C
Crossbones
Guest
I’m sure he’ll get to it. He’s a very busy man.
I’m not sure that Pope John Paul II anticipated Donald Trump when he said that.
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
Your quote does not say that. This is your words, not canon law. BTW, I never said they had* teaching* authority. That is a word you added. National Conferences are an established part of the the Church, given their function in canon law.
This does not mean that the Guide for Faithful Citizenship is binding. I know this. I never said otherwise. However, if you remove all that the bishops in the United States say as a group, I think you prove too much. You also easily making the case that there is no Catholic teaching on the need for a pro-life Supreme Court, for example. By confining what we should heed only to Catholic teaching, then what one should do is not have an abortion, or participate in an abortion. We need more than just authoritative teaching. It is also good to have shepherds that apply this teaching to practical matters.
If one wishes to emphasize the lack of binding nature of such guidance, then understand that you are not far from those that believe that while they would never have an abortion, it should not be regulated.
E
estesbob
Guest
The document could not be clearer Bishops conferences have no teaching authority.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Read section 21, following the section 20 you quoted earlier.. It says otherwise.
P
pnewton
Guest
What is an accomplice? That is a question. Think of what is actually happening. A person is contributing one hundredth million part of a decision to put a person in office that might have a chance to nominate a person that might have a chance to change a law that might make it more possible for a person legal to commit a gravely evil act. (abortion).
Or a person is contributing one hundredth million part of a decision to put a person in office that might have a chance of committing a gravely evil act (unjust war).
Abortion is always evil. War may or may not be evil. Voting seldom is evil.
This is not to say we should not do all we can to vote our conscience and in accordance with Catholic principles, but if we should be careful not to exaggerate the actions* others *take when they do not vote in accordance with *your *conscience. Thus we have the USCCB voters guide; imperfect, not doctrine, just an exercise of the pastoral function of the Church.
P
pnewton
Guest
It could be. It could say this. It does not.
P
pnewton
Guest
It is not binding. How can the AB Chaput’s interpretation of a non-binding document be more binding than that of a lay faithful?
What gets me about this whole debate is not how some people in good conscience go beyond this document in their conscience, but how those of us that listen to what all the bishops say, especially when the speak as a group, are denigrated for following what the USCCB says. You want to ignore the USSCB? Fine. As for me and my house…
We continue to play into the cult of personality when we divide up the bishops to those that agree with us being “good”, or at least better than others. Personally, there is only one AB that I have ever read that has said something I believe untrue, and that was only on one point. I think we would be well served by reading and learning from those we agree with, but we are better served by reading those we do not agree with and meditating on the reasons.
E
estesbob
Guest
Again the document could not be clearer:
“The Conference of Bishops can issue general decrees only in those cases in which the common law prescribes it, or a special mandate of the Apostolic See, given either motu proprio or at the request of the Conference, determines it”.(77) In other cases “the competence of individual diocesan Bishops remains intact; and** neither the Conference nor its president may act in the name of all the Bishops unless each and every Bishop has given his consent”**
E
estesbob
Guest
Can you find single member of the magisterium who agrees with your personal interpretation of Faithful Citizenship. ? I have posted a multitude of quotes from members who flat out reject it.
P
pnewton
Guest
How can you know that? I was unaware I even had a “personal interpretation”. I take it at literal face value. It is easy enough to understand.I am unfamiliar with the Chaput quote. I am almost in complete agreement with what Cardinal Burke said a few years back, though can imagine extraordinary circumstances it might not apply. The more I read Cardinal Burke, the better I like the* precision generalization *(my term) of the USCCB, though I understand why not all can appreciate it.
FYI - I could argue Faithful Citizenship is binding for me, or at least authoritative, as my bishop chairs the committee.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
“No teaching authority” eh? I can’t help but point out that the above quote does not contain the word “teaching” or “teachers”, or “authority” for that matter. So it is not as clear as you think it is on the question you think it addresses. However in the same document, the section following this one does say:
21. The joint exercise of the episcopal ministry also involves the teaching office. The Code of Canon Law establishes the fundamental norm in this regard: “Although they do not enjoy infallible teaching authority, the Bishops in communion with the head and members of the college, whether as individuals or gathered in Conferences of Bishops or in particular councils, are authentic teachers and* instructors** of the faith for the faithful entrusted to their care;** the faithful must adhere to the authentic teaching of their own Bishops with a sense of religious respect** (religioso animi obsequio)”.(79) Apart from this general norm the Code also establishes, more concretely, some areas of doctrinal competence of the Conferences of Bishops, such as providing “that catechisms are issued for its own territory if such seems useful, with the prior approval of the Apostolic See”,(80) and the approval of editions of the books of Sacred Scripture and their translations.(81)*
And yes, I see the line that says “Although they do not enjoy infallible teaching authority”. So they cannot make new doctrine, but what do you make of the other references to the teaching office?
C
chero23
Guest
BTW shepherd smith is a sharp dresser. Maybe that’s why he likes to make the story about him lol. But hey, I’m not hating on the man.No need to be sorry!
I tend to think Shep Smith does kind of make the story about himself sometimes.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Accomplice is here…
newadvent.org/cathen/01100a.htm
Right, I understand various peoples will have to work this out for themselves . But I think you have a little relevance going on in your post. Myself, I sympathize but am voting for Trump since he is in fact the lesser of the two evils.
P
pnewton
Guest
I see. I appreciate your concern, but I assure you I am not slipping into relativism. I simply had never heard this term outside of civil law, but then I was not raised Catholic, much less during the time before Vatican II. Instead, I think in terms, of formal, material, remote, near, etc.
I agree that the term accomplice could be applied, based on, “An accomplice is one who cooperates in some way in the wrongful activity of another who is accounted the principal.” However, I think it too vague to be of practical use, as one who votes becomes an accomplice, regardless of who they vote for, in some evil. In fact, based on this broad definition, I do not think any of us can go a day without being an accomplice in some evil by someone we interact with, from shopping to work. That is why I sometimes like to break down the actual math, count the percentages, look at the degrees of separation, and then most importantly, examine my own motivation.
Rather than despair at the interconnectedness of humanity that makes us such a part of this fallen race, we should understand that forming our conscience is not something that we can ever complete. It is a continuous process. Elections like this can challenge us to expand our understanding of what God wants of us.
I hope God will bless everyone in their decision they make at the polls. Please pray before you vote. It will do more good than judging others for their vote.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I think the question came up of recently, myself I think of this in term of the general judgement and how we affect others in society with our actions, be it directly or indirectly.
Which is the basic hypothetical in question.
The issue, if John Doe was running for President and he was a advocate for abortion on demand, and has been right along documented, and you voted for him, you are imho an accomplice? . So the vote. is a vote in favor of his abortion agenda to continue. So no matter how you look at it, its in fact promoting the abortion agenda. Now some seem to think this priority can be secondary to greater evil and or relative to multi issues. True, however, we have no greater evil but in the imagination in America. You have heard it here, you have to wrangle with hypothetical mental gymnastics and play 1000 rationals and excuses to in effect neglect Gods word and will. And I’m also of the opinion not voting in this mess while I can see the principle stood for, I think its also an unintended vote for evil. Course thats my reading.
So in relation to the particular and final judgement, yes, your responsible for how your actions affected society. Yes, imho, thats the theory…
P
pnewton
Guest
You do recognize you are begging the question here, don’t you. The pray and thought people put into their vote and the formation of their conscience is to determine God’s will, not neglect it. Since we do not vote for abortion, not do we vote on an agenda, but rather on a person, it is understandable that many factors have to be considered. It is easy to be simplistic. I wish we could vote on abortion.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I’m sorry I am not understanding whats being stated here and I don’t want to guess at what your conveying.
However, I agree, we vote for people who run on a party platform thus multi issue. I acknowledge people do vote by priority with single issues also though, and I suppose pro life or pro choice is a good of example as any. Nevertheless, even if I voted as this single issue voter with my personal intent as a priority, its still a vote for the whole of issues of the platform of the candidate. I agree people tend to judge a candidate as a whole on issues as good/bad or better worse. I don’t see any conflict with that thinking but I don’t see how we are not talking implicit cooperation with voting for a person/persons platform.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
If, say, Trump favored all kinds of indisputably good things, but also wanted to kill a million innocent people per year, it would be clear to us. We could not possibly vote for him and would clearly see our obligation to oppose him by whatever means we had so long as Clinton didn’t propose worse.
It is only because people often do not consider unborn children as human beings that there is even a question about our moral obligation to oppose Hillary Clinton.
But the Church does consider unborn children as human beings, and if we want to be faithful to the teachings of the Church, we can’t morally support a person who promotes the killing of a million unborn children per year.
I realize many people agonize over this, but it’s actually as clear as clear gets.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
That is so true.
I can personally fully relate. I grew up in the same culture too. I received education in schools where genetic counselling was taught as a good thing, and those not taking the advise of genetic counselors to eliminate certain genetic conditions were seen as being irresponsible.
Do I personally feel a huge emotional connection with an embyro? I would say no, not at all, less than any pregnant woman would.
All’s I have is the unambiguous teaching of the Church that is clear enough and understandable enough on an intellectual level. There is also the utilitarian arguments based on what is good for society that are available to me on that same intellectual level.
That is all I have.
As far as any moral predisposition goes, all morality is primarily understood from the level of emotion. We experience morality as persons. Morality is experience only from the perspective of love, if you will.
And there is a window for imbuing people with a moral sense too, mainly in childhood, that has long since passed for most of us, who are children of the same culture as I am.
I can’t compare myself fully to liberals. I would vote for conservative anyway.
But, it really is not Goodwin’s law to make the point that, if Church teaching is true, then embryos are as fully human as Jews, as human as homosexuals, and as gypsies and as Slavs.
It would not matter how socialist, or how liberal, or how great the economy was under the Nazis. There is nary a liberal in our society, nary a conservative even, who would not be viscerally repulsed at the idea of electing a Hitler for any of these reasons.
Suffice it to say, that there were not a million Jews a year mandated to die under Hitler from 1933 to 1945 either.
No amount of free education up until doctorate degrees, no amount of universal health care and universal day care, and equal rights for women or a million other reasons would ever be proportional to the mandating of genocide against Jews.
Every Western liberal fully understands this, not just on an intellectual level, but on an emotional level, a moral level experience viscerally with every fibre of the body to the very core.
“It is only because people often do not consider unborn children as human beings that there is even a question about our moral obligation to oppose Hillary Clinton.”
that is were we as a society as a whole are at right now. It is a rare individual that is able to morally experience the plight of the unborn like we all do the plight of the Jew, like the modern left experiences the plight of the Palestinian.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This is hyperbole, for not even Clinton wants to kill innocent babies, or even wants others to do so. If you rephrase someone’s position with enough hyperbole, any position can be made to sound terrible.
- Status