M
mapleoak
Guest
Trying to think of what you would call that. Not letting your right arm know what your left is doing. Teapot calling the kettle black. Do as I say, not as I do.
- Status
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Fine, you posted it. From your previous post it seemed you had not read it.You illustrate a good example of how dangerous being vague can be. When the USCCB was vague in the document you quoted (he he, I quoted that same document many, many, many, more times than you) they didn’t state anything untrue per say. They did however leave out crucial information, resulting in unfortunately, many people coming to wrong conclusions due to interpretation out of context with the wholeness of Church teaching. I have earlier pointed out such documents as Evangelium Vitae as well as others put out by the Vatican for example, which should help to clarify your understanding of the philosophy of “limiting the harm” and the application of proportionate reasons. Voting for someone who supports killing any and all unborn for any reason while at the same time saying: but I don’t support his stance on abortion though, does not reconcile with the licit application of “limiting the harm”.
p.s. earlier in this thread I also indicated posting that document many times. Interesting that you would post it here in such manner as somehow a proof of your claim.
Now, it’s clearer, it’s not that you haven’t read it, but that you know more and better than the Bishop’ Conference. I was of course assuming that the Bishops were aware of the body of Church teaching, including Evangelium Vitae, and of course anything they taught is coherent with the whole body of Church teaching.
Thank you for clarifying for us where the Bishops were in error.
Oh, and if you have indeed read Evangelium Vitae, could you please share where it says that one is absolutely prohibited from voting for a candidate whose views on abortion do not agree with the Church? That is after all your claim, right? I have read it and can’t find that part you’re referring to. Thanks, that would be very helpful. I’d like to pass it on to the Bishops, too, so they can correct themselves.
By the way, you stated
I would tend to agree with you. I never said anything about voting for someone “who supports killing any and all unborn for any reason.” Maybe you were referring to someone else’s post? Or were you just exaggerating for the emotional appeal such hyperbole generates?
F
fix
Guest
There is only one magisterium. Quoting none normative documents as proof we can act wrongly is not really proof.
F
fix
Guest
It means the answer form the priest should not contradict the Pope.
R
Ronald_E
Guest
How do you know if the priest or a layperson contradicts the Pope in this instance? St. John of the Cross had a mystical vision looking down from above Jesus on the Cross and he sketched it between 1575 and 1577. It is located on a wall at the Carmelite monastary called Incarnacion in Avila.
His vision was a different perspective and not a contradiction of the Crucifixion. Was his vision wrong because of it being different in perspective? No. There are different perspectives about how to end abortion based on how we understand the causes of abortion. Basically, fear is the cause of abortion. I do not have time to get into details.
We as Christians must address the root causes of this intrinsic evil in order to stop abortion. If we do not then we remain a house divided.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Who or what is this referring to? Can you clarify? Also, it would help if you would proofread prior to posting, it would be easier to engage in dialogue with you if simple typos were corrected (“none normative”? “form the priest”?–makes it harder to know what you’re really getting at).
Thanks for any clarification.
F
fix
Guest
We are speaking of intrinsic evils and either licit or illicit cooperation with evil.
To be even more concrete, the Church says there is a moral imperative to stop legalized abortion. We all agree the issue must be addressed on several fronts, but that does not mean we stop pressing for repeal of unjust laws that fail to protect innocent life.
F
fix
Guest
I am sorry for the typing error.
I was referring to the issue that many claim the document from the USCCB gives them a green light to vote for a pro abortion pol as long as it is for other reasons. The document is vague and needs to be read in context with all of Church teaching.
And if you read APOSTOLOS SUOS it states:
Now, if you are claiming bishops are giving conflicting interpetations on this topic how do you know who is correct? There are lists of bishops that have clarified what the document in question authentically binds in terms of moral voting.
M
mapleoak
Guest
A vision offering different perspectives of the Crucifixion is of an exceptionally different nature than if he were to have a vision instructing him: that an intrinsic evil is not intrinsically evil; that it is okay to support an intrinsic evil; to say that it is okay to support an intrinsic evil while at the same time denying that that is what you are doing.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
No problem…we all make typos…I hope you understand my intent was not to be picky, but really to make sure we understood what you were saying. Your messages were (admirably) brief, so the significance of a typo may be higher. Thanks.
I wouldn’t say a green light per se, I think it’s still a yellow light because abortion (in this case, I assume that’s the main issue in this thread) IS an intrinsic evil, and if a Catholic is going to vote for someone whose position on an intrinsic evil differs from the Catholic Church they must do so after very careful consideration of, reflection on, understanding of, and prayer about, Church teaching. So maybe some see it as a “green light” but I don’t. My point is more that it’s not a red light, I guess (to continue the metaphor).
I think you make an excellent point to raise the issue about the nature of episcopal conferences and individual bishops. Thank you for adding that to the consideration here. I understand the juridical limits of episcopal conferences and know that’s a topic that is definitely one of the fuzzier and unresolved issues following VII. On the other hand, I think VII did a tremendous job of clarifying the teaching on the authority and nature of the episcopal office (mostly individual bishops including the Pope, but also the college of bishops). I think anyone seriously reflecting on this issue needs to “listen” to BOTH the USCCB (at least, if they’re American) and their own diocesan Bishop.
I know many individual Bishops have spoken out on this issue, and they disagree with Notre Dame’s decision. I have not heard them claim, though, that the document in question (we are talking about Faithful Citizenship, is that right?) should be changed. So, I don’t “hear” them saying that we have to choose between Faithful Citizenship (FC) or their opinions. FC is the document I refer to that allows the possibility for a Catholic in good conscience without violating Church teaching to vote for a candidate whose positions may not agree in all respects with the Catholic Church, particularly on issues involving intrinsic evils.
Now, I think the document the individual bishops are speaking out against ND on is the 2004 letter the USCCB posted on their web site (hardly a formal juridical teaching iaw Apostolos Suos, as you note, correctly imho) that discussed “Catholics in Political Life.” Given that statement, and the nature of its authority, I think its principles need to applied specifically in a given applicable situation. ND interpreted it one way, some individual bishops interpret it differently. The Conference for better or worse has not publicly issued any clarification.
So, I think every individual needs to listen to their own Bishop and listen to the relevant teachings of the Conference and the Vatican. On this specific issue I think there’s room for some diversity of views, all of which is in accord with Catholic teaching.
My local bishop has spoken out disagreeing with ND’s decision. But he has not said that Catholics cannot, in good conscience, agree with ND’s decision. I think both of those facts are important.
One other thought, and this is purely my opinion, I just can’t help but wonder if the majority of U.S. bishops who have not spoken out on this are silent because (1) they disagree with those who have spoken out and don’t want to cause division/scandal among the bishops or (2) they simply don’t see it as important enough. I don’t know, I sometimes wish that the Conference would be able to speak as one in a timely manner to issues like this.
Thanks again for your thoughtful comments.
L
Luis_Santiago
Guest
foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/14/notre-dame-president-defends-obama-invitation/
Apparently, Fr. Jenkins says that this statement doesn’t apply to Obama anyway, since he’s not Catholic.
Apparently, Fr. Jenkins says that this statement doesn’t apply to Obama anyway, since he’s not Catholic.
R
Ronald_E
Guest
I give up. I can’t get you to see what I see. My mistake for trying. Everybody in our faith should know that abortion is an intrinsically evil act. The person who supports free choice is different from the act. If you do not address what causes the person to choose abortion you will never stop it.
J
JimG
Guest
That’s quite true, but it might be as well said of any other moral evil. If we never address the causes of rape or murder or child abuse, they will continue. And it is possible to address the causes and to try to prevent those evils from occuring. We do that with education and training in the moral virtues. But even though we recognize that such evils can arise from a variety of root causes, that does not prevent us from making them illegal, which is itself a strong deterrent. The law does not freely allow child abuse and murder while trying to work on root causes.
L
Luis_Santiago
Guest
Here’s the thing about the law though: for it to work, a significant majority of the population has to agree with it. Rape, murder, child abuse, that’s all stuff that anyone from any religion or culture can agree is wrong. Before Roe v. Wade, many doctors risked their careers to illegally provide abortions, sometimes for free, because they felt it was the right thing to do. There is no way this could ever be the case with rape or murder or child abuse.
It took a massive change in public attitude for our nation to reject other evils, like racism and slavery. I believe the same will have to happen for abortion.
J
JimG
Guest
And yet, even today, a majority of Americans do not support allowing abortion through all nine months of pregnancy. They will limit it to 3 months, or even 6 months. Only a minority would allow it through all nine months. And most would restrict it to serious reasons. Why not allow Americans to vote, through their state legislatures, just when and in what circumstances abortion should be legal?
S
stormcloud
Guest
Considering that, after 6 years of control over all three branches of the federal government, even the GOP hasn’t made any substantive progress toward defending the unborn, I will pray for that change in public attitude.
H
Holly3278
Guest
This just thoroughly disgusts me! Obama, a pro-abortion president, should not be receiving any kind of reward or degree or whatever from any university that dares to call itself Catholic! 
L
Luis_Santiago
Guest
Yes, I agree, and we may very well see progress in this arena. I believe that the pro-life movement would need to focus its efforts on late-term abortions rather than all abortions in order to see progress though. I think the majority of people believe late-term abortions should be allowed if necessary to save the mother’s life, although if the fetus is viable, then why would an abortion be necessary? Still, something like 99% of all abortions are performed within the first 20 weeks.
- Status