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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Robert_Bay

Guest
Moved to World News since most political topics are discussed there.

Here is the introductory note:

The Catholic Bishops of the United States are pleased to re-propose to our people Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, our teaching document on the political responsibility of Catholics. This statement, overwhelmingly adopted by the body of bishops in 2007, represents the continuing teaching of our Bishops’ Conference and our guidance for Catholics in the exercise of their rights and duties as participants in our democracy. We urge our Catholic pastors and people to continue to use this important statement to help them form their consciences, to contribute to civil and respectful public dialogue, and to shape their choices in the coming election in the light of Catholic teaching.

The statement lifts up our dual heritage as both faithful Catholics and American citizens. We are members of a community of faith with a long tradition of teaching and action on human life, and dignity, marriage and family, justice and peace, care for creation, and the common good. As Americans, we are also blessed with religious liberty which safeguards our right to bring our principles and moral convictions into the public arena. These Constitutional freedoms need to be both exercised and protected, as some seek to mute the voices or limit the freedoms of religious believers and religious institutions. Catholics have the same rights and duties as others to participate fully in public life. The Church through its institutions must be free to carry out its mission and contribute to the common good without being pressured to sacrifice fundamental teachings and moral principles.

Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship is widely used to share Catholic teaching on the role of faith and conscience in political life. 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:
• Continuing destruction of unborn children through abortion and other threats to the lives and dignity of others who are vulnerable, sick, or unwanted;

• Renewed efforts to force Catholic ministries—in health care, education, and social services—to violate their consciences or stop serving those in need;

• Intensifying efforts to redefine marriage and enact measures which undermine marriage as the permanent, faithful, and fruitful union of one man and one woman and a fundamental moral and social institution essential to the common good;

• An economic crisis which has devastated lives and livelihoods, increasing national and global unemployment, poverty, and hunger; increasing deficits and debt and the duty to respond in ways which protect those who are poor and vulnerable as well as future generations;

• The failure to repair a broken immigration system with comprehensive
measures that promote true respect for law, protect the human rights and dignity of immigrants and refugees, recognize their contributions to our nation, keep families together, and advance the common good;

• Wars, terror, and violence which raise serious moral questions on the use of force and its human and moral costs in a dangerous world, particularly the absence of justice, security, and peace in the Holy Land and throughout the Middle East.
In this coming election and beyond, we urge leaders and all Catholics to share the message of faithful citizenship and to use this document in forming their own consciences, so we can act together to promote and protect human life and dignity, marriage and family, justice and peace in service to the common good. This kind of political responsibility is a requirement of our faith and our duty as citizens.

Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan
President, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

The guide is here:

usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/upload/Forming-Consciences-for-Faithful-Citizenship-2011.pdf
 
Washington D.C., Oct 4, 2011 / 06:26 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- With the campaign for the 2012 U.S. presidential race gaining speed, the U.S. Catholic bishops are saying that their 2007 statement on the political responsibilities of Catholics must not be misused or distorted to justify supporting candidates that do not adhere to Church teaching.

The bishops warned 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.”

An Oct. 4 statement from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops announced that conference president Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York, along with the chairs of nine different committees, are reaffirming their 2007 document “Forming Conscience for Faithful Citizenship,” and issuing it with a new introductory note.

The note was discussed at the bishop’s June meeting and authorized at the Administrative Committee meeting in September. It does not modify “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” but clarifies its use and intent.

In the note, the bishops observed that the statement on the political responsibilities of Catholics “has at times been misused to present an incomplete or distorted view of the demands of faith in politics.”

They explained that the topics outlined in the document are not “issues for equal consideration.” Rather, they said, it “makes important distinctions among moral issues.”

The introductory note acknowledged that some issues “involve the clear obligation to oppose intrinsic evils which can never be justified,” while others raise “serious moral questions” and should lead the faithful to “pursue justice and promote the common good.”

Catholic voting became a heated issue in the 2008 election when several prominent Catholic intellectuals voiced support for then-candidate Barack Obama.

In one of the most notable instances, Doug Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University and a former official in the Reagan administration, endorsed Obama and encouraged other Catholic and conservative voters to do the same.

Kmiec called Obama a “bridge-builder” and said that despite Obama’s opposition to Catholic teachings on moral issues, including abortion and same-sex “marriage,” there were proportionate reasons to support him.

Kmiec said he believed that Obama’s opposition to the Iraq war and focus on “the social justice of economic arrangement” made him “closer to the Church’s teaching” than his opponent, John McCain.

In the new introduction to “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” the bishops called on Catholics “to form their consciences in the light of their Catholic faith and to bring our moral principles to the debate and decisions about candidates and issues.”

They explained that the document on faithful citizenship “does not offer a voters guide, scorecard of issues, or direction on how to vote,” but rather, “applies Catholic moral principles to a range of important issues.”

The introductory note lists six “current and fundamental problems” that remain “pressing national issues.” These issues include: abortion and other threats to those who are vulnerable, sick or unwanted; efforts to force Catholic ministries to choose between violating their consciences or ceasing their services to those in need; intensified efforts to redefine and undermine the nature of marriage; an economic crisis that has increased levels of unemployment, poverty, hunger and debt; a “broken” immigration system; and wars, terror, and violence, especially in the Middle East.

The bishops’ note also emphasized the importance of religious liberty. They defended the “right to bring our principles and moral convictions into the public arena” and said that these rights need to be “both exercised and protected.”

The U.S. bishops’ conference has also launched a new website to assist the faithful in the formation of conscience. The website, which can be accessed at usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/, offers formation tools for parishes, organizations and individuals.

feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/catholicnewsagency/dailynews?d=yIl2AUoC8zA
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/catholicnewsagency/dailynews/~4/t3dsf3aVGXY

Full article…
 
I believe the ‘misuse’ could be attributed to all sides prior to the last election and expect the same for our upcoming election.

I am surprised no one is commenting on the voter’s guide this far in advance of the general elections; where we have time to apply many issues in selection of one to represent the individual political parties.

As one who has participated in some of the discussions on individual issues on these forums, I see it important to apply these principles in our selection of the single representatives to be chosen in the upcoming primary elections; reflecting on ALL the issues listed in the document. Our choices will be weighed by others. The selection needs to represent the majority of issues listed so that we can bring enough together to make a selection that a majority can agree with; at least enough to unify the majority of people to the single cause of achieving Christ’s principles.
 
Isn’t the USCCB the organization that we are to be wary of, not being magisterial and all? :confused:
 
Isn’t the USCCB the organization that we are to be wary of, not being magisterial and all? :confused:
It may still be too early but, I’d expect to see the Bishops, who are definitely magisterial, speak out against a document being ‘solicited’ for use by pastors of the parishes across the country, if it was not something they endorsed themselves.

I tend to think those who deny the legitimacy of the voting guide as being from the US Bishops have contentions with some of the issues listed, maybe?

When looking at the officers of the USCCB, I have to wonder how some deny it being magisterial?
President, Most Reverend Timothy M. Dolan, Archbishop of New York
Vice President, Most Reverend Joseph E. Kurtz, Archbishop of Louisville
Treasurer, Most Reverend Michael J. Bransfield, Bishop of Wheeling-Charleston
Secretary, Most Reverend George V. Murry, S.J., Bishop of Youngstown
Maybe I’m wrong, but aren’t the officers chosen by our Bishops?
 
Someone help me, and I really do mean help me if you think I have this wrong.

My read of that document is simple: it appears to be saying, form your conscience and than vote however you choose because we won’t tell you what issues are more important than others.

Do you see it that way?
 
Someone help me, and I really do mean help me if you think I have this wrong.

My read of that document is simple: it appears to be saying, form your conscience and than vote however you choose because we won’t tell you what issues are more important than others.

Do you see it that way?
I see it that way irishpatrick. It seems that ‘partisans’ use it in an attempt to sway people from what their formed consciences tell them. 🤷
 
I see it that way irishpatrick. It seems that ‘partisans’ use it in an attempt to sway people from what their formed consciences tell them. 🤷
Well, I see it as a moderate message that can be used (and will be used) by both sides to fight for what they think is right. Democrats will use it to say social issues like concern for the poor trumps abortion and marriage, while Republicans will say abortion and marriage are higher on the list of priorities and each side will use the document as proof. It does raise any issue to any level of being a moral imperative, or of greater importance, all issues are treated the same.

I cannot help recalling the Lord saying, “Let your yes be yes, and let your no be no.”

May the Lord forgive me if I have mispoken here.
 
With the campaign for the 2012 U.S. presidential race gaining speed, the U.S. Catholic bishops are saying that their 2007 statement on the political responsibilities of Catholics must not be misused or distorted to justify supporting candidates that do not adhere to Church teaching.
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 acknowledged that some issues “involve the clear obligation to oppose intrinsic evils which can never be justified,” while others raise “serious moral questions” and should lead the faithful to “pursue justice and promote the common good.”
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
 
Well, I see it as a moderate message that can be used (and will be used) by both sides to fight for what they think is right. Democrats will use it to say social issues like concern for the poor trumps abortion and marriage, while Republicans will say abortion and marriage are higher on the list of priorities and each side will use the document as proof. It does raise any issue to any level of being a moral imperative, or of greater importance, all issues are treated the same.

I cannot help recalling the Lord saying, “Let your yes be yes, and let your no be no.”

May the Lord forgive me if I have mispoken here.
You’ve elaborated on what I was trying to say.
 
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
Lukewarmness and an inability to allow our yes to be yes, and our no to be no.
 
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
Or, the document is on target with what the Bishops are trying to convey…
 
Lukewarmness and an inability to allow our yes to be yes, and our no to be no.
No matter how one votes there are issues receiving a yes or no, whatever the case may be. There is no way to be totally hot, or cold, when voting.
 
Or, the document is on target with what the Bishops are trying to convey…
Exactly. That is how I see it as well. The 2007 release said basically the same thing, and now they reiterate nearly the same lukewarm message. I think the Bishops are intentionally playing down the middle–and they are, after all, Bishops, so they have a charism that none of us hold. So, this is the second election cycle in which they took the same position. Nuff said regarding what the Bishops think.
 
No matter how one votes there are issues receiving a yes or no, whatever the case may be. There is no way to be totally hot, or cold, when voting.
I was applying the lukewarm comment to the Bishop’s message. It is neither hot, nor cold, it runs right smack down the middle and does not actually take sides with any issue–lukewarmness.
 
I was applying the lukewarm comment to the Bishop’s message. It is neither hot, nor cold, it runs right smack down the middle and does not actually take sides with any issue–lukewarmness.
It appears to be a thought of ‘they cannot limit how the Holy Spirit works or what is the Holy Spirit’s will’, so they teach us moral issues to be weighed, tell us to form our consciences, and then act. It reminds me of praying the ‘Our Father’, ‘…thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven…’ That might be too simplistic, but I can’t imagine how else their direction can be applied.
 
It appears to be a thought of ‘they cannot limit how the Holy Spirit works or what is the Holy Spirit’s will’, so they teach us moral issues to be weighed, tell us to form our consciences, and then act. It reminds me of praying the ‘Our Father’, ‘…thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven…’ That might be too simplistic, but I can’t imagine how else their direction can be applied.
My heart feels troubled and pained because I feel it is within the grasp of the Catholic Church in the USA to end legal abortion, and to stop the attacks on marriage (along with correcting other pressing issues). Yet, imho, the Church does not release a definitive and bold statement calling all Catholics to be obey Church teachings, rather it has released a document stating some of the issues and some Church teachings, and then it says, “form your conscience.” The problem is, history proves that when left completely alone and essentially unguided, people can commit all sorts of bad things and they can make all sorts of bad choices.

We are living in incredibly difficult times–we need incredibly serious leaders who are willing to boldly state the truth. If abortion is akin to murder, that means that our nation “murders” 1.3 million innocent babies every single year–how that cannot raise to a level way above all others is beyond my understanding–yet the Church does not say it is. So, the logical question becomes, does the Church in the USA believe abortion should be banned, or not?

Now, conversely, are the Bishops in the USA essentially telling us that abortion is wrong, that it is an important issue, but that it does not rise above other issues? It seems to me that is what they are saying. If it is what they are saying, then what compelling reason would a pro-choice voter have to listen to the Church regarding abortion and what possible hope is there for the unborn in that scenario? (I will be honest, this document release makes it very difficult to debate with a pro-choice person since the Bishops have not drawn any real definitive lines)

The same goes for other issues, and I do believe there exists today a very definite difference between issues and the importance of each. The amazing thing is, the global Roman Catholic Church is not at all lukewarm in terms of what it formally teaches.

Catholics are, imo, ripe for strong and bold leadership in the mold of Saints Peter and Paul. Men who are willing to let their yes be yes, and their no be no.
 
Or, the document is on target with what the Bishops are trying to convey…
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
 
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
*“I think we have to see this as something of a win for the moderates,” Schneck said. “This could have been dramatically rewritten. And there were concerns on both sides of the political dial on how it might have been rewritten.”

“Democrats can’t ignore abortion and gay marriage,” said the official, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, “and Republicans can’t say that’s all that matters.”
*

usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-10-04/catholic-politics-election/50660710/1
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top