President Obama to receive honorary degree from Notre Dame

[diggerdomer]

But the vatican does.

No, it doesn’t. The document you refer to does not contradict what I said. If you disagree please cite exactly where it does, I’ve read the document and saw no contradiction to my point.

Can you illustrate how the USCCB
contradicts the very clear teaching of the Holy Sea in that it is permissible for a Catholic to support a pro-abortion candidate?

No, I cannot, because I do not think the USCCB contradicts anything from the Vatican. Neither the USCCB nor the Holy See (not Sea) state that it’s impermissible to vote for a candidate whose position on abortion (or any other issue) conflicts with the Church. We cannot support or vote for certain issues/platforms, like abortion; that’s what they teach. They do not take the next step and tell us what individuals we can or can’t vote for. That’s what our consciences are for.

 

[Highwayhound]

Wizard of Obama: Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

 

[mapleoak]

elts1956:
This is the area where the USCCB make their declaration murky and most people do not IMPLANT IN THEIR BRAIN what the VATICAN HAS ALREADY SAID. :banghead:
Exactly. Of course the USCCB has not said anything wrong, they have only done a disservice by being very vague and indirect to such a degree that people (as has been illustrated in this thread) have come to the conclusion that it is somehow permissible to vote for pro-abortion candidates if they support some other personal want.

BUT

,If all candidates support abortion we must FIRST choose to vote for the candidate that is less/least likely to spread the evil of abortion. HOW DID PEOPLE MISS THIS? Sorry Maple, not yelling at you, just very, very FRUSTRATED!No offense taken. In good conscience I could not vote for nor support either major candidate this past election as I could not see the merit in compromising on the lives of even those we would “negotiate” away in order to save more lives. I do not question the sincerity of those who in good conscience took a more pragmatic approach if in their deliberation were moved to an attempt at “limiting the harm” as defined by Evangelium Vitae and reiterated by the Holy Sea in the aforementioned link I posted. In any case, nowhere can one find support from any of the Church documents which would have allowed Catholics to vote for the avowed pro-abortion candidate this past election.

BUT ONLY THEN, after first voting because of the abortion issue, may a Catholic vote for a pro abort candidate IF there is another issue on the ballot which is of EQUAL gravity to the Intrinsic evils the Church listed. This means those who voted for bo had to think that the evils of the War, economy, environment, poverty, etc.etc. were all Intrinsic Evils. The Church does not list them as such, o. :crying:

That is the point. There were no other issues of such grave matter that they are by their very nature so evil as that of the support for the slaughter of a million plus innocent human beings per year. None of the above ‘other issues’ meet the mark.

 

[mapleoak]

Publicly supporting intrinsic evil is sometimes described as potentially more grievous, not less, than the acts themselves. In Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical VERITATIS SPENDOR, the Holy Father not only stresses the existance of intrinsic evil and reaffirms the long standing Catholic tradition of ‘the end does not justify the means’, he stresses that all Catholics have a duty to reflect natural law for the greater good of society, and that the duty increases with position. That is, the duty is especially incumbant upon the pastoral members of the Church.

In instructing all Catholics, Rome laid out nine broad principles which are non negotiable moral principles in voting:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...s/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html (see #4)

But, with regards to Holy Communion, Pope Benedict referred to the doctrinal note, again described the morals as “non negotiable”, but placed a special responsibility on politicians and public leaders and tied it to fitness for communion:

“Worship pleasing to God can never be a purely private matter, without consequences for our relationships with others: it demands a public witness to our faith. Evidently, this is true for all the baptized, yet it is especially incumbent upon those who, by virtue of their social or political position, must make decisions regarding fundamental values, such as respect for human life, its defence from conception to natural death, the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman, the freedom to educate one’s children and the promotion of the common good in all its forms. These values are not negotiable. Consequently, Catholic politicians and legislators, conscious of their grave responsibility before society, must feel particularly bound…” - SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS #83

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...vi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html

Note that all baptized Catholics have the duty to uphold fundemental and inalienable principles in public life, but political leaders are “particularly bound…”

This matches the argument in VERITATIS SPENDOR. We can get caught up in arguing about ‘more’ or ‘less’ intrinsic evil (John Paul II used the example of contraception) but we have to understand that support of intrinsic evil in any form has a corrosive effect on society.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

Again the Church has specifically laid out guidelines to follow. The Vatican spelling out nine non negotiable issues which no Catholic can support under pain of being unworthy to receive Holy Communion. The concept of ‘limiting the harm’ being introduced in Evangelium Vitae. The USCCB reiterating the Vatican on non-negotiable issues and further laying out conditions to follow using proportionate reasons in ‘limiting the harm’. In all cases, the ‘Essence of the Moral Law’ must never be disregarded.
Voting for the avowed pro-abortion candidate this past election does not meet the mark on the following counts:
A. Support of intrinsic evil. That of abortion to name one.
B. In no way represents ‘limiting the harm’ as defined by Evangelium Vitae.
C. Proportionate reasons are lacking.
D. The ‘Essence of the Moral Law’ is disregarded.

 

[mapleoak]

But abortion plays no role in my life or the lives of anyone I know.

But it affects the lives to a deadly degree of the millions upon millions of people who are killed each year by abortion. This is typical of me, me, me attitude. It doesn’t affect me so I don’t care.

And no, I don’t think a tiny clump of undifferentiated cells has a soul. It can split in half and form two people. It can combine with another clump and turn into one person. The soul comes later. I think the Church is wrong on this issue, and I’m not the only one who thinks so.

But for those of us wishing to remain faithful to the Catholic Church in all of its teachings side with the Church on these issues.

It wouldn’t be the first time the Church has been wrong.

When it comes to matters of faith and morals, The Church is never wrong.

 

[elts1956]

No, it doesn’t. The document you refer to does not contradict what I said. If you disagree please cite exactly where it does, I’ve read the document and saw no contradiction to my point.

No, I cannot, because I do not think the USCCB contradicts anything from the Vatican. Neither the USCCB nor the Holy See (not Sea) state that it’s impermissible to vote for a candidate whose position on abortion (or any other issue) conflicts with the Church. We cannot support or vote for certain issues/platforms, like abortion; that’s what they teach. They do not take the next step and tell us what individuals we can or can’t vote for. That’s what our consciences are for.

Consciences are used to make moral judgements about issues, not candidates.

Maybe they don’t. The point is, however, that the USCCB does not state that it is impermissible to vote for a pro-abortion politician.

We cannot support abortion, and we cannot support a politician because of his/her views on abortion if their views contradict Church teaching–but it is permissible to vote for a candidate despite their position on abortion. When? Be specific please.

Read for yourself: usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

If you don’t have time to read the whole thing, which would be too bad, I’d recommend looking at para 29-37.

In all of your postings regarding this issue, you have used on the one source to try to prove your point. Please list other sources which prove that indeed Catholics could vote for other issues in this past election other than abortion.

USCCB DOCUMENT from the site you give.

1. “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. This is the case with laws concerning abortion…” Also quoted by Mapleoak.22. There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because
   they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so
   deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These
   are called “intrinsically evil” actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned.

Now what part of rejected, opposed, never supported, or condoned, don’t you understand?

A prime example is the intentionaltaking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. In our nation,“abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice.

Gee whiz, would that mean something about voting?

1. The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between
   different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and
   intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception
   until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must
   always be opposed.3 Can we oppose something by not voting for a candidate that supports it?
2. The Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made a similar point:
   It must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. Pro abort candidate and voting for him because of other issues.

The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. (Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life, no. 4) Yet, how did those other social issues stack up against the Mortal evil of abortion?

.31. Decisions about political life are complex and require the exercise of a wellf ormed
conscience aided by prudence. This exercise of conscience begins with
outright opposition to laws and other policies that violate human life or weaken its
protection. Those who knowingly, willingly, and directly support public policies or
legislation that undermine fundamental moral principles cooperate with evil.

1. Sometimes morally flawed laws already exist. In this situation, the process of
   framing legislation to protect life is subject to prudential judgment and “the art of
   the possible.” At times this process may restore justice only partially or gradually.
   For example, Pope John Paul II taught that when a government official who fully opposes abortion cannot succeed in completely overturning a pro-abortion law,
   he or she may work to improve protection for unborn human life, “limiting the
   harm done by such a law” and lessening its negative impact as much as possible
   (Evangelium Vitae, no. 73). Such incremental improvements in the law are
   acceptable as steps toward the full restoration of justice. However, Catholics must
   never abandon the moral requirement to seek full protection for all human life
   from the moment of conception until natural death.

 

[elts1956]

USCCB DOCUMENT EXAMINATION CONTINUED: Attn. Diggerdomer

1. 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. This could be where many got off track forgetting one CANNOT USE their Prudential Judgement to judge whether and Intrinsic Evil is more, or less important than lesser ones. This is known as moral relevance. In this instance we must abide with the laws and doctrines of the Church.
2. 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, Let us see, what would be equally a grave moral reason when compared to abortion??? not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.
3. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods. Morally flawed. Gee do they mean abortion???
4. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guidedby a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, CHARACTER, :bigyikes: integrity, and ability to influence a given issue bo promises PP he will sign FOCA if passed by Congress. First or second day in office rescinds Mexico Policy forcing all taxpayers to pay for Internation Health Care. (read abortions.)

In trying to cover all aspects of Catholic Justice, the USCCB succeeded only in confusing over half of voting Catholics. I can see where some paragraphs read individually can be misconstrued because their relationship to what the Church teaches regarding Intrinsic Evil is misaligned.

In examining and judging the two Candidates who were in the forefront of the Presidential Race, many used Prudential judgement to decide which of the two was the more moral, based on issues that were not of Intrinsic Evil such as the war, economy, environment etc. rather than acknowledging the NON NEGOTIABLE (said thusly by the VATICAN), issue of Abortion. The other issues were important and could be debated using Prudential Judgement. 54% of voting Catholics, practicing, or non-practicing chose to ignore the Intrinsic, non-negotiable evil of abortion. Why? Because it didn’t effect them personally. 54% of Catholics in the US have lost their moral compass, a well formed conscience.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

When it comes to matters of faith and morals, The Church is never wrong.

Well, when it comes to abortion and the time of ensoulment, the Church has been wrong. If not now, then a few hundred years ago. That’s my only issue. I’m not saying that abortion is not a sin, it is. But it’s certainly not the greatest sin that can be committed.

You talk about a culture of life. Well, abortion is 100% illegal in Chile, and I don’t think they have any more of a culture of life there than they do here. Women occupy a lower place in Chile, and are objectified more. This can be expected I guess. Also, rich women go to private hospitals where they do abortions in secret. It’s illegal, but if they can pay, it’s not like anyone will turn them in. In public hospitals, women sometimes get turned in to the police if they are suffering problems with a miscarriage, because they think she tried to do an abortion. So if a woman is having problems with a miscarriage, she won’t go to the hospital even if the problems get serious, because she thinks they might try and press charges. They are starting to get better at getting child support from men, but a lot of girls get pregnant and then the guys just leave. And in Chile, when a woman puts a baby up for adoption, they don’t get nice loving homes like white babies do in the US, they end up getting raised by the state. Usually the girl’s parents end up raising the child though. I’m not saying I support abortion, but this talk about bringing about a culture of life just seems like you don’t know what you’re talking about. Making abortion illegal is really hard to enforce, and you end up sending a lot of young scared girls to prison. It just doesn’t feel like you’re doing the right thing at all. You tell yourself, this girl is a murderer, she deserves to go to jail. But then you see another. And another. And your heart goes out to them. And you think these girls are not murderers, they do not deserve to be treated like murderers. You can’t help it. It isn’t easy to harden your heart to see them as killers.

I’m not sure what the answer here is, but I pray that the Lord will teach us.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

I think this says it all:

Two temptations in public life can distort the Church’s defense of human life and dignity:

1. The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.

1. The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture, war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed. Catholics are urged to seriously consider Church teaching on these issues. Although choices about how best to respond to these and other compelling threats to human life and dignity are matters for principled debate and decision, this does not make them optional concerns or permit Catholics to dismiss or ignore Church teaching on these important issues. Clearly not every Catholic can be actively involved on each of these concerns, but we need to support one another as our community of faith defends human life and dignity wherever it is threatened. We are not factions, but one family of faith fulfilling the mission of Jesus Christ.

I noticed you completely ignored #29, and I’m sure that’s no coincidence. It’s obvious they’re talking about abortion, and they basically say there are two fallacies Catholics can fall victim to.

The first is to not give abortion the weight it deserves. Abortion is really, really important for Catholics to be against, and should not be taken lightly. Abortion should be among the top priorities for Catholics.

The second fallacy is to get so caught up in opposing things like abortion that you completely ignore other important issues like capital punishment, torture, war, etc. when deciding how to vote.

They’re basically saying, don’t fall into either of these traps, and you seem to have fallen into the second one hook, line, and sinker. Clearly, they would not have mentioned the second trap, if their intent was to tell us to always vote against abortion no matter what.

 

[madabkr4tx]

I think this says it all:

I noticed you completely ignored #29, and I’m sure that’s no coincidence. It’s obvious they’re talking about abortion, and they basically say there are two fallacies Catholics can fall victim to.

The first is to not give abortion the weight it deserves. Abortion is really, really important for Catholics to be against, and should not be taken lightly. Abortion should be among the top priorities for Catholics.

The second fallacy is to get so caught up in opposing things like abortion that you completely ignore other important issues like capital punishment, torture, war, etc. when deciding how to vote.

They’re basically saying, don’t fall into either of these traps, and you seem to have fallen into the second one hook, line, and sinker. Clearly, they would not have mentioned the second trap, if their intent was to tell us to always vote against abortion no matter what.

The democratic party through its pro-abortion stance has killed more people than the war in Iraq.

 

[AKG]

I’ll bet Notre Dame would NEVER invite Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue, to speak at it’s commencement, and would certainly not confer upon him an honorary degree. In fact, it is more probable that Randall Terry and people like him are considered “fanatics” and a “domestic terrorists” by much of present-day Catholic academia.

The outcry isn’t so much about Barack Obama as it is about the state of Catholic academia in America when it comes to respect for the pre-born.

 

[catharina]

Well, when it comes to abortion and the time of ensoulment, the Church has been wrong. If not now, then a few hundred years ago. That’s my only issue. I’m not saying that abortion is not a sin, it is. But it’s certainly not the greatest sin that can be committed.

You don’t seem to realize that you have abandoned an article of Faith.
Relying on what the Church MIGHT have said before science revealed conception is dumb.

Medical science is clear that conception occurs when a sperm fertilizes an egg.
A new individual is created. As Catholics, we know a new soul has been created.

If laws were such that people were free (even encouraged) to torture and murder anyone of Chilean descent, anywhere in the world, I’m certain you would strongly reject such a law.

Yet with abortion, you say ‘it’s wrong but it doesn’t effect me - so I can tolerate it.’

Horrible.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

The democratic party through its pro-abortion stance has killed more people than the war in Iraq.

It wasn’t the Democratic party that legalized abortion, it was the Supreme Court. But still, you are allowed, thought not obligated, to use that line of reasoning when deciding how to vote. You are also allowed to use the line of reasoning that the president does not have the power to repeal Roe vs. Wade. And you’re allowed to say that Obama’s repealing of various pro-life executive orders means you won’t vote for him. But you can also say that his commitment to strengthening social programs means fewer abortions will ultimately be performed. And you can say that making abortion illegal won’t stop it, and may only result in women going to Canada or Mexico for abortions, or having illegal abortions. All of these factors you are permitted if not obliged to consider as a faithful Catholic.

 

[madabkr4tx]

It wasn’t the Democratic party that legalized abortion, it was the Supreme Court. But still, you are allowed, thought not obligated, to use that line of reasoning when deciding how to vote. You are also allowed to use the line of reasoning that the president does not have the power to repeal Roe vs. Wade. And you’re allowed to say that Obama’s repealing of various pro-life executive orders means you won’t vote for him. But you can also say that his commitment to strengthening social programs means fewer abortions will ultimately be performed. And you can say that making abortion illegal won’t stop it, and may only result in women going to Canada or Mexico for abortions, or having illegal abortions. All of these factors you are permitted if not obliged to consider as a faithful Catholic.

I didn’t write that the Democrats legalized, but they’ve been very supportive of it.
No law stops anything. Murders still occur every day. Children are still abused every day. People still smoke crack every day. May as well make all those things legal.

 

[mapleoak]

In examining and judging the two Candidates who were in the forefront of the Presidential Race, many used Prudential judgement to decide which of the two was the more moral, based on issues that were not of Intrinsic Evil such as the war, economy, environment etc. rather than acknowledging the NON NEGOTIABLE (said thusly by the VATICAN), issue of Abortion. The other issues were important and could be debated using Prudential Judgement. 54% of voting Catholics, practicing, or non-practicing chose to ignore the Intrinsic, non-negotiable evil of abortion. Why? Because it didn’t effect them personally. 54% of Catholics in the US have lost their moral compass, a well formed conscience.

Elts, thank you so much for your well thought out posts in 245 and 246.

 

[madabkr4tx]

Well, when it comes to abortion and the time of ensoulment, the Church has been wrong. If not now, then a few hundred years ago. That’s my only issue. I’m not saying that abortion is not a sin, it is. But it’s certainly not the greatest sin that can be committed.

If murdering children isn’t the worst sin that can be commited, what is?

 

[Ronald_E]

Elts, thank you so much for your well thought out posts in 245 and 246.

How do you know that 54% of Catholics lost their moral compass or that their consciences were not well-formed?
For example, women bring life into the world. What happens to women when they live in a world of suffering, disease, war, torture and they are targets for the vast majority of violence and have no power to stop what males have created?
All of the above represent the obvious examples of the culture of death. As long as those are not addressed and resolved it will be unsafe for women to bring their children into the world. 15,000,000 children die each year before they reach the age of 5. That is the culture of death.
Those who support Obama coming to Notre Dame have a well-formed conscience because they know that communication about the common good is the beginning of healing suffering and creating an environment where it is safe for women to bring children into the world.

 

[madabkr4tx]

How do you know that 54% of Catholics lost their moral compass or that their consciences were not well-formed?
For example, women bring life into the world. What happens to women when they live in a world of suffering, disease, war, torture and they are targets for the vast majority of violence and have no power to stop what males have created?
All of the above represent the obvious examples of the culture of death. As long as those are not addressed and resolved it will be unsafe for women to bring their children into the world. 15,000,000 children die each year before they reach the age of 5. That is the culture of death.
Those who support Obama coming to Notre Dame have a well-formed conscience because they know that communication about the common good is the beginning of healing suffering and creating an environment where it is safe for women to bring children into the world.

So killing children before they leave the womb before they have even a chance at life is better?

 

[Ronald_E]

If murdering children isn’t the worst sin that can be commited, what is?

Not understanding what causes abortion and taking care of that is negligence and makes one an accomplice to abortion. There is nobody innocent here.

 

[madabkr4tx]

Not understanding what causes abortion and taking care of that is negligence and makes one an accomplice to abortion. There is nobody innocent here.

The children are, and the last time I checked, abortion is a choice. As is conception of a child in the first place.