No, you don’t understand Evantgelium Vitae.
No one who understands Evangelium Vitae can something like this:
And claim that somehow waterboarding is morally equivallent to abortion – and then extend that claim to justify supporting pro-choice politicians!!
You know perfectly well that I do not vote for pro-choice politicians. The biggest distinction is that I have a more extensive view of pro-life. That is, I do not accept a mere statement that someone opposes legal abortion in secular law, I expect a true pro life voting record and, say, no profiteering from forced abortion in one’s political funding.
So you seem to be bearing false witness against me, presumably chosing to attack me with falsehoods rather than discussing the actual merits of your choices.
I am not arguing that ‘they’ are morally equivelent, because I cannot read the mind of God. I am only arguing that they are both gravely immoral. That is, both are, in the words of the Church “moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation”. So I do not, to the best of my ability, compromise on them in my voting.
Over the centuries, our human perception of relative gravity changes, which is why Christ warned us not to project our own ideas about the path to salvation onto God. For example, in the 8th century, abortion carried a penance of 120 days, oral sex 10 years, sterilization or murder 20 years to life. Few US Catholics would equate oral sex as being grievously more serious than abortion today.
Undeniably, you do compromise. You have elevated a narrow definition of a single teaching to special status and argue that you must vote accordingly. In this I believe the Church is correct, it is “incoherent” and a “detriment”. Look at your own arguments.
You have, in the past, cited Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter stating that not all teachings are equal. You have even noted that Ratzinger went on to be Pope. So you argue that the Gift of Authority justifies your position. But let’s look deeper. The letter was to the Bishops, not the laity, and addressed a theological issue. The infallibility of abortion and euthanasia stems from the Universal agreement of the Ordinary Magesterium. That is, it rests not on the Pope, or Scripture, but the infallibility of the Church via universal agreement of the Bishops.
If we truly believe in the Gift of Authority, we can look to Ratzinger’s other writings. The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, which Ratzinger oversaw, wrote a doctrinal note to the laity, which specifically noted that single issue voting is a detrement to the faith and listed a wide range of moral issues beyond compromise.
Further, we can consider that the same Cardinal Ratzinger publicly stated that there is no foundation for a just war in Iraq under an honest reading of the Catechism…
If you reject the authority of the Church when it does not match your politics, then you are not being intellectually honest when you cite it for something which does. That is, you are making an argument of convenience, not following a core principle.
Yet again, all this is fine. I am a sinner who makes moral compromises, so I cannot condemn you for being one as well. However, I do feel compelled to point out that professing that one’s compromises are the one true path to faith, in absolutes, while demonizing those who disagree is not only incompatible with the Catholic faith, but Christianity in general.
Consider, the GOP now requires loyalty oaths for participation in certain events, administration officials testify that they have a loyalty oath to the President, and the President has suggested that he receives direction directly from Jesus. Further, any GOP politician with national ambitions must pay homage to two groups which have repeatedly declared Catholicism as a non-Christian cult.
Just as a pro-choice platform attacks our beliefs about the inalienable rights of the human person, the GOP attacks our fundemental belief of Primacy and the Apostolic nature of our Church - on which, irronically, our own belief in abortion relies.
If you cannot accept that you are making moral compromises in your own voting and that, like the dutiful son (or the Pharisee), you should not perceive any moral relativism between yourself and others as legitimate superiority in the eyes of God, then you are rejecting Christ’s earthly message. And, although I have no right to presume that my own choices will lead to salvation (a narrow opening), I am compelled by my faith to pray for you.
