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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholic_Press

Guest
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has approved a new edition of Faithful Citizenship, a guide for Catholic voters, after a lively debate on whether the document pays sufficient …

More…
 
Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego argued for a completely new statement on political responsibilities. He said that “the issues of global poverty and degradation of the earth lie at the very core” of the Pope’s teaching on social issues, and these questions are not emphasized in Faithful Citizenship. Bishop McElroy complained that some Catholics will “misuse this document outside this room to exclude poverty and exclude the environment as key issues and say they are secondary,” while placing greater importance on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson agreed that Faithful Citizenship is “not helpful,” and called for the preparation of an entirely new guide to voters’ responsibilities.

Aren’t these issues more important?
 
zz912 said:
Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego argued for a completely new statement on political responsibilities. He said that “the issues of global poverty and degradation of the earth lie at the very core” of the Pope’s teaching on social issues, and these questions are not emphasized in Faithful Citizenship. Bishop McElroy complained that some Catholics will “misuse this document outside this room to exclude poverty and exclude the environment as key issues and say they are secondary,” while placing greater importance on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson agreed that Faithful Citizenship is “not helpful,” and called for the preparation of an entirely new guide to voters’ responsibilities.

Aren’t these issues more important?
Click to expand...
Yes, they are. I was listening to a reporter on the radio who was at the Bishops Conference. There is evidently a movement, with about 20 Bishops, to put all moral issues on an equal level doctrinally. The idea is that individuals can stress one over another according to their own circumstance but that the Church should not. Fortunately, most of the Bishops are not of that mind.
 
At 84 pages, it sounds like the document may be of little use to actual Catholic voters. Those who wish to vote for pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, candidates who are restrictive of religious liberty will be able to do so.
 
JimG said:
At 84 pages, it sounds like the document may be of little use to actual Catholic voters. Those who wish to vote for pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, candidates who are restrictive of religious liberty will be able to do so.
Click to expand...
Kind of depends on what it says, doesn’t it?
 
Crossbones said:
Kind of depends on what it says, doesn’t it?
Click to expand...
Yes, it does, but I expect it will lay out a lot of such issues, and include climate change, global poverty, war, and other matters, so that in the end a voter will not be able to find any candidate who is acceptable, or for that matter, any candidate who can be definitely excluded.
 
zz912 said:
Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego argued for a completely new statement on political responsibilities. He said that “the issues of global poverty and degradation of the earth lie at the very core” of the Pope’s teaching on social issues, and these questions are not emphasized in Faithful Citizenship. Bishop McElroy complained that some Catholics will “misuse this document outside this room to exclude poverty and exclude the environment as key issues and say they are secondary,” while placing greater importance on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson agreed that Faithful Citizenship is “not helpful,” and called for the preparation of an entirely new guide to voters’ responsibilities.

Aren’t these issues more important?
Click to expand...
Yes they are more important. But not infinitely more important.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Yes they are more important. But not infinitely more important.
Click to expand...
This is how some bishops felt:
facebook.com/americamag/videos/vb.33145282881/10153137147672882/?type=2&theater

BREAKING VIDEO | The language of “intrinsically evil… is a bad use of language because it’s pastorally alienating… and is injurious to gay men and women and their families,” says San Diego’s newly appointed Bishop McElroy. Bishop McElroy speaks to America’s Kevin Clarke about revisions currently being debated to the USCCB’s voter’s guide “Faithful Citizenship,” at the Fall General Meeting of the U.S. Bishops Conference in Baltimore.
 
zz912 said:
Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego argued for a completely new statement on political responsibilities. He said that “the issues of global poverty and degradation of the earth lie at the very core” of the Pope’s teaching on social issues, and these questions are not emphasized in Faithful Citizenship. Bishop McElroy complained that some Catholics will “misuse this document outside this room to exclude poverty and exclude the environment as key issues and say they are secondary,” while placing greater importance on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson agreed that Faithful Citizenship is “not helpful,” and called for the preparation of an entirely new guide to voters’ responsibilities.

Aren’t these issues more important?
Click to expand...
Considering poverty is probably the number one cause as to why parents (and, I stress, parents, not just the mother - there’s far too much mother-blaming on these boards) would go through with an abortion, I would disagree.

Additionally, considering the opposition to abortion is based on the sanctity of life, the environment and its ability to support life in the future should be a strong point of debate.
 
QuidVeritasEst said:
Considering poverty is probably the number one cause as to why parents (and, I stress, parents, not just the mother - there’s far too much mother-blaming on these boards) would go through with an abortion, I would disagree.
Click to expand...
Since this is a guide from the USCCB, you would be mistaken. In the US, poverty is rarely a primary reason for abortion.
Additionally, considering the opposition to abortion is based on the sanctity of life, the environment and its ability to support life in the future should be a strong point of debate.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. But those are not typically items on the ballot in the US nor are they issues which our legislators are able to act upon.
 
Corki said:
Since this is a guide from the USCCB, you would be mistaken. In the US, poverty is rarely a primary reason for abortion.

Absolutely. But those are not typically items on the ballot in the US nor are they issues which our legislators are able to act upon.
Click to expand...
The US has quite a fair share of poverty. It has one of the worst wealth distribution scores in the developed world. Inability to support a child is the main reason why people seek abortion. Do you think people who have abortions, even people with a relativistic outlook on life, take the decision lightly? Because that would be a drastic mistake on your part.

As for environmental laws, you absolutely can act on them. Impose CO2 emissions caps, subsidize renewable energy research, ban wanton deforestation, make hunting illegal etc. Worldwide bans on CFC went a long way to allowing the Ozone layer to replenish since a historic low in the 1970s, and the allocation of national parks has conserved many venerable species, though they are underfunded.
 
JimG said:
Yes, it does, but I expect it will lay out a lot of such issues, and include climate change, global poverty, war, and other matters, so that in the end a voter will not be able to find any candidate who is acceptable, or for that matter, any candidate who can be definitely excluded.
Click to expand...
Then that might very well be the intention of the Bishops.
 
Crossbones said:
Then that might very well be the intention of the Bishops.
Click to expand...
Which makes the idea of a “voters’ guide” for Catholics pointless.

If Catholics voted for candidates opposed to abortion and gay marriage, we would likely not be afflicted with those social disorders as much as we are. But the USCCB voters guides continue to enable them to vote pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, and soon, pro-infanticide and pro-euthanasia.
 
JimG said:
Which makes the idea of a “voters’ guide” for Catholics pointless.

If Catholics voted for candidates opposed to abortion and gay marriage, we would likely not be afflicted with those social disorders as much as we are. But the USCCB voters guides continue to enable them to vote pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, and soon, pro-infanticide and pro-euthanasia.
Click to expand...
Well, it’s not like voting for the pro-life Presidential candidate resulted in abortion being outlawed in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004. Maybe the Bishops realize that just because a certain issue is important for a Catholic voter, it might not be of sufficient importance to the politician to make a legislative difference, and that voters have to reflect over a wide array of issues. Or maybe it’ll be quite clear that abortion is the only issue that Catholics should consider. I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
 
QuidVeritasEst said:
The US has quite a fair share of poverty. It has one of the worst wealth distribution scores in the developed world. Inability to support a child is the main reason why people seek abortion. Do you think people who have abortions, even people with a relativistic outlook on life, take the decision lightly? Because that would be a drastic mistake on your part.

.
Click to expand...
Yes, the US has poverty. But your claim was that poverty was the “number one” driver of abortion and that’s just not borne out by the facts. Even using “financial reasons” which includes women with 6 figure incomes who would rather not pay for another college education, it’s not the “number one” reason. “Not the right” time is high on the list, though.

Some women do not make the decision lightly, others do. Some women use abortions, especially medical ones, as just another form of birth control.
As for environmental laws, you absolutely can act on them. Impose CO2 emissions caps, subsidize renewable energy research, ban wanton deforestation, make hunting illegal etc. Worldwide bans on CFC went a long way to allowing the Ozone layer to replenish since a historic low in the 1970s, and the allocation of national parks has conserved many venerable species, though they are underfunded
Click to expand...
Anything with the word “worldwide” in it is not going to be enacted by an elected Congressman or Senator. Hunting bans have never been on any candidate’s platform that I have ever heard. (and would probably have the opposite effect, anyway) The EPA makes its rules independent of congressional action. I’m not saying that congress doesn’t have any effect at all on environmental issues, but it is negligible compared to the regulatory agencies.
 
Corki said:
Yes, the US has poverty. But your claim was that poverty was the “number one” driver of abortion and that’s just not borne out by the facts. Even using “financial reasons” which includes women with 6 figure incomes who would rather not pay for another college education, it’s not the “number one” reason. “Not the right” time is high on the list, though.

Some women do not make the decision lightly, others do. Some women use abortions, especially medical ones, as just another form of birth control.

Anything with the word “worldwide” in it is not going to be enacted by an elected Congressman or Senator. Hunting bans have never been on any candidate’s platform that I have ever heard. (and would probably have the opposite effect, anyway) The EPA makes its rules independent of congressional action. I’m not saying that congress doesn’t have any effect at all on environmental issues, but it is negligible compared to the regulatory agencies.
Click to expand...
Must you keep referring to “women” specifically when talking about abortion? It’s terribly misogynistic. A woman might be the one physically to undergo an abortion, but it is quite often the case that it is a matter of force, or that the decision is democratic between the partners.

Also, you underestimate the influence the US and the west has.
 
QuidVeritasEst said:
Must you keep referring to “women” specifically when talking about abortion? It’s terribly misogynistic. A woman might be the one physically to undergo an abortion, but it is quite often the case that it is a matter of force, or that the decision is democratic between the partners.

Also, you underestimate the influence the US and the west has.
Click to expand...
Yes, I must. Abortion is marketed as women’s “health care” and the research on reasons to abort is virtually all based on the responses of the women undergoing the abortions. Yes, I understand that 30% or more are forced or coerced but those abusers are not usually asked their reasons. If the decision is made “democratically” then the woman’s reason and the man’s would be the same.
Also, you underestimate the influence the US and the west has.
Click to expand...
About US politics? That doesn’t even make sense.
 
Corki said:
Yes, I must. Abortion is marketed as women’s “health care” and the research on reasons to abort is virtually all based on the responses of the women undergoing the abortions. Yes, I understand that 30% or more are forced or coerced but those abusers are not usually asked their reasons. If the decision is made “democratically” then the woman’s reason and the man’s would be the same.

About US politics? That doesn’t even make sense.
Click to expand...
I don’t mind you examining the motivations of women or addressing the “marketing” as it tries to persuade them, but I find it objectionable to lay all the blame at the woman’s feet just because she underwent the procedure. Quite frankly, I don’t care the reasons for someone who force their partner to undergo an abortion.

Anyway, I was referring to the fact that if the US makes a decision of a matter that effects the world, like on climate control, it would be better equipped than most to lean on others to follow suit, as Germany and France do in the EU (and the UK should, if our “great” British public wasn’t so nationalistic).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top