I'm very liberal, considering Catholicism.

[tuviskazinai]

I think you’re being honest and candid, which says a lot. You’re right about being free—and thank God our shepherds don’t tell us who to vote for, ie, don’t micromanage. I just can’t help, while reading your words, imagining the first century—the first Christians—saying of the apostles, ‘Well, honestly, they’re only human and, after all, I’m free…’ I don’t know… there’s just something about that sentiment that feels alarmingly incomplete.

Look, I’m no Catholic expert but a simple convert and deeply in love with this Church of ours, her leadership, her light. I think I hear you right, and I think I get where you’re coming from; you just say it in a way that makes me stop and pray for unity, pray for our bishops, and pray for us, their sheep.

Thank you for your words. I think you bring up some excellent points.

And actually, your description of yourself in your second paragraph would basically be my own self-description, as well!

I agree with you that whatever the color of our vote, we do need to pray for unity…not necessarily that we all vote the same way, but that we don’t let this voting issue tear us asunder.

I would add that our dialogue here is incredibly important. Someone earlier – I forget who – brought up the very good point that public debate is needed on the issue of abortion. I think it was Ender. And his point was that abolishing Roe would accomplish that. I also think that we in the Catholic community need to have this debate now…assuming it doesn’t drive us apart, it could instead energize us to do all sorts of pro-life work, and could show to the rest of the world – as the bishops’ statements did – how important an issue this is, and what the stakes are.

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[RobbyS]

I think this is an excellent question too – I appreciate the sincerity, no presumptions of twit-hood.

No, I don’t believe that the CCC teaches us that we can put our own opinions “above” theirs, but I do think the CCC would admit that we are allowed to have our own opinions alongside theirs on certain matters.

I guess that now I have to take a page from Ender’s book: I think this is a matter of prudence. I fully agree with the bishops’ set of values (and if I didn’t, then I would have to put my own aside and trust them on it), but we have a different vision of the best way to enact that more Christian society that we all believe in. It’s a prudential decision – and I don’t think their being bishops means they will always make the right prudential decisions, especially since the Magisterium says so little about cases like this. (I mean, really, all of their comments are stemming from one sentence in a minor speech of Ratzinger’s…it’s not exactly the whole of Catholic tradition that is telling us how to weigh votes in the civic sphere.)

Of course, maybe this makes it sound as though I am being flippant about their leadership. I am not. This vote was one of the hardest decisions of my life, no question, and obviously just the fact that it was hard doesn’t mean I’m exempt from responsibility, but I think it needs to be said.

Lastly, I am very wary of wielding the term “the Church” so broadly. If the Pope said explicitly that I must vote for John McCain, that would be one thing. If there were an encyclical saying that no pro-choice candidate can ever be elected, under any circumstances, that would be one thing. And if a bishop said that I must abide by such-and-such a local request pertaining to his diocesan jurisdiction, that would be one thing. But I don’t believe – both as a citizen but, more accurately, as a Catholic – that it is the bishops’ role to tell me who to vote for. I’m not being snippish – they do have the job of informing my conscience, and I appreciate that greatly – but I don’t think I am under any compunction to translate that into a particular vote.

Believe me, I took their advice under serious consideration, and I will stand before God on Judgment Day to answer for my decision, but like I’ve said before, if bishops were “infallible,” as we seem to be expected to believe here, then why didn’t all the bishops speak up as loudly as some of their colleagues did, and why did almost all of them (with the exception of two or three) stop short of saying that we were not allowed to vote for Obama?

I don’t like contradicting them on anything, and I rarely do or would. But since there is no Magisterial obligation on me to follow their lead, to the letter, on matters such as this, I simply have to admit to myself, as a thinking individual, that they are not super-heroes, we are all human, we have a difference in opinion on this one, and that is perfectly ok, as long as this (admittedly, risky and rare) divergence from their consensus is informed by fervent prayer and discernment. Plus, like I’ve said, I have tried to internalize their teachings in other ways so as not to just disregard them: even if I didn’t vote for McCain, I have taken this as an opportunity to get myself to do more pro-life stuff than I have been doing lately…

Thoughts? I hope this does not sound too prideful! But don’t be afraid to say so if you think it does…I welcome the opportunity to think this through with people.

Peace,
+AMDG+

I am happy that you have decided to do more pro-life stuff, and you do make one great point, which is that not all the bishops, or even the majority spoke out. This, I think, points up the source of all our troubles since Vatican II. The bishops are, after all, only men and being men they are creatures of their culture. The Council left them disoriented and subject to manipulation by men around them. Many of these men were zealots, totally sure of where they wanted the Church to go. But, I think, it is perfectly clear by now, that these zealots were wrong, that their teachings are false. Never mind that some of them are in the College of Cardinals and hold many important sees. As the Council was ending, Jacques Maritain --long a liberal hero–wrote an angry little book “The Peasant of the Garonne” in which he spoke of men who geneflected to the world. The fact is that the Church is full of such men who are, IMHO, very like the worldly men in the Vatican in 1520 who were so consumed by worldly affairs that it took them at least ten years to realize that that Luther represented a terrible threat to the Church, that this lowly college professor was the greatest heresiarch since Arius. Thank God no such person has appeared in the Church, but the reign of the modernists has in fact driven many, many sincere Catholics from the Church and into the arms of the evangelicals who SEEM to know what they believe. At the same time, they have failed to teach the Gospel to the people who remain and have instead confused them with teachings that are mainly political in nature.

 

[pinoyjones]

I agree that there were many Bishops who were not communicating the teachings of Vatican II, but I think your opinion is highly fatalistic. True thesemen are human and fall into error, but the Holy Spirit guides the Church and helps choose these men to run the Church. Perhaps the election of a verypre choice president will allow the Bishops to redeem themselves and show their authority and leadership by standing up to the president. These men are the leaders of the church and deserve a chance to amend their ways. We need to be obedient to their teachings and direction when it falls in line with the techings of the church

 

[Memaw]

This should probably go in a thread of its own: if so, apologies, but here’s what I’m thinking:

Jesus mingled with sinners. Does that mean, then, that the only authentic response to sin is love, charity, and looking for the beauty in someone’s heart?

I hear that sentiment alot, ie, Christians are supposed to embrace people, period. No matter what. The trouble is that I can’t seem to square that with my reading of the Bible or the Fathers.

On the one hand, no serious Christian takes love and charity for granted; there is a legitimate distinction to be made between a sinner and sin, and every serious Christian understands what effect a loving embrace can have on a hurting person.

But this notion that any person involved in anything sinful, regardless of the nature of the sin, must only ever be embraced by Christians doesn’t really jive with Paul’s incredibly harsh condemnations of those involved in all kinds of sin, for example. The New Testament is not thin on example. The same condemnations abound in Augustine, Clement, and a half-dozen others I’ve been reading.

So, love and charity—yes, by all means let’s love one another and demonstrate God’s superabundant love to all. But let’s not do so at the expense of the truth, which is that quite often we have a responsibility to stand against evil and hold people accountable for the pain and suffering they inflict on others (including their Creator and Redeemer). You have a responsibility to hold me accountable. This is plainly evident in the Bible, the Fathers, and the CCC.

When I lived for a decade or so as a functional atheist and enthusiastic sinner, I can tell you that my Christian friends’ embrace never once gave me pause to consider the gravity of my sinful life. Sometimes (often) people need an unambiguous, “Stop!” Christian friends would pat me on the back, love on me, and out I’d go to ruin myself and others. Loving on people is often not the proper Christian response to their lives, and we need to be clear and honest about that, especially when it comes to issues like abortion.

Seems like.

Peace,
s

Jesus mingled with sinners yes, but after they repented, he told them to go and sin NO more! He also said of those that refused to listen, to wipe your feet off and walk away.

 

[pinoyjones]

In the case of the use of birth control, if a person knows that the Church teaches against artificial birth control, then their conscience has been informed and are culpable. As humans we are very capable of justifying our actions whether they are good or bad. Aperson who uses B.C. and knows the teaching of the Church is justifying the use under false pretenses and is sinning. They know the church teaching but go against it anyway.

If we choose to not teach our kids right from wrong they theoretically would not be able to sin. Unfortunately it is not only our responsibilty but societal norms that would influence us as well as natural law. A mentally retarted person whose IQ is not high enough to determine what is right or wrong may not be sinning because they don’t know better(same would go for any child under 6). They do not know right from wrong and thus cannot intend to do what is wrong. I do agree that we are sinning if we lead others to sin, perhaps we have the greater sin in that situation

 

[seekdatruth]

Posted this on another thread and think it stands true here:
“Maybe I should just quit this stuff. It’s all about who has the right to judge someone else. “Hey you over there, you dirty liberal, you’re a sinner!” “Hey you over here, you’re excommunicated!” “Hey you! You’re going to roast like a fat pig on Judgment Day, and I’m going to stand and laugh!” God help us.”

 

[ethereality]

seekdatruth, excommunication is therapeutic, not a means to assert dominance or superiority. It’s based from one of Paul’s statements, to ‘turn [this guy sleeping with his stepmother] over to Satan, so that he might repent’ – it’s late and I can’t recall the precise verse. It’s about the guy living in an incestuous relationship.

The idea is that you expel him from the community so that a) there is no ambiguity that his behavior is condemned (that is, you don’t ignore the elephant in the room) and b) in his isolation, he can think about what he’s doing, and, through the grace of God, be given a clear mind, repent, and return to the community.

Excommunication is not a punishemnt for some serious sin that makes the person unfit to commune with. Rather, it’s therapy for someone living in continual grave sin, who sees nothing wrong with it (unrepentant). It is as much for him as it is for the community, since sin taints all.

Please get this chip off your shoulder – we are all sinners, and the Church is about HELPING each other, not putting each other down!

 

[estesbob]

Posted this on another thread and think it stands true here:
“Maybe I should just quit this stuff. It’s all about who has the right to judge someone else. “Hey you over there, you dirty liberal, you’re a sinner!” “Hey you over here, you’re excommunicated!” “Hey you! You’re going to roast like a fat pig on Judgment Day, and I’m going to stand and laugh!” God help us.”

True only for those who would rather create rude caricatures of those who adhere to the teachings of the Church to deride rather than try and undertsand why the Church teaches what it does.

One of the things that surprised me the most when I joined CAF(and still does today) is the venom that is directed at those of us foolish enough to believe everything the Church teaches.

 

[JDaniel]

I think this is an excellent question too – I appreciate the sincerity, no presumptions of twit-hood.

No, I don’t believe that the CCC teaches us that we can put our own opinions “above” theirs, but I do think the CCC would admit that we are allowed to have our own opinions alongside theirs on certain matters.

I guess that now I have to take a page from Ender’s book: I think this is a matter of prudence. I fully agree with the bishops’ set of values (and if I didn’t, then I would have to put my own aside and trust them on it), but we have a different vision of the best way to enact that more Christian society that we all believe in. It’s a prudential decision – and I don’t think their being bishops means they will always make the right prudential decisions, especially since the Magisterium says so little about cases like this. (I mean, really, all of their comments are stemming from one sentence in a minor speech of Ratzinger’s…it’s not exactly the whole of Catholic tradition that is telling us how to weigh votes in the civic sphere.)

Of course, maybe this makes it sound as though I am being flippant about their leadership. I am not. This vote was one of the hardest decisions of my life, no question, and obviously just the fact that it was hard doesn’t mean I’m exempt from responsibility, but I think it needs to be said.

Lastly, I am very wary of wielding the term “the Church” so broadly. If the Pope said explicitly that I must vote for John McCain, that would be one thing. If there were an encyclical saying that no pro-choice candidate can ever be elected, under any circumstances, that would be one thing. And if a bishop said that I must abide by such-and-such a local request pertaining to his diocesan jurisdiction, that would be one thing. But I don’t believe – both as a citizen but, more accurately, as a Catholic – that it is the bishops’ role to tell me who to vote for. I’m not being snippish – they do have the job of informing my conscience, and I appreciate that greatly – but I don’t think I am under any compunction to translate that into a particular vote.

Believe me, I took their advice under serious consideration, and I will stand before God on Judgment Day to answer for my decision, but like I’ve said before, if bishops were “infallible,” as we seem to be expected to believe here, then why didn’t all the bishops speak up as loudly as some of their colleagues did, and why did almost all of them (with the exception of two or three) stop short of saying that we were not allowed to vote for Obama?

I don’t like contradicting them on anything, and I rarely do or would. But since there is no Magisterial obligation on me to follow their lead, to the letter, on matters such as this, I simply have to admit to myself, as a thinking individual, that they are not super-heroes, we are all human, we have a difference in opinion on this one, and that is perfectly ok, as long as this (admittedly, risky and rare) divergence from their consensus is informed by fervent prayer and discernment. Plus, like I’ve said, I have tried to internalize their teachings in other ways so as not to just disregard them: even if I didn’t vote for McCain, I have taken this as an opportunity to get myself to do more pro-life stuff than I have been doing lately…

Thoughts? I hope this does not sound too prideful! But don’t be afraid to say so if you think it does…I welcome the opportunity to think this through with people.

Peace,
+AMDG+

Some churches have already run afoul of the laws regarding getting too involved in politics. This can (and has) cause the demise of a church in America. There is only so far that the Pope and the Bishops can go and/or say before the Church becomes a “political organization”.

Once that happens, tax exempt status is removed and the Catholic Church stands to undergo all of the nightmares the IRS and the government want to bring down upon it. Without a Catholic Church the odds are that there would even be more abortions performed than just 1.2 million of them.

So, the Bishops, directed by the Vatican, make a statement, as plainly as can be judisciously made, but, certain people say, “Oh well, the Bishops didn’t directly say I couldn’t vote for Obama. They must have meant for me to use my best judgment in the matter.”

I cannot believe that there are still people who are unaware of this potential. Or, was it a convenient way around the duty?

God bless,
jd

 

[seekdatruth]

seekdatruth, excommunication is therapeutic, not a means to assert dominance or superiority. It’s based from one of Paul’s statements, to ‘turn [this guy sleeping with his stepmother] over to Satan, so that he might repent’ – it’s late and I can’t recall the precise verse. It’s about the guy living in an incestuous relationship.

The idea is that you expel him from the community so that a) there is no ambiguity that his behavior is condemned (that is, you don’t ignore the elephant in the room) and b) in his isolation, he can think about what he’s doing, and, through the grace of God, be given a clear mind, repent, and return to the community.

Excommunication is not a punishemnt for some serious sin that makes the person unfit to commune with. Rather, it’s therapy for someone living in continual grave sin, who sees nothing wrong with it (unrepentant). It is as much for him as it is for the community, since sin taints all.

Please get this chip off your shoulder – we are all sinners, and the Church is about HELPING each other, not putting each other down!

I’m aware of what excommunication is and why it applies. However, are you qualified to judge me? If so, I apologize, Your Holiness.
Yes the Church’s doctrine and practices are supposed to help people, but my problem is how laity interpret it. People on here totally forget their own sin in rebuking others. estesbob touched on another chip I have and that is with people who follow the official teachings of the Church or the Pope, but have this attitude of nonchalance toward their faith like, “I’m just here for the free wine, what are you here for, Sucker?” People who give an honest testimony of faith, and are here because they want to be, not just because they have to be or it’s what all their friends are doing, get put down equally.
I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, but that church doesn’t believe in me. I’m OK with that, I"m used to being the outsider. Maybe if the Church (as in the people that make up the Church) believed in me, I wouldn’t have gone as far as I did, who knows. But, why send people off to their deaths and only think of your own skin? What good could you possibly do to look after others, even though you think they aren’t going to make it, or if you think, “They’ll be back.” Hmmmm…what commandment was that…?
“Throw her in the water! If she floats, she’s a witch!”

 

[tuviskazinai]

Some churches have already run afoul of the laws regarding getting too involved in politics. This can (and has) cause the demise of a church in America. There is only so far that the Pope and the Bishops can go and/or say before the Church becomes a “political organization”.

Once that happens, tax exempt status is removed and the Catholic Church stands to undergo all of the nightmares the IRS and the government want to bring down upon it. Without a Catholic Church the odds are that there would even be more abortions performed than just 1.2 million of them.

So, the Bishops, directed by the Vatican, make a statement, as plainly as can be judisciously made, but, certain people say, “Oh well, the Bishops didn’t directly say I couldn’t vote for Obama. They must have meant for me to use my best judgment in the matter.”

I cannot believe that there are still people who are unaware of this potential. Or, was it a convenient way around the duty?

God bless,
jd

With all due respect, I have to disagree. I trust the bishops, and the Vatican, to be honest enough to speak their minds without fear of political consequences. The church has done so numerous times in countries far more hostile to it than the United States…and, yes, seen itself falter or disappear in those countries, on occasion.

I think that the bishops realize not that they need to be wary of the IRS but that they need to be wary of the distinction between informing Catholic consciences and taking over Catholic minds. There are so many people who, rather than think for themselves about something, would rather find a stern statement from someone they respect and then boast about the fact that they trust this person so much that they don’t need to think for themselves anymore, since he has already spoken. It creates a nice, neat division between “intellectuals who like to rationalize everything” and “loyal Catholics who put faith over personal prejudices.” Such a division makes people in the latter category look good, and so it comes up all the time…but I would argue that the distinction is completely artificial, and if the Church lets that happen, it runs the risk of corrupting its own identity as a champion of human reason.

So I am not saying that organized religion is all about mind-control or that Catholicism is a bossy cult or anything silly like that!! Of course I’m not. But the reason that I can still argue with all my friends who say things like that is because the Church remains non-ideological and non-partisan. As soon as either of those lines is crossed, the role of the Magisterium as teacher of wisdom because something entirely less respecting of human freedom than it means to be.

Not least because there have been enough pretty bad churchmen (not many, but a few) that the Church needs healthy dialog so that it can continue to right itself and progress along the path of truth. And not least because the Church is, as well as the biggest defender of the right to life of the unborn, the biggest defender of the efficacy of reason in the modern world, and as soon as we start silencing the workings of our minds and consciences and stifling dialog, then we risk losing what makes us able to have a personal relationship with Christ.

Now, I know that it’s a fine line. I am not some radical dissident who believes that the Church is outmoded or just another voice in the fray, and we should have female priests, married priests, gay marriage, etc. In what concerns the Church’s moral teaching of intrinsic goods and evils one must of course be obedient. But as I’ve tried to argue in this forum, with the help of some good ideas from some of my interlocutors, politics is about prudential judgments, and when the Church starts wading into those, I think there are negative consequences. Some things are clear: abortion must be illegal. But because there are so many other factors in actually weighing two candidates, I just view it as a fundamentally different animal.

I like to respond with this quote from Henri Nouwen when people from either side of the debate ask me, “Well, but don’t you think Jesus would really vote Republican / Democrat?”: “Jesus was a revolutionary who did not become an extremist, since he did not offer an ideology, but Himself. He was also a mystic who did not use his intimate relationship with God to avoid the social evils of his time, but shocked his milieu to the point of being executed as a rebel.” To be both of these things – a committed mystic and a nonpartisan revolutionary – requires a tough balancing act. As soon as we begin trying to associate Church teachings with a political party, I’d argue that that balance is lost. This does not mean that one candidate isn’t better than another, nor that the bishops shouldn’t speak about each candidate’s moral strengths and weaknesses, just that barring extraordinary cases, a person should be able to synthesize what he gets from the bishops with what he gets from prayer and reason.

Thoughts? I remain open to criticism!!

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[estesbob]

With all due respect, I have to disagree. I trust the bishops, and the Vatican, to be honest enough to speak their minds without fear of political consequences. The church has done so numerous times in countries far more hostile to it than the United States…and, yes, seen itself falter or disappear in those countries, on occasion.

I+AMDG+

You mean they should have spoken like this?:

Archbishops Chaput:

To suggest - as some Catholics do - that Senator Obama is this year’s ‘‘real’’ prolife candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse. To portray the 2008 Democratic Party presidential ticket as the preferred ‘‘prolife’’ option is to subvert what the word ‘‘prolife’’ means. Anyone interested in Senator Obama’s record on abortion and related issues should simply read Prof. Robert P. George’s Public Discourse essay from earlier this week, ‘‘Obama’s Abortion Extremism,’’ and his follow-up article, ‘‘Obama and Infanticide.’’ They say everything that needs to be said.

---

THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS OF PENNSYLVANIA

We wish to reiterate that the intentional destruction of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia, is not just one issue among many. Time and time again, we bishops have taught
that the right to life is the most basic and fundamental human right and must always bedefended. Intrinsic evils can never be supported. Catholic teaching does not treat all issues as
morally equivalent.​

Most Reverend Patrick J. Zurek
Bishop of Amarillo

The United States Bishops Conference, in its document, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship clearly reminds us that not all issues have the same weight or moral significance. Pope John Paul II wrote in Evangelium Vitae: The “right to life” is the
most fundamental of all human rights. Without the right to life there would be no other rights. There would be no freedom. This is because “when life is snuffed out, it can never be recuperated!”
Abortion is one of these issues. Abortion can never be justified. It is always “intrinsically evil”.

---

Bishop James V. Johnston
Bishop of the Diocese of Springfield-Cape Girardeau

With the above in mind, it becomes clear that Catholics may not promote or even remain indifferent to those issues or choices that are intrinsically evil (abortion, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, the destruction of embryonic human beings in stem-cell research, human cloning, and same-sex “marriage”).

Writing as Card. Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI tells us that “A well-formed conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals,” (“Doctrinal Note on the Participation of Catholics in Political Life,” no. 4; FC, 36). Therefore, it is a correct judgment of conscience that one would commit moral evil by voting for a candidate who takes a permissive stand on these intrinsically evil actions when there is a morally acceptable alternative

---

Most Reverend Elden F. Curtiss
Archbishop of Omaha

We are surely not one-issue people because we have to be concerned about the well-being of everyone in our society, and especially those who are hurting and in need. We have to be concerned about women with unplanned pregnancies who are without the resources to give birth or to care for their babies. We are rightfully concerned about candidates for public office who do not seem to care about babies after they are born and their mothers, and their futurewelfare. But the very first right we must protect, if all human rights are to be protected, is the right to life for the unborn.

Those who do not understand or accept this basic human right are unworthy of our trust.

 

[tuviskazinai]

You mean they should have spoken like this?:

Yeah…I mean, I know what they said – that’s not the issue. I was just saying that I don’t believe the bishops kept silent out of fear of the government imposing a certain tax status on them.

For the bishops even to come out and formally say – “We endorse John McCain for the following reasons…XYZ…and we believe the right to life is the most important issue of our times for the following reasons…ABC…” – I’m not even sure that would bother me. I respect their opinions more than anyone’s, and in fact, I could only respect them more if they did that rather than beating around the bush and saying, “We believe you should vote for the pro-life candidate…but we’re not gonna say who that is.”

So what I have a problem with is not their conviction that McCain would be better…the part that I have a problem with is when they claim that that’s not just their strong advice, but a binding teaching of the Church. That “one must vote for McCain” is as obvious somehow as “abortion is wrong.” That’s what I disagree with.

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[tuviskazinai]

Ok, so here we go – here’s an interesting article:

Synod: An African bishop for Obama
Posted on Oct 11, 2008 11:56am CST.
Print Friendly Version

By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
Rome

While American bishops are usually circumspect about declaring their electoral preferences, at least one African prelate currently attending the Synod of Bishops in Rome feels no such scruples. Archbishop John Onaiyekan of Abuja, Nigeria, said today he would “obviously” vote for Barak Obama if he could cast a ballot on Nov. 4.

Known as a strong advocate for social justice, Onaiyekan said Obama’s pro-choice record wouldn’t stop him from voting for the Democrat.

“The fact that you oppose abortion doesn’t necessarily mean that you are pro-life,” Onaiyekan said in an interview with NCR. “You can be anti-abortion and still be killing people by the millions through war, through poverty, and so on.”

A past president of the African bishops’ conference, Onaiyekan is widely seen as a spokesperson for Catholicism in Africa. During the synod, he was tapped to deliver a continental report on behalf of the African bishops.

Onaiyekan said the election of an African-American president would have positive repercussions for America’s image in the developing world.

“It would mean that for the first time, we would begin to think that the Americans are really serious in the things they say, about freedom, equality, and all that,” he said. “For a long time, we’ve been feeling that you don’t really mean it, that they’re just words.”

Onaiyekan said he’s aware that many American Catholics have reservations about Obama because of his stand on abortion, but he looks at it differently.

“Of course I believe that abortion is wrong, that it’s killing innocent life,” he said. “I also believe, however, that those who are against abortion should be consistent.

“If my choice is between a person who makes room for abortion, but who is really pro-life in terms of justice in the world, peace in the world, I will prefer him to somebody who doesn’t support abortion but who is driving millions of people in the world to death,” Onaiyekan said.

“It’s a whole package, and you never get a politician who will please you in everything,” he said. “You always have to pick and choose.”

So, should we listen to him per force of being a Catholic bishop?

Also, it is interesting that the Pope congratulated Obama on his victory. The Pope! In formal press releases, the Vatican has had mild words for Obama. Why has the Vatican gotten over Obama’s election more quickly and graciously than so many American Catholics?

Peace,
Your favorite thorn in your side,
+AMDG+

 

[jmcrae]

Yeah…I mean, I know what they said – that’s not the issue. I was just saying that I don’t believe the bishops kept silent out of fear of the government imposing a certain tax status on them.

For the bishops even to come out and formally say – “We endorse John McCain for the following reasons…XYZ…and we believe the right to life is the most important issue of our times for the following reasons…ABC…” – I’m not even sure that would bother me.

Actually, no Catholic should have voted for John McCain, either, since there was an even more pro-life candidate to vote for on the ballot - Chuck Baldwin.

There is nothing in Church law that says to treat an election like betting on a horse race. We are not required to vote for who is most likely to win - we are required to vote for who is most likely to promote the common good according to Catholic moral values, even if he is “guaranteed” to come in last.

Chuck Baldwin, therefore, should have gotten the Catholic vote.

 

[Ender]

I’d agree with you: essentially what I’m arguing is that in this case, the ends justify the means.

This ends the debate for us. My objective was to direct the discussion in this direction; I never actually expected to get agreement that, in this election, Obama supporters saw this as a case where the ends justified the means. I’m like the dog that has chased squirrels for so long he doesn’t know what to do with one now that he has caught it.

And you’re right that that can be a dangerous precedent to set…I certainly wouldn’t adopt it for just any situation.

Ah, but the problem is that you have justified its use and so you have no rational argument not to use it in any situation whatever. You have now accepted in theory that the practical trumps the moral. That’s not a genie you can put back in the bottle, because you have sacrificed the rationale for doing so.

Ender

 

[tuviskazinai]

This ends the debate for us. My objective was to direct the discussion in this direction; I never actually expected to get agreement that, in this election, Obama supporters saw this as a case where the ends justified the means. I’m like the dog that has chased squirrels for so long he doesn’t know what to do with one now that he has caught it.

haha…nothing to do but let me go and start chasing me around again for a while.

I just have to make the remark, of course, that I can’t speak for all Obama supporters. For me I’d say in this case that the ends justify the means, but I’m sure there are numerous others who wouldn’t see it that way!

Ah, but the problem is that you have justified its use and so you have no rational argument not to use it in any situation whatever. You have now accepted in theory that the practical trumps the moral. That’s not a genie you can put back in the bottle, because you have sacrificed the rationale for doing so.

But what I was trying to get at in my last post about double effect was, I don’t think Obama is purely practical and McCain purely moral. In my view Obama is moral on more points than McCain is even if many of those, for you, are more “prudential” and less “black-and-white.” If there were a situation (I can’t think of one – can you?) where it was between one “purely practical” and one “purely moral” alternative, I don’t know whether I’d say that the end justifies the means. In cases of double effect – where doing what is purely moral will, practically, involve some amount of evil along the way – I might say that it does.

Still, all that may just be semantics. I don’t know. My main point has been that sometimes the practical route is the moral route, and sometimes it is not. The two are not automatically diametrically opposed. And we’d have to take each instance on a case-by-case basis to see whether the practical way is moral, or not.

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[estesbob]

Actually, no Catholic should have voted for John McCain, either, since there was an even more pro-life candidate to vote for on the ballot - Chuck Baldwin.

There is nothing in Church law that says to treat an election like betting on a horse race. We are not required to vote for who is most likely to win - we are required to vote for who is most likely to promote the common good according to Catholic moral values, even if he is “guaranteed” to come in last.

Chuck Baldwin, therefore, should have gotten the Catholic vote.

Bishop Gracida disagrees with you:

Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.

The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.
The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry).
Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and votes for legislation restricting abortion-on-demand.

In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils which is morally permissible under these circumstances

 

[estesbob]

Ah, but the problem is that you have justified its use and so you have no rational argument not to use it in any situation whatever. You have now accepted in theory that the practical trumps the moral. That’s not a genie you can put back in the bottle, because you have sacrificed the rationale for doing so.

Ender

This is pretty much been the case for every Obama supporter who is trying to rationalize that their vote was in-line with Catholic teaching. It is obvious the person made the decision to vote for Obama and then went to Catholic documents to try to construct an argument to defend their vote. You simply cannot read the teachings of the Church and the voluminous number of statements from bishops and the Pope himself and infer that it was licit for a Catholic to vote for BarrackObama.

You and I have both been around and around with a multitude of Obama supporters and it always comes down to their complete rejection of any church official who says something contrary to their beliefs. I really believe if they had received a certified letter from Benedict XVI saying they could not vote for Barrack Obama they would have voted for him anyway and claimed they thought the Pope was talking about another Barrack Obama.

 

[tuviskazinai]

Bishop Gracida disagrees with you:

Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.

The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.
The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry).
Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and votes for legislation restricting abortion-on-demand.

In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils which is morally permissible under these circumstances

I agree with you, Estesbob!
It is a “prudential” decision, though – I have to point that out.

Peace,
+AMDG+