Catholic Priest: Backers of Obama Should Attend Confession

[nilofc]

So is it ok to vote for King Herod because he’s a good economist?

 

[fix]

So is it ok to vote for King Herod because he’s a good economist?

Fair question. We need to keep in mind there is only one magisterium. Not every document form the USCCB is a normative document.

As one example see this:

Bishop Martino was referring to a pastoral letter he issued earlier this month that rejected a trend in the US Catholic Church, sometimes bolstered by official USCCB statements, that claims that abortion and euthanasia are moral equivalents to other issues such as war and economic injustice. According to this theory a Catholic can in good conscience vote for politicians who are pro-abortion but hold acceptable views on other “peace and justice” issues.

Bishop Martino specifically cited and strongly refuted the common argument that says while abortion is wrong, it is not “the only relevant ‘life’ issue that should be considered when deciding for whom to vote.” Morally equivalent issues, he suggested, might be euthanasia and destruction of embryos for research purposes, because these involve the direct killing of human beings. However, while health care, education, economic security, immigration, and taxes “are very important concerns,” he said, “the solutions to problems in these areas do not usually involve a rejection of the sanctity of human life in the way that abortion does.”

“Certain groups and individuals have used their own erroneous interpretations of Church documents, particularly the U.S. Bishops’ statement on Faithful Citizenship, to justify their political positions and to contradict the Church’s actual teaching on the centrality of abortion, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research,” the statement said.

 

[elts1956]

So is it ok to vote for King Herod because he’s a good economist?

Only if you vote for him because of his economic policies, or maybe because he had a good policy for bringing more water to Jerusalem. No matter there is that elephant in the living room, abortion/the killing of the innocents, that any law restricting this will in all liklihood be overturned, that through this any positive strides the pro life movement has made in the last 35 years will be negated.

As long as one’s conscience is clear, as long as one has examined his conscience and found it to be in accord with the teachings of the Church, which are now explained that as long as we vote because of a good, we can ignore the evil?

Where in this is there individual cuplablility? So now we can do as we please as long as our conscience is clear, as long as we “believe” we commit an act that is “good”, but also carries evil with it?

I don’t understand.

 

[JReducation]

Only if you vote for him because of his economic policies, or maybe because he had a good policy for bringing more water to Jerusalem. No matter there is that elephant in the living room, abortion/the killing of the innocents, that any law restricting this will in all liklihood be overturned, that through this any positive strides the pro life movement has made in the last 35 years will be negated.

As long as one’s conscience is clear, as long as one has examined his conscience and found it to be in accord with the teachings of the Church, which are now explained that as long as we vote because of a good, we can ignore the evil?

Where in this is there individual cuplablility? So now we can do as we please as long as our conscience is clear, as long as we “believe” we commit an act that is “good”, but also carries evil with it?

I don’t understand.

On another thread in this same news forum there is a statement by Cardinal George where he speaks about formal and material culpability and he explains it very well. It is not what the far right wants to hear, because most people in that group want to lynch everyone who according to them is in a state of sin. But he uses the same tools of reason and moral theology that the Magisterium uses to determine culpability and complicity in an evil act.

You may want to read it. It may help answer your question.

In a nutshell, it is possible for one to vote for what one perceives to be a moral good, even though it comes with an evil and not formally cooperate in doing evil. If one does not formally cooperate in doing evil, then one is not subjectively culpable, but may be materially culpable. Material culpability is not enough to damn one’s soul and sometimes not enough to impugn someone with sin.

Moral theology is very complicated, because it involves so much philosophy, scripture, dogma and tradition. It’s easy to identify good and evil acts. It is also easy to define objective culpability. It’s more difficult to determine subjective formal and material cooperation. Let’s just be glad that most of us here are not confessors. They have to make these judgment calls. They are the folk in the trenches who have to understand all of this language and apply to the best of their abilities.

JR

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

On another thread in this same news forum there is a statement by Cardinal George where he speaks about formal and material culpability and he explains it very well. It is not what the far right wants to hear, because most people in that group want to lynch everyone who according to them is in a state of sin. But he uses the same tools of reason and moral theology that the Magisterium uses to determine culpability and complicity in an evil act.

You may want to read it. It may help answer your question.

In a nutshell, it is possible for one to vote for what one perceives to be a moral good, even though it comes with an evil and not formally cooperate in doing evil. If one does not formally cooperate in doing evil, then one is not subjectively culpable, but may be materially culpable. Material culpability is not enough to damn one’s soul and sometimes not enough to impugn someone with sin.

Moral theology is very complicated, because it involves so much philosophy, scripture, dogma and tradition. It’s easy to identify good and evil acts. It is also easy to define objective culpability. It’s more difficult to determine subjective formal and material cooperation. Let’s just be glad that most of us here are not confessors. They have to make these judgment calls. They are the folk in the trenches who have to understand all of this language and apply to the best of their abilities.

JR

To put it in other words, when that “evil” is abortion, it trumps
what “good” is perceived that MIGHT be done. At any rate,
such logic is usually used when one is trying the better of
two choices. Obama’a past support of partial birth abortions,
and non support of the born alive bill showed us clearly where
he stood. He clearly was NOT the better of the two candidates.

 

[JReducation]

To put it in other words, when that “evil” is abortion, it trumps
what “good” is perceived that MIGHT be done. At any rate,
such logic is usually used when one is trying the better of
two choices. Obama’a past support of partial birth abortions,
and non support of the born alive bill showed us clearly where
he stood. He clearly was NOT the better of the two candidates.

That part has always been very clear in the Bishops’ statements. The part that is less clear to the average lay person is the question of whether those who voted this way should be denied communion. The bishops are saying “absolutely not”. They should not be denied communion. Their reason has to do with the difference between formal and material cooperation. The voter does not have formal involvement, unless his vote was to deliberately support abortion. Those who voted for abortion formally cooperate with it, even though they do not sign the legislation or the pay checks.

Those who voted for the same candidate because they beleived that nothing would change, regardless of the other candidate, are not guilty of formal cooperation. Their intention was not to further the cause of abortion. They voted for other reasons. This is called material cooperation. Material cooperation is not formal guilt. There is no need to deny these persons Holy Communion.

The priest who is accused of having said that backers of Obama must go to confession before communion pulled out his letter and proved that he was misquoted. He was speaking of those who are guilty of formal cooperation, not material cooperation. The press either didn’t understand the difference or didn’t want to ask for an explanation, because it does’t sell papers.

Several bishops, including Cardinal Levada (sp?) the Prefect for the Congregation on Doctrine in the Faith have said that there is a difference between the two involvements. That’s why the presure has always been put on the legislators, because they have formal involvement.

Catholic citizens of nations where abortion is legal have material involvement, because we live in these nations. We must make our voice heard, even if nothing changes, at least we have tried. Election is one way to make our voices hear, but it should not stop there.

JR

 

[wynnejj]

All this talk about formal and material cooperation in supporting abortion makes me wonder about scandal to the Holy Eucharist.

Until just this year, it has been my experience that the issue of abortion has been neglected in our parishes at Sunday Mass. Every week another 20,000 to 25,000 babies are aborted. Do you hear a prayer petition at Sunday Mass for an end to abortion? Not in my experience in the various churches that I’ve attended until just recently.

When does neglect of the subject at Sunday Mass and lack of prayer petitions to end abortion week after week represent FORMAL COOPERATION in supporting abortion by the parish priests and parishioners?

 

[Letchitsa1]

All this talk about formal and material cooperation in supporting abortion makes me wonder about scandal to the Holy Eucharist.

Until just this year, it has been my experience that the issue of abortion has been neglected in our parishes at Sunday Mass. Every week another 20,000 to 25,000 babies are aborted. Do you hear a prayer petition at Sunday Mass for an end to abortion? Not in my experience in the various churches that I’ve attended until just recently.

When does neglect of the subject at Sunday Mass and lack of prayer petitions to end abortion week after week represent FORMAL COOPERATION in supporting abortion by the parish priests and parishioners?

Interesting question, and I’m sure most folks haven’t given it much thought. Our parish prays for an end to abortion and for the mothers who may be contemplating abortion or have had an abortion every week. I will say, though, that I have been in many parishes where it is never mentioned.

 

[JReducation]

All this talk about formal and material cooperation in supporting abortion makes me wonder about scandal to the Holy Eucharist.

Until just this year, it has been my experience that the issue of abortion has been neglected in our parishes at Sunday Mass. Every week another 20,000 to 25,000 babies are aborted. Do you hear a prayer petition at Sunday Mass for an end to abortion? Not in my experience in the various churches that I’ve attended until just recently.

When does neglect of the subject at Sunday Mass and lack of prayer petitions to end abortion week after week represent FORMAL COOPERATION in supporting abortion by the parish priests and parishioners?

Formal cooperation would not apply where people do not pray over this issue. The Catholic Church has always been clear that formal cooperation means that the person has some direct control over the evil.

True enough, we all have the obligation to pray for an end to abortion. But not to pray is not formal cooperation. The person who prays or does not pray, has no direct control over the evil. It could be labeled as material cooperation, but it’s a stretch if you apply the Church’s moral methodology.

That does not take away our duty to pray over this issue. This duty stems from our call to justice. If anything, one MAY BE culpable of indifference. Unless you have direct control or power over a situation, such as politician, doctor or the mother, formal cooperation is difficult to prove.

The Church tries very hard to make a clear distinction between formal, material and no cooperation.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[wynnejj]

Formal cooperation would not apply where people do not pray over this issue. The Catholic Church has always been clear that formal cooperation means that the person has some direct control over the evil.

True enough, we all have the obligation to pray for an end to abortion. But not to pray is not formal cooperation. The person who prays or does not pray, has no direct control over the evil. It could be labeled as material cooperation, but it’s a stretch if you apply the Church’s moral methodology.

That does not take away our duty to pray over this issue. This duty stems from our call to justice. If anything, one MAY BE culpable of indifference. Unless you have direct control or power over a situation, such as politician, doctor or the mother, formal cooperation is difficult to prove.

The Church tries very hard to make a clear distinction between formal, material and no cooperation.

Fraternally,

JR

Whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren, that you do unto me. It’s a song that’s based on a Gospel account, that describes a litany of ways that you personally do good to your neighbor in dire need. It also recites the same litany of examples of things that might have neglected to do. On these accounts, we will be judged before the Lord, which is the subject of the Gospel account - Last Judgement.

To neglect mass murder is formal cooperation in intrinsic evil. You are wrong, JR, in my opinion. There has to come a point when looking away from your neighbor, in a free country with democratic voting privileges, has to be a grave formal cooperation with evil. Or as former Senator Robert Dornan said at a March for Life in Washington, DC, years ago - “The silence of the bishops is leading the lambs to the slaughter”.

If you question my idea of formal cooperation with intrinsic evil in the temple of the Lord, let me refer you to the the words of Our Lord when He overturned the money-changers tables.

“My house is a house of prayer for all peoples. But you have made it a den of thieves.” The ‘house of prayer for all peoples’ harks back to Isaiah 56, and ‘den of thieves’ harks back to Jeremiah 7. Both of these readings are about formal cooperation with grave evils in a nation’s policies as related to temple practices.

 

[gmarie21]

All this talk about formal and material cooperation in supporting abortion makes me wonder about scandal to the Holy Eucharist.

Until just this year, it has been my experience that the issue of abortion has been neglected in our parishes at Sunday Mass. Every week another 20,000 to 25,000 babies are aborted. Do you hear a prayer petition at Sunday Mass for an end to abortion? Not in my experience in the various churches that I’ve attended until just recently.

When does neglect of the subject at Sunday Mass and lack of prayer petitions to end abortion week after week represent FORMAL COOPERATION in supporting abortion by the parish priests and parishioners?

Well, my past parish in the Joliet diocese did pray every day in the mass intentions, for the respect of life from conception to natural death. Every parish I’ve attended in the Rockford Diocese thus far (about 5) also prays for life to be respected from conception to natural death. However, I have been to numerous parishes in the Chicago Archdiocese that do NOT pray in this fashion, but seem to remember the term “social justice” in their intentions.

 

[JReducation]

Whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren, that you do unto me. It’s a song that’s based on a Gospel account, that describes a litany of ways that you personally do good to your neighbor in dire need. It also recites the same litany of examples of things that might have neglected to do. On these accounts, we will be judged before the Lord, which is the subject of the Gospel account - Last Judgement.

To neglect mass murder is formal cooperation in intrinsic evil. You are wrong, JR, in my opinion. There has to come a point when looking away from your neighbor, in a free country with democratic voting privileges, has to be a grave formal cooperation with evil. Or as former Senator Robert Dornan said at a March for Life in Washington, DC, years ago - “The silence of the bishops is leading the lambs to the slaughter”.

If you question my idea of formal cooperation with intrinsic evil in the temple of the Lord, let me refer you to the the words of Our Lord when He overturned the money-changers tables.

“My house is a house of prayer for all peoples. But you have made it a den of thieves.” The ‘house of prayer for all peoples’ harks back to Isaiah 56, and ‘den of thieves’ harks back to Jeremiah 7. Both of these readings are about formal cooperation with grave evils in a nation’s policies as related to temple practices.

Hey, I don’t make the rules, the Holy See does. The teaching on formal and material cooperation has been part of Church teaching since Thomas Aquinas discovered it and the Church adopted it. Later other theological masters confirmed it.

JR

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Well, my past parish in the Joliet diocese did pray every day in the mass intentions, for the respect of life from conception to natural death. Every parish I’ve attended in the Rockford Diocese thus far (about 5) also prays for life to be respected from conception to natural death. However, I have been to numerous parishes in the Chicago Archdiocese that do NOT pray in this fashion, but seem to remember the term “social justice” in their intentions.

There is a sense in which praying is a waste of time.
Part of the gift of free will is an abstinance by G_d to interfere in the works of Man, even where those works are an abomination.

Ther is only one course of effective action, and that is evangelization.
But for your evangelization to be effective, you must start from a place of common ground.
This means that you might need to recognise as reasonable, a position you find abominable.
This indeed is how Our Lord face Rome.
In Rome, prostitution, both common, and male, were an accepted fact of life, as was slavery. Often the two were combined, and a slave was sexually abused by his or her master.
The centurion’s boy was not his son, but his boy-slave. This is clear from the Latin, if not from the English.
Or Lord did not question the centurion’s sexual morals, but praised his faith, and healed his slave.

Slavery was not abolished overnight. First, slaves were given limited rights, and those rights were gradually expanded, until the difference between slave rights, and freemen’s rights could no longer be justified.
Only then was slavery abolished.
Where slavery still exists, slave’s rights are not recognised.

A building is first made by setting the foundations.
Without sound foundations, the building is a vanity, and doomed to failure.

 

[gmarie21]

There is a sense in which praying is a waste of time.
Part of the gift of free will is an abstinance by G_d to interfere in the works of Man, even where those works are an abomination.

Ther is only one course of effective action, and that is evangelization.
But for your evangelization to be effective, you must start from a place of common ground.
This means that you might need to recognise as reasonable, a position you find abominable.
This indeed is how Our Lord face Rome.
In Rome, prostitution, both common, and male, were an accepted fact of life, as was slavery. Often the two were combined, and a slave was sexually abused by his or her master.
The centurion’s boy was not his son, but his boy-slave. This is clear from the Latin, if not from the English.
Or Lord did not question the centurion’s sexual morals, but praised his faith, and healed his slave.

Slavery was not abolished overnight. First, slaves were given limited rights, and those rights were gradually expanded, until the difference between slave rights, and freemen’s rights could no longer be justified.
Only then was slavery abolished.
Where slavery still exists, slave’s rights are not recognised.

A building is first made by setting the foundations.
Without sound foundations, the building is a vanity, and doomed to failure.

I agree about finding common ground. Guess what, it’s there, just too many are apathetic to become INFORMED citizens of what our elected officials decide. I have yet to talk to a pro-choice parent who does not agree that Parental Notification should be a law (many believe it is, when in fact it is not in many states). Also, many do NOT agree with Partial Birth Abortion, especially when told that the woman must still go through labor and delivery of the baby (how can you say it’s for medical reasons when your body has to do what it normally would have to do?). So yes, I agree that common ground needs to be established and we need to fight from there. Unfortunately, many pro-choice people do not care to make the effort to make their voices heard to their elected officials. I don’t know why that is, but it does seem that those of us on the “extreme” sides of this issue are the only vocal ones. It would take a little education and effort for the “middle” to make their voices heard and I believe that then we would have some more universal laws inhibiting abortion. I’m trying to do my part by educating my family and informing them on how to contact our elected officials. But, I cannot make them do a single thing to take action. I think that is where the frustration is, that far too many are apathetic about most things they should be vocal about.

 

[wynnejj]

Hey, I don’t make the rules, the Holy See does. The teaching on formal and material cooperation has been part of Church teaching since Thomas Aquinas discovered it and the Church adopted it. Later other theological masters confirmed it.

JR

You are right, of course. Sorry to shoot the messenger. There is probably good steady reasons for the Church’s teaching on formal vs material cooperation, for sure as in all its deliberations. I’m just having a little trouble seeing it.

(BTW, you do a good job with your posts in clarifying the RCC’s teachings. Keep up the good work.)

 

[JReducation]

You are right, of course. Sorry to shoot the messenger. There is probably good steady reasons for the Church’s teaching on formal vs material cooperation, for sure as in all its deliberations. I’m just having a little trouble seeing it.

(BTW, you do a good job with your posts in clarifying the RCC’s teachings. Keep up the good work.)

Thank you for the compliment. Coming from you it means a great deal to me.

I can see how you’re having trouble with this concept. I spent many years studying theology and this is one of those concepts that is so difficult to apply. To be honest, where to draw the line is not an easy thing to discern. This is why the bishops themselves are all over the place on this.

Aquinas gave us the concept, the Church adopted it, BUT NO ONE GAVE US THE MANUAL ON HOW TO USE IT!!! :crying:

JR

 

[joe_clark]

**Quote:
Originally Posted by Rascalking
Great comment on Dilbert LCS_No_more! I am so glad I don’t work in an office!

At the end of the year, I will raise a glass of champagne to President Bush for keeping us safe, regardless of the controversy. For promoting a culture of life, at any political cost. For doing his best to hold off the attack from the left, and most importantly, holding off Islamic terrorism and spreading democracy. **

While your toasting, please add a small dose of reality.

During the Republican convention they spoke of what’s wrong with America, as if an unknown third party committed this crime. All Republican leaders have to do is look into their mirrors to find the perpetrators. I feel America will not survive another four more years of this lunacy.

George Bush, The Republican Party and his followers has degenerated into an empty exercise in image management, with the sole purpose of holding on to power. Many Americans believe it is time for the Republican Party to own up to their failure. The American voters gave Republicans complete control of all three branches of government for an extended period, more than enough time to implement all their wonderful ideas. During this seven and a half year period of time, we witnessed an expansion of government as spending ballooned along with the deficit, and we became embroiled in a disastrous and unnecessary war that has weakened us militarily and diminished our standing in the world.

The tax burden has shifted disproportionately to the middle class, and the government they are funding with their hard-earned dollars has never performed with such breathtaking incompetence.

I want a Government that upholds the law, not one that feels free to violate it, when it is in their best interest. Obviously the laws of the land are for other people. Let me make my own choices! Let us make our own choices. I choose hope over fear, challenge over the status-quo. I chose to vote for the Obama/Biden team because I want my future to have choices, not fear if I make a different choice other than the so called “family values” party.
Enough, indeed.

 

[WarriorAngel]

It has to start at home. We need to teach children, grandchildren, and those people around us to detach from the world more. It’s impossible to do so totally, but for the most part, stop watching television, listening to the radio, going to the movies. I went to a family gathering where every kid there had some sort of Gameboy. They were sitting around playing games, not interacting with each other (except two of the girls were connected playing a pet game with each other). What ever happened to interacting with family around a meal, a little music in the background???

I recently found that detachment from individual things (my most recent example is cigarettes) and asking Jesus for help to overcome that particular thing, is a good exercise. I did it with porn, now I did it with tobacco, I’m examining to see what’s next…there’s always something.

I quit smoking [mostly] in August [yet again]
I understand detachment…and how slow the process may seem. But worth while if we persevere.