Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment.
There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
Cardinal Ratzinger
War and Capital Punishment-Can We Agree to Disagree?
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503fea2.asp
Notice that the article itself characterizes the quote somewhat differently. It interprets it, as I do, as simply reasoning that disagreement on non theological absolutes does not rise to the level of CIC 915. It does not make the disagreement itself licit, nor, as the article notes, does it negate our obligation to obey, which is spelled out in the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church:
“Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” - LUMEN GENTIUM
The article does make some leaps in theological reasoning. For example, CCC 2309 does delegate final moral determination, but CCC 2267 does not. Further, US juries do not make death penalty determinations on the basis of the criteria spelled out by the Church. But at least it is a reasonably honest interepretation of the Cardinal’s statements and the context for them.
However, having brought up the document and the source, let’s test your own acceptance. Also from the Nota Bene in 2004:
“When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour 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.” -Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Would you agree, or disagree? If the latter, how do you determine what portions of a statement carry weight and which do not?
And, presumably you are arguing that then Cardinal Ratzinger’s words carry special weight because he was latter selected as Pope. In that light, what do you make of the following:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html
See #4. This is a Doctrinal Note, prepared by then Cardinal Ratzinger, and approved by Pope John Paul II. It appears to place 9 broad moral principles at the level of ‘non negotiable’ in regards to voting (one of them being abortion).
Would you agree or disagree? If you disagree, why does a letter from a Cardinal to a Bishop on Canon law override a Doctrinal Note approved by a Pope?
One could even argue that there must not be a conflict. As Pope, Benedict has released this:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html
On the subject of the Eucharist. If we look at #83 we can see that he partially reiterates the list, cites the Doctrinal Note, and uses the words “These values are not negotiable.”
Do you agree, or disagree?
I believe that Spiritmeadow has properly identified the problem. To one degree or another, we are all dissenters. But it is human nature to want to move the goal posts and then declare that our own forms of dissent are somehow morally superior.
