Did Catholic Bishops, through the organization, USCCB, make themselves clear on the abortion issue?

[elts1956]

I say they did not in regard to misinformed Cafeteria Catholics. They should have been to the point and not obfuscate their meanings with words and references to other, evil, but not intrinsic evil isssues. See:

the blog by Dr. Jeff Mirus on:

How Not to Form Consciences for Faithful Citizenship

www.catholicculture.org/commentary/blog.cfm?id=193

In which he states in part:

How Not to Form Consciences for Faithful Citizenship

…Never mind that the bishops discuss and defend their role in American political discourse, that they say valuable things about the importance of a well-formed conscience to effective citizenship, or that they admit their pronouncements on prudential matters do not carry the same weight as their statements on moral absolutes. The problem is that, despite this last admission, the bishops are so intent on giving us their priorities in all the other areas of public life that we are left wondering which one of these should not be considered a sufficiently grave moral reason to vote however we want.

For this reason, as an action document, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” is essentially useless. By establishing so many priorities, the bishops have failed to establish effective priorities at all. The technical probity of the discussion is lost in a sea of options, caveats and nuances which sound, frankly, like the result of committee work. If the bishops ever hope to make a moral impact, they will have to take seriously the stated foundational necessity of the right to life. They will have to find the courage—in a practical voting guide—to highlight intrinsic evils apart from anything else and insist that Catholics make every effort to settle them first, addressing other concerns only within the limits of that settlement.

After it is crystal clear that we may morally consider other issues only in a context which makes a prior necessity of the elimination of intrinsically evil attacks on the right to life, the bishops can make their contributions to many other prudential questions with a clear conscience. Before that, even if the bishops truly believe what they say, such a discussion can only confuse, enervate, and fail.

The bishops correctly state that one may not vote for a candidate who advocates an intrinsic evil (such as abortion) if one is motivated by a desire to advance that evil. They also correctly allow that it is conceivable that one could, under unfortunate circumstances and for a very grave moral reason, vote for a candidate who advocates an intrinsic evil, because the voter has some other weighty end in view. But because they offer no practical guidance on the extreme unlikelihood of such a circumstance in contemporary America, this is where the discussion bogs down.

I would like to defend the Most Reverend Joseph F. Martino of Scranton OH., who has given a very clear, firm anti abortion statement to his diocese and parishes and is now being attacked by the secular population and Cafeteria Catholics.

Also other Bishops who have taken a firm stance in regard to the abortion issue, such as the Bishops of Kansas (Aug. 2008), the Archbishop of Kansas City Mo, the Bishops of Dallas Fortworth and many others whom I have missed posting.
God bless them all.

 

[muskieman]

I too bless the Bishops that have stood up and made their voice sound loud and clear. Those that feel they need to stride the fence and make statements ambiguous which injure the faithful

Gregory the Great said it better than me: “The shepard’s silence while ofter injurious to himself will always harm his flock.”

and Crist said it best: “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (Jn 8:32)

 

[elts1956]

I say they did not in regard to misinformed Cafeteria Catholics. They should have been to the point and not obfuscate their meanings with words and references to other, evil, but not intrinsic evil isssues. See:

the blog by Dr. Jeff Mirus on:

How Not to Form Consciences for Faithful Citizenship

www.catholicculture.org/commentary/blog.cfm?id=193

In which he states in part:

How Not to Form Consciences for Faithful Citizenship

…Never mind that the bishops discuss and defend their role in American political discourse, that they say valuable things about the importance of a well-formed conscience to effective citizenship, or that they admit their pronouncements on prudential matters do not carry the same weight as their statements on moral absolutes. The problem is that, despite this last admission, the bishops are so intent on giving us their priorities in all the other areas of public life that we are left wondering which one of these should not be considered a sufficiently grave moral reason to vote however we want.

For this reason, as an action document, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” is essentially useless. By establishing so many priorities, the bishops have failed to establish effective priorities at all. The technical probity of the discussion is lost in a sea of options, caveats and nuances which sound, frankly, like the result of committee work. If the bishops ever hope to make a moral impact, they will have to take seriously the stated foundational necessity of the right to life. They will have to find the courage—in a practical voting guide—to highlight intrinsic evils apart from anything else and insist that Catholics make every effort to settle them first, addressing other concerns only within the limits of that settlement.

After it is crystal clear that we may morally consider other issues only in a context which makes a prior necessity of the elimination of intrinsically evil attacks on the right to life, the bishops can make their contributions to many other prudential questions with a clear conscience. Before that, even if the bishops truly believe what they say, such a discussion can only confuse, enervate, and fail.

The bishops correctly state that one may not vote for a candidate who advocates an intrinsic evil (such as abortion) if one is motivated by a desire to advance that evil. They also correctly allow that it is conceivable that one could, under unfortunate circumstances and for a very grave moral reason, vote for a candidate who advocates an intrinsic evil, because the voter has some other weighty end in view. But because they offer no practical guidance on the extreme unlikelihood of such a circumstance in contemporary America, this is where the discussion bogs down.

I would like to defend the Most Reverend Joseph F. Martino of Scranton OH., who has given a very clear, firm anti abortion statement to his diocese and parishes and is now being attacked by the secular population and Cafeteria Catholics.

Also other Bishops who have taken a firm stance in regard to the abortion issue, such as the Bishops of Kansas (Aug. 2008), the Archbishop of Kansas City Mo, the Bishops of Dallas Fortworth and many others whom I have missed posting.
God bless them all.

ANYONE BESIDE MUSKIEMAN AND I READ THE USCCB STATEMENT? WHAT SAY YOU?

 

[po18guy]

As is its type, the USCCB is a committee. They sometimes outlive their usefulness. They at least need to remove the filter.

 

[JMJ_coder]

My take on the ‘abortion is just one issue’ is this:

If someone comes to the judgment ‘it is o.k. to murder the most innocent and defenseless, infants in their own mothers womb’; if that is the judgment you come to, I have less than zero trust in your ability to form a solid or rational judgment on any other issue.

 

[elts1956]

My take on the ‘abortion is just one issue’ is this:

If someone comes to the judgment ‘it is o.k. to murder the most innocent and defenseless, infants in their own mothers womb’; if that is the judgment you come to, I have less than zero trust in your ability to form a solid or rational judgment on any other issue.

I agree. But do you think the Bishops, the majority of which, did not state that voting pro-choice is a gravely moral issue, should have been more forceful in their statements?

 

[JimG]

But look at all these bishops’ statements. It seems to me that many if not most bishops have spoken very clearly on the issues. Speaking on moral issues is a personal, not a group, responsibility. The bishops are successors to the apostles; the USCCB is merely a bureaucracy. If you’ve ever tried to get a unified group statement out of a bureaucracy, the result is not always what you might wish.

The other question is whether anyone is listening.

 

[JMJ_coder]

I agree. But do you think the Bishops, the majority of which, did not state that voting pro-choice is a gravely moral issue, should have been more forceful in their statements?

I think it is fine for the type of document that it is.

 

[turtle18]

No, they did not.

Purposely vague. They probably can’t reconcile their political views with their religious views & it appears their political views won out.

I think it is quite shameful…I’m not really certain how “pro-life” our Church really is. Yes, it is true there are a lot of faithful pro-life members of our Church.

But what do you think the message is when your priest says you can’t be a “single-issue” voter? To me, this is a code to let people know it is okay to vote for a pro-choice candidate. It certainly sends a mixed message.

Why do we never have any petitions to end abortion? I don’t see many churches praying to end abortion, much less taking a stand to vote against abortion.

 

[marci]

Personally, I am disgusted with the bishops statements concerning forming conscience. I also believe there is definate purpose in its confusing design. I mean really, how stupid are we supposed to be. So let me get this straight, I can vote for a pro-abortion politician so long as the reason why I’m voting for him is NOT BECAUSE he is pro-abortion. What difference does is make?

Let’s follow the logic. I vote for pro-abort guy who has promised to sign the FOCA act, but I’m not voting for him because he’s pro-choice. He then wins, signs a law that wipes out the last 30 plus years of pro-life advances with the stroke of a pen and now no state existing law or future inacted law will EVER stop unfettered, conception to 9 months gestation, baby coming down the birth canal abortion. Oh, Yeah, nothing makes me complicit here.

 

[elts1956]

But look at all these bishops’ statements. It seems to me that many if not most bishops have spoken very clearly on the issues. Speaking on moral issues is a personal, not a group, responsibility. The bishops are successors to the apostles; the USCCB is merely a bureaucracy. If you’ve ever tried to get a unified group statement out of a bureaucracy, the result is not always what you might wish.

The other question is whether anyone is listening.

Hi Jim, but do you think it helps in 'forming" a right conscience so that fence sitters will know what is right and wrong? And the Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship is the only document most of these guys use. ie. #17. The church equips its members to address political and social questions by helping them to develop a well formed conscience? If that were true, we wouldn’t have any pro choice Catholics. # 19. The church fosters well-formed consciences…by develop/ing prudence.??? #23, but why use the word “directly”, what about “indirectly” in voting, if indeed this statement is about voting?. #25. Is where the confusion for most pro choicers comes in…“linked to other human rights”, to the basic goods … So what are people going to think of first themselves and how poor they are going to be, or about babies in abortion factories? .#28 …moral equivalence. How many people think about that when faced with eviction from their homes? #29. Here is the clincher. The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity… If they don’t understand moral equivalence, it is very easy to place any of the issues mentioned in this paragraph at the forefront ahead of abortion. As far as following the moral teachings of the Church, forget it, if it doesn’t fit with their program. Of course maybe nothing would sway those numdums even if the Bishops said, “You may not, in good conscience…” But, look, I have listed only the Bishops in IL. And of those only two have taken an absolute personal stance for pro life. Now that is not only sad, but scary. I know Bishops from other areas of the U.S. have “personally” come out pro life I don’t have a list of all of them. But if we can get a list together, I think we should send them ALL a vote of support.

 

[Nickkname]

You can’t force the truth, you can only show it.

You sound very much like the world which says to God, “You need to show us more evidence that You exist, otherwise You will be showing Yourself and Your Word to be false! We won’t believe in You until You give us more proof, proof which Science can exam!”

I’m not saying you’re clamoring for more evidence, I’m just saying you’re acting like the Bishops did not do their job as Shephards of the Flock of Christ. They did. Now let us pray for them and for all Catholics.

 

[elts1956]

But look at all these bishops’ statements. It seems to me that many if not most bishops have spoken very clearly on the issues. Speaking on moral issues is a personal, not a group, responsibility. The bishops are successors to the apostles; the USCCB is merely a bureaucracy. If you’ve ever tried to get a unified group statement out of a bureaucracy, the result is not always what you might wish.

The other question is whether anyone is listening.

No, they did not.

Purposely vague. They probably can’t reconcile their political views with their religious views & it appears their political views won out.

I think it is quite shameful…I’m not really certain how “pro-life” our Church really is. Yes, it is true there are a lot of faithful pro-life members of our Church.

But what do you think the message is when your priest says you can’t be a “single-issue” voter? To me, this is a code to let people know it is okay to vote for a pro-choice candidate. It certainly sends a mixed message.

Why do we never have any petitions to end abortion? I don’t see many churches praying to end abortion, much less taking a stand to vote against abortion.

Our parish priest hasn’t said this. In fact, he hasn’t said anything other than on Pro Life Sunday the “Pray for the unborn” was listed n the petitions. The Bishop of our diocese is one of the USCCBs.

I think you are right on.

YOU CAN’T BE CATHOLIC AND BE PRO-CHOICE!

 

[elts1956]

You can’t force the truth, you can only show it.

You sound very much like the world which says to God, “You need to show us more evidence that You exist, otherwise You will be showing Yourself and Your Word to be false! We won’t believe in You until You give us more proof, proof which Science can exam!”

I’m not saying you’re clamoring for more evidence, I’m just saying you’re acting like the Bishops did not do their job as Shephards of the Flock of Christ. They did. Now let us pray for them and for all Catholics.

Re Read Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship and see if you still think they “did their job” in this statement.

What I am saying is many pro choice people are going to have to be led by the hand as children are, because in their thinking and logic, that is what they are. So far, MANY of our Bishops are not willing to reach out THEIR hands.

YOU CAN’T BE CATHOLIC AND BE PRO-CHOICE!

 

[elts1956]

You can’t force the truth, you can only show it.

You sound very much like the world which says to God, “You need to show us more evidence that You exist, otherwise You will be showing Yourself and Your Word to be false! We won’t believe in You until You give us more proof, proof which Science can exam!”

I’m not saying you’re clamoring for more evidence, I’m just saying you’re acting like the Bishops did not do their job as Shephards of the Flock of Christ. They did. Now let us pray for them and for all Catholics.

Personally, I am disgusted with the bishops statements concerning forming conscience. I also believe there is definate purpose in its confusing design. I mean really, how stupid are we supposed to be. So let me get this straight, I can vote for a pro-abortion politician so long as the reason why I’m voting for him is NOT BECAUSE he is pro-abortion. What difference does is make?

Let’s follow the logic. I vote for pro-abort guy who has promised to sign the FOCA act, but I’m not voting for him because he’s pro-choice. He then wins, signs a law that wipes out the last 30 plus years of pro-life advances with the stroke of a pen and now no state existing law or future inacted law will EVER stop unfettered, conception to 9 months gestation, baby coming down the birth canal abortion. Oh, Yeah, nothing makes me complicit here.

I think you have had a REAL CATHOLIC education and great grasp of the moral teachings of the Church. Bless you.

 

[Sheeniac]

Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship -ugh. I read it and was hard pressed to find the point. It was poorly written and didn’t come out and say the things needing to be said. How many people wrote it? 20? 30?

One thing I like about pre-Vat2 writing (late 1800s - 1950s) - for the most part, the writing was more clear and forceful.

I felt the USCCB just danced around the issue.

 

[fix]

Let’s follow the logic. I vote for pro-abort guy who has promised to sign the FOCA act, but I’m not voting for him because he’s pro-choice. He then wins, signs a law that wipes out the last 30 plus years of pro-life advances with the stroke of a pen and now no state existing law or future inacted law will EVER stop unfettered, conception to 9 months gestation, baby coming down the birth canal abortion. Oh, Yeah, nothing makes me complicit here.

Along these lines I want to ask a question that I hope someone can answer for me. I have read several times that if a Catholic reads statements like the one from the bishops and they try to apply what they read they can legitimately come to differing conclusions.

My question is this if the criteria given are objective how can a vote for either person be equally morally licit? I am not asking which vote makes someone subjectively guilty for sin I am only asking if objectively one vote is moral and one immoral.

 

[Sheeniac]

Along these lines I want to ask a question that I hope someone can answer for me. I have read several times that if a Catholic reads statements like the one from the bishops and they try to apply what they read they can legitimately come to differing conclusions.

My question is this if the criteria given are objective how can a vote for either person be equally morally licit? I am not asking which vote makes someone subjectively guilty for sin I am only asking if objectively one vote is moral and one immoral.

Well, that’s the kicker, isn’t it. No where prominent is it stated obviously that abortion takes precedence. Any guide to conscience should at the very least have an executive summary. I know that might offend some, but how many Joes and Juanitas in the pew are going to read that dreadfully long, poorly written document.

Did not Christ say that He was the light and the way? Yes. This document is mud soup. If Christ was as confusing, we’d all still be pagans.

I think that the document is handy for other election, but not in this Presidential one. It’s way too nuanced. I wonder what grade level it is written at?

 

[elts1956]

Along these lines I want to ask a question that I hope someone can answer for me. I have read several times that if a Catholic reads statements like the one from the bishops and they try to apply what they read they can legitimately come to differing conclusions.

My question is this if the criteria given are objective how can a vote for either person be equally morally licit? I am not asking which vote makes someone subjectively guilty for sin I am only asking if objectively one vote is moral and one immoral.

Return to the reading of the encyclicals of the Popes, such as Pope John Paul II in Humanae Vitae.

“In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to “take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it”.98”

"In seeking the deepest roots of the struggle between the “culture of life” and the “culture of death”, we cannot restrict ourselves to the perverse idea of freedom mentioned above. We have to go to the heart of the tragedy being experienced by modern man: the eclipse of the sense of God and of man, typical of a social and cultural climate dominated by secularism, which, with its ubiquitous tentacles, succeeds at times in putting Christian communities themselves to the test. Those who allow themselves to be influenced by this climate easily fall into a sad vicious circle: when the sense of God is lost, there is also a tendency to lose the sense of man, of his dignity and his life; in turn, the systematic violation of the moral law, especially in the serious matter of respect for human life and its dignity, produces a kind of progressive darkening of the capacity to discern God’s living and saving presence

The Church itself, not just US Bishops has stated there are five non-negotiable intrinsic evils. They are abortion, euthanasia, embyronic stem cell research, cloning and homosexual marriage.

Conscience, Grave Matter and Mortal Sin
By Eamonn Keane Conscience and the Moral Law
“For many people, conscience has erroneously come to be regarded as the only ultimate reality in the moral plane. One consequence of this is that there is often a failure to realise that conscience depends on the divine moral law for its proper functioning. Such an eclipse of conscience leads to a “loss of the sense of sin,” followed by a “loss of the sense of God.” This, I suggest, is an important factor in the decline in the number of Catholics making use of the Sacrament of Penance.”

Pope John Paul II said:
“When God’s truth is obscured, human consciences are also deformed, if sin is denied, God is also denied…Human conscience goes astray if it is neglected and deprived of the truth…Conscience has an inalienable right to the truth and it is most intimately related to human dignity…Therefore human dignity requires that a person orient his conscience in accordance with the lawful order established by the Creator.”2

The notion that Catholics are free to dissent from the moral doctrine of the Church leads to anarchy whereby individuals struggle to assert their desires on the basis that the ultimate standard of justice is their own will. Referring to this absurdity,

Fr Georges Cottier, O.P. said: “Indeed, freedom negates and destroys itself, and leads to the destruction of others when it no longer recognises and respects ‘its essential link with truth’. Social life is at the mercy of the arbitrary; everything is negotiable, even the first right, the right to life.

As to the morality and imorality of each candidates position on abortion, one’s is more moral. While not perfect, it is the best we can do for now. We are given the right to use our God given conscience and vote for the lesser of two evils.

“YOU CANNOT BE CATHOLIC AND BE PRO CHOICE”

 

[Walt_Oliver]

Reminder: Politicians and parties can be discussed only in the Politics forum. Some posts in this thread have been edited.