single issue can disqualify them from receiving a Catholics vote.

“Can”, not “Must”. Yes, a Catholic is allowed to use a single issue to disqualify a candidate, but if they had meant to say a single must disqualify a candidate they would have used a different word.

…and has we have shown numerous times the Magestrium it quite specific that that issue is abortion

What you have shown numerous times is bishops or cardinals offering their opinion that abortion is such an issue, but that opinion has never made it into official Church teaching. It would seem quite surprising that the US bishops would have gotten so close to saying what you want them to say, but didn’t say it. The document Faithful Citizenship was not meant to be a puzzle that required outside research to understand.

 

[Crossbones]

Nor has Donald Trump ever defined “torture”. As we know, one of the assistant attorneys general under Bush didn’t think waterboarding was “torture”. So now we think we know Trump’s definition is different from his. And that’s all we know. Besides, Trump doesn’t get to decide what the Catholic Church teaches or what its applications are.

I don’t purport to hold Judge Curiel guilty of racism. But I do think he should have recused himself in this case to prevent even a mild appearance of it. Judges are supposed to do that, and when he is a member of an association called “The Race” that is exclusive to people of particular ancestry, especially when he’s on a committee within the La Raza lawyers’ association to get scholarships for illegals while Trump is trying to prevent illegal immigration, he created a potential appearance of it. And as it develops, it can only grow.

But you’re correct in saying that things like just war, particular things that might be thought of as “racism” and even what constitutes “torture” are fact-based and can be thought of in different ways.

But death is death. It’s an absolute, which makes abortion an absolute since death of the child is always intended and almost always accomplished. There are no facts to “interpret” with that.

Mr. Trump did seem to know that waterboarding is torture.

La Raza has been explained to you several times. It seems that you are ignoring that.

I am confident that you have done an excellent job of explaining your position. I feel Catholics will be well-served reviewing this as well as your personal interpretation of Church teaching and determine for themselves how much weight to give your views. I, of course, feel it is best for Catholics to review the teachings of the Church including Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship as well as the various quotes from the bishops in determining how to vote instead of giving any weight to someone’s personal interpretation.

 

[chero23]

cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/paul-ryan-endorses-donald-trump/

No surprise there. A lot of members in the Republican Party will back Trump, they don’t have the backbone to get a temper tantrum from him.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I, of course, feel it is best for Catholics to review the teachings of the Church including Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship as well as the various quotes from the bishops in determining how to vote instead of giving any weight to someone’s personal interpretation.

Of course while keeping in mind all 181 Catholic bishops in the United States publicly denounced the ACA.

CNSNews.com) – In a “Special Message” following their annual meeting in Baltimore, Md., the Catholic bishops of the United States said they “stand united” in opposition to the Obamacare rule that requires nearly all health insurance plans to offer contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs without co-pays.

The bishops said the rule, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), violates religious liberty and has forced them “to devote and resources to a conflict we did not start or seek.”

 

[GaryTaylor]

No surprise there. A lot of members in the Republican Party will back Trump, they don’t have the backbone to get a temper tantrum from him.

I was thinking Catholic boys Rubio and Ryan, though Donald still has a slight liberal democratic persistence about him we are willing to work will him.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

On elective abortion, though, there is no prudential judgment to be had because it’s binary. An innocent child is either deliberately killed or it is not. Alive is alive and dead is dead. There’s no “in between” and no argument whether the aborted child is alive or dead. It’s always dead.

Another strawman argument. Those you are arguing with do not say abortion is sometimes wrong and sometimes right. They do not say that abortion is ill-defined, like torture or a just war. That is not how prudential judgement on this issue is applied.

The role of prudential judgement on this issue comes in deciding if voting for a certain candidate is in fact cooperating in the evil of abortion.

There are several factors that could be considered by a voter in making this determination. One is the assessment of the politician’s possible role in promoting or discouraging abortion. That is a prudential judgement. Another is the assessment of the level of commitment the candidate has on the issue. (We are not required to vote for someone just because they say the magic words.)

That’s why supporting it and those who promote it is always gravely wrong, always and every time.

And I maintain is it not always gravely wrong, always and every time to support such a person for other reasons.

Conflating that moral absolute with things in which prudential judgment is allowed, is just one more invitation to moral relativism. The Catholic Church condemns that.

The moral absolute you refer to is that abortion is evil. The absoluteness does not extend to anything and everything that might influence that evil in the slightest degree.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Of course while keeping in mind all 181 Catholic bishops in the United States publicly denounced the ACA.

This is an exaggeration. What all 181 Catholic bishops denounced was one specific provision in the ACA. Many of the features of the ACA received endorsements from the bishops. Not that it matters to the question we were addressing.

 

[JimG]

“Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” is a 42 page document in pdf format. How many Catholic voters will read it in preparation for voting?

How much guidance would this document give if, for example, infanticide were one of the primary issues? Or killing off old and disabled people involuntarily? Those issues are certainly past the drawing board stage. As is the issue of abortion. Killing off 1.2 million unborn children annually does not seem to raise many qualms among most voters. Will it be the same once we start killing off the old and the disabled at the same rate? Or will it not matter as long as they receive their social security payments until their final day? Will we be advised not to be single issue voters when it comes to killing the elderly?

 

[GaryTaylor]

This is an exaggeration. What all 181 Catholic bishops denounced was one specific provision in the ACA. Many of the features of the ACA received endorsements from the bishops. Not that it matters to the question we were addressing.

My point stands the democratic position is rejected and its mutually exclusive to abortion. If you feel more comfortable explaining whats denounced your more than welcome.

USCCB said, “[W]ith its coercive HHS mandate, the government is refusing to uphold its obligation to respect the rights of religious believers. Beginning in March 2012, in United for Religious Freedom, we identified three basic problems with the HHS mandate: it establishes a false architecture of religious liberty that excludes our ministries and so reduces freedom of religion to freedom of worship; it compels our ministries to participate in providing employees with abortifacient drugs and devices, sterilization, and contraception, which violates our deeply-held beliefs; and it compels our faithful people in business to act against our teachings, failing to provide them any exemption at all.”