U.S. bishops: Vote your conscience Catholics urged to weigh stands on all issues

[dkoinzan]

This is Judy Brown response to questions about this article:

I have received numerous questions on the article referenced in this question. Rather than continually posting the same responses, I will summarize my comments here:

1. Be careful of accepting the position of a reporter or a media outlet. They frequently have an agenda they are trying to push. The headline of this article and the first sentence, appear to be just such an agenda-laden position.
2. We have learned from sad experience that interpretations of Church documents by a priest, or even a bishop, do not necessarily reflect the intent of the document they purport to interpret. On serious questions, one should, as far as possible, consult the basic Church documents issued by, or with the permission of, the Pope.
3. As I have noted in answers to previous questions on this subject, Pope Benedict XVI addressed the basic facts involved in these questions in a letter he wrote prior to becoming Pope. That letter is titled, “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion.”
4. In that letter, the Pope addressed the question of whether or not abortion, war and capital punishment are all things of equal concern. He said, specifically, “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
5. In that same letter, the Pope added a note at the bottom that reads, “[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]”
6. The Pope did not define what was meant by “proportionate reasons,” but it seems clear that, because he took the time in the letter to spell out how abortion and euthanasia are of a greater concern than war and capital punishment, that it would be inaccurate to maintain, as the article above does, that “a Catholic may vote for an abortion rights supporter … if that candidate’s views on other moral issues outweigh his abortion stand in the voter’s conscience.”
7. I would agree with those who maintain that any candidate that supports the direct killing of preborn human beings has disqualified himself or herself from holding public office.

Judie Brown

 

[Cuddy_Duck]

You know I give up. You tell us we have to vote and then tell us we have to be a single issue voter. I’m leaving.

I don’t blame you. RC=R repeated over and over.

 

[elgar]

I don’t blame you. RC=R repeated over and over.

I’ll be direct. The answer is yes most of the time. It shouldn’t have to be this way, but the dems have endorsed the far left’s agenda for reasons that I don’t understand. Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, Al Gore and others used to take a pro-life stand, but for political reasons changed their minds. How sad.

 

[buffalo]

$$$$$$$$$$$$ - money via career politics.

 

[Cuddy_Duck]

I’ll be direct. The answer is yes most of the time.

Finally somebody was honest enough to admit this. :extrahappy:

 

[buffalo]

In certain times there are issues that rise to the top. Abortion and the culture of death are the single most important issue facing us.

 

[goofyjim]

I’ll be direct. The answer is yes most of the time. It shouldn’t have to be this way, but the dems have endorsed the far left’s agenda for reasons that I don’t understand. Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, Al Gore and others used to take a pro-life stand, but for political reasons changed their minds. How sad.

In this pitiful year RC doesn’t equal D or R. So stop telling us we have to vote and vote only one way.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

If one candidate’s position is that its not the government’s place to be involved in the decision of abortion, but has sound judgment on all other issues, while the other candidate opposes abortion, but holds strange positions and if he were elected, could bring the world into a nuclear holocaust, the former candidate would be the correct choice.

Killing billions of people and destroying the planet, is a far greater evil than keeping government out of the controversial issue of abortion.

We can educate people on the immorality of abortion. But if the planet and its inhabitants are wiped out by a psychopath, abortion is a mute issue.

As the Bishops have said, you have to use sound judgment and not vote on a single issue.

Jim

 

[dkoinzan]

If one candidate’s position is that its not the government’s place to be involved in the decision of abortion, but has sound judgment on all other issues, while the other candidate opposes abortion, but holds strange positions and if he were elected, could bring the world into a nuclear holocaust, the former candidate would be the correct choice.

Killing billions of people and destroying the planet, is a far greater evil than keeping government out of the controversial issue of abortion.

We can educate people on the immorality of abortion. But if the planet and its inhabitants are wiped out by a psychopath, abortion is a mute issue.

As the Bishops have said, you have to use sound judgment and not vote on a single issue.

Jim

There is no candidate that is claiming to want to blow up the world so I guess that isn’t an issue right now.

 

[mary_bobo]

If one candidate’s position is that its not the government’s place to be involved in the decision of abortion, but has sound judgment on all other issues, while the other candidate opposes abortion, but holds strange positions and if he were elected, could bring the world into a nuclear holocaust, the former candidate would be the correct choice.

Killing billions of people and destroying the planet, is a far greater evil than keeping government out of the controversial issue of abortion.

We can educate people on the immorality of abortion. But if the planet and its inhabitants are wiped out by a psychopath, abortion is a mute issue.

As the Bishops have said, you have to use sound judgment and not vote on a single issue.

Jim

Gee, I was not aware that a psychopath was on either ticket. I do hope you are able to back up this wild and ridiculous charge. Perhaps it is a figment of your wild interpretation.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

This was in paragraph 28 of the document:

"The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed."3

That doesn’t sound like abortion, euthansia and embryonic stem cell research can be considered just one of many issues to be considered. It sounds pretty clear to me that the Bishops are saying the opposite, that “Life Issues”, meaning those that involve attacks on innocent life, are primary issues from which other issues flow.

---

On the issue of "not voting’ simply because you dislike both candidates, you still have to choose one or the other according to what is best based on catholic teaching. Indifference and not voting in the end becomes a vote for the worst Candidate in my opinion. In which case you have a sin of ommission, allowing evil by inactivity. That was the big charge against people of faith during Hitler’s rise, do we want to repeat that?

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[JB2VI]

This was in paragraph 28 of the document:

"The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed."3

That doesn’t sound like abortion, euthansia and embryonic stem cell research can be considered just one of many issues to be considered. It sounds pretty clear to me that the Bishops are saying the opposite, that “Life Issues”, meaning those that involve attacks on innocent life, are primary issues from which other issues flow.

---

On the issue of "not voting’ simply because you dislike both candidates, you still have to choose one or the other according to what is best based on catholic teaching. Indifference and not voting in the end becomes a vote for the worst Candidate in my opinion. In which case you have a sin of ommission, allowing evil by inactivity. That was the big charge against people of faith during Hitler’s rise, do we want to repeat that?

In Christ, maryJohnZ

I agree wholeheartedly. Everything I’ve read on this issue supports these statements. The media and our desires twists the messages.

If a candidate was to admit that he was a pedophile would you still consider him a viable candidate? Would you stop to say “Oh, ok, that’s one strike, but where does he stand on other issues?” I venture to say that none of you on this board would vote for a pedophile. (I hope not.) Wouldn’t that be “one issue voting”?

Ok. Who among you would not vote because the two leading candiates both admit to be pedophiles? Would you not be spurred to write in another candidate, or to vote for a lessor known candidate? In this case, inaction causes the same result of inappropriate action.

So, what makes abortion so different. If we can protect children from sexual deviants, why can’t we ban together and protect children in the womb from murders? Like Father Corapi says, “come on, Wake up America!”

There is always a line. The only real question is where do you stand on that line. When we look at the extremes, we learn our position. Substitute “pedophiles” for other extremes (ie. satanist, convicted mass murder, etc.).

Just food for thought. God made life, I will defend it to the death. Its the number one issue from which all else flows.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

There is no candidate that is claiming to want to blow up the world so I guess that isn’t an issue right now.

I gave a hypothetical case, being we’re not allowed to discuss the presidential campaign.

Jim

 

[Christophorus72]

This was in paragraph 28 of the document:

"The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed."3

That doesn’t sound like abortion, euthansia and embryonic stem cell research can be considered just one of many issues to be considered. It sounds pretty clear to me that the Bishops are saying the opposite, that “Life Issues”, meaning those that involve attacks on innocent life, are primary issues from which other issues flow.

---

On the issue of "not voting’ simply because you dislike both candidates, you still have to choose one or the other according to what is best based on catholic teaching. Indifference and not voting in the end becomes a vote for the worst Candidate in my opinion. In which case you have a sin of ommission, allowing evil by inactivity. That was the big charge against people of faith during Hitler’s rise, do we want to repeat that?

In Christ, maryJohnZ

I agree with you about not voting, but I disagree that you must choose one of two candidates. If a third party is viable, I’m voting for that party. I will not allow my conscience to vote for the lesser of two evils, when there is a viable 3rd party that I find is more closely aligned with the beliefs of my faith.

When I see Congress has an approval rating in the mid-teens, and a President who’s approval rating is in the mid twenties, I have little faith in either of these two parties anymore.

 

[dkoinzan]

I gave a hypothetical case, being we’re not allowed to discuss the presidential campaign.

Jim

In that case why defocus from what the thread? That is such a classic way of avoiding the truth.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

In that case why defocus from what the thread? That is such a classic way of avoiding the truth.

I thought it had to do with the thread. People are talking about moral implications of voting for a pro-choice candidates. I presented a scenario of where a vote for a candidate who doesn’t oppose abortion, could be made according to the teachings of the Bishops.

Jim

 

[bobzills]

In certain times there are issues that rise to the top. Abortion and the culture of death are the single most important issue facing us.

But is it up to the politicians to preach morality, or is it up to the Catholic Church? for example, lwt’s suppose that the politicians voted for a jail term of one year for anyone who used contraceptives. That would then p;ut 70% of all Catholic women in the USA of childbearing age in jail? Do you want the politicians to pass laws to put all of these Catholic women in jail?

 

[MaryJohnZ]

I’m getting old, and I keep it simple. I’ll vote for the candidate who I think will do the best job of protecting human life from conception to natural death, period. The other issues don’t hold a candle in importance when compared to respect for life.

Deacon Glen

Thanks Deacon Glen, that seems to be a clear way of seeing it.
As far as I am concerned any candidate who would support partial birth abortion…or abortion at any stage cannot possibly have common sense to sort out other issues. That seems like such a clear moral wrong. if they can’t see that how can I trust that they can make just decisions in other areas. That is how I see it.

I really think if our country ended abortion God would help us with our other problems because it would be such a clear act of turning away from evil. it would make us stronger in terms of our right to speak out against terrorism or other evils because we would be showing ourselves capable of reform and repentance.

Seek God first and all the other things will come to you…

In Christ, maryJohnz

 

[estesbob]

Lets see what the bishops really said:

**Some will say that the defense of innocent life is only one issue among many, that it is important but not fundamental. They are wrong. **In the natural moral law, the good of life is the most fundamental good and the condition for the enjoyment of all other goods (cf. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, *Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics *[November 1998], n. 5). Recall the words of Pope John Paul II on the mission of the lay faithful in the Church and in the world:

Bishop Burke

The right to life comes first. It precedes and undergirds every other social issue or group of issues. This is why Blessed John XXIII listed it as the first human right in his great encyclical on world peace, Pacem in Terris. And as the U.S. bishops stressed in their 1998 pastoral letter Living the Gospel of Life, the right to life is the foundation of every other right.

Bishop Chaput

As men and women of good will we strive to achieve true justice for all people and to preserve their rights as human beings. There is, however, one right that is “inalienable”, and that is the RIGHT TO LIFE. This is the FIRST right. This is the right that grounds all other human rights. This is the issue that trumps all other issues

Most Reverend Michael J. Sheridan
Bishop of Colorado Springs

Q: Some have questioned the insistence on the abortion question when there are other matters — such as the conflict in Iraq and the death penalty — in which there are contrasts between some politicians and the Church position. Why is abortion being singled out?

Cardinal Dulles: The three cases you mention are quite different. The Church recognizes that there are occasions when war and the death penalty are justified, even though such measures are undesirable and should be kept to the necessary minimum.

The present Holy Father has made it clear that he thinks that certain, particular wars and executions are wrong and unnecessary. Catholics will respect this as the prudential judgment of a wise and holy pastor.

But Catholics who fully accept the doctrine of the Church can sometimes disagree about whether a given war or death sentence is morally defensible.

**Abortion is in a different class. As the deliberate taking of innocent human life, direct abortion can never be justified. About the moral principle, there can be no debate in the Church. The teaching has been constant and emphatic. **

Cardinal Dulles

 

[buffalo]

But is it up to the politicians to preach morality, or is it up to the Catholic Church? for example, lwt’s suppose that the politicians voted for a jail term of one year for anyone who used contraceptives. That would then p;ut 70% of all Catholic women in the USA of childbearing age in jail? Do you want the politicians to pass laws to put all of these Catholic women in jail?

Like any law if it was illegal and you continue to do it you must face the consequences.

If I live in California and I continue to use incandescent lamps I must be prepared to face the music.

Yes, the Catholic Church is to preach morality and the citizens must influence public policy.

Are you suggesting that the Church should preach but not influence policy?