USCCB and politics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Loud-living-dogma
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This Pope actually does study, plus he listens to experts on many different subjects, and his book on climate change has plenty of scientific (name removed by moderator)ut and links. Also, especially based on his past experiences, I would say he knows quite a bit about economics.

Instead of relying on knee-jerk reactions, some would be better served if they actually read maybe a good biography on him and also many of his pronouncements which can be found on-line.

Climate change and economics do have moral aspects intrinsic to them since they affect billions of people worldwide, especially since everything is interconnected nowadays.
 
I don’t disagree, but him being the Pope and having an opinion does not mean I have to share that opinion. We all want to help the poor and have a safe planet and have fair immigration policy, but I we may very well disagree on what the best way to achieve those goals is.
 
Metis1 said:
Climate change and economics do have moral aspects intrinsic to them since they affect billions of people worldwide, especially since everything is interconnected nowadays.
Click to expand...
The fact that millions of people may be impacted by a decision does not at all mean that the decision involves a moral choice. It simply means the decision is important, not that it is a question of sin.
 
Metis1 said:
The Pope chimed in about the border wall. Don't build walls, Pope Francis says | Reuters

The Pope chimed in on having a living wage: Living wage | National Catholic Reporter

The Pope chimed in on global warming in his book “Encyclical On Climate Change & Inequality”.
Click to expand...
The question here is not whether the pope has published his opinions on these topics, but whether his positions are moral or prudential. If you think these issues involve moral choices then explain what they are. Is it immoral to believe the scientific case for AGW has serious problems? The Vatican has a wall around it; what is the moral argument that prohibits other nations from building a wall, and while we would like everyone to earn a living wage, again - where is the argument that a person’s salary should be based on what needs rather than on the value of the service he provides?

All of these are prudential issues about which it is legitimate to hold differences of opinion. There is no argument that disagreement on these points is immoral.
 
Ender said:
How does one “weigh in with morality” on prudential questions that don’t involve moral choices? The point that gets lost in these discussions is that only a literal handful of political issues also include a moral component, while most of the issues the bishops speak out on do not.
Click to expand...
All voluntary human actions have a moral component. That the application of the Church’s moral doctrine to a particular situation is not unambiguous does not mean that it is beyond the scope of morality.

That said, the American bishops tend to excessively (and too strongly) comment on questions of the prudential order, which causes scandal of the weak (insofar as many who hold views not censured by the Church believe that they are in dissent, with consequent ruin to their souls).
 
The Pope says “we need to help the poor.” I agree with that, that is a statement with regards to morals.

If the pop says, “we need to help the poor by mandating a $20 an hour minimum wage” I will ignore that, because now he’s venturing into economic policy, and propagating a policy with proven negative economic impacts. Raising the minimum wage tends to push the least skilled people out of the job market because they can no longer provide a service equal to the wage, which leads to the jobs they used to do being automated, outsourced, or otherwise replacing human labor.

He can state moral goals, the policy of how to achieve that goal is open for debate.
 
Arkansan said:
All voluntary human actions have a moral component. That the application of the Church’s moral doctrine to a particular situation is not unambiguous does not mean that it is beyond the scope of morality.
Click to expand...
I want to be very careful about our terms. I don’t believe all actions may be judged as either moral or immoral; I think most of them are amoral. Choosing to eat my peas before my potatoes, while it is a voluntary action, really doesn’t have a moral component.

As you said, what we are really discussing is the application of moral doctrine in specific circumstances, and it is precisely because the situation is ambiguous - that is, the best approach is not known - that our choices are prudential and not moral.

If I try to do the right thing, but err because I cannot know for sure what that is, I have made a mistake, but I have not sinned. What I object to are the judgments made about why a person does something, which is what we have with the bishops’ comments on political issues.
 
The word “sin” means “to miss the mark”, therefore any position we may take that puts innocent people into jeopardy is a “sin”-- at least according to Catholic teachings. To not take actions to try and slow down or even reverse global warming, for an example, can be and should be considered a sin because, according to our own Department of Defense here in the States, billions will most likely be affected negatively if we don’t.

I certainly do not believe the Pope is an idiot or ill-informed, although I do not believe that he must be blindly followed either. I guess the question to some would be what exactly is your motive or source for disagreeing with the Pope? Where does your information come from? Even if one is not sure what’s causing global warming, wouldn’t it make far more sense to go in the direction of caution, especially since there are so many side-benefits if we do?

I use global warming as an example, but there are other things that may involve “sin” as well. There is no magic wall that separates the secular from the theological-- ultimately, they all interrelate.
 
Metis1 said:
The word “sin” means “to miss the mark”, therefore any position we may take that puts innocent people into jeopardy is a “sin”-- at least according to Catholic teachings.
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree with this because it doesn’t include any concept of intent. If I do what I think is best, but it turns out badly, I have not sinned. Sin is a moral evil, and putting people in jeopardy is not always sinful.
To not take actions to try and slow down or even reverse global warming, for an example, can be and should be considered a sin because, according to our own Department of Defense here in the States, billions will most likely be affected negatively if we don’t.
Click to expand...
In order for it to be a sin to not do anything to slow down or reverse global warming it would be necessary for one to believe that man was actually responsible for it in the first place. I am certainly not morally obligated to address a problem I don’t believe exists.
I certainly do not believe the Pope is an idiot or ill-informed, although I do not believe that he must be blindly followed either. I guess the question to some would be what exactly is your motive or source for disagreeing with the Pope? Where does your information come from?
Click to expand...
Global warming is a scientific question. One should look to science for answers, not the pope or the church.
Even if one is not sure what’s causing global warming, wouldn’t it make far more sense to go in the direction of caution, especially since there are so many side-benefits if we do?
Click to expand...
This is a practical question, not a moral one. We should always do what we think is best…but this includes opposing global warming “solutions” if we think they are unworkable, misguided, or harmful.
I use global warming as an example, but there are other things that may involve “sin” as well. There is no magic wall that separates the secular from the theological-- ultimately, they all interrelate.
Click to expand...
Global warming is as good an example as any, but I see it (and virtually every other issue) as an entirely prudential question: what should we do that leads to the best overall result? There is no moral choice here. Differing over what actions will lead to the best outcome is an entirely practical matter, about which diametrically opposed opinions are - morally - equally valid.
 
No we are not bound by all USCCB pronouncements, unless of course the pronouncement is based on a truth already taught by the Church.

For instance:

I received a text saying the USCCB supports “gun control”. I’m not a fan of gun control.

At the same time, I know that the government practices “people control” (aka, regulation)–If you don’t believe me, read the 2nd amendment and pay attention to every word.

I don’t believe that the USCCB has taken this “people control” into account, and I am not going to investigate the truth in that.

So, I will continue to be opposed to “gun control”.

Besides, I also know that “gun control” is unconstitutional, and it’s black and white.
 
Again, “sin” means “to miss the mark”, and one may “miss the mark” intentionally or accidentally. It is then up to the Judge to determine if there are mitigating circumstances, such as “intent”.

There are also sins of commission and sins of omission, therefore if I stand by and watch a child drown when I could save it well fits into the latter.

The issue of global warming, is serious, and as a scientist (although in a different area), I’ve followed this for decades through scientific sources. The only obstacle is political-- period. Ignoring the science and instead believing the right-wing politicians on this is a “sin”, much like if I do 95 in a 55 and then tell the officer that I don’t think it should be 55 as an excuse. Ignorance is no excuse, especially since there’s more than enough info to conclude that it’s “55”.
 
We are moral beings. Most of what we do has a moral component. One sits down to watch television, one must consider the morality of the show, the morality of the time spent watching the show, maybe the witness on gives to others of the household, etc.

Likewise, political groupings also have moral principles that should affect their actions. Most laws have a moral component and a political component. Some immoral actions are made illegal, some are not. Whether or not something immoral should be illegal requires an understanding of politics, as well as the understanding of morality. The Bishops in the United States tell us that the moral evil of abortion should be illegal, but not the moral evil of having sex outside marriage. Should they do this? Here is their mission statement, as it were,
in Canon Law.
Can. 447 A conference of bishops, a permanent institution, is a group of bishops of some nation or certain territory who jointly exercise certain pastoral functions for the Christian faithful of their territory in order to promote the greater good which the Church offers to humanity, especially through forms and programs of the apostolate fittingly adapted to the circumstances of time and place, according to the norm of law.
Click to expand...
So please do not believe those who say the bishops and the USCCB should not be commenting on what is happening in their territory. It is one of the missions of the Church to be the light of Christ in the world in all things.
 
Metis1 said:
This Pope actually does study, plus he listens to experts on many different subjects, and his book on climate change has plenty of scientific (name removed by moderator)ut and links.
Click to expand...
I’m not seeing this on the climate change issue.
pnewton said:
So please do not believe those who say the bishops and the USCCB should not be commenting on what is happening in their territory. It is one of the missions of the Church to be the light of Christ in the world in all things.
Click to expand...
Better to hold your tongue if you aren’t informed as to the subject matter at hand.

No one is being the light to anything if they don’t examine the issues properly.
 
Last edited:
Metis1 said:
The issue of global warming, is serious, and as a scientist (although in a different area), I’ve followed this for decades through scientific sources. The only obstacle is political-- period. Ignoring the science and instead believing the right-wing politicians on this is a “sin”,
Click to expand...
I have followed the issue as well, and in order to believe AGW is real one has to ignore decades of malfeasance and dishonesty. If you believe the science is settled then you really haven’t been following it carefully enough.

Ender
 
pnewton said:
We are moral beings. Most of what we do has a moral component. One sits down to watch television, one must consider the morality of the show, the morality of the time spent watching the show, maybe the witness on gives to others of the household, etc.
Click to expand...
This is true. It may be completely irrelevant, but it is still true. I think the fact that you cannot discuss the bishops in the context of the actual issue indicates the weakness of your position.
So please do not believe those who say the bishops and the USCCB should not be commenting on what is happening in their territory.
Click to expand...
“What happens in their territory?” It is this very vagueness that demonstrates the problem. The bishops are supporting or opposing particular positions on particular political issues, and you respond by talking about abortion and “things”. Everyone recognizes the validity of the bishops speaking out on abortion. As I have said multiple times, that is one of the very few issues that is both moral and political.

If you want to defend the bishops when they speak out on other political issues then choose an issue that doesn’t involve an intrinsic evil and explain what moral choice confronts us in resolving it. Pick any issue at all. It’s not like the bishops have refrained from speaking out; you can pick almost any topic you like: global warming, immigration, the budget, gun control, whatever. I don’t care what issue you choose.

I have issued this challenge before and I have yet to receive a meaningful answer. Where is the moral choice involved in determining the best way to solve a political issue? The point is, if there is no moral choice involved then it cannot be a moral issue…and if it isn’t a moral issue then how does one justify the involvement of the bishops in purely political questions?
 
Ender said:
. Where is the moral choice involved in determining the best way to solve a political issue?
Click to expand...
I have seen that answered many times. I myself have answered that on numerous issues. You just deny it an move on. Now if you want to view it as weakness because I will not engage you, that is your prerogative, just like it is yours to view an analogy as some form of evasion.

I would encourage everyone reading this to engage your reason and see the fallacy of assuming any sort of non-answer as weakness. That is absurd. Likewise, the use of examples like I gave is not a form of weakness. It is the use of an example.
 
pnewton said:
I have seen that answered many times. I myself have answered that on numerous issues.
Click to expand...
Again, no answer. If you’ve answered this in the past you should surely be able to respond now. It shouldn’t take any more time than you just spent telling us you’ve already answered it.
I would encourage everyone reading this to engage your reason and see the fallacy of assuming any sort of non-answer as weakness. That is absurd.
Click to expand...
I have challenged not just you but everyone who reads this topic: give one example of a moral choice involved in determining the best way to resolve a political issue. If anyone can do this my position is destroyed.

The fact that neither you nor anyone else has responded effectively does show weakness - the weakness of holding a position that cannot be defended.
 
Ender said:
Where is the moral choice involved in determining the best way to solve a political issue?
Click to expand...
Polítical in so far as we are zoon politikon.
Discernment is practical. If it cannot be applied to the concrete here and now issues to be solved,what is it for?
Second thought,and I leave cause I do not qualify to participate and it is fine and understandable, though yours isn t a " local " question: Do away with the word " political" in your question and look at it from Catholic Social Doctrine. Pick your subject and go ahead "apolitically"in the sense of " not partisan ". Refer to the Compendium as a means to help .
It will be a pleasure to discuss it with you some time.
God bless ,Ender and all.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top