Voter's Guide

[Catherine_W]

Is the Voters Guide for Serious Catholics supported by infallible teaching? And if so, what makes it infallible?

This is for those catholics that to not agree with what it says. So that I can say look this is where it comes from.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

The CA Voting guide in 2004 was rejected by many bishops and not allowed to be distributed in many areas, I expect the same for the 2008 version. It is too narrowly focused for USCCB approval.
usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/

 

[SoCalRC]

You will notice that one of the first links on the USCCB page is to a doctrinal note from the Vatican on the issues of voting from 2002.

The CAF guide supposedly uses this document, but then truncates the list of moral principles which Rome has declared “that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation”. For example, an obligation to oppose “modern forms of slavery”, “Peace”, and to the development of an economy “with respect for social Justice” are all dropped.

Further, some prinicples, like “Analogously, the family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such” are severely abridged (in this case, solely to gay marriage).

When asked several years ago about the guide, the Church discouraged its use. A task force was formed and now there is a prohibition, universally supported by the USCCB’s pro-life committe, which would seem to preclude the guides use altogether (primarily on the basis that it is partisan, not theological. Again, you can read more about this at the USCCB’s web site.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The CA Voting guide in 2004 was rejected by many bishops and not allowed to be distributed in many areas, I expect the same for the 2008 version. It is too narrowly focused for USCCB approval.
usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/

This trick is getting old.

The USCCB’s lawyers recommended not supporting or distributing the CA voting guide, because it might be seen as partisan and affect the Church’s tax-exempt status.

The Bishops never said the CA voting guide was morally or doctrinally wrong.

 

[SoCalRC]

This trick is getting old.

The USCCB’s lawyers recommended not supporting or distributing the CA voting guide, because it might be seen as partisan and affect the Church’s tax-exempt status.

The Bishops never said the CA voting guide was morally or doctrinally wrong.

And this is getting old. The Church advised against the guide’s use. Also, a commission was formed and there is now (as of 2007) a prohibition in place over the use of partisan materials.

The best source of information on Catholic Doctrine is the Catholic Church. Since Rome has bothered to prepare a document explaining our obligations in Public Life, Catholics would do well to read it instead of relying on a guide that does not factor in things which the Church has specifically identified as “moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation”.

In fact, I think that the dangers of the guide are already clear here, since even the question of infallibility has been raised and the guide has clearly given more than one Catholic a confused understanding of what is, and what is not, official Church teaching.

If Catholics want to hear what the CAF has to say, great - but deferring one’s Catholic and Christian responsibilities is not what the Church recommends:

“In this context [limiting the harm], it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

 

[vern_humphrey]

And this is getting old. The Church advised against the guide’s use. Also, a commission was formed and there is now (as of 2007) a prohibition in place over the use of partisan materials.

Because it might threaten the Church’s tax situation. Not because it was in violation of Catholic doctrine or morality.

If Catholics want to hear what the CAF has to say, great - but deferring one’s Catholic and Christian responsibilities is not what the Church recommends:

I recommend you think on that.

 

[SoCalRC]

I recommend you think on that.

Does that quip really make sense to you? You are arguing for deference to a lay produced document over a Doctrinal Note from the Church.

Has religious literacy among Catholics really sunk to the point where people think that even makes sense? There is already a name for rejecting the Church’s authority, it is called being a Protestant. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Does that quip really make sense to you? You are arguing for deference to a lay produced document over a Doctrinal Note from the Church.

Has religious literacy among Catholics really sunk to the point where people think that even makes sense? There is already a name for rejecting the Church’s authority, it is called being a Protestant. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel.

Note that the USCCB has no authority beyond what the individual bishop chooses to apply in his diocese. It is an advisory body.

 

[Sheeniac]

This trick is getting old.

The USCCB’s lawyers recommended not supporting or distributing the CA voting guide, because it might be seen as partisan and affect the Church’s tax-exempt status.

The Bishops never said the CA voting guide was morally or doctrinally wrong.

We had a note in our parish bulletin today stating that no other voting guides could be distributed on the property because they were too ideological. I found that puzzling, myself.

 

[SoCalRC]

Note that the USCCB has no authority beyond what the individual bishop chooses to apply in his diocese. It is an advisory body.

Of course, that is why it could only iniitially advise against usage originally. The body itself has to work collegiately, which is why the broader prohibition took time and is still, despite it’s name, not nec. binding.

But that is not the point. The point is that Rome’s moral authority is beyond question. The Vatican’s Statement on the matter can found either on the USCCB website:

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/

Or downloaded directly from Rome:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

Please notice two things:

1. It is addressed to all of the lay faithful (as well as the Bishops)
2. It lists 9 principles which Catholics cannot compromise in voting, even in the context of “limiting the harm” (a principle introduced by John Paul II in EVANGALIUM VITAE).

The CAF guide declares 5 non negotiables, which are not even a wholly matching subset. Further, it accepts proportionality, even with regards to what it declares to be non-negotiables.

I don’t dispute the CAF’s right to generate a voting guide which it claims is Catholic. I don’t even dispute a diocese’s right to use it, the Magesterial responsibilities for their flocks are theres, not mine.

But I strenuously object to the portrayal of the CAF materials as Church doctrine. The guide simply cannot supercede a DOCTRINAL NOTE from the Vatican. Further, I object to any attempt to obscure or detract from legitimate questions about its authority. The original question was ‘is the CAF guide infallible?’ The proper answer (already given) is ‘no, in of itself it has no authority and is not even a reliable source on official Church Doctrine’.

 

[mary_bobo]

It seems to me after reading this and other, longer threads on the subject, that we will all be safe if we don’t vote at all.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Note that the USCCB has no authority beyond what the individual bishop chooses to apply in his diocese. It is an advisory body.

And that means we can reject them in favor of a guide prepared by a clearly partisan organization which starts off insulting everyone by calling its guide for “serious” Catholics? It seems as i’ve said before that many in CAF seem to have a poor opinion of the USCCB and others in position of authority in the country. We are being asked to ignore Churcht teaching in favor of a partisan document which IMO at least, incorrectly states Church teaching.

 

[vern_humphrey]

And that means we can reject them in favor of a guide prepared by a clearly partisan organization which starts off insulting everyone by calling its guide for “serious” Catholics? It seems as i’ve said before that many in CAF seem to have a poor opinion of the USCCB and others in position of authority in the country. We are being asked to ignore Churcht teaching in favor of a partisan document which IMO at least, incorrectly states Church teaching.

Who’s rejecting anything?

Some people here said the Bishops rejected the CA Voter’s Guide. That is false – the Bishop’s lawyers advised it could affect the Church’s tax-exempt status. They did not find any fault in the doctrine or the morals expressed by the CA Guide.

Our position is simple: Given two candidates, one of whom espouses the pro-life position (albeit imperfectly) and the other espouses the pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

We say no.

 

[fix]

Who’s rejecting anything?

Some people here said the Bishops rejected the CA Voter’s Guide. That is false – the Bishop’s lawyers advised it could affect the Church’s tax-exempt status. They did not find any fault in the doctrine or the morals expressed by the CA Guide.

Our position is simple: Given two candidates, one of whom espouses the pro-life position (albeit imperfectly) and the other espouses the pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

We say no.

*…When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion … but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it … can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."

• The Cardinal had already explained that abortion is not proportionate to other issues, but is certainly proportionate to itself.
  The Ratzinger Fiasco

 

[vern_humphrey]

Not quite. What Cardinal Ratzinger said has been interpreted to mean a Catholic can vote for a pro-abortion candidate when there is a pro-life choice.

But the proportionate reasons test applies only when the choice is limited to pro-abortion candidates.

 

[fix]

Not quite. What Cardinal Ratzinger said has been interpreted to mean a Catholic can vote for a pro-abortion candidate when there is a pro-life choice.

But the proportionate reasons test applies only when the choice is limited to pro-abortion candidates.

Is that not what Fr. Pavone is saying in that piece?

 

[iamrefreshed]

You gotta love the irony.

There are those here at CAF who will tell others to follow church teaching when voting yet I’ve seen some of them on other threads supporting SSM or homosexual civil unions!

Make up your minds. Go with church teachings 100%

 

[AndyF]

Ratzinger said has been interpreted to mean a Catholic can vote for a pro-abortion candidate when there is a pro-life choice.

Huhhh?

And here I thought my signature axiom was gospel.

AndyF

I

 

[SoCalRC]

Who’s rejecting anything?

You, see below.

Some people here said the Bishops rejected the CA Voter’s Guide. That is false – the Bishop’s lawyers advised it could affect the Church’s tax-exempt status. They did not find any fault in the doctrine or the morals expressed by the CA Guide.

Actually, that statement is false. You are inferring a string of ‘facts’ from a brief news report that is several years old. The Bishop’s convened a commission and it resulted in a unanimous finding last year. If you would like the facts, you can read about them on the www.usccb.org website.

Our position is simple…

But the proportionate reasons test applies only when the choice is limited to pro-abortion candidates.

The problem is that “Our” (your) position is not the Church’s official position. The “proportionate reasons test”, particularly it’s use in ignoring moral principles that the Church has declared to be “moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation” may be acceptable to the folks doing the CAF voter guide, but it appears to not be acceptable to the Church:

“In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person.” - Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note, The Participation of Catholics in Public Life

You might find ‘non-negotiable’ easier to accept if we read the beginning of the next sentence:

" This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia …"

But you may have more difficulty with the rest. Subjects like modern forms of slavery, a socially just economy, and peace are placed at the same level as abortion. And none are subject to compromise.

This makes sense from a Catholic theological perspective, again as the document notes:

“The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine.”

After all, you can’t really be ‘pro-life’ in a Catholic sense if you are only committed to human life in some forms.

Again, I’m not passing judgement on people who believe we should truncate our faith for pragmatic purposes. I just think it is dishonest to portray such a philosophy as Church Doctrine when the Vatican has spoken so clearly on the matter for itself.

 

[SoCalRC]

Make up your minds. Go with church teachings 100%

I agree, if you can, reject the subset proposed by the CAF voter’s guide and embrace the broader list of important moral principles expoused by the Vatican:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

But in my experience it is harder than it seems. It is one thing to reject just gay marriage, it is harder to accept a broader principle of:

“Analogously [to abortion and fetal life], the family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such.” (Emphasis in original)

Let’s face it, most of us aren’t gay, so rejecting civil unions is relatively easy. But fighting back against the evil of modern divorce, truly embracing and supporting monogamy, and actively supporting family structures is a lot taller order.