Papal nuncio: Catholic division undermines religious freedom

[Rence]

I didn’t say that everyone who voted for Obama is guilty of grave sin…

I didn’t say you did. Where did I say you did? Please let me remind you that we two are not the only ones participating in this thread

There are some, for example, who voted for him because they don’t know any English, and the only media source they have is Univision which totally promotes the Democrat candidate

And there are some English speaking voters who just believed his social programs were stronger and would do less damage than the other candidate, thereby addressing the sick, the elderly, the very young and the disabled in a better way than the other candidate could sell them. For some of us, it really was about whose plan would make things less of a mess than the other for our most vulnerable citizens. They’re both not the best of the best, and I think we all know that

 

[Rence]

That’s not true. The US government time and again defends Islam and no other religion.

I’m sorry, but I can’t think of any laws that compell me to obey a law of Islam, or deny me rights due to an Islamic law.

 

[ProVobis]

Are you suggesting that Catholics are too dumb to read what a party platform is? That Catholic voters are incapable of doing research on what a platform is.

There are/were no more than a handful of Republicans who followed their party platform to the letter. Or even campaigned on. I would have never voted for Ron Paul based on the Libertarian platform if the platform meant anything to me.

 

[livingwordunity]

And there are some English speaking voters who just believed his social programs were stronger and would do less damage than the other candidate, thereby addressing the sick, the elderly, the very young and the disabled in a better way than the other candidate could sell them. For some of us, it really was about whose plan would make things less of a mess than the other for our most vulnerable citizens. They’re both not the best of the best, and I think we all know that

The US bishops didn’t specifically say “don’t vote for Obama”. And the only reason for this is the tax free status the Church has. But the bishops did specifically tell us that we should fight against the HHS mandate with our votes. Putting two and two together, a vote for Obama is a vote for the HHS mandate which is the opposite of what the bishops told us we should do.

 

[Rence]

The US bishops didn’t specifically say “don’t vote for Obama”. And the only reason for this is the tax free status the Church has. But the bishops did specifically tell us that we should fight against the HHS mandate with our votes. Putting two and two together, a vote for Obama is a vote for the HHS mandate which is the opposite of what the bishops told us we should do.

Yes, they are not in favor of the HHS mandate, but they didn’t tell us to ignore all the other issues either. In fact, they made a list of issues to help guide the formation of our conscience. If nothing else mattered but the HHS mandate, or abortion or any other issue, then there wouldn’t be a whole list of other issues which were considered serious. And we wouldn’t have been directed to consider all those issues. There would just be those one or two issues, and that’s it. But we all know that’s not what happened. What happened is we got quite a lengthy guide which included many topics to consider.

 

[ProVobis]

There are some, for example, who voted for him because they don’t know any English, and the only media source they have is Univision which totally promotes the Democrat candidate.

I heard a caller to Rush Limbaugh mention that on the air today and thought to myself so why don’t they do Fox News in Spanish?

 

[_Abyssinia]

It doesn’t matter. The Church doesn’t dictate via exact script what Catholics are to do about many things. For example, using NFP for ‘grave’ or ‘serious’ reason is not scripted either. Everyone with a conscience knows that providing for those in need, particularly the young, the old, the sick and the disabled, is a huge component of protection of life and a major priorty, which puts the economy and healtcare front and center. The Church lists topics to consider when voting and says we are not one issue voters. That speaks volumes about what one should do and it’s as plain as day: consider all the issues when voting, and we are not one-issue voters. If we are not one issue voters, then candidates are not disqualified based on one issue all other factors considered.

It does matter because you have made the claim that health care and economy are proportionate reasons to vote for a pro abortion candidate and I see that nowhere based in Catholic teaching, nowhere from any statement made by the USSCB or by an individual Bishop or Priest or Pope. Your soul is in jeopardy when you vote, that is what Bishop David Ricken has said. Consider that each vote you make contributes to policy that has consequences for the unborn, for marriage etc. Your vote shapes society. Why risk your soul for partisanship? Catholic Church shows voting issues are vertical not horizonal with abortion always front and centre

Ensuring that our vulnerable citizens (the old, the sick, the young, the disabled) are cared for is a very basic component of respect for life, which makes issues regarding our economy and healthcare very important.

If a candidate can not respect the right of life at the beginning of life then how you can expect that candidate to respect any other vulnerable citizen?

 

[NeedsMercy]

What the Papal Nuncio actually said

I was suspicious about the report by the National Catholic Register (NCR), since it did not directly quote the entire sentence whose meaning has been the central point of discussion on this thread. I do not think that the NCR intentionally would misrepresent views, but precise words do matter.

I was therefore not satisfied with the statement by the NCR:

He lamented the fact that many Catholics are publicly supporting “a major political party” that has “intrinsic evils among its basic principles.”

Thus I decided to find out firsthand what Archbishop Vigano, the Papal Nucio, actually had said. I found the video of his speech,

youtube.com/watch?v=-LAHbc3NAAU

and around 1 hour and 2 min he makes his statement:

We are still a far cry from fully embracing the Holy Father’s encouraging exhortation, when we witness in an unprecedented way a platform being assumed by a major political party, having intrinsic evil among its basic principles, and Catholic faithful publicly supporting it. There is a divisive strategy at work here, an intentional dividing of the Church. Through this strategy the body of the Church is weakened, and thus the Church can be more easily persecuted.

There is a crucial difference with the report of the NCR. From the construction of the sentence it is obvious that the “it” in “Catholic faithful publicly supporting it” refers to “platform”. So Vigano does not lament the fact that Catholics support the Democratic Party, as the NCR report suggested, but he lamented that some Catholics support the (entire) platform of the Democratic Party with its intrinsic evils, i.e. that some support abortion etc. (by the way, with “Catholic faithful publicly supporting it” the Papal Nuncio presumably referred to the Catholic public officials who do so, e.g. Biden, Sebelius, Pelosi etc.).

Of course, as a Catholic you cannot support abortion – in that the Archbishop only stated the obvious! Yet many Catholics vote Democratic without supporting abortion, and no Catholic here who voted Obama supports abortion. You can support a party for other reasons than supporting intrinsic evil in their platform, just like you can support a pro-choice candidate for other reasons than supporting his pro-choice position.

The latter is exactly what the Pope said 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.]"

That is also exactly what the USCCB document Faithful Citizenship says:

“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.”

(Again, note that "“other morally grave reasons” contains the word “other” – obviously other than abortion etc.)

Precise words matter. And the precise words that the Papal Nuncio spoke are in no contradiction whatsoever with the words of Cardinal Ratzinger (the current Pope) and the USCCB guide Faithful Citizenship. The words that the NCR put into the Papal Nuncio’s mouth might have been interpreted by some (and it has been done here) to contradict these documents or to force a more concrete interpretation towards not being able to vote Democratic at all, yet the actual words that the Papal Nuncio spoke do not support that idea.

Gee, that would make it a “sin of omission”, wouldn’t it?

 

[Mickey]

Your soul is in jeopardy when you vote, that is what Bishop David Ricken has said. Consider that each vote you make contributes to policy that has consequences for the unborn, for marriage etc. Your vote shapes society. Why risk your soul for partisanship? Catholic Church shows voting issues are vertical not horizonal with abortion always front and centre

If a candidate can not respect the right of life at the beginning of life then how you can expect that candidate to respect any other vulnerable citizen?

You are correct. There are no proportionate reasons that are equal to or greater than abortion.

I voted against the candiate of abortion on demand.
I voted against the candidate of infanticide.
I voted against the candidate who is forcing the contraception mandate down the throat of the Catholic Church.
I voted against the candidate who supports gay “marriage.”
I voted against the candidate who champions Planned Parenthood.
I voted against the candidate whose platform attempted to remove God.
I voted against the party of intrinsic evil (according to the Papal Nuncio).

The man I opposed won the election. But there is one thing that lightens my soul. When I die and stand before the fearsome judgment seat of Christ…I will have to answer for many sins in my life…but I will not have to give a reason as to why I supported intrinsic evil in the 2012 election.

Lord have mercy.

 

[NeedsMercy]

Once again we’re getting confused between condemning a person and his/her actions. The Archbishop is talking about actions.

Sorry, but I am not confused at all. The condemnation was expressed in a post which implied a connection between Obama-voters and satanism. It was seconded in a post which stated that the Archbishop was indeed “demonizing” such voters. I was never given an explanation for either.

 

[livingwordunity]

It does matter because you have made the claim that health care and economy are proportionate reasons to vote for a pro abortion candidate and I see that nowhere based in Catholic teaching, nowhere from any statement made by the USSCB or by an individual Bishop or Priest or Pope. Your soul is in jeopardy when you vote, that is what Bishop David Ricken has said. Consider that each vote you make contributes to policy that has consequences for the unborn, for marriage etc. Your vote shapes society. Why risk your soul for partisanship? Catholic Church shows voting issues are vertical not horizonal with abortion always front and centre

If a candidate can not respect the right of life at the beginning of life then how you can expect that candidate to respect any other vulnerable citizen?

 

[livingwordunity]

Sorry, but I am not confused at all. The condemnation was expressed in a post which implied a connection between Obama-voters and satanism. It was seconded in a post which stated that the Archbishop was indeed “demonizing” such voters. I was never given an explanation for either.

Obama did get 100% of the Satanist, atheist, and hedonist vote. He got the official endorsement of all of these groups and was fully endorsed by the porn industry as well.

 

[ProVobis]

Obama did get 100% of the Satanist, atheist, and hedonist vote. He got the official endorsement of all of these groups and was fully endorsed by the porn industry as well.

Maybe not. Some health department officials are mandating that porn stars wear condoms.

 

[NeedsMercy]

What the Papal Nuncio actually said

I was suspicious about the report by the National Catholic Register (NCR), since it did not directly quote the entire sentence whose meaning has been the central point of discussion on this thread. I do not think that the NCR intentionally would misrepresent views, but precise words do matter.

I was therefore not satisfied with the statement by the NCR:

He lamented the fact that many Catholics are publicly supporting “a major political party” that has “intrinsic evils among its basic principles.”

Thus I decided to find out firsthand what Archbishop Vigano, the Papal Nucio, actually had said. I found the video of his speech,

youtube.com/watch?v=-LAHbc3NAAU

and around 1 hour and 2 min he makes his statement:

We are still a far cry from fully embracing the Holy Father’s encouraging exhortation, when we witness in an unprecedented way a platform being assumed by a major political party, having intrinsic evil among its basic principles, and Catholic faithful publicly supporting it. There is a divisive strategy at work here, an intentional dividing of the Church. Through this strategy the body of the Church is weakened, and thus the Church can be more easily persecuted.

There is a crucial difference with the report of the NCR. From the construction of the sentence it is obvious that the “it” in “Catholic faithful publicly supporting it” refers to “platform”. So Vigano does not lament the fact that Catholics support the Democratic Party, as the NCR report suggested, but he lamented that some Catholics support the (entire) platform of the Democratic Party with its intrinsic evils, i.e. that some support abortion etc. (by the way, with “Catholic faithful publicly supporting it” the Papal Nuncio presumably referred to the Catholic public officials who do so, e.g. Biden, Sebelius, Pelosi etc.).

Of course, as a Catholic you cannot support abortion – in that the Archbishop only stated the obvious! Yet many Catholics vote Democratic without supporting abortion, and no Catholic here who voted Obama supports abortion. You can support a party for other reasons than supporting intrinsic evil in their platform, just like you can support a pro-choice candidate for other reasons than supporting his pro-choice position.

The latter is exactly what the Pope said 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.]"

That is also exactly what the USCCB document Faithful Citizenship says:

“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.”

(Again, note that "“other morally grave reasons” contains the word “other” – obviously other than abortion etc.)

Precise words matter. And the precise words that the Papal Nuncio spoke are in no contradiction whatsoever with the words of Cardinal Ratzinger (the current Pope) and the USCCB guide Faithful Citizenship. The words that the NCR put into the Papal Nuncio’s mouth might have been interpreted by some (and it has been done here) to contradict these documents or to force a more concrete interpretation towards not being able to vote Democratic at all, yet the actual words that the Papal Nuncio spoke do not support that idea.

I really don’t know how much more succinct Al has to be. I think his post is the most satisfactory response to “What the Papal Nuncio **actually ** said”. To state emphatically that the Archbishop said something other by cutting out a few, albeit critical, words is what? A “sin of omission”?

 

[Pitcharan]

I really don’t know how much more succinct Al has to be. I think his post is the most satisfactory response to “What the Papal Nuncio **actually ** said”. To state emphatically that the Archbishop said something other by cutting out a few, albeit critical, words is what? A “sin of omission”?

It is impossible to convince people who never accept correction.

 

[NeedsMercy]

Thanks a ton for that post; great job!

I am sure many Catholics out here will feel relieved that indeed they are not guilty in any way.

All the needless confusion could have been avoided if only verbatim quoting was followed. Now there is room for speculation if it was intentional.

Exactly!

 

[Rence]

It does matter because you have made the claim that health care and economy are proportionate reasons to vote for a pro abortion candidate and I see that nowhere based in Catholic teaching, nowhere from any statement made by the USSCB or by an individual Bishop or Priest or Pope.

I suggest you read the document put out by the Bishops in its entirety, that way ou can see the issues all together. Then it will make more sense to you. Again, The Church doesn’t dictate via exact script what Catholics are to do about many things. For example, using NFP for ‘grave’ or ‘serious’ reason is not scripted either. Everyone with a conscience knows that providing for those in need, particularly the young, the old, the sick and the disabled, is a huge component of protection of life and a major priorty, which puts the economy and healtcare front and center. The Church lists topics to consider when voting and says we are not one issue voters. That speaks volumes about what one should do and it’s as plain as day: consider all the issues when voting, and we are not one-issue voters. If we are not one issue voters, then candidates are not disqualified based on one issue all other factors considered.

Your soul is in jeopardy when you vote, that is what Bishop David Ricken has said. Consider that each vote you make contributes to policy that has consequences for the unborn, for marriage etc. Your vote shapes society. Why risk your soul for partisanship? Catholic Church shows voting issues are vertical not horizonal with abortion always front and centre

Yes, that’s what I’ve been saying: Our vote has consequences for everyone, not just the unborn or for marriage.

If a candidate can not respect the right of life at the beginning of life then how you can expect that candidate to respect any other vulnerable citizen?

Because, as I’ve said before, there is more to life than just being born. Society’s responsibility doesn’t just end with birth. There is a responsibility to provide for those who cannot otherwise provide for themselves. Getting them through birth doesn’t suffice. It’s only the beginning.

 

[Rence]

Sorry, but I am not confused at all. The condemnation was expressed in a post which implied a connection between Obama-voters and satanism. It was seconded in a post which stated that the Archbishop was indeed “demonizing” such voters. I was never given an explanation for either.

Because it’s a bogus claim. There is no correlation between Obama-voters and Satanism.

 

[livingwordunity]

I really don’t know how much more succinct Al has to be. I think his post is the most satisfactory response to “What the Papal Nuncio **actually ** said”. To state emphatically that the Archbishop said something other by cutting out a few, albeit critical, words is what? A “sin of omission”?

I was there when the Papal Nuncio gave us a message from the Pope during the Fortnight for Freedom at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. And he made it very clear that the Pope was standing with the US bishops in condemning Obama’s HHS mandate.

 

[NeedsMercy]

I was there when the Papal Nuncio gave us a message from the Pope during the Fortnight for Freedom at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. And he made it very clear that the Pope was standing with the US bishops in condemning Obama’s HHS mandate.

The HHS mandate is not at issue in my post. Nor in this thread.