Defining 'proportionate reasons'

[1holycatholic]

Except that what you quoted was not the teaching of the ordinary universal magisterium.

Sure it is, further it is the teaching of the ordinary magisterium which is also binding.

DOCTRINAL COMMENTARY ON THE CONCLUDING FORMULA OF THE PROFESSIO FIDEI
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Sure it is, further it is the teaching of the ordinary magisterium which is also binding.

DOCTRINAL COMMENTARY ON THE CONCLUDING FORMULA OF THE PROFESSIO FIDEI
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

How about my other question?

 

[Ender]

Denying it repeatedly does not make is so. There were two opinions, we are proof of that, and there are many more like us. This is evident by the Bishops conference viewing the document, with some hoping to remove what is viewed as ‘vague’ by some. Last election people were able to pick and choose those bishops that gave support to their own view, and before you go there again neither gave permission to vote for a pro-abortion candidate to support abortion, but one side said there were proportionate reasons. Without the one leading voice of the Church, two trains of thought remain, each formed by our consciences.

There is little doubt that the document the bishops presented as a voting guide before the last presidential election provided no guidance whatever. It really was a “do whatever you like” document. That does not mean, however, that all choices were equally justifiable.

LeafbyNiggle:

The question of what constitutes support of abortion is indeed that complicated. The many many posting here on CAF asking if buying from such and such a company is cooperation with evil gives testimony to that complexity.

Candidate A supports abortion; Candidate B opposes it. How complicated do you find that situation? The argument that Candidate B is powerless to do anything about abortion is refuted by the simple fact that a great deal has been done - by those on both sides of the issue. Again, your example of whether buying from Company X constitutes support for abortion, is not relevant. The question here is what constitutes a proportionate reason to vote for a politician who supports abortion over an equally viable candidate who opposes it. I haven’t followed all of this thread, but if someone has answered that question I haven’t seen it.

And so in a particular race the degree of difference between candidates can be small enough that some people will judge it to be too small to justify voting exclusively on that basis

Clearly such situations can exist but this assertion just dances around the issue. In most races for major offices between the two parties the difference between the candidates on (e.g.) abortion are as obvious as they are significant. Let’s deal with those cases.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You’ve repeatedly been asked to provide evidence of these purported dissenting bishops, but you’ve never been able to do so.

The election was three years ago, I don’t have the same links as I viewed then.

I did a search and found several articles. There are two more links, to other articles, below the quoted material.

Catholic bishops’ views clash on 2010 vote

But is that really so? Pope Benedict XVI also selected as a new prince of the church Archbishop of Washington Donald Wuerl who is a voice of a different view.
Wuerl is every bit as devoted to church doctrine on life issues as Burke, but is one of the primary supporters of the actual U.S. bishops’ position on “Faithful Citizenship” drawn up in part by his predecessor in D.C., Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.

Before every presidential election cycle the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops revisits their statement on how Catholics should view their political choices in the light of faith. In 2004, conservatives were outraged at the document, later approved by Pope John Paul ll and by the Committee for the Doctrine of the Faith, then headed by future Pope Benedict, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

At that time, the statement on Catholics in Political Life, a single report by a committee led by McCarrick concluded that “bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action.”

That report was still in place during the 2008 election but the debate goes on over the meaning of “common good.” Can action for other strong values of the church – immigration reform, relief of poverty, or opposition to the death penalty – outweigh life issues?

At that time John Allen at National Catholic Reporter, noted,

There is clear division within the bishops' conference on what the pastoral response to pro-choice Catholic candidates ought to be. The desire to deny them Communion, or to declare them excommunicated under an article of canon law concerning 'formal cooperation' in abortion, is held only by a minority of bishops.

During the 2008 presidential race, Wuerl said: "I would like to think Catholics do, in fact, vote their conscience. We want them to form that conscience with Catholic teachings in mind on human life, peace, justice, immigration and the environment. Complexity is the heart of this.

“No one party or candidate agrees with Catholic teaching on every point. No one party can claim Catholic allegiance. You weigh all these in your own heart.”

Last year Burke was seen in a video interview blasting bishops, including Wuerl, who disagree with him.

When Bishops Disagree: Contradictory Statements on the US Presidential Race

American bishops’ compromise stand on political issues is breaking down

Please take time to provide sources showing there was 100% agreement among bishops prior to the past few elections; e.g. 2004, 2008, 2010, if you reject the sources provided.

 

[1holycatholic]

How about my other question?

It’s still a non sequitur.

 

[1holycatholic]

American bishops’ compromise stand on political issues is breaking down

Please take time to provide sources showing there was 100% agreement among bishops prior to the past few elections; e.g. 2004, 2008, 2010, if you reject the sources provided.

From your link (wrt Faithful Citizenship):
“The US bishops’ conference has no teaching authority”
:doh2:

It’s a good thing that Bishop’s conferences have teaching authority whatsoever, otherwise we be stuck with things like the Winnipeg Declaration and the swooning review of Brokeback Mountain.

The National Catholic Reporter is a dissident publication and not a reliable source. It’s no surprise that they discuss the small handful of bishops who appear to turn a blind eye to abortion by refusing to apply Canon 915 as they are obligated to do.

Bishop Gerald Kicanas was “on deck” for the presidency of the USCCB, but he appears to have been rebuked since Apb. Dolan got the post.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

From your link (wrt Faithful Citizenship):
“The US bishops’ conference has no teaching authority”
:doh2:

It’s a good thing that Bishop’s conferences have teaching authority whatsoever, otherwise we be stuck with things like the Winnipeg Declaration and the swooning review of Brokeback Mountain.

The National Catholic Reporter is a dissident publication and not a reliable source. It’s no surprise that they discuss the small handful of bishops who appear to turn a blind eye to abortion by refusing to apply Canon 915 as they are obligated to do.

Bishop Gerald Kicanas was “on deck” for the presidency of the USCCB, but he appears to have been rebuked since Apb. Dolan got the post.

I asked that you kindly show where the bishops were 100% in agreement on the matter, if you rejected the sources.

As you rely on the Bishops conference’s authority, several bishops were named individually.

The first article was USA Today. The other two came CatholicCulture.org.

At least you admitted the bishops were not in full agreement, even though you tried to minimize it by referring to some bishops with a different opinion as ‘small handful of bishops’. It shows that there was in fact more than one opinion, and that our bishops were not united. Also, not all the bishops of different opinion ‘turned a blind eye to abortion’ as you call it, some spoke on the ‘common good’ as part of the weighing, specifying other important issues to be weighed.

Bottom line, the American public heard different opinions from different bishops. That’s why I feel if a correction would truly be needed, it would be done by the Pope, who is the one voice that can unite all Catholics, bishops included. It seems to be that a correction is not needed…

 

[pnewton]

There is little doubt that the document the bishops presented as a voting guide before the last presidential election provided no guidance whatever. It really was a “do whatever you like” document. That does not mean, however, that all choices were equally justifiable.

and

From your link (wrt Faithful Citizenship):
“The US bishops’ conference has no teaching authority”.

and finally.

Sorry, but the teaching of ordinary universal magisterium on issues of faith and morals is binding.

As I see it, the biggest inconsistency is that we tend to listen to that which we agree with, define it as the magisterium teaching on faith and morals, then say all Catholics must obey. When we read something we don’t agree with, we define it as prudential opinion, emphasize it’s non-binding nature and say Catholics are free to have their own opinion. This is why I have always considered the principle of authority so critical. We simply can not bypass our bishop, or our bishops in favor of something else we want to spin our way by someone else. Again, I would encourage all to read the bishop’s guide of faithful citizenship and apply it the best they can, rather than argue it’s validity. That way lies more confusion than sola scriptura and everyman for themself could ever wreak.

I will also hope that when we go into the voting booth that our hearts are laden with the burden of every innocent child that has its life snuffed in the womb. I think if we have that in true perspective, the argument over proportional reasons will be moot. This is my opinion and how I vote. The Church does not say who to vote for by name. Neither shall I.

 

[1holycatholic]

I asked that you kindly show where the bishops were 100% in agreement on the matter, if you rejected the sources.

As you rely on the Bishops conference’s authority, several bishops were named individually.

The first article was USA Today. The other two came CatholicCulture.org.

At least you admitted the bishops were not in full agreement, even though you tried to minimize it by referring to some bishops with a different opinion as ‘small handful of bishops’. It shows that there was in fact more than one opinion, and that our bishops were not united. Also, not all the bishops of different opinion ‘turned a blind eye to abortion’ as you call it, some spoke on the ‘common good’ as part of the weighing, specifying other important issues to be weighed.

No other issue, or combination of issues, outweighs the slaughter of over 50 million innocent babies.

Bottom line, the American public heard different opinions from different bishops. That’s why I feel if a correction would truly be needed, it would be done by the Pope, who is the one voice that can unite all Catholics, bishops included. It seems to be that a correction is not needed…

You don’t know what corrections happen behind the scenes. The apparent snub of Bishop Kicanas may have been for other reasons, perhaps his alleged mishandling of sexual abuse.

The American public heard strong statements affirming Catholic teaching from some Bishops who were promptly savaged by the media and dissident Catholics. Other Bishops, perhaps seeking to avoid controversy, issued mealy mouthed statements.

The pope doesn’t have to make a definitive declaration on everything, that’s not how the Church works. The father of a family doesn’t tack a list of everything that is required of the Children and everything that is forbidden. The father lays down general principles and a few specifics. That’s why the Church hasn’t made a dogmatic declaration regarding the impossibility of the ordination of women. The pope doesn’t have to put a note on the Catholic refrigirator, he lowers his newspaper and says “The impossible can’t happen, so stop asking.”

http://www.fybertech.com/4thread/v_55056307/1270693145305.jpg

 

[1holycatholic]

When we read something we don’t agree with, we define it as prudential opinion, emphasize it’s non-binding nature and say Catholics are free to have their own opinion. This is why I have always considered the principle of authority so critical. We simply can not bypass our bishop, or our bishops in favor of something else we want to spin our way by someone else. Again, I would encourage all to read the bishop’s guide of faithful citizenship and apply it the best they can, rather than argue it’s validity. That way lies more confusion than sola scriptura and everyman for themself could ever wreak.

The Church specifically defines some things (like the application of the death penalty) as a matter of prudential judgement, not the individual. The Church also states that a bishop’s conference has no authority, and that the authority lies with the bishop.

From Prodigal Son1’s linked article:

“No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese,” Bishop Martino said.

Even if the USCCB guide to faithful citizenship were an authoritative document it is worded i a manner that anyone who wants to justify their position can do so. It is the document of plausible deniability - whoever wrote it could be called in front of the CDF and explain “but that’s not what I meant…” In practice it has become an inkblot test for Catholics: those that wanted to vote for a notorious pro-abortion candidate saw it as a license to do whatever they wanted.

 

[SeekGodsHelp]

Seekgodshelp.com*Links that have changed lives all over the world. Search and further your knowledge of God.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No other issue, or combination of issues, outweighs the slaughter of over 50 million innocent babies.

You don’t know what corrections happen behind the scenes. The apparent snub of Bishop Kicanas may have been for other reasons, perhaps his alleged mishandling of sexual abuse.

You’re relying on assumptions now.

The American public heard strong statements affirming Catholic teaching from some Bishops who were promptly savaged by the media and dissident Catholics. Other Bishops, perhaps seeking to avoid controversy, issued mealy mouthed statements.

Emphasis above is mine. I say we need the one voice to make a correction, if a correction is needed.

The pope doesn’t have to make a definitive declaration on everything, that’s not how the Church works. The father of a family doesn’t tack a list of everything that is required of the Children and everything that is forbidden. The father lays down general principles and a few specifics. That’s why the Church hasn’t made a dogmatic declaration regarding the impossibility of the ordination of women. The pope doesn’t have to put a note on the Catholic refrigirator, he lowers his newspaper and says “The impossible can’t happen, so stop asking.”

http://www.fybertech.com/4thread/v_55056307/1270693145305.jpg

Christ taught the parable of going after the ‘single’ lost sheep. The Pope is the shepherd of His flock. If millions of Catholics had endangered their Communion with the Church, I think the Pope would have made a correction if a correction was necessary.

You’re avoiding a request to show documentation of 100% of bishops being unified. You’re also changing the topic.

The whole point, for me, was to try and show cause why Catholics shouldn’t be accusing other Catholics of condemnation, and that there were reasons some chose the way they did while believing the views of bishops supported their decisions. With bishops disagreeing, it allowed people to seek out a bishops they agreed with. It was not a unified voice.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It’s still a non sequitur.

Please explain.

 

[1holycatholic]

Emphasis above is mine. I say we need the one voice to make a correction, if a correction is needed.

The pope could show up at the homes of the women priest supporters and tell them personally that it’s not possible and it wouldn’t be sufficient for them.

Christ taught the parable of going after the ‘single’ lost sheep. The Pope is the shepherd of His flock. If millions of Catholics had endangered their Communion with the Church, I think the Pope would have made a correction if a correction was necessary.

And the Bible also teaches that some freely choose non-serviam.

You’re avoiding a request to show documentation of 100% of bishops being unified. You’re also changing the topic.

I don’t have to show that. There is only unity in orthodox Catholicism. There have always been dissidents. Just like the women’s ordination crowd, those that want to dissent on supporting pro-abortion politicians are going to find an excuse for their cause in spite of history and the magisterium. You haven’t shown any bishop that has stated that it is acceptable to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, only that there are those whose statements dissidents dream support their cause.

The whole point, for me, was to try and show cause why Catholics shouldn’t be accusing other Catholics of condemnation, and that there were reasons some chose the way they did while believing the views of bishops supported their decisions. With bishops disagreeing, it allowed people to seek out a bishops they agreed with. It was not a unified voice.

Again, it is the Church who states that Catholics condemn themselves.

I suggest you write a complaint letter to the pope about the bishops you claim permit people to support pro-abortion politicians.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The pope could show up at the homes of the women priest supporters and tell them personally that it’s not possible and it wouldn’t be sufficient for them.

We have a formal declaration on that subject.

And the Bible also teaches that some freely choose non-serviam.

The Gospel does not conflict.

I don’t have to show that. There is only unity in orthodox Catholicism. There have always been dissidents. Just like the women’s ordination crowd, those that want to dissent on supporting pro-abortion politicians are going to find an excuse for their cause in spite of history and the magisterium. You haven’t shown any bishop that has stated that it is acceptable to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, only that there are those whose statements dissidents dream support their cause.

In this very statement you separate the Church, with what appears to be a judgment of those that disagreed with you.

If you had read all the articles provided, or even done a search for yourself, you would see there are bishops that gave other issues to be weighed and left the voting process up to individual consciences.

We’ve gone from ‘there were not two opinions’, ‘there was no evidence’, ‘bishops with mealy mouth statements’, to changing the topic.

Again, it is the Church who states that Catholics condemn themselves.

By what you read from the Church, you have said they condemned themselves. That places you in the position of judgment.

I suggest you write a complaint letter to the pope about the bishops you claim permit people to support pro-abortion politicians.

Same repeated misrepresentation of what is being said. A correction is not needed, if it’s not necessary. It’s not that I claim, it’s evident in many statements, by many people.

I’m not trying to make this a competition of who can come up with the best ‘one up man ship’ statement. I was only trying to provide food for thought that we are to share the Gospel with love and charity, and that not everyone has done intentionally wrong if any wrong was done. Those principles are absent in name calling and division. We are to pray for our enemies and love them. These are brothers and sisters in Christ that are being judged as condemning themselves, over a political bias. They are not enemies and not everyone voted to support abortion. Whether some were mistaken, I do not know, but I do know the Church does not push them away as if they are never to receive the promises of Christ.

Luk 18:10 Two men went up into the temple to pray: the one a Pharisee and the other a publican.
Luk 18:11 The Pharisee standing, prayed thus with himself: O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also is this publican.
Luk 18:12 I fast twice in a week: I give tithes of all that I possess.
Luk 18:13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not so much as lift up his eyes towards heaven; but struck his breast, saying: O God, be merciful to me a sinner.

 

[1holycatholic]

Thank you for pointing that out. I had no idea that the list of intrinsic evils was so extensive. But this makes it a lot easier to see possible “proportionate reasons” to vote for a candidate who does not have the ideal position on abortion. According to this document you so kindly posted I can see that allowing degrading conditions of work which treats labourers as mere instruments of profit is also an intrinsic evil. Therefore I may decide that the nominally anti-abortion candidate also has a blind spot with regard to the dignity of migrant workers. Depending on the degree of that violation, I might legitimately conclude that it is a proportionate reason to vote for the other guy who does respect the dignity of migrant workers, but is a little less determined in his opposition to abortion.

Sorry, but that’s not “proportionate reason”, but proportionalism, which is condemned by the Church. cf. Vertatis Splendor

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Candidate A supports abortion; Candidate B opposes it. How complicated do you find that situation?.

Here’s what i really don’t understand. What limits are there on the requirement to oppose abortion? This question takes two forms.

The first form is how different must the candidate’s position be before the requirement applies? For example, if the only choices are two pro-choice candidates who differ only in their view of the degree of government subsidies for abortions, does there come a point where prudential judgement may decide if the difference is large enough to ignore all other non-abortion characteristics of the candidates?

The second form of this question is are there any other choices outside of voting where there is an absolute requirement to do what we can to oppose abortion? For example, suppose my neighbor offers me a very nice pro-life yard sign to put on my lawn? Am I bound to accept the offer, or can I opt for a less cluttered lawn? It seems strange that a teaching of the Church binds me to sacrifice my concern for the poor in voting, but does not bind me to sacrifice the looks of my Better Homes and Gardens front lawn. One could argue that my one single vote in an election would not do as much good for the pro-life movement as a yard sign that is seen by many and could change many votes in future elections.

 

[1holycatholic]

We have a formal declaration on that subject.

No more formal than what the Church has said about “proportionate reasons.”

In this very statement you separate the Church, with what appears to be a judgment of those that disagreed with you.

Straw man. I do not judge anyone.

If you had read all the articles provided, or even done a search for yourself, you would see there are bishops that gave other issues to be weighed and left the voting process up to individual consciences.

We’ve gone from ‘there were not two opinions’, ‘there was no evidence’, ‘bishops with mealy mouth statements’, to changing the topic.

No bishop left the process open to a malformed conscience.

By what you read from the Church, you have said they condemned themselves. That places you in the position of judgment.

Straw man. Stating Church teaching does not place me in a position of judgement.

Same repeated misrepresentation of what is being said. A correction is not needed, if it’s not necessary. It’s not that I claim, it’s evident in many statements, by many people.

People who dissent from Church teaching aren’t going to accept any explanation.

I’m not trying to make this a competition of who can come up with the best ‘one up man ship’ statement. I was only trying to provide food for thought that we are to share the Gospel with love and charity, and that not everyone has done intentionally wrong if any wrong was done. Those principles are absent in name calling and division. We are to pray for our enemies and love them. These are brothers and sisters in Christ that are being judged as condemning themselves, over a political bias. They are not enemies and not everyone voted to support abortion. Whether some were mistaken, I do not know, but I do know the Church does not push them away as if they are never to receive the promises of Christ.

The Church unambiguously teaches that some freely reject the Church and condemn themselves. It is possible that some Catholics are invincibly ignorant, but then nearly eighty percent of Catholics deliberately miss Mass without cause. Catholics are instructed in detail about the faith: children get years of instruction. To say that the eighty percent of Catholics that don’t go to Mass don’t know that it’s a mortal sin is not a reasonable statement. Lots of Catholics disobey/dissent from the Church. I don’t condemn those who commit mortal sin, they condemn themselves. The same thing is true with contraception/abortion. The disobedient seek to rationalize their decision to disobey the Church, and the quest to justify voting for a pro-abortion politician is a manifestation of that quest for rationalization. The argument is the same and it boils down to: “I may do evil so that good may come from it.” and it is expressed as proportionalism, not “proportionate reason.” The Church states that evil can not be done so that good comes from it. The Church also condemns proportionalism.

If the candidate for mayor was a pro-arsonist who boasts about plans to permit arsonists to burn down orphanages you couldn’t vote for them just because they promised to put in a traffic light and reduce accidents. The traffic light, while a good thing, does not constitute a proportionate reason. If the only other candidate who was also an pro-arsonist, but they seek to protect orphanages, and only permit single home fires you could vote for them, not because you support arson, but because you have a “proportionate reason” to limit the intrinsic evil of both candidates.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No more formal than what the Church has said about “proportionate reasons.”

Yes it is. It is clearly defined, and proportionate reasons are not.

Straw man. I do not judge anyone.

I try not to, and could not, place myself in a position of deciding who had condemned themselves.

No bishop left the process open to a malformed conscience.

See, you call it a malformed conscience, but there were bishops who clearly stated that people voted their consciences and assumed it was through well formed consciences. Without being able to see what’s in another person’s heart, one would have to judge them as ‘malformed’.

Straw man. Stating Church teaching does not place me in a position of judgement.

The problem is, you’re stating your interpretation of a Church teaching and stating that people have condemned themselves. Where is the same public statement from a unified Church? It does not exist.

People who dissent from Church teaching aren’t going to accept any explanation.

I’m sorry, but this sounds like ‘those who disagree with me are not as righteous as I am’. You continue to divide by labeling people as dissenters. Where is the same public statement from a unified Church that any group are dissenters?

The Church unambiguously teaches that some freely reject the Church and condemn themselves. It is possible that some Catholics are invincibly ignorant, but then nearly eighty percent of Catholics deliberately miss Mass without cause. Catholics are instructed in detail about the faith: children get years of instruction. To say that the eighty percent of Catholics that don’t go to Mass don’t know that it’s a mortal sin is not a reasonable statement. Lots of Catholics disobey/dissent from the Church. I don’t condemn those who commit mortal sin, they condemn themselves. The same thing is true with contraception/abortion. The disobedient seek to rationalize their decision to disobey the Church, and the quest to justify voting for a pro-abortion politician is a manifestation of that quest for rationalization. The argument is the same and it boils down to: “I may do evil so that good may come from it.” and it is expressed as proportionalism, not “proportionate reason.” The Church states that evil can not be done so that good comes from it. The Church also condemns proportionalism.

But we can vote for someone who is going to cut social programs, or wage 'preemptive wars, or commit any number of sins/evil to abolish abortion? It’s the same thing.

Where is the teaching that we must publicly admonish those we believe to be sinners? Where does that authority come from? Christ never taught that. He only gave authority to the men of the Church.

If the candidate for mayor was a pro-arsonist who boasts about plans to permit arsonists to burn down orphanages you couldn’t vote for them just because they promised to put in a traffic light and reduce accidents. The traffic light, while a good thing, does not constitute a proportionate reason. If the only other candidate who was also an pro-arsonist, but they seek to protect orphanages, and only permit single home fires you could vote for them, not because you support arson, but because you have a “proportionate reason” to limit the intrinsic evil of both candidates.

Where is that unified statement from the Church?

You close your eyes to the fact that the bishops were not of the same opinion, and slur against those that spoke differently than you want to believe.

 

[Ender]

As I see it, the biggest inconsistency is that we tend to listen to that which we agree with, define it as the magisterium teaching on faith and morals, then say all Catholics must obey.

Not exactly. Bishops conferences (e.g. USCCB) have no explicit teaching authority, which means that their pronouncements are not binding. This does not mean, however, that they don’t have influence as they, as you noted, allow individuals to pick and choose from among their comments. Let’s be clear on this, however: the prudential opinions of individual bishops or of the USCCB are not doctrinal statements and we have no obligation to accept them.

When we read something we don’t agree with, we define it as prudential opinion, emphasize it’s non-binding nature and say Catholics are free to have their own opinion.

Speak for yourself on this topic or challenge specific assertions. There are valid distinctions to be made between prudential and doctrinal comments and they cannot be dismissed by casually charging that when someone claims a statement is prudential he does so only because he wants to reject it.

We simply can not bypass our bishop…

We are not, however, obligated to assent to prudential statements, even from our bishop and a statement either is or is not prudential. If you believe that a specific comment is doctrinal then make that case, but simply dismissing those who believe it is prudential is not such an argument.

Again, I would encourage all to read the bishop’s guide of faithful citizenship and apply it the best they can, rather than argue it’s validity.

I think both approaches are appropriate. The document is not binding; that much at least is clearly true. What is more significant, however, is that it would hardly matter as the document was written in such a way as to sanction pretty much any position one chose to take.

Ender