Faithful Citizenship (USCCB)

[Godi]

Truly, I can hardly tell a difference between a document from the USCCB and one from some liberal Episcopalian conference. Ignore this document, for the good of your soul, and get the Catholic Answers voting guide, which lays it out strait.

The USCCB needs to be dissolved, funding needs to be cut.

 

[Richardols]

FYI, the plural of ‘Hominem’ is ‘Hominea’

So it would be ‘ad Hominea’ attacks.

If you don’t know Latin, don’t presume to correct someone’s usage of it. Ad takes the accusative case. In the singular, the accusative of homo is hominem. In the plural, it is homines, not **“hominea.” **

Furthermore, the post is in English, not Latin, and the accepted plural of foreign phrases used commonly in English is to treat them as English words in making plurals.

You are welcome. Brought to you courtesy of 4 years of Latin at Regis High School and two years of Latin at Fordham University.

 

[b_justb]

Actually, the USCCB formally rejects the CA voting guide as too partisan and narrowly focused.

“formally rejects” ? Not to be a Picky Penny but can you point me to where I can see that formal rejection? That would be an interesting thing to see and get other CAF posters responses on.

Thanks in advance.

 

[NReily]

The USCCB needs to be dissolved, funding needs to be cut.

Amen!!! At the very least the need to seriously reorganize their budget priorities. They could spend a fair amount or resources on missions, evangelization, and catechesis; but instead they have a huge system or red tape and resources for things like immigration and the death penalty.

 

[fix]

A draft of the document calls abortion and euthanasia “intrinsically evil” and “pre-eminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others.” The bishops then cite other threats that can never be justified: human cloning, embryonic stem-cell research, racism, torture, genocide, and “the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war.”

Throughout the 37-page document, opposition to abortion gets special attention.

“The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life is always wrong and is not just one issue among many,” the draft says.

Bishops Weigh Political Statement

 

[Joe_Kelley]

First problem I see

Throughout the 37-page document, opposition to abortion gets special attention

Who but an imsomniac is going to dig through 37 pages of Bishopspeak?

 

[Richardols]

resources for things like immigration and the death penalty.

God bless the Church for that, for both are important to the Church. The Church has always been pro-immigration, and opposition to the death penalty is equally important - read what the Catechism has to say about it.

 

[NReily]

God bless the Church for that, for both are important to the Church. The Church has always been pro-immigration, and opposition to the death penalty is equally important - read what the Catechism has to say about it.

I have read the Catechism’s paragraph’s one both issues. I disagree that those issues are equally important to evangelization and missions. Where someone is going to spend eternity is of ultimately more importance than their economic welfare during their lives.

God Bless the priests in the Church that actually understand the Church’s main mission to lead others to Christ.

 

[Richardols]

I have read the Catechism’s paragraph’s one both issues. I disagree that those issues are equally important to evangelization and missions. Where someone is going to spend eternity is of ultimately more importance than their economic welfare during their lives.

Hey, that’s your opinion. Great.

God Bless the priests in the Church that actually understand the Church’s main mission to lead others to Christ.

Again, if that’s what you think, fine.

 

[NReily]

Hey, that’s your opinion. Great.

And you gave an opinion as well. The thing is you haven’t proved why the Church’s main mission is to be a social activist.

Again, if that’s what you think, fine.

That’s not what “I” think. Evangelization is the main purpose of the Church because it is a vehicle by which people grow closer to God.
The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, because that truth is that Jesus Christ is the son of God who died for mankind.

So, if you think that my statement is merely an opinion, FINE.

 

[Ender]

"NReily:

resources for things like immigration and the death penalty.

God bless the Church for that, for both are important to the Church. The Church has always been pro-immigration, and opposition to the death penalty is equally important - read what the Catechism has to say about it.

This is the issue at the center of the battle over the next release of the Faithful Citizenship document: whether it will unequivocally state that certain issues - abortion, euthanasia, homosexual “marriages”, fetal stem cell research - are on a different plane than all other issues … or not. Past editions of the document have intentionally blurred that distinction making it easy for Catholics to balance a politician’s record of failure on these issues with what are perceived to be better positions on issues like … well … immigration and the death penalty.

The only thing that gives me some reason for optimism about the upcoming release of this document is that all of the bishops will get to vote on it; it will not be so entirely the work of committees. That said, however, I think the safe bet is that the next release will again be a political rather than a moral statement.

Ender

 

[cthemfly25]

God bless the Church for that, for both are important to the Church. The Church has always been pro-immigration, and opposition to the death penalty is equally important - read what the Catechism has to say about it.

What a fascinating bit of doublespeak in response to NR. I think you know better and so I sense that you are leaving the mark of ideology not theology. I know of no person who is anti-immigration. The USCCB has openly advocated for, and has been dismissive of those who oppose, **illegal **immigration and has indulged, to use your words more accurately and contextually, in ad hominem attacks (i’ll leave it to you latin scholars to place the phrase in form). Moreover, there is a rich theological debate regarding the death penalty and the so-called “Church” opposition is a flippant dismissal of much of that theological heritage. Aquinas is a good starting point for the capital punishment debate but it raises a broader concern namely how you suborn the theological to the ideological. In modern times Pope Benedict has recognized that “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.”

Many of our policy issues are not resolved by the articulation of the moral issue and then masking it as the theological conclusion. Most Catholics can share an appreciation for the moral issue and respectfully disagree on the policy solution. Paraphrasing Chesterton, the progressive can be right as to what is wrong, but is almost always wrong as to what is right. For example, one can see the need to help illegals in both a charitable and pastoral sense, but not through a policy which promotes a social disorder or which grants incentives for further disorder.

Your methods, your response, actually reflect what is wrong with many USCCB pronouncements and, thus, shows why you have an affinity for them, even at the expense of mischaracterizing some of the great moral debates and the very careful wording of the catechism. The USCCB has for too many years been left in the hands of ideological apparatchiks and policy wonks.

 

[Richardols]

Moreover, there is a rich theological debate regarding the death penalty and the so-called “Church” opposition is a flippant dismissal of much of that theological heritage. Aquinas is a good starting point for the capital punishment debate but it raises a broader concern namely how you suborn the theological to the ideological.

Is there any debate left? Regardless who still wants to jawbone the topic, I refer you to the Catholic Catechism as far as the death penalty is concerned. And it does reflect “Church opposition” to that barbaric practice. True, it admits that there are narrow circumstances where the penalty may be justified, but those are very narrow indeed, and the Catechism makes it clear that there ought to be no need for recourse to that practice in light of current penology.

Your methods, your response, actually reflect what is wrong with many USCCB pronouncements and, thus, shows why you have an affinity for them,

My affinity is for what the Catechism says, including its “careful wording.”

The USCCB has for too many years been left in the hands of ideological apparatchiks and policy wonks.

And so your response at last reflects your particular prejudice towards the USCCB.

 

[goofyjim]

I will vote but I won’t tell a soul how I vote. It is a secret ballot and nobody else’s business.

 

[Richardols]

I will vote but I won’t tell a soul how I vote. It is a secret ballot and nobody else’s business.

I agree with you, but you and I both know how most of the folks on this Forum will vote, whether they tell anyone else or not.

 

[NReily]

My affinity is for what the Catechism says, including its “careful wording.”

Me too. CCC 161: Believing in Jesus Christ and the one who sent Him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation

CCC 571: The Paschal mystery of Christ’s Cross and resurrection
stands at the center of the good news that the apostles, and the Church following them, are to proclaim to the world.

I don’t see anything about Social Justice being the first or equal priority of the Church. Social Justice issues do matter, but you can’t change someone’s condition if they are in Hell.

And so your response at last reflects your particular prejudice towards the USCCB.

The USCCB’s actions, or in some cases NON-action in the past few years, speaks for itself.

 

[Richardols]

My affinity is for what the Catechism says, including its “careful wording.”

Me too. CCC 161: Believing in Jesus Christ and the one who sent Him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation

CCC 571: The Paschal mystery of Christ’s Cross and resurrection
stands at the center of the good news that the apostles, and the Church following them, are to proclaim to the world.

I don’t see anything about Social Justice being the first or equal priority of the Church. Social Justice issues do matter, but you can’t change someone’s condition if they are in Hell.

Quite true. But, I don’t see so much argument here about believing in Christ or proclaiming His Gospel as about abortion and the social justice issues.

The USCCB’s actions, or in some cases NON-action in the past few years, speaks for itself.

Read them as you will.

 

[NReily]

Quite true. But, I don’t see so much argument here about believing in Christ or proclaiming His Gospel as about abortion and the social justice issues.

My whole point at the beginning of this thread was that the USCCB needs to readjust its priorities. The Catechism and the Scriptures manifest the Church’s main role: to spread the good news of Jesus Christ. What good does it do to pat ourselves on the back because we abolished the death penalty (should be reformed and used rarely, btw.), when we have millions of Catholics who have fallen away from the Church and Christianity because we don’t educate and disciple them in the faith? What good does it do to defeat all the poverty in the world and have all those people spend eternity in torment and away from God ,because we’ve decided that pushing someone through the sacraments or politics are more important than leading people to Christ? The temporal matters, but the eternal is ultimately more important.

Read them as you will.

The facts remain the same whether you dismiss them or not.

 

[Ender]

I refer you to the Catholic Catechism as far as the death penalty is concerned. And it does reflect “Church opposition” to that barbaric practice.

Regarding the death penalty it would be more correct to identify the opposition as that of individuals (including especially JPII). That section of the Catechism reflects the prudential opinion of the pope rather than the distilled teaching of the Church. This issue is in no way comparable to the teachings on (e.g.) abortion, homosexuality, or contraception.

As for other issues touched on in the Faithful Citizenship document there is no distinction made between moral teachings that admit of no exception (abortion) and general principles that we are to apply (feed the poor). Even worse is a widespread belief that certain specific proposals embody those principles and therefore represent Church teaching (universal health care?). This is why a large number of Catholics who feel more at home in the Democrat party but struggle with that party’s support of abortion seek to find some way to offset the abortion problem by the cumulative weight of random “life” issues.

The Faithful Citizenship document is a significant aid in that search. As much as anything I am offended by the document’s intentional fuzziness on this point. I find it deceptive and dishonest.

Ender

 

[cthemfly25]

Richardols—Yes there is always, or at least always should be, debate when discussing policy and law. You are far too dismissive of debate. But importantly I apparently failed to make my point very clearly and for that I apologize, Enders actually stated it better and more succinctly. Whether you or anyone agrees on issues of capital punishment (which again you simply overstate your position and proclaims those in disagreement as barbarians), or health care or taxes or free enterprise or socialism, is not the point which I or others have been making—I suspect you know this.

Most people I know want what is best for the common good. Debate over the prudential issues, ie the nuts and bolts policies which are to address a broader moral concern, is what you and the USCCB belligerently dismiss. In that sense you farily observed (though I did not think I had tried to hide anything) when commenting on me: “and so your response at last reflects your particular prejudice towards the USCCB.” As for your statement: “you and I both know how most of the folks on this Forum will vote”,----well again that’s not the point being made here and so again you belie a certain bitterness about something not evern related to the subject at hand. You like USCCB pronouncements because you like to use them to advance your ideology. You like to confuse a fairly unsubstantial term such as “social justice” with “socialistic justice.” I don’t like USCCB pronouncements because they are intellectually dishonest and misleading, creating confusion about the salvific mission of the Church as having to go through some kind of a political process. Our Faith is better than that. Again, I am sorry for not having elevated the debate and for my lack of clarity.