I'm very liberal, considering Catholicism.

[TMC]

You are correct as far as you go. The caveat in Ratzinger’s statement is that there must be a proportionate reason for supporting someone who favors abortion and it is the arguments supporting ones views on what constitutes a proportionate reason that come across as more rationalized than rational.

Ender

Saying that you don’t believe there could ever be proportional reasons is far different than saying that the Church teaches that Catholics must vote solely based on abortion. The Church does not teach that, and the Pope has never said that.

 

[estesbob]

Saying that you don’t believe there could ever be proportional reasons is far different than saying that the Church teaches that Catholics must vote solely based on abortion. The Church does not teach that, and the Pope has never said that.

Can show a single bishop that stated there were proportionte resns to vote for Obama? I can given you dozens of quotes where bishops said there were not.

 

[PJM]

I second this. Although I would love for you to embrace the truth of the Catholic faith, I feel that the Episcopal faith would be easier for you to accept because it is far more liberal than the Catholic faith. Make no mistake, being Catholic in the modern world is extremely difficult. We are different than the rest of society and are held to a far greater moral standard. Our beliefs are offensive to many people. However, our doctrines and beliefs will never change

Reply:

My dear friends in Christ Jesus,

I second this. Although I would love for you to embrace the truth of the Catholic faith, I feel that the Episcopal faith would be easier for you to accept because it is far more liberal than the Catholic faith. Make no mistake, being Catholic in the modern world is extremely difficult. We are different than the rest of society and are held to a far greater moral standard. Our beliefs are offensive to many (but not all PJM) people. However, our doctrines and beliefs will never change

Reply:

My dear friends in Christ Jesus,

Please excuse my lack of enthusiasm for you recommendation.

It seems to me that we do an injustice to the Author of this OP. He has expressed interest in our Catholic faith, and in the only Christian Church actually founded by Jesus Himself.

Some of you know me well enough to know that I am a very strong advocate of Christian Charity, but this I fear is going too far?

Should we not be willing to define and defend our faith? We do not have sufficient information to conclude that this person cannot, ot will not be guided by the Holy Spirit to embrace the Roman Catholic Faith in all of it’s rightious beauty.

One need not be Conservative, rather one only needs to accept the Holy Spirit of God, and who are we to deny this opportunity?

Sure being an informed, practicing Roman Catholic is not easy. But then again I don’t find living in the USA in the present times to be “easy” either. Indeed, when life, fully lived in all of lives aspects is experienced, it is commonly not easy, and by that fact we can be assured that things are as they are meant to be.

Mt. 16: “24 Then Jesus told his disciples, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life? Or what shall a man give in return for his life? For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

My friend’s, let us do as Christ has demanded of us and share The Good News! Let’s at least make the offer, and not assume we know for certain things that may not be quite as they seem?

God bless you all and Merry Christmas!

PJM m.c.

 

[Janet_S]

Saying that you don’t believe there could ever be proportional reasons is far different than saying that the Church teaches that Catholics must vote solely based on abortion. The Church does not teach that, and the Pope has never said that.

For the record, his memo was directed to Cardinal McCarrick, not to the Church at large. I’m sure the Pope knows this memo is out there, but the context in which it was written is important to keep in mind. A Cardinal’s idea of “proportionate reasons” is probably very different from the average lay Catholic who has not been educated in moral theology. It’s also important to keep in mind that the memo says not all moral issues carry the same weight as the issues of abortion and euthanasia.

Still, if a Catholic is going to interpret the memo this way, then it is a directive that has no directions. If you can justify voting for a politician who aims to overturn all anti-abortion laws based on your idea of proportionate reasons, then you could justify voting for anyone–a KKK member, a racist, a communist. No candidate runs for office saying “hey, I’m evil, I’m going to kill people and destroy your country.” Every candidate, even an evil one, accentuates the positive and conceals or explains away the negative. History show us all evil people who come to power are packaged up as something good. If a voter ignores the evil part of the package and looks only at the good and calls it “proportionate reasons”, he is fooling himself. Will he be able to fool God, that is the question.

 

[Ender]

Saying that you don’t believe there could ever be proportional reasons is far different than saying that the Church teaches that Catholics must vote solely based on abortion. The Church does not teach that, and the Pope has never said that.

You are correct; no argument from me. However … the effect of Ratzinger’s instructions is something like giving a person a choice between two balls, a red one and a blue one, with the caveat that he may not choose the red one. You would be correct in pointing out that you are not forced to choose the blue one but it is incorrect to imply that because no one said you have to choose the blue one you may therefore take the red one. That is, it is wrong to focus on what is not prohibited as a means of skirting that which is prohibited.

Ender

 

[PJM]

Saying that you don’t believe there could ever be proportional reasons is far different than saying that the Church teaches that Catholics must vote solely based on abortion. The Church does not teach that, and the Pope has never said that.

Reply:

Actually my friend that is pertty much what the Church DOES teach, albiet in differnt language and with a clear understanding that one would be extremely hard pressed to find even one “proportional reason”.

The Church cannot and DOES not tell one how one “must vote.” The Church, as is her Divine Mission, does, and must tell us how we "may not chose to vote."

The Magistrium, begaining with our Supreme Pontiff and ALL bishops “in communion” with him, have articulated in some way that the the issue of “intricisic evil (always, in every case a grave evil)” MUST have have top priority of choice in not being supported in any manner, direct or indirect, IF there are other choices.

Not if there are other choices that we like! If there are other less evil choices, as defined and understood by the Catholic Magistrium. We hane an option,rather a GRAVE Moral Obligation
to submit our wills in humility, to obey and accept what the Church is required as God’s spokesperson here on earth.

It is never part of our “job” to interpet Church teaching. We are to know it, accept it and put it into practice in our lives. Amen!

God bless you, and Merry Christmas,
PJM m.c.

 

[TMC]

Reply:

Actually my friend that is pertty much what the Church DOES teach, albiet in differnt language and with a clear understanding that one would be extremely hard pressed to find even one “proportional reason”.

The Church cannot and DOES not tell one how one “must vote.” The Church, as is her Divine Mission, does, and must tell us how we "may not chose to vote."

The Magistrium, begaining with our Supreme Pontiff and ALL bishops “in communion” with him, have articulated in some way that the the issue of “intricisic evil (always, in every case a grave evil)” MUST have have top priority of choice in not being supported in any manner, direct or indirect, IF there are other choices.

Not if there are other choices that we like! If there are other less evil choices, as defined and understood by the Catholic Magistrium. We hane an option,rather a GRAVE Moral Obligation
to submit our wills in humility, to obey and accept what the Church is required as God’s spokesperson here on earth.

It is never part of our “job” to interpet Church teaching. We are to know it, accept it and put it into practice in our lives. Amen!

God bless you, and Merry Christmas,
PJM m.c.

Again, I have seen this repeated here, but I have never seen a Church document that supports it. Where has the Pope said that intrinsic evils always outweigh other evils?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The Magistrium, begaining with our Supreme Pontiff and ALL bishops “in communion” with him, have articulated in some way that the the issue of “intricisic evil (always, in every case a grave evil)” MUST have have top priority of choice in not being supported in any manner, direct or indirect, IF there are other choices.

That’s absurd. Intrinsic evil isn’t necessarily worse than any other evil when choosing the lesser of two evils.

For example, war is not an intrinsic evil (because sometimes it is not wrong), but masturbation is an intrinsic evil (because it is always wrong). So you have two candidates, one who wants to legalize masturbation in private, and another who wants to start a nuclear war. According to your rationale, you have to vote for the one who wants to start a nuclear war.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

That’s absurd. Intrinsic evil isn’t necessarily worse than any other evil when choosing the lesser of two evils.

For example, war is not an intrinsic evil (because sometimes it is not wrong), but masturbation is an intrinsic evil (because it is always wrong). So you have two candidates, one who wants to legalize masturbation in private, and another who wants to start a nuclear war. According to your rationale, you have to vote for the one who wants to start a nuclear war.

But if the nuclear war is a JUST war, it is in fact less evil to do than “private masturbation”.

If the nuclear war is NOT a just war, then the unjust war is (most probably, due to it’s effect) the greater evil to do, and the other “evil” is the lesser evil to choose.

We can never choose to do an “intrinsic evil” over a non-evil, and just war is not an evil, but when comparing multiple actual evils their “intrinsic-ness” is not what is compared but rather their effects.

Isn’t that rather obvious?

:shamrock2:

 

[apromisemade]

Isn’t that rather obvious?

No

 

[CatsAndDogs]

No

OK.

And, why not?

(( It’s called “discussion” there, pardner, “discussion”… Keep the ball a’rollin’, if possible, keep it ROLLIN’, I say,… keep that puppy rollin’ rollin’ rollin’, get them doggies movin’,… rollin’ rollin’ rollin’, Rawhide! ))

 

[apromisemade]

OK.

And, why not?

Because…
Maybe I am nitpicking here, and maybe it’s just me, but I really don’t see how nuclear war (to reference this specific example) could ever be seen as just. We saw the “side effects” of just two nuclear bombs being set off. Just imagine if a whole war broke out in which they were employed. In this day and age, more innocent people would die in a matter of seconds from a nuclear bomb than all who die from abortion in an entire year. Never mind all the sicknesses, displacement, resource destruction, and children that would be born with luekimia for generations to come.
Read the book “Hiroshima” and you’ll see what I mean.

(( It’s called “discussion” there, pardner, “discussion”… Keep the ball a’rollin’, if possible, keep it ROLLIN’, I say,… keep that puppy rollin’ rollin’ rollin’, get them doggies movin’,… rollin’ rollin’ rollin’,

Just out of sincere curiosity, are you referencing some form of literature in this phrase?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

But if the nuclear war is a JUST war, it is in fact less evil to do than “private masturbation”.

If the nuclear war is NOT a just war, then the unjust war is (most probably, due to it’s effect) the greater evil to do, and the other “evil” is the lesser evil to choose.

We can never choose to do an “intrinsic evil” over a non-evil, and just war is not an evil, but when comparing multiple actual evils their “intrinsic-ness” is not what is compared but rather their effects.

Isn’t that rather obvious?

:shamrock2:

Yes, what you’re saying is true.

So if a person decides with their informed conscience that a war is unjust, then that war has to be weighed against intrinsic evils when deciding who to vote for. Once you’ve determined that the war is unjust, it gets classified as an evil along with intrinsic evils. The distinction ‘intrinsic’ is no longer relevant to the evaluation.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Wow.

LOL

Some thoughts…to those of you who keep responding to my OP, Thank You. I am still reading.

To those of you that appear to be completely fanatical fundamentalist, I have to say you are Scary with a capital S and you are my biggest turn off from Catholicism. Out of curiosity, were you Christian fundamentalist before you entered the Catholic Church or were you raised as fundamentalist within the Church?

To those of you who are curious, I’m reading a book titled “What Makes Us Catholic?” by Thomas H. Groome. It’s a great read so far!

To those of you that said maybe I should consider being Episcopalian, I looked into it and decided against it. I rather reform the Church from within than pick a sectarian group to belong to.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

To those of you that appear to be completely fanatical fundamentalist, I have to say you are Scary with a capital S and you are my biggest turn off from Catholicism. Out of curiosity, were you Christian fundamentalist before you entered the Catholic Church or were you raised as fundamentalist within the Church?

I was raised Catholic but had difficulty accepting it growing up and almost converted to a fundamentalist church. (But stopped in time )

 

[estesbob]

Wow.

LOL

Some thoughts…to those of you who keep responding to my OP, Thank You. I am still reading.

To those of you that appear to be completely fanatical fundamentalist, I have to say you are Scary with a capital S and you are my biggest turn off from Catholicism. Out of curiosity, were you Christian fundamentalist before you entered the Catholic Church or were you raised as fundamentalist within the Church?

To those of you who are curious, I’m reading a book titled “What Makes Us Catholic?” by Thomas H. Groome. It’s a great read so far!

To those of you that said maybe I should consider being Episcopalian, I looked into it and decided against it. I rather reform the Church from within than pick a sectarian group to belong to.

There is no such thing as a fundamentalist Catholic. What you are refering to as fundamentalist is merely Catholics who follow the teachings of the church. If you find that scary I suggest you need to do a lot more discerning before you commit to the One True Church.

I am afraid that your attempt to find a new church will be fruitless as the primary qualification of the church you are looking for seems to be that it agrees with your politics. You have to ask yourself whether you want to follow God or create a god that follows you.

 

[PJM]

Again, I have seen this repeated here, but I have never seen a Church document that supports it. Where has the Pope said that intrinsic evils always outweigh other evils?

Reply:
Catecheism of the RCC:

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.** This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: ** (my friend this is saying that abortion Is an Intrinsic Evil!​

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. (Mortal Sin!) The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.​

CCC # 2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

My dear friend in Christ, if you find this insufficient, let me know and I will take the time to look in uo in the late Great Pope John Paul’s Enyclical Letter “The Gospel of Life.”

God bless you,

PJM m.c.

 

[PJM]

Yes, what you’re saying is true.

So if a person decides with their informed conscience that a war is unjust, then that war has to be weighed against intrinsic evils when deciding who to vote for. Once you’ve determined that the war is unjust, it gets classified as an evil along with intrinsic evils. The distinction ‘intrinsic’ is no longer relevant to the evaluation.

Reply:

My dear friend in Christ,

Perhaps your missing the point?

A nucular war can be either just, or as you stated unjust.

Mastubation and Abortion on the otherhand, can only be, are always, without any exception a Grave Moral Evil, a Mortal Sin, each and every time. Period, end of discussion on this specific thoughtful issue. What’s next?

The other issue on your war question is:

Was the war in question already executed? If so, saving the life of the unborn, would take the more signifiant posture. What’s done, is done!

If the war was not yet executed, one would have to be assurred that the person promising to do so, actually had the power (by themselves) to put such an act as a true possibility. War cannot be executed without the approval of Congress, which would weigh as a major factor to be considered.

God bless you,

PJM m.c.

 

[TMC]

Reply:
Catecheism of the RCC:

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.** This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: ** (my friend this is saying that abortion Is an Intrinsic Evil!​

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. (Mortal Sin!) The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.​

CCC # 2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

My dear friend in Christ, if you find this insufficient, let me know and I will take the time to look in uo in the late Great Pope John Paul’s Enyclical Letter “The Gospel of Life.”

God bless you,

PJM m.c.

PJM,

I’m a bit confused by your post. My question was: “Where has the Pope said that intrinsic evils always outweigh other evils?” Your response is about the evil of abortion, which is certainly clear in Church teaching, but has nothing to do with my question.

 

[Ender]

My question was: “Where has the Pope said that intrinsic evils always outweigh other evils?”

I don’t think that intrinsic evils are necessarily worse than other evils, only that they are evil in all circumstances so there is no debate about whether a particular instance is allowed. No one would argue that an unjust war is a great evil but there is great room for debate on whether or not a particular war is just.

One may always say that an intrinsically evil act is evil but about many (most?) acts that are not intrinsically evil no moral comment can be made. Prudential differences of opinion are not moral questions.

Ender