Be fair. I think you are missing the point of what KingAlfred is saying. From his quote:
My point was that their political beliefs can be supported by the official teachings of the Catholic Church, in the context of personal interpretation.
You and your opponents both believe what the official teachings are but you don’t agree exactly on what those teachings are saying.
There seems to be some serious confusion on both your parts. Us and them is an important part of conservative ideology, not mine.
Also, we are not discussing a case of ‘my’ understanding vs. ‘your’ understanding. We are talking about Rome’s position vs. someone elses position. As a Catholic, it’s a no brainer. The Pope is not a moral peer, he is the legitimate Vicar of Christ, infallibly appointed.
As the Catechism and the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church both note, I am obligated to show appropriate deference and submission of mind and will even when he “is not speaking ex cathedra” (infallibly).
The idea that Christian teaching or Catholic doctrine are just matters of personal interpretation, and that there is no higher earthly moral authority, are purely Protestant concepts. We live in a Protestant nation, with deep historical Protestant roots, so some errosion in understanding is natural. But even though we are not as openly treated as an unwelcome minority as, say, 40-50 years ago, it is still a fundemental difference. One either accepts the apostolic nature of the Church, or one does not.
Whether you like it or not the church’s stance on abortion and the death penalty are not exactly the same.
This comment is revealing in a couple of ways. One thing I have noticed about modern US conservatism is that there isn’t even the pretense of accepting nuances in points of view. I am not in lockstep with, say, the ‘dittohead dance’, so I am immediately assigned a bunch of views which I have never expressed or commented on.
Straw men are a convenient mechanism when one is both attempting to propogate fearfulness and ignorance at the same time instilling a sense of moral superiority, but they are a Christian disgrace in the real world. All mankind are fellow Children of God, all are imperfect in their emulation of Christ, and few are as stereotypically shallow as the dehumanizing characture used in modern propaganda.
But aside from insisting in debating points of view I don’t have, it shows a remarkable lack of understanding about the Catholic faith as a whole.
Our teachings on abortion and the death penalty do have some differences. Abortion is held to be a moral absolute, without exception, the death penalty is not. Further, our current understanding of abortion has been asserted to be infallible via the infallibility of the Church (universal agreement of the ordinary Magesterium). Our current understanding on the death penalty is an important teaching (it appears in the same Encyclical and is declared to be a related teaching, also appears in the Catechism, and has received intense attention from the Pontiff and the Bishops), but not asserted to be infallible.
If one wanted to say, rationalize non-Catholic positions, a common tactice is to argue that one teaching trumps others (because it is infallible) and also erroding the authority of the Magesterium on the so called ‘lesser’ beliefs. But, while this may have the appeal of letting someone hold onto beliefs that they wish while giving lip service to the Faith, it is illogical.
While the teachings are not exactly the same, they have a lot more in common than they do differences. For example:
- The Church’s position on both abortion and the death penalty have evolved with the passage of time. In both cases, the underlying principles have not changed, but understanding and proper applications have.
If one relies on primarily evangelical protestant sources for ‘knowledge’, this first one can be shocking, but it is indisputably part of written Church history. Arguing otherwise, in the face of Papal statements and written catechisms, just makes one look stupid. We can cover it in detail, but one obvious difference is abortion for the sake of maternal health. This was morally obligated in the Halacha (Jewish law) at the time of Jesus.
Tertullian, whose writings on abortion most resemble our modern position, argued that such abortions were a “necessary cruelty”, inaraguable just. Dispensations for such abortions can be found through Church history, and the Church officially declined to take a position on the matter as recently as 1869. Our current ban dates only from the 1880s. A century later, it is held to be infallibly true. If one were to use your reasoning, then it is just a matter of interpretation… Which leads to the next important point:
- Both teachings rely almost exclussively on the authority of the Magesterium.
In EVANGELIUM VITAE, Pope John Paul clearly noted that we do not have guidance on abortion in Holy Scripture. And, demonstrably, our exact understanding of all applications of the practice has changed over Church history. But, being blessed with a living Magesterium, we can be confident that we have arrived at the just and proper application of both teachings with the fullness of time.
In this particular case, the teachings are even more closely related, since the Church ties them to the Second Vatican Council’s declarations of the inalienable rights of the human person - that is, both are manifestations of the same core teaching. But even if they did not, the authority that gives them weight is the same, the Magesterium. So, if you dismiss the authority of the Mother Church on one, you erode the authority of the other. This is a problem with such moral relativism and cafeteria Catholicism, picking and choosing presumes both that the indivdial moral conscience is equivelent to the infallible moral authority of the Church, and that teachings are discreet and seperate things.
The Catechism specifically notes that we must always be aware of the possible error of our own, individual, moral conscience, and Rome has noted that teachings in isolation is “incoherent”:
“The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.”
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html
Not only is the concept of picking and choosing only “infallible” teachings incoherent, it is inevitably inconsistant. Consider Pope John Paul II’s instructions to the Lay Faithful in CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI on the “right to life”. Folks often quote the 2nd paragraph from #38, but the first and 3rd get overlooked:
“The Church has never yielded in the face of all the violations that the right to life of every human being has received, and continues to receive, both from individuals and from those in authority. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor. The Second Vatican Council openly proclaimed: <<All offences against life itself, such as every kind of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all offences against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where men are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons; all these and the like are certainly criminal: they poison human society; and they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator>>” - CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_30121988_christifideles-laici_en.html
The Pope is directly quoting the Pastoral Constitution of the Church, from the Second Vatican Council. Such a declaration is the Church acting in its most infallible form. So, if you are at odds with Rome on, say, torture of prisoners, you are at odds with infallible Dogma of the Faith. Which leads to the last similarity:
[cont]
Surely, my comment didn’t set ALL that off?