B
Benadam
Guest
An between version
It’s never ok to be ok with a freedom that allows the choice to kill children
- Status
It’s never ok to be ok with a freedom that allows the choice to kill children
W
Worthy5
Guest
Really, is it a worse prison than a centralized govt run by the self-annointed using its coercive police power to dictate how all facets of our lives are to be run.
C
Caramel
Guest
Very good!! Thank you!! I’ve quoted some of the important points of the article:An between version
"The document is clear. Catholics “cannot compromise” for the sake of a misguided tolerance because “those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a grave and clear obligation to oppose any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them.” And “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.”
All life issues are not of equal moral weight. The word consistent is mistakenly read by some to indicate equal. As Francis Cardinal George of Chicago, Illinois, points out, abortion is “a defining issue not only personally but socially.”
The confusion is not about the moral status of abortion but rather about how a Catholic in public office must balance that clear teaching and his public duties under the law. Voters too have wondered if it is permissible to vote for a candidate who takes a strong stand on social justice issues but who defends abortion consistently.
The new document confirms constant Church teaching, but it is intended to aid Catholics who live in a culture that does not consistently reflect Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life. Life issues—abortion, euthanasia, cloning, fetal tissue research—will be an increasingly important component of Catholic civil and political life in democratic nations.
The ** only time a Catholic may vote for a politician who holds pro-abortion views is if the alternative is even worse. So, for instance, if candidate A, who supports abortion but is opposed to euthanasia and cloning, is running against candidate B, who is pro-abortion and supports euthanasia and cloning, a Catholic may in good conscience—albeit with a heavy heart—vote for candidate A. Of course, when faced with no good alternative, Catholics may choose to simply refrain from voting."**
I personally fell into the trap of voting for a prochoice candidate because I agreed with the rest of his platform. I’m still not sure if voting for him was a mistake. But as a prolifer who became prolife a long time before I became a practicing Catholic (i.e. I didn’t just accept Church teaching on this matter - I already had discovered the truth on my own) I know how I must vote now.
Please, everyone, read this article. It is so clear. Catholics cannot be prochoice. The terms are mutually exclusive.
C
Caramel
Guest
Very good!! Thank you!! I’ve quoted some of the important points of the article:
"The document is clear. Catholics “cannot compromise” for the sake of a misguided tolerance because “those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a grave and clear obligation to oppose any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them.” **And “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.” **
All life issues are not of equal moral weight. The word consistent is mistakenly read by some to indicate equal. As Francis Cardinal George of Chicago, Illinois, points out, abortion is “a defining issue not only personally but socially.”
The confusion is not about the moral status of abortion but rather about how a Catholic in public office must balance that clear teaching and his public duties under the law. Voters too have wondered if it is permissible to vote for a candidate who takes a strong stand on social justice issues but who defends abortion consistently.
The new document confirms constant Church teaching, but it is intended to aid Catholics who live in a culture that does not consistently reflect Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life. Life issues—abortion, euthanasia, cloning, fetal tissue research—will be an increasingly important component of Catholic civil and political life in democratic nations.
The only time a Catholic may vote for a politician who holds pro-abortion views is if the alternative is even worse. So, for instance, if candidate A, who supports abortion but is opposed to euthanasia and cloning, is running against candidate B, who is pro-abortion and supports euthanasia and cloning, a Catholic may in good conscience—albeit with a heavy heart—vote for candidate A. Of course, when faced with no good alternative, Catholics may choose to simply refrain from voting." (empasis added)
I personally fell into the trap of voting for a prochoice candidate because I agreed with the rest of his platform. I’m still not sure if voting for him was a mistake. But as a prolifer who became prolife a long time before I became a practicing Catholic (i.e. I didn’t just accept Church teaching on this matter - I already had discovered the truth on my own) I know how I must vote now.
Please, everyone, read this article. It is so clear.** Catholics cannot be prochoice. The terms are mutually exclusive.**
G
gakroeger
Guest
This is a great article however, it was written in 2003 and has not had the effect one would hope.
B
beafedor
Guest
What about this:“Without a doubt” to: Congressman Kennedy
by Bishop Thomas J. Tobin 11/12/09
Dear Congressman Kennedy:
“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” (Congressman Patrick Kennedy)
Since our recent correspondence has been rather public, I hope you don’t mind if I share a few reflections about your practice of the faith in this public forum. I usually wouldn’t do that – that is speak about someone’s faith in a public setting – but in our well-documented exchange of letters about health care and abortion, it has emerged as an issue. I also share these words publicly with the thought that they might be instructive to other Catholics, including those in prominent positions of leadership.
For the moment I’d like to set aside the discussion of health care reform, as important and relevant as it is, and focus on one statement contained in your letter of October 29, 2009, in which you write, “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” That sentence certainly caught my attention and deserves a public response, lest it go unchallenged and lead others to believe it’s true. And it raises an important question: What does it mean to be a Catholic?
“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does. Although I wouldn’t choose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion, their unity with the Church. This principle is based on the Sacred Scripture and Tradition of the Church and is made more explicit in recent documents.
For example, the “Code of Canon Law” says, “Lay persons are bound by an obligation and possess the right to acquire a knowledge of Christian doctrine adapted to their capacity and condition so that they can live in accord with that doctrine.” (Canon 229, #1)
The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” says this: “Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles, ‘He who hears you, hears me,’ the faithful receive with docility the teaching and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.” (#87)
Or consider this statement of the Church: “It would be a mistake to confuse the proper autonomy exercised by Catholics in political life with the claim of a principle that prescinds from the moral and social teaching of the Church.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2002)
There’s lots of canonical and theological verbiage there, Congressman, but what it means is that if you don’t accept the teachings of the Church your communion with the Church is flawed, or in your own words, makes you “less of a Catholic.”
But let’s get down to a more practical question; let’s approach it this way: What does it mean, really, to be a Catholic? After all, being a Catholic has to mean something, right?
Well, in simple terms – and here I refer only to those more visible, structural elements of Church membership – being a Catholic means that you’re part of a faith community that possesses a clearly defined authority and doctrine, obligations and expectations. It means that you believe and accept the teachings of the Church, especially on essential matters of faith and morals; that you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish; that you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly; that you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially.
Congressman, I’m not sure whether or not you fulfill the basic requirements of being a Catholic, so let me ask: Do you accept the teachings of the Church on essential matters of faith and morals, including our stance on abortion? Do you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish? Do you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly? Do you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially?
In your letter you say that you “embrace your faith.” Terrific. But if you don’t fulfill the basic requirements of membership, what is it exactly that makes you a Catholic? Your baptism as an infant? Your family ties? Your cultural heritage?
Your letter also says that your faith “acknowledges the existence of an imperfect humanity.” Absolutely true. But in confronting your rejection of the Church’s teaching, we’re not dealing just with “an imperfect humanity” – as we do when we wrestle with sins such as anger, pride, greed, impurity or dishonesty. We all struggle with those things, and often fail.
Your rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion falls into a different category – it’s a deliberate and obstinate act of the will; a conscious decision that you’ve re-affirmed on many occasions. Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an “imperfect humanity.” Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church.
Congressman Kennedy, I write these words not to embarrass you or to judge the state of your conscience or soul. That’s ultimately between you and God. But your description of your relationship with the Church is now a matter of public record, and it needs to be challenged. I invite you, as your bishop and brother in Christ, to enter into a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance. It’s not too late for you to repair your relationship with the Church, redeem your public image, and emerge as an authentic “profile in courage,” especially by defending the sanctity of human life for all people, including unborn children. And if I can ever be of assistance as you travel the road of faith, I would be honored and happy to do so.
C
Caramel
Guest
How do you know that? It may have changed a lot of minds about the way they vote.
And maybe they will republish it with the date of 2009 (or 2010 as we are rapidly approaching that year) and do something to make sure that more people read it. In fact, after reading that article I intend to print it and always have it with me, with copies (obtained legally and with permission) to give to people.
I had never read that article. I had never heard of that group. Now I have and I’ll make the best use of it that I can. I think, at the very least, in can be handed out in Church.
I think that one of the problems of older Catholics (like me
) is that we are basically computer-illiterate. Our children aren’t as they have grown up with computers. There is so much knowledge and wisdom that is so readily available now. We just have to find that information and get it to the people.I believe this is the largest Catholic forum in the world. I don’t know how many members there are but I know it is a huge number. And remember the lurkers, too. Just posting that website is a good first step. It has at least made me feel stronger in my faith and it has clarified a few personal problems that I have had as a voter.
If it changes one person, isn’t it worth it?
C
Christopher68
Guest
Obviously this is my own opinion, but I believe Bishop Tobin’s letter should have been private as opposed to public. If the bishop wanted to address these issues publicly, he could have issued a general statement, without referencing the congressman specifically. The fact that the bishop made the letter public leads me to believe that his intent was not to clarify matters of church teaching, but rather to embarass and belittle the congressman. As we all know, a lot of times it is the manner in which a message is conveyed that determines how the message is received on the other end.
C
Caramel
Guest
I deleted part of the letter because of space constraints.
This is great!! Thanks for posting this!! I think we all get discouraged (I know I do) because it seems to be a never ending battle. We don’t get to see the positive results of our fight for the rights of the unborn, at least not yet. Someday we will.
M
mlchance
Guest
We also know that there are a lot of people who are awfully quick to ascribe the worst motives to others.
– Mark L. Chance.
C
Christopher68
Guest
Yes, I’ve encountered a lot of them on this forum.
G
gakroeger
Guest
I know that because 6 years have passed since this article was written and many Church leaders during this 6 year period have not stepped up to the plate like Bishop William Weigand did 6 years ago. Of course there is hope, more Bishops are now beginning to come out of their shells.
G
gakroeger
Guest
Totally disagree…
I am sure that the Bishop’s intent was not to embarrass or belittle the congressman (although that was well deserved) his intention was to limit the scandal to faithful Catholics caused by the congressman’s “public” position.
G
gakroeger
Guest
Like it…
C
Caramel
Guest
My opinion is that Bishop Tobin probably thought long and hard about whether to make his letter public. We don’t know if he ever sent any private mailings re this issue before and/or after this public one.
I think it should be public for the reason stated in the letter. Somebody needed to address those topics in a public realm and the Bishop is the one who did it. I don’t think he ever intended to embarrass or belittle Congressman Kennedy and I honestly doubt that Kennedy was embarrassed by it. When one lives a political life one must expect to receive public criticism, yes, even from the Bishops of the Catholic Church. Also, it served to clarify the Church’s position on voting in a public election.
Kennedy made his position public. Bishop Tobin made his position public. As a Bishop he is descended from the Apostles. This is what he is supposed to do.
Personally, I applaud his letter!!
C
Caramel
Guest
I also hope they are coming out. Nobody who has been made a Bishop of the Catholic Church should be a “closet Catholic.”
Thanks for making your position clear…
C
Christopher68
Guest
Caramel,
Thank you for your comments. I don’t know either the bishop or the congressman, but I am of the opinion that rebuking is best done in private. When it is done in public it usually is perceived much differently by the one being rebuked, and thus does not have the desired result. As mentioned, I would much rather have seen the bishop publish a general statement on what it means to be a Catholic, as opposed to engaging in a public spat with a politician.
G
gakroeger
Guest
Many Bishops have been taking the approach you recommend since 1973, this is a big part of the reason why 53% of Catholics voted for a pro abortion president last year. It is way past time for them to refute the scandal and heresies being perpetrated on the faithful by these politicians hiding behind their association with the Catholic Church. They want to publicly claim their Catholicism (to get Catholic votes) and their disagreement with the Church teaching but want the Bishops to remain silent.
Sorry, this is not going to work any longer, faithful lay people are prodding the Sheppards to lead and remain silent no longer.
I might note here the courage of the Bishops that are speaking out. There are many (as mentioned 53%) Catholics who have been mislead, and it will not be easy bringing them back into the fold. Many will leave the Church before conforming to its teaching. These Bishops that are taking the lead are stating that our Catholic faith as taught by Christ 2000 years ago is more important than the financial support they are likely to lose.
Although I haven’t any statistics to support my gut feeling, I suspect that the 53% are contributing much less than 53% of the Churches support. Many of this group admit less than regular attendance at Mass.
C
Christopher68
Guest
gakroeger,
That is an interesting point you make. I would hope that people do not leave the church.
Your comments have made me wonder something, and I am intersted to know your thoughts on this. This is related to bringing parishioners back into the fold - or perhaps further back in line with church teachings. As you noted, there are those who attend Catholic mass who do not necessarily agree 100% with everything in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If they do not agree with church teaching on abortion, for instance, would you prefer that they cease attending mass - as they are not in ‘communion’ with the rest of the parishioners? Or would you encourage these people most of all to attend mass, in hopes of becoming enlightened?
W
Worthy5
Guest
Many Bishops have been taking the approach you recommend since 1973, this is a big part of the reason why 53% of Catholics voted for a pro abortion president last year. It is way past time for them to refute the scandal and heresies being perpetrated on the faithful by these politicians hiding behind their association with the Catholic Church. They want to publicly claim their Catholicism (to get Catholic votes) and their disagreement with the Church teaching but want the Bishops to remain silent.
Okay, so let us get this straight, and this poster briefly scanned the article and letter provided, but it referenced a party’s platform. In order to be a Catholic, you MUST be a Republican–that is what is being said and that because of the " weight" of the abortion issue the Democratic party can never field a candidate that a Catholic can vote---------Okaaaayyyy-----well let us just throw out the two party system yeaaaahhhh.
A one party system, a one party government--------this is great----sounds alot like Stalin’s Soviet Union.
- Status