Trump v. Clinton matchup has Catholic leaders scrambling

[estesbob]

Since you quote section (20), you should also look at section (21) that follows it:

*

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)

The concerted voice of the Bishops of a determined territory, when, in communion with the Roman Pontiff, they jointly proclaim the catholic truth in matters of faith and morals, can reach their people more effectively and can make it easier for their faithful to adhere to the magisterium with a sense of religious respect. In faithfully exercising their teaching office, the Bishops serve the word of God, to which their teaching is subject, they listen to it devoutly, guard it scrupulously and explain it faithfully in such a way that the faithful receive it in the best manner possible.(82) Since the doctrine of the faith is a common good of the whole Church and a bond of her communion, the Bishops, assembled in Episcopal Conference, must take special care to follow the magisterium of the universal Church and to communicate it opportunely to the people entrusted to them.​

*
So, while a conference of bishops does not have the authority to define doctrine independent of Rome, they are recognized as being "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". In view of this, it is an exaggeration to say that the USCCB has no teaching authority. That is not what section (20) says, and it is clearly contrary to what section (21) says.

The Vatican document makes it clear that Bishops conferences doe not have teaching authority. There is no other way to read it. . Of course as we have seen with Faithful Ctizenship people will twist Church documents to support their political views regardless of what the church teaching is

 

[Ridgerunner]

Since the vast majority of bishops support the document, then I do take it to be something that should be carefully considered by Catholics. Also, many bishops publicize the USCCB document on the diocesan websites or place items in bulletins, which I take to be that the bishop is teaching on the issue by using this document.

Perhaps the EWTN statement isn’t more succinct, but rather making statements that Forming Consciences intentionally avoided making. Perhaps that why they recommend only using that document and those supported by the bishops because, in being more succinct, other documents are deviating from the teaching intended by the bishops.

.

This is trying to make the USCCB document into something it isn’t. USCCB documents do not require a vote of the bishops and are never binding on Catholic conscience unless passed in a meeting of all bishops under Vatican direction, then passed, then approved by the Vatican as binding. The one you cited meets none of those criteria. It’s just the opinion of its immediate authors.

Now, are USCCB documents worthy of respect and of one’s attention? Sure. But that’s all.

The USCCB document is very general. Nevertheless, it is not contradictory to the EWTN statement at all. Nowhere in either document is it said that abortion is just one of many issues upon which Catholics may base their votes. Both say it’s an intrinsic evil that cannot be supported unless there is a proportionately grave evil to be opposed in voting for the promoter of abortion. At present, there is none, and neither document says there is.

Again, the argument that abortion on demand is just one of a number of issues among which Catholics may pick and choose, is not a Catholic argument. It’s an argument for relativism and it corollary, subjective morality, which are condemned by the Church.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I also don’t understand the logic of the repeated assertion that one may refrain from voting but not be an accomplice to the greater evil. Logically speaking its a proposition that contends there’s enough people to make up for you. The premise is wrong and flawed since if everyone was to think as such then its allowing the greater evil to succeed.

I understand the “feeling” and I sympathize too, but thats not logical above. The proposition has continued to be proposed without clarity of logic which may be intact but I sure don’t see it.

Further I haven’t heard this theory of democratic voting clarified either logically. Again a proposal but no clarity of logical reasoning.

 

[estesbob]

This is trying to make the USCCB document into something it isn’t. USCCB documents do not require a vote of the bishops and are never binding on Catholic conscience unless passed in a meeting of all bishops under Vatican direction, then passed, then approved by the Vatican as binding. The one you cited meets none of those criteria. It’s just the opinion of its immediate authors.

Now, are USCCB documents worthy of respect and of one’s attention? Sure. But that’s all.

The USCCB document is very general. Nevertheless, it is not contradictory to the EWTN statement at all. Nowhere in either document is it said that abortion is just one of many issues upon which Catholics may base their votes. Both say it’s an intrinsic evil that cannot be supported unless there is a proportionately grave evil to be opposed in voting for the promoter of abortion. At present, there is none, and neither document says there is.

Again, the argument that abortion on demand is just one of a number of issues among which Catholics may pick and choose, is not a Catholic argument. It’s an argument for relativism and it corollary, subjective morality, which are condemned by the Church.

In addition numerous Bishops and cardinals have issued statements refuting the interpretation of Faithful Citizenship that says it allows voting for pro-abortion candidates for reasons other than their opponent being more pro-abortion than they are

 

[Mike_Dye]

Not that Trump supported it, which he didn’t.

This is going to be a hard one to figure out…on one hand you have a person that wants immigrants to come in legally, and on the other hand you have one that advocates killing innocent children and endorses homosexual weddings…decisions, decisions!

 

[Ridgerunner]

In addition numerous Bishops and cardinals have issued statements refuting the interpretation of Faithful Citizenship that says it allows voting for pro-abortion candidates for reasons other than their opponent being more pro-abortion than they are

It’s reasonable that bishops and cardinals should, in order avoid the kinds of misunderstandings we see even here on CAF at times. The U.S. has a heavy protestant cultural overlay, and Protestants (and sometimes Catholics) view Catholic teaching through protestant spectacles. I can see how, for such people, Catholic teaching can be difficult to understand. If one thinks of morality in terms of subjective “values”, then moral absolutes are incomprehensible and the relative weight of moral “values” are assumed to be a matter of individual choice.

 

[GaryTaylor]

This is going to be a hard one to figure out…on one hand you have a person that wants immigrants to come in legally, and on the other hand you have one that advocates killing innocent children and endorses homosexual weddings…decisions, decisions!

This is the basis of our whole argument Mike. Again, listen, we all get the emotional part and can relate. No-one with a properly formed conscience imho should “like” the idea of voting for a lesser evil. Nevertheless when we say on one hand and on the other. On one hand is the death of 1-million of the most innocent and helpless along with the blatant attack on the family-marriage and Church. There’s nothing on the other hand of proportion that allows reason to justify the outrage of the 1-million and further the Churches teaching priority of abortion.

And this logic in dispute resides no where on this thread.

Further while its commendable that I shouldn’t want to have a thing to do with this mess, its also true that for me to advocate my opinion of non cooperation, I am encouraging the greater evil to succeed. How is that a properly formed conscience, in essence imho its selfish.

Not that you suggested not voting Mike but just saying thats my further thinking.

 

[Crossbones]

I don’t understand this. I’m sure its me but just a little help would be appreciated.

Here’s my attempt at an example. The surgeon general might say to stay healthy you should eat properly and exercise regularly by working out on a treadmill, riding a stationary bicycle or swimming. Dr. Oz might say that to stay healthy you should run on a treadmill 30 minutes a day. Dr. Oz’s statement ignores eating properly and ignores the other possibilities for working out, but it’s more succinct.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The Vatican document makes it clear that Bishops conferences doe not have teaching authority. There is no other way to read it. . Of course as we have seen with Faithful Ctizenship people will twist Church documents to support their political views regardless of what the church teaching is

Then it is equally clear that no individual Bishop has teaching authority outside of his particular Diocese. Therefore anything that Archbishop Chaput says about his guidance on voting would only be binding in Philadelphia.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s my attempt at an example. The surgeon general might say to stay healthy you should eat properly and exercise regularly by working out on a treadmill, riding a stationary bicycle or swimming.

Dr. Oz might say that to stay healthy you should run on a treadmill 30 minutes a day. Dr. Oz’s statement ignores eating properly and ignores the other possibilities for working out, but it’s more succinct.

So I should take this and apply it to church teaching how to understand how you think the two are mutually exclusive.

See this is part of the issue, I don’t get the continuity of thinking nor have heard it clearly elaborated on.

Further while its commendable that I shouldn’t want to have a thing to do with this mess, its also true that for me to advocate my opinion of non cooperation, I am encouraging the greater evil to succeed. How is that a properly formed conscience, in essence imho its selfish and in fact is helping the greater evil.

Just a further contemplative question. You agree a greater evil exists but believe its Trump but you also advocate not voting or a third party vote. I’m not getting the thinking of the properly formed conscience that said. Just saying, you might help me see something I must be missing

How does one in good conscience live with that? Its appears to me to fit the old slogan well that the road to hell is paved with good intentions?

 

[Crossbones]

It’s reasonable that bishops and cardinals should, in order avoid the kinds of misunderstandings we see even here on CAF at times. The U.S. has a heavy protestant cultural overlay, and Protestants (and sometimes Catholics) view Catholic teaching through protestant spectacles. I can see how, for such people, Catholic teaching can be difficult to understand. If one thinks of morality in terms of subjective “values”, then moral absolutes are incomprehensible and the relative weight of moral “values” are assumed to be a matter of individual choice.

I don’t disagree that there are a lot of misunderstandings of Church teaching on CAF. That’s why it’s important to refer to the appropriate documents such as the USCCB’s Forming Consciences and bishop’s comments and allow Catholic in good faith with well-formed consciences to determine what they mean and not refer to bishops as ‘liberal outliers’ when they something that you disagree with.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t disagree that there are a lot of misunderstandings of Church teaching on CAF. That’s why it’s important to refer to the appropriate documents such as the USCCB’s Forming Consciences and bishop’s comments and allow Catholic in good faith with well-formed consciences to determine what they mean and not refer to bishops as ‘liberal outliers’ when they something that you disagree with.

Quick question, how does this document get this premier authority in relation to context of the last page of this thread. They have no more authority than your own Bishop where you live? Do you think in that sequence it changes the premier perspective of authority?

So if you have two Bishops in two areas such as yours and mine with a different view, then what?

 

[GaryTaylor]

only be binding in Philadelphia.

What if Baltimore or Boston are different as is plausible thinking of Bones “liberal” remark we see to be fair there are different understandings? So what does that mean about authority? So you see all the teaching authority Leaf as suggested has to have the same doctrinal continuity as the Vatican/teaching authority/Pope, so as you point out if there varies opinion from city/diocese a difference than everyone in the USCCB can’t be in like thinking. There has to be a page of signatures of the USCCB, from there also nuance of thinking may indeed be a reality.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Nowhere in either document is it said that abortion is just one of many issues upon which Catholics may base their votes.

That is not what is being claimed by those who say one may vote for a pro-choice candidate.

Both say it’s an intrinsic evil that cannot be supported unless there is a proportionately grave evil to be opposed in voting for the promoter of abortion.

It is not that the issue or the evil is proportionally grave. It is that the reason for voting for that person is proportionally grave. This is an important distinction.

If you have two issues in front of you, and one of those issues is directly under the control of the public official you are electing, and the other issue is only indirectly under his control, or not under his control at all, this changes the gravity of the reason without changing the gravity of the underlying issue. In the example I have given before of a County Drain Commissioner, his job is to manage surface water drainage systems. He has no effect on the abortion issue. So if you are concerned about proper management of surface water drainage systems, you can vote for whomever you think is most qualified to do that job, even if you find out from personal contact that the candidate happens to be pro-choice on abortion. The degree to which this office impacts abortion modifies the gravity of the issue when considering if you have a proportionate reason to vote for the pro-choice candidate.

Now we have been talking about the office of President, or Legislators. Of course they have more potential impact on abortion than a County Drain Commissioner. But the same principle applies, to a lesser extent. On some issues, like executive use of military force, the President has almost complete autonomy to effect those issues. But on issues like abortion, his effect is more limited. He can appoint Supreme Court Justices, who may or may not vote the way he predicted. He can, with executive action, issue orders that make abortions somewhat easier or harder to get. He can, through his veto, block some legislation that affects abortion policy. But the primary decision to get an abortion still rests most strongly with those directly involved: the mother, the father, the family, the doctor, the friends. If they are strongly motivated and can afford to travel to Canada, they may still manage to have an abortion even with the most stringent laws in place.

I don’t claim that all these considerations amount to a convincing case. I only claim that there is a case to be considered. And as long as there is a case like this to be considered, the judgement of that case is a matter of prudential judgement, and not a matter of Catholic doctrine on voting.

At present, there is none, and neither document says there is.

If you are comparing underlying issues, you are right. If you are comparing reasons for voting (which you should be) it is still an open question.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Leaf as suggested has to have the same doctrinal continuity as the Vatican/teaching authority/Pope,

Sorry, so the sequence of continuity of authority stems from above, magisterium, so in right thinking we cant suggest that they; Bishops/USCCB can give a theological clarification of authority to what isn’t defined by the authority? So any thinking of say a suggested liberal Bishop would still have to have the continuity of Christs teaching authority/ magisterium which is the authentic teaching of the Church in authority.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Nowhere in either document is it said that abortion is just one of many issues upon which Catholics may base their votes.

That is not what is being claimed by those who say one may vote for a pro-choice candidate.

Whats being claimed? I don’t want to miss any of this and I’m afraid if I am so are the lurkers.

So if you are concerned about proper management of surface water drainage systems, you can vote for whomever you think is most qualified to do that job, even if you find out from personal contact that the candidate happens to be pro-choice on abortion. The degree to which this office impacts abortion modifies the gravity of the issue when considering if you have a proportionate reason to vote for the pro-choice candidate.

When did clean sewers become the priority from the teaching authority of a properly formed conscience, when even the USCCB itself has a page on the priority of the unborn which is linked and straight from the moral-code of the Vatican in continuity of authority.

 

[estesbob]

Then it is equally clear that no individual Bishop has teaching authority outside of his particular Diocese. Therefore anything that Archbishop Chaput says about his guidance on voting would only be binding in Philadelphia.

Chaput was clarifying Church teaching for those who misinterpreted Faithful citizenship. Several other Bishops did the same. OTH not single member of the Magestrium supports the interpretation we see so often expressed by Catholics who vote for pro-abortion candidates,. Not one. Instead we see rationalizations like this "well I know a Bishop who says we have to make difficult choices when voting and voting for a pro-abortion candidate is a difficult choice therefore I can vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Whats being claimed? I don’t want to miss any of this and I’m afraid if I am so are the lurkers.

What is being claimed is that there is no doctrinal prohibition against voting for a pro-choice candidate. That’s all.

When did clean sewers become the priority from the teaching authority of a properly formed conscience, when even the USCCB itself has a page on the priority of the unborn which is linked and straight from the moral-code of the Vatican in continuity of authority.

Well, it hasn’t. So…? I don’t get your point.

 

[GaryTaylor]

But the same principle applies, to a lesser extent. On some issues, like executive use of military force, the President has almost complete autonomy to effect those issues. But on issues like abortion, his effect is more limited. He can appoint Supreme Court Justices, who may or may not vote the way he predicted. He can, with executive action, issue orders that make abortions somewhat easier or harder to get. He can, through his veto, block some legislation that affects abortion policy. But the primary decision to get an abortion still rests most strongly with those directly involved: the mother, the father, the family, the doctor, the friends. If they are strongly motivated and can afford to travel to Canada, they may still manage to have an abortion even with the most stringent laws in place.

I don’t claim that all these considerations amount to a convincing case.

Im sorry but what??? Not convincing? Your argument is the President can’t do anything about abortion anyway so its more a priority in a properly formed conscience to be focused on other speculative suggested evils and contrary to the explicit teaching of priority of the Church because and correct me if I am wrong not enough witll be done and in this moment the priority is other?

 

[GaryTaylor]

What is being claimed is that there is no doctrinal prohibition against voting for a pro-choice candidate. That’s all.

If you can’t ever cooperate with the evil of abortion as a priority how is that reasonable? Whats being claimed is that can be ignored for a speculative opinion about some other imaginative evil. Be that in a hypothetical drain cleaners, or whatever, there is no moral comparison and clearly not proportionate. It doesn’t even exist but in speculation and the certainty of your own opinion, in contrast to factual reality?