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

[Corki]

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?

Yes, a marriage enjoys the favor of the law. It is considered valid, until proven otherwise. The couple if perfectly expected to act and live as man and wife, even if the marriage is later found to be null.

A homosexual union could never have that.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

It basically means that abortion is no more, and no less, important than many other issues. That marriage is no less, and no more, important than other issues. It allows Catholics to make their own choices about what is important.

So, killing the unborn carries no more weight than making sure we clothe and feed a poor person. That is, in essence, what the bottom line is.

The document also seems to want to take all ability to argue these points away. How can any life loving Catholic argue or debate with a pro-choice person? After all, the prochoicer can now simply say they are following the Bishops directives in this document…

All debate has been stifled.

I guess the same proportion of Catholics will vote the same way they did in 2008. Really despicable.

 

[gilliam]

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”.

Here is the relavent section, :. “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They 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.”

It seems pretty clear to me. Something that intrinsically closes yourself to grace and prevents you from going to heaven is intrinsically evil. In any case, “Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

 

[TheRealJuliane]

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 is life in the womb, and none of the other life issues mean a thing if we are destroying life in the womb.

You are of course, 100% correct on this. If the Church had not aligned itself with the Democrat party’s stated interest in helping the poor, we wouldn’t be here right now. That’s why the Bishops waffle around, not stating what faithful Catholics should do. Gosh, and we wouldn’t want the threat of the government taking away our 501C3 designation either, would we? Running scared and throwing in with the party of death…our Church has lost its moorings…

 

[Ender]

That’s why the Bishops waffle around, not stating what faithful Catholics should do.

I, too, believe that the ambiguity in the document is intentional. Given the concerns raised over the original version there can be no doubt that the bishops were aware of the problems with that document. That those problems were ostensibly addressed - but not repaired - cannot be understood as mere oversight.

Ender

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I, too, believe that the ambiguity in the document is intentional. Given the concerns raised over the original version there can be no doubt that the bishops were aware of the problems with that document. That those problems were ostensibly addressed - but not repaired - cannot be understood as mere oversight.

Ender

Of course it is intentional. It provides Catholics who vote Democrat with cover.

 

[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**.

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”.

Please see your quote above and answer my previous question: When is a homosexual union OK?

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?

Yes, it was.

 

[bellasbane]

Here is the relavent section, :. “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They 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.”

It seems pretty clear to me. Something that intrinsically closes yourself to grace and prevents you from going to heaven is intrinsically evil. In any case, “Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

Do you also believe masturbation is intrinsically evil?

 

[bellasbane]

Please see your quote above and answer my previous question: When is a homosexual union OK?

Where do I use the term “homosexual union”? That’s your terminology, not mine.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

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

I’ve never quite understood the bit about Catholics not being “one issue” voters. If abortion, etc. are above all, then Catholics are supposed to be one issue voters and nothing else counts.

I’m with Ender on this one in his last paragraph.

 

[rlg94086]

Where do I use the term “homosexual union”? That’s your terminology, not mine.

So…“I don’t believe same sex civil unions or partnerships are intrinsically evil”

…how is a “same sex civil union or partnership” different than a “homosexual union?”

 

[irishpatrick]

You are of course, 100% correct on this. If the Church had not aligned itself with the Democrat party’s stated interest in helping the poor, we wouldn’t be here right now. That’s why the Bishops waffle around, not stating what faithful Catholics should do. Gosh, and we wouldn’t want the threat of the government taking away our 501C3 designation either, would we? Running scared and throwing in with the party of death…our Church has lost its moorings…

I think we need to keep in mind that Priests and Bishops came from Catholic homes, and many of those Catholic homes were die-hard Democrats. Therefore, many of those men (Bishops and Priests) cannot help but bring their left leaning tendecies into their thoughts today. I think many Priests and Bishops were taught (when they were young) to not trust Republicans, so in a way it makes sense that the Bishops would choose a middle of the road path because many of them likely believe the myth that the GOP hates the poor, etc.

They are human beings and imperfect and they really do need our prayers. We should not expect men in the Minsterial Priesthood to be able to cast off all their own leanings.

I just wish the Bishops would have made a simple statement, something like this: *The Catholic Church has concise and clear statements on all these issues. Please read and learn about what the Church teaches in Catechism of the Catholic Church. * I think that is really all they needed to say. No need for large documents, no need to re-invent the wheel, no need for new introductions–just point all Catholics to the Catechism. Two sentence statement.

 

[BVM_1221]

The reason “intrinsic evils” are of greater weight…

Let us stop right there.:coffeeread:

“Intrinsic” has nothing to do with weight, a quantity. It is a quality.:ehh:

Consider “intrinsic” to mean wholely, thoroughly, inherently…qualities.

By your mis-use of the word “intrinsic”, you are totaly distorting the meaning of the Bishops’ communication. :tsktsk:

Repeat: “Intrinsic” has nothing whatsoever to do with weight:dts:

 

[bellasbane]

So…“I don’t believe same sex civil unions or partnerships are intrinsically evil”

…how is a “same sex civil union or partnership” different than a “homosexual union?”

A civil union or partnership does not REQUIRE sexual intimacy like a marriage does. The government doesn’t really care whether the partners are having sex or not. All that matters is the legal arrangement regarding inheritance, “next of kin” rights, and other benefits that go along with it.

Have you ever heard of a “Boston Marriage” - kind of an interesting concept illustrated by Henry James in his book “The Bostonians” (1886). Some “Boston Marriages” may have been lesbian relationships, but there is no proof of any and there were certainly cases where it was simply a practical arrangement.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with two widows with small children who wish to remain celibate deciding to live together in order to share the burden of raising their kids and wanting some sort of legal benefits or protection for it. That is one example which in my mind takes the “intrinsic evil” out of same sex civil unions or partnerships.

 

[rlg94086]

Let us stop right there.:coffeeread:

“Intrinsic” has nothing to do with weight, a quantity. It is a quality.:ehh:

Our opinions are weighted, not the “intrinsic evil.” This is why you are confused.

 

[rlg94086]

A civil union or partnership does not REQUIRE sexual intimacy like a marriage does. The government doesn’t really care whether the partners are having sex or not. All that matters is the legal arrangement regarding inheritance, “next of kin” rights, and other benefits that go along with it.

Have you ever heard of a “Boston Marriage” - kind of an interesting concept illustrated by Henry James in his book “The Bostonians” (1886). Some “Boston Marriages” may have been lesbian relationships, but there is no proof of any and there were certainly cases where it was simply a practical arrangement.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with two widows with small children who wish to remain celibate deciding to live together in order to share the burden of raising their kids and wanting some sort of legal benefits or protection for it. That is one example which in my mind takes the “intrinsic evil” out of same sex civil unions or partnerships.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t see the Church as aligning itself with a particular party through the voter’s guide and find some of the posts rejecting parts of the document as picking and choosing issues according to a political bias, which the document seems to be trying to get Catholics to avoid doing, in my honest opinion.

People have posted as if the USCCB is wrong in how it approved the use of the document, because of their own disagreement with, and between, certain issues. The document does draw attention to certain issues to be opposed, but does not say that certain issues discount other issues. It provides a spectrum of issues as goals of a ‘total’ achievement of Catholic principles; which seems to be the overall informing Catholics what they feel to be the fulfilled forming of a conscience according to their teaching.

Some posters have challenged the ‘authority’ of the document, yet we have no bishops doing so, this far anyway. Do you not think that the bishops know that many Catholics accept this document as ‘teaching’ from them?

The same posters who have challenged the authority of the document, do not challenge the whole message of the document. This shows a personal bias, in my opinion, of parts of the message they are not comfortable with for what has appearances of partisan reasons. It’s as if they are trying to tell others which parts are to be adhered to and which parts are to be ignored, or at the very least ‘wrong’. This makes others, with opposing views, believe that they are right in rejecting the parts they disagree with and makes them believe those opposing them are the ones in the wrong. Now the divide is strengthened and defined according to laypersons.

I don’t believe the wording is meant to divide, but unify Catholics. If we step back and see ourselves as Catholics first and partisans second, I believe we are placing importance to that which we identify ourselves as, which is Christian first and secular second. That’s how we are called to form our consciences; faith first, politics second.

We are not forming a faith based conscience through heated debate, especially a debate on a secular level of partisan politics. Psalms 46:10 says, ‘Be still and see that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, and I will be exalted in the earth.’ That’s how we will successfully form a proper conscience, with humility before God and reflecting on that which the Church has provided.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I don’t see the Church as aligning itself with a particular party through the voter’s guide and find some of the posts rejecting parts of the document as picking and choosing issues according to a political bias, which the document seems to be trying to get Catholics to avoid doing, in my honest opinion.

People have posted as if the USCCB is wrong in how it approved the use of the document, because of their own disagreement with, and between, certain issues. The document does draw attention to certain issues to be opposed, but does not say that certain issues discount other issues. It provides a spectrum of issues as goals of a ‘total’ achievement of Catholic principles; which seems to be the overall informing Catholics what they feel to be the fulfilled forming of a conscience according to their teaching.

Some posters have challenged the ‘authority’ of the document, yet we have no bishops doing so, this far anyway. Do you not think that the bishops know that many Catholics accept this document as ‘teaching’ from them?

The same posters who have challenged the authority of the document, do not challenge the whole message of the document. This shows a personal bias, in my opinion, of parts of the message they are not comfortable with for what has appearances of partisan reasons. It’s as if they are trying to tell others which parts are to be adhered to and which parts are to be ignored, or at the very least ‘wrong’. This makes others, with opposing views, believe that they are right in rejecting the parts they disagree with and makes them believe those opposing them are the ones in the wrong. Now the divide is strengthened and defined according to laypersons.

I don’t believe the wording is meant to divide, but unify Catholics. If we step back and see ourselves as Catholics first and partisans second, I believe we are placing importance to that which we identify ourselves as, which is Christian first and secular second. That’s how we are called to form our consciences; faith first, politics second.

We are not forming a faith based conscience through heated debate, especially a debate on a secular level of partisan politics. Psalms 46:10 says, ‘Be still and see that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, and I will be exalted in the earth.’ That’s how we will successfully form a proper conscience, with humility before God and reflecting on that which the Church has provided.

I agree with this post.

 

[bellasbane]

I don’t see the Church as aligning itself with a particular party through the voter’s guide and find some of the posts rejecting parts of the document as picking and choosing issues according to a political bias, which the document seems to be trying to get Catholics to avoid doing, in my honest opinion.

People have posted as if the USCCB is wrong in how it approved the use of the document, because of their own disagreement with, and between, certain issues. The document does draw attention to certain issues to be opposed, but does not say that certain issues discount other issues. It provides a spectrum of issues as goals of a ‘total’ achievement of Catholic principles; which seems to be the overall informing Catholics what they feel to be the fulfilled forming of a conscience according to their teaching.

Some posters have challenged the ‘authority’ of the document, yet we have no bishops doing so, this far anyway. Do you not think that the bishops know that many Catholics accept this document as ‘teaching’ from them?

The same posters who have challenged the authority of the document, do not challenge the whole message of the document. This shows a personal bias, in my opinion, of parts of the message they are not comfortable with for what has appearances of partisan reasons. It’s as if they are trying to tell others which parts are to be adhered to and which parts are to be ignored, or at the very least ‘wrong’. This makes others, with opposing views, believe that they are right in rejecting the parts they disagree with and makes them believe those opposing them are the ones in the wrong. Now the divide is strengthened and defined according to laypersons.

I don’t believe the wording is meant to divide, but unify Catholics. If we step back and see ourselves as Catholics first and partisans second, I believe we are placing importance to that which we identify ourselves as, which is Christian first and secular second. That’s how we are called to form our consciences; faith first, politics second.

We are not forming a faith based conscience through heated debate, especially a debate on a secular level of partisan politics. Psalms 46:10 says, ‘Be still and see that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, and I will be exalted in the earth.’ That’s how we will successfully form a proper conscience, with humility before God and reflecting on that which the Church has provided.

Me too!

 

[rlg94086]

I don’t see the Church as aligning itself with a particular party through the voter’s guide and find some of the posts rejecting parts of the document as picking and choosing issues according to a political bias, which the document seems to be trying to get Catholics to avoid doing, in my honest opinion.

People have posted as if the USCCB is wrong in how it approved the use of the document, because of their own disagreement with, and between, certain issues. The document does draw attention to certain issues to be opposed, but does not say that certain issues discount other issues. It provides a spectrum of issues as goals of a ‘total’ achievement of Catholic principles; which seems to be the overall informing Catholics what they feel to be the fulfilled forming of a conscience according to their teaching.

Some posters have challenged the ‘authority’ of the document, yet we have no bishops doing so, this far anyway. Do you not think that the bishops know that many Catholics accept this document as ‘teaching’ from them?

The same posters who have challenged the authority of the document, do not challenge the whole message of the document. This shows a personal bias, in my opinion, of parts of the message they are not comfortable with for what has appearances of partisan reasons. It’s as if they are trying to tell others which parts are to be adhered to and which parts are to be ignored, or at the very least ‘wrong’. This makes others, with opposing views, believe that they are right in rejecting the parts they disagree with and makes them believe those opposing them are the ones in the wrong. Now the divide is strengthened and defined according to laypersons.

I don’t believe the wording is meant to divide, but unify Catholics. If we step back and see ourselves as Catholics first and partisans second, I believe we are placing importance to that which we identify ourselves as, which is Christian first and secular second. That’s how we are called to form our consciences; faith first, politics second.

We are not forming a faith based conscience through heated debate, especially a debate on a secular level of partisan politics. Psalms 46:10 says, ‘Be still and see that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, and I will be exalted in the earth.’ That’s how we will successfully form a proper conscience, with humility before God and reflecting on that which the Church has provided.

I mostly agree. I would only clarify that the document does state that issues are* not* equal. .

From the intro:

It does not offer a quantitative listing of issues for equal consideration, but outlines and makes important distinctions among moral issues acknowledging that **some involve the clear obligation to oppose intrinsic evils which can never be justified and that others require action to pursue justice and promote the **common good.

So, the issues of “intrinsic evil” don’t “discount” the other issues, but they do carry more weight, since they can “never be justified.” As Catholics, we can disagree on many issues, because they are a matter for prudential judgement. As I explained to another poster, there is nothing wrong with making “intrinsic evil” issues your most important determining factor, since they do carry more weight. What the Bishops are saying is that you can’t then ignore all of the other issues. To me, the document is pretty clear about that. To others, it is unclear.