Political Party in Re: to Catholicism

[gkroeger]

Our friend is only pretending the Catholic Church rejected it.

As the story makes clear, the USCCB lawyers advised that it might run afoul of Campaign Finance and cause the Church to lose its tax exemption – a far cry from claiming it was doctrinally correct.

(I believe these lawyers are descended from those who advised Perpetua to go ahead and burn the pinch of incense.)

Maybe we are jumping on this to quickly, We still have not had a response from SoCalRC. Maybe these news stories are not his evidence. I certainly hope he has something more concrete.

If he is posting things like this knowing that he made them up with little on no evidence it should be reported to a moderator. We have enough problems dealing with our consciences and emotions to have visitors to this site deliberately pulling stunts that that.

I also question his 9 non negotiables. He points to the Vatican site and a Doctrial Document that I have read twice and cannot find the 9 non negotiables he keeps referring to.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I, for one, look at the Republican platform that pays lip service to anti-abortion (NOT pro-life) and see a party that has every motivation to keep abortion legal so it can condemn it and keep us voting them in year after year so they can nibble around the edges and make hollow claims to being pro-life because they “don’t support taxpayer funding of abortions.” Yeah…like that means anything when they don’t support taxpayer funding of anything but prisons, executions and war.

Of course, the only thing short of a constitutional amendment that can reverse Roe and its progency is a supreme court reversal. George Bush appointed two prolife justices. Clinton appointed none. Every Democrat presidential candidate running supports “a woman’s right to choose” abortion. So it’s just simply incorrect to say the claims of Bush at least, to be prolife are “hollow”.

I’m not a Republican, but if you represent that Republicans don’t support taxpayer funding of anything but prisons, executions and war, you are just being bombastic for the sake of effect, are ignorant or are improvising.

You have made up your mind to vote for abortion, and want to justify that decision. You know it and I know it. So just say you support it, and don’t reach for things like “Republicans only support taxpayer funding of prisons, excution and war.”.Even dyed-in-the-wool Democrats know that’s not true.

 

[estesbob]

One wonders where doctrine comes from when it seems Bishops are routinely rejected as apparently incompetent on such matters. I’m sure the publisher has much to gain by touting how its the hottest item on market today. I continue to see a definite bias against US authorities of any kind–priests, religius and bishops are regularly decried as teaching incorrectly. I’ve been told very severely that LG set out a hierarchy in which bishops are to be followed. It seems you don’t agree?

Can you show us where the Bishops said the rejected the guide? They didnt-which the only point we were making. How you turn that into we are attacking the authority of the Bishops and Priests, etc is beyond ,me.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Maybe we are jumping on this to quickly, We still have not had a response from SoCalRC. Maybe these news stories are not his evidence. I certainly hope he has something more concrete.

Perhaps. But here’s what one poster said:

One wonders where doctrine comes from when it seems Bishops are routinely rejected as apparently incompetent on such matters.

So apparently he believes the lawyers exercise the authority of Bishops, and Catholic doctrine changes to conform to tax laws.

If he is posting things like this knowing that he made them up with little on no evidence it should be reported to a moderator. We have enough problems dealing with our consciences and emotions to have visitors to this site deliberately pulling stunts that that.

I must agree with you – it was a deliberate stunt.

I also question his 9 non negotiables. He points to the Vatican site and a Doctrial Document that I have read twice and cannot find the 9 non negotiables he keeps referring to.

Well, see, some people interpret that document as meaning support for specific programs social is commanded – even if such programs have proven harmful and counterproductive in the past.

 

[SoCalRC]

Our friend is only pretending the Catholic Church rejected it.

As the story makes clear, the USCCB lawyers advised that it might run afoul of Campaign Finance and cause the Church to lose its tax exemption – a far cry from claiming it was doctrinally correct.

(I believe these lawyers are descended from those who advised Perpetua to go ahead and burn the pinch of incense.)

Again, this is a problem with taking a snippet from a News story. If you care to research the matter you will see that the recommendation for prohibtion had the unanimous support of the members of the USCCB’s pro-life committe.

Further, if you look closer you will see that the objections were two fold. First and foremost, the guide does not pass the test of partisanship. The lawyers (a number of whom are also members of the oridnary, BTW) were concerned that the 5 criterial applied were done so in a subjective and partisan fashion.

Along the same lines were concerns that the criteria themselves were/are partisan. The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith’s Doctrinal Note was referenced, but only 5 of the 9 criteria from the Church document were adopted. Those dropped, issues like peace and Catholic responsibility towards socially just economic development, tend to fall on partisan lines.

Branching from this was a second concern, that is, that in truncating the Church’s list, the Catholic vision of “pro-life” was truncated.

But, we can ignore all this and look closely at the story. Several Archdiocese asked the Church for its opinion on the use of the CAF guide. The Church’s response was no, we would prefer that use use the USCCB’s “Faithful Citizenship”, which, of course, includes issues like peace and the death penalty, so it is utterly rejected by many CAF fans…

Still, it makes my claim 100% accurate, the Church declined to endorse the guide. Being dismissive and guessing at its ‘real’ reasons does not change the facts.

 

[SoCalRC]

I had to add another note. I just happened to to catch a few minutes of an interview with Allen Raymond, who, fresh from prison for his campaign hijinks, is hawking his book (HOW TO RIG AN ELECTION: CONFESSIONS OF A REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE). I don’t know about the book, but he was quite funny. And something he said made me think of this thread. The following is not an exact quote, but the gyst seemed to be ‘One thing we got very good at was blowing minutia wholly out of proportion. When you fling enough horse hockey in every direction, pretty soon everyone forgets about whatever embarrasing or illogical position you started with…’

In case anyone has forgotten, all that I suggested was that the HOLY SEE is an expecially good resource when it comes to understanding what the Pope means and official Church doctrine.

The document in question, written by our current pope and approved by our last one (who happened to first introduce the teaching of “limiting harm” in secular voting) is labeled as Doctrinal.

Using it would avoid situations where some of you are claiming that there are 3 non negotiables, Mary is claiming that there are 5, and you are all wrong - the Church identified 9, but does not say that they are the only ones. That is, instead of guessing at doctrine from indirect sources, you could report what, in fact, the Church itself labels as doctrine.

On the other hand, something like the CAF guide has had controversy. When asked, the local collegiate discouraged it’s use. Likewise, the USCCB’s own materials for voters are concious of US non-profit tax laws. The Doctrinal Note and related documents have no such constraints and, of course, are implicitly Doctrine.

So the core point remains - I simply asserted that the Church is the best resource on Church doctrine, and the Holy See is the best resource on doctrine in the Church.

Instead of actually disputing that assertion, a series of folks latched onto a passing reference to the CAF voter guide controversy (I’m sorry, with the string of identical notes I could not help but think of the Seagulls in FINDING NEMO, all repeating “mine!”). And, of course, we are now wholly focussed on trying to hair split what disapprove means. EsteBob’s red herring about “only discourage” is a perfect example, since that is the most that could be done in the context of the query, a Bishop cannot abdicate his Holy Duty. So, of course, there is plenty of ‘horse hockey’ to keep us from ever getting back to the truly absurd presumption that a lay opinion is a superior resource on Church Doctrine than an office of the Holy See setup to explain/maintain Church Doctrine…

 

[SoCalRC]

If he is posting things like this knowing that he made them up with little on no evidence it should be reported to a moderator. We have enough problems dealing with our consciences and emotions to have visitors to this site deliberately pulling stunts that that.

I’m sorry, didn’t you assert that I was incorrect in Church doctrine and that only 3 non negotiables existed?

But I provided a DOCTRINAL NOTE from the Church showing I was correct and that you were wrong.

Did you report yourself to the moderators? Or Vern, who repeated your assertion after having been referred to the official Church position more than two dozen times?

Yes, you most assuredly have a problem getting facts straight on this forum - but I seriously doubt that trying to take punitive action against someone who suggested that you, gasp, defer to the published doctrine of the church in favor of an interpretation of doctrine from a member of the laity is going to solve it.

 

[BamaRider]

You have made up your mind to vote for abortion, and want to justify that decision. You know it and I know it. So just say you support it, and don’t reach for things like “Republicans only support taxpayer funding of prisons, excution and war.”.Even dyed-in-the-wool Democrats know that’s not true.

Dang.

 

[gkroeger]

I had to add another note.
In case anyone has forgotten, all that I suggested was that the HOLY SEE is an expecially good resource when it comes to understanding what the Pope means and official Church doctrine.

That’s odd; I could have sworn you said that the Church had “rejected” the CAF voting guide. If you did not say that, I sure spent a lot of time researching in an attempt to find out if this was true.

You never did offer a source for this statement; instead you claim you did not say it.

By the way, what is your definition of “church”? Is it a building some where or the church of what’s happing now? If the Pope or the Magisterium did not say it, then the church did not say it.

The document in question, written by our current pope and approved by our last one (who happened to first introduce the teaching of “limiting harm” in secular voting) is labeled as Doctrinal.
Using it would avoid situations where some of you are claiming that there are 3 non negotiables, Mary is claiming that there are 5, and you are all wrong - the Church identified 9, but does not say that they are the only ones. That is, instead of guessing at doctrine from indirect sources, you could report what, in fact, the Church itself labels as doctrine.

For someone who claims to be not only a catholic but a better catholic then the rest of us, you are doing more damage to the Church by misinterpreting the Popes own documents to provide arguments against his undeniable position on Abortion, then all of the dissenters on this forum combined.

So the core point remains - I simply asserted that the Church is the best resource on Church doctrine, and the Holy See is the best resource on doctrine in the Church.

I guess it a good thing we still have the post…

I’m sorry, didn’t you assert that I was incorrect in Church doctrine and that only 3 non negotiables existed?

Apparently you not only deny the posts you have made, you also misquote my post. I spoke of the 5 non-negotiables listed in the CAF voting guide. And you keep referring to 9 non-negotiables that you cannot list or provide a source for. You keep referring the Doctrinal Note that I have read three times now and cannot find your nine non-negotiables.

You have this habit of posting your opinions as facts and the either pointing to documents without specifics (that do not seem to support your position) or you tell the other person to research it. Nice

Did you report yourself to the moderators? Or Vern, who repeated your assertion after having been referred to the official Church position more than two dozen times?

No, nor you at this point, hopefully they are monitoring. I have contacted CAF regarding your claim that their voting guide was rejected by the catholic church. (oops you did not say catholic church, only church. Now we only need to understand what you mean by church.

Yes, you most assuredly have a problem getting facts straight on this forum - but I seriously doubt that trying to take punitive action against someone who suggested that you, gasp, defer to the published doctrine of the church in favor of an interpretation of doctrine from a member of the laity is going to solve it.

I would probably have a lot less trouble getting facts straight if there were fewer individual deliberately attempting to mislead genuine seekers of truth.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Come on, as sad as it is, anyone who does not understand that the US Bishops are treading lightly because of the tax exempt status issue is not paying attention.

And to use this as proof that their pro abortion stance is legitimate is just dishonest.

I was not referring specifically to this issue. I recognize the tax exempt status problem. I am not sure that was the only objection. I do not equate this in any way as proof that any pro-abortion stance is correct. That is simply a bizarre conclusion to say the least. The USCCB firmly states a pro-life position.

Generally the USCCB is made fun of here on all sorts of issues. Routinely I see posters claim that somebody else’s priest is giving false information and incorrect doctrine. I have seen on more than one occassion religious sisters made fun of as ‘liberals’ who have been poorly taught. I seems that except for a bishop here or there, most Church hierarchy in this country is worthless, being products of lousy Catholic teaching at unversities and seminaries. Yet someone we are told on the other hand that we are to respect the Church and its hierarchy, and follow our bishops and priests. So its most confusing. People say one thing, yet seem to be in some cases, doing quite the opposite.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Can you show us where the Bishops said the rejected the guide? They didnt-which the only point we were making. How you turn that into we are attacking the authority of the Bishops and Priests, etc is beyond ,me.

I have no particulars to share. I remember reading that the USCCB did not endorse the use of the word “non-negociable” in its voting guide. To be sure, they leave no doubt where the US church stands on abortion or any life issue. It’s my understanding they rejected it in so far as it posed a tax-exemption problem. If they did it for other reasons as well, I am not in possession of such information and have not claimed to be. I have not researched this on my own whatsoever.

I raised the issue of attacks on authority in the US as a general observation of several weeks now. If you are not interested in discussing it, no problem.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Or lawyers afraid that if the Church takes a position, it will lose it’s tax exempt status.

To pretend the Church “rejected” the Voter’s Guide because it was theologically or morally incorrect is – to put as kindly as I can – sophistry of the worst kind.

You just don’t let up do you? Quote me in context or don’t quote me at all.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You just don’t let up do you? Quote me in context or don’t quote me at all.

Whoa, Nelly!!

Here’s a tip – when you get caught in something like this, it’s your fault, not the fault of the guy who caught you.

 

[Julianna]

This total insanity is still going on. It could go on for 100 posts or more…I will vote for who I want, period. I will tell no one who I voted for, none of their business. I will remain and independent/moderate. I will never vote a straight ticket. I will not submit to “scare tactics” by any “human being”. I think a third party, even a fourth would be breath of fresh air. In the end, it doesn’t matter who I vote for, Democrat or Republican, my taxes will go up, gas will go up, cost of living will go up, and the folks in Washington will still not have a clue how people live their lives or practice their faith.

 

[vern_humphrey]

This total insanity is still going on. It could go on for 100 posts or more…I will vote for who I want, period. I will tell no one who I voted for, none of their business. I will remain and independent/moderate. I will never vote a straight ticket. I will not submit to “scare tactics” by any “human being”. I think a third party, even a fourth would be breath of fresh air. In the end, it doesn’t matter who I vote for, Democrat or Republican, my taxes will go up, gas will go up, cost of living will go up, and the folks in Washington will still not have a clue how people live their lives or practice their faith.

Take a deep breath.

This is a debate on Catholic morality. The issue is simple:

Given two candidates; one of whom espouses a pro-life position (albeit imperfectly) and the other espouses a pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

Now it’s like pulling teeth to get people to answer this question, but those who do answer it – however reluctantly – agree the answer is, “No.”

Nobody is telling you who to vote for – we are simply pointing out that Catholic morality requires us to support human life.

 

[estesbob]

This total insanity is still going on. It could go on for 100 posts or more…I will vote for who I want, period. I will tell no one who I voted for, none of their business. I will remain and independent/moderate. I will never vote a straight ticket. I will not submit to “scare tactics” by any “human being”. I think a third party, even a fourth would be breath of fresh air. In the end, it doesn’t matter who I vote for, Democrat or Republican, my taxes will go up, gas will go up, cost of living will go up, and the folks in Washington will still not have a clue how people live their lives or practice their faith.

Of course you will vote for who you want…The question is can you vote for Pro abortion candidate in good conscience? As I’ve said before I don’t know why they’re any discussion about this.Why would the church or anyone else need to tell you it’s wrong to vote for someone who supports dismembering children and throwing them out with the garbage?

Keeping your votes secret does not change the morality of vote. As I’ve said before have no problem telling people who I voted for.-even though it means I have to admit to voting for McGovern and Carter(but only once)

 

[SoCalRC]

That’s odd; I could have sworn you said that the Church had “rejected” the CAF voting guide. If you did not say that, I sure spent a lot of time researching in an attempt to find out if this was true.

You never did offer a source for this statement; instead you claim you did not say it.

I most assuredly did say ‘rejected’. I also didn’t think that an additional reference was nec., the Catholic News Services link posted covered the salient facts. An archdiocese asked for guidance. The query could have been answered in one of three ways, endorsement, neutrality, or a recommendation against. The Church responded with the last.

If you want to argue that ‘we would prefer this not be used’ is not rejection, we should move the conversation into the present. The article is several years old. A commission was formed and now their is a prohibition against materials that do not meet specific criteria. The CAF voting guide would appear not to meet those ctieria. You can read more about the matter, including Amicus briefs from the Church on the applicability of US law, etc.at www.usccb.org

By the way, what is your definition of “church”? Is it a building some where or the church of what’s happing now? If the Pope or the Magisterium did not say it, then the church did not say it.

My definition is that of the CCC, in Part One, where it explains the part of the Creed where we profess belief in “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”.

I do not understand the rest of your statement, I am suggesting that we use a document from the Holy See, you are suggesting that we use a document from the laity.

In other words, I do not recognize any teaching authority for CAF, I do for the Pope and the Magesterium.

cont.

 

[SoCalRC]

For someone who claims to be not only a catholic but a better catholic then the rest of us, you are doing more damage to the Church by misinterpreting the Popes own documents to provide arguments against his undeniable position on Abortion, then all of the dissenters on this forum combined.

Wow, that is quite a claim. First of all, I have repeatedly and insistantly pointed out that it is inappropriate to make moral comparisons between our own, intrinsically flawed, attempts to follow the Faith. We are all sinners and we all make moral compromises. Further, our Lord, Jesus Christ, admonished us about making such comparisons.

I have described myself as a ‘conservative Catholic’, and I am. For example, in discussing bibles here:

catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp

Catholic Answers asserts:

In the end, there may not be a need to select only one translation of the Bible to use. There is no reason why a Catholic cannot collect several versions of the Bible, aware of the strengths and weaknesses of each. It is often possible to get a better sense of what is being said in a passage by comparing several different translations.

However, as a conservative, I would argue that only a Catholic Bible should be used. Further, for personal study, only a Bible edition that has been approved by the American Catholic Church for private study should be used.

Which brings us to another part of your statement, abortion. As a conservative Catholic, I hold a rather extreme understanding of abortion. For example, I accept the absolute nature of the the Decree of 1889, it’s reassuring in 1902, and it’s elevation to the status of infalliblity in 1995 without reservation. In other words, I hold that the 50,000-150,000 abortive procedures conducted each year in Catholic Hospitals under various theological arguments (contrary to popular belief, Double Effect is not the only argument used) are illicit, at least until the Church gives more guidance on the matter.

How on earth accepting Church doctrine, exactly as written, undermines it I cannot fathom. The Church appears to argue the opposite, that compromising on such principles is to the detriment of the faith as a whole, but I am sure you have your reasoning.

Again, being conservative does not make me any better or worse. Pharisee and Samaritan might well be translated as “ultra devout Catholic” and “baby killing homosexual” for us to hear His words as the original audience did.

Frankly, I’m not even comfortable with terms like “Serious Catholics”. Self assigning such a label would make me very uncomfortable.

Apparently you not only deny the posts you have made, you also misquote my post. I spoke of the 5 non-negotiables listed in the CAF voting guide. And you keep referring to 9 non-negotiables that you cannot list or provide a source for. You keep referring the Doctrinal Note that I have read three times now and cannot find your nine non-negotiables.

It isn’t hard to find. Just search for the words “When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person.”

It is in section 4. This are non-negotiable, that is, they cannot be abridged even by the application “limiting the harm” (also covered in section 4). The 9 should not be hard to pick out, Rome puts them in italics for emphasis.

The relevance of the document to American Catholics should be clear. When you go to the USCCB section on “Faithful Citizenship”, this is the document under “Vatican Statement”:

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/

As far as misquoting you, I had to go by this

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3183466&postcount=707

I found you posting a quote from 2006 which gave three examples, all of which, BTW, can be found in the Doctrinal Note at the location I indicate above.

If you are referring to some other Vatican source that expressly amends Church teaching, by all means show it to me. But since the Doctrinal Note is still being actively distributed by the Magesterium, I have to accept that the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith is still correct and that their are at least 9 non negotiable moral principles that Catholic voters should adhere to.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

This total insanity is still going on. It could go on for 100 posts or more…I will vote for who I want, period. I will tell no one who I voted for, none of their business. I will remain and independent/moderate. I will never vote a straight ticket. I will not submit to “scare tactics” by any “human being”. I think a third party, even a fourth would be breath of fresh air. In the end, it doesn’t matter who I vote for, Democrat or Republican, my taxes will go up, gas will go up, cost of living will go up, and the folks in Washington will still not have a clue how people live their lives or practice their faith.

Hate to say it but you are right on just about everything…lol…I keep learning what the Church teaches through this process though. I follow the links and figure out the truth. It’s actually stated here once in a while…but ya gotta be most careful!

come back in a week, we’ll no doubt be up another hundred posts.!

 

[vern_humphrey]

It isn’t hard to find. Just search for the words “When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person.”

So, given two candidates; one of whom espouses a pro-life position (albeit imperfectly) and the other espouses a pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

The answer is no.