Catholic polarization reached new peak

[Beaver]

Can we believe, red and blue catholics.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0501063.htm

 

[Karin]

It would be nice to see the Catholic (lobby) groups come together in the States and help to form policies/laws etc. like the Pro-Isreal Lobbiests do here and further there causes!

 

[HagiaSophia]

Karin:

It would be nice to see the Catholic (lobby) groups come together in the States and help to form policies/laws etc. like the Pro-Isreal Lobbiests do here and further there causes!

Every state I believe does have the National Office for the Catholic Bishops of that state which monitors all legislation, pending discussion of same and lobbies for church supported programs and issues.

 

[Karin]

I guess they do not pull as much weight as the Pro-Isreal groups! Maybe MORE people should get involved!!!

 

[katherine2]

Karin:

I guess they do not pull as much weight as the Pro-Isreal groups! Maybe MORE people should get involved!!!

More people should. Unfortunately many Catholics refuse to do so because they dissent over one or more of the issues being lobbied on. Some dissent over abortion, some dissent over the Church’s economic justice, human rights and racial equality initiatives. And then they have long winded agruments justifying their attacks on the Church.

 

[fix]

“The issue is not a matter of Catholics simply holding different positions or trying to control the political or ecclesial conversation, or even advocating a particular single-issue agenda,” he said, “but doing so in self-righteous, authoritarian, exclusionary and really in fundamentalistlike ways that create the impression that if one does not think and act as some individuals or groups do then you are not a ‘real’ Catholic. As one of the Web sites of one of these groups has it, ‘You’re a Judas, just undermining doctrine and spirituality.’”

He is gulilty of what he charges others with. Kinda funny.

 

[shockerfan]

Please read Karl Keating’s weekly letter…he addresses this subject.

The author of this article is basically whining about people who refuse to equate abortion, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research with issues like poverty, taxes, and employment.

I debated a lot this last election, and I found that Catholics fell into one of two groups: 1) Those who see the Church’s teaching on life issues as black & white, with no room for debate. (I fall into this category), and 2) Those who I call “Social Justice Catholics”.

I have found that “social justice Catholics” (in many cases) are willing to overlook a candidate’s stances on the “life issues”, provided that candidate in line with their beliefs on war, poverty, etc.

The problem is that war, poverty, and other social issues have solutions that are debate-able. (for example, there is a “just war” doctrine. I don’t believe there is a “just abortion” or “just gay marriage” doctrine). Life issues on the other hand are NOT debate-able.

From the way the author writes, I suspect he falls into the “Social Justice Catholic” category.

 

[fix]

shockerfan:

Please read Karl Keating’s weekly letter…he addresses this subject.

The author of this article is basically whining about people who refuse to equate abortion, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research with issues like poverty, taxes, and employment.

I debated a lot this last election, and I found that Catholics fell into one of two groups: 1) Those who see the Church’s teaching on life issues as black & white, with no room for debate. (I fall into this category), and 2) Those who I call “Social Justice Catholics”.

I have found that “social justice Catholics” (in many cases) are willing to overlook a candidate’s stances on the “life issues”, provided that candidate in line with their beliefs on war, poverty, etc.

The problem is that war, poverty, and other social issues have solutions that are debate-able. (for example, there is a “just war” doctrine. I don’t believe there is a “just abortion” or “just gay marriage” doctrine). Life issues on the other hand are NOT debate-able.

From the way the author writes, I suspect he falls into the “Social Justice Catholic” category.

Yes, good analysis. The social justice crowd often seems to want wiggle room with the moral law, yet claim to be orthodox.

 

[A_Chaoidh]

I think it would be interesting (though very difficult, if not near impossible) to know where the red-staters & blue-staters stand in regards to the accepting and affirming Dogma and the Teaching Authority of the Church. I can venture a guess

 

[sbcoral]

fix:

Yes, good analysis. The social justice crowd often seems to want wiggle room with the moral law, yet claim to be orthodox.

And the black-and-white moral crowd often seems to want wiggle room with social justice issues, yet claim to be orthodox.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

sbcoral:

And the black-and-white moral crowd often seems to want wiggle room with social justice issues, yet claim to be orthodox.

I would guess that you would put me in the black-and-white moral crowd and I believe in social justice. I just don’t see the need to agitate for legislation banning mercury thermometers or raising taxes or enacting racial preferences. No one is wiggling on the need to promote social justice, just debating the means to do so. Yet there are those self-proclaimed “good” Catholics who don’t want to legislate the “tenets of their faith” such as outlawing abortion and euthanasia.

 

[HagiaSophia]

sbcoral:

And the black-and-white moral crowd often seems to want wiggle room with social justice issues, yet claim to be orthodox.

And one could also observe that the more progressive crowd usually ends up equating the planting pine trees, saving the aardvarks and marching against grape producers with the lives of children.

 

[Tyler_Smedley]

The point is that, there is wiggle rooom on the social justice issues, I am orthadox, and a black and white as you say, yet I also believe that we sould help the poor. The ways that I might think are the best bigger or smaller government, can be different under Church teaching.

 

[Catholic2003]

I don’t see any “wiggle room” in Archbishop Burke’s teaching on the immorality of voting for pro-abortion political candidates, even though this teaching relies on a prudential judgment particular to the present-day U.S. political situation.

I also don’t see any “wiggle room” in the Minnesota bishops’ teaching on the immorality of cutting necessary social programs that help the poor in order to avoid raising taxes, even though this teaching relies on a prudential judgment particular to the present-day U.S. economic situation.

I continue to marvel at the hypocrisy of those Catholics who see wiggle room in one of these teachings while at the same time impugning the orthodoxy of those who see a similar wiggle room in the other teaching.

 

[jim_orr]

sbcoral:

And the black-and-white moral crowd often seems to want wiggle room with social justice issues, yet claim to be orthodox.

What are the “black and white” issues that you think have “wiggle room?”

What are the “social justice issues” that you think the Church has that do not permit “wiggle room?”

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Catholic2003:

I don’t see any “wiggle room” in Archbishop Burke’s teaching on the immorality of voting for pro-abortion political candidates, even though this teaching relies on a prudential judgment particular to the present-day U.S. political situation.

I also don’t see any “wiggle room” in the Minnesota bishops’ teaching on the immorality of cutting necessary social programs that help the poor in order to avoid raising taxes, even though this teaching relies on a prudential judgment particular to the present-day U.S. economic situation.

I continue to marvel at the hypocrisy of those Catholics who see wiggle room in one of these teachings while at the same time impugning the orthodoxy of those who see a similar wiggle room in the other teaching.

The problem with both of your examples is that they are not the pronouncements of the entire Church. Are you suggesting that they bind those people in the respective dioceses? They both involve prudential judgement, which implies wiggle room. The other teaching–that abortion is intrinsically evil–is the teaching of the entire Church. So if you support abortion in any way you are supporting evil, no wiggle room there.

 

[Catholic2003]

StJeanneDArc:

The problem with both of your examples is that they are not the pronouncements of the entire Church.

This is not a valid reason to dismiss these teachings. The entire Church hardly has a reason to make a pronouncement on the political situation of one particular country, or the budget situation of one particular state.

StJeanneDArc:

Are you suggesting that they bind those people in the respective dioceses?

Yes. I think that both Vatican II and canon law are quite clear on the binding nature of the magisterium of a single bishop in his diocese.

StJeanneDArc:

They both involve prudential judgement, which implies wiggle room.

Not true. The “prudential judgment” exception to submitting to the magisterium is something that cafeteria Catholics invented. Again, canon law precisely defines the scope of authentic magisterial teachings, and this definition includes many prudential judgments.

StJeanneDArc:

The other teaching–that abortion is intrinsically evil–is the teaching of the entire Church.

I’m pretty sure the entire Church is also opposed to poor people starving to death.

StJeanneDArc:

So if you support abortion in any way you are supporting evil, no wiggle room there.

Remote material cooperation in evil, even intrinsic evil, is permitted under certain circumstances. It is the prudential judgment of Archbishop Burke that those circumstances do not exist in present-day U.S. politics.

It is not true that in any democratic form of government at any point in history that the issue of abortion trumps any other issue. Thus to claim that this is a universal teaching of the entire Church is absurd.

 

[jim_orr]

Catholic2003:

I’m pretty sure the entire Church is also opposed to poor people starving to death.

Catholic2003. please show us in the bible where Jesus taught it was the responsibiltiy of the* government* to feed the poor.

Catholic2003:

It is not true that in any democratic form of government at any point in history that the issue of abortion trumps any other issue. Thus to claim that this is a universal teaching of the entire Church is absurd.

You obviously have never read the writings of the present bishop of Rome. That means the Pope. He is the one that has written that the right-to-life trumphs all other valid issues. And if it is not fought for with all our might then all other “rights” are false and illusionary. And he was talking about abortion and euthanasia, not feeding the poor, or capital punishment.

 

[Catholic2003]

jim orr:

Catholic2003. please show us in the bible where Jesus taught it was the responsibiltiy of the* government* to feed the poor.

What is this, Protestant Answers? Since when is the Bible the only source for authentic Church teaching?
jim orr:

You obviously have never read the writings of the present bishop of Rome. That means the Pope. He is the one that has written that the right-to-life trumphs all other valid issues. And if it is not fought for with all our might then all other “rights” are false and illusionary. And he was talking about abortion and euthanasia, not feeding the poor, or capital punishment.

If you have a specific teaching of Pope John Paul II in mind, please indicate which one. I’m not aware of any of his teachings that directly address the issue of citizens voting for political candidates.

There are many recent Vatican teachings about the duties of legislators to support the rights of the unborn in the laws they pass, but this is a different issue than that of voting for a political candidate.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Catholic2003:

This is not a valid reason to dismiss these teachings. The entire Church hardly has a reason to make a pronouncement on the political situation of one particular country, or the budget situation of one particular state.
Yes. I think that both Vatican II and canon law are quite clear on the binding nature of the magisterium of a single bishop in his diocese.

We went over the Minnesota bishops’ calling for a tax increase in another thread, and I recall you changing your reasoning on that. But I guess you are claiming that we are always bound by the political pronouncements of our bishops. You’re really reinforcing the stereotype that Catholics can’t exercise their consciences in voting to support the ways they best believe will achieve Christian goals.

Catholic2003:

Not true. The “prudential judgment” exception to submitting to the magisterium is something that cafeteria Catholics invented. Again, canon law precisely defines the scope of authentic magisterial teachings, and this definition includes many prudential judgments.

Once again…we went over this in the other thread. Your claiming that mercury levels is a matter of faith and morals just doesn’t cut it with me.

Catholic2003:

I’m pretty sure the entire Church is also opposed to poor people starving to death.

Are you implying that I’m not? I just know that higher taxes don’t solve that problem–experience has shown that again and again. Not only that, but there is such a thing as an optimum tax rate and tax competition between the states. Higher tax rates usually do not result in higher government revenues. If the bishops of Minnesota are going to make economic judgements then they’re duty-bound to provide some kind of evidence to show that these judgements are rational. Have you seen any. We’re taxed higher than medieval serfs and still people aren’t getting educated and aren’t eating.

Catholic2003:

Remote material cooperation in evil, even intrinsic evil, is permitted under certain circumstances. It is the prudential judgment of Archbishop Burke that those circumstances do not exist in present-day U.S. politics.

So only those Catholics in the St. Louis archdiocese were bound by that? I guess those in the Orange, Calif. diocese are free to support same-sex civil unions since that bishop is supportive of that. Does the concept of universality mean anything?

Catholic2003:

It is not true that in any democratic form of government at any point in history that the issue of abortion trumps any other issue. Thus to claim that this is a universal teaching of the entire Church is absurd.

Hey, I was only claiming that abortion is intrinsically evil. Are you claiming that poverty is intrinsically evil? How about owning a gun? What about a mercury thermometer?