Notre Dame Shame

[Fundamentalist]

Actually, No it’s not a federal stand. There are a lot of government officials that agree with Obama (though not as many as you might think), but their are also a lot of good goverment officials. So if your theory is correct, I shouldn’t have to pay taxes either. Is that right? Come on

 

[diggerdomer]

How are you construing it?

The way it’s written. Anyone interested in learning more should read and reflect on the *entire *document. It’s rich and thought-provoking.

I’m not picking and choosing which parts I think are important, but the most relevant parts of FC in response to your question are para 29-37

 

[jkarp]

The way it’s written. Anyone interested in learning more should read and reflect on the *entire *document. It’s rich and thought-provoking.

I’m not picking and choosing which parts I think are important, but the most relevant parts of FC in response to your question are para 29-37

I’m not certain to which part(s) of those paragraphs you are referring but it seems the only part that is even marginally relevant is saying that it is possible for vote for a candidate whose position supports evil if your intention is to support his/her position on other issues not that which supports evil. However, the issue at hand here is giving a high honor to a person who actively works to promote laws that encourage the destruction of life and, as such, work in direct opposition the the work of the Church.

Even if your point regarding the paragraphs was relevant, I can’t think of a single position held by Obama or the National Democratic Party that is of grave enough matter to outweigh their proactivity in the matter of “choice.”

 

[diggerdomer]

I’m not certain to which part(s) of those paragraphs you are referring but it seems the only part that is even marginally relevant is saying that it is possible for vote for a candidate whose position supports evil if your intention is to support his/her position on other issues not that which supports evil. However, the issue at hand here is giving a high honor to a person who actively works to promote laws that encourage the destruction of life and, as such, work in direct opposition the the work of the Church.

Even if your point regarding the paragraphs was relevant, I can’t think of a single position held by Obama or the National Democratic Party that is of grave enough matter to outweigh their proactivity in the matter of “choice.”

I’m referring to all the paragraphs I noted, in their entirety. I am not picking and choosing parts.

I do not consider President Obama to be “actively” (your emphasis) working to promote laws that encourage the destruction of life. Is he “pro-choice”? Yes, I assume.

By the way, let me note, I really dislike using labels, but it seems too many people are incapable of not using them, so I’ll use what I hope are conventional understanding of such lame labels.

Anyway…I do not consider President Obama to be “pro-abortion.” I have never heard him say abortion is a good thing, or is something that should be encouraged. If anyone has evidence to the contrary please let us know. I consider him “pro-choice” imho because I understand he supports the current laws regarding abortion. These are laws that I oppose. His support of them is different, in my mind, than actively promoting or supporting abortion. In fact, despite the fact that I disagree with his overall stance on abortion, I am encouraged by his comments that he wants to reduce the number of abortions. I don’t recall Bush in all 8 years doing anything to reduce the number of abortions in principle or in fact.

I don’t believe FC deals directly with the issue of “honor” – can you please enlighten me where it does? I know there’s the USCCB letter from 2004 that is relevant here, but I’m not aware that the recent FC addresses it. thanks for any help here.

I agree that there can be a difference of opinion among Catholic on whether ND’s giving President Obama an honorary degree violates the intent of the USCCB letter in 2004. I don’t think it does. Others may differ. I’m ok with us disagreeing.

I think issues involving war, poverty, immigration, racism, health care, human dignity, and so on, are important and need to be considered along with abortion and embryonic stem cell research by any Catholic who wants to make an informed political decision.

 

[Wowbagger]

I don’t recall Bush in all 8 years doing anything to reduce the number of abortions in principle or in fact.

I’m between a rock and a hard place here, because I have to run to confession and don’t have time at the moment to (re)read FC in its entirety. I will, but the time is not now.

But I wanted to correct this first. All relevant numbers from AGI and CDC show a sharp drop in abortions under the Bush Administration–sharper than any other drop in history, except for the drop that came about during and after the Republican midterm sweep from '92-'00.

I think issues involving war, poverty, immigration, racism, health care, human dignity, and so on, are important and need to be considered along with abortion and embryonic stem cell research by any Catholic who wants to make an informed political decision.

FC–and any Catholic–would agree with you. However, the gravity of those other issues you mention must be considered in proportion to the gravity of abortion. Abortion is not a prudential matter; it is, unlike all those other issues you mention, an inherent moral evil the goes right to the heart of the very first and most fundamental law: “…they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life…” People in good conscience can disagree about how best to save the poor, how best to end racism, and so on (and no candidate I know opposes such goods), but no person can in good conscience disagree about making abortion illegal. Indeed, so long as abortion is legal, it is very difficult to say that we have a “rule of law” at all, since the logic of abortion relies on the evisceration of the rights of the powerless (the unborn) in order to serve the powerful (those who kill the unborn for profit).

Even if one does not concede the “special” status of abortion among these other issues, it is impossible, as a simple matter of arithmetic, to demonstrate that any or all of the other issues you mention even approach the overwhelming evil of abortion, in numbers or nature. It is a disproportionate evil, and therefore becomes a controlling issue for not just all faithful Catholics, but all citizens and people who, in good conscience, believe that there are “certain unalienable Rights.”

Back later.

 

[edwest2]

There is no politics here. None. The U.S. Bishops are standing up for the Universal teachings of the Church.

This is an act of Public Disobedience:

catholicexchange.com/2009/03/27/117065/

Peace,
Ed

 

[diggerdomer]

I’m between a rock and a hard place here, because I have to run to confession and don’t have time at the moment to (re)read FC in its entirety. I will, but the time is not now.

I’ll look forward to your thoughts when you’ve had time to read and reflect upon it.

I’But I wanted to correct this first. All relevant numbers from AGI and CDC show a sharp drop in abortions under the Bush Administration–sharper than any other drop in history, except for the drop that came about during and after the Republican midterm sweep from '92-'00.

Can you share some references for this claim? I don’t know the accurate truth, I’ve heard competing claims. e.g. sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=041013 (an article by a professor of Christian Ethics who claims the abortion rate was higher under G Bush and B Clinton).

I’
it is, unlike all those other issues you mention, an inherent moral evil the goes right to the heart of the very first and most fundamental law:

The Church teaches that abortion is not the only “intrinsic evil.”

I’

Even if one does not concede the “special” status of abortion among these other issues, it is impossible, as a simple matter of arithmetic, to demonstrate that any or all of the other issues you mention even approach the overwhelming evil of abortion, in numbers or nature. It is a disproportionate evil, and therefore becomes a controlling issue for not just all faithful Catholics, but all citizens and people who, in good conscience, believe that there are “certain unalienable Rights.”

Morality and conscience are not matters of “arithmetic.”

Show me where the Church teaches that abortion is a “disproportionate evil” and that as such no other issues should be considered in making political choices? This is not in the USCCB teaching of FC (though of course I may be wrong, and if so, when you do have a chance to read it, please help me understand it better).

 

[diggerdomer]

There is no politics here. None. The U.S. Bishops are standing up for the Universal teachings of the Church.

This is an act of Public Disobedience:

catholicexchange.com/2009/03/27/117065/

Peace,
Ed

I agree the U.S. Bishops are standing up for the universal teachings of the Church.

The link you posted is different, it’s one bishop expressing his opinion. His opinion should be listened to and respected, primarily by his flock (in his diocese).

His opinion is different from what the U.S. Bishops stand up for regarding the universal teachings of the Church.

 

[edwest2]

I agree the U.S. Bishops are standing up for the universal teachings of the Church.

The link you posted is different, it’s one bishop expressing his opinion. His opinion should be listened to and respected, primarily by his flock (in his diocese).

His opinion is different from what the U.S. Bishops stand up for regarding the universal teachings of the Church.

No. No, it’s not. It is entirely consistent. It is not an opinion in a Supreme Court Justice sense. It is not an opinion in a personal sense. It is a right judgement based on Universal truths held by the Catholic Church. It describes what is normative for an institution like Notre Dame.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Wowbagger]

Can you share some references for this claim? I don’t know the accurate truth, I’ve heard competing claims. e.g. [ .](http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=041013[(an article by a professor of Christian Ethics who claims the abortion rate was higher under G Bush and B Clinton)/url)

Ah, the Stassen piece. This piece has been floating around these discussions for years, and I honestly don’t know why it continues to.

Stassen’s work was deeply flawed, and he acknowledged this and retracted his article on May 26, 2005. Details here [factcheck.org]. Yet it continues to be quoted, and the myth that abortions went up under GWB is perpetuated.

Year-over-year abortion statistics have a ridiculously long lag time (two-three years, usually), but you can find the most widely accepted ones at the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Now, of course, AGI is a spin-off of Planned Parenthood, and does not apologize for its pro-abortion rights stance, and it’s widely charged among anti-abortionists with underreporting and data massaging. However, the anti-aborts don’t have the enormous funds or near-total clinic access that would be required to set up a competing statistical shop. So we’re stuck with AGI. Even there, though, the numbers show steep drops in abortion under the Bush administration. (We’ll see if those change once the 2007/2008 numbers are up, which will finally account for the midterm losses of 2006.)

The Church teaches that abortion is not the only “intrinsic evil.”

 

[jkarp]

I’m referring to all the paragraphs I noted, in their entirety. I am not picking and choosing parts.

That is precisely my point, the section, in it’s entirety, has little to nothing to do with the point at hand.

I do not consider President Obama to be “actively” (your emphasis) working to promote laws that encourage the destruction of life. Is he “pro-choice”? Yes, I assume.

Do you actually watch or read the news? Obama has made a point to undo/retract/withdraw all of the governmental protections that have been made to the sanctity of life.

By the way, let me note, I really dislike using labels, but it seems too many people are incapable of not using them, so I’ll use what I hope are conventional understanding of such lame labels.

What are you talking about?

Anyway…I do not consider President Obama to be “pro-abortion.” I have never heard him say abortion is a good thing, or is something that should be encouraged. If anyone has evidence to the contrary please let us know. I consider him “pro-choice” imho because I understand he supports the current laws regarding abortion. These are laws that I oppose. His support of them is different, in my mind, than actively promoting or supporting abortion. In fact, despite the fact that I disagree with his overall stance on abortion, I am encouraged by his comments that he wants to reduce the number of abortions. I don’t recall Bush in all 8 years doing anything to reduce the number of abortions in principle or in fact.

Prochoice is proabortion, there is not a middle ground; either you work to not allow abortion or you allow abortion - pro-choice is not a middle position.

I don’t believe FC deals directly with the issue of “honor” – can you please enlighten me where it does?

That is exactly my point! This is an issue of bestowing an honorary degree on Obama - the document you cited is in reference to voting.

I know there’s the USCCB letter from 2004 that is relevant here, but I’m not aware that the recent FC addresses it. thanks for any help here.

I agree that there can be a difference of opinion among Catholic on whether ND’s giving President Obama an honorary degree violates the intent of the USCCB letter in 2004. I don’t think it does. Others may differ. I’m ok with us disagreeing.

I think issues involving war, poverty, immigration, racism, health care, human dignity, and so on, are important and need to be considered along with abortion and embryonic stem cell research by any Catholic who wants to make an informed political decision.

Yes, but I don’t think the other issues combined overshadow the importance of the sanctity of life; I would go so far as to say that they flow from it.

To summarize:
You cited as proof to support a previous post a document regarding voting guidelines that is not really relevant to this thread which is regarding the bestowing of an honor upon a person who actively promotes and works to perpetrate the evil of abortion and undermine the sanctity of life.

 

[Wowbagger]

Apologies for the double post. I’m finished, and I’m still no closer to seeing where you’re coming from.

There are intrinisic evils which fundamentally attack the common good and the rule of law. There are also matters which impose on us a binding obligation to use our prudential judgement in order to further the common good. However, it is not legitimate to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil without proportionately “grave moral reasons.” Abortion–it is stated repeatedly–is just such intrinsic evil, a “preeminent” and “special” evil, a grave moral reason that may legitimately disqualify a candidate from consideration. No other issue before the American electorate last fall dealt with an intrinsic moral evil. Ergo, it was not morally permissable for an American citizen to vote for any candidate who supported abortion rights.

Even abandoning this point, if we were instead choosing to consider abortion merely as one prudential issue among many (or one intrinsic evil among many), the bishops call upon us to use our prudence to prioritize issues by their importance to the common good. Abortion is unquestionably the issue that, at present, in the current political climate, and very unfortunately, overwhelms all other common good considerations.

To draw an analogy: in the election of 1848, both candidates (Taylor and Cass) supported the extremely lax restrictions on slavery, and the indefinite continuation of the institution. Catholic voters in that election were faced with two candidates who supported an intrinsic evil. Because of this, they could choose not to vote, to vote third-party, or, most likely, to vote based on other, less consequential but still important social issues, such as the recent (unjust?) war in Mexico or the rather rickety economy.

However, in the election of 1856, voters were faced with a choice between a Democrat and a Free Soiler (later Republican). In that election, Catholics could not vote for Buchanan without implicitly giving formal cooperation (formal, here, not just material) cooperation in the grave evil of slavery. Other issues of the day, such as the Ostend Manifesto or the then-perennial arguments over tariffs and nullification, could be considered, but ultimately could not control a Catholic vote, which had to be controlled by the intrinsic evil of (and necessity of ending) slavery.

It’s not that there are not many prudential concerns, and it’s not that abortion makes us into, in principle, single-issue voters. It’s that, in this climate, with the issues we face, abortion is the singlular issue that must take precedence in a Catholic mind. Therefore, in no sense, I believe, can a Catholic argue that the principles set forth by the bishops give the least quarter or moral consolation to any citizen who votes for a pro-abortion rights candidate. In specific, the very principles of Faithful Citizenship you cite condemn Obama voters by any comprehensive, specific, or simply rational reading of the text.

I am, of course, curious to better understand how you approach it–clearly, you are not an irrational person, after all–and I look forward to your response.

 

[Philthy]

Pam you are confusing a number issues here. Skin color has NOTHING whatsoever to do with anything Catholic. Catholics are UNIVERSAL in reach and scope and do not even see skin color in our priests and bishops and laity - its just not an issue to us.

What IS an issue is that the leader of the free world happens to be THE WORST EVER PRO-DEATH advocate that the free world has EVER seen. Obama is a man who’s #1 responsibility is to PROTECT AND DEFEND the life of all the nations citizens - from youngest to eldest. Yet, one of the VERY FIRST things this man has done with his power is to declare open season on killing children through abortion not only here but also in foreign countries with US taxpayer money. THIS MAN forces YOU and ME and EVERYONE to labor and give our wages to help participate in KILLING INNOCENT LIFE. That makes us ALL culpable to God for murder of the most innocent of all life - children in the womb who are utterly defenseless. If Obama can not protect the most innocent of life why would anyone expect this man to protect them from our other enemies?

The issue here is that ND is widely seen by the secular world as a leading CATHOLIC institution. We Catholics know it is A FALSE PERCEPTION since they stopped holding Catholic values decades ago. Yet we Catholics seem to be talking out of both sides of our mouths since ND has an ORDAINED PRIEST sitting as its head and Catholic religious on its Board of Directors. OBAMA is a man who is in the person STANDS AGAINST the dearest of all Catholic STRUGGLES (protecting innocent life). ND was instrumental in giving this country the laws to outlaw race discrimination which made it possible for a black man to become this country’s leader. HOW IRONIC THAT ND now wants to claim as its first major success a black man who condones murder of children! It is an OUTRAGE to Catholics. Satan must be laughing like crazy - we Catholics were instrumental in helping the black man rise in dignity and Obama is the very first black man who attains that presidential authority only to use it to expand murder of innocents. Now he is threatening with FOCA to undo 30 years of hard battled Catholic gains in pro-life with a simple stroke of the pen - a FINE THANK-YOU to Catholics who made it possible for him to rise to the nation’s highest honor.

And now ND wants to embrace him publicly as if a friend and esteemed friend of Catholics! OMG - what outrage! This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that grave evil has penetrated deeply into Catholic strongholds that are shaping our future and feeding our priesthood. This is a wake-up call and could be the opening shot in a radical revolution within the American Catholic Church.

It’s time to clean house and start triage - and fast.

James

I agree James. ND’s primary identity is not that of a Catholic University - it has other priorities which appear to trump its fidelity to the Faith.
On a practical note, its time for the American Catholics to err on the side of caution in all things. To err on the side of being too Catholic rather than too secular. The Church in America is under too much pressure from all sides. The world needs to see a unified body proclaiming the Gospel at every available turn. We must proclaim Christ in the social, cultural, political and educational realms and we need to do it now and we need to do it clearly and consistently. Inviting Obama was not clear and consistent in proclaiming the Gospel - it was clear in promoting a reputation for the University which will lead to increased revenues for future students.

 

[diggerdomer]

Ergo, it was not morally permissable for an American citizen to vote for any candidate who supported abortion rights.

If this is true, objectively, why then didn’t the USCCB come out and say so in FC?

I see this as your opinion, which I respect and see as consistent with (but not required by) Church teaching.

 

[diggerdomer]

No. No, it’s not. It is entirely consistent. It is not an opinion in a Supreme Court Justice sense. It is not an opinion in a personal sense. It is a right judgement based on Universal truths held by the Catholic Church. It describes what is normative for an institution like Notre Dame.

Peace,
Ed

I agree it’s consistent. I never said it wasn’t. I’d even agree it’s a right judgment. I don’t think it’s the ONLY right judgment possible.

And, it’s not the same as any universal truths held by the Catholic Church.

I believe there is room for judgment on whether or not ND’s action violates the issue identified in the USCCB 2004 statement (which I would not call a “directive” as the article you cited claims. Read it for yourself to see if you think it is, the USCCB says they are intending to “highlight several points from the interim report that suggest some directions for our efforts:” To me that is not the kind of language they would use if they were issuing a “directive.”).

I’m not saying anyone has to agree with me, but rather that differences of opinion are allowed, within limits, on this specific issue.

 

[CentralFLJames]

No Catholic can support, honor or abet any person who openly supports the promotion and expansion of objective evil. It’s a seperate evil but I believe that any Catholic who voted for Obama automatically excommunicated himself if he knew that Obama was pro-abortion and supported the expansion of abortion on demand and the FOCA bills that would strike down the few minimal laws and provisions Catholics have won at the state level to protect innocent life.

It is just so ironic that the very first black man, himself in a minority situation that Catholics have helped elevate into social acceptance and as a fatherless child escaped all odds for his life-circumstances in not being aborted himself as one of his first acts declares open licence on unborn children and wants to further that license. To make it worse, here we are in one of the most withering economic storms in our history and the man is giving hundreds of millions of dollars to Mexicans to abort their children too - what a wonderful way to stop illegal immigration - kill em before they get here…

This man is deserving of Divine Wrath and I fear our Country is going to suffer gravely for his man’s sins and the sins of our leaders and the fake Catholics who have put people like him into office and passed legislation at every level of government to destroy the sanctity of life. America has lost its soul when it finds justice in extending the benefit of the doubt to every person charged with a crime and lets many more go than it should and yet removes all benefit if doubt about the presence of life in the womb and forensically judges it tissue - no more than a tumor to be removed. Its inhuman butchery and hedonism and there is to be a massive price to pay for this that everyone of us will have to suffer.

God help us.

James

 

[Wowbagger]

If this is true, objectively, why then didn’t the USCCB come out and say so in FC?

The bishops said it themselves in paragraph 7: it’s not their place to make statements about specific elections in specific contexts, to endorse and oppose candidates. Indeed, it would exceed the competency of an episcopal conference (although it can [and sometimes is] exercised by local ordinaries to say, “No Catholic can vote for this particular man,” or, “No Catholic can support this particular war,” or “No Catholic can support the secondary draft text of section three of House Bill 1701.” Even if they did do such a thing for some crazy reason, the teachings of the bishops in specific contexts are always fallible, and become increasingly fallible as specificity increases.

In short, it was impossible for them to do so, by the nature of the conference and the powers of the Magisterium.

However, the bishops did put into your hands all the tools of universal moral principles taught by the Church in forming a conscience and casting a vote with a clear Catholic conscience. That’s as much as they can do. But it is also all that they need to do. See, once you accept the words of Faithful Citizenship as being even reasonably authoritative, and you understand what it says about “formal cooperation” and “prudential judgement” it is logically impossible (as I believe I demonstrated fairly well earlier) to conclude that a vote for a pro-abortion rights candidate in this country, at this time, in this context (and, honestly, 99% of other contexts) could possibly be anything but obstinate cooperation in evil and a sin.

So, all the (justifiable) emotional outrage and (justifiable) appeals to “inhuman butchery” that have been made in this thread aside, the logic of Catholic principles compels us to either not vote, or vote against pro-abortion candidates in this country in this context at this time.

If you see another path through the principles that comes out at another conclusion, I’d be grateful to hear it.

 

[simon_op]

On topic:

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090328/ap_on_re/rel_obama_and_notre_dame_2

From the article:
"The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions."

 

[jkarp]

Correction: SOME bishops have stated. And that’s their personal opinion which they are entitled to and which should be listened to respectfully.

The US Bishops, as a conference, all of them together, approved their teaching which does not say politicians like Obama cannot be supported. It does lay out the principles upon which Catholics should exercise their roles in the political life of the country.

That teaching is available on their web site faithfulcitizenship.org/

I’d encourage anyone who thinks the Church says that someone could not in good conscience have voted for Obama to read and understand that.

Nope, you are flat out wrong on this one (please direct your attention to the fourth bullet point):
[usccb.org/bishops/catholics(name removed by moderator)oliticallife.shtml](http://www.usccb.org/bishops/catholics(name removed by moderator)oliticallife.shtml)

You claim that it is a small group of bishops who say this, however the truth is that the Roman Catholic Bishops of the United States (as a whole) state very clearly that this sort of action is contrary to Catholic teaching and as such, is, openly defiant.

 

[diggerdomer]

Nope, you are flat out wrong on this one (please direct your attention to the fourth bullet point):
[usccb.org/bishops/catholics(name removed by moderator)oliticallife.shtml](http://www.usccb.org/bishops/catholics(name removed by moderator)oliticallife.shtml)

You claim that it is a small group of bishops who say this, however the truth is that the Roman Catholic Bishops of the United States (as a whole) state very clearly that this sort of action is contrary to Catholic teaching and as such, is, openly defiant.

Your previous post stated “The bishops have stated (as was previously posted to this thread) that supporting politicians like Obama is not to be permitted;”

I said that is not true, that “the bishops” did not state what you claim, but “some bishops” did. I’ve referred to the USCCB teaching in Faithful Citizenship (including the other teaching on its website, including the 2004 letter), and I’ve found nowhere that “the bishops” say supporting politicians “like Obama” is not to be permitted.

Please, help me see what I’m missing in those or any teaching from “the bishops” (not individual bishops, I’m well aware that individual bishops have further opinions on the matter than what the entire conference agreed on) as your original statement claimed.

To me it’s obvious that the bullet point in the 2004 letter is open to interpretation, of whether having the President of the U.S. give a commencement address and receive the typical honorary degree that goes with that is necessarily construed as a statement that the University is supporting all that person’s politics. I think it’s obviously not the case, I can’t believe there’s anyone in the world who thinks ND inviting the President to speak means the Catholic Church is anything but anti-abortion. Eishenhower, Carter, Reagan, and both Bushes gave commencement addresses at ND as President–none of them strike me as having done anything to fight abortion.

You and many others construe ND has violating the intent of that bullet point. That’s fine with me.