Defining 'proportionate reasons'

[1holycatholic]

If they had condemned themselves, as you state they have, why hasn’t the Pope corrected them in their error and led them back into Communion with the Church?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church addresses this in the same section (IV. Erroneous Judgement) as the previous citations.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church addresses this in the same section (IV. Erroneous Judgement) as the previous citations.

What you’re providing is your interpretation. The administrator of the diocese seems to leaves it to those individually to ‘explore our conscience and to make our own decisions’. He went on to say that ‘if a person has formed his or her conscience well, he or she should not be denied Communion, nor be told to go to confession before receiving Communion.’ ,

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions.” The Catechism goes on to state: “In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path; we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.”
Christ gives us freedom to explore our own conscience and to make our own decisions while adhering to the law of God and the teachings of the faith. Therefore, if a person has formed his or her conscience well, he or she should not be denied Communion, nor be told to go to confession before receiving Communion.

Previous to that he stated the following.

As Administrator of the Diocese of Charleston, let me state with clarity that Father Newman’s statements do not adequately reflect the Catholic Church’s teachings. Any comments or statements to the contrary are repudiated.

That was referring to the priest’s statement to the affect of Catholics who voted for Obama had placed themselves “outside of the full communion of Christ’s church and under the judgment of divine law.”

Now, to simply state, ‘The Catechism of the Catholic Church addresses this in the same section (IV. Erroneous Judgement) as the previous citations’ leads us to question the Pope’s statement.

“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.”

Without correction, it would seem the Pope is leaving the moral decisions to those guided by the Church to form their own consciences, which is also a teaching from the Catechism with specific guidelines included.

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53

It seems if it were as strict as you interpret it to be, then our Pope would certainly correct those in error and bring them back into Communion with the Church. That has not happened. The Church gives it’s guidance and leaves each to make moral decisions, according to their consciences, which they are not to be forced, or prevented, from acting upon. Without correction it also appears the Pope is leaving proportionate reasons up to individual moral decisions based on their own formed consciences.

Now if you want to address why, even possibilities why, the Pope has not corrected those you believe have condemned themselves, putting their Communion with the Church at risk, please provide the documentation, or your thoughts. At this point of the discussion, that’s a very important factor, that could sway one to view the issue as you do. He is the one voice that can unify ALL Catholics, and the one that has the responsibility of His ‘sheep’.

 

[1holycatholic]

Now if you want to address why, even possibilities why, the Pope has not corrected those you believe have condemned themselves, putting their Communion with the Church at risk, please provide the documentation, or your thoughts. At this point of the discussion, that’s a very important factor, that could sway one to view the issue as you do. He is the one voice that can unify ALL Catholics, and the one that has the responsibility of His ‘sheep’.

I’ve provided the relevant section of the Catechism that addresses the issue. If you can’t be troubled to read what it says that’s not my problem. There is no point in doing for you what you should be doing yourself.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

1holycatholic,

I’m still waiting to hear what you would do if faced with the scenario in post #38. Would you choose to release the would-be assassin, or the guy who said casually that he plans on becoming an abortion doctor, but probably won’t? The reasons for their current confinement are irrelevant. Assume you don’t know them. But you still have to choose based on what you do know. I just want to see if you really believe that the importance of intrinsic evil trumps other evil every time and in every case. So just answer how it applies in this case. You have a clear choice between choosing to oppose the very determined assassin or the very lazy guy who said he wanted to become an abortion doctor.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’ve provided the relevant section of the Catechism that addresses the issue. If you can’t be troubled to read what it says that’s not my problem. I’m not going to spoon feed you when you are responsible for feeding yourself.

The relevant section of the Catechism is not speaking for itself, nor is it ‘meshing’ with the statements I provided. We have different opinions of what is being said. Then we have the statements of the administrator of the diocese the priest is from, and the Pope. We also have the noted inaction of the Pope to correct those you view as condemning themselves. Why would the one who sits on the seat of Peter fail to correct millions of the ‘flock’ if they had erred so grievously? Apparently he is not of the same mindset on the subject as you have.

I certainly hope we are not losing our charitable tones in this discussion. I voice my concern over the ‘spoon feed’ comment. However, you seem to be getting close to what I’ve been saying about individuals making moral decisions based on their well formed faith based consciences by saying we are responsible for feeding ourselves. It is only close because as the Church feeds, or guides, us, we have to form our own consciences.

Please understand that I am open to a new understanding. If we continue reading from the same section of the Catechism, we see the discussion of invincible ignorance (this should show you that I have read what it says). This is another point of contention that I have with broad generalizations of people condemning themselves. I do not believe a majority of those that you believe voted wrongly dig as deep into the subject as you and I are doing, and even then we are still at an apparent disagreement which shows that digging deep doesn’t bring us all to one thought, or understanding. I believe there is a distinct possibility of a number of those that voted the way they did in the last presidential election come under the invincible ignorance definition.

What cannot be ‘spoon fed’ does not exist. At least I cannot find it. That is the correction that I believe would be an obligation of he who sits on the seat of Peter and is in charge over all His flock. It’s been roughly 3 years since the last presidential election and there has not been a correction, or further guidance on the subject.

 

[1holycatholic]

1holycatholic,

I’m still waiting to hear what you would do if faced with the scenario in post #38. Would you choose to release the would-be assassin, or the guy who said casually that he plans on becoming an abortion doctor, but probably won’t? The reasons for their current confinement are irrelevant. Assume you don’t know them. But you still have to choose based on what you do know. I just want to see if you really believe that the importance of intrinsic evil trumps other evil every time and in every case. So just answer how it applies in this case. You have a clear choice between choosing to oppose the very determined assassin or the very lazy guy who said he wanted to become an abortion doctor.

You haven’t presented a coherent question since you have given conflicting and contradictory information about one of the actors. Further, both homicide and abortion are intrinsically evil cf. Veritatis Splendor.

 

[1holycatholic]

The relevant section of the Catechism is not speaking for itself, nor is it ‘meshing’ with the statements I provided. We have different opinions of what is being said. Then we have the statements of the administrator of the diocese the priest is from, and the Pope. We also have the noted inaction of the Pope to correct those you view as condemning themselves. Why would the one who sits on the seat of Peter fail to correct millions of the ‘flock’ if they had erred so grievously? Apparently he is not of the same mindset on the subject as you have.

I certainly hope we are not losing our charitable tones in this discussion. I voice my concern over the ‘spoon feed’ comment. However, you seem to be getting close to what I’ve been saying about individuals making moral decisions based on their well formed faith based consciences by saying we are responsible for feeding ourselves. It is only close because as the Church feeds, or guides, us, we have to form our own consciences.

Please understand that I am open to a new understanding. If we continue reading from the same section of the Catechism, we see the discussion of invincible ignorance (this should show you that I have read what it says). This is another point of contention that I have with broad generalizations of people condemning themselves. I do not believe a majority of those that you believe voted wrongly dig as deep into the subject as you and I are doing, and even then we are still at an apparent disagreement which shows that digging deep doesn’t bring us all to one thought, or understanding. I believe there is a distinct possibility of a number of those that voted the way they did in the last presidential election come under the invincible ignorance definition.

Your defense for Catholics who voted for a pro-abortion politician when they could have voted for an anti-abortion politician is that they were all invincibly ignorant of that the Church teaches?

What cannot be ‘spoon fed’ does not exist. At least I cannot find it. That is the correction that I believe would be an obligation of he who sits on the seat of Peter and is in charge over all His flock. It’s been roughly 3 years since the last presidential election and there has not been a correction, or further guidance on the subject.

It’s there, in plain English. It’s just like the Church teaching on the impossibility of ordaining women, or the Church teaching on the intrinsic evil of contraception. The complaints about those matters of doctrine are like the complaints being raised against voting for a pro-abortion politician i.e. “there has been no dogmatic definition”, “the pope (or magisterium) has been unclear on the matter” etc…

Your insinuation that Pope Benedict is negligent in the discharge of his office is repugnant.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Your defense for Catholics who voted for a pro-abortion politician when they could have voted for an anti-abortion politician is that they were all invincibly ignorant of that the Church teaches?

It’s there, in plain English. It’s just like the Church teaching on the impossibility of ordaining women, or the Church teaching on the intrinsic evil of contraception. The complaints about those matters of doctrine are like the complaints being raised against voting for a pro-abortion politician i.e. “there has been no dogmatic definition”, “the pope (or magisterium) has been unclear on the matter” etc…

Your insinuation that Pope Benedict is negligent in the discharge of his office is repugnant.

It is not my defense, but merely a sharing of my view. Is your view that they brought condemnation upon themselves a persecution? This is a discussion, and not a courtroom. As you say, ‘it’s there in plain English.’

I am not insinuating the Pope is negligent and see the tone of this discussion is indeed changing. I’m sorry if you’re too sensitive to the topic of this discussion. I was attempting to give an example of how such a grievous error would require a correction of the Prime Minister of Christ. I even used the parable Christ used about a shepherd going for one lost sheep and rejoicing, previously in this thread as an example of how ALL of His sheep are important, even to a single one. What we’re discussing is millions of Catholics accused by other Catholics to have brought condemnation upon themselves.

Rather than try and insinuate that someone made a ‘repugnant’ accusation of the Pope, please share your view of why no correction was given. If it can’t be done without charity towards each other, we should end our discussion here and let it go. The very same section of the Catechism we are discussing gives warning against those who cause their ‘brethren’ to stumble. The point I was trying to make was if there is no correction, there was no error in his mind.

 

[1holycatholic]

It is not my defense, but merely a sharing of my view. Is your view that they brought condemnation upon themselves a persecution? This is a discussion, and not a courtroom. As you say, ‘it’s there in plain English.’

I am not insinuating the Pope is negligent and see the tone of this discussion is indeed changing. I’m sorry if you’re too sensitive to the topic of this discussion. I was attempting to give an example of how such a grievous error would require a correction of the Prime Minister of Christ. I even used the parable Christ used about a shepherd going for one lost sheep and rejoicing, previously in this thread as an example of how ALL of His sheep are important, even to a single one. What we’re discussing is millions of Catholics accused by other Catholics to have brought condemnation upon themselves.

That’s not what we are discussing, that’s a straw man. The Catechism of the Catholic Church unequivocally states that they condemn themselves.

Rather than try and insinuate that someone made a ‘repugnant’ accusation of the Pope, please share your view of why no correction was given. If it can’t be done without charity towards each other, we should end our discussion here and let it go. The very same section of the Catechism we are discussing gives warning against those who cause their ‘brethren’ to stumble.

The document uses precise, well defined theological terms. It was a private communication with other bishops and was not meant for release to the public, however it was inappropriately divulged. Nonetheless, the document and the consistent teaching of the Church has been repeatedly explained by bishops (Burke etc.), but for those who dissent no explanation is sufficient.

I’d like to see proof of your claim that there are Bishops who state it is absolutely OK to vote pro-abortion.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You haven’t presented a coherent question since you have given conflicting and contradictory information about one of the actors. Further, both homicide and abortion are intrinsically evil cf. Veritatis Splendor.

No, killing someone is not an intrinsic evil, since it might be done in self defense. Of course the case mentioned is not self defense, so it is still very evil. But it is not an intrinsic evil. Intrinsic means that it is evil by the very nature of what is being done, regardless of any mitigating circumstances.

Why are you having so much difficulty with what should be an automatic decision for you? I ask you again, in the scenario I outlined, would you act to oppose the guy who wants to kill the pope or the guy who wants to become an abortion doctor? I can only conclude that you are reluctant to admit that intrinsic evil does not trump every decision.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That’s not what we are discussing, that’s a straw man. The Catechism of the Catholic Church unequivocally states that they condemn themselves.

The document uses precise, well defined theological terms. It was a private communication with other bishops and was not meant for release to the public, however it was inappropriately divulged. Nonetheless, the document and the consistent teaching of the Church has been repeatedly explained by bishops (Burke etc.), but for those who dissent no explanation is sufficient.

I’d like to see proof of your claim that there are Bishops who state it is absolutely OK to vote pro-abortion.

The Catechism is precise, and in well defined theological terms.

We are Catholics and know the errors of piece milling select sentences, and paragraphs, that have appearances of supporting a view. We have to look at the entire picture.

Your last statement is repeated several times in this discussion, even though it’s been repeated to you that no one in this thread is stating it is absolutely OKAY to vote for pro-abortion. In fact, everyone that I’ve read so far has stated that abortion is an intrinsic evil and should not be supported. Now we’ve come full circle back to the statement by Cardinal Ratzinger, and I’m paraphrasing, ‘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.’

Even if this was a private communication with other bishops, it was instructions on how to guide faithful.

Proportionate reasons has not received a definition by the author, which seems to indicate his instructions were followed, or else we’d have something correcting those some accuse of being in error.

Prior to the last presidential elections, proportionate reasons received different interpretations, according to what seems to be a political bias. I really prefer no mistakes and as I said, if a correction was necessary the author would have made the clarifications. Without clarifications, there was no error, except for the one people ‘created’ to support a political bias. It’s been three years, where’s the correction from the Magisterium? I do not believe the Magisterium sat on it for three years waiting on the next election to make corrections. How many accused of error have passed away since the last election?

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.

Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

The emphasis does not apply to one group only. It applies to ALL Catholics. None of us are perfect and we are all subject to mistakes.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That’s not what we are discussing, that’s a straw man. The Catechism of the Catholic Church unequivocally states that they condemn themselves.

It’s your interpretation of a part of the Catechism. I read the same thing and do not believe millions of Catholics have condemned themselves, according to my interpretation. The problem is, neither of us are ‘infallible’, nor do we have authority to judge condemnation on others.

 

[1holycatholic]

No, killing someone is not an intrinsic evil, since it might be done in self defense.

That’s right, not all killing is intrinsically evil, but homicide is as is abortion.

Of course the case mentioned is not self defense, so it is still very evil. But it is not an intrinsic evil. Intrinsic means that it is evil by the very nature of what is being done, regardless of any mitigating circumstances.

Vertatis Splendor lists homicide as an intrinsic evil. :yup:

1. Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”.131 The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: “Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator”.
   …

Why are you having so much difficulty with what should be an automatic decision for you? I ask you again, in the scenario I outlined, would you act to oppose the guy who wants to kill the pope or the guy who wants to become an abortion doctor? I can only conclude that you are reluctant to admit that intrinsic evil does not trump every decision.

You are asking me to arbitrarily imprison someone (an intrinsic evil) based on the difference between someone you think may commit homicide (an intrinsic evil) and someone you think may commit of abortion (an intrinsic evil).

You have not proposed a coherent question.

 

[1holycatholic]

It’s your interpretation of a part of the Catechism. I read the same thing and do not believe millions of Catholics have condemned themselves, according to my interpretation. The problem is, neither of us are ‘infallible’, nor do we have authority to judge condemnation on others.

Your interpretation contradicts the sensus fidelium.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

1holycatholic,

Let’s try a simpler approach to this discussion, in hopes we can find some agreement with each other.

Do you consider it proportionate reasons if a person’s conscience tells them a candidate stating he supports pro-life is really pandering to a bloc of voters and has no intention of trying to change the current laws on abortion’?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Your interpretation contradicts the sensus fidelium.

Straw man I don’t agree with your interpretation.

 

[1holycatholic]

1holycatholic,

Let’s try a simpler approach to this discussion, in hopes we can find some agreement with each other.

Do you consider it proportionate reasons if a person’s conscience tells them a candidate stating he supports pro-life is really pandering to a bloc of voters and has no intention of trying to change the current laws on abortion’?

That’s a non-starter. Lying is intrinsically evil. Abortion is intrinsically evil.

Why would anyone in their right mind pick someone like that? “It’s OK, he’s lying.”

 

[1holycatholic]

Straw man I don’t agree with your interpretation.

You don’t understand the straw man fallacy.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That’s a non-starter. Lying is intrinsically evil. Abortion is intrinsically evil.

Why would anyone in their right mind pick someone like that? “It’s OK, he’s lying.”

So then, if people did not believe the ‘pro-life’ candidate last presidential election, what do you say their choices were?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You don’t understand the straw man fallacy.

Straw man, I don’t agree with your definition of straw man fallacy.

Come on, I’m trying to get you to lighten up a bit.