To All Liberal Catholics

[Contarini]

This words it better than what I was trying to say.

Indeed. Would you mind, in future, letting folks know what you are quoting when you quote something? That would be helpful. In this case you are, I believe, quoting John Paul II from Veritatis Splendor.

I repeat, however: there’s an important distinction between allowing the Magisterium to form your conscience and simply surrendering your conscience to what you perceive the Magisterium to be.

Also see below so as not to confuse what the church teaches on priorities for voting. I can’t really stated it clearly than the way they state it.

Pope John Paul II, and the Bishops who teach in union with the Pope, speak loud and clear what the church’s priorities are for voting as a Catholic. They teach that one may not consider other human conditions without giving first predominant consideration of the five most important conditions of the right to life: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning and same-sex marriage.

This is an article by someone named Barbara Kralis from a website called “Renew America.” In other words, an article by a Catholic layperson on a website which appears to have a very strong political agenda. That doesn’t invalidate what she says, of course–her statement must be judged on its merits–but it is helpful to know who says something and where the person is coming from.

Ms. Kralis does not support her claim. She certainly shows that JPII gives priority to life issues over others, but that’s not the same as the “five non-negotiables” for two reasons:

1. There are other life issues: death penalty, war, etc. Even though the Church’s position on these is less clear-cut–the teaching on the death penalty is somewhat tentative and it appears that a Catholic can disagree with it in a way that isn’t true of abortion, and the Church allows for the possibility of just war–nonetheless, if in particular cases innocent people are being killed, then that’s just as serious an issue as abortion. Some folks try to counter this by pointing out that the numerical death toll is much higher in the case of abortion. But life issues aren’t quantifiable. They are a matter of principle.
2. One of the “five non-negotiables”–same-sex marriage–is not a human life issue at all. While I oppose same-sex marriage, I can’t possibly see it as being equally important with the life issues.

So it seems a mistake–a mistake fostered by right-wing political propaganda–to equate the non-negotiability of those five issues with their importance. Four of those issues are among the most important–no issues are more important, but depending on the circumstances some might be equally so. The fifth, while far from trivial, is on a different level.

Edwin

 

[Andrew1980]

You can argue semantics all you want… but the Pope and the bishops have made it clear that some issues are more important than others. We must not pretend that how we setup the Department of Education is as important as abortion etc.

Regarding laws permitting abortion, Catholic doctrine written by Pope John Paul II states that we are “never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it.” Please understand that to the Catholic Church, abortion involves the killing of an innocent human life, thus making this issue far and away the most important for Catholic voters. While the aforementioned issues are important, they do not contain the evil that the Catholic Church recognizes in the act of aborting human life.

Read more: post-gazette.com/pg/08279/917244-110.stm#ixzz1XI11QEPT

catholicnewsagency.com/news/the_five_most_important_issues_for_catholic_voters/

 

[TheRealJuliane]

You can argue semantics all you want… but the Pope and the bishops have made it clear that some issues are more important than others. We must not pretend that how we setup the Department of Education is as important as abortion etc.

Regarding laws permitting abortion, Catholic doctrine written by Pope John Paul II states that we are “never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it.” Please understand that to the Catholic Church, abortion involves the killing of an innocent human life, thus making this issue far and away the most important for Catholic voters. While the aforementioned issues are important, they do not contain the evil that the Catholic Church recognizes in the act of aborting human life.

Read more: post-gazette.com/pg/08279/917244-110.stm#ixzz1XI11QEPT

catholicnewsagency.com/news/the_five_most_important_issues_for_catholic_voters/

:sad_yes::clapping:

But…

You can quote this kind of thing all you like, until you are blue in the face, and you are not going to alter a liberal Democrat Catholic’s voting pattern. Come hell or high water, they are wedded to the Democrat party and will split hairs, pick nits, and justify until the cows come home, just why they vote for the party that not only tolerates abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, etc., but ADVOCATES for these horrors. I have seen it time and time again. Nancy Pelosi, for example, and Harry Reid, still consider themselves to be Catholics and probably good Catholics at that. There are, after all, 53% of Catholics who voted for Barack Obama, whom not ONE Catholic should have voted for.

At least Sonny1954 is honest about it. He does violate Church tenets and he knows he’s doing it.

 

[Contarini]

You can argue semantics all you want

I made a substantive distinction and explained how it worked. You have not responded to it.

but the Pope and the bishops have made it clear that some issues are more important than others. We must not pretend that how we setup the Department of Education is as important as abortion etc.

Indeed. Nor is same-sex marriage as important as abortion, as I said.

You are not responding to what I actually said.

Regarding laws permitting abortion, Catholic doctrine written by Pope John Paul II states that we are “never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it.”

Indeed. But note that he did not say that it is illicit to vote for a candidate who votes for such a law. Obviously such an immoral stance is a serious reason not to vote for a candidate. But no Pope has said that there could never be any reasons strong enough to justify voting for a pro-choice candidate. Certain individual American bishops have said or strongly implied this. And I can understand why. I share your frustration with Catholics who think that all issues are equal. But I’m also frustrated with the way the concept of the “non-negotiables” is being exploited to silence any part of Catholic social teaching that doesn’t line up with the agenda of the right wing of the Republican party.

Please understand that to the Catholic Church, abortion involves the killing of an innocent human life,

I understand that very well, and I agree.

thus making this issue far and away the most important for Catholic voters.

Non sequitur. There are other issues which also involve the taking of innocent human life.
People are executed for crimes they did not commit; innocent people die in American bombing raids.

Do these lives not matter to you?

And while it’s true that the numbers are smaller and that one can argue that the deaths are generally not directly willed, it’s also true that these actions are direct actions of the U.S. government. I think that when we’re talking about the killing of innocents, these various considerations should not be used to privilege one issue over another. (It’s also true that President Obama cannot claim the kind of moral advantage on the war issue in 2012 that he claimed in 2008, since he has several times shown a lack of consideration for human life in his foreign policy.)

While the aforementioned issues are important, they do not contain the evil that the Catholic Church recognizes in the act of aborting human life.

Unjust war and the execution of innocent people contain exactly the same evil. Other issues, like environmental devastation and the gutting of social welfare programs in the interest of large corporations, also affect human life seriously and are not worthy of simply being dismissed.

The problem with the “non-negotiable” approach is that it chops up a unified Catholic social teaching, acting as if only certain bits really matter and it’s OK to support a political agenda that is in its general outlines and direction diametrically opposed to the overall tenor of Catholic social teaching.

This forum is full of people who support precisely those aspects of the Republican political agenda that contradict Catholic social teaching. They revel in the “non-negotiable” talking point, because it lets them off the hook.

I can entirely support those people who vote for right-wing Republican candidates with great reluctance and sorrow, doing their best to exert pressure on them to take more consistently moral positions. But that isn’t what most conservative Catholics seem to be doing. Certainly most of the folks on this forum aren’t doing that. They support the agenda of “tea party” Republicanism as a whole, and they use the “five nonnegotiables” to justify themselves.

Read more: post-gazette.com/pg/08279/917244-110.stm#ixzz1XI11QEPT

I note that your last paragraph, to which I responded above, comes from the letter to which you now link.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/the_five_most_important_issues_for_catholic_voters/

Again, these panelists are illogically classifying same-sex marriage as a “life issue” and eliding the difference between importance and non-negotiability.

This takes us back to the conscience issue. If my conscience tells me that the foreign wars presently waged by the U.S. are unjust and are killing innocent people, then I am justified in treating that as an issue comparable to abortion and far more serious than same-sex marriage. The fact that the Church has not specifically said which wars are just really isn’t relevant to that consideration.

That being said, I agree with much of what the panelists are reported as having said, especially about the abominable irrationality of Kerry’s position. I certainly think that you would need extremely serious reasons to vote for a pro-choice candidate over one who was prolife (with regards to abortion–the only reason even to consider such a vote would be a belief that the “prolife” candidate was not consistently in favor of a culture of life). I also agree that it’s false to say that the Republicans haven’t done anything to limit abortions. They have. It’s practically the only good thing they’ve done recently, but they have.

Edwin

 

[Julia_Mae]

Ok, for the sake of not putting myself in a box how about two examples.

1st example: A Catholic who is in fact at heart pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, ect. based upon their own personal view of the world, while still believing themselves to be good Catholics.

2nd example: A Catholic who votes for pro-choice, pro-gay, ect politicians based on the fact that they agree more with said politicians political stance more than any other chioce. They don’t believe they are wrong for voting this manner and that they’re still in good standing with the Church.

Civil unions: If I still voted, I’d vote in favor of civil unions. They are long overdue. Christian charity requires them, and past injustice necessitates them. I am a very strong believer in Sacramental Marriage.

Pro-choice: Insisting the rest of society go along with my religion’s view of reality is how we ended up burning heretics and gunning down a doctor as he exited his church on Sunday and then congratulating ourselves about it, which is disgusting in the extreme. Hate is not a Christian virtue.

I have no problem with being Catholic and not being willing to abrogate the right of another to their beliefs. The only Person who knows if it is a problem is not posting on any message boards.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

Civil unions: If I still voted, I’d vote in favor of civil unions. They are long overdue. Christian charity requires them, and past injustice necessitates them. I am a very strong believer in Sacramental Marriage.

Pro-choice: Insisting the rest of society go along with my religion’s view of reality is how we ended up burning heretics and gunning down a doctor as he exited his church on Sunday and then congratulating ourselves about it, which is disgusting in the extreme. Hate is not a Christian virtue.

I have no problem with being Catholic and not being willing to abrogate the right of another to their beliefs. The only Person who knows if it is a problem is not posting on any message boards.

But you seem to be okay with other depriving peope of their right to life by slaughtering them in utero.

Abortion is NOT a “religious” debate. It is a debate as to whether or not we are going to tolerate people slaughtering their own children. It has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with belief that no one can be deprived of their right to life.

 

[Contarini]

You can quote this kind of thing all you like, until you are blue in the face

the poster whom you are applauding did not respond to my substantive arguments, dismissing them as “semantics.” He repeatedly speaks as if same-sex marriage were a life issue, which it obviously isn’t. Are you applauding such lapses in logic?

Furthermore, he repeatedly claimed that the Pope and bishops agreed with him but provided no evidence beyond Pope John Paul II’s privileging of the defense of human life, a position with which I thoroughly and unconditionally agree.

and you are not going to alter a liberal Democrat Catholic’s voting pattern.

I may or may not be a liberal, depending on how you define it (I don’t see myself as one, but I won’t quarrel over such a meaningless label), but I am in fact neither a Democrat nor a Catholic. I am an Episcopalian who agrees wholeheartedly with Catholic social teaching as I understand it and regards my own denomination’s stance (such as it is) on abortion with horror and disgust. I am also not an American citizen (or more precisely, I don’t have a certificate of citizenship–my mother is an American citizen and I have never quite figured out whether that makes me one or not–the American immigration authorities do not specialize in clarity or accessibility), but I have lived here since I was six on a green card and naturally take an interest in American politics, which affect my life and are besides a fascinating spectator sport. For what it’s worth, I talked my mother out of voting for Obama. I myself would have voted for McCain in the last election, almost entirely because of the abortion issue (and because McCain seemed relatively moral on other issues, though his vice presidential choice was an entirely different story).

I recognize that you aren’t just talking about me, but with regards to me you are entirely wrong.

Come hell or high water, they are wedded to the Democrat party

that may be true for some. But it’s also clearly true that many “conservative” American Catholics are committed to a right-wing Republican agenda on those issues where such an agenda goes against Catholic social teaching, and that they use the “non-negotiables” formulation to avoid dealing with those points of Catholic social teaching that contradict their political opinions.

There are clearly a lot of American Catholics who either vote Democrat with great anguish, avoid voting, or even vote Republican at times because of the abortion issue. I don’t see that kind of anguish on the “conservative” side. I don’t see a lot of Catholics on this forum expressing any genuine concern about the many immoral positions of the Republican party. I hear a lot of talk about Catholics being puppets of the Democrats, but all the actual puppet behavior I see is on the other side.

and will split hairs, pick nits, and justify until the cows come home

It is easy to insult the arguments I have presented. It is apparently somewhat harder to refute them, since you make no attempt to do so.

Edwin

 

[Julia_Mae]

But you seem to be okay with other depriving peope of their right to life by slaughtering them in utero.

Abortion is NOT a “religious” debate. It is a debate as to whether or not we are going to tolerate people slaughtering their own children. It has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with belief that no one can be deprived of their right to life.

This post is off-topic. The topic is not abortion, it is why a “liberal” Catholic feels they are still Catholic.

It is also dishonest and manipulative as it characterizes me as having certain thoughts and beliefs I have not expressed.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

This post is off-topic. The topic is not abortion, it is why a “liberal” Catholic feels they are still Catholic.

It is also dishonest and manipulative as it characterizes me as having certain thoughts and beliefs I have not expressed.

oh?
Julia Mae:

Pro-choice: Insisting the rest of society go along with my religion’s view of reality is how we ended up burning heretics and gunning down a doctor as he exited his church on Sunday and then congratulating ourselves about it, which is disgusting in the extreme. Hate is not a Christian virtue.

It’s not about your religion’s view. It’s about the overall belief as to whether or not age is a qualification for the right to live. Religion has nothing to do with it. There are atheist pro-lifers.

And no, it’s not off-topic since the very heart of the discussion is about abortion and “pro-choice” beliefs play into how a catholic can be in good standing with the church and vote for a pro-choice candidate.

You may personally believe that abortion is wrong. I gathered that from your post. But yet you seem to, in the same statement, go on to say that believing that abortion is not a religious debate and should be banned from society as a whole leads to horrific crimes against humanity.

 

[Julia_Mae]

oh?

It’s not about your religion’s view. It’s about the overall belief as to whether or not age is a qualification for a right to live. Religion has nothing to do with it. There are atheist pro-lifers.

And no, it’s not off-topic since the very heart of the discussion is about abortion and “pro-choice” beliefs play into how a catholic can be in good standing with the church and vote for a pro-choice candidate.

You may personally believe that abortion is wrong. I gathered that from your post. But yet you seem to, in the same statement, go on to say that believing that abortion is not a religious debate and should be banned from society as a whole leads to horrific crimes against humanity.

You are still off-topic. Here is the topic:

For the sake of informing others, I’d like to hear in this thread why you believe being a Liberal Catholic does not automatically put one in a bad standing with the Church and its social doctrine.

You said: It’s not about your religion’s view

off. topic.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

You are still off-topic.

I can see that rather than engage in a dialogue about an issue central to the topic of the thread, it’s easier to claim I am “off-topic”. Have a nice day.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

:sad_yes::clapping:

But…

You can quote this kind of thing all you like, until you are blue in the face, and you are not going to alter a liberal Democrat Catholic’s voting pattern. Come hell or high water, they are wedded to the Democrat party and will split hairs, pick nits, and justify until the cows come home, just why they vote for the party that not only tolerates abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, etc., but ADVOCATES for these horrors. I have seen it time and time again. Nancy Pelosi, for example, and Harry Reid, still consider themselves to be Catholics and probably good Catholics at that. There are, after all, 53% of Catholics who voted for Barack Obama, whom not ONE Catholic should have voted for.

This has been my general observation as well. I admit, I had to change a lot of my political stand points when becoming catholic so I identify more as an “independent” but I retain my “conservative” status due to the belief that I think the conservative idea is more likely to work in a capitalistic society to help those in need as well as my belief in pro-life, traditional marriage, anti-embryonic stem cell research.

All I see from the other side of the aisle though, is endless justifications, hair splitting…well you said it. It seems as though they are liberals FIRST, then catholic.

 

[akasseb]

Civil unions: If I still voted, I’d vote in favor of civil unions. They are long overdue. Christian charity requires them, and past injustice necessitates them. I am a very strong believer in Sacramental Marriage.

How are civil unions long overdue? Why does Christian charity require them? And why does past injustice necessitate them?

 

[Julia_Mae]

How are civil unions long overdue? Why does Christian charity require them? And why does past injustice necessitate them?

If you start a thread about it, I’ll be happy to discuss it with you. I had posted the thread topic before, here it is again:

I’d like to hear in this thread why you believe being a Liberal Catholic does not automatically put one in a bad standing with the Church and its social doctrine

Do you have a reason to believe my stand on this issue does “automatically put me in bad standing with the Church and it’s social doctrine?” Shall we discuss what social doctrine is and what has been promulgated about that?

 

[tomarin]

Indeed. Would you mind, in future, letting folks know what you are quoting when you quote something? That would be helpful. In this case you are, I believe, quoting John Paul II from Veritatis Splendor.

I repeat, however: there’s an important distinction between allowing the Magisterium to form your conscience and simply surrendering your conscience to what you perceive the Magisterium to be.

This is an article by someone named Barbara Kralis from a website called “Renew America.” In other words, an article by a Catholic layperson on a website which appears to have a very strong political agenda. That doesn’t invalidate what she says, of course–her statement must be judged on its merits–but it is helpful to know who says something and where the person is coming from.

Ms. Kralis does not support her claim. She certainly shows that JPII gives priority to life issues over others, but that’s not the same as the “five non-negotiables” for two reasons:

1. There are other life issues: death penalty, war, etc. Even though the Church’s position on these is less clear-cut–the teaching on the death penalty is somewhat tentative and it appears that a Catholic can disagree with it in a way that isn’t true of abortion, and the Church allows for the possibility of just war–nonetheless, if in particular cases innocent people are being killed, then that’s just as serious an issue as abortion. Some folks try to counter this by pointing out that the numerical death toll is much higher in the case of abortion. But life issues aren’t quantifiable. They are a matter of principle.
2. One of the “five non-negotiables”–same-sex marriage–is not a human life issue at all. While I oppose same-sex marriage, I can’t possibly see it as being equally important with the life issues.

So it seems a mistake–a mistake fostered by right-wing political propaganda–to equate the non-negotiability of those five issues with their importance. Four of those issues are among the most important–no issues are more important, but depending on the circumstances some might be equally so. The fifth, while far from trivial, is on a different level.

Edwin

So you’re saying that if the Catholic Answers voter’s guide got it right, it would call them the five extremely important but not necessarily all-important principles?

 

[akasseb]

If you start a thread about it, I’ll be happy to discuss it with you.

You posted a comment on this thread which you evidently thought was relevant to the topic at hand. I did not fully understand your comment. As a result, I asked you to explain it further.

 

[St_Francis]

Edwin, the reason that abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and same-sex marriage are considered “non-negitiable” is that they are all intrinisically wrong. War, for example, is not intrinsically wrong; a just war is not wrong and may even be obligatory.

As I have studied Catholic social justice principles, I have become less of a US-conservative, but I still vote for them over the Democrats because I do not see the Democrats as adhering to Catholic principles of social justice and more than Republicans do.

The main problem with voting for Democrats because of prudential issues such as capital punishment or war is that that decision ignores the elephant in the living room of Democrat support for abortion. The Dems would be against at the idea of applying the death penalty to a rapist, but support the ability of a woman to apply that sentence to the innocent human who results from the rapist’s crime. The dems may disagree with the wars which Bush got us into for which they voted on the basis of the same intelligence and information on which Bush made his decision, but they still support an intrinsic indefensible taking of human life all the time.

So if I were unable to vote for a Republican because of issues like these, I would still be unable to support or vote for the Democrats because of their support for abortion and intrinsic evils. I would have to vote third party, write-in, or not vote.

Indeed. Would you mind, in future, letting folks know what you are quoting when you quote something? That would be helpful. In this case you are, I believe, quoting John Paul II from Veritatis Splendor.

I repeat, however: there’s an important distinction between allowing the Magisterium to form your conscience and simply surrendering your conscience to what you perceive the Magisterium to be.

This is an article by someone named Barbara Kralis from a website called “Renew America.” In other words, an article by a Catholic layperson on a website which appears to have a very strong political agenda. That doesn’t invalidate what she says, of course–her statement must be judged on its merits–but it is helpful to know who says something and where the person is coming from.

Ms. Kralis does not support her claim. She certainly shows that JPII gives priority to life issues over others, but that’s not the same as the “five non-negotiables” for two reasons:

1. There are other life issues: death penalty, war, etc. Even though the Church’s position on these is less clear-cut–the teaching on the death penalty is somewhat tentative and it appears that a Catholic can disagree with it in a way that isn’t true of abortion, and the Church allows for the possibility of just war–nonetheless, if in particular cases innocent people are being killed, then that’s just as serious an issue as abortion. Some folks try to counter this by pointing out that the numerical death toll is much higher in the case of abortion. But life issues aren’t quantifiable. They are a matter of principle.
2. One of the “five non-negotiables”–same-sex marriage–is not a human life issue at all. While I oppose same-sex marriage, I can’t possibly see it as being equally important with the life issues.

So it seems a mistake–a mistake fostered by right-wing political propaganda–to equate the non-negotiability of those five issues with their importance. Four of those issues are among the most important–no issues are more important, but depending on the circumstances some might be equally so. The fifth, while far from trivial, is on a different level.

Edwin

 

[The_Republican]

What constitutes a liberal Catholic? What do you think they have to believe to not be in good standing with the Church? Socialized Medicine? Big Government? Taxing the rich? Supporting social services? Labor Unions and collective bargaining for just wages?

Peace,

David

Pro-abortion? Thats not Catholic.

 

[crayons]

Edwin, the reason that abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and same-sex marriage are considered “non-negitiable” is that they are all intrinisically wrong. War, for example, is not intrinsically wrong; a just war is not wrong and may even be obligatory.

How can war not be intrinsically wrong, then? I thought the reason that abortion and euthanasia were intrinsically wrong because we cannot take life, because it is for God to decide when someone’s life ends. Most wars inevitably involve ending human lives.

 

[Speedypizza]

The funny and sad thing about this whole debate is that both sides are wrong and do not even see why. The truth is far more down to earth and not filled with hate and remarks about how you are not a “true” Catholic.

The fact is George W. Bush was our president for 8 long years and did not do a whole lot to stop abortion. In fact our government is set up to insure that one person never has much power, even the president. The closest that can be done is to TRY to put pro-life people on the bench, however in truth, that is a lot harder then it looks. Once a person is put on the Supreme Court, they are there for life. The worst part is no matter how you think they will vote, they might not vote that way. Both parties have put people on the bench that vote against them more often then not.

Even if the court ruled against abortion, it would not take long for an amendment to be set before the people on the issue and we all know we do not have to votes to stop them. So that would not do a whole lot of good anyways. In fact it could end up worse because the bill might strip states of any and all rights to pass laws about it.

Now to the other side who seems to think that abortion is not an issue or that it is an impossible fight to win, please try to remember that these are real babies we are talking about here. Not an idea or a goal, real people who are being murdered in what should be the safest place in the world. More to the point, we are not always called on to win the fight, but to fight. It is not our fault if abortions happen even when we try to do everything in our power to stop them. We are called to resist the culture of death with every breath in our bodies. Don’t forget here that we ARE in a war here, with a very real and very powerful enemy who does not just want to kill you, but to damn you.

In closing, I am not saying I have the answers. In fact I do not think that easy answers exist on this issue. What is important here is to love, teach, pray and trust. We are called to be great saints, please try to remember THAT is our biggest and best goal we can ever obtain.