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

[irishpatrick]

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

Never.

None of them.

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.

I think something needs to be said here. It is not right to push for certain issues just because that is what the Church teaches (the Church holds belief in the Real Presence and I do not look for candidates to attached themselves to that reality). Instead, certain issues need to be pushed because they are simpyl the right thing to do. Abortion should not be banned because the Church disapproves, it should be bannded because it is a horrific and wholly immoral practice. Marriage should not be protected because the Church says so, it should be protected because it is the very foundation of a moral culture.

By asking Catholic pols to do follow these things, we try to appeal to their faith (since their Catholic faith should enlighten them), but more importantly we appeal to their sense of what is right and wrong. We would never ask a Catholic politician to codify the Mass as a mandatory practice for all people, since that is a private choice protected by the Constitution, but we can ask them to protect life, and to protect critical things like marriage.

When we got rid of slavery, we did so because it was the right thing to do, not because the Church said so.

 

[rlg94086]

I think something needs to be said here. It is not right to push for certain issues just because that is what the Church teaches (the Church holds belief in the Real Presence and I do not look for candidates to attached themselves to that reality). Instead, certain issues need to be pushed because they are simpyl the right thing to do. Abortion should not be banned because the Church disapproves, it should be bannded because it is a horrific and wholly immoral practice. Marriage should not be protected because the Church says so, it should be protected because it is the very foundation of a moral culture.

By asking Catholic pols to do follow these things, we try to appeal to their faith (since their Catholic faith should enlighten them), but more importantly we appeal to their sense of what is right and wrong. We would never ask a Catholic politician to codify the Mass as a mandatory practice for all people, since that is a private choice protected by the Constitution, but we can ask them to protect life, and to protect critical things like marriage.

When we got rid of slavery, we did so because it was the right thing to do, not because the Church said so.

Sure. Neither I, nor the bishops, implied anything differently. Just to clarify though - we need to ask all politicians to do these things; not just Catholic politicians. What the Church teaches is the morally right thing to do for all the world, not just Catholics.

 

[irishpatrick]

Sure. Neither I, nor the bishops, implied anything differently. Just to clarify though - we need to ask all politicians to do these things; not just Catholic politicians. What the Church teaches is the morally right thing to do for all the world, not just Catholics.

I agree.

 

[Corki]

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.

This is an excellent summary!

 

[Ender]

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

Please, at least address the decision that voters really face. They agree with Candidate A on the moral issues and agree with Candidate B on the social issues. Which do they choose? I contend that this voting document gives them ammunition to support either choice.

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.

There is no need to “push, cajole, or otherwise try to move them toward a moral position in line with Church teaching” on the social issues … because there is no Church position. The Church provides guidelines on those issues, not positions.

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.

I feel 99% sure this is not what the bishops are saying because if that’s what they meant they would have said as much. Since they didn’t say it I can only assume it’s because that wasn’t their intent.

Either the moral issues are preeminent or they are not and if they are then they should have said so, but they went out of their way to ensure that this message was not communicated. One might have believed this was an oversight in 2007 but that interpretation is not reasonable after four years of reflection on the earlier version.
*
It applies Catholic moral principles to a range of important issues and warns against misguided appeals to “conscience” to ignore fundamental moral claims (option A), to reduce Catholic moral concerns to one or two matters (option B) …*

some involve the clear obligation to oppose intrinsic evils which can never be justified (option A) and that others require action to pursue justice and promote the common good (option B).

*27. **Two **temptations in public life can distort the Church’s defense of human life and dignity:
28. The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed. (option A)
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 (option B)

*Ender

 

[rlg94086]

Please, at least address the decision that voters really face. They agree with Candidate A on the moral issues and agree with Candidate B on the social issues. Which do they choose? I contend that this voting document gives them ammunition to support either choice.

I disagree with your premise. You are presenting the same false dichotomy that liberal Catholics use.

 

[rlg94086]

At this point, I guess I have to acquiesce. If my fellow conservatives can’t understand the document and misinterpret it, I’m certain that liberal Catholics, many of whom would vote pro-choice regardless of how the document is written, will certainly misinterpret it.

 

[Ender]

At this point, I guess I have to acquiesce. If my fellow conservatives can’t understand the document and misinterpret it, I’m certain that liberal Catholics, many of whom would vote pro-choice regardless of how the document is written, will certainly misinterpret it.

We went down this road the last time and nothing has changed. You know the arguments as well as I do and the question is not really whether they are wrong but whether they are compelling to the people who employ them. Clearly, the words are there - as I pointed out - to self justify making pretty much any decision. I am not conflicted about what the document ought to mean but we do disagree on what the document does mean. I think it is deliberately ambiguous and the result will be that no one will change his position based on what it says.

Ender

 

[BVM_1221]

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

Never.

None of them.

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.

Again, I think you and too many others are misunderstanding the word “intrinsic”. :tsktsk:

It does not mean “infinite”. For example…

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intrinsic

Again, look at this sentence after reading the dictionary definition…

“Boiling oil is intrinsicly hot”. This does not mean the oil is infinitely hot, just that it is inherently hot. :yup:

What this means is that all abortions are wrong. To save the life of the Mother? Nope, too bad, It is God’s will that you die in childbirth. Same for incest and rape. God’s will. Baby deformed? Let it live anyhow. That is what God wants.

But since “intrinsic” does NOT mean “infinite”, abortion does not trump anything and everything else.:dts::dts:

Realisticly, the Democrats support the intrinsic evils of abortion and homosexual marriage. Realisticly, The Republicans support most of the other intrinsic evils. That is why the Bishops do not want us to be single issue voters.

BTW, none of my opinions have been endorsed by my cats, my fish, my birds; or the opossum and squirrels on the apartment property

 

[rlg94086]

We went down this road the last time and nothing has changed. You know the arguments as well as I do and the question is not really whether they are wrong but whether they are compelling to the people who employ them. Clearly, the words are there - as I pointed out - to self justify making pretty much any decision. I am not conflicted about what the document ought to mean but we do disagree on what the document does mean. I think it is deliberately ambiguous and the result will be that no one will change his position based on what it says.

Ender

I believe I just acquiesced. Are you trying to argue further?

 

[rlg94086]

Again, I think you and too many others are misunderstanding the word “intrinsic”. :tsktsk:

It does not mean “infinite”. For example…

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intrinsic

Again, look at this sentence after reading the dictionary definition…

“Boiling oil is intrinsicly hot”. This does not mean the oil is infinitely hot, just that it is inherently hot. :yup:

What this means is that all abortions are wrong. To save the life of the Mother? Nope, too bad, It is God’s will that you die in childbirth. Same for incest and rape. God’s will. Baby deformed? Let it live anyhow. That is what God wants.

But since “intrinsic” does NOT mean “infinite”, abortion does not trump anything and everything else.:dts::dts:

Realisticly, the Democrats support the intrinsic evils of abortion and homosexual marriage. Realisticly, The Republicans support most of the other intrinsic evils. That is why the Bishops do not want us to be single issue voters.

BTW, none of my opinions have been endorsed by my cats, my fish, my birds; or the opossum and squirrels on the apartment property

You are making absolutely no sense. Where have I implied that “intrinsic” means infinite?

The reason “intrinsic evils” are of greater weight, and therefore “trump” other issues, is that there is absolutely no circumstance where they aren’t evil. Other evils, for example war, can sometimes be just.

Tell me which intrinsic evils Republicans support.

 

[Linda_Marie]

Revelation 3

14 'Write to the angel of the church in Laodicea and say, "Here is the message of the Amen, the trustworthy, the true witness, the Principle of God’s creation:

15 I know about your activities: how you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were one or the other,

16 but since you are neither hot nor cold, but only lukewarm, I will spit you out of my mouth.

The USCCB ceased being an authoritative Catholic body when they started funding the promotion of abortion, abc and homosexuality. There is something gravely wrong with the USCCB that when informed that this was happening, they did not put an immediate end to it, but rather increased the number of these groups from 21% of the groups funded by the CCHD to 24%.

This is why I disregard everything from the USCCB, and quite frankly, view the American bishops as being complicit. Either they support these groups, or they are incompetant in their supervision of the organisation.


31 CCHD-Funded Groups Supported, Trained by Pro-Abortion, Homosexual Marriage Activists

CCHD describes itself as the “domestic anti-poverty, social justice program of the U.S. Catholic bishops.”

The coalition’s latest discovery exposes 31 organizations partnered with Center for Community Change. CCC is a politically radical, anti-life, pro-homosexualist organization whose board members include Heather Booth, former consultant for the National Organization for Women and Sara Gould, president and CEO of pro-abortion Ms. Foundation for Women.

Through their “Generation Change” program CCC trains and develops staff as “community organizers” for their partner groups. CCC provides a resource library with books promoting “reproductive freedom” and its “Movement Vision Lab” equates access to abortion and “reproductive justice” with seeking criminal justice. This project aims to build a “progressive movement” with a “coherent, compelling, shared vision – one that represents our values and dreams for society” according to the group.

“The connection is undeniable. There is no excuse for Catholic donations going towards organizations trained and supported by groups diametrically opposed to the Church,” said Michael Hichborn, lead researcher into CCHD for American Life League. “Until CCHD proves grantees do not affiliate with those who attack Church teaching, CCHD should not receive a single dime.”

Catholic Campaign on Human Development: The American Life League Report on links to abortion groups

Tuesday, October 04, 2011

The American Life League looked closely at the latest crop of grants[v] and what it found is appalling.
<…>
These organizations, coming from an utterly un-Catholic perspective and actively working for immoral purposes, were supposedly well-vetted and in full compliance with CCHD’s new, more stringent Grant Agreement. CCHD has given them over half a million dollars this past year.

Is it any wonder that their voting guide is ambiguous?

 

[BVM_1221]

The reason “intrinsic evils” are of greater weight…

OK, let us stop right there.:compcoff:

This is the crux of the probvlem. AGAIN! you have redefined “intrinsic” to mean a quantity, not a quality.:tsktsk::tsktsk::tsktsk:

Did you read that dictionary definition I supplied? Have you read other definitions?:dts:

WHY do you keep on insisting that “intrinsic” is a quantity, an amount? But that is what you have done by the use of the word “weight”

Well, of course it enables you to INSIST, without documentation, that the “weight” of abortion is greater then any other intrinsic evil, which, BTW, is as good a definition of “infinite” as any. But you are putting words into the Bishops’ mouths that they never intended.:sad_yes:

 

[rlg94086]

OK, let us stop right there.:compcoff:

This is the crux of the probvlem. AGAIN! you have redefined “intrinsic” to mean a quantity, not a quality.:tsktsk::tsktsk::tsktsk:

Did you read that dictionary definition I supplied? Have you read other definitions?:dts:

WHY do you keep on insisting that “intrinsic” is a quantity, an amount? But that is what you have done by the use of the word “weight”

Well, of course it enables you to INSIST, without documentation, that the “weight” of abortion is greater then any other intrinsic evil, which, BTW, is as good a definition of “infinite” as any. But you are putting words into the Bishops’ mouths that they never intended.:sad_yes:

Ah…now I see why you aren’t making any sense. You are misquoting me. I never said that “abortion is greater than any other intrinsic evils.” I said that intrinsic evils (i.e. not just abortions) are given greater weight than other evils.

Now, we agree that the Democratic Party clearly supports abortion and homosexual marriage. What intrinsic evils do you think Republicans support? You said “most of the others.” Name them. My guess is…they aren’t intrinsic evils and/or Republicans don’t support them in the clear manner that the Democratic Party supports abortion.

 

[bellasbane]

Again, I think you and too many others are misunderstanding the word “intrinsic”. :tsktsk:

What this means is that all abortions are wrong. To save the life of the Mother? Nope, too bad, It is God’s will that you die in childbirth. Same for incest and rape. God’s will. Baby deformed? Let it live anyhow. That is what God wants.

But since “intrinsic” does NOT mean “infinite”, abortion does not trump anything and everything else.:dts::dts:

Realisticly, the Democrats support the intrinsic evils of abortion and homosexual marriage. Realisticly, The Republicans support most of the other intrinsic evils. That is why the Bishops do not want us to be single issue voters.

BTW, none of my opinions have been endorsed by my cats, my fish, my birds; or the opossum and squirrels on the apartment property

In your quest for clarity, please look at your own errors of judgement. I think you and many others misunderstand what Catholics believe about abortion. What we oppose it the intentional ending of an innocent life. However, we recognize that there may be situations when it is medically necessary (e.g., ectopic pregnancies) to end a pregnancy early, because the mother would otherwise die. At that point, every effort is made to save BOTH lives. However, if that happens very early in the pregnancy, we suffer in the knowledge that the chances of the baby surviving are very low.

Your set up of “To save the life of the Mother? Nope, too bad” speaks to a false choice. Medically the situation simply does not exist where such a choice is ever necessary. The only possible outcomes are ever: both die, baby dies, both live. Catholics strive for the third outcome, NEVER the first, and we mourn when the first or second happens.

Being a Faithful Catholic is not about following rules as much as about understanding why we believe the things we do and acting on our beliefs. Why do you think Jesus spent so much time arguing with the Pharisees? Following “rules” is what the Pharisees were all about. They believed that if they simply followed all the rules to the letter of “the law” they would be right with God. Jesus spent a lot of time trying to set them straight about what the law really meant and how it should be applied, but most continued to stick to what they thought was the safe path.

Regarding the Bishops’ document - all the various issues it raises are simply offshoots of Jesus’ commandments in Matthew 22:36-40. Love your God with all your heart, soul and mind and love your neighbor as yourself.. If you simply strive to understand and act on those commandments - you will be doing what God wants.

God wants us to think for ourselves and use our free will to make choices - he has given us leaders and teachers and each other in the Church help us do that, but ultimately it comes down to each of us praying and examining our own conscience, and making a decision.

Peace.

 

[bellasbane]

Ah…now I see why you aren’t making any sense. You are misquoting me. I never said that “abortion is greater than any other intrinsic evils.” I said that intrinsic evils (i.e. not just abortions) are given greater weight than other evils.

Now, we agree that the Democratic Party clearly supports abortion and homosexual marriage. What intrinsic evils do you think Republicans support? You said “most of the others.” Name them. My guess is…they aren’t intrinsic evils and/or Republicans don’t support them in the clear manner that the Democratic Party supports abortion.

I don’t believe same sex civil unions or partnerships are intrinsically evil and homosexual marriages simply do not exist - so how can they be evil? In order for something to be intrinsically evil, one could never come up with a situation when it would be OK.

 

[Corki]

I don’t believe same sex civil unions or partnerships are intrinsically evil and homosexual marriages simply do not exist - so how can they be evil? In order for something to be intrinsically evil, one could never come up with a situation when it would be OK.

The Church says otherwise. (CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS
TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS, CDF) bolding mine.

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.(4)

Even without the use of the word “intrinsic,” it meets your qualification that one can never come up with a situation where it would be “ok”.

This is exactly the kind of issue that the USCCB document gives cover for. Most Catholics wouldn’t know where to look for the definitive statements that are necessary to understand the USCCB document.

 

[rlg94086]

I don’t believe same sex civil unions or partnerships are intrinsically evil and homosexual marriages simply do not exist - so how can they be evil? In order for something to be intrinsically evil, one could never come up with a situation when it would be OK.

So, when is there a situation when it is ok?

 

[gilliam]

I don’t believe same sex civil unions or partnerships are intrinsically evil and homosexual marriages simply do not exist - so how can they be evil? In order for something to be intrinsically evil, one could never come up with a situation when it would be OK.

Homosexual marriage is just another excuse to have sex out of wedlock. There is never a situation where it would be OK. Chaste friendships are OK, but they aren’t this phony marriage.

 

[bellasbane]

Homosexual marriage is just another excuse to have sex out of wedlock. There is never a situation where it would be OK. Chaste friendships are OK, but they aren’t this phony marriage.

I agree - calling it “marriage” is phony and homosexual sex is “intrinsically disordered” (CCC: 2357), but the Church does not go so far as to say it is “intrinsically evil”.

As for “sex out of wedlock” - I believe the issue is FAR more complicated than you want to make it. Annulments demonstrate that the blessing of a priest does not necessary create a marriage even if the partners have had sex. I know people who have had their marriage annulled after being together for years. Was it OK for them to have sex during that time?