I am not sure that Fr. Rodriguez said anything which was not in accordance with Catholic teaching.And what did he say it was not in accordance with Catholic doctrine?
Well I can’t find anything that father Rodriguez said that was contrary to Catholic doctrine. Perhaps the Bishop needs to clarify rather than lead people to believe that father Rodriguez is not properly enunciating Catholic doctrine. Or perhaps the bishop was overcome with political correctness and meant to be vague -we have had way too much of that with our bishops in the past-thankfully the new breed of bishops, like Archbishop Chaput, are not afraid to vigorously explain Catholic doctrineI am not sure that Fr. Rodriguez said anything which was not in accordance with Catholic teaching.
I am reading between the lines, since Bishop Ochoa didn’t mention the two priests by name. But I suspect his letter was a gentle nudge to Fr. Rodriguez to be more compassionate in his public statements, and an equally gentle nudge to the other priest to get his views back in line.
As I mentioned earlier, I don’t know what Cardinal Ratzinger meant when he said that proportionate reasons existed. But in his mind, they apparently do. However, I do agree with you about remote material cooperation being of concern, and not something to be dismissed
He left open the possibility that there may be proportionate reasons which would allow one to vote for a candidate in spite of their pro-abortion stance. So let’s examine a situation in which there may be found a proportionate reason. Candidate A is pro-abortion. Candidate B wants to round up all disabled persons and euthanize them. I guess in that situation you could say that both of these are intrinsic evils so you could vote for the candidate of your choosing based on other issues.
But that still doesn’t get around the matter of “the five non-negotiables” being a political phrase not used by the Church. The bishop objected to a political tract being handed out in his parishes. Its not an unreasonable thing to do.