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.
