Is Father Newman correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter w_stewart
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
chris_molter said:
Y’know, the whole “FOCA has no chance of passing” argument had been bothering me, but I couldn’t articulate why. I thought of something this morning:

If a candidate promised to immediately pass legislation eliminating all welfare programs for blacks, would this cause you to re-evaluate your support?

Why not? No chance of passing (and let’s say one major party had been trying to get the anti-welfare for blacks bill through congress for YEARS), right? Or does this give you enough insight to the character of the candidate and his goals to cease supporting him because he’s a racist?
Click to expand...
That cuts to the heart of it. To make it more analogous, abortion being murder, I’d up the analogy to legislation passed to murder African Americans.

(Of course, abortion laws are in essence just that).
 
TMC said:
I’ll think about it, but I don’t think I will. I took a look at it, and I think its inaccurate. I also don’t think these kinds of mass signings have much effect. I can’t remember ever signing one. I usually directly contact my representatives on issues when I have something to say. None of them have come out in support of FOCA, but if it moves out of committee I will contact them. I think individual contacts from voters mean more to politicians than signature drives from organizations.
Click to expand...
chris_molter said:
Y’know, the whole “FOCA has no chance of passing” argument had been bothering me, but I couldn’t articulate why. I thought of something this morning:

If a candidate promised to immediately pass legislation eliminating all welfare programs for blacks, would this cause you to re-evaluate your support?

Why not? No chance of passing (and let’s say one major party had been trying to get the anti-welfare for blacks bill through congress for YEARS), right? Or does this give you enough insight to the character of the candidate and his goals to cease supporting him because he’s a racist?
Click to expand...
The economy and the war are on the front burner at the present time.
That does not mean stopping the fight for life. It does mean that we can set aside fear and keep working, often quietly, and praying for a change of heart for those who do not recognize that without life there is no liberty.

I have read several places that mass mailings are ignored.
For a while, before 9/11, legislators only read handwritten letters. Now most only respond to personal e-mails due to security reasons.
 
joseph_virgen said:
i love this man, this priest, and i really hope he was not misquoted. what he said is pretty self explainatory. one cantidate was for life, one was for death. what is there left to understand?

now, all manner of individuals have to live and die with what they rationalized as Good.

my only hope is knowing that people will say just about anything to get elected. once elected, though, they sometimes see the flicker of Light within the darkness that surrounds them.
Click to expand...
THe problem at the time of 08 was that WE had no Bishop in our Diocese . FAther NEWMAN had no support in his statements because our administrator MONSIGNOR LOCKLIN(spelling could be off) was a coward and made a comment against Father NEWMAN , had he supported it there would have been AL Sharptons and Jessi Jacksons all around . I did not care bring them on . Stand up for Gods truth .I just recently within the last few months started going to his church and love it .
 
According to what I read, I think the quote in the OP is correct… voting for a pro abortion politician is cooperating with abortion, which carries an excommunication and is a sin
 
Monica4316 said:
According to what I read, I think the quote in the OP is correct… voting for a pro abortion politician is cooperating with abortion, which carries an excommunication and is a sin
Click to expand...
Fr. Newman failed to distinguish between remote and proximate material cooperation. As you can see in this document by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, voting for a “pro-choice” politician is remote material cooperation, which may be justified (as Ratzinger says explicitly with regard to abortion) by proportionate reasons.

Several U.S. bishops have expressed the prudential judgment that there are at this time no proportionate reasons to vote for a pro-choice politician (except in a case where the only likely candidates are pro-choice, in which case you choose the one who will put most restrictions on abortion). I respect their right to make such prudential judgments on this issue, as on other issues such as war, immigration, the environment, etc. But it’s important to distinguish this question of remote material cooperation from the intrinsic evil of supporting abortion itself. The two are clearly different and the difference is explicitly noted by Cardinal Ratzinger in the document to which I linked.

If Fr. Newman was expressing his pastoral, prudential judgment that no justifying proportionate causes existed, then he would be fully within his rights to do so. In fact, I would have no problem with a bishop (I’m a bit more nervous about a parish priest doing so) excluding people from communion based on such a pastoral judgment. However, it’s not clear to me that Catholic canon law actually allows for persons to be excluded from communion based on remote material cooperation. And at any rate, Fr. Newman gave the impression that he was simply stating the Church’s teaching, which he clearly was not, as you can see from comparing his statement with that of Cardinal Ratzinger.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
Fr. Newman failed to distinguish between remote and proximate material cooperation. As you can see in this document by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, voting for a “pro-choice” politician is remote material cooperation, which may be justified (as Ratzinger says explicitly with regard to abortion) by proportionate reasons.

Several U.S. bishops have expressed the prudential judgment that there are at this time no proportionate reasons to vote for a pro-choice politician (except in a case where the only likely candidates are pro-choice, in which case you choose the one who will put most restrictions on abortion). I respect their right to make such prudential judgments on this issue, as on other issues such as war, immigration, the environment, etc. But it’s important to distinguish this question of remote material cooperation from the intrinsic evil of supporting abortion itself. The two are clearly different and the difference is explicitly noted by Cardinal Ratzinger in the document to which I linked.

If Fr. Newman was expressing his pastoral, prudential judgment that no justifying proportionate causes existed, then he would be fully within his rights to do so. In fact, I would have no problem with a bishop (I’m a bit more nervous about a parish priest doing so) excluding people from communion based on such a pastoral judgment. However, it’s not clear to me that Catholic canon law actually allows for persons to be excluded from communion based on remote material cooperation. And at any rate, Fr. Newman gave the impression that he was simply stating the Church’s teaching, which he clearly was not, as you can see from comparing his statement with that of Cardinal Ratzinger.

Edwin
Click to expand...
you make good points here however you are aware that Father Newman is a canon lawyer right and is well aware of the canon law and what laws he would be breaking and would not be breaking ?Father Newman is very Orthodox compared to the other nearby priests ,that is one of the reasons why I attend mass at his church on Saturday nights.
 
Defender1 said:
you make good points here however you are aware that Father Newman is a canon lawyer right and is well aware of the canon law and what laws he would be breaking and would not be breaking ?Father Newman is very Orthodox compared to the other nearby priests ,that is one of the reasons why I attend mass at his church on Saturday nights.
Click to expand...
I have interacted with Fr. Newman briefly online some years ago, and am aware of his intelligence and learning.

I’d love to hear further elucidation from him as to why he did what he did. As far as I can see, he understood himself to be simply stating the position of the Catholic Church. I’m sure that he understands the difference between remote and proximate cooperation better than I do, so I have to say that I’m a bit baffled by his failure to recognize this.

Perhaps the best clue is in Jimmy Akin’s response to Ratzinger’s memo back in 2004. Akin suggested that it was a bad thing this memo had been made public, because people would jump on loopholes. Fr. Newman may well agree.

As far as I can see, Fr. Newman judged that the “loophole” did not apply in this case, and in his desire to provide clear moral guidance for laypeople simply stated that the Church forbade voting for pro-choice politicians.

I would gladly be willing to believe that he did not do this, since I find such an approach highly questionable.

Edwin
 
I read then Cardinal Ratzinger’s article, and boy, what a caveat at the end of it! The economy is the overriding issue in this present Presidential campaign. I visited Michele Bachmann’s web site, and the issue of life isn’t even listed. She has been championing the issue of life when she refers to her experience in raising so many foster children, but to leave out the issue of abortion on her official web site is disturbing to me. It seems as if jobs and money are trumping life. A developing human has no rights if it can be killed without due process. I’m afraid the final paragraph at the end of the cited article left me more confused than enlightened. What a mess this nation is in! Could it be we are being punished for our present culture of death? :confused:
 
w_stewart said:
In his letter, Father Newman says:

Link

Is he correct? Does he have any basis?
Click to expand...
The problem, of course, is defining exactly what a “viable pro-life alternative” looks like. Is it a Governor who has personally presided over 250 executions? Is it a professional politician who changes positions with the way the wind blows? Is it a Congressman who cites Ayn Rand as inspiration? Is it an entire political party who ignores the poor, the working class, the middle class and students while ensuring the rich get very very rich?

I’m sorry, but no candidate running for president is “viable pro-life alternative.” Period.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not thrilled with the Democrats or with President Obama. He has shown that he can enrich Wall Street, kill forigners and break promises with the best of the Republicans. However, the idea that we are morally obligated to vote on a single issue rather than on a considered weighing of the whole of Catholic teaching strikes me as simplistic and silly. It also allows the Republicans to safely ignore the social justice teachings of the Church with respect to labor, health care, immigration, education, and pretty much everything else that doesn’t involve sex. People who seek to make the entire Catholic Church a one note orchestra when it comes to politics only weaken the influence of the Church

Father Newman isn’t my bishop (or anyone else’s for that matter) so he’s welcome to his opinions. I however, reserve the right to follow my own informed conscience.

Peace,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top