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

[ringil]

In most cases social problems do not stem from evils any more than a hurricane can be considered an evil, and figuring out how to resolve our (e.g.) immigration problems is no more a moral problem than figuring out how to help those devastated by natural disasters. There are no moral evils involved.

Ender

The Bishops, who have teaching authority would disagree with you here. You have no authority to inform a faithful conscience other than your own, you have simply a personal opinion.

 

[Ender]

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.

No one can say that he “supports other Church positions” because - regardless of who he is - it isn’t true. There are very few issues on which the Church has specific positions and those all deal with issues of intrinsic evil. On all of the social issues the Church has guidelines, not positions, so it is simply wrong for anyone to claim the Church supports his proposals. Despite the opinions expressed by certain bishops on certain topics, the Church has no position on specific proposals to resolve social issues.

Ender

 

[irishpatrick]

You misunderstood originally. My post didn’t mention the introductory letter at all but was referring to the document, Forming Consciences for Faiithful Citizenship. That’s the document that will be put in parish literature racks. The introductory statement is the 5th page of the document.

However, even the intro note states:

I agree there is an unacceptable amount of “cover.” But it’s not because the USCCB doc doesn’t say that some issues are more important than others. It is because, while the document tells us that some issues are more important, it does not give much concrete information to help us choose which ones those are.

Not only that, but the intro/summary leads people to think they can choose for themselves and there is no priority to any of the issues. That will lead Catholics and pols to use the summary to justify their positions, and they will use it to shut down debate. I have seen this in action on a different thread (here).

 

[irishpatrick]

I think what some are missing is that the new introduction will be used to help people justify their positions. It won’t matter what informed Catholics say, and it won’t matter what the Church actually teaches.

For example: pro-abort Catholics will claim they have a well formed conscience and that their consciene tells them abortion is not as important as issue “X.” They will then say they are following what the Bishops wrote, and there will really be no refuting that.

 

[Ender]

paragraphs 27/28…

Paragraph 27 says there are two faults to be avoided
P28: Fault one - treating all issues the same
P29: Fault two - believing that the more serious issues completely override other serious issues

Basically, fault two cancels out the significance of fault one. You think abortion is paramount? Pish tosh - that cannot override my concern about global warming. After all, Catholics are not one issue voters. Everything said in this document has an “on the other hand” statement of equal - and opposite - significance leaving us all free to act as we are inclined.

There was only one question the bishops needed to resolve: what issues are of commensurate severity that would justify supporting a politician who supported abortion (et al)? By not clarifying that point the bishops left the question open to the same equivocation as last time. We are - again - rudderless.

Ender

 

[ringil]

I think what some are missing is that the new introduction will be used to help people justify their positions. It won’t matter what informed Catholics say, and it won’t matter what the Church actually teaches.

For example: pro-abort Catholics will claim they have a well formed conscience and that their consciene tells them abortion is not as important as issue “X.” They will then say they are following what the Bishops wrote, and there will really be no refuting that.

Well, in your example these individuals would be misreading the document. It clearly states that abortion is an intrinsic evil. What can be more clear than that?

 

[Elizabeth502]

The Catholic Church is not the religious arm of the Republican Party and of the political Right, which seems to be what folks want the Bishops to be saying.

ERROR MESSAGE: FAIL.

Your reply is offensive to the extreme, because it overtly misrepresents what I said and what the bishops said precisely in the referenced statement.

Who exactly, sir, are “folks”? How dare you decide that “folks” on CAF or any other group belong to a particular political party even if their viewpoints were to line up with one? You have no idea which party, if any, I belong to, or any “folks” here belong to, unless he or she has stated that. And if you had bothered to actually search my posts (whoops – that’s right – you couldn’t be bothered to do anything that accurate) you would see where extremely recently – within the last 10 days – I stated that I am not affiliated with a political party.

Whoops!

So Yes, To Those With Hammers Everything Looks Like a Nail. :tsktsk:

Finally, clearly you have not read the document. The document itself rejects the notion that the USCCB, and the document Faithful Citizenship can be equated with a particular political party, nor manipulated to make it appear that way, which by the way I will add that this is precisely what you do here.

And an addiitonal proof that you have not read the document is that the language in the discussion of Immigration looks like the Extreme Left’s talking points, complete with the rhetoric thereof. Whoops, guess you got that one wrong, too.

 

[irishpatrick]

Coversations will go something like the one I posted earlier:

**Concerned Catholic: **“Senator, as both a civil servant, and a Catholic, why do you support abortion when you know it is against Church teaching?”

Compassionate Senator: "Oh, I do not support abortion personally. I feel it is a sin to get an abortion. However, I am a civil servant, and I must consider all people I represent. I have listened to the Bishops in the USA, and they make it very clear that we Catholics must consider all issues together, and make a well considered decision. According to the Bishops in the new introductory statement for the newly released faithful citizen document, our personal conscience must be well formed, I take my faith quite seriously, and after rigurous study, I have concluded that there are other issues that are more pressing at this time. So, I am in perfect accord with the most recent statements from the Bishops. Therefore, I am in accord with my Church, and there should be no question about that and there should be no one calling for me not to able to receive Communion. Next question…

 

[rlg94086]

I think the document is fine, particularly Part I which outlines the general principles. Parts II and III include some clear teaching on the “intrinsic evils” which must always be opposed. However, they also include a lot of USCCB policy positions which are non-binding since they deal with issues involving prudential judgment. It isnt obvious to the less informed Catholic that they can disagree in some areas but not in others. After informing themselves on the “intrinsically evil” issues, the voters should keep the following segment from Part I in mind:

1. Prudential judgment is also needed in applying moral principles to specific policy choices in areas such as the war in Iraq, housing, healthcare, immigration and others. This does not mean that all choices are equally valid, or that our guidance and that of other Church leaders is just another political opinion or policy preference among many others. Rather, we urge Catholics to listen carefully to the Church’s teachers when we apply Catholic social teaching to specific proposals and situations. The judgments and recommendations that we make as bishops on specific issues do not carry the same moral authority as statements of universal moral teachings. Nevertheless, the Church’s guidance on these matters is an essential resource for Catholics as they determine whether their own moral judgments are consistent with the Gospel and Catholic teaching.

In other words, when it comes to the non-“intrinsically evil” questions, we are to take everything the Church teaches, use our prudential judgment, and vote accordingly. So, for example, I don’t have to agree with the bishops’ stance on a particular policy regarding Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, if my prudential judgment finds that another, better solution is consistent with the Gospel and Catholic teaching.

 

[irishpatrick]

Well, in your example these individuals would be misreading the document. It clearly states that abortion is an intrinsic evil. What can be more clear than that?

No, because I am speaking of the new introduction, which politicians and other Catholics will take as a summary. They will use that intro (not the full document) to justify their positions.

 

[ringil]

Paragraph 27 says there are two faults to be avoided
P28: Fault one - treating all issues the same
P29: Fault two - believing that the more serious issues completely override other serious issues

Basically, fault two cancels out the significance of fault one. You think abortion is paramount? Pish tosh - that cannot override my concern about global warming. After all, Catholics are not one issue voters. Everything said in this document has an “on the other hand” statement of equal - and opposite - significance leaving us all free to act as we are inclined.

There was only one question the bishops needed to resolve: what issues are of commensurate severity that would justify supporting a politician who supported abortion (et al)? By not clarifying that point the bishops left the question open to the same equivocation as last time. We are - again - rudderless.

Ender

The Bishops clearly state that the document is not to be used to endorse or condemn a given politician. You are proposing that they entirely change the thrust of the document. The document is meant to assist Catholics in shaping their conscience not to be weilded as a political tool.

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

 

[Elizabeth502]

Robert’s post 66 is an excellent recap.

 

[irishpatrick]

I think the document is fine, particularly Part I which outlines the general principles. Parts II and III include some clear teaching on the “intrinsic evils” which must always be opposed. However, they also include a lot of USCCB policy positions which are non-binding since they deal with issues involving prudential judgment. It isnt obvious to the less informed Catholic that they can disagree in some areas but not in others. After informing themselves on the “intrinsically evil” issues, the voters should keep the following segment from Part I in mind:

In other words, when it comes to the non-“intrinsically evil” questions, we are to take everything the Church teaches, use our prudential judgment, and vote accordingly. So, for example, I don’t have to agree with the bishops’ stance on a particular policy regarding Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, if my prudential judgment finds that another, better solution is consistent with the Gospel and Catholic teaching.

Precious few Catholics will read the document, many will read the intro, and they will use it to justify their positions–and there will be no ability to rationally rebut those justifications.

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.

 

[ringil]

No, because I am speaking of the new introduction, which politicians and other Catholics will take as a summary. They will use that intro (not the full document) to justify their positions.

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

 

[Elizabeth502]

Precious few Catholics will read the document, many will read the intro, and they will use it to justify their positions–and there will be no ability to rationally rebut those justifications.

I agree – unless there is much more publicity about how to interpret and apply the document. (Again, principles to consider: that is the issue here.) As I said, this needs to become a catechetical opportunity and a leadership opportunity. The bishops, imho., might want to direct the priests in their diocese to provide some kind of public airing of this, depending on what vehicle or vehicles are appropriate for the various parishes. But I also think that some of this needs to come from the pulpit – not with regard to, or with the purpose of, inviting incendiary divisions on particular topics, but discussing the operation of moral theology in the society at large.

 

[irishpatrick]

Robert’s post 66 is an excellent recap.

I do not agree. Post #70.

My predictions here are already happening in another thread here, and I have posted portions of articles stating the new intro is a win for moderates and that neither Democrats or Republicans can try to take any sort of higher position on the issues. It is clear from the intro (not from the main doc), that no single issue or two issues should be considered more important than the others. The main documents is not the problem, the new intro is–it is a lukewarm statement at best. IMHO.

 

[rlg94086]

Paragraph 27 says there are two faults to be avoided
P28: Fault one - treating all issues the same
P29: Fault two - believing that the more serious issues completely override other serious issues

Basically, fault two cancels out the significance of fault one. You think abortion is paramount? Pish tosh - that cannot override my concern about global warming. After all, Catholics are not one issue voters. Everything said in this document has an “on the other hand” statement of equal - and opposite - significance leaving us all free to act as we are inclined.

There was only one question the bishops needed to resolve: what issues are of commensurate severity that would justify supporting a politician who supported abortion (et al)? By not clarifying that point the bishops left the question open to the same equivocation as last time. We are - again - rudderless.

Ender

I disagree with your assessment. Fault two does not cancel out the significance of fault one. All it says is that while questions of “intrinsic evil” do have more weight, we can’t ignore the rest of Catholic teaching. That is not meant to give Catholics an out to vote based on the rest of Catholic teaching and ignore “intrinsic evil.” It’s just reminding us that we still need to consider those other issues from a Catholic perspective.

 

[irishpatrick]

I agree – unless there is much more publicity about how to interpret and apply the document. (Again, principles to consider: that is the issue here.) As I said, this needs to become a catechetical opportunity and a leadership opportunity. The bishops, imho., might want to direct the priests in their diocese to provide some kind of public airing of this, depending on what vehicle or vehicles are appropriate for their diocese. But I also think that some of this needs to come from the pulpit – not with regard to, or with the purpose of, inviting incendiary divisions on particular topics, but discussing the operation of moral theology in the society at large.

I feel the Bishops missed an oppotunity to let their yes be yes, and their no be no. Perhaps, in some way, this is all part of God’s plan, and far be it for me to do anything to throw water on that situation; however, it would make things a lot easier for prolife and promarriage Catholics if the Bishops simply stated things with absolute clarity. Something like:

• No Catholic can licitly support abortion in any way, not in their personal or in their public life, nor even in their voting life. Abortion is an evil that must be stopped and Catholics must not willingly do anything to advance that evil practice. Catholics are called to protect the most vunerable and that applies to every Catholic in all walks of life.

 

[ringil]

ERROR MESSAGE: FAIL.

Your reply is offensive to the extreme, because it overtly misrepresents what I said and what the bishops said precisely in the referenced statement.

Who exactly, sir, are “folks”? How dare you decide that “folks” on CAF or any other group belong to a particular political party even if their viewpoints were to line up with one? You have no idea which party, if any, I belong to, or any “folks” here belong to, unless he or she has stated that. And if you had bothered to actually search my posts (whoops – that’s right – you couldn’t be bothered to do anything that accurate) you would see where extremely recently – within the last 10 days – I stated that I am not affiliated with a political party.

Whoops!

So Yes, To Those With Hammers Everything Looks Like a Nail. :tsktsk:

Finally, clearly you have not read the document. The document itself rejects the notion that the USCCB, and the document Faithful Citizenship can be equated with a particular political party, nor manipulated to make it appear that way, which by the way I will add that this is precisely what you do here.

And an addiitonal proof that you have not read the document is that the language in the discussion of Immigration looks like the Extreme Left’s talking points, complete with the rhetoric thereof. Whoops, guess you got that one wrong, too.

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.

 

[BVM_1221]

Well, in your example these individuals would be misreading the document. It clearly states that abortion is an intrinsic evil. What can be more clear than that?

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:

Of course, if one party suppotrs a set of intrinsic evils, and the other party supports another set of intrinsic evils, and if all intrinsics are infinite, now what

Well, in mathamatical set theory, we DO have a concept of some infinities being intrinsicly higher then other infinities. Starting with the Alephs, and going on to the Large Cardinals.

How to translate this into quantifying intrinsic evils to be voted on will take a lot of investigation. And how many in these forums study ZFC anyhow