US bishops approve new issue of voters' guide, 'Faithful Citizenship' [CC]

[pnewton]

I think it was actually Deal Hudson who first crafted the “How to Vote Catholic” guide and identified certain non-negotiables. This was then adopted by CA, et al, as you’ve noted. Am I wrong?

Perhaps I am wrong. I only have my memory to go on.

I am not disparaging the term, to be sure, and I like the way the term prioritizes certain issues. Like I said, the pamphlet from CA is valuable, it just isn’t the USCCB voter’s guide, and isn’t meant to be. We can find even simpler guides, some that even name the names we need to vote for. It is just a matter of where one stands and what the needs of an individual are. Some people want that deeper understanding that underlies the simpler answers. Maybe a person has not gotten to the point of expanding basic political ideologies. Maybe a person has already struggled with some of these issues and does not wish to re-cover old ground. I am in between.

 

[zz912]

What’s there to cut? The US has almost no public sector for social issues. It’s almost inhumane.

You’re kidding right? These are just some of the biggest, and dollar amounts are in BILLIONS.

Community and Regional Development $33.305
Education, Training, Employment and Social Services $100.460
Health $450.795
Medicare $519.027
Income Security $542.237
Social Security $857.319

That’s $2.5 TRILLION, out of $3.6 Trillion dollar in expenditures.

 

[Ender]

You apparently have a very strict idea of what a “guide” must be. But taking the ordinary meaning of the word guide, I think most of the statements in that document qualify as guidance.

I take this to be the “ordinary meaning of the word guide”:a thing that helps someone to form an opinion or make a decision or calculation
I don’t believe the document is constructed to achieve that purpose inasmuch as its comments provide support for whatever decision one chooses to make. There is not one statement in the document that forces us to face the choice between our preference and the church’s teaching.

For example, near the beginning we have:…This guides the reader to an understanding of the very basic principle that engagement in political life is in fact a mandate, not an optional activity to be disregarded lightly. This one guiding statement alone justifies calling the document a guide.

It is a mandate…except when it’s not.*31. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate … *

But going further, we find things that are more specific:*The Church’s teaching is clear that a good end does not justify an immoral means. As we all seek to advance the common good-by defending the inviolable sanctity of human life from the moment of conception until natural death, by promoting religious freedom, by defending marriage, by feeding the hungry and housing the homeless, by welcoming the immigrant and protecting the environment-it is important to recognize that not all possible courses of action are morally acceptable.
*How can you not call this valuable guidance?

What is it guiding me to do? What choices is it directing me to make beyond those I already make in forming my political positions? Does it mean I should or should not vote for Candidate X? Well, neither; it offers no help in making that decision. Basically it says: do things for the right reasons. I think most of us believe we are already doing that; at least that’s what we try to do.

I could go on, of course, but I wonder why you asked for examples of this document serving as a guide? Is it because you did not find the specific statement “It is a mortal sin to vote for someone who would keep abortion legal”?

Not exactly, but here is how the Kansas bishops addressed that issue in 2007, and it shows the difference between providing guidance and …not. They started by citing the comments of “Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI”*“When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor 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.” *
They then go on to show how that statement applies (emphasis in the original):Could a Catholic in good conscience vote for a candidate who supports legalized abortion when there is a choice of another candidate who does not support abortion or any other intrinsically evil policy? Could a voter’s preference for the candidate’s positions on the pursuit of peace, economic policies benefiting the poor, support for universal health care, a more just immigration policy, etc. overcome a candidate’s support for legalized abortion? In such a case, the Catholic voter must ask and answer the question: What could possibly be a proportionate reason for the more than 45 million children killed by abortion in the past 35 years? Personally, we cannot conceive of such a proportionate reason.
The difference between the USCCB document and the one from the Kansas bishops shows the difference between guiding and talking.

Ender

 

[Brendan]

We need remember though that these items were called “non-negotiable” by Catholic Answers, and the term has grown, being used by EWTN, Pope Benedict, and referenced by Pope Francis, though not all use the term for the exact same issues. We also know that no moral position is really “negotiable.” This is why I found the last USCCB voter’s guide to be more informative than the CA pamphlet, though both have their place.

Here is Pope’s Benedict’s use of the term

Evidently, this is true for all the baptized, yet it is especially incumbent upon those who, by virtue of their social or political position, must make decisions regarding fundamental values, such as respect for human life, its defense from conception to natural death, the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman, the freedom to educate one’s children and the promotion of the common good in all its forms. These values are not negotiable.

Sacramentum Caritas

I would not say that Pope Benedict copied this term from anyone, but rather relied on the absolute nature of the values themselves.

Certain values, such as care for the poor, are open to several means, and even acceptable magnitudes.

Others, such as abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage, by their nature, are not subject to any acceptable alternative views.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I take this to be the “ordinary meaning of the word guide”:a thing that helps someone to form an opinion or make a decision or calculation
I don’t believe the document is constructed to achieve that purpose inasmuch as its comments provide support for whatever decision one chooses to make.

No, not “whatever decision”, but it does sometimes provide support for two opposite decisions inasmuch as the guidance is general and the application is specific. The reader, depending on which aspects of the specific situation focuses on, may find reasons to make either decision. But that is not a failing of the document. It is to be expected that general statements are not uniquely interpretable to specific cases, since some of the relevant aspects of the specific situation could not possibly be anticipated by the general statement. For example, should you go to mass when you have the flu? The general teaching says you must attend mass on Sunday, unless you are too ill. That teaching can support both decisions, to stay home or to go to mass, depending on your personal assessment of sick you are. The fact the Faithful Citizenship can support two opposite decisions is similarly understandable.

There is not one statement in the document that forces us to face the choice between our preference and the church’s teaching.
It is a mandate…except when it’s not.*31. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate … *

The guide does say that this step is extraordinary, just like staying home from mass when you are not feeling well is extraordinary. It is useful to know, and does not totally invalidate the mandate.

What is it guiding me to do? What choices is it directing me to make beyond those I already make in forming my political positions? Does it mean I should or should not vote for Candidate X? Well, neither; it offers no help in making that decision. Basically it says: do things for the right reasons. I think most of us believe we are already doing that; at least that’s what we try to do.

In this passage the guide is telling you, among other things, that you cannot approve of abortion as a means of solving an overcrowding problem in the schools. It is OK if the guide sometimes states the obvious. In fact, since this guide is supposed to be the consequence of existing teaching that is expressed elsewhere in Church documents, one could say that in some sense all the conclusions in the guide are obvious and need not be stated. But that assumes that everyone is already well acquainted with all the relevant existing documents, which is unreasonable. But the work of the bishops in preparing this document has value because they supposedly took the time to consider those existing teachings. The value is not in the originality of the points, but in the bringing together of the relevant existing teaching in one place.

Not exactly, but here is how the Kansas bishops addressed that issue in 2007, and it shows the difference between providing guidance and …not. They started by citing the comments of “Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI”*“When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor 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.” *
They then go on to show how that statement applies (emphasis in the original):Could a Catholic in good conscience vote for a candidate who supports legalized abortion when there is a choice of another candidate who does not support abortion or any other intrinsically evil policy? Could a voter’s preference for the candidate’s positions on the pursuit of peace, economic policies benefiting the poor, support for universal health care, a more just immigration policy, etc. overcome a candidate’s support for legalized abortion? In such a case, the Catholic voter must ask and answer the question: What could possibly be a proportionate reason for the more than 45 million children killed by abortion in the past 35 years? Personally, we cannot conceive of such a proportionate reason.
The difference between the USCCB document and the one from the Kansas bishops shows the difference between guiding and talking.

Ender

The two quotes are indeed different in that one is more general and the other is more specific. That does not totally invalidate the more general statement.

Also the second statement, ending with “Personally, we cannot conceive of such a proportionate reason” shows its difference by the first word of that sentence. They did not say, “There is no conceivable proportionate reason”. So if this is the only kind of guidance that you consider to be a guide, then it seems to be too strict.

 

[pnewton]

Here is Pope’s Benedict’s use of the term

Sacramentum Caritas

I would not say that Pope Benedict copied this term from anyone, but rather relied on the absolute nature of the values themselves.

Certain values, such as care for the poor, are open to several means, and even acceptable magnitudes.

Others, such as abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage, by their nature, are not subject to any acceptable alternative views.

Since you mentioned Pope Benedict, it is worth noting that he included parental rights to education and promotion of the common good along with respect for human life from conception to natural death. He did not mention abortion per se, but included it in one of his four categories. Any interpretation applied to one of these categories, should be applied to all, if we are to be fair and true in listening to what he was saying, beyond just what we wish to hear.

There is more than one path to reducing abortion. No means should be disregarded over partisan politics.

 

[pnewton]

Also the second statement, ending with “Personally, we cannot conceive of such a proportionate reason” shows its difference by the first word of that sentence.

I can think of a few proportional reasons, though they seldom apply. One would be propensity to start a nuclear war that would kill many more. Another would be where the local office in question had no influence on the legalization of abortion, but the candidate was able to assist unwed mothers and thus reduce abortion in a local area. If one can reasonably see that the net result of a local politician would be less abortions, that would be proportional for me, despite their opposition to banning abortion.

 

[Brendan]

Since you mentioned Pope Benedict, it is worth noting that he included parental rights to education and promotion of the common good along with respect for human life from conception to natural death. He did not mention abortion per se, but included it in one of his four categories. Any interpretation applied to one of these categories, should be applied to all, if we are to be fair and true in listening to what he was saying, beyond just what we wish to hear.

There is more than one path to reducing abortion. No means should be disregarded over partisan politics.

It is not simply reducing abortion, it is the universal recognition that the right to life is fundamental core to every other value that Pope Benedict listed

Pope Benedict was simply building on what Pope John Paul II stated in Christifidelis Laci

Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination

Hence why it is the most non-negotiable value of them all. Without that firmly in place, any other value or right is 'false and illusory".

There is no right to educate a child, if the child has no right to live. No right to a clean environment, no right of just employment. They are all based on the recognition of that right. Hence why there is no use of prudential judgement on that one issue.

 

[pnewton]

It is not simply reducing abortion, it is the universal recognition that the right to life is fundamental core to every other value that Pope Benedict listed

I can see where this could be said of every politician that recognizes this personally, but does not believe his faith should be forced on others. I value concrete results along with “recognition.”

There is no right to educate a child, if the child has no right to live. No right to a clean environment, no right of just employment. They are all based on the recognition of that right. Hence why there is no use of prudential judgement on that one issue.

Pope Benedict did not make this distinction. He listed all four together. I guess you are entitled to agree or not, but he did mention, " the freedom to educate one’s children" as a “fundamental right.”

Note also he did not limit his list of the fundamentals. He started his list with “such as.” So when I hear Pope Francis ask rhetorical what values might be negotiable, I question the formula of the fab five of the Republican Party. That is why I find any guidance from the USCCB helpful.

 

[Ender]

No, not “whatever decision”, but it does sometimes provide support for two opposite decisions inasmuch as the guidance is general and the application is specific.

Yes, this is my point. It offers support for opposing positions, which is not so much providing guidance for choosing as it is providing justification for the choices one has already made.

In this passage the guide is telling you, among other things, that you cannot approve of abortion as a means of solving an overcrowding problem in the schools.

No, it really doesn’t say anything like this. First, it doesn’t address any specific proposal, which is not surprising, and second, re abortion it states two things: we may not support a candidate for the purpose of supporting abortion, and we are not to be one issue voters. That is, we may support candidates who support abortion if we have other reasons for doing so. If the bishops are unwilling to disqualify even those who outspokenly support intrinsic evils then quite clearly there is no candidate, regardless of what he supports, who could be considered disqualified from receiving our support.

Since every election is between candidates, and not between specific proposals, and no candidate can be considered unfit based on his policies, at its most basic level this document requires nothing, prohibits nothing, and allows us to justify whatever we choose to do. You can look at the arguments of pnewton to see how this plays out in real life.

Ender

 

[Sy_Noe]

You already know who they’ll recommend voting for…

Would I be too far off if I guessed people will assume it to be the US party whose name begins with a letter beyond the 4th letter in the alphabet?

I find it interesting that you said in another post that in the UK both clergy in the CoE and in the Catholic Church recommend the Labour Party. That’s the more “liberal” one, right?

I’m just surprised because I know I once attended a Catholic Mass just before an election day in the US and the priest spent his homily on the election but on only 1 issue (beginning with the 1st letter in the alphabet). And yet without saying the party or Presidential candidate’s name, he made it very clear thru his message who it was we were to vote for. The Republican. I didn’t. I voted. Just not for whom the priest clearly implied I should. I just prefer making my own choice when it comes to for whom I to vote for.

Same faith though, right? The Catholic Church in America and in the UK?

 

[Sy_Noe]

Really?

Oh my yes the Republicans believe in big government. It just depends on the issue. When it comes to things such as healthcare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, the poor, sure they tout smaller government and things such as privatization, or limiting people to something like a $2000/yr government allowance for a healthcare account and then leaving them to try to find a year’s worth of healthcare coverage. $2000 would provide me about 4 mos coverage.

But when it comes to other issues, women’s rights, Planned Parenthood, gay rights, yes Republicans are all for big government.

 

[1crazybusydad]

Oh my yes the Republicans believe in big government. It just depends on the issue. When it comes to things such as healthcare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, the poor, sure they tout smaller government and things such as privatization, or limiting people to something like a $2000/yr government allowance for a healthcare account and then leaving them to try to find a year’s worth of healthcare coverage. $2000 would provide me about 4 mos coverage.

But when it comes to other issues, women’s rights, Planned Parenthood, gay rights, yes Republicans are all for big government.

I’m sorry, but your latter statement makes no sense with regards to “big government.” Banning abortion would make government no larger than banning slavery did. Cutting funding to Planned Parenthood is definitely not a way of expanding government - just the opposite. Gay rights? Again, how does government grow or shrink by recognizing or not recognizing particular unions?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Yes, this is my point. It offers support for opposing positions, which is not so much providing guidance for choosing as it is providing justification for the choices one has already made.

And this is bad, why? As I pointed out, the teaching about attending mass, but not when you are sick, also provides justification for the decision to go to mass or to stay home after the choice has been made. I don’t think that is such a bad thing.

No, it really doesn’t say anything like this. First, it doesn’t address any specific proposal

As you said, this is not surprising, and it doesn’t make the guide bad either.

re abortion it states two things: we may not support a candidate for the purpose of supporting abortion, and we are not to be one issue voters. That is, we may support candidates who support abortion if we have other reasons for doing so. If the bishops are unwilling to disqualify even those who outspokenly support intrinsic evils then quite clearly there is no candidate, regardless of what he supports, who could be considered disqualified from receiving our support.

You are stretching what the guide says in several directions to make it appear like a useless guide. For example, you** added** the word “outspokenly” to make it look like bishops would approve of someone deciding to support a candidate whose main focus is promoting abortion, and who offers attractive positions on other issues only as a side-show to attract votes. Also, you exaggerated “we are not one issue voters” to mean " there is no candidate, regardless of what he supports, who could be considered disqualified from receiving our support."

If I were to mount an imaginary attack on the teachings of attending mass using the same technique you just used on Faithful Citizenship, I would say this:

*The teaching on attending mass says that we must attend on the Lord’s day, and that we may stay home if we are sick. That is, we may choose to stay home if we have reason to believe we are too sick. If the teaching does not rule out even those who stay home because they are sick and tired of the Chicago Cubs not being in the world series, then what good is this Church teaching?
*

 

[Sy_Noe]

I’m sorry, but your latter statement makes no sense with regards to “big government.” Banning abortion would make government no larger than banning slavery did. Cutting funding to Planned Parenthood is definitely not a way of expanding government - just the opposite. Gay rights? Again, how does government grow or shrink by recognizing or not recognizing particular unions?

Simply by picking and choosing on what issues government sticks its nose in and interferes in people’s lives.

 

[1crazybusydad]

Simply by picking and choosing on what issues government sticks its nose in and interferes in people’s lives.

Ah…I see. So not really about “big government” from an actual expansion of government. I didn’t know you were mixing terms.

Regarding great moral issues, such as the taking of innocent life (e.g. abortion), slavery, etc., our government is supposed to “interfere” by protecting the innocent. It is the primary purpose, in fact. That isn’t “big government”.

As far as recognizing marital unions, you can’t really consider the decision to recognize or not recognize a gay union as “interfering in people’s lives.” Gay couples have always been allowed to have whatever union they want. It just wasn’t recognized as a “marriage”. The demand that government get involved is on the part of the gay community. So, really, they are the ones who asked for government to “stick its nose in.”

 

[stinkcat_14]

Ah…I see. So not really about “big government” from an actual expansion of government. I didn’t know you were mixing terms.

Regarding great moral issues, such as the taking of innocent life (e.g. abortion), slavery, etc., our government is supposed to “interfere” by protecting the innocent. It is the primary purpose, in fact. That isn’t “big government”.

As far as recognizing marital unions, you can’t really consider the decision to recognize or not recognize a gay union as “interfering in people’s lives.” Gay couples have always been allowed to have whatever union they want. It just wasn’t recognized as a “marriage”. The demand that government get involved is on the part of the gay community. So, really, they are the ones who asked for government to “stick its nose in.”

To be fair, the republicans have never actually decreased the size of government, as in spent less money next year than the year previously.

 

[1crazybusydad]

To be fair, the republicans have never actually decreased the size of government, as in spent less money next year than the year previously.

And, to be fair, I’ve made no such claim.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Ah…I see. So not really about “big government” from an actual expansion of government. I didn’t know you were mixing terms.

Regarding great moral issues, such as the taking of innocent life (e.g. abortion), slavery, etc., our government is supposed to “interfere” by protecting the innocent. It is the primary purpose, in fact. That isn’t “big government”.

As far as recognizing marital unions, you can’t really consider the decision to recognize or not recognize a gay union as “interfering in people’s lives.” Gay couples have always been allowed to have whatever union they want. It just wasn’t recognized as a “marriage”. The demand that government get involved is on the part of the gay community. So, really, they are the ones who asked for government to “stick its nose in.”

Don’t worry about it. Rest assured I’m proud to be liberal. I wouldn’t have it any other way. “Liberal” is not a bad word to me at all. I’m all for big government when it comes to a role to play in caring for the great moral issues of the poor and the sick and the slave and the prisoner. There’s plenty of room for all in my book. Government, individuals, faith based organizations and communities. Peace.

 

[stinkcat_14]

And, to be fair, I’ve made no such claim.

True, but some have the idea that the republicans are out to gut the government.