US Catholic bishops say 2007 voting document was misused [CNA]

[Prodigal_Son1]

They could have addressed the issue squarely instead of equivocating.

Ender

Have you contacted the USCCB, or a bishop, to ask if it’s equivocating or what they meant to say?

It seems, in light of what the Catechism states about man and his conscience, their message is according to that teaching. I’d be interested in seeing what the bishops had to say, but I wouldn’t presume myself to know more than them, or place my view as authoritative over them.

We cannot form consciences for others.

1795 “Conscience is man’s most secret core, and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths” (GS 16).

We cannot force others to act contrary to their consciences.

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53

Maybe we’ll hear something from the bishops on the subject soon?

 

[Elizabeth502]

The issue is not conscience. The issue is the Primacy of Life cluster as central to a well-formed conscience, according to the Catholic teaching. The question others are asking is, Was that distinction between primary and secondary issues made clear enough in the document? It does not seem that the consensus is Yes; the distinction is ambiguous, or at least somewhat buried.

I.m.o. the document provides a comprehensive map of what, in total, represents Catholic teaching on the most actively legislated issues today. It is in effect saying, *‘our ideal candidate would subscribe to all of these moral principles.’ * The reality is that (1) not all of these issues are typically ‘on the table’ during any given election – except for national elections; (2) sometimes none of the Life issues are ‘on the table’; thus, voters should look to candidates’ stands on other issues in that case; (3) virtually no candidate subscribes to all Catholic moral principles laid out there.

 

[Ender]

It seems, in light of what the Catechism states about man and his conscience, their message is according to that teaching.

What does the document say that should cause a Catholic to vote one way or another? There is only one issue: should a candidate’s stance on the five or so moral issues determine our vote? Yes or no? If the answer is not yes then according to the bishop’s own instructions we are free to vote for someone despite his support of abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage etc. That is, supporting evil does not disqualify a person from receiving our vote if we like his position on taxes and immigration.

That’s not a complicated question to answer and it cannot be mere oversight that caused the bishops not to answer it

Ender

 

[JimG]

What does the document say that should cause a Catholic to vote one way or another? There is only one issue: should a candidate’s stance on the five or so moral issues determine our vote? Yes or no? If the answer is not yes then according to the bishop’s own instructions we are free to vote for someone despite his support of abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage etc. That is, supporting evil does not disqualify a person from receiving our vote if we like his position on taxes and immigration.

That’s not a complicated question to answer and it cannot be mere oversight that caused the bishops not to answer it

Ender

What distresses me is the thought that perhaps the document did not make the distinction perfectly clear because some of the members feared that doing so might discourage people from voting for some favored social justice candidates who also happen to favor abortion and gay marriage.

 

[Ender]

What distresses me is the thought that perhaps the document did not make the distinction perfectly clear because some of the members feared that doing so might discourage people from voting for some favored social justice candidates who also happen to favor abortion and gay marriage.

I can’t even envision another reasonable explanation, but regardless of their reasons for leaving the question unresolved, there is no doubt that the question was in fact unanswered, and given that this was the big issue four years ago it’s not as if they didn’t know what they were being asked. The decision not to answer it could only have been deliberate.

Ender