Defining 'proportionate reasons'

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal_Son1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Prodigal_Son1

Guest
Cardinal Ratzinger:
“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”
Click to expand...
In some political discussions there are those who claim that there are no proportionate reasons, even when there is no definition of proportionate reasons by Pope Benedict who wrote the phrase above.

Opinions of the meaning of proportionate reasons have been provided, by other posters, from many of the clergy of the Church, but nothing from Pope Benedict himself.

When asked if ‘proportionate reasons’ were used to decide a nominee in the primaries, responses of ‘proportionate reasons’ are not needed in that instance’, or a response of ‘we’re at liberty to disagree with the Church on other issues.’ The latter response made me think, ‘if we’re at liberty to disagree with the Church on an issue, there is no declaration of an absolute right, which means either view could be right.’ In that case, if an opposing view can be right, why can’t it be a proportionate reason?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Cardinal Ratzinger:

In some political discussions there are those who claim that there are no proportionate reasons, even when there is no definition of proportionate reasons by Pope Benedict who wrote the phrase above.
Click to expand...
You are quite correct. The WMD against “proportionate reasons” is “intrinsic evil”, another phrase without a strict definition. And so it goes:(
 
The definition may or may not be conclusive, but the application of “proportionate” is easily discovered when asked to balance the “other side” of the equation with a proportionate weight, such as, what is proportionate in voting for a candidate that supports abortion against the 1000’s of murdered babies that will result with that vote? ? ? ?
 
Julian0404 said:
The definition may or may not be conclusive, but the application of “proportionate” is easily discovered when asked to balance the “other side” of the equation with a proportionate weight, such as, what is proportionate in voting for a candidate that supports abortion against the 1000’s of murdered babies that will result with that vote? ? ? ?
Click to expand...
It’s many millions, not thousands. Even if it were only one abortion the Church teaching is exactly the same: abortion is an intrinsic evil, any issue or combination of issues that are not intrinsically evil (e.g. war, death penalty etc.) do not constitute proportionate reasons to the intrinsic evil of even one direct abortion.

Evangelium vitae #62 3rd paragraph
"Given such unanimity in the doctrinal and disciplinary tradition of the Church, Paul VI was able to declare that this tradition is unchanged and unchangeable. 72 Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops-who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine-I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. 73

No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church."
 
Julian0404 said:
The definition may or may not be conclusive, but the application of “proportionate” is easily discovered when asked to balance the “other side” of the equation with a proportionate weight, such as, what is proportionate in voting for a candidate that supports abortion against the 1000’s of murdered babies that will result with that vote? ? ? ?
Click to expand...
When we speak of matters of a well formed faith based conscience, that formation is supposed to be based on Church teachings, which are absolutes. In the absence on an absolute, and a liberty to disagree with the Pope, one could be right in their disagreement with the Pope, which if one were right it is ‘absolutely’ right. Therefore, it would seem, that issue of disagreement could be a proportionate reason, rightfully so.

It is with that thought that I feel it necessary for proportionate reasons to be defined by the Pope, if they are ‘absolutes’ as some say they are. Those that claim proportionate reasons are absolutes, have made accusations that some Catholics risk separation from the Church, and even endangered their eternal salvation, by the way they voted the last presidential election. If that were so surely the Pope, the one voice of our Church, would be obligated to speak up, correcting the errors and calling the flock back into proper line.

That has not happened, yet the accusations continue. Those making the accusations will quote specific Bishops that they happen to agree with and will denounce Bishops whose statements they do not agree with. The one voice has the authority to correct all, from layperson up through the ranks of the clergy, to give us a unified guidance.

With the lack of correction, or a definition of proportionate reasons, it gives an appearance of proportionate reasons being up to the individual well formed faith based conscience.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
It is with that thought that I feel it necessary for proportionate reasons to be defined by the Pope, if they are ‘absolutes’ as some say they are.
Click to expand...
Since you refuse to listen to the bishops, why don’t you fire off a letter to the pope with your demand?
 
1holycatholic said:
Since you refuse to listen to the bishops, why don’t you fire off a letter to the pope with your demand?
Click to expand...
The bishops were divided themselves prior to the last presidential election. It gave opportunity for people to grasp statements according to their own bias, which had appearances of being for political reasons.

Why would a letter be necessary? Don’t you believe the one voice would speak up if millions of Catholics had strayed, as some claim they did?

Please, let’s keep this discussion civil. Thanks.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
The bishops were divided themselves prior to the last presidential election. It gave opportunity for people to grasp statements according to their own bias, which had appearances of being for political reasons.

Why would a letter be necessary? Don’t you believe the one voice would speak up if millions of Catholics had strayed, as some claim they did?

Please, let’s keep this discussion civil. Thanks.
Click to expand...
The bishops were not divided.
 
1holycatholic said:
The bishops were not divided.
Click to expand...
There were two voter’s guides, both had endorsements of bishops. Even now it is the hope of ‘some’ bishops that an accord can be reached to address the one considered ‘vague’ by some.

It’s not a case of not listening to bishops, but trying to decide which bishops were correct. Then we add issues we’re allowed to disagree on and it becomes more difficult, and confusing. As I said, and no one has addressed, if we’re at liberty to disagree over certain issues, that lacks an absolute. If either side can be right, it is absolutely right. If one is absolutely right, the issue is raised to a level of proportionate, or so it would seem.

Also, the question of why hasn’t the Pope corrected the millions of Catholics who supposedly strayed from ‘truth’, if that truth is as absolute as some claim, hasn’t been addressed?
 
I would tend to think that the Pope hasn’t clarified what reasons would work over here because it is not his job to become entangled in American politics.
Prodigal Son1:
…responses of ‘proportionate reasons’ are not needed in that instance’, or a response of ‘we’re at liberty to disagree with the Church on other issues.’ The latter response made me think, ‘if we’re at liberty to disagree with the Church on an issue, there is no declaration of an absolute right, which means either view could be right.’ In that case, if an opposing view can be right, why can’t it be a proportionate reason?
Click to expand...
I would tend to think that, while there may be some issues on which we can technically disagree with the Church, it is never prudent to assume with certainty that we’re right in such cases (because we usually won’t be). So while it may be theoretically possible that the church is wrong about something which we should support, but the supporting of which necessitates supporting a certainly known evil, it probably is a bad idea to assume such and risk, in all probability, supporting two evils.

And I can’t actually see this coming up anyway. This is simply because the Church is unlikely to be incorrect about any grave issue where there is possible disagreement and - since we decide on which candidates to support based on grave issues first - any not so grave issue is unlikely to affect who we should vote for anyway.
 
Julian0404 said:
The definition may or may not be conclusive, but the application of “proportionate” is easily discovered when asked to balance the “other side” of the equation with a proportionate weight, such as, what is proportionate in voting for a candidate that supports abortion against the 1000’s of murdered babies that will result with that vote? ? ? ?
Click to expand...
If the choice really were between 1000’s of murdered babies and something else, then the decision might be that easy. But that is not what is being selected. You are selecting a candidate who is saying “Vote for me and I will stop the babies from being murdered.”. Some of the things you can consider are…
  1. Is this candidate sincere in what he says?
  2. Even if he is sincere, is he capable of doing what he claims?
In deciding these questions a person is allowed to use his own judgement, and such can be your personal proportionate reasons for voting one way or another.
 
Iron_Donkey said:
I would tend to think that the Pope hasn’t clarified what reasons would work over here because it is not his job to become entangled in American politics.

I would tend to think that, while there may be some issues on which we can technically disagree with the Church, it is never prudent to assume with certainty that we’re right in such cases (because we usually won’t be). So while it may be theoretically possible that the church is wrong about something which we should support, but the supporting of which necessitates supporting a certainly known evil, it probably is a bad idea to assume such and risk, in all probability, supporting two evils.

And I can’t actually see this coming up anyway. This is simply because the Church is unlikely to be incorrect about any grave issue where there is possible disagreement and - since we decide on which candidates to support based on grave issues first - any not so grave issue is unlikely to affect who we should vote for anyway.
Click to expand...
It is not possible for the Church to be in error regarding issues of faith and morals.
 
Iron_Donkey said:
I would tend to think that the Pope hasn’t clarified what reasons would work over here because it is not his job to become entangled in American politics.
Click to expand...
I can agree. What is problematic is those Catholics that accuse others of committing such a grave error as to risk separation of the Church and possibly their eternal salvation. If it’s a simple matter of it’s not the Pope’s job to become entangled in American politics, it cannot be that some committed such a grave error, as long as they did not vote for a candidate to precisely support the candidate’s view and support of abortion. If it is true that they committed such a grave error, it is the Pope’s responsibility to reign in those that strayed.
Iron_Donkey said:
I would tend to think that, while there may be some issues on which we can technically disagree with the Church, it is never prudent to assume with certainty that we’re right in such cases (because we usually won’t be). So while it may be theoretically possible that the church is wrong about something which we should support, but the supporting of which necessitates supporting a certainly known evil, it probably is a bad idea to assume such and risk, in all probability, supporting two evils.

And I can’t actually see this coming up anyway. This is simply because the Church is unlikely to be incorrect about any grave issue where there is possible disagreement and - since we decide on which candidates to support based on grave issues first - any not so grave issue is unlikely to affect who we should vote for anyway.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying an individual is right or wrong, but if they are at liberty to disagree there is a possibility they are right, otherwise there would be no such liberty. As we often explain to our Protestant brothers and sisters, two wrongs cannot make a right. It is the same to assume that a wrong and a right cannot add up to an absolute right, or wrong.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
If the choice really were between 1000’s of murdered babies and something else, then the decision might be that easy. But that is not what is being selected. You are selecting a candidate who is saying “Vote for me and I will stop the babies from being murdered.”. Some of the things you can consider are…
  1. Is this candidate sincere in what he says?
  2. Even if he is sincere, is he capable of doing what he claims?
In deciding these questions a person is allowed to use his own judgement, and such can be your personal proportionate reasons for voting one way or another.
Click to expand...
I can agree with this statement.
 
1holycatholic said:
It is not possible for the Church to be in error regarding issues of faith and morals.
Click to expand...
I agree, but as I explained in a previous post if we are at liberty to disagree there is no absolute declared, and we’d be in error with a permissible disagreement. If the Church allowed a permissible disagreement, that was in fact placing an individual in error, how can the individual be viewed at fault by fellow Catholics? Wouldn’t that fault be on the Church for the allowance?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I agree, but as I explained in a previous post if we are at liberty to disagree there is no absolute declared, and we’d be in error with a permissible disagreement. If the Church allowed a permissible disagreement, that was in fact placing an individual in error, how can the individual be viewed at fault by fellow Catholics? Wouldn’t that fault be on the Church for the allowance?
Click to expand...
There has been an absolute declared: abortion is intrinsically evil. I don’t understand why some seek ways to get around this fact.
 
1holycatholic said:
There has been an absolute declared: abortion is intrinsically evil. I don’t understand why some seek ways to get around this fact.
Click to expand...
It is not a case of anyone trying to get around a ‘fact’. Just as the Church as declared abortion to be intrinsically evil, it has not declared ‘proportionate reasons’, or that a person at liberty to disagree is automatically in error. Then we look at what people say when they explain they do not support abortion. They are not in a disagreement, at that point.

Something that is infallibly declared cannot be disagreed with and one remain in ‘communion with the Church’. Things allowed to be disagreed with are opinions of men, from layperson to Pope. All men are prone to mistake in their opinions. Our Church’s history is full of mistakes by men, the most notable from those higher up in the hierarchy.

A mistake that is not corrected by the one shepherd of the Church, cannot be considered an ‘absolute’ mistake by anyone else.

Also to be considered is intent. If a person, in their disagreement, has it in their heart to serve Him, their intent is right if the disagreement is allowed by the Pope. We are to serve no other than Him, while utilizing the infallible declarations of the Church.

off to school for another healthcare conference…will check back in when I return.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top