Faithful Citizenship (USCCB)

[Ender]

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.

This is exactly my position as well. The good news is that I think individual bishops are coming to this conclusion as well and there is reason to hope that they will take more control of the documents coming out of the USCCB. As an example, for the first time the Faithful Citizenship document (to be released after the bishops conference in Baltimore next week) will be voted on by all of the bishops and I suspect it will receive a great deal more scrutiny than the previous lamentable efforts.

It is difficult to even talk of something good coming out of the priest’s sex abuse disaster, but it has cost the Church an enormous amount of money and there is less available to support the bureaucracy of the USCCB which is receiving a necessary and long overdue downsizing.

Ender

 

[Richardols]

Richardols—Yes there is always, or at least always should be, debate when discussing policy and law. You are far too dismissive of debate.

As far as the death penalty is concerned, it’s “been there, done that” as far as the Church is concerned. Read the Catechism - I see no room for debate on the topic as the Church has all but shut the door about it. Debating the death penalty is beating a dead horse.

proclaims those in disagreement as barbarians),

No, I called it a barbaric practice. That there might somehow be at some time and at some place justification for the death penalty - one of the posters suggested that Saddam Hussein might have fit the bill - maybe, doesn’t diminish the virtual condemnation of it by the Church.

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.

The death penalty has gone beyond being a prudential issue, the war in Iraq, for example, has not, and so there can be debate over that.

You like USCCB pronouncements because you like to use them to advance your ideology.

And, if the USCCB were ultra conservative, am I to presume that right-wingers wouldn’t use USCCB pronouncements to advance their ideology?

 

[Ender]

The death penalty has gone beyond being a prudential issue

No, it hasn’t. Discussions of the morality of the death penalty are still very valid; that door is a long way from being closed. Nor can it ever be closed in such a way as to repudiate the moral position the Church has held on this subject in the past. Morality does not change with time; what was moral in the past is moral today.

I think everyone is aware of what the Catechism says and understands that for all intents and purposes it effectively outlaws capital punishment. The problem, however, is that this is not an ordinary teaching of the Church but rather the personal opinion of JPII and therefore lacks the binding nature of a teaching that is part of the Church’s Magisterium.

Here are the reasons I say that:

Cardinal Ratzinger 2004 (Letter to Cardinal McCarrick): “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty”

USCCB 2005 (A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death): “The death penalty arouses deep passions and strong convictions. People of goodwill disagree. In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation”

Cardinal Dulles 2001 (Catholicism and Capital Punishment): “Like the Pope, the bishops do not rule out capital punishment altogether, but they say that it is not justifiable as practiced in the United States today. In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church.”

Ender

 

[Richardols]

No, it hasn’t. Discussions of the morality of the death penalty are still very valid; that door is a long way from being closed. Nor can it ever be closed in such a way as to repudiate the moral position the Church has held on this subject in the past. Morality does not change with time; what was moral in the past is moral today.

Yes, it was once moral to impose the death penalty for **any **felony, but I’d like to see how far anyone, even a Catholic theologian, would get suggesting that the death penalty ought to be imposed again for breaking and entering or theft, even if “morality doesn’t change with time.”

I think everyone is aware of what the Catechism says and understands that for all intents and purposes it effectively outlaws capital punishment. The problem, however, is that this is not an ordinary teaching of the Church but rather the personal opinion of JPII and therefore lacks the binding nature of a teaching that is part of the Church’s Magisterium.

You say “personal opinion” as though it were of no more import than the opinion of any other man. No, he’s the Pope and we must pay special attention to what he said. And, by including it in the Catechism, it makes it a bit more important than the ordinary opinion a Pope might toss out at an audience or meeting.

Cardinal Ratzinger 2004 (Letter to Cardinal McCarrick): “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty”

USCCB 2005 (A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death): “The death penalty arouses deep passions and strong convictions. People of goodwill disagree. In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation”

Cardinal Dulles 2001 (Catholicism and Capital Punishment): “Like the Pope, the bishops do not rule out capital punishment altogether, but they say that it is not justifiable as practiced in the United States today. In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church.”

Yes, there is a very narrow circumstance where the death penalty might still be applicable, and so Church hierarchy allows that small possibility. Nevertheless, as you said, “the Catechism for all intents and purposes effectively outlaws capital punsihment.”

I can only hope that Catholics might prefer to allow God to determine the time of our deaths, rather than our very imperfect justice system.

 

[NReily]

Yes, it was once moral to impose the death penalty for **any **felony, but I’d like to see how far anyone, even a Catholic theologian, would get suggesting that the death penalty ought to be imposed again for breaking and entering or theft, even if “morality doesn’t change with time.”

You say “personal opinion” as though it were of no more import than the opinion of any other man. No, he’s the Pope and we must pay special attention to what he said. And, by including it in the Catechism, it makes it a bit more important than the ordinary opinion a Pope might toss out at an audience or meeting.

Yes, there is a very narrow circumstance where the death penalty might still be applicable, and so Church hierarchy allows that small possibility. Nevertheless, as you said, “the Catechism for all intents and purposes effectively outlaws capital punsihment.”

I can only hope that Catholics might prefer to allow God to determine the time of our deaths, rather than our very imperfect justice system.

So if there is an instance where it is applicable, then the USCCB’s campaign should be for the reforming of the death penalty and limiting its use, not the abolishing of it.

 

[Ender]

You say “personal opinion” as though it were of no more import than the opinion of any other man. No, he’s the Pope and we must pay special attention to what he said.

We are bound to give special consideration to the pope’s opinion but in the end we are not bound to accept it. More to the point, it is not a teaching of the magisterium.

I can only hope that Catholics might prefer to allow God to determine the time of our deaths, rather than our very imperfect justice system.

The real issue concerning the death penalty, even though it is rarely raised, is the question of justice, which requires a punishment proportional to the crime. It is a duty of the state. You are improperly dismissive of the virtue of legal justice, which should be held in higher esteem: *"*If we speak of legal justice, it is evident that it stands foremost among all the moral virtues, for as much as the common good transcends the individual good of one person." (Aquinas)

Ender

 

[cthemfly25]

Richardols–I admittedly am having difficulty with your tactical arguments here. The issue is the role of the USCCB in attempting to formulate and influence political policy in areas where prudence allows Catholics to disagree. I raised that in the broad context and you delight in focusing on the death penalty as a way of seeking cover from the merits of an opposing view about the USCCB policy pronouncements. Then even on the death penalty you indicate a certain schizoid quality to your “argument” proclaiming, and intending the pun, that the death penalty debate is dead: “I see no room for debate on the topic” and “debating the death penalty is beating a dead horse” and then acknowledging that at times and under certain circumstances the “death penalty might be applicable.” I trust you can see the humor of your own internal debate on the subject.

Your stated dichotomy on debating the death penalty, or for that matter anything which differs from USCCB pronouncements (I think that is a fair extension of your argument) is odd, but your persistence in relying on and justifying USCCB directives really does make the opposite point, or perhaps my point is better stated by your own argument. You seem to acknowledge with delight that which I protest, namely, the USCCB acting like a political policy organ affiliated with causes with which others, including devout Catholics, might disagree. In fact you are clear on that very point when you state: "And, if the USCCB were ultra conservative, am I to presume that right-wingers wouldn’t use USCCB pronouncements to advance their ideology?" Now, mind you, I don’t protest ad hominems, but you see to find them anywhere there is a disagreement with your point of view as you made such an accusation earlier directed at me—again, i’m fine with that form of argument as it shows weakness in your position.

Your rhetoric about “right wingers” and “ultra conservatives”, however, shows that you feel justified in how the USCCB uses its influence to command attention to a certain political ideology. It is apparently that black and white for you. Also, that attempt at a rhetorical point by you (that “right wingers” would do what i do if they could) first presumes too much perhaps about me or others and how they might evaluate any particular issue in the context of Faith and reason and experience and information, and why they might feel a certain way about any one policy.

Second, you sell many short in thinking that they would do as you try to do and misuse the sentiment of faith for advancing a political policy through shallow and frequently ill informed USCCB pronouncements. Otherwise, i do enjoy good healthy debate on sensitive matters such as the death penalty and many other issues and for this you seem dismissive. Thus it is easy to understand your affinity for USCCB political ideology. Again, though I suspect your feelings are so strong on this matter that little can influence you, our Faith is better than that.

 

[vern_humphrey]

"And, if the USCCB were ultra conservative, am I to presume that right-wingers wouldn’t use USCCB pronouncements to advance their ideology?"

This is a standard ploy – to accuse opponents (or snidely suggest) they would do something they haven’t done iis apparently just as good as proving they did do it.

 

[Godi]

There are five intrinsic evils that we as Catholic are not to condone, support, participate in or tolerate. Abortion is one of those evils, the death penalty is not, nor is the Iraqi conflict. Taxation is not and niether is oil. Voting is to be done according to what your Catholic faith teaches you is moral & right. By the way Bush is more Catholic than many so called “Catholics”.

 

[anamchara]

And, if the USCCB were ultra conservative, am I to presume that right-wingers wouldn’t use USCCB pronouncements to advance their ideology?

You are right, they would. The right-wingers are not happy about this document for one reason. It doesn’t come out and say in big bold red type that “Abortion is evil and if you vote for anyone who is pro-choice, you will have no salvation” Certain Bishops actually got upset over the word “spiritual well being” It became very clear to me last night watching EWTN on World Over. Raymond, the host was becoming frustrated over this whole issue and was interviewing Bishop DiMarizo (sp) Raymond actually said in a frustrated voice “but, people just want to be told what to do” for heavens sake, the Bishops are trying to guide us the best way they can. This document appears to be a decent guide to help form our conscience as good Catholics. I’ll stick with this document. No it’s not going to come out and say “You are all going to hell if you don’t vote the way the Church says.”

The biggest problem I see is Catholic conservatives in this country don’t realize they need to be Catholic first and put their party aside. Now this is the case with liberals as well. We all need to be Catholic first and stop trying to bend and twist our faith to fit our politics.

Use the gift that God gave you and **think **as a full Catholic using the catechism, Magisterium and this guide, not what EWTN says, or what your own favorite Bishop outside your own Diocese says.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You are right, they would. The right-wingers are not happy about this document for one reason. It doesn’t come out and say in big bold red type that “Abortion is evil and if you vote for anyone who is pro-choice, you will have no salvation”

Is there no charity at all in your soul that you must accuse others not of what they do or say, but rather what you in your malice think they would do?

 

[anamchara]

Is there no charity at all in your soul that you must accuse others not of what they do or say, but rather what you in your malice think they would do?

Please prove me wrong Vern. In the mean time I’ll marvel at the similarity between your pot and my kettle.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Please prove me wrong Vern. In the mean time I’ll marvel at the similarity between your pot and my kettle.

Prove you wrong!?!?

I have to prove that your unfounded and imaginary accusations are wrong?

No. That’s not how it works. You must prove your position yourself. You must present evidence – evidence, not bile or bigotry.

 

[Strummer]

anamchara:

You are right, they would. The right-wingers are not happy about this document for one reason. It doesn’t come out and say in big bold red type that “Abortion is evil and if you vote for anyone who is pro-choice, you will have no salvation”

Is there no charity at all in your soul that you must accuse others not of what they do or say, but rather what you in your malice think they would do?

I obviously do not see things through the same filters as you, vern. Could you explain for me, please, just where is the “malice” you cite above? I am asking you in all honesty for I think you would agree, would you not, that abortion is indeed evil. No doubt you would also agree that it would it please many people to have such written in “bold, red letters” in this document to support their cause.
Perhaps you could explain, too, for me just what is your problem with “Faithful Citizenship”?
Finally, is it not malicious in and of itself to presume malice where none was evidenced?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I obviously do not see things through the same filters as you, vern. Could you explain for me, please, just where is the “malice” you cite above? I am asking you in all honesty for I think you would agree, would you not, that abortion is indeed evil. No doubt you would also agree that it would it please many people to have such written in “bold, red letters” in this document to support their cause.
Perhaps you could explain, too, for me just what is your problem with “Faithful Citizenship”?
Finally, is it not malicious in and of itself to presume malice where none was evidenced?

The malice is right here:

Originally Posted by vern humphrey
Quote:
Originally Posted by anamchara
You are right, they would. The right-wingers are not happy about this document for one reason. It doesn’t come out and say in big bold red type that “Abortion is evil and if you vote for anyone who is pro-choice, you will have no salvation”

In other words, they haven’t, but anamchara accuses them anyway because he (or she) thinks they would.

That’s called prejudice (from “pre-judge”) and is a form of both malice and bigotry.

As for my problem with “Faithful Citizenship,” it is a poorly-written, confusing document. The bishops, our religious leaders, have a duty to clearly lead – and Faithful Citizenship simply lacks the clarity and organization such a document must have.

Let’s take a look at a paragraph from “A Call to Faithful Citizenship.”

How will we address the tragic fact that more than 30,000 children die every day as a result of hunger, international debt, and lack of development around the world, as well as the fact that the younger you are, the more likely you are to be poor here in the richest nation on Earth?

Wait a minute here – I know children die from hunger, but how do they die of “international debt and lack of development?”

Almost everyone on these forums is in debt – home mortgages, car loans, credit card bills. How come debt doesn’t kill us?

The answer is simple, international debt and lack of development are not the killers here – they are the consequences of people living under brutal, corrupt dictators who steal the money advanced as loans (which should have been used for economic development). They use some of the money to rivet tighter the chains on their people.

And how is all that related to poverty in the United States?

 

[Ender]

Use the gift that God gave you and **think **as a full Catholic using the catechism, Magisterium and this guide …

If everyone was familiar with the catechism and the major teachings of the Church, would everyone come to the same conclusion? Is there only one correct position that we would all reach if we divorced our moral concerns from our political aims? If so, then the bishops have the duty to state that position unequivocally; if not, then it is frankly a waste of time applying the Church’s teachings to a question where both answers are morally equivalent.

Since the bishops go to the trouble every four years to revise their Faithful Citizenship document it seems that they feel there is some moral distinction to be made, but since they haven’t clearly defined that distinction it also appears that they haven’t yet divorced their moral concerns from their political aims.

The right-wingers are … Catholic conservatives in this country don’t …

You can demonstrate that you have separated your moral concerns from your political objectives by addressing the arguments being made instead of castigating the people who make them.

Ender

 

[cthemfly25]

If everyone was familiar with the catechism and the major teachings of the Church, would everyone come to the same conclusion? Is there only one correct position that we would all reach if we divorced our moral concerns from our political aims? If so, then the bishops have the duty to state that position unequivocally; if not, then it is frankly a waste of time applying the Church’s teachings to a question where both answers are morally equivalent.

Since the bishops go to the trouble every four years to revise their Faithful Citizenship document it seems that they feel there is some moral distinction to be made, but since they haven’t clearly defined that distinction it also appears that they haven’t yet divorced their moral concerns from their political aims.

You can demonstrate that you have separated your moral concerns from your political objectives by addressing the arguments being made instead of castigating the people who make them.

Ender

You have made the point quite well. The USCCB acts more frequently as an advocacy group for political positions. Along with the FC, which comes out during the presidential voting year but the USCCB insists is not a “voting guide”, Bishop Wenke (sp) also wrote a letter to the Secretary of State advocating, among other rank and amateurish solicitudes, that we provide Iran nuclear fuel for friendly purposes (gee, didn’t we do this in North Korea). The point is (and only to embellish on Enders’ point) that the truth seeking process in the social sciences, economics, international relations, and their related political policies, requires the rigor and discipline of an academic approach. The USCCB adds nothing to any of these approaches except an agenda.

Our social and political concerns are improved upon by our intellect and our willingness to learn, to study, and to seek empirical truth, along with our moral truths. Thus, Enders’ questions, and his rhetorical point, is that reliance on the FC as a guide for being an informed voter is rather pathetic. Relying on the Catechism to advocate socialism or marxism or capitalism, is a misapplication. Relying on the Catechism in a policy debate over health care delivery is too a misapplication of intended purpose. So then, as a bottom line, the USCCB and its FC provides no useful information. We as Catholics do know however that, in a scriptural sense, supporting an inherant evil can be bad for one’s moral health. And on that note too, we really don’t need the FC.

Otherwise, to say, as anacharma does, that “conservatives” (however he/she defines those awnry folks) would use “USCCB pronouncements” if they could, misses the point—people who wish to be well informed on substantive issues see no utility in USCCB pronouncements; and people who have no fully informed basis for maintaining or advocating substantive positions rely on the feelings emoted in USCCB pronouncements. Thus, whether on any particular issue I am perceived as conservative, liberal or in between or none of the above, is less important. The dividing line over reliance on USCCB nostrums (outside of pastoral and salvific issues) is really one of informed versus poorly informed/emotive.

 

[Ender]

The USCCB acts more frequently as an advocacy group for political positions.

Whether or not this is actually true in every case it seems undeniable that most documents from the USCCB and other groups of bishops are perceived this way. One wonders if they are unaware of how their various pronouncements are received by their flocks.

So then, as a bottom line, the USCCB and its FC provides no useful information.

I agree that there is nothing in the FC that is unequivocal, nothing that says we should prefer one path over another. Regrettably, that situation is quite useful to those who would be politically disadvantaged if support for abortion was singularly condemned.

Ender

 

[Strummer]

The malice is right here:

Originally Posted by anamchara
You are right, they would. The right-wingers are not happy about this document for one reason. It doesn’t come out and say in big bold red type that “Abortion is evil and if you vote for anyone who is pro-choice, you will have no salvation”

Actually that’s called making an informed prediction based upon past behaviors. Not always 100% accurate but it is the way each and every one of us conduct ourselves day to day. You could also call it “having learned after sufficient study”. In a thread on the new bishop in Sacramento, we have direct evidence of EXACTLY the kind of reaction anamchara predicted: someone is all in a lather over Bishop Soto’s links to various and multiple social justice issues and not having a single one on abortion. I’d say anamchara nailed it. Accurate predictions of behavior is not malice. Unfounded accusations of ill-intent are.

As for my problem with “Faithful Citizenship,” it is a poorly-written, confusing document. The bishops, our religious leaders, have a duty to clearly lead – and Faithful Citizenship simply lacks the clarity and organization such a document must have.

Hmm…“must have”… Well, that depends upon the purpose of the document, does it not? If it is meant to be kind of voter’s guide–this candidate = good; this candidate = bad–then you might have a point. However, it would seem that the good bishops did not deign to break into our consciouses and mandate our thought processes. Rather, it seems, they’ve recognized and highlighted a number of goals of the Catholic Church and left it to the Church Militant to work towards those goals in whatever manner they find most expiditious.

Wait a minute here – I know children die from hunger, but how do they die of “international debt and lack of development?”

Almost everyone on these forums is in debt – home mortgages, car loans, credit card bills. How come debt doesn’t kill us?

The answer is simple, international debt and lack of development are not the killers here – they are the consequences of people living under brutal, corrupt dictators who steal the money advanced as loans (which should have been used for economic development). They use some of the money to rivet tighter the chains on their people.

And how is all that related to poverty in the United States?

The “hunger” spoken of here is not just being sent to bed without supper. It is the barren pantry and lack of clean water and facilities to prepare food. How can anyone not see the connection of poverty to indebtedness. Furthermore your comingling of personal debt and national debts is a facetious argument, especially given the level of services available in the US. (but, btw, poverty and indebtedness is killing folks in the US but more obliquely via decreased health care options among others)

I will grant you that the role of brutal regimes and internal strife is a large one in the problem of world hunger. No doubt. But these are two sides of the same coin. Exploitation both empowered brutes and impoverished the people. Geography and climate play their role as well. But we’re drifting off topic now…

 

[cthemfly25]

Whether or not this is actually true in every case it seems undeniable that most documents from the USCCB and other groups of bishops are perceived this way. One wonders if they are unaware of how their various pronouncements are received by their flocks.

Ender

Actually, it is true and not just perception. I attemtped direct communication with Bishop Wenke and with USCCB spokesman Mr. Appleby re the immigration legislation for having misrepresented the actual details of that legislation while advocating its passage. Bishop Chaput did have a spokesman contact me but i found his advocacy for the legislation so pathetically partisan and misinformed that i concluded truth to be a casualty of political advocacy. There is actually a long history of 30 plus years of such political advocacy which evidences the use of the USCCB by certain bishops and most certainly by USCCB aparatchiks, and i believe Bishop Wenke in particular and most recently, as their political playpen. Again and only the most recent example, the USCCB wrote a letter to the Secretary of State advocating the exportation of nuclear fuel to Iran for “peaceful purposes.” I think it is fair to say that late Bishops like Sheen and O’Hara would be mortified by this nonsense.