Papal nuncio: Catholic division undermines religious freedom

[_Abyssinia]

It’s not that simple.

I don’t support the Democrats because of (c.f. Ratzinger’s comment below) their stances with respect to intrinsic evil. No Catholic here does.

Since you bring up Pope Benedict XVI, I’ll be happy to bring him up too. You will not mind me re-quoting him from the time when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

"[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of

the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]"

Link:
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

And no, Ratzinger does not define proportionate reasons. Yet the USCCB voting guide contains the following paragraphs that are in line with Ratzinger and that further shed light on the issue:

"34. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

“35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.”

---

Note that “other morally grave reasons” contains the word “other” – obviously other than abortion etc. There is no twisting of words that will change that.

Bishop Gracida

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6159

Since abortion and euthanasia have been defined by the Church as the most serious sins prevalent in our society, what kind of reasons could possibly be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion? None of the reasons commonly suggested could even begin to be proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for such a candidate. Reasons such as the candidate’s position on war, or taxes, or the death penalty, or immigration, or a national health plan, or social security, or AIDS, or homosexuality, or marriage, or any similar burning societal issues of our time are simply lacking in proportionality.

There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life. That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not.

My emphases

Other Bishops and Priests have described what are and are not proportionate reasons. Issues such as a health care, immgiration, national security, welfare, social security, medicare etc. are not singularly or in combination reasons to vote for a pro abortion candidate

Pope Benedict said protecting life from conception to natural death is a’ non negotiable’ among others to be of principal focus for Christians in politics

You think you have proportionate reason(s) to vote for pro abortion candidates. What is it?

 

[Al_Moritz]

Bishop Gracida

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6159

My emphases

Other Bishops and Priests have described what are and are not proportionate reasons. Issues such as a health care, immgiration, national security, welfare, social security, medicare etc. are not singularly or in combination reasons to vote for a pro abortion candidate

Pope Benedict said protecting life from conception to natural death is a’ non negotiable’ among others to be of principal focus for Christians in politics

Response:

---

Note that “other morally grave reasons” contains the word “other” – obviously other than abortion etc. There is no twisting of words that will change that.

 

[BrigidofKildare]

“There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible** only for truly grave moral reasons**, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.”

Note that “other morally grave reasons” contains the word “other” – obviously other than abortion etc. There is no twisting of words that will change that. "

My question is what in the world could you hold as “truly grave moral reasons” which would be more important than the moral issues of abortion and euthansia? If we don’t stand against these moral evils, the rest won’t matter.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Response:

What do you think is a morally grave enough reason that is more grave than the abortion stance, to vote for a pro abortion candidate?

 

[_Abyssinia]

“There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible** only for truly grave moral reasons**, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.”

Note that “other morally grave reasons” contains the word “other” – obviously other than abortion etc. There is no twisting of words that will change that. "

My question is what in the world could you hold as “truly grave moral reasons” which would be more important than the moral issues of abortion and euthansia? If we don’t stand against these moral evils, the rest won’t matter.

Which is my question. Because non of the reasons cited by the Bishops in my above post are proportionate reasons, so what would be a morally grave reason that would be as grave or more grave than abortion which kills over a 1 million a year and more internationally funded with money that pro abortion candiates give the UN and other internatonal pro abortion groups because of rejection of the Mexico city policy

 

[Mickey]

Pope Benedict said protecting life from conception to natural death is a’ non negotiable’ among others to be of principal focus for Christians in politics

Correct. There are no other issues that rise to the level of intrinsic evil that we see in Obama’s support for abortion on demand and infanticide.

You think you have proportionate reason(s) to vote for pro abortion candidates. What is it?

He will not be able to answer because there are no such “proportionate” reasons.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Which is my question. Because non of the reasons cited by the Bishops in my above post are proportionate reasons, so what would be a morally grave reason that would be as grave or more grave than abortion which kills over a 1 million a year and more internationally funded with money that pro abortion candiates give the UN and other internatonal pro abortion groups because of rejection of the Mexico city policy

Why doesn’t the Church speak clearly so there would be no mistaking a specific teaching? The language is vague, and was considered such as to cause an assembly of Bishops to revisit the language of the Faithful Citizenship prior to this election. It was released unchanged. Are all Catholics intellectually equal and then equally accountable?

 

[Mickey]

Why doesn’t the Church speak clearly so there would be no mistaking a specific teaching?

It is very clear. Abortion is an intrinsic evil. There is nothing greater than or equal to this evil…there is nothing proportionate to this evil. Why can’t you see this?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Why doesn’t the Church speak clearly so there would be no mistaking a specific teaching? The language is vague, and was considered such as to cause an assembly of Bishops to revisit the language of the Faithful Citizenship prior to this election. It was released unchanged. Are all Catholics intellectually equal and then equally accountable?

These Bishops address paragraphs in Faithful Citizenship that Al Moritz highlighted

Joint Statement from Bishop Kevin Farrell and Bishop Kevin Vann

1. Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, in paragraphs 34-37, addresses the question of whether it is morally permissible for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil — even when the voter does not agree with the candidate’s position on that evil. The only moral possibilities for a Catholic to be able to vote in good conscience for a candidate who supports this intrinsic evil are the following:

a. If both candidates running for office support abortion or “abortion rights,” a Catholic would be forced to then look at the other important issues and through their vote try to limit the evil done; or,

b. If another intrinsic evil outweighs the evil of abortion. While this is sound moral reasoning, there are no “truly grave moral” or `proportionate " reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year.

To vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion or “abortion rights” when there is a morally acceptable alternative would be to cooperate in the evil — and, therefore, morally impermissible.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It is very clear. Abortion is an intrinsic evil. There is nothing greater than or equal to this evil…there is nothing proportionate to this evil. Why can’t you see this?

If nothing is proportionate why was it even mentioned? It was not so clear for millions of Catholics.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

These Bishops address paragraph 35 in Faithful Citizenship that Al Mortitz highlighted

Joint Statement from Bishop Kevin Farrell and Bishop Kevin Vann

Not every bishop stated the same view. We have over 170 Bishops in the US, how many spoke out?

The very language of the Faithful Citizenship was considered vague after the last election, causing an assembly of Bishops to review the language prior to this election. It was released, unchanged.

What other teaching is as vague, and open to different interpretations, as this document?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Not every bishop stated the same view. We have over 170 Bishops in the US, how many spoke out?

The very language of the Faithful Citizenship was considered vague after the last election, causing an assembly of Bishops to review the language prior to this election. It was released, unchanged.

What other teaching is as vague, and open to different interpretations, as this document?

What Bishops stated a different view than Bishop Farrell and Bishop Vann?

Apparently dozens of individual Bishops have issued clarifications on Faithful citizenship

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What other Bishops stated a different view than Bishop Farrell and Bishop Vann?

Bishop Lennon

The Faithful Citizenship presentations are based directly on the statement of the Catholic Bishops of the United States in their most recent version of the Faithful Citizenship document from October 2011. The Bishops’ statement is quoted extensively throughout the course of the presentation, including the portions of the Bishops’ statement that clearly indicate that intrinsic evils, such as abortion, must always be opposed and that a Catholic can never in good conscience vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil if it is the voter’s intent to support that position.

Bishop Lennon noted, “There is no evidence that the Faithful Citizenship presentations are biased, but reflect the straightforward teachings of the United States Bishops and the Catholic Church on how an individual’s faith relates to his voting choices. This issue has been grossly distorted by a few individuals who wrongly claim to represent the entire Right to Life movement and whose purpose is not to shed light on authentic Catholic teaching but to remake and narrow the scope of Catholic teaching to fit their own personal agenda.” Bishop Lennon also noted that it is very telling that the detractors have given no specific example of any statement made at the forums that is contrary to Church beliefs and teaching.

Why was the document released, unchanged?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Apparently dozens of individual Bishops have issued clarifications on Faithful citizenship

We are Catholics. We cannot find a clergy that agrees with our own view. That’s not the way it works. We need one teaching, from the Church as a whole, and not ‘dozens’ out of over 170 Bishops.

Not all are intellectually equal and some require a more clear and direct instruction. That did not happen.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have to go, but had another thought.

If an assembly of Bishops meets to discuss something of debate, do they vote before reaching a conclusion. For example, if they met because this voter’s guide was considered vague by some, would they have voted to change the language, or to let it remain the same? If so, doesn’t it suggest a majority thought the language was as it should be?

Even considering ‘dozens’, it doesn’t represent a majority.

I’m not arguing for any other than a clear spoken instruction from the Church as a whole.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

This thread deals with the statement of Papal nuncio Archbishop Vigano, the Pope’s official representative to America. Archbishop Vigano was not vague in the least when he “lamented” American Catholics who aligned themselves with the Party supporting “intrinsic evils”. Nothing vague. Any conflicting statements by American bishops or priests - and I have yet to see specific examples from liberal proponents - must fall in view of the Vatican’s position, so clearly articulated by Archbishop Vigano.

The sound of crickets chirping has grown louder … still waiting for liberal CA posters to challenge the substance or authority of the Papal nuncio’s statements.

 

[Mickey]

If nothing is proportionate why was it even mentioned?

Uhhh…because there are other moral issues that can be compared according to proportionate reasons…but not abortion. Abortion is the intrinsic evil above all evil. It is the murder of the innocent child in the womb. You are Catholic and you do not know this?

It was not so clear for millions of Catholics.

Perhaps these “millions of Catholics” did not want it to be so clear?

We must have the eyes to see…and the ears to hear.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Uhhh…because there are other moral issues that can be compared according to proportionate reasons…but not abortion. Abortion is the intrinsic evil above all evil. It is the murder of the innocent child in the womb. You are Catholic and you do not know this?

See:

Yet the USCCB voting guide contains the following paragraphs that are in line with Ratzinger and that further shed light on the issue:

"34. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

“35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.”

---

Note that “other morally grave reasons” contains the word “other” – obviously other than abortion etc. There is no twisting of words that will change that.

What part of OTHER do you not understand?

As for what I view as other grave moral reasons and proportionate reasons, I will reply later when I have more time.

 

[_Abyssinia]

We are Catholics. We cannot find a clergy that agrees with our own view. That’s not the way it works. We need one teaching, from the Church as a whole, and not ‘dozens’ out of over 170 Bishops.

Not all are intellectually equal and some require a more clear and direct instruction. That did not happen.

Bishop Lennon also said

“A good number of people have asked me to reprint that column in which I explained the heart and meaning of the bishops’ Faithful Citizenship document.” “I am concerned about many things that are being said about the teaching,” he said. “I realize [people] are confused in light of what is being said by certain people. For example, we hear from some that the issues and concerns raised in Faithful Citizenship are all equally important as they all impact human life. This is not at all what Faithful Citizenship taught”

“To suggest that all issues are of equal value is not what the bishops have taught, nor what the Catholic Church has taught and continues to teach… Certainly, abortion and euthanasia, direct attacks on human life, stand out as intrinsically evil actions…they must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned”

Bishop Joseph Martino said

No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese. The USCCB doesn’t speak for me

Diocese released statement which said Bishop Martino was ‘concerned because of the confusion and public misrepresentations about Catholic teaching on the life issues’

‘Certain groups and individuals have used their own erroneous interpretations of Church documents, particularly the U.S. Bishops’ statement on Faithful Citizenship, to justify their political positions and to contradict the Church’s actual teaching on the centrality of abortion, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research,’ the statement said

Vatican prelate Archbishop Raymond Burke said Faithful Citizenship is party to blame for the election of the ‘most pro abortion president’ in US history. He said Faithful citizenship ‘led to confusion’ among Catholics

Bishop Vasa who contributed to Faithful Citizenship document has rejected the spin that the document excuses people to vote for a pro abortion candidate

'When we were working on the document ‘Faithful Citizenship’, and the issue of whether or not a person’s adamant pro-abortion position was a disqualifying condition, the general sense was ‘yes that is a disqualifying condition’

Doubt you can think of another USSCB comment which has had so many Bishops have to clarify

 

[_Abyssinia]

See:

What part of OTHER do you not understand?

As for what I view as other grave moral reasons and proportionate reasons, I will reply later when I have more time.

You are using 2 paragraphs from a document which has been since been clarifed by many Bishops including Bishop Vasa who contributed to Fathful citizenship and said the genral consensus was that a pro abortion candidate was disqualified. Why not inform yourself with Vatican encyclicals and speeches from the Pope on voting and politics too?

I want to know what reasons you think are propionate and if they conflict with what the Bishops have said what proportionate reasons are