Faithful Citizenship (USCCB)

[Ender]

Rather, it seems, {the bishops have} 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.

I agree with your conclusion; I think this is precisely what the bishops have done. Some of us were hoping for more.

The problem of course is that there are numerous “goals” and if no effective distinction is made between them then everyone is free to pick and choose which are personally the most important and vote one’s individual preference with the belief that all choices are equally valid. In fact, the bishops have strongly inferred that so long as one makes his choices after careful study then he has fulfilled his responsibility regardless of the choices he makes.

This is what I find so offensive: there are no simple declarative statements in the document that are not modified and undone by other statements. The document is unclear and all sides can quote passages that support their position. The bishops have created the impression that this is a document that requires careful study, that presents serious moral challenges but in fact they themselves have sidestepped the issues.

They have not given us a clear, unambiguous statement on our moral responsibilities as citizens because they don’t seem to know what they are.

Ender

 

[Joe_Kelley]

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.

Many years back, before it was the USCCB, the annual bishops’s meeting was aptly described as the Democratic Party at prayer.

 

[anamchara]

The problem of course is that there are numerous “goals” and if no effective distinction is made between them then everyone is free to pick and choose which are personally the most important and vote one’s individual preference with the belief that all choices are equally valid.The document is unclear and all sides can quote passages that support their position

.

So, the liberals will pick what they want and the conservatives will pick what they want? Why does this ring a bell with me?

I agree, as soon as I looked at the document, I could picture the quote wars in here. It’s going to get ugly as we get closer.

 

[anamchara]

The malice is right here:

In other words, they haven’t

 

[anamchara]

Many years back, before it was the USCCB, the annual bishops’s meeting was aptly described as the Democratic Party at prayer.

Why do you say that?

 

[Joe_5859]

Has anyone looked at the new edition of Fatihful Citizenship? There is also a summary statement for those who find 44 pages to be a bit too long (Although even the summary is 10 pages and it’s meant to be a bulletin insert!)

Since this thread started a while ago, I wasn’t sure if the discussion pertained to the 2003 or 2007 edition. I admit I haven’t seen the older version. Are there any substantial differences that anyone has noticed?

I like this paragraph in the 2007 edition:

1. As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, **may legitimately lead a voter to *disqualify ***a candidate from receiving support.

I thought this was a good point, except for the lumping together of support for legal abortion with promotion of racism. That doesn’t make sense. Are there really ANY political candidates for whom “promotion of racism” is part of their platform?

It seems the point is, if a candidate is against abortion, that doesn’t mean he or she automatically deserves our unquestioning support. However, if a candidate is for abortion, then it is legitimate to eliminate him or her from further consideration.

I really don’t want to be a “single-issue voter” but I can’t fathom voting for someone who was pro-abortion regardless of their stand on any other issue. For me, their position on this single issue would lead me “to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.” Unfortunately, that seems to disqualify one of the two major parties right off the bat in most cases.

I’m against the death penalty, too, but if it comes down to a race between a candidate who is anti-abortion and pro-death penalty and one who is pro-abortion and anti-death penalty, there is just no contest.

 

[Ender]

I like this paragraph in the 2007 edition:

1. As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion

I think this paragraph exemplifies what is wrong with this document. First is the linking of an obvious evil like abortion with an issue such as “racism” which must be inferred. Since no one actually promotes racism it is left up to the individual to find it where he can, in, for instance, issues like immigration. Thus it is a simple matter to claim that, although candidate X supports abortion, since candidate Y has a racist immigration policy one is morally justified in supporting X.

Second, saying that Catholics are not single issue voters basically sends a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card to Catholics who wish to vote for a candidate despite the fact that he supports abortion. The “we’re not single issue voters” statement solves a problem by misdirecting attention away from it. Another way to phrase that would be to say: “there is no act so evil that it would cause us not to vote for someone if we liked his other positions.” Put this way it doesn’t sound like such a sophisticated approach.

Finally, saying that someone’s support of abortion ***may ***legitimately lead a voter to reject his candidacy also infers that it legitimately may not lead a voter to reject him. This is yet another “it’s OK to vote for someone who supports abortion” statement and I am frankly tired of it.

Ender

 

[Joe_5859]

I think this paragraph exemplifies what is wrong with this document. First is the linking of an obvious evil like abortion with an issue such as “racism” which must be inferred. Since no one actually promotes racism it is left up to the individual to find it where he can, in, for instance, issues like immigration. Thus it is a simple matter to claim that, although candidate X supports abortion, since candidate Y has a racist immigration policy one is morally justified in supporting X.

Second, saying that Catholics are not single issue voters basically sends a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card to Catholics who wish to vote for a candidate despite the fact that he supports abortion. The “we’re not single issue voters” statement solves a problem by misdirecting attention away from it. Another way to phrase that would be to say: “there is no act so evil that it would cause us not to vote for someone if we liked his other positions.” Put this way it doesn’t sound like such a sophisticated approach.

Finally, saying that someone’s support of abortion ***may ***legitimately lead a voter to reject his candidacy also infers that it legitimately may not lead a voter to reject him. This is yet another “it’s OK to vote for someone who supports abortion” statement and I am frankly tired of it.

Ender

All very good points, Ender! I suppose when I read it through the first time, it was easy for me to only see the parts that resonated with me. I see how someone else could easily see the opposite if that’s what they wanted to see.

I suppose that’s the whole point many have been making on this thread that the document isn’t very useful if anyone can use it to support their positions, regardless of what they are.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Does that mean we can vote for anyone as long as he makes the trains run on time?

 

[Ender]

I suppose that’s the whole point many have been making on this thread that the document isn’t very useful if anyone can use it to support their positions, regardless of what they are.

Yes, this is exactly the point.

I am myself confused about the bishops intention regarding the purpose of this document. I have been inclined to view this as the inevitable compromise between one side that believes that Catholics should not support any candidate who supports abortion (given a reasonable alternative) and the other side who resists making that statement because of the negative impact it would have on Democrats … but now I wonder.

Is the dispute between the bishops political or not? Is it morally possible to prefer a pro-abortion candidate over an anti-abortion one because of other issues? If so, I need help understanding the moral calculations: does a “better” position on raising the minimum wage offset a certain number of abortions? Can I then add up those offsets and when I get to 1.3 million consider the two candidates morally equal? Put a number of the size of the offset you would give someone who supports pulling out of Iraq. Does that equal 200,000 abortions? Half a million? The bishops have really provided no help at all in resolving this dilemma.

Ender

 

[cthemfly25]

Yes, this is exactly the point.

I am myself confused about the bishops intention regarding the purpose of this document. I have been inclined to view this as the inevitable compromise between one side that believes that Catholics should not support any candidate who supports abortion (given a reasonable alternative) and the other side who resists making that statement because of the negative impact it would have on Democrats … but now I wonder.

Is the dispute between the bishops political or not? Is it morally possible to prefer a pro-abortion candidate over an anti-abortion one because of other issues? If so, I need help understanding the moral calculations: does a “better” position on raising the minimum wage offset a certain number of abortions? Can I then add up those offsets and when I get to 1.3 million consider the two candidates morally equal? Put a number of the size of the offset you would give someone who supports pulling out of Iraq. Does that equal 200,000 abortions? Half a million? The bishops have really provided no help at all in resolving this dilemma.

Ender

Again, you make excellent points. If a candidate or a party were to run with a goal of comitting genocide on red headed people stating that from here in red headed people can be aborted, euthanized, held in bondage or simply not recognized as persons and that we would subsidize and promote the eradication of red headed people throughout the world, I’m sure the USCCB would be “courageously” vocal in telling Catholics do not vote for such a person or party at the risk of your own salvation regardless of whether that same party made the trains run on time and provided universal sole source health care, and minimum wage of $34/hour and free day care, etc. I’m sure that as a group it could also agree and would find the “courage” to deny Communion to persons who support such an ideology. Why—because it is so patently absurd to have such a hateful platform and our souls cannot and should not be sold for government goodies. Indeed, one would hope that as Catholics we would be lead into faithful civil disobedience against such a crazy platform. Yet, the FC, and its collective authorship, offers no such outright refutation of those who advocate and support the total and unfettered right to abort red headed people; it is afterall a matter of choice to abort a child who might have red hair.

Not only is the FC facile in its opposition to abortion, the USCCB fails to even take abotion seriously enough as a matter of Faith regarding the universal refusal to offer Communion to those who publicly support choice and support the funding of this scourge. The FC reflects the actions of the authors on this matter.

Abortion is an inherant evil for which there can be no compromise; or it is a “position” relative to other important social/political stuff (taxes, capitalism, socialism, health care, day care, etc.) and therefore subject to the whims of political process. It cannot be both–the abortion issue cannot be both an inherant evil and then one subject to compromise. Such a notion is contradictory to the theological understanding of “inherant evil.” We know as faithful Catholics that it is an inherant evil and as such we should expect more from the USCCB, or rather the USCCB should expect more from us.

The FC matches the lack of universal commitment to teach without compromise that this inherant evil is not a political issue at all but one which concerns our very salvation. Imagine, how the course of politics concerning this inherant evil were to change if the USCCB took a strong and uncompromising stand. Such a stand is a teaching moment of faith to us Catholics and to all others who would witness such testimony of the universal Church. In due time you would see few politicians of any party promoting this horror and you would see the removal of this practice from the DP’s central political platform because we would understand our responsibilty as Catholic voters to oppose an inherant evil, and then we can joyfully, angrily, righteously, indulge in vigorous debate about our other closely held political beliefs. The USCCB could have been a vehicle of change but instead it operates much like any other political body and provides us instead with its own timidity in this senseless document called FC. Thus, as long as there is compromise on this issue from the perspective of our own Church, an issue of salvific importance, then there will be no momentous shift so long as the politicians can provide us with our government goodies and make the trains run on time which justifies the purchase of our votes. That’s what the FC allows.

 

[Corki]

Yes, this is exactly the point.

I am myself confused about the bishops intention regarding the purpose of this document.

Is the dispute between the bishops political or not? Is it morally possible to prefer a pro-abortion candidate over an anti-abortion one because of other issues? If so, I need help understanding the moral calculations: does a “better” position on raising the minimum wage offset a certain number of abortions? Can I then add up those offsets and when I get to 1.3 million consider the two candidates morally equal? Put a number of the size of the offset you would give someone who supports pulling out of Iraq. Does that equal 200,000 abortions? Half a million? The bishops have really provided no help at all in resolving this dilemma.

Ender

I don’t think it is as grim as that. For example, the doucment states:

Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.

It is equating support for legal abortion (note it says support - the classis “pro-choice” position of “I am not pro-abortion, I am for women having choice”.) with support of racism (not the more popular characterization of not doing enough to wipe out racism). While candidates might disagree on how to erradicate racism or on how much legislation is enough, it would be hard to find a candidate for a major office that actually supports racism in the same way that candidates support keeping abortion legal.

(all emphasis mine)

There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would
be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

This is MUCH better than the previous USCCB statements that led many Catholics to believe that they could vote for anyone, even those with unacceptable positions on a fundamental moral evil just as long as they weren’t voting for the candidate BECAUSE of that position.

In your minimum wage example, people have all kinds of opinons on when, how and by how much the minimum wage should be raised. None of those differences are “truly grave moral reasons”. Now if you had a candidate that said he/she wanted to wipe out the minimum wage and allow indentured servitude or slavery, you might be much closer to a truly grave moral reason.

It isn’t a matter of offsets unless:

When **all candidates hold a position in favor of **an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma.

This could be the case when you look at our current crop of candidates for some offices. It seems like they all either support legalized abortion or the death penalty (which according to the USCCB is an intrinsic evil, regardless of what the CCC says ).
So then you could, it seems, look at offsets. Hmmmm a couple of hundred convicted criminals per year vs. 1000 babies per day. This would certainly be a dilema.

I am not in any way, shape or form lessening the value of each individual life. I am only saying that, according to the USCCB’s new document, weighing the impact could be an acceptable use of prudential judgement in such a dilema.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . .
I am myself confused about the bishops intention regarding the purpose of this document. . . .

To cover their 6 o’clock without getting the media upset?