Pastoral Letter to the Conservatives?

[LeafByNiggle]

Um, how so? You’re the one who posited that you want to reconcile what is meant by fighting abortion and the causes related to it in a manner which Holy Mother Church would approve of. That, coupled with your answer, implies admission of doing something. Thus, you are claiming a work for the Faith. Implication: you are faithful, and thus, have faith. Where is this work of which you boast for your faith? Where is your public witness in the matter? What light are you bringing into the darkness of the world?

As a Christian seeking to better my own walk, and support others’ where and when I can, I for one would like to hear of your method so I may either apply it through the filter of my moral conscience, or otherwise support your effort for the glorification of Our Lord, Jesus Christ in whatever way I can in through the same filter.

That said, if it involves being a possible hit on a swipe for explosives residue, just keep pleadin’ da fif.

First, it was a rude question. You don’t ask someone to give a detailed accounting of their charitable donations, do you? Second, let us say, for sake of argument, that I do absolutely nothing currently and am inquiring what the Church teaches so that I may know what the Church asks of me. Must I release 10 years of my tax returns before I am allowed to engage in a debate on the issues?

 

[dmelosi]

First, it was a rude question. You don’t ask someone to give a detailed accounting of their charitable donations, do you? Second, let us say, for sake of argument, that I do absolutely nothing currently and am inquiring what the Church teaches so that I may know what the Church asks of me. Must I release 10 years of my tax returns before I am allowed to engage in a debate on the issues?

How was it rude? I didn’t ask for a detailed accounting nor tax returns. For the sake of debate, it is always good to know the other person’s thought process. Are you against abortion? Do you believe abortion is killing a human being? I can’t see how in any way it was a rude question.

Many democrats married to their party over church simply call it an issue to try to ease their own conscience. I am trying to see where you are coming from and if you want others to do your work or if you walk the talk.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

How was it rude? I didn’t ask for a detailed accounting nor tax returns. For the sake of debate, it is always good to know the other person’s thought process. Are you against abortion? Do you believe abortion is killing a human being? I can’t see how in any way it was a rude question…

If you can’t answer the question of how the Church’s teaching narrowly constrains our response to intrinsic evil then just say so rather than subjecting the one who asked the question to the third degree. I explained my thought processes in the second paragraph in post #34.

 

[dmelosi]

If you can’t answer the question of how the Church’s teaching narrowly constrains our response to intrinsic evil then just say so rather than subjecting the one who asked the question to the third degree.

I am sorry that I asked you a question that made you uncomfortable.

God gave each of us individual talents and we are to use those talents as the best of our ability. This includes fighting intrinsic evil.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I am sorry that I asked you a question that made you uncomfortable.

God gave each of us individual talents and we are to use those talents as the best of our ability. This includes fighting intrinsic evil.

OK, but can’t the same be said of feeding the hungry? I was trying to explore what Ender meant in the 3rd paragraph of post #17.

 

[dmelosi]

OK, but can’t the same be said of feeding the hungry? I was trying to explore what Ender meant in the 3rd paragraph of post #17.

Of course the same can be said about feeding the hungry. You and I individually have that moral obligation.

The point I take out of his post is that by promoting and helping to elect an official who is openly pro abortion is participating in that intrinsic evil. I believe that to be true, unless perhaps that person is fighting to change their party’s staunch pro death stand.

That is why I asked you the question in the first place.

 

[estesbob]

Of course the same can be said about feeding the hungry. You and I individually have that moral obligation.

The point I take out of his post is that by promoting and helping to elect an official who is openly pro abortion is participating in that intrinsic evil. I believe that to be true, unless perhaps that person is fighting to change their party’s staunch pro death stand.

That is why I asked you the question in the first place.

The problem is too many Catholics beleive they can fullfill their obligation to feed the poor by voting for someone who promises to take other peoples money and use it to feed the poor.

 

[dmelosi]

The problem is too many Catholics beleive they can fullfill their obligation to feed the poor by voting for someone who promises to take other peoples money and use it to feed the poor.

Which is usually an excuse for them to ease their own conscience because they are married to their party over church. I am sure there are some that fight their own party on the party’s pro death stance, but I have to believe that if every or even many Catholics would help fight for the most innocent, the pro death party stance would change.

 

[Ender]

I agree with your main point. What I don’t get is what you are saying about the exception of 5 intrinsic evils. On one hand you said that the Church narrowly defines what our response to 5 intrinsic evils must be, but then when I give an example of a possible response to the evil of abortion (namely, attending a march for life) you say that our participation is a prudential judgement. So I don’t see how you are treating the intrinsic evil of abortion any differently than the need to feed the hungry - insofar as what our response must be.

The fact that some responses are forbidden doesn’t mean that all responses are defined. The difference between those issues that involve intrinsic evil and those that don’t is that, for the former, some positions are disallowed. We may be for or against a blanket amnesty for illegals but not for or against laws permitting abortion. We may support or oppose nationalized or private health care, amnesty or deportation, raising or lowering taxes, etc, but we may not support laws supporting abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, ESCR, or gay “marriage”.

What this means, contra the assertion of the OP, is that there is nothing that could be said in a pastoral letter to conservatives about any political position they take since there is no position that is contrary to Church teaching.

My understanding of the concept of intrinsic evil is that it is something that can never under any circumstances be excused because it is evil by its very nature. But that is a long way from saying that our response to that evil is narrowly proscribed.

True, nor have I made such a claim. What I said was that certain positions are proscribed only for a very few issues (those involving intrinsic evil). As it happens, liberals are on the wrong side of every one and conservatives are on the (morally) wrong side of none. This does not mean that liberal positions on all other issues might not lead to the best results, it only means that no conservative position is inherently evil.

I am not allowed to believe that abortion is sometimes OK, but I am allowed to exercise my own judgement as to exactly how I am going to combat abortion.

True - up to the point of actually supporting laws allowing abortion. That option is not available to you.

Ender

 

[Ender]

davidmlamb:
I will be bold enough to say that conservatism as it has evolved in today is an evil spirit desguised as an angel of light and is a diabolical seduction of the soul. Well then you should be able to easily identify a particular conservative position that you find evil. Name one and identify the Church teaching it violates.

Ender

 

[jonbhorton]

First, it was a rude question. You don’t ask someone to give a detailed accounting of their charitable donations, do you? Second, let us say, for sake of argument, that I do absolutely nothing currently and am inquiring what the Church teaches so that I may know what the Church asks of me. Must I release 10 years of my tax returns before I am allowed to engage in a debate on the issues?

First, it wasn’t a rude question, it was a question which you perceived as rude when basically no one else did. This leads me to believe you are defensive on the issue, which calls into question why you are defensive.

Secondly, you stated: “I am not allowed to believe that abortion is sometimes OK, but I am allowed to exercise my own judgement as to exactly how I am going to combat abortion.”
You did two things: 1) you put forth attending a March For Life as a possible thing to do. Well and good, and I disagree with Ender on the nature of that judgement call not being morally filtered, as evident in my position earlier in the thread wherein I don’t disagree with Ender’s intent, so much as the way he explained it. 2) By putting forth a solution, you are insinuating you are, again, taking some sort of action or intend to, and possibly have that action defined or in the process. All that was being asked was “how” and really, “what”. The “why” is already known. The “who” is you. The “where” is irrelevant outside of limitations of civil concern (such as don’t park in the private parking lot, thus trespassing, for your giant prayer vigil in front of Planned Parenthood)

If you wanted to merely reconcile what is being taught by the Church, and thus allowable, your own judgement is only going to work within the limits of what the Church allows, condones, or officially provides as an outlet of combating said intrinsic evil.

I could care less about your $ amount donations to charity, and I certainly don’t wish to see what amount of tax money you gave to the government to continue under-the-table support of the murder industry aka abortion.

 

[DLG123]

Perhaps you should learn the Church’s teachings on these things before telling us conservatives what the Church teaches, particularly on random issues which are arguable in implementation. Allow me to put pennies on your liberal train tracks:

Labor Unions

One example for the Labor Unions in the positive? That’s it? Do you realize the labor union in Poland was trying to fix what the labor union model created in the first place? Do you even know the history of unions and how far off track they’ve gotten? How the issues and criteria which brought them about are basically irrelevant now? How they are more of a problem than the entire reason for them?

Here’s a great primer from a first-person source who knows about Labor Unions:

shakedownsocialism.com/
**
the Minimum Wage (aka, Just Wage):**

Look up Milton Friedman and Dr. Thomas Sowell on minimum wages. A ‘just wage’ is not minimum, it’s just, as in contains elements of justice, as in, the man ain’t being robbed blind by his employer. As for the need for minimum wage, particularly increased minimum wage, well, blame the liberal policies in place which drive up employer cost to start and thus has to put that cost onto the market’s back.

Global Government

I’ll take stupidity for 1000, Alex. Daily Double!? Wow!? Global Government… “What is a bad idea?”. Yayyyyy, I won.

Social Medical Insurance

When paying for abortion/contraception ain’t on the docket, we’ll talk. Here’s my answer: no. I ain’t paying for anyone’s medical cost because they wanted to eat McDonalds and Taco Bell while watching American Idol 9 years+.

It’s called community support. Do what ya can, and the community picks up the rest- because they want to, not because they’re forced.
**
the Death Penalty**

What about it? It’s like pulling teeth to execute serial killers convicted with video and DNA evidence. Unless you’re in Texas. Baptists know what it seems Catholics forgot- if you’re gonna kill the SOB, kill him. Don’t just torture him with random stays and delays. It ain’t like people are being executed for stealing candy bars. The Death Penalty is not easily won for a prosecutor, and when it is, it’s fought tooth and nail up til the time Junior gets zapped.

sometimes the Just War theory

What about it? Aside from “serious prospects of success”, which was arguable from a historical-religious point of view, where have we Americans erred in our wars? At an institutional level we’ve killed more of our own than theirs, and their majority dead are from their neighbors’ bombs and bullets. Come at us when you have something other than feelings and unicorn farts.

Here comes the pitch… He swings… Its a HIGH FLY BALL ITS GOING, GOING, GOING, GONE… JONBHORTON JUST HIT A GRAND SLAM…:clapping:

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Secondly, you stated: “I am not allowed to believe that abortion is sometimes OK, but I am allowed to exercise my own judgement as to exactly how I am going to combat abortion.”
You did two things: 1) you put forth attending a March For Life as a possible thing to do. Well and good, and I disagree with Ender on the nature of that judgement call not being morally filtered, as evident in my position earlier in the thread wherein I don’t disagree with Ender’s intent, so much as the way he explained it. 2) By putting forth a solution, you are insinuating you are, again, taking some sort of action or intend to, and possibly have that action defined or in the process.

I was merely restating Church teaching on what “intrinsic evil” is to check and see if I am understanding it correctly, and apparently I was. That is all. But it is also apparent to me that you wish to shift the debate away from what Church teaching is and toward whether I personally am living up to that teaching. And that I won’t let you do. I am not discussing my personal actions or intentions here. Any scenarios I used as examples were entirely hypothetical for the purpose of explanation.

If you wanted to merely reconcile what is being taught by the Church, and thus allowable, your own judgement is only going to work within the limits of what the Church allows, condones, or officially provides as an outlet of combating said intrinsic evil.

Exactly. So it only remains to examine what those limits are. Ender understood my question. I don’t know why you are having so much trouble.

 

[jonbhorton]

Exactly. So it only remains to examine what those limits are. Ender understood my question. I don’t know why you are having so much trouble.

I wasn’t addressing what you wrote to Ender or what Ender wrote to you. I was addressing what you wrote to username dmelosi in response to their question:

While, yes, I understand you were putting forth a question of examination of expectations and limits thereof, you were also implying that you intend, or are in some manner, engaging in fighting against abortion. You were hoping to reconcile the acceptable means for you to do so in light of the Church’s position overall, and what is acceptable, and what is unacceptable given the circumstances involved. Correct?

Dmelosi asked a simple question, and you got defensive. Why do I feel like I’m repeating myself?

While you were talking in the theoretical, you were also implying intended action on that theory, whether now or in the future.

I was having trouble understanding your reaction to dmelosi’s question in light of the moral imperative which, I hope, we can all agree is needing to be brought front and center on not only abortion, but also every other moral issue facing American Catholics.

I’m not having trouble understanding your question, nor do I have trouble writing that over and over and over until some phrasing of the concept clicks with you. Take another peek at the flow of the thread and you will understand what I am saying, hopefully.

No hard feelings, we are on the same side right?

 

[Ender]

Dmelosi asked a simple question, and you got defensive.

I joined this forum not quite eight years ago and over that time have given out virtually no personal information about myself and the reason for that is so that the discussions I engage in are about my ideas and not about me. Whether Leaf was defensive about that question isn’t important, nor could any response he might give be relevant. Either his position is valid or it isn’t and what he personally does or doesn’t do has no impact on that. This debate should be about ideas, not personalities. Leaf is a big boy and can take care of himself, I’m just unhappy to see the discussion go off on this particular tangent.

Ender

 

[jonbhorton]

I joined this forum not quite eight years ago and over that time have given out virtually no personal information about myself and the reason for that is so that the discussions I engage in are about my ideas and not about me. Whether Leaf was defensive about that question isn’t important, nor could any response he might give be relevant. Either his position is valid or it isn’t and what he personally does or doesn’t do has no impact on that. This debate should be about ideas, not personalities. Leaf is a big boy and can take care of himself, I’m just unhappy to see the discussion go off on this particular tangent.

Ender

Ideas which can be gleaned by sharing examples of what one is doing to positively bring about the goal? Shall we just be theoretical? No after action reviews of what actually worked for someone and what didn’t? I’m sorry, but the proof is in the pudding, not the idea of the pudding.

Theories never interested me. How they work interests me. Personality may or may not interest me. Personality really has no bearing on anything here, I agree.

This particular tangent is exactly what this thread is working out: the methods which are best able to bring about someone, through their moral conscience, working out how to bring about the fruition of Church teaching in our daily lives. Ergo, if asked what we are doing, it would help that goal to actually answer.

So really, it’s not a tangent at all. It’s bringing the macro down to the micro to try to make sense of the sum of macro’s anatomy and physiology, as well as diagnosis of its ailments, both internal and external, as well as factors which would encourage immunity to said pathogens, and how, holistically (literal, not the oogie boogie hippie), the Body of Christ seeks for the social good while not compromising that which the Church expects.

Isn’t that what this entire discussion is about? If not, fine, but again, while a specific issue was addressed, it was only addressed with this in mind.

Edit to add: I currently write a blog, on which abortion is a topic when the news provides a good example of a point I wish to illustrate. The other thing I do is basically not keep my mouth shut whenever anyone wishes to tell me abortion is OK. I bit my tongue once early in this Catholic journey, and I still regret it. People are not challenged enough about this issue at a personal level. They reduce it to simple phrases which bear extreme scrutiny. So, that is what I’m currently doing. So far the response has been mixed, as expected, in terms of how this is received overall. I also engage in sending/signing petitions to representatives. I have no way of knowing this effort’s particular impact. Now and in the future, I’m open to other possible solutions with which to bring about the end of abortion and other solutions to social ills.

 

[Ender]

Ideas which can be gleaned by sharing examples of what one is doing to positively bring about the goal?

“The goal” of this thread, however, really has nothing to do with the goal you are pursuing which appears to be combating abortion and other specific moral ills. I don’t dispute that your goal is the greater one … just that it isn’t what this thread is about.

Shall we just be theoretical? No after action reviews of what actually worked for someone and what didn’t?

In this case, yes. Again, the topic here is essentially whether conservatism is contrary to Church teaching and - to that degree - evil.

This particular tangent is exactly what this thread is working out: the methods which are best able to bring about someone, through their moral conscience, working out how to bring about the fruition of Church teaching in our daily lives.

Well, no, that isn’t what the thread is about. Let’s suppose you and I disagree over what approach is best for achieving some moral goal and further that your position will turn out to be right and mine of course would be wrong. Did I sin in supporting my position? No, I was merely wrong. We may vociferously disagree about tactics but there is no question of morality involved

I have no way of knowing this effort’s particular impact.

And this is the point. We act based on the goal we have in mind and how we think the world works but we often have no way to know whether our actions were effective or not and we surely don’t know ahead of time that they will work as intended. This is why, with the exception of a few very specific actions which we are forbidden, we are morally justified in acting as we think best. This is also why neither conservatism nor liberalism (with the exception of those few issues where it specifically contradicts Church doctrine) can be considered an immoral political philosophy.

Ender

 

[Vouthon]

Forgive me if this sounds like thread hijacking, as it is not my intent.

But I saw that the original poster mentioned Global Government. I know about “Caritas in Veritate”, but what is clearly defined about the Church’s stance on a Global Government? I personally am not for it (not anything resembling a one world government - I guess it’s old Protestant end times fear that was leftover from my pre-Catholic days ). If anyone could clarify, I would appreciate it.

How about we try the views of a Pope prior to Vatican II on this issue, just to prove that its not “new”:

“Your movement, Gentlemen, has the task of creating an effective political organization of the world. There is nothing more in keeping with the traditional doctrines of the Church, or better adapted to her teachings on the rightful or unjust war, especially in the present world situation. An organization of this nature must, therefore, be set up…You are of the opinion that the political world organization needs to take a federal shape in order to be effective. If you mean by this that it needs to be released from mechanical leveling down then you thereby are as well in accordance with the principles of social and political life as they are established and advocated by the Church…[The future political world organization] will only exercise effective authority to the degree in which it preserves and fosters the independent existence of a healthy human community whose members jointly participate in advancing the welfare of the whole of humanity…You have the courage to give yourself to this cause. We congratulate you. We would express to you Our wishes for your entire success and with all Our heart We will pray to God to grant you His wisdom and help in the performance of your task…The spirit of federalism, the future organization of the world in political respect, will play an important role. In the same measure it safeguards the natural and healthy life of human communities in bringing about the greatest welfare of all mankind. I wish you great success in your labor and God give you light and assistance…”

*- Pope Pius XII, to the members of the Congress of World Federalists, held in Rome, April, 1951 *

Yes you read that correct, Pope Pius XII supported the idea of a World Federation of Nations…

"…The decisions already published by international commissions permit one to conclude that** an essential point in any future international arrangement would be the formation of an organ for the maintenance of peace, of an organ invested by common consent with supreme power **to whose office it would also pertain to smother in its germinal state any threat of isolated or collective aggression.

No one could hail this development with greater joy than he who has long upheld the principle that the idea of war as an apt and proportionate means of solving international conflicts is now out of date.

No one could wish success to this common effort, to be undertaken with a seriousness of purpose never before known, with greater enthusiasm, than he who has conscientiously striven to make the Christian and religious mentality reject modern war with its monstrous means of conducting hostilities…"

- Pope Pius XII, Democracy and a Lasting Peace, 1944

“…The unity of the world will be. The dignity of the human person shall be recognized not only formally but effectively. The inviolability of life, from the womb to old age… Undue social inequalities will be overcome. The relations between peoples will be peaceful, reasonable and fraternal. Neither selfishness, nor arrogance, nor poverty… [shall] prevent the establishment of a true human order, a common good, a new civilization…”

—POPE PAUL VI, Urbi et Orbi Message, April 4th, 1971

 

[Vouthon]

“…What a wonderful vision, which makes us contemplate the human race in the unity of its origin in God. . . in the unity of its nature, composed equally in all men of a material body and a spiritual soul; in the unity of its immediate end and its mission in the world; in the unity of its dwelling, the earth, whose benefits all men, by right of nature, may use to sustain and develop life; in the unity of its supernatural end: God himself, to whom all ought to tend; in the unity of the means for attaining this end;. . . in the unity of the redemption wrought by Christ for all. This divine law of solidarity and charity assures that all men are truly brethren, without excluding the rich variety of persons, cultures and societies. In the light of this unity of all mankind, which exists in law and in fact, individuals do not feel themselves isolated units, like grains of sand, but united by the very force of their nature and by their internal destiny, into an organic, harmonious mutual relationship which varies with the changing of times…The blood of countless human beings, even noncombatants, raises a piteous dirge over a nation such as Our dear Poland…which has a right to the generous and brotherly sympathy of the whole world…With a heart torn by the sufferings and afflictions of so many of her sons, but with the courage and the stability that come from the promises of Our Lord, the Spouse of Christ goes to meet the gathering storms. This she knows, that the truth which she preaches, the charity which she teaches and practices, will be the indispensable counselors and aids to men of good will in the reconstruction of a new world based on justice and love, when mankind, weary from its course along the way of error, has tasted the bitter fruits of hate and violence…The Catholic Church…preaching fearlessly…the love of Christ demands with the zeal of a mother, stands as a blessed vision of peace above the storm of error and passion awaiting the moment when the all-powerful Hand of Christ the King shall quiet the tempest and banish the spirits of discord which have provoked it. Whatever We can do to hasten the day when the dove of peace may find on this earth, submerged in a deluge of discord, somewhere to alight, We shall continue to do…”

- Pope Pius XII, Summi Pontificatus (On the Unity of Human Society),1939

In this sense, the Second Vatican Council expressed itself in the pastoral consitution “Gaudium et spes” of 7 December 1965. The Council demanded in order to “completely outlaw war“, “the establishment of some universal public authority acknowledged as such by all and endowed with the power to safeguard, on the behalf of all, security, regard for justice, and respect for rights. During his pontificate, Pope John Paul II generally referred to this doctrinal tradition.

Never forget that the current World Order of nation-states stems from Catholic thought. Indeed it is a Catholic creation!

Read:

“…*In the 16th century - when the medieval idea of a world monarch was no longer viable, the Roman Catholic philosopher and theologian Francisco de Vitoria developed the conception of the equality and sovereignty of international legal subjects. This idea of the world as a community of independent states which reached a breakthrough at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and determines the international system to this day, however, was only part of Vitoria‘s design. The key idea was that of a “totus orbis” according to which humanity must be understood as a non-divisible unity and wholeness, “in a way which initially desists from dividing the people into states because the orbis stands above them and includes them all.” Vitoria did not have a confederative model in mind but rather that of a world state. He also called this community of all human beings “res publica”. Vitoria assigned this entity organizational and legislative powers to which the states then are subordinate. In close proximity to this thought, Pope Pius XII repeatedly spoke out against understanding state sovereignty as being absolutely independent and omnipotent. According to him, the state was merely entitled to have “relative sovereignty”. The Pope, for instance, was in favor of the creation of “a body set up through a joint decision and vested with supreme and unlimited power whose tasks would include to crush at the very beginning each and any threat emanating from an individual or collective attack…” *

At a 1999 World Federalist Association conference, its senior vice-president, Dr. John Logue, a practicing Catholic stated, “We must work as hard as we can to build a world commonwealth, a United Nations world commonwealth, which has the power to enact, interpret, and enforce limited world law.”

…Something to think about, at least

 

[jonbhorton]

^^^^^^^^^^

If global government is a Catholic creation, the sedevacantists have a tenable position from which to argue. That being said, the “current” governmental bodies which seek to comprise a global body are not in accordance with Catholic teaching. As such, I must conclude that while the idea of a beautiful world of solidarity in unicorn farts may be Catholic, it’s not realistic as present.

I cannot and will not submit to any global government as the end-game is only obvious given current political doctrines.

I will not submit to global Marxism, nor the mohammedanism it seeks to use in affecting the downfall of Christianity.

I don’t have a safe full of guns to look at. Those things will see street combat some day if the situation develops as it most certainly will.

The coming years prove to be interesting and bloody.