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

[Ender]

I find it sad that you and irishpatrick can’t walk (consider abortion the most important issue) and chew gum (apply Catholic teaching to other issues) at the same time.

It isn’t doing two different things at the same time but of doing two opposite things at the same time that I am unable to pull off. If abortion is the most important issue then at what point do we determine that it’s not important enough to affect our vote? What combination of social issues - the solutions to which the Church has no specific teachings - overrides the moral issues (abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, ESCR, human cloning) about which she does? The problematic choice is between candidates who walk (agree with the Church’s position on the moral issues) and those who chew gum (agree with your position on the social issues). Pick one.

Ender

 

[gilliam]

It isn’t doing two different things at the same time but of doing two opposite things at the same time that I am unable to pull off. If abortion is the most important issue then at what point do we determine that it’s not important enough to affect our vote? What combination of social issues - the solutions to which the Church has no specific teachings - overrides the moral issues (abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, ESCR, human cloning) about which she does? The problematic choice is between candidates who walk (agree with the Church’s position on the moral issues) and those who chew gum (agree with your position on the social issues). Pick one.

Ender

The way I read the document it says the most important thing is the protection of innocent human life throughout their natural lives from conception to death.

 

[Ender]

This is because we have a two-party system and each party has claims tothe moral high ground on different issues: the Democrats on care of the needy and the Republicans on the life issues.

This is flatly untrue but the idea is so firmly ingrained it seems almost impossible to eradicate it. It is surely true that Democrats and Republicans have entirely different approaches to the solutions to social problems but to say that only one of the parties cares about the poor is preposterous. This casual condemnation and the rashness of this moral judgment is breathtaking … and it has become such a part of the national dialogue that few even recognize how insulting and uncharitable this claim really is.

Catholics should be for helping poor people (altho they can differ in their ideas on how best to accomplish that)…

That is the situation we have today - from those in both parties - which your parenthetical comment would seem to recognize.

Catholics should be on the forefront of proposing how best to deal with these problems instead of just fighting over the Dems and Reps.

This sounds nice until you realize that there are no Catholic solutions to social problems. The Church provides guidelines but within those generalities she leaves it up to the laity to determine what approaches will best achieve the goals she has identified. We are free to support or oppose national health care, amnesty, higher taxes, and the entire panoply of proposals that address our social problems, as the Church has no position on any of them.

Ender

 

[Ender]

If instead of allowing the parties and swirling political ideas to divide us, maybe we can all work together to pressure politicians to do all that is morally good: be against abortion, euthanasia, etc and for helping poor people and people who are being unjustly discriminated against.

That is pretty much what the document says.

I agree, and it is why the document doesn’t come down squarely one way or the other but offers up equivocations. Way too many bishops actually believe the silly canard that Republicans truly don’t care about anyone but themselves and there is therefore a rough immoral equivalence between the parties. If they were more charitable in their judgments of fully one half of their flock this document would have been a lot shorter and might have said something useful.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The way I read the document it says the most important thing is the protection of innocent human life throughout their natural lives from conception to death.

That’s a very reasonable way to understand the document since that’s exactly what they said.

That, however, is not all they said. It is quite reasonable to read the document and focus on these comments:

29. “The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of
dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity.”
*42. “As Catholics we are not single-issue voters.”

• That is, it is reasonable and rational to understand the document to say that abortion et al are the overriding issues or that, while abortion may be the primary issue there are enough serious - albeit secondary - issues that need to be addressed that we cannot let abortion override them all.

Either interpretation is logical based on what the document says. That the conclusions are in fact mutually exclusive doesn’t change the fact that both have been presented as valid options.

Ender

 

[irishpatrick]

How are we divided? I, and the Bishops, agree with you on abortion. If our division is because you don’t care about anything else, then I hope you start reading your Catechism and praying a lot.

It is really very simple. The only way to ban abortion is for Catholics/Christians to be united. By this I mean that we must stand together and say NO to every single pro-choice candidate for every office in the land, and to let them know why we have said NO to them. Only then will our leaders work for real change.

Today, the Church has great teachings about abortion, and many Catholics speak a great game, but the Church does NOT place any teeth beind its teachings, and a great many Catholics will choose pro-choice candidates.

We are divided–imo.

I wonder, if the issue was banning legal slavery, would that be enough to unite us?

I wonder what it will take for us to stand together against abortion?

I also might be 100% wrong about this, yet I just cannot fathom why God would want our nation to be blessed while we willingly slaughter His babies.

I also have to wonder what the world would look like if the allied nations had not fought back Germany in WWII?

 

[irishpatrick]

That’s a very reasonable way to understand the document since that’s exactly what they said.

That, however, is not all they said. It is quite reasonable to read the document and focus on these comments:

29. “The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of
dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity.”
*42. “As Catholics we are not single-issue voters.”

• That is, it is reasonable and rational to understand the document to say that abortion et al are the overriding issues or that, while abortion may be the primary issue there are enough serious - albeit secondary - issues that need to be addressed that we cannot let abortion override them all.

Either interpretation is logical based on what the document says. That the conclusions are in fact mutually exclusive doesn’t change the fact that both have been presented as valid options.

Ender

Well said and that is the basic message of the document. So, where do we go from there? Are we now to assume that abortion is no more important an issue than the other issues (singularly or combined)? How can any of the other life issues mean anything if we continue to basically ignore abortion and the millions killed through that practice? After all, one cannot be euthanized if they never lived, and one cannot enjoy social justice laws if they never lived, and one cannot attain benefits of civil rights laws if they never live.

It seems to me that the fundamental starting point if life in the womb, and none of the other life issues mean a thing if we are destroying life in the womb.

 

[St_Francis]

This is flatly untrue but the idea is so firmly ingrained it seems almost impossible to eradicate it. It is surely true that Democrats and Republicans have entirely different approaches to the solutions to social problems but to say that only one of the parties cares about the poor is preposterous. This casual condemnation and the rashness of this moral judgment is breathtaking … and it has become such a part of the national dialogue that few even recognize how insulting and uncharitable this claim really is.

I put that badly; what I meant was that they claim to have the moral high ground on those respective issues. That was I used the word claims, but the way I used it, it didn’t come out right. For the record, I think a Democrat would have written the opposite… that’s not that they don’t care about the unborn but that… But sometimes I do not hit the mark in my wording.

That is the situation we have today - from those in both parties - which your parenthetical comment would seem to recognize.

Yes, but what we should be doing is discussing that, rather than which party cares more about what.

I see something like this: Mr A: Well, it’s all very well to talk about abortion, but what about the poor? The Democrats want to do more to help the poor!

Mr B: What have the Democrats done to help the poor? Are the poor any better off today as a result of the almost-50-year war on poverty?

And then a non-partisan discussion about ways to truly help the poor rather than descending into the acrimonious debated between parties that we usually have.

This sounds nice until you realize that there are no Catholic solutions to social problems. The Church provides guidelines but within those generalities she leaves it up to the laity to determine what approaches will best achieve the goals she has identified. We are free to support or oppose national health care, amnesty, higher taxes, and the entire panoply of proposals that address our social problems, as the Church has no position on any of them.

I spent years decrying amnesty for illegal aliens, and for years what I heard back was that I was a mean person who wanted to break up families. It wasn’t until someone on the other side listened to my arguments and addressed each one that I changed my mind.

IOW, I think we need to change the nature of the debate. Government aid does do some good, and any major changes would have to take place gradually anyway. Abortion is a deep stain upon our nation, why does it remain an “issue”?

We need to be considering our underlying assumptions rather than recycling the same old same old. And it’s not just one side or the other which needs to do this but each side and all the permutatiins thereof. People say that some US Catholics put one party or the
other in front of our Faith–i say that all too often we put an American way of thinking in front of oir Faith.

And I say all this as someone who has moved from a quasi-liberalism to fairly libertarian to where I am now, which is away from both and strugggling to consider issues in a Catholic way.

 

[irishpatrick]

As the Catholic Church, and Catholics, go, so goes the culture and the world!

If we do not lead, no one will follow.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

As the Catholic Church, and Catholics, go, so goes the culture and the world!

If we do not lead, no one will follow.

I fear that the Church no longer leads given the current zeitgeist.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It is my opinion that the bishops did not mean to reduce a priority on the issue of abortion, but possibly they did a poor job of communicating that, especially because of the length of the document.

It’s my opinion that what they meant was,

If you’re looking at two candidates who are both ‘pro-choice,’ or conversely both ‘pro-life’ (on the issue of abortion specifically), look at what else he or she supports or does not support. Here are all the other issues we also care about as Catholics: the other primary Life issues (i.e., “intrinsic evils”) + the secondary Life issues.

That’s possibly what they meant by “we are not single-issue voters.”

 

[irishpatrick]

I fear that the Church no longer leads given the current zeitgeist.

I agree, and that is a fundamental problem.

 

[irishpatrick]

It is my opinion that the bishops did not mean to reduce a priority on the issue of abortion, but possibly they did a poor job of communicating that, especially because of the length of the document.

It’s my opinion that what they meant was,

If you’re looking at two candidates who are both ‘pro-choice,’ or conversely both ‘pro-life’ (on the issue of abortion specifically), look at what else he or she supports or does not support. Here are all the other issues we also care about as Catholics: the other primary Life issues (i.e., “intrinsic evils”) + the secondary Life issues.

That’s possibly what they meant by “we are not single-issue voters.”

That is not what they published.

 

[Elizabeth502]

That is not what they published.

I know it’s not what they “published.” That’s why I made a case earlier for clarification.

I see a lot of negativity and despair on this thread. I apologize for contributing to any of it. I think we have to look constructively and what we can do as Catholics. If you (if we) are confused by the document, chances are that the average Catholic in the pew will be, as well. A constructive reaction, if you are dismayed, is to approach your pastor and make known your concerns, urging him to communicate to his own bishop how the laity may be receiving the message(s).

An additional action would be to call in to EWTN radio during one of the many call-in shows, since those reach a wide audience. Many of those call-in shows (such as CAL) include clergymembers in a position to pass on lay concerns. I hear callers all the time voice angst about various actions, documents, and silence on the part of the Church (locally or more broadly).

Several months ago I wrote to my own bishop about a concern I had (not any kind of a miscommunication or correction, just an offer of advocacy about something). I did eventually get a response, and the bigger point is that the message was heard. The bishop “got it” that there was some real passion out there in the parishes regarding some public issues.

 

[irishpatrick]

I know it’s not what they “published.” That’s why I made a case earlier for clarification.

I see a lot of negativity and despair on this thread. I apologize for contributing to any of it. I think we have to look constructively and what we can do as Catholics. If you (if we) are confused by the document, chances are that the average Catholic in the pew will be, as well. A constructive reaction, if you are dismayed, is to approach your pastor and make known your concerns, urging him to communicate to his own bishop how the laity may be receiving the message(s).

An additional action would be to call in to EWTN radio during one of the many call-in shows, since those reach a wide audience. Many of those call-in shows (such as CAL) include clergymembers in a position to pass on lay concerns. I hear callers all the time voice angst about various actions, documents, and silence on the part of the Church (locally or more broadly).

Several months ago I wrote to my own bishop about a concern I had (not any kind of a miscommunication or correction, just an offer of advocacy about something). I did eventually get a response, and the bigger point is that the message was heard. The bishop “got it” that there was some real passion out there in the parishes regarding some public issues.

The Bishops are very smart and well educated men, and they carry special charisms in their offices. I think we have to respect the Bishops by assuming they published exactly what they intended. It seems clear that they view these matters differently than many lay Catholics, yet we are lay Catholics and we do not hold the same office and we have not received the same Graces and charisms.

May the Lord bless and guide His Bishops and His Church. Amen!

 

[bellasbane]

The Bishops are very smart and well educated men, and they carry special charisms in their offices. I think we have to respect the Bishops by assuming they published exactly what they intended. It seems clear that they view these matters differently than many lay Catholics, yet we are lay Catholics and we do not hold the same office and we have not received the same Graces and charisms.

May the Lord bless and guide His Bishops and His Church. Amen!

Amen!

 

[Ender]

Several months ago I wrote to my own bishop about a concern I had (not any kind of a miscommunication or correction, just an offer of advocacy about something). I did eventually get a response, and the bigger point is that the message was heard. The bishop “got it” that there was some real passion out there in the parishes regarding some public issues.

When this document first appeared in 2007 there was a furious outcry about it, which the bishops clearly heard. Their reaction to it was to re-issue the same document with an introductory note which basically summarized what they had said before. It is conceivable that the bishops didn’t fully realize what was wrong with this paper when it was presented in 2007 but they don’t have that excuse this time. They surely understand the ambiguity of their document and they must be comfortable with that - despite the misgivings so many of the rest of us have with it.

Ender

 

[Elizabeth502]

The Bishops are very smart and well educated men, and they carry special charisms in their offices. I think we have to respect the Bishops by assuming they published exactly what they intended. It seems clear that they view these matters differently than many lay Catholics, yet we are lay Catholics and we do not hold the same office and we have not received the same Graces and charisms.

Smart people misspeak all the time – not because they are not smart, not because they don’t have charisms, but because it is not always apparent how one’s publications or speech are being received by those not writing the document. It is not disrespectful to voice concerns to our clergy just because we don’t “hold the same office” that they do.

And the bigger point is, you can’t have it both ways. If we’re upset by something in the Church, it’s actually our responsibility to make our concerns known. It shows respect to people to respond to their communication, as long as the mode of response is itself respectful. Mere hand-wringing is not a response; it’s a reaction.

 

[irishpatrick]

Smart people misspeak all the time – not because they are not smart, not because they don’t have charisms, but because it is not always apparent how one’s publications or speech are being received by those not writing the document. It is not disrespectful to voice concerns to our clergy just because we don’t “hold the same office” that they do.

And the bigger point is, you can’t have it both ways. If we’re upset by something in the Church, it’s actually our responsibility to make our concerns known. It shows respect to people to respond to their communication, as long as the mode of response is itself respectful. Mere hand-wringing is not a response; it’s a reaction.

Okay, well there was many people involved, they all read what was published, and it is very difficult to think that they simply “missed” something. But, I will concede it is “possible.”

In the end, our Bishops have spoken, and it is not the first time they have said the same thing.

 

[rlg94086]

It isn’t doing two different things at the same time but of doing two opposite things at the same time that I am unable to pull off.

How are life issues “opposite” from the rest of Catholic teaching?

If abortion is the most important issue then at what point do we determine that it’s not important enough to affect our vote?

Never.

Ender:

What combination of social issues - the solutions to which the Church has no specific teachings - overrides the moral issues (abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, ESCR, human cloning) about which she does?

None of them.

Ender:

The problematic choice is between candidates who walk (agree with the Church’s position on the moral issues) and those who chew gum (agree with your position on the social issues). Pick one.

Ender

You pick the candidate who agrees on the issues of “intrinsic evil.” You also push, cajole, and otherwise try to move your party toward a moral position in line with Church teaching. This is what I’m talking about, and I’m 99% sure it is what the Bishops are referring to. You don’t compromise on the issues of “intrinsic evil,” but it doesn’t make you a one or two issue voter. You should still be assessing your candidates on all the Church’s teaching.