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

[Ender]

Lukewarmness and an inability to allow our yes to be yes, and our no to be no.

They knew there were serious problems with the 2007 version and they had the opportunity to repair them … and they didn’t. The introduction, which was apparently meant to clarify their intent, simply reinforced the error. Once again they have equated social problems with moral choices and no one should be surprised when people interpret it exactly as it has been presented. Either immigration is equivalent to abortion or it isn’t and clarifying that point is trivially simple. That it wasn’t clarified was a choice, not an unresolvable conundrum.

Ender

 

[_Abyssinia]

Pope Benedict spoke in 2006 as to how Catholics should involve themselves in politics:

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today:

• protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;
• recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family - as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage - and its defence from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;
• the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/march/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060330_eu-parliamentarians_en.html

In 2007 Pope Benedict wrote in Sacramentum Caritatis of the ‘‘non negotiable’’ for a Christian involved in politics:

“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.”

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html

In a 2002 Doctrinal Note approved by Pope John Paul II called The Participation of Catholics in Political Life, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote “a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals.”

He wrote:

When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia (not to be confused with the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate). Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death. In the same way, it is necessary to recall the duty to respect and protect the rights of the human embryo. Analogously, the family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such. The same is true for the freedom of parents regarding the education of their children; it is an inalienable right recognized also by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. In the same way, one must consider society’s protection of minors and freedom from modern forms of slavery (drug abuse and prostitution, for example). In addition, there is the right to religious freedom and the development of an economy that is at the service of the human person and of the common good, with respect for social justice, the principles of human solidarity and subsidiarity, according to which “the rights of all individuals, families, and organizations and their practical implementation must be acknowledged”. Finally, the question of peace must be mentioned. Certain pacifistic and ideological visions tend at times to secularize the value of peace, while, in other cases, there is the problem of summary ethical judgments which forget the complexity of the issues involved. Peace is always “the work of justice and the effect of charity”. It demands the absolute and radical rejection of violence and terrorism and requires a constant and vigilant commitment on the part of all political leaders.

Pope benedict wrote in 2004 to the Catholic Bishops on the topic of Catholic politicians communion the following, it basically says while Catholics can have differing opinions on capital punishment on waging are, but abortion and euthanasia are non negotiable issues.

He wrote:

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,” he said. “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,” he added.

lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2005/apr/050419a

lifesitenews.com/news/pope-benedict-xvi-on-what-should-be-the-principal-focus-for-catholic-voters

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Tell me then: what message are they conveying? How will this document be an improvement over the 2007 version? What have they done that clarifies the intention that they admit was missed before?

Ender

That we each are responsible to form our consciences and act; based on ALL the issues. They leave our individual choices up to us, not to be swayed by those who would do so for partisan reasons.

 

[JimG]

I wonder. If the bishops want people to read their document, have they ever thought about using short sentences?

In the introductory note, they seem to say that these things are important:

Abortion
Conscience Protection for Religious Organizations
Gay Marriage
Poverty / Unemployment
Immigration
War

Fine, but of course, that really gives no guidance on voting. Catholics already know the Church’s position on those things.

Politicians like Andrew Cuomo will be able to cite the Church’s position on poverty, unemployment, war, and immigration, and how attuned they are to those positions, while ignoring the Church’s positions on abortion, gay marriage, and conscience protection.

What’s the point? Who will read it? And what will they take from it?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I only wish they had done three things:

(1) Given theoretical (obviously not actual or partisan) examples of how an informed Catholic should come to decisions on candidates who have competing positions on multiple issues. (How might positions be logically weighed within a moral context?)

(2) Spent more time explicitly stating the duty of Catholics to regard all of society and society’s issues within a Catholic moral framework. There is a large minority, on this discussion forum and in the parishes, which assumes that “the Church has nothing to do with secular society,” that the Church should keep silent on societal issues “because” there is no binding authority of the Church to “impose” or direct secular society. That view is diametrically opposed to Faithful Citizenship, and it is my feeling that this is the weakest area of catechesis regarding this subject. Other Catholics state on CAF and elsewhere that clergy only are within their domain to discuss abortion and nothing else. This is another catechetical deficit on the part of those Catholics: they assume that because abortion is talked about so much by clergy, only abortion is an intrinsic evil in the eyes of the Church. (False.)

(3) I hope that all the bishops in the U.S. will direct all of the parishes within their separate jurisdictions to make this document available in the vestibules, and also to provide (host) discussion groups and presentations/oral summaries about these, at least regionally, and soon. The 2012 campaign has begun, and elections are 13 months away.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Pope Benedict spoke in 2006 as to how Catholics should involve themselves in politics:

**As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today:

• protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;
• recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family - as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage - and its defence from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;
• the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.**

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/march/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060330_eu-parliamentarians_en.html

In 2007 Pope Benedict wrote in Sacramentum Caritatis of the ‘‘non negotiable’’ for a Christian involved in politics:

“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.”

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html

In a 2002 Doctrinal Note approved by Pope John Paul II called The Participation of Catholics in Political Life, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote “a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals.”

He wrote:

When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia (not to be confused with the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate). Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death. In the same way, it is necessary to recall the duty to respect and protect the rights of the human embryo. Analogously, the family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such. The same is true for the freedom of parents regarding the education of their children; it is an inalienable right recognized also by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. In the same way, one must consider society’s protection of minors and freedom from modern forms of slavery (drug abuse and prostitution, for example). In addition, there is the right to religious freedom and the development of an economy that is at the service of the human person and of the common good, with respect for social justice, the principles of human solidarity and subsidiarity, according to which “the rights of all individuals, families, and organizations and their practical implementation must be acknowledged”. Finally, the question of peace must be mentioned. Certain pacifistic and ideological visions tend at times to secularize the value of peace, while, in other cases, there is the problem of summary ethical judgments which forget the complexity of the issues involved. Peace is always “the work of justice and the effect of charity”. It demands the absolute and radical rejection of violence and terrorism and requires a constant and vigilant commitment on the part of all political leaders.

Pope benedict wrote in 2004 to the Catholic Bishops on the topic of Catholic politicians communion the following, it basically says while Catholics can have differing opinions on capital punishment on waging are, but abortion and euthanasia are non negotiable issues.

He wrote:

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,” he said. “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,” he added.

lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2005/apr/050419a

lifesitenews.com/news/pope-benedict-xvi-on-what-should-be-the-principal-focus-for-catholic-voters

 

[_Abyssinia]

That we each are responsible to form our consciences and act; based on ALL the issues. They leave our individual choices up to us, not to be swayed by those who would do so for partisan reasons.

That is not correct., There are non negotiables.

 

[He_Man]

Another vague, useless statement from the USCCB. I say useless not because that was their intent, but if educated Catholics on here don’t quite get the message (who misued the previous version? HOW was it misused?, etc.), do they HONESTLY believe the average Catholic who doesn’t doesn’t know what the Church actually teaches to begin with is going to get anything out of this?

All this does is allow for more misuse, since it is so ambivalent. Nice job, guys.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Pope Benedict spoke in 2006 as to how Catholics should involve themselves in politics:[snip]

In 2007 Pope Benedict wrote in Sacramentum Caritatis of the ‘‘non negotiable’’ for a Christian involved in politics: [snip]

In a 2002 Doctrinal Note approved by Pope John Paul II called The Participation of Catholics in Political Life, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote “a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals.”…

Pope benedict wrote in 2004 to the Catholic Bishops on the topic of Catholic politicians communion the following, it basically says while Catholics can have differing opinions on capital punishment on waging are, but abortion and euthanasia are non negotiable issues.

The average practicing Catholic does not bother to become informed on statements issued from the Vatican, not from his or her own initiative, anyway. I can cite documents dating back decades ago about the necessity of a religiously informed conscience, but most Catholics today assume that the Church’s involvement in society is something new (and inappropriate), and/or that thinking morally, and applying that thinking to societal issues, is merely an option that needn’t tbe exercised, but that a “schizophrenic” approach to citizenship is perfectly acceptable. (“I” wouldn’t personally euthanize someone, nor “marry” someone of my gender, but God forbid that I “prevent” non-Catholics from violating the dignity of life and the natural order.")

Catechesis in the Church is in a 9-1-1 condition. There should be catechetical Emergency Rooms in every parish to stop the hermorrhaging, and until there is, even a much more strongly worded document form the bishops – and/or from the Vatican – will be greeted with a shrug by a majority of Catholics.

 

[irishpatrick]

They knew there were serious problems with the 2007 version and they had the opportunity to repair them … and they didn’t. The introduction, which was apparently meant to clarify their intent, simply reinforced the error. Once again they have equated social problems with moral choices and no one should be surprised when people interpret it exactly as it has been presented. Either immigration is equivalent to abortion or it isn’t and clarifying that point is trivially simple. That it wasn’t clarified was a choice, not an unresolvable conundrum.

Ender

What it does is make debating the issues impossible, since both sides can lean on the document to support their case. It also gives permission to Catholic politicians to use that document in a way as to justify their positions–and any talk of not allowing pro-choice pols to not receive Communion should be utterly vanquished.

• sigh *

 

[irishpatrick]

Another vague, useless statement from the USCCB. I say useless not because that was their intent, but if educated Catholics on here don’t quite get the message (who misued the previous version? HOW was it misused?, etc.), do they HONESTLY believe the average Catholic who doesn’t doesn’t know what the Church actually teaches to begin with is going to get anything out of this?

All this does is allow for more misuse, since it is so ambivalent. Nice job, guys.

It is not useless–many people will use the statement to justify their opposition to Church teachings, stating that they have considered everything and they have made sure they have an informed conscience and than came to their own conclusion.

 

[irishpatrick]

That we each are responsible to form our consciences and act; based on ALL the issues. They leave our individual choices up to us, not to be swayed by those who would do so for partisan reasons.

It basically means that abortion is no more, and no less, important than many other issues. That marriage is no less, and no more, important than other issues. It allows Catholics to make their own choices about what is important.

So, killing the unborn carries no more weight than making sure we clothe and feed a poor person. That is, in essence, what the bottom line is.

The document also seems to want to take all ability to argue these points away. How can any life loving Catholic argue or debate with a pro-choice person? After all, the prochoicer can now simply say they are following the Bishops directives in this document…

All debate has been stifled.

 

[irishpatrick]

The average practicing Catholic does not bother to become informed on statements issued from the Vatican, not from his or her own initiative, anyway. I can cite documents dating back decades ago about the necessity of a religiously informed conscience, but most Catholics today assume that the Church’s involvement in society is something new (and inappropriate), and/or that thinking morally, and applying that thinking to societal issues, is merely an option that needn’t tbe exercised, but that a “schizophrenic” approach to citizenship is perfectly acceptable. (“I” wouldn’t personally euthanize someone, nor “marry” someone of my gender, but God forbid that I “prevent” non-Catholics from violating the dignity of life and the natural order.")

Catechesis in the Church is in a 9-1-1 condition. There should be catechetical Emergency Rooms in every parish to stop the hermorrhaging, and until there is, even a much more strongly worded document form the bishops – and/or from the Vatican – will be greeted with a shrug by a majority of Catholics.

I agree. Yet, if it does not start with our Church leadership, than it really cannot start at all.

 

[Rence]

It would have been helpful if the bishops had explained exactly how they felt the 2007 statement was misused or distorted. What were the distortions? What was misunderstood? Adding a new introduction - which is no more clarifying than what they said before - won’t change anything.

But I thought they did explain how they felt the 2007 statement was misused:

Although it has at times been misused to present an incomplete or distorted view of the demands of faith in politics, this statement remains a faithful and challenging call to discipleship in the world of politics. It does not offer a voters guide, scorecard of issues, or direction on how to vote. It applies Catholic moral principles to a range of important issues and warns against misguided appeals to “conscience” to ignore fundamental moral claims, to reduce Catholic moral concerns to one or two matters, or to justify choices simply to advance partisan, ideological, or personal interests. It does not offer a quantitative listing of issues for equal consideration, but outlines and makes important distinctions among moral issues acknowledging outlined in the second half of Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship remain pressing national issues. In particular, our Conference is focused on several current and fundamental problems, some involving opposition to intrinsic evils and others raising serious moral questions

The introductory note simply summarizes the problem with the document. It lists two groups of issues, “intrinsic evils” and “serious moral questions” and by doing so it effectively equates moral choices with social problems.

Social problems stem from evils and need to be considered. The whole picture needs to be examined.

How will this document be used any differently than its predecessor when it sets up the same false equivalence? If prudential political choices are held up to the same level of importance as unequivocal moral choices, just exactly what kind of guidance do the bishops think the document is providing? Why would anyone interpret this supplemented document any differently than they did the original? Since the bishops don’t explain how the document was misused last time why would anyone not believe that the abuse was committed by “the other guys?”

I think they were pretty clear: avoid ignoring everything except one or two issues because all the issues need to be looked at as well, and all the issues together affect our society as a whole.

 

[irishpatrick]

But I thought they did explain how they felt the 2007 statement was misused:

Social problems stem from evils and need to be considered. The whole picture needs to be examined.

I think they were pretty clear: avoid ignoring everything except one or two issues because all the issues need to be looked at as well, and all the issues together affect our society as a whole.

Exactly! They are saying all issues carry the same weight, and should all be considered together, and that being a one or two issue voter is wrong. That means a Catholic who wants to end legal abortion, and wants to protect marriage, must NOT consider just those two issue no matter how important he/she thinks they are.

It takes away any room to debate the issues.

 

[BVM_1221]

It would have been helpful if the bishops had explained exactly how they felt the 2007 statement was misused or distorted. What were the distortions? What was misunderstood? Adding a new introduction - which is no more clarifying than what they said before - won’t change anything.
The introductory note simply summarizes the problem with the document. It lists two groups of issues, “intrinsic evils” and “serious moral questions” and by doing so it effectively equates moral choices with social problems. How will this document be used any differently than its predecessor when it sets up the same false equivalence? If prudential political choices are held up to the same level of importance as unequivocal moral choices, just exactly what kind of guidance do the bishops think the document is providing? Why would anyone interpret this supplemented document any differently than they did the original? Since the bishops don’t explain how the document was misused last time why would anyone not believe that the abuse was committed by “the other guys?”

This document may be terribly disappointing but it is not terribly surprising.

Ender

One way the Document was misused happened, and still happens, right here in these forums. That being the word “intrinsic” being re-defined to mean “infinite”.

Not so:tsktsk:

“Intrinsic” is another way of saying “inherent”.

As in…

Boiling oil is inherently hot
Boiling oil is intrinsicly hot.

NOT…boiling oil is infinitely hot:dts:

But of course, by INSISTING that intrinsic=infinite, you can bash anyone and everyone who does not believe that abortion trumps everything else, and infinitely so.:takethat:

I truely wish the Bishops had made it quite clear the original intent when they use the word “intrinsic”.:sad_yes:

 

[irishpatrick]

One way the Document was misused happened, and still happens, right here in these forums. That being the word “intrinsic” being re-defined to mean “infinite”.

Not so:tsktsk:

“Intrinsic” is another way of saying “inherent”.

As in…

Boiling oil is inherently hot
Boiling oil is intrinsicly hot.

NOT…boiling oil is infinitely hot:dts:

But of course, by INSISTING that intrinsic=infinite, you can bash anyone and everyone who does not believe that abortion trumps everything else, and infinitely so.

I truely wish the Bishops had made it quite clear the original intent when they use the word “intrinsic”.

I tend to agree with you on this. However, how many of the other issues are defined as being intrinsicly evil?

BTW, if something is intrinsicly evil, would it not be true that it is intrinsicly evil infinitely?

 

[BVM_1221]

I tend to agree with you on this. However, how many of the other issues are defined as being intrinsicly evil?

BTW, if something is intrinsicly evil, would it not be true that it is intrinsicly evil infinitely?

:nope: “intrinsic” is a quality, not a quantity.

 

[JimG]

" It applies Catholic moral principles to a range of important issues and warns against misguided appeals to “conscience” to ignore fundamental moral claims, to reduce Catholic moral concerns to one or two matters, or to justify choices simply to advance partisan, ideological, or personal interests."

Actually, what the USCCB here depicts as a problem to be avoided may be precisely the problem with its statement.

By warning us not to “reduce Catholic moral concerns to one or two matters,” it provides cover to a firmly pro-abortion politician who supports abortion and gay marriage, for example. Such a politician may simply point to the bishops document that Catholics should not decide how to vote based on one or two matters, and he supports the bishops concerns over immigration issues and anti-poverty programs. Thus, he will argue, Catholics can and should vote for him despite his disageement with the Church over abortion and gay marriage because he supports other Church positions.

 

[irishpatrick]

:nope: “intrinsic” is a quality, not a quantity.

Of course, but something that is evil will always be evil.