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

[Elizabeth502]

I do not agree. Post #70. .

We keep cross-posting, brother. Let me restate this : The document needs some explication – and as I have stated several times, examples of decision-making based on theoretical models.

Robert, and you, and many thoughtful people on CAF, would be ahead of the curve in understanding and applying the document, but the average “pew” Catholic (I agree) is not, and needs catechizing. That doesn’t mean, though, that it was wrong to publish it. It’s just insufficient.

“My” recommendation? (Haha, like the bishops should “follow” ) I think it would be really helpful to follow up with a video offering the kind of explanation Robert, and separately I, have indicated. A clarifying video available in various Catholic media not limited to the Bishops’ website. (It’s clear not many Catholics go there, since the vast majority of conversations on CAF regarding standard Catholic moral theology on Life issues, documents about which have been posted for years on that website, reveal that more than half of Catholics, overall, are clueless where the Church stands on some key issues involving intrinsic evils.)

 

[irishpatrick]

Well, can or should the Bishops have to account for non-thorough readers?

Yes, of course, we all live in the real world, not in a university or classroom setting. People today want short explanations–they do not have the time, or will not take the time, to go deeper. That is a problem, yet it is still a reality. I feel need to be in the world, not of the world, which means we have to understand the culture around us in order to help it turn to better ways. Most people simply “know not what they do” in any real way.

While we debate this situation, babies are dying.

 

[irishpatrick]

We keep cross-posting, brother. Let me restate this : The document needs some explication – and as I have stated several times, examples of decision-making based on theoretical models.

Robert, and you, and many thoughtful people on CAF, would be ahead of the curve in understanding and applying the document, but the average “pew” Catholic (I agree) is not, and needs catechizing. That doesn’t mean, though, that it was wrong to publish it. It’s just insufficient.

“My” recommendation? (Haha, like the bishops should “follow” ) I think it would be really helpful to follow up with a video offering the kind of explanation Robert, and separately I, have indicated. A clarifying video available in various Catholic media not limited to the Bishops’ website. (It’s clear not many Catholics go there, since the vast majority of conversations on CAF regarding standard Catholic moral theology on Life issues, documents about which have been posted for years on that website, reveal that more than half of Catholics, overall, are clueless where the Church stands on some key issues involving intrinsic evils.)

I agree with you. The problem is people are not going to take the time. It needs to be short, definitive, and with actual Church authority. Like it or not, we live a sound bite culture.

 

[rlg94086]

The Bishops make it very clear in the intro that we should not be allowing one or two issues to rise above the other issues. Period.

The problem is you are misquoting the intro. All it says is that you can’t “reduce Catholic concerns to one or two matters.” In fact, directly previous to that phrase, it says you can’t use “conscience” as an excuse to ignore “fundamental moral claims.”

 

[Ender]

The Bishops clearly state that the document is not to be used to endorse or condemn a given politician.

Since I have not mentioned any particular politician this comment is irrelevant.

You are proposing that they entirely change the thrust of the document.

If by this you mean I am proposing they give us a document that is clear then yes, I am proposing they entirely change the thrust of the document.

The document is meant to assist Catholics in shaping their conscience not to be wielded as a political tool.

How does this document help me to choose? What practical guidance has it given me that will allow me to vote for Candidate A in preference to Candidate B? If I compare their positions on all the issues, how do I determine that one set of positions is preferable to the other set?

So no, despite what you, a layman states, they didn’t “need to resolve” a single question.

And they succeeded nicely in not resolving a single question.

Ender

 

[gilliam]

But it is NOT clear what the Bishops intended with the word “intrinsic”, derived from Latin. Outside these Catholic Forums, “intrinsic” is a quality. Inside the forums, for those who fixated on abortion as the one and only guide to voting, “intrinsic” is a quantity, an infinite quantity.

It’s defined in the document:

“…There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. **Such actions are ****so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. ****These are called “intrinsically evil” actions. They must always be rejected and **opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. In our nation, “abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed…” Pg 16

“A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.” Pg 19

Seems pretty clear to me

 

[Elizabeth502]

I do not feel that my post warrents your level of offense.

I am not advocating the use of this document as a political tool despite your statement. I am responding to posters who want the document to be something that it is not, and who want the Bishops to address only those issues which they, personally, are conserned with.

I don’t feel that your personal attack is warrented either.

I did not “attack” you. I responded to an offensive statement which generalized opposition to some unclear aspects of the Bishops’ statement as necessarily being indicative of membership in a particular political party – a completely unwarranted conclusion. I did not say that you advocated using the document as a political tool. I said (your post says) that “folks” on CAF – apparently in your opinion all those who find the document in some respect unclear – want the Bishops to be “a political arm of the Republican Party,” and that that is the source of disappointment in the statement.

Corki didn’t say that.
Irishpatrick didn’t say that.
Elizabeth didn’t say that.
Ender didn’t say that.
JimG didn’t say that.
He Man didn’t say that.
BVM 1221 didn’t say that.
Trader didn’t say that.

And therefore, it was and is an unwarranted assumption on your part. It came from nowhere on this thread…

 

[rlg94086]

But it is NOT clear what the Bishops intended with the word “intrinsic”, derived from Latin. Outside these Catholic Forums, “intrinsic” is a quality. Inside the forums, for those who fixated on abortion as the one and only guide to voting, “intrinsic” is a quantity, an infinite quantity.:banghead:

Can you please clarify? I’ve never seen anyone consider “intrinsic” to be an “infinite quantity.” In fact, that statement is nonsensical. Certain evils (e.g. abortion, euthanasia) are “intrinsically evil” - this means they have a basic quality of evil and can never be supported.

Please give an example of “intrinsic” being a quantity.

 

[ringil]

I agree with you. The problem is people are not going to take the time. It needs to be short, definitive, and with actual Church authority. Like it or not, we live a sound bite culture.

Again you are desiring this document to have a completely different focus than it is designed to do.

You are looking for a guide to steer Catholics to solely “Pro-Life” candidates and to say that ever voting for a Pro-Choice candidate is wrong. That’s not their goal. though you might like for it to be.

 

[rlg94086]

It’s defined in the document:

“…There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. **Such actions are ****so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. ****These are called “intrinsically evil” actions. They must always be rejected and **opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. In our nation, “abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed…” Pg 16

“A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.” Pg 19

Seems pretty clear to me

Me too.

 

[irishpatrick]

The problem is you are misquoting the intro. All it says is that you can’t “reduce Catholic concerns to one or two matters.” In fact, directly previous to that phrase, it says you can’t use “conscience” as an excuse to ignore “fundamental moral claims.”

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, …]

Please read the bolded sections. IMO, that is telling us that we should not enter into misguided appeals to conscience to ignore fundamental more claims, to reduce Catholic moral concerns to one or two matters.

It is saying that we must consider all issues, and not reduce the situation to one or two matters. It is profoundly clear to me that the Bishops are objecting to one issue voters.

 

[irishpatrick]

Again you are desiring this document to have a completely different focus than it is designed to do.

You are looking for a guide to steer Catholics to solely “Pro-Life” candidates and to say that ever voting for a Pro-Choice candidate is wrong. That’s not their goal. though you might like for it to be.

Nope, not what I am calling for at all. I am calling for clarity and instead we got serious lukewarmness. Catholics will read that intro and think they can go either way with the more serious issues. They will think that so long as THEY personally believe that another issue is more important, than they will not have to give proper weight to abortion, or marriage, or whatever. They will feel they are safe to ignore many issues.

Instead of doubting what I say, please, wait and see how this unfolds. Catholics are already using it for their own defense of their positions on another thread here, and in that article I posted earlier. What I am saying will happen, is already happening, and it is happening because the intro is a moderate statement that leaves the door open for personal interpretation of what is most important.

Abortion is either taking innocent human life, or it is not.

Marriage is either the most important institution in our culture, or it is not.

Etc.

 

[Elizabeth502]

irishpatrick, do you think that the distinction between intrinsic and other evils is not clear in the statement?

And as to the sound-bite business, that’s what videos are for. Yes, we live in a sound-bite culture. So the video can be shown at church, in other locations, and be available online. I think that giving examples helps to clarify the distinctions you raise, and that can be done in print, from the pulpit, and in video. No?

 

[ringil]

I did not “attack” you. I responded to an offensive statement which generalized opposition to some unclear aspects of the Bishops’ statement as necessarily being indicative of membership in a particular political party – a completely unwarranted conclusion. I did not say that you advocated using the document as a political tool. I said (your post says) that “folks” on CAF – apparently in your opinion all those who find the document in some respect unclear – want the Bishops to be “a political arm of the Republican Party,” and that that is the source of disappointment in the statement.

Corki didn’t say that.
Irishpatrick didn’t say that.
Elizabeth didn’t say that.
Ender didn’t say that.
JimG didn’t say that.
He Man didn’t say that.
BVM 1221 didn’t say that.
Trader didn’t say that.

And therefore, it was and is an unwarranted assumption on your part. It came from nowhere on this thread…

You guys (your list) and yourself- are rightists- I’ve been on CAF long enough to know that. I’ve been on threads with each of you. You want a document that would steer Catholics away from any Democratic candidate.

You call the document “un-clear” in that it doesn’t spell out specifically what you want it to say.

 

[rlg94086]

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, …]

Please read the bolded sections. IMO, that is telling us that we should not enter into misguided appeals to conscience to ignore fundamental more claims, to reduce Catholic moral concerns to one or two matters.

It is saying that we must consider all issues, and not reduce the situation to one or two matters. It is profoundly clear to me that the Bishops are objecting to one issue voters.

Sure - as they should! You aren’t a one issue voter are you? While voting for the best, pro-life candidate, do you ignore all other matters? If so, then you are in the wrong. We should be considering Catholic moral teaching on every issue, even as we give greater weight to issues of “intrinsic evil.”

There is nothing in the intro or the document that supports your earlier contention that some issues can’t “rise above the other issues.”

 

[irishpatrick]

irishpatrick, do you think that the distinction between intrinsic and other evils is not clear in the statement?

And as to the sound-bite business, that’s what videos are for. Yes, we live in a sound-bite culture. So the video can be shown at church, in other locations, and be available online. I think that giving examples helps to clarify the distinctions you raise, and that can be done in print, from the pulpit, and in video. No?

No, I really do not think it is clear at all. I am not trying to be difficult, and I love and respect the Lord, His Church, and His Bishops. I am just very upset with the new intro…sick to my stomach upset. It gives pro-aborts, and those who attack marriage, more ammunition to argue against Catholics. IMHO.

I agree, examples would be great. The problem is, imo, the place to start is to toss out that new intro and I am certain the Bishops will not do that. So, Catholics will have that single page statement to turn to in order to defend their pro-abort,. pro-contraceptive, pro-same sex marriage, pro-whatever, positions. They will say they did what the Bishops told them to do.

 

[Elizabeth502]

No, I really do not think it is clear at all. I am not trying to be difficult, and I love and respect the Lord, His Church, and His Bishops. I am just very upset with the new intro…sick to my stomach upset. It gives pro-aborts, and those who attack marriage, more ammunition to argue against Catholics. IMHO.

I agree, examples would be great. The problem is, imo, the place to start is to toss out that new intro and I am certain the Bishops will not do that. So, Catholics will have that single page statement to turn to in order to defend their pro-abort,. pro-contraceptive, pro-same sex marriage, pro-whatever, positions. They will say they did what the Bishops told them to do.

But let’s be honest, brother. Don’t you think that such Catholics did that before the document, and would do that after a better document, too? It seems to me that the fundamental point is that many Catholics do not feel a need, period, to consider seriously whatever the bishops say, however they say it, in whatever vehicle they say it. That’s more of a problem, it seems. And it is a problem up and down Catholic locations and discussion forums. Lukewarm Catholics have adopted the premises of secular society as their operating premises, beliefs, and positions, which modify everything their Church says, particularly if such Church statements have anything whatsoever to say about society!

 

[Ender]

Robert, and you, and many thoughtful people on CAF, would be ahead of the curve in understanding and applying the document…

I don’t think it is possible to apply a document that offers so many possible interpretations. It really does seem possible to support practically anyone regardless of any particular position he may take. Given that supporting abortion is not a disqualifying position there can’t be any positions that would allow us to find a moral objection to anyone. All that can be said is that, however bad my guy is on issues A, B, and C, he is really good on D, E, and F so there is moral equivalence with your guy who has the opposite position on those same issues. How does this document guide me in this decision?

Ender

 

[irishpatrick]

Perhaps I should not care.

Perhaps I should just trust the Bishops and let all this go.

Perhaps I should just trust God.

Perhaps this is all part of God’s plan.

Perhaps I should not concern myself with the fate of the unborn.

Perhaps I have overreacted here.

Perhaps – perhaps

It is all just so hard, and I feel we need definitive help for this struggle. Yet, I am just a lay Catholic, I am really nothing in the scheme of God’s salvific plans for His children.

God bless to all. I apologize if I offended anyone, and I especially ask the Lord to forgive me if I have made any wrongful or damaging statements about His Bishops.

I have to leave now--

 

[irishpatrick]

Sure - as they should! You aren’t a one issue voter are you? While voting for the best, pro-life candidate, do you ignore all other matters? If so, then you are in the wrong. We should be considering Catholic moral teaching on every issue, even as we give greater weight to issues of “intrinsic evil.”

There is nothing in the intro or the document that supports your earlier contention that some issues can’t “rise above the other issues.”

Yes, I am a one issue voter and will be until abortion is banned. Period.