Prudential Judgments

[Bookcat]

We’ve all used, or heard, ‘prudential judgement,’ when discussing various issues.

The term “prudential judgement” gets used often in dealing with contingent matters – especially in the secular arena – in “how to apply” the Church’s Teachings on in a particular matter. Various persons offering their opinion. These can vary. The person who is charged with the duty of making the judgment -does so by informing his conscience with the Teaching of the Church and by the virtue of prudence (which can include seeking wise advice) he judges what is the right good means to the good end.

(aided by perhaps supernatural prudence and the gifts of the Holy Spirit --and of course one lives by Faith, Hope and Love)

Catechism:

1806 Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; "the prudent man looks where he is going."65 "Keep sane and sober for your prayers."66 Prudence is “right reason in action,” writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle.67 It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a7.htm#I

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The term “prudential judgement” gets used often in dealing with contingent matters – especially in the secular arena – in “how to apply” the Church’s Teachings on in a particular matter. Various persons offering their opinion. These can vary. The person who is charged with the duty of making the judgment -does so by informing his conscience with the Teaching of the Church and by the virtue of prudence (which can include seeking wise advice) he judges what is the right good means to the good end.

(aided by perhaps supernatural prudence and the gifts of the Holy Spirit --and of course one lives by Faith, Hope and Love)

Catechism:

1806 Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; "the prudent man looks where he is going."65 "Keep sane and sober for your prayers."66 Prudence is “right reason in action,” writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle.67 It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a7.htm#I

It still stands that the authoritative men of the Church help us with our ‘judgments’, prudent or otherwise. It just surprises me to see some discount the men of the Church’s guidance on all, or a majority of issues. Because they are ‘lesser’ issues, does not remove them as part of Christ’s Gospel to all.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I have said I am not speaking of anyone, or myself, specifically. I’m sorry you feel an attempt to understand is a ‘negative’ view.

The rest of your post doesn’t address the points I tried to articulate in the post you quoted.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, but I guess I’ll discuss it with others who won’t find it too personal to discuss.

Well, then, I guess I don’t understand what you’re driving at in terms of your “points.” You asked how/when Catholics could disagree with prudential judgments as offered by various members of clergy and hierarchy, unofficially. The answer is, always. We are bound by doctrine. Until and unless the CDF or some other arm of the Vatican requires a particular means to stated Catholic ends, Catholics are free to choose alternate routes to those same ends, and should be trusted by their fellow Catholics that those are being pursued in good faith.

You are also very incorrect if you think that priests and/or bishops and/or other ordained members of the Church “speak with one voice” regarding methods to achieve justice and morality in the modern world. They do not. You may read about a particular subcommittee of the USCCB, or a particular member of that body, claiming to speak for “all the bishops,” and therefore assume that the entire “body of prelates” has a unified approach to unjust and immoral conditions in modern life, but you would be wrong, first of all. Opinions do differ, among parish priests, bishops, and Cardinals.

Second: Again, assuming in a particular instance they were “speaking with one voice,” unanimously for the whole Church (I have not heard that ever, but let’s pretend), their statements as to how to reach justice and morality are still just suggestions. The problem is, many times that they speak, they do so without researching the economic, social, educational, medical, and many other aspects of the problem, at least deeply and with expert knowledge.

That’s why the virtue of prudence and the reality of knowledge and information are so vital when deciding the best course of action. Conscientious Catholics will sift and consider every possible approach to immorality and injustice – including, but not limited to, group statements by members of the Church (clergy and/or lay).

Doctrine is not optional. Methods are many. And I do not apologize for resisting and resenting any implied general indictment of those who do not accept every statement from someone wearing a collar as an expert statement about matters of the world. If they happen to have a degree (or great & comprehensive knowledge) in that field, that’s one thing, but so far, I have not seen much of that. There are certain priests, for example, who have studied medicine in some depth and who work in Catholic bioethics. I am much more inclined to listen to some of their approaches to Life issues than to random parish priest or bishop at random parish or diocese. (Just an example.) So far, by the way, I have read nothing from the U.S. bishops, individually or together, that reveals much knowledge about the complex particulars & ramifications of illegal immigration, only idealizing. In fact, their recommendations generally have shown how short of specifics they are in this particular area. I am inclined to go much further than they go with the topic, because I have more on-the-ground (not just in parishes) knowledge and experience with it, and because I take social justice just as seriously as they do.

In general, you seem to assume that Catholics are eager to dismiss statements from members of the clergy. I strongly disagree. I think lay people are more thoughtful than that, less reactive than that. The fact, again, that the same posters may raise blanket objections about a whole collection of issues on which the bishops have spoken may be a phenomenon that misleads you. It just means that certain posters are vocal, that’s all.

I don’t engage in group-think. For example, I am very much in favor of gun control (as are the bishops), very much against the death penalty (as I believe most bishops are), am radical about my approaches to (against) abortion (much more than what I’ve read from bishops so far), and have more complex approaches to immigration.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I am not an expert on Catholic theology as to what can be changed what cannot be changed. What is the difference between doctrine, cannon law, catechism etc. For example I don’t understand how it used to be not ok to eat meat on Fridays and now its ok. I don’t understand how the pope can declare himself infallible when for most of the 2000 years he wasn’t. I don’t know those kinds of specifics. Therefore I can only speak as a Catholic American who has been educated in catholic schools (jesuit) with a concentration in sciences.

As a an American it is completely unnatural for me to say that there cannot be disagreement. I do understand the whole idea of obedience but I don’t particularly think disagreeing is disobedience. Plus I believe catholics should be thinking catholics who are well versed in the areas of philosophy, logic and who can ask questions without fear.

I agree with what undercloud said almost 100%. I feel that catholic theology gives us a foundation of what is morally good and evil as a set of principles and we then must use our own experiences and judgement on specific issues and circumstances.

Maybe my background gives me greater cause to obedience. I was raised Protestant and attended many of the various denominations. I was always bothered by Truth having so many different meanings, and still remaining truth. Through a study of scriptures, the early Church fathers, and even history, I came to believe the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ started. I converted in 1985.

Obedience makes faith easy. Trying to follow the exact truth can be hard, especially when I see divisions. This is why I consider the men of the Church united, when there is no disagreement among them. The confusing part is to watch the laypersons claim liberty to disagree, but without a supporting statement from any of the men of the Church.

This is similar to the Protestants saying, ‘we agree on the basics.’ Christ, as far as I know, never taught ‘basics.’

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Well, then, I guess I don’t understand what you’re driving at in terms of your “points.” You asked how/when Catholics could disagree with prudential judgments as offered by various members of clergy and hierarchy, unofficially. The answer is, always. We are bound by doctrine. Until and unless the CDF or some other arm of the Vatican requires a particular means to stated Catholic ends, Catholics are free to choose alternate routes to those same ends, and should be trusted by their fellow Catholics that those are being pursued in good faith.

You are also very incorrect if you think that priests and/or bishops and/or other ordained members of the Church “speak with one voice” regarding methods to achieve justice and morality in the modern world. They do not. You may read about a particular subcommittee of the USCCB, or a particular member of that body, claiming to speak for “all the bishops,” and therefore assume that the entire “body of prelates” has a unified approach to unjust and immoral conditions in modern life, but you would be wrong, first of all. Opinions do differ, among parish priests, bishops, and Cardinals.

Second: Again, assuming in a particular instance they were “speaking with one voice,” unanimously for the whole Church (I have not heard that ever, but let’s pretend), their statements as to how to reach justice and morality are still just suggestions. The problem is, many times that they speak, they do so without researching the economic, social, educational, medical, and many other aspects of the problem, at least deeply and with expert knowledge.

That’s why the virtue of prudence and the reality of knowledge and information are so vital when deciding the best course of action. Conscientious Catholics will sift and consider every possible approach to immorality and injustice – including, but not limited to, group statements by members of the Church (clergy and/or lay).

Doctrine is not optional. Methods are many. And I do not apologize for resisting and resenting any implied general indictment of those who do not accept every statement from someone wearing a collar as an expert statement about matters of the world. If they happen to have a degree (or great & comprehensive knowledge) in that field, that’s one thing, but so far, I have not seen much of that. There are certain priests, for example, who have studied medicine in some depth and who work in Catholic bioethics. I am much more inclined to listen to some of their approaches to Life issues than to random parish priest or bishop at random parish or diocese. (Just an example.) So far, by the way, I have read nothing from the U.S. bishops, individually or together, that reveals much knowledge about the complex particulars & ramifications of illegal immigration, only idealizing. In fact, their recommendations generally have shown how short of specifics they are in this particular area. I am inclined to go much further than they go with the topic, because I have more on-the-ground (not just in parishes) knowledge and experience with it, and because I take social justice just as seriously as they do.

In general, you seem to assume that Catholics are eager to dismiss statements from members of the clergy. I strongly disagree. I think lay people are more thoughtful than that, less reactive than that. The fact, again, that the same posters may raise blanket objections about a whole collection of issues on which the bishops have spoken may be a phenomenon that misleads you. It just means that certain posters are vocal, that’s all.

I don’t engage in group-think. For example, I am very much in favor of gun control (as are the bishops), very much against the death penalty (as I believe most bishops are), am radical about my approaches to (against) abortion (much more than what I’ve read from bishops so far), and have more complex approaches to immigration.

I have tried to convey that I understand what we’re bound to and what we are supposed to have liberties with.

As for the men of the Church agreeing, I often invite disagreeing statements be referenced. That invite goes unanswered, and I can’t find them myself. Some statements are made by the Pope, that all Catholics follow, and other statements are issued representative of the bishops. That’s agreeing, in my opinion; especially when I find them common with the scriptures, particularly the Gospel of Christ.

It seems the secular, political, often carries more weight in some discussions. When there are no disagreeing statements on the issues I listed, I have difficulty in dismissing the statements of the bishops that speak out. As I’ve explained, it reminds me of the Protestants agreeing on ‘basics.’

 

[Elizabeth502]

I have tried to convey that I understand what we’re bound to and what we are supposed to have liberties with.

As for the men of the Church agreeing, I often invite disagreeing statements be referenced. That invite goes unanswered, and I can’t find them myself. Some statements are made by the Pope, that all Catholics follow, and other statements are issued representative of the bishops. That’s agreeing, in my opinion; especially when I find them common with the scriptures, particularly the Gospel of Christ.

It seems the secular, political, often carries more weight in some discussions. When there are no disagreeing statements on the issues I listed, I have difficulty in dismissing the statements of the bishops that speak out. As I’ve explained, it reminds me of the Protestants agreeing on ‘basics.’

Again, who is “dismissing” statements out of hand? Yes, I have “difficulty” doing that, too, because I don’t do so. Mostly, though, I am disappointed when crucial issues of morality and justice are not more deeply researched by the clergy & hierarchy (or when they do not seem to have “done their homework” on these issues, by checking with experts), because I definitely think they could be a powerful voice if those voices were credible. When people (lay or clergy) romanticize, or otherwise show an embarrassing deficiency of realistic knowledge, they are much less likely to be heard and taken seriously – naturally, because such statements will not ring true to people who live in the real world and really do intersect with those issues everyday.

The point is, that religious representatives (including of other faiths) have a lot of important moral observations for all of society, and all of society does not feel as blindly obedient to statements of particular clergy as do some (not even all) Catholics. As an example, I do believe that the world is perhaps waiting (not just Catholics are waiting) for our new Holy Father to say something about the lack of economic justice in Latin America. I will be very interested to hear that, because he has on-the-ground experience there. I will be even more interested in hearing what actions he might be inclined to take, with regard to gov’ts there (pressure put on them, etc.) I said that a couple of weeks ago here.

 

[Corki]

This is why I consider the men of the Church united, when there is no disagreement among them. The confusing part is to watch the laypersons claim liberty to disagree, but without a supporting statement from any of the men of the Church.

I am confused. Are you saying that you* infer *unanimous agreement whenever there is a public statement made? How would you know that there is no disagreement? Many of the statements that come from the Bishops’ committees have been “approved” by only a few Bishops and written by hired staff. None of the issues that you put forth so far have resulted in 100% agreement from all the leaders and clergy in the Church.

When the leaders of the Church have a variety of opinions, we are not bound to place ourselves under obedience to the majority opinion. We can read the rationale presented and use that to form our conscience regarding how to act on the issue, providing, of course, that it is not a matter of doctrine or a matter of faith and morals where the magesterium has clearly spoken.

Did you know that even among the Bishops of various dioceses, any statement by the USCCB (to use the US example) is not binding on any individual Bishop unless voted upon by the entire body and passing unanimously?

 

[Bookcat]

It still stands that the authoritative men of the Church help us with our ‘judgments’ .

Yes of course. Such is even a “part” of the virtue of prudence.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I am confused. Are you saying that you* infer *unanimous agreement whenever there is a public statement made? How would you know that there is no disagreement? Many of the statements that come from the Bishops’ committees have been “approved” by only a few Bishops and written by hired staff. None of the issues that you put forth so far have resulted in 100% agreement from all the leaders and clergy in the Church.

When the leaders of the Church have a variety of opinions, we are not bound to place ourselves under obedience to the majority opinion. We can read the rationale presented and use that to form our conscience regarding how to act on the issue, providing, of course, that it is not a matter of doctrine or a matter of faith and morals where the magesterium has clearly spoken.

Did you know that even among the Bishops of various dioceses, any statement by the USCCB (to use the US example) is not binding on any individual Bishop unless voted upon by the entire body and passing unanimously?

They have times to appear united. I would assume the bishops know statements from the USCCB, and from the Pope. I also assume they know of public statements from other bishops on issues. Where are the voices of disagreements among them? Show me the statement from the bishop that states we don’t need anymore gun controls, that we need to close our borders and start mass deportations, that social security or welfare needs to be cut, that the death penalty should be used as it is in some states today on a regular basis, that preemptive wars are justified, etc.? When bishops speak on these issues, I can see the moral guidance behind their example/teaching.

It is against the odds that the bishops are wrong on every single issue.

 

[Corki]

They have times to appear united. I would assume the bishops know statements from the USCCB, and from the Pope. I also assume they know of public statements from other bishops on issues. Where are the voices of disagreements among them? Show me the statement from the bishop that states we don’t need anymore gun controls, that we need to close our borders and start mass deportations, that social security or welfare needs to be cut, that the death penalty should be used as it is in some states today on a regular basis, that preemptive wars are justified, etc.? When bishops speak on these issues, I can see the moral guidance behind their example/teaching.

It is against the odds that the bishops are wrong on every single issue.

I don’t really know what you are looking for. No bishop in the US, that I know of, has made statements on gun control one way or the other. Gun violence, yes but if there are statements from Bishops on gun control (as in laws), I haven’t read them.

No bishop has said that we need to throw open our borders, ditch all immigration controls and never deport another foreigner regardless of crime either. Yes, I think the Bishops are united in thinking we need immigration reform. So are most Catholics, so are most Americans. There’s a huge variety of opinions on HOW.

As for pre-emptive war, there have even been Popes who have endorsed that.

Yes, when a Bishop speaks, you absolutely should consider it moral guidance. The moral principals (promoting peace, care for those in need, justice and mercy) are absolutes. The statements on “how” to do that are guidance. First and foremost, guidance to form our conscience and also guidance on how to act. But guidance does not require assent in the same way as doctrine or even as Church discipline.

 

[Elizabeth502]

They have [at] times [appeared] united.

Appearance. Not reality. Also, both in this statement ^ and below you are confusing broad policy statements with particulars about those subjects. IOW, I can examine my conscience and use my reason, and conclude that merely closing the borders (without additional measures) is not “comprehensive immigration reform” as someone representing authentic Catholicism would define that. You are characterizing policy statements (reminders as to applied doctrine) as a resistance to any change on the one hand (e.g., immigration), or as mandates for radical (opposing) change on the other (e.g., gun control) – a thorough and unqualified repudiation of existing policy in all its details.

Bishops are not public policy administrators; they are public policy voices of conscience. Those are two very different things. They do not craft law, nor do they bind Catholics to specific legal measures. Again, that is with regard to all doctrine, not only social justice doctrine. Their statements are not exhaustive as to implementation of public policy.

I would assume the bishops know statements from the USCCB, and from the Pope. I also assume they know of public statements from other bishops on issues. Where are the voices of disagreements among them?

You don’t get out enough. Not every bishop agrees with every other bishop about the means of getting from Catholic Doctrine A to Catholic Implementation B. I have certainly heard differences on EWTN in approaches to implementation of doctrine, and read differences in print. One reason you’re not going to hear from every bishop is that they are all too busy to cover all bases of social and moral doctrine. They do have their specialties. It might enlighten to watch the annual USCCB meeting in the fall, televised in part on EWTN. They take public votes on the wording of certain recommendations, for example. Those votes are not always unanimous. They have their committees, as well: committees on migration, on family life, on lots of other stuff.

Show me the statement from the bishop that states we don’t need anymore gun controls, that we need to close our borders and start mass deportations, that social security or welfare needs to be cut, that the death penalty should be used as it is in some states today on a regular basis, that preemptive wars are justified, etc.? When bishops speak on these issues, I can see the moral guidance behind their example/teaching.

Yep. Those are indeed policy statements. Broad, not specific. I get to disagree with them on some of the specifics, as long as doctrine (reflected in those broad policy statements) is not compromised. Thus, although I am no expert on guns, maybe I have an even tougher gun control measure I’m lobbying for than anything any bishop has ever suggested. How is that “not obeying” the bishops? Answer: it’s not disobedience or selective obedience. It’s thoughtful and respectful obedience.

Howard, bishops don’t have a lot of time to create public policy. They are busy men, busier now than perhaps they have ever been in the modern era. Because they are busy, they rarely make the time or could take the time to investigate or craft an alternative gun-control measure than the measure in the news at the present moment. If they have two options – no changes to existing law, or what Senator X or Representative Y suggests as a change, they’ll go with the suggestion of a Congress member. That’s as far, generally, as they go with that. That doesn’t mean that a sincere Catholic can’t say, ‘Wait, that measure has been examined by others, and not only will it not succeed in restricting gun use/sales, it will enable it in a different way.’ (Again, I’m not an expert; I’m picking out a hypothetical.)

It is against the odds that the bishops are wrong on every single issue.

They are right on breadth, rarely sufficiently informed on depth. We do have the time, and it is our Catholic duty to make the time, to become informed as to depth, and then apply the bishops’ broad words to specific policies.

I will also bet that many Catholics are not sufficiently informed on what some of the bishops refer to as Restorative Justice. It’s something I take very seriously, read a lot about, and follow in legislatures. And why are Catholics not informed? Because they merely passively wait for public pronouncements which they can read about in big headlines from “the bishops” or “a bishop,” etc. They do not take the initiative which is our Catholic duty to do. You won’t find many big headlines from bishops about Restorative Justice, but it is a movement founded in Catholic social justice. With your logic, because “the bishops” haven’t made grand pronouncements about it, I’m being disobedient not to wait for them to tell me what to do.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t really know what you are looking for. No bishop in the US, that I know of, has made statements on gun control one way or the other. Gun violence, yes but if there are statements from Bishops on gun control (as in laws), I haven’t read them.

No bishop has said that we need to throw open our borders, ditch all immigration controls and never deport another foreigner regardless of crime either. Yes, I think the Bishops are united in thinking we need immigration reform. So are most Catholics, so are most Americans. There’s a huge variety of opinions on HOW.

As for pre-emptive war, there have even been Popes who have endorsed that.

Yes, when a Bishop speaks, you absolutely should consider it moral guidance. The moral principals (promoting peace, care for those in need, justice and mercy) are absolutes. The statements on “how” to do that are guidance. First and foremost, guidance to form our conscience and also guidance on how to act. But guidance does not require assent in the same way as doctrine or even as Church discipline.

There were statements on gun control from USCCB, and Cardinal Dolan specifically. The USCCB document called for the support of gun control measures, and Cardinal Dolan spoke on ‘common sense’ gun controls, leaving the details to the legislators. They were dismissed as speaking on a non moral issue, being inexperienced, and even being political. In some of those dismissals, a complete opposite view was espoused.

Your qualification changes the exact discussion that is current on these forums. Families being separated was the primary reason a bishop spoke on reform. Again, in dismissals a complete opposite seems to be espoused, laying blame on those that come here and overlooking the children that would have to pay for the ‘crimes’ of their parents. The immigrants are painted as violating the commandments of God by envying what we have in this country. There are comparisons to theft in the jobs they may receive.

I saw Pope John Paul, and Benedict’s, comments that seem to condemn the ‘preemptive’ wars, while calling for restraint.

These go beyond ‘how to’ and appear to be in direct opposition.

Christ didn’t qualify His teachings, He said ‘do,’ to summarize. There seems to be a legalistic approach, dissecting and pitching scripture against scripture to justify delaying, or foregoing even.

As I said, the odds are against the bishops being wrong on every issue. They are those of apostolic succession, chosen and appointed with authority. It lacks authority, when arguments are presented against the view the bishops speak on, in the absence of any authoritative man of the Church supporting the opposing view, in my opinion.

 

[Elizabeth502]

There were statements on gun control from USCCB, and Cardinal Dolan specifically. The USCCB document called for the support of gun control measures, and Cardinal Dolan spoke on ‘common sense’ gun controls, leaving the details to the legislators.

My emphasis. Thank you for making my point for me. (Again, I am in favor of gun controls!) It’s just an example of how others might see specific measures as better controls than whatever a or several bishops have mentioned.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

My emphasis. Thank you for making my point for me. (Again, I am in favor of gun controls!) It’s just an example of how others might see specific measures as better controls than whatever a or several bishops have mentioned.

From many of those opposing gun controls, they oppose any and all gun controls. I am a gun owner, and always have been; yet, I can see the need of some controls that might help the crisis we see when the wrong person picks up certain weapons. While I can agree there might be different approaches, doing nothing is not specific measure, or better gun controls, in an effort to work a solution in the interest of all people.

The comments by the bishops were immediately dismissed by some; with arguments of the bishops speaking outside their authority because the issue is not ‘moral,’ or that the bishops have no experience, and even the bishops are ‘liberal’ and speaking along party lines. Can you agree that those type arguments, or any part of them, could be wrong, or disrespectful of the men of the Church? Let’s keep in mind that this is just one issue where we see the ‘prudential judgement’ with liberty to disagree arises.

There are many people who live in this country, and we’re not all experts on all issues, but we don’t have to be to have an opinion to recognize a goal. The same holds true for the bishops. I believe they approach issues through the moral, or spiritual, eye, and they guide as best as they have knowledge. The same holds true for the people. Because one is not an expert is no reason to dismiss them as the ‘uninformed.’

I’ll stop there as the discussion leads to another subject of interactions and the charity required of believers. That is said without anyone specifically in mind, but an overall representation on how discussions are conducted on these forums, at least how I, and others, perceive them.

 

[Corki]

Your qualification changes the exact discussion that is current on these forums. Families being separated was the primary reason a bishop spoke on reform. Again, in dismissals a complete opposite seems to be espoused, laying blame on those that come here and overlooking the children that would have to pay for the ‘crimes’ of their parents. The immigrants are painted as violating the commandments of God by envying what we have in this country. There are comparisons to theft in the jobs they may receive.

Immigration is exactly the kind of “how to” issue that requires prudential judgement. How does this country address the problem of illegal immigration, the majority of which does NOT involve children, while at the same time give due care and consideration to the children of illegal immigrants? The Bishops have all said we need to do something. I have never heard anyone, on CAF or in “real life” deny that. But what, when and how? That’s the part that is open for discussion.

I saw Pope John Paul, and Benedict’s, comments that seem to condemn the ‘preemptive’ wars, while calling for restraint.

These go beyond ‘how to’ and appear to be in direct opposition.

Not a big surprise for a Pope to say “make peace, not war”. Even before the World Wars, the Popes were begging world leaders to try to find a peaceful way to resolve conflict. That’s the core message - Peace. But the Popes and the Catechism also say that it is the responsibility of a legitimate government to protect its interests, protect weaker allies and to use force, if necessary. I don’t think we should be somehow disillusioned that the prudential judgement of a Pope and the prudential judgement of a sitting president do not always coincide perfectly. No Pope in modern times has ever claimed to have the authority to condemn a particular military action while at the same time they lament the need for violent responses.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Immigration is exactly the kind of “how to” issue that requires prudential judgement. How does this country address the problem of illegal immigration, the majority of which does NOT involve children, while at the same time give due care and consideration to the children of illegal immigrants? The Bishops have all said we need to do something. I have never heard anyone, on CAF or in “real life” deny that. But what, when and how? That’s the part that is open for discussion.

Not a big surprise for a Pope to say “make peace, not war”. Even before the World Wars, the Popes were begging world leaders to try to find a peaceful way to resolve conflict. That’s the core message - Peace. But the Popes and the Catechism also say that it is the responsibility of a legitimate government to protect its interests, protect weaker allies and to use force, if necessary. I don’t think we should be somehow disillusioned that the prudential judgement of a Pope and the prudential judgement of a sitting president do not always coincide perfectly. No Pope in modern times has ever claimed to have the authority to condemn a particular military action while at the same time they lament the need for violent responses.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I understand. I still question those who would claim violations of the commandments attached to immigrants, or overlooking children paying for the ‘sins’ of their parents if parents are deported, as ‘what, when, and how’ solutions.

It seems the second war with Iraq drew some stern criticism from the Pope. I can’t remember exact verbiage, and can’t look it up right now. But also not trying to argue a specific point in this discussion too. Thanks again Corki. Have a good day.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The comments by the bishops were immediately dismissed by some; with arguments of the bishops speaking outside their authority because the issue is not ‘moral,’ or that the bishops have no experience, and even the bishops are ‘liberal’ and speaking along party lines. Can you agree that those type arguments, or any part of them, could be wrong, or disrespectful of the men of the Church?

Since those are not my arguments or my attitude, it’s difficult for me to draw conclusions about the motivations or comments by others. (Again, these broad statements of yours are no more specific than some of the broad statements of bishops.) Yes, dismissing or labeling a viewpoint in a partisan fashion is wrong. Certainly that’s not what I’m doing. Do you understand that many on the Left in the Church do exactly that? They characterize as “Republican” or “right wing” Catholics who have different solutions to social justice concerns or to moral violations than they have. They set up divisions between themselves and their Catholic brothers and sisters, characterizing themselves as “loving” and “charitable” and “caring about the poor,” versus Catholics who propose different solutions to the same social problems. They play the same game which they accuse others of doing.

There are many people who live in this country, and we’re not all experts on all issues, but we don’t have to be to have an opinion to recognize a goal. The same holds true for the bishops. I believe they approach issues through the moral, or spiritual, eye, and they guide as best as they have knowledge. The same holds true for the people. Because one is not an expert is no reason to dismiss them as the ‘uninformed.’

I never “dismiss” someone’s else’s comments about a complex issue until and unless their words demonstrate that they are in fact uninformed, insufficiently informed, etc. Prudential judgment, correctly defined, assumes some interaction with enough “expertise” that prudence has even a context. You can’t make effective judgements about something you know little about. None of us can.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Since those are not my arguments or my attitude, it’s difficult for me to draw conclusions about the motivations or comments by others. (Again, these broad statements of yours are no more specific than some of the broad statements of bishops.) Yes, dismissing or labeling a viewpoint in a partisan fashion is wrong. Certainly that’s not what I’m doing. Do you understand that many on the Left in the Church do exactly that? They characterize as “Republican” or “right wing” Catholics who have different solutions to social justice concerns or to moral violations than they have. They set up divisions between themselves and their Catholic brothers and sisters, characterizing themselves as “loving” and “charitable” and “caring about the poor,” versus Catholics who propose different solutions to the same social problems. They play the same game which they accuse others of doing.

I never “dismiss” someone’s else’s comments about a complex issue until and unless their words demonstrate that they are in fact uninformed, insufficiently informed, etc. Prudential judgment, correctly defined, assumes some interaction with enough “expertise” that prudence has even a context. You can’t make effective judgements about something you know little about. None of us can.

I realize that the partisanship runs both ways, in a two party system, and please understand I am not attributing my questions to anyone in particular. I’ve seen it happen so often, I decided to start a thread to discuss what was hard for me to understand.

I don’t claim to be an expert and try to view all things through a spiritual eye. As I said, ‘one doesn’t have to be an expert to recognize a problem.’

Thanks again for your (name removed by moderator)ut Elizabeth. Have a good day, and a good Holy Week.