Is Father Newman correct?

[RobbyS]

You might want to look at the Directives for Caregivers, direct abortion is never permitted, even to save the life of the mother. In the US, many Catholic hospitals argue that terminating ectopic pregnancies is not direct abortion, but an unintended side effect of treatment, but this is a theological argument, not the Church’s. So far the Church has not corrected this application, but it is worth noting that more restrictive rules are used in countries with Catholic majorities and the Church seemed to rule such terminations illicit by decree in 1902.

The Catholic Encyclopedia entry on abortion has some good background information on the subject. The Directives can be found on the USCCB site. Direct abortion is prohibited in general, and again in the specific case of ectopic gestations.

If you want more material, let me know. I do not follow it as closely now that I am retired, but still get most the journals.

John McCain also has said that abortion is acceptable and should be kept legal for rape, incest, and maternal life. These are all held to be intrinsically evil attacks on innocent human life.

I thiink you forget that the Texas law that was overthrown by Roe v. Wade did allow abortions for rape, incest and endangerment, and it was about the strongest abortion law in the country. The principle is that abortions are not allowed, but exceptions were made because of, as Our Lord put it, because of the “hardness of our hearts.” Human laws can only appropoximate true justice. What Roe v. Wade did was to adopt the very opposite principle, although the sophistry of the coiurt concealed it. Abortion is always allowed, with exceptions.
because of the tenderness of our hearts.

 

[ICXCNIKA]

It is interesting that the Archdiocese responded by appealing to a person’s conscience.

What if a priest knew that a parishoner or parishoners were involved in some grave moral evil. Wouldn’t he advise them, pastorally, to repent and refrain from receiving communion until they’ve received the sacrament of penance? For instance, if a pastor knew a parishoner was robbing banks. Wouldn’t he advise him to stop and seek forgiveness through penance? Would his diocese respond to this by appealing to a person’s conscience?

What if the Pastor knew that many of his parishoners wanted to vote for a candidate who wanted to de-criminalize rape? Wouldn’t he have a responsibility to warn them about participation with an intrinsic evil?

Abortion is an intrinsic evil. It is wrong. It is a sin. Participating in it is also a sin. Sounds to me like Father Newman was being pastoral. He never said he would deny communion to anyone.

 

[Teflon93]

Again, National Abortion Rights Action League legislative scorecard for Barack Obama: 100% proabortion.

NARAL legislative scorecard for John McCain: 0% proabortion.

The choice could not have been clearer.

Thus the obfuscation from Catholics who violated Church teaching and voted for the 100% proabortion “I don’t want my daughter punished with a baby” candidate, who has made the passing of legislation to force Catholic hospitals and Catholic doctors to perform abortions his top legislative priority.

And AgingCatholic still will not admit to disagreeing with Church teaching on abortion, despite clearly doing so.

 

[MIZER]

The rub is, is there a plausible pro-life alternative?

The Republicans have been using it as a rallying issue for decades but, after they’ve controlled the government for years, it is still with us. (it was mostly Republican appointees to the court that decided for Roe in the first place.) Some of them are undoubtedly genuine but I often wonder if some are pro-life just for the votes.

A president can do little about it. Even if Roe is overturned it will fall back to the individual states.
The tragedy is that it is politically popular.

The current Supreme Court is loathed to overturn precedent and a constitutional amendment will not pass in the current climate.

I don’t know what to do.
The Democratic notion of reducing the numbers through poverty reduction and education sounds like it may be a start. But I haven’t studied the statistics yet.

]\

Abortions are not largely performed becaue of poverty. They are mostly performed for purposes of convenience. If a poor woman doesn’t wan’t to raise a child she may offer him/her for adoption as easily as a wealthy woman. Jesus said the poor will always be with us. “Reducing poverty” sounds like more propaganda to me. While education is always a good thing we must be aware that for it to be positive it must be based on truth and not on adengized political posturing.

 

[AgingCatholic]

]\

Abortions are not largely performed becaue of poverty. They are mostly performed for purposes of convenience. If a poor woman doesn’t wan’t to raise a child she may offer him/her for adoption as easily as a wealthy woman. Jesus said the poor will always be with us. “Reducing poverty” sounds like more propaganda to me. While education is always a good thing we must be aware that for it to be positive it must be based on truth and not on adengized political posturing.

We have no idea why individual people choose particular sins. We only know that the majority of women procuring abortions in the US live at or near the poverty line and about half of them are already mothers.

Yes, Jesus said that the poor will always be with us, but he also answered questions on salvation the same basic themes. In Matthew 25 they are repeated four times in a parable to make them crystal clear.

If you think that we are not deeply obliged to service the poor, then you might want to look up the origins of the word Gospel.

 

[Teflon93]

If you think that we are not deeply obliged to service the poor, then you might want to look up the origins of the word Gospel.

And what service can we provide to them if they are dead?

 

[Teflon93]

Let’s also correct a couple of AgingCatholic’s unsupported whoppers while we’re at it.

We only know that the majority of women procuring abortions in the US live at or near the poverty line and about half of them are already mothers.

We know that only a minority of women seeking abortion do so because they believe they cannot afford to have a baby - 21%

 

[Teflon93]

And just in case anyone had any doubts regarding Obama’s abortion radicalism, this is a good reminder as to why NARAL gave him perfect marks:

thecatholicthing.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=803&Itemid=2

During those 35 years politicians who defend Roe have dodged and danced their way around that issue, preferring instead to hide behind slogans like “the right to choose.” Given their policy predilections, they are wise to do so. For the minute the debate changes its focus from the pregnant woman to the child who is killed, it acquires a wholly different and, for pro-choice politicians, ominous character. It forces them to confront the moral implications of what Archbishop Charles Chaput has aptly called “little murders.” And because the mainstream media are generally sympathetic to liberalized abortion, politicians get a free ride by talking about almost every aspect of abortion other than the nature of the unborn child.

A case in point presented itself during the presidential campaign when Pastor Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church asked Barack Obama when the unborn child acquired human rights. Senator Obama avoided the question by recasting it, as if Warren had asked when life begins, to which he said that the answer was “above my pay scale.” But that is not what Warren asked, and in any event, Senator Obama’s answer was disingenuous on at least two counts. He knows perfectly well when life begins, which is why he supports legislation to create human embryos in the laboratory for purposes of scientific experimentation. And Senator Obama certainly does not believe that these tiny creatures are in any sense rights-bearing creatures, which is why his legislation not only allows but requires them to be killed after the technicians have completed their experiments.

More telling still is Mr. Obama’s ardent defense of abortion during every stage of an unborn child’s life, including the grisly procedures entailed in partial-birth abortion. To make matters worse, he led the charge in the Illinois Senate against a state born-alive act, which would ensure medical treatment for babies who, by the grace of God, manage to survive the attempt to kill them. President-elect Obama’s extreme advocacy of abortion does not end there. ** He has said that “the first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.”**

FOCA is an effort to codify the most extreme interpretation of Roe v. Wade by making abortion “a fundamental right” during all stages of a child’s development, up to and including the process of being born. It seeks to eliminate every statutory protection for the unborn that has been enacted during the past 35 years, including restrictions on state and federal funding for abortion, parental notification and consent laws for minors seeking abortion, and conscience clauses that prevent health-care professionals from being forced to participate in abortions. And the man who is about to become the 44th president of the United States says he will support and sign such legislation. He has also said with some emphasis that he will apply a pro-abortion litmus test to nominations for the federal bench.

Observers close to the Obama presidential transition indicate that the new president will by executive order reverse President Bush’s decisions that restrict federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research and international pro-abortion efforts. Combine these gestures with Mr. Obama’s promise to appoint pro-abortion judges and his support for FOCA, and what you get for all intents and purposes is a declaration of war against the unborn child.

And for this, 54% of Catholics who voted in this past election are responsible.

No matter how they try to deceive, Father Newman is right.

So when will these Catholics stand up for the Church, for Truth, and for Christ?

 

[chris_molter]

Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ’s Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."

Where I believe Fr Newman is either inaccurate or easily misinterpreted is right here:

those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ’s Church

This makes it seem like he is stating that all Catholics who voted for Obama committed mortal sin.

Material cooperation with evil MAY or MAY NOT be sinful depending on the circumstances.

Voting for McCain was ALSO material cooperation with evil due to his stance on ESCR. However, McCain voters had a very clear proportionate reason to vote for him. Obama voters… well… not so much. However, it is still possible (because of bad catechesis, election propaganda, confusing teachings from Bishops, Priests, etc) that a Catholic who voted for Obama DESPITE (and in opposition to) his pro-abortion (and pro-ESCR, and any other intrinsically evil positions) stance did not sin.

That being said, I hope all of Fr Newman’s parishoners take up his admonition to take advantage of the sacrament of reconciliation. There they can work out with their confessor if their vote constituted sin or not.

 

[Teflon93]

Voting for McCain was ALSO material cooperation with evil due to his stance on ESCR. However, McCain voters had a very clear proportionate reason to vote for him. Obama voters… well… not so much. However, it is still possible (because of bad catechesis, election propaganda, confusing teachings from Bishops, Priests, etc) that a Catholic who voted for Obama DESPITE his pro-abortion stance did not sin.

“Possible” is not the same as likely. Extreme ignorance may cover the sin, but it will become clear as Obama pushes one pro-abortion policy after another.

If someone knows McCain’s position on ESCR, how could they not know anything about Obama’s commitment to abortion?

Father Newman was addressing the fact that most Catholics who voted for Obama — 54% of all Catholics who voted — did so despite knowing Church teaching on abortion. They know it—they simply reject it. That is the sin.

What excuse do voting age Catholics have for neither knowing the Catechism nor listening to the bishops as they form their conscience before heading to the ballotbox?

What proportion of the 54% do you realistically believe to be so invincibly ignorant that their sin was merely venial in this case?

That being said, I hope all of Fr Newman’s parishoners take up his admonition to take advantage of the sacrament of reconciliation. There they can work out with their confessor if their vote constituted sin or not.

This is good advice, but as we see with AC they will have to overcome pride first. AC clearly does not believe voting for a radical pro-abortion candidate to be a sin at all and does not much care what the bishops have to say about that.

I’m skeptical that those who reject Church teaching on abortion for political partisanship accept Church teaching on sin and reconciliation either.

 

[chris_molter]

“Possible” is not the same as likely. Extreme ignorance may cover the sin, but it will become clear as Obama pushes one pro-abortion policy after another.

If someone knows McCain’s position on ESCR, how could they not know anything about Obama’s commitment to abortion?

Father Newman was addressing the fact that most Catholics who voted for Obama — 54% of all Catholics who voted — did so despite knowing Church teaching on abortion. They know it—they simply reject it. That is the sin.

True, but none of us have a window into each man’s soul to know one way or the other. That needs to be worked out in confession.

What excuse do voting age Catholics have for neither knowing the Catechism nor listening to the bishops as they form their conscience before heading to the ballotbox?

We decry the pathetic state of catechesis in the US Church all the time. While that doesn’t absolve these Catholics of their material cooperation, it does mitigate it that the Church has failed to impart the fullness of the faith to them during their youth.

What proportion of the 54% do you realistically believe to be so invincibly ignorant that their sin was merely venial in this case?

I don’t know. Neither do you. Neither does Fr Newman. Let’s hope everyone goes to confession and works that out before receiving communion. (I like being naively hopeful sometimes.)

This is good advice, but as we see with AC they will have to overcome pride first. AC clearly does not believe voting for a radical pro-abortion candidate to be a sin at all and does not much care what the bishops have to say about that.

I’m skeptical that those who reject Church teaching on abortion for political partisanship accept Church teaching on sin and reconciliation either.

Yes, I agree. It’s very sad. Tragic, really.
All these souls just happily strolling along the path away from God and into hellfire. How harshly will I be judged for not doing everything I could to try to save my brothers and sisters?

We have a lot of hard work ahead of us. Fortunately, we know the war is already won. It’s just a matter of how many casualties we’ll take.

 

[Teflon93]

And as good Catholics are wont to do, let’s see what the Catechism teaches us about the Church’s view of mortal sin:

1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,129 became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.

1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; **it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him].

Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God’s mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:

When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner’s will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.130

1857 **For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”**131

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice.** Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.**

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. **Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest. **

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul’s progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God’s grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."134

While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call “light”: if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.135
1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

So let’s apply this definition to the scenario Father Newman discussed.

Is abortion a grave matter?

Is there any sin graver than killing one’s own child?

Does removing legal restrictions to abortion constitute a grave matter?

Does empowering those who express a desire to remove restrictions to abortion (as Obama did and does) constitute a grave matter?

Does the person so doing a) know that this is a grave matter and b) do so anyway?

If the answer to the questions is, “Yes”, then that person MUST get to the Confessional and repent to be restored to Communion.

Note that feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not let you off the hook.**

 

[clmowry]

Well I am going to go with ignorance, (invincible or otherwise) as a reasonable explanation for observed voting patterns.

I heard a “man on the street” interview on the local Houston radio station this morning.

Of the 10 folks that were asked who is in “Control of Congress” we got 2 “I don’t know” and 7 “Republicans” and one “Democrats” for answers.

All 10 respondents knew, however, that Sara Palin’s wardrobe cost $150,000.

All 10 respondents also incorrectly identified Sara Palin as the candidate who made the flub that they had campaigned in all “57” states.

With this in mind, it seems unreasonable to assume that the electorate, Catholic or otherwise, would be better informed on any other issue.

Chuck

 

[Teflon93]

True, but none of us have a window into each man’s soul to know one way or the other. That needs to be worked out in confession.

Isn’t that what Father Newman said?

He isn’t incorrect, then, is he?

We decry the pathetic state of catechesis in the US Church all the time. While that doesn’t absolve these Catholics of their material cooperation, it does mitigate it that the Church has failed to impart the fullness of the faith to them during their youth.

Nonsense. I have posted numerous times the link to the Catechism, which is free to anyone who can log in at a library or on their home computer (obviously including everyone on this Forum). It is available for under $10 in stores and free in many parishes. Apathy does not let us off the hook to know the requirements of our faith.

I don’t know. Neither do you. Neither does Fr Newman. Let’s hope everyone goes to confession and works that out before receiving communion. (I like being naively hopeful sometimes.)

They will not go unless called. We are called upon to correct them by Christ. Matthew 18:

“15”: Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

“16”: But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

“17”: And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Father Newman is doing his job. And ours.

Yes, I agree. It’s very sad. Tragic, really.
All these souls just happily strolling along the path away from God and into hellfire. How harshly will I be judged for not doing everything I could to try to save my brothers and sisters?

We can only keep trying.

We have a lot of hard work ahead of us. Fortunately, we know the war is already won. It’s just a matter of how many casualties we’ll take.

Where’s the naive hope?

We need to fight. And if our fellow Catholics elect to line up in ranks with those advancing the front line of the culture of death, they must be fought as well.

This is the Cross.

 

[Teflon93]

Well I am going to go with ignorance, (invincible or otherwise) as a reasonable explanation for observed voting patterns.

I heard a “man on the street” interview on the local Houston radio station this morning.

Of the 10 folks that were asked who is in “Control of Congress” we got 2 “I don’t know” and 7 “Republicans” and one “Democrats” for answers.

All 10 respondents knew, however, that Sara Palin’s wardrobe cost $150,000.

All 10 respondents also incorrectly identified Sara Palin as the candidate who made the flub that they had campaigned in all “57” states.

With this in mind, it seems unreasonable to assume that the electorate, Catholic or otherwise, would be better informed on any other issue.

Chuck

54% of Catholics don’t know that the Church is pro-life and that Obama is pro-abortion?

Really?

 

[chris_molter]

So let’s apply this definition to the scenario Father Newman discussed.

Is abortion a grave matter?

Is there any sin graver than killing one’s own child?

Does removing legal restrictions to abortion constitute a grave matter?

Does empowering those who express a desire to remove restrictions to abortion (as Obama did and does) constitute a grave matter?

Does the person so doing a) know that this is a grave matter and b) do so anyway?

If the answer to the questions is, “Yes”, then that person MUST get to the Confessional and repent to be restored to Communion.

No. That person does not NECESSARILY have to confess, since they did not NECESSARILY commit mortal sin. If a Catholic voted for Obama while condemning his abortion stance because they believed in good conscience they had a proportionate reason to do so, then they did not commit mortal sin via remote material cooperation with evil.

I believe they’re wrong, of course, but that remains in the realm of prudential judgement. Obviously if they voted for Obama because they agreed or were indifferent to his stance on abortion, THEN they committed mortal sin.

Note that feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not let you off the hook.

No, I never said it did. But ACTUAL ignorance and being incorrect in a matter of prudential judgement DOES “let you off the hook” somewhat. (enough to make it not mortal sin)

The difference is that we’re talking about voting for a candidate (who has a number of positions on a number of issues and where it would be practically impossible to find a candidate whose positions coincided exactly with Catholic teaching), not participating or procuring an abortion (which is an intrinsic evil).

By your standards, anyone voting for McCain ALSO mortally sinned since ESCR is also a form of abortion.

The reason why a vote for Obama was not NECESSARILY sinful is because of proportionality. Now, while many good Bishops spoke out on that point to show that there were no proportionate reasons that outweigh abortion, it remains a matter of prudential judgement and up to the well-formed consciences of the believers to decide for themselves.

Here’s the trick. Could a well-formed conscience vote for Obama?
It’s possible. Although I think it very VERY unlikely. Still, that’s not enough for anyone to issue an absolute blanket condemnation of all Catholic Obama voters. (as much as I’d love to see it, from a pragmatic standpoint)

 

[Teflon93]

Let me tell you why I believe this notion of large swaths of Catholic ignorance on abortion is nonsense.

Our retired bishop recently spoke at our parish on the topic of advent. It was a very small audience—about 10 of us. Before the talk began, he asked me what I thought about the election results. Mind you, this is a very Vatican II bishop. He spent most of his career ministering to the poor—social justice is a primary concern of his. He happened to be Mother Theresa’s confessor, which ought to tell you something.

I thus with trepidation told him I thought it was a horrible blow for the prolife movement and a terrible price to pay to put the capstone on the success of the civil rights movement.

His response surprised me.

“It is just awful and I don’t understand how so many Catholics could betray the Church.”

He was wounded to the core by this.

Mind you, this was a man who as a parish priest in Mississippi in the 60s unilaterally desegregated his congregation. He refused to have separate Communion lines, segregated pews, etc.

He is a man deeply sensitive to civil rights and social justice concerns and properly places love for the unborn—the weakest and most reviled among us—in this continuum.

Life trumps all.

He clearly doesn’t believe most of these Catholics were ignorant, but rather disobedient.

We may not know with certainty the position of a given individual, but they tell you who they are. Someone who was honestly ignorant on Nov 4th, 2008 will be absolutely horrified when they see Obama pushing the abortion agenda as a top priority.

Unfortunately, there will be others who attempt to justify whatever Obama pushes, or to claim that it’s not REALLY against Church teaching for Catholic hospitals to provide abortions so long as non-Catholic doctors do the butchering, or that unrestricted and federally-protected abortion on demand doesn’t really matter much in the big picture since the aborted children get reunited with God.

It is these who Father Newman was calling upon to repent.

Just watch their rationalizing if you want to know who they are.

 

[chris_molter]

Isn’t that what Father Newman said?

He isn’t incorrect, then, is he?

Is it? The part I objected to was saying that anyone who remotely cooperated with evil by voting for Obama HADto go to confession prior to receiving communion. That’s not true. Remote cooperation may not even be a sin, and therefore does not REQUIRE confession.

Nonsense. I have posted numerous times the link to the Catechism, which is free to anyone who can log in at a library or on their home computer (obviously including everyone on this Forum). It is available for under $10 in stores and free in many parishes. Apathy does not let us off the hook to know the requirements of our faith.

Yes, but these folks don’t even know to care. They were told by Priests and Bishops and Lay Catechists for 30+ years all kinds of nonsense and are now functionally pagans. Are they entirely at fault for this? Or have they been victimized somewhat?

 

[chris_molter]

We may not know with certainty the position of a given individual, but they tell you who they are. Someone who was honestly ignorant on Nov 4th, 2008 will be absolutely horrified when they see Obama pushing the abortion agenda as a top priority.

Unfortunately, there will be others who attempt to justify whatever Obama pushes, or to claim that it’s not REALLY against Church teaching for Catholic hospitals to provide abortions so long as non-Catholic doctors do the butchering, or that unrestricted and federally-protected abortion on demand doesn’t really matter much in the big picture since the aborted children get reunited with God.

It is these who Father Newman was calling upon to repent.

Just watch their rationalizing if you want to know who they are.

I agree with you 110%. We must hold them accountable when their candidate takes office. We must also encourage them to help lead the fight against any evil policies he tries to enact.

Then we’ll be able to see with certainty who voted for the wrong guy for the wrong reasons, and those who voted for the wrong guy for the right reasons.

 

[Teflon93]

No. That person does not NECESSARILY have to confess, since they did not NECESSARILY commit mortal sin. If a Catholic voted for Obama while condemning his abortion stance because they believed in good conscience they had a proportionate reason to do so, then they did not commit mortal sin via remote material cooperation with evil.

Note the last two questions. Then tell me that one has a “proportionate reason” for voting for the perfect NARAL candidate over the one who that abortion lobbying group declared anathema.

I believe they’re wrong, of course, but that remains in the realm of prudential judgement. Obviously if they voted for Obama because they agreed or were indifferent to his stance on abortion, THEN they committed mortal sin.

That is surely a nonzero number as well. My best friend’s mother was a pro-abortion Catholic. There are plenty of them, although these days they are curiously reluctant to proclaim themselves.

No, I never said it did. But ACTUAL ignorance and being incorrect in a matter of prudential judgement DOES “let you off the hook” somewhat. (enough to make it not mortal sin)

Again, lay the odds for me. What proportion of the 54% pro-Obama Catholics do you honestly believe to be in that category?

Right now, it sounds like 54%.

The difference is that we’re talking about voting for a candidate (who has a number of positions on a number of issues and where it would be practically impossible to find a candidate whose positions coincided exactly with Catholic teaching), not participating or procuring an abortion (which is an intrinsic evil).

If I vote for the candidate who promises to invade Canada, am I not participating in the intrinsic evil of an unjust war?

Does it really matter that I liked his economic policy in such a situation?

By your standards, anyone voting for McCain ALSO mortally sinned since ESCR is also a form of abortion.

So given the choice between Candidate Stalin rounding up people for gulags and firing squads and Candidate Roosevelt rounding up people to cool their heels in Nisei camps, it’s all the same to you?

A Catholic could in good conscience vote for Stalin?

The reason why a vote for Obama was not NECESSARILY sinful is because of proportionality. Now, while many good Bishops spoke out on that point to show that there were no proportionate reasons that outweigh abortion, it remains a matter of prudential judgement and up to the well-formed consciences of the believers to decide for themselves.

Now here’s where you’re way off.

We are allowed to vote for the lesser of two evils.

We are not allowed to vote for the GREATER of two evils.

And there is no greater evil than abortion, which is ALWAYS murder and ALWAYS unjust, as the Catechism notes.

Here’s the trick. Could a well-formed conscience vote for Obama?
It’s possible. Although I think it very VERY unlikely. Still, that’s not enough for anyone to issue an absolute blanket condemnation of all Catholic Obama voters. (as much as I’d love to see it, from a pragmatic standpoint)

Let’s not get too cute. Pragmatically, you’re arguing that Father Newman should have shut up, sat down, and not said anything about the majority of Catholic Obama voters in mortal sin for the sake of the minority who were simply ignorant.

Cut the numbers any way you like, but if there were even ONE Catholic in his congregation who rejected Church teaching and voted for Obama Father Newman had the obligation to call them to repentance.

It is their soul at stake.