Catholics disagreeing with Catholics (Part 2)

[Antonio_B]

“…if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” (Ratzinger’s Letter to U.S. Bishops, *Inside the Vatican *p.11, Aug issue)

I might add that war and the death penalty are not, in Catholic teaching, intrinsic evils and it is precisely for that reason that we, as Catholics, may legitimately hold different views on their application, while on the issue of abortion we can’t hold different opinions because abortion is intrinsically evil. Since when is holding a legitimate diversity of opinion in the Catholic Church, “cafeteria-Catholicism?”

Theme # 3 It is perfectly legitimate for a Catholic to vote for a presidential candidate who is for abortion but is in harmony with the majority of the issues the Church holds important as part of Catholic social justice.

Catholics who hold this view forget that housing for the poor, medical benefits for workers, minimum wage for workers below the poverty line, etc, etc, and the issue of abortion cannot be placed at the same moral level. This is not just my “personal” opinion since it is official church teaching.

“Any politics of human life must work to resist the violence of war and th4 scandal of capital punishment. Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing and health care. Therefore, Catholics should eagerly involve themselves as advocates for the weak and marginalized in all these areas. Catholic public officials are obliged to address each of these issues as they seek to build consistent policies which promote respect for the human person at all stages of life. But being “right” in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life*. *Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claim to the rightness of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community.”

(Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics, A Statement from the U.S. Catholic Bishops, 1998, #23)

Antonio

 

[Kecharitomene]

Antonio B:

Theme # 3 It is perfectly legitimate for a Catholic to vote for a presidential candidate who is for abortion but is in harmony with the majority of the issues the Church holds important as part of Catholic social justice.

Catholics who hold this view forget that housing for the poor, medical benefits for workers, minimum wage for workers below the poverty line, etc, etc, and the issue of abortion cannot be placed at the same moral level. This is not just my “personal” opinion since it is official church teaching.

Antonio

St. Louis Archbishop Burke and Cardinal Ratzinger both made statements regarding proportional issues and the differences between a material contribution to evil and a formal contribution to evil. When you make the statement about abortion not being placed on the same level as other social issues, you are allowing yourself to be duped by the motif of the pessimistic dispensationalist fundamentalists that ushered Bush into office. Thier true aim isn’t to stamp out terrorism, but rather to ensure the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem and the initiation of the Apocolypse before which they will all be raptured up. Its just as heretical to misquote Catholic clergy as it is an atrocity to make middle eastern foreign policy premised on an soley American Protestant exotic eschatology thats less than 200 years old.

I mean, c’mon Antonio, Iraq was an unjust war and the Vatican rightly acknowledged the fact and, man alive buddy, if you can’t see that the fundamentalists are trying to force the hand of the American Catholic voter through the nobel, yet misguided opinions of two or three American Bishops, then we need to sit down over coffee and talk this out.

Its a lie and completely unChristian to label anyone as “Pro-Pornography” because they support the first amendment which protects pornographers just as it is as unChristian and unjust to label someone who supports the right to choose as being “pro-Abortion”; as though they encouraged and advocated the act of abortion rather that just supporting the notion of that the choice must be left up to the parties involved. Please tell me Antonio, in what other nation is this abortion issue such a topic? Its not in Italy, nor Germany. Not in Russia and surely not China. Ours is a world wide church, Catholic meaning Universal. Surely, if you are correct about what you have stated, is the rest of the Church just shirking thier responsibilities around the world, and is only the U.S. Catholics taking action? Now thats a Fundamentalist ideology…the “True Church” syndrome. The faithful remenant that exists only in the United States.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Cardinal Ratzinger is not some misguided rogue bishop. He is the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and is thus, after the pope, the authority on issues of doctrine. He says that when confronted with a politician who is wrong on a non-negotiable it would be permissible to vote for him given proportionate reasons (which it seems we could safely interpret to mean that all other choices are equally or more wrong in regards to Catholic teaching). Assuming we’re all agreed on that, however, what could be proportionate to sanctioning the murder of 1.3 million innocent children every year (not to mention paying for the murder of more children overseas)?

 

[Antonio_B]

Kecharitomene:

St. Louis Archbishop Burke and Cardinal Ratzinger both made statements regarding proportional issues and the differences between a material contribution to evil and a formal contribution to evil.

O.K.

When you make the statement about abortion not being placed on the same level as other social issues, you are allowing yourself to be duped by the motif of the pessimistic dispensationalist fundamentalists that ushered Bush into office.

The problem is that I echoed what the U.S. bishops themselves stated in their pastoral letter “Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics” Are you saying the bishops are “pessimistic dispensationalist fundamentalists that usshered Bush into office?” That would be rather funny since most folks know the bishops in their great majority are Democrats, not Republican.

"Thier true aim isn’t to stamp out terrorism, but rather to ensure the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem and the initiation of the Apocolypse before which they will all be raptured up. "

Wow! I’m so stunned at this remark I would not know how to even begin giving a response to it.

“Its just as heretical to misquote Catholic clergy as it is an atrocity to make middle eastern foreign policy premised on an soley American Protestant exotic eschatology thats less than 200 years old.”

You can go to the document itself and read their words and you’ll find that I did not misquote them at all. Furthermore, since when is misquoting an episcopal document a heresy?

End of part I

Antonio

I

 

[Antonio_B]

“I mean, c’mon Antonio, Iraq was an unjust war and the Vatican rightly acknowledged the fact and, man alive buddy, if you can’t see that the fundamentalists are trying to force the hand of the American Catholic voter through the nobel, yet misguided opinions of two or three American Bishops, then we need to sit down over coffee and talk this out.”

More than six “misguided” bishops. The rest are too afraid to confront the culture with the truth, but they are paying a high price for it, loss of credibility.

Now, as for the unjustness of the war, the Vatican has an “opinion” not a “teaching” that binds all Catholics. As I have stated here a million times, we as Catholics have a prudential judgement to decide whether a war is just or not and there are Catholics on both sides of the issue.

Who are the "fundamentalists you keep writing about?

“Its a lie and completely unChristian to label anyone as “Pro-Pornography” because they support the first amendment which protects pornographers just as it is as unChristian and unjust to label someone who supports the right to choose as being “pro-Abortion”; as though they encouraged and advocated the act of abortion rather that just supporting the notion of that the choice must be left up to the parties involved.”

Oh, but there is quite a difference between the two. Someone who says they want pornographers to be able to do their thing in the name of the First Amendment, do so because they are afraid that if pornography were to be banned other legitimate modes of expression would be banned. Now, in the case of someone who is pro-choice, since the only choice their are talking about is the choice to murder a child, what else can one call a pro-choicer?

End of part 2

Antonio

 

[Antonio_B]

“Please tell me Antonio, in what other nation is this abortion issue such a topic? Its not in Italy, nor Germany. Not in Russia and surely not China. Ours is a world wide church, Catholic meaning Universal. Surely, if you are correct about what you have stated, is the rest of the Church just shirking thier responsibilities around the world, and is only the U.S. Catholics taking action? Now thats a Fundamentalist ideology…the “True Church” syndrome. The faithful remenant that exists only in the United States.”

If in Catholic nation like Italy abortion is not an issue, then the state of the church is worse than what I thought. I don’t know if abortion is an issue in Russia or in Germany and if it isn’t, then those countries are very wrong in not making the discussion of abortion a priority for it is a matter of a fundamental right to exist.

I would think many Catholics, here and abroad are shirking their responsibilities to defend the unborn. The difference with the U.S. is that we have now a Catholic running for office who believes and supports abortion. I suppose that if a candidate in another country were to run for office proclaiming his catholicity at the same time that he or she proclaims support for abortion, then the bishops of that country have an obligation to speak forcefully on that issue.

As far as I know we are still the “True Church” unless Christ changed His mind and forgot to tell me.

Sorry I had to reply to you in three sections but you wrote a very long message and we can only write 4000 characters or less in any response.

Antonio

 

[Antonio_B]

Andreas Hofer:

Cardinal Ratzinger is not some misguided rogue bishop. He is the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and is thus, after the pope, the authority on issues of doctrine. He says that when confronted with a politician who is wrong on a non-negotiable it would be permissible to vote for him given proportionate reasons (which it seems we could safely interpret to mean that all other choices are equally or more wrong in regards to Catholic teaching). Assuming we’re all agreed on that, however, what could be proportionate to sanctioning the murder of 1.3 million innocent children every year (not to mention paying for the murder of more children overseas)?

Thank you for your remarks. I’m still too stunned to think things through clearly after what our friend just wrote!

Antonio :whacky: