Voter's Guide

[SpiritMeadow]

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:

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.

I agree. As I read the USCCB statement, the Doctrinal Note, and parts of Evang. Vitae. my mind starts to reel. There is no consistency between the documents on what are the intrinsicely evil issues. I got abortion, euthanasia, genocide, torture, unjust war, death penalty, cloning, embryonic research, modern slavery (drugs/prost)…but there are also religious freedom, marriage, education, sub-human living/working conditions…And I can’t get one document that clearly states which are which, and nobody says how to figure them out, but we are told that we can’t focus on one issue but must see Catholic teaching as whole, …LOL…its gonna be a long process to filter everything through every candidate.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Also the USCCB at #8 suggests that laity receive voter guides if endorced by their bishop, a state conference of the bishops, or the USCCB itself.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Also the USCCB at #8 suggests that laity receive voter guides if endorced by their bishop, a state conference of the bishops, or the USCCB itself.

In other words, one can accept a voter-guide published by a lay-ministry if it’s endorsed by their bishop or recognized group of bishops. Got it.

 

[Sheeniac]

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.

My issue with the guide (I skimmed the 40+ pages last night) is that while it mentions certain things (abortion, etc) as intrinsically evil, and then they go right into their opposition to the death penalty without ever mentioning that it is NOT intrinsically evil.

In fact, they never mention that it is a matter of conscience, as I believe that the Pope said (in his pre B16 days).

 

[Sheeniac]

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.

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.

After reading the Church document, it seemed to me that they believe that the only solutions available are those that are government based.

Indeed, it said that the faith based initiatives would complement and not replace the role of the government. For those of us who have the same concerns, but believe in smaller government (for a variety of reasons, but that unintended consequences can cancel out the good done by the government) and society’s responsibilities, it is very difficult to reconcile to personal conscience.

In addition, they were very adamant about their anti-war position. Yes, the Pope, per a Catholic Register article, had said that while he (and JP2) were against the war, now that things were ongoing, the US and allies had a responsibility to make sure things were in place before they left.

NOWHERE was this implied, let alone mentioned.

 

[SoCalRC]

I agree. As I read the USCCB statement, the Doctrinal Note, and parts of Evang. Vitae. my mind starts to reel.

Actually, I find them pretty consistant. The Vatican document lays out some basic concepts and explains how certain teachings should be applied. For example, it stresses the importance of a proper understanding of the Human Person (per the Second Vatican Council). And it gives 9 broad examples of principles we cannot compromise on. Remember, it is intended for Catholics around the world.

The USCCB document reiterates some of the foundational arguments in the Vatican statement, then it identifies 10 particular areas of importance to Catholic Voters. All 10 appear to fit under the broad themes laid out by Rome, but are much more locale specific. That is why we have the Church heirarchy we do, so we can get help applying Doctrine properly in a local context.

The only thing I found odd was a comment about weight and intrinsic evil. My suspician would be that there was not unanimity, so the door was left open for individual Bishops to stress priorities that they think most appropriate for their flock.

The problem is that the Vatican (of course) is right. Our faith is a coherent whole. Let’s take a single teaching. Let’s say a Catholic says, I don’t care about anything but being “pro-life”. Now let’s look at what the Papal instructions on this are to the laity:

"In effect the acknowledgment of the personal dignity of every human being demands the respect, the defence and the promotion of the rights of the human person. It is a question of inherent, universal and inviolable rights. No one, no individual, no group, no authority, no State, can change-let alone eliminate-them because such rights find their source in God himself.

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination." - CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI #38

If we use “the right to life” and a synomym for ‘abortion’, or even the narrower definition of ‘legalization of abortion’, this would be relatively easy to vote (though still harder than many would guess). In fact, I’ve heard the above argument echoed for just those things (‘if you aren’t alive, other rights don’t matter…’) But that definition of the “right to life” is not what the Pope is using. He means “right to life” as spelled out by the Second Vatican Council. We know this because it is spelled out in the next paragraph:

“The Church has never yielded in the face of all the violations that the right to life of every human being has received, and continues to receive, both from individuals and from those in authority. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor. The Second Vatican Council openly proclaimed: <<All offences against life itself, such as every kind of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all offences against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where men are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons; all these and the like are certainly criminal: they poison human society; and they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator>>” - CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI #38

So, if you truly want to be “pro life” using the Church’s definition, you are already concerned with a wide range of issues besides Roe v. Wade.

It is a matter of foundation. If you accept not just the Church’s position that abortion is a “grave moral disorder” (EV), but the Church’s explanation as to WHY it is so, then the same explanation compells you to reject a good many other things. Arguing scope and scale is, in of itself, something of a rejection of the underlying principle.

But when you think of it, why should this be easy? Being a Christian has never been easy. ‘Oh, gosh, my faith makes me a poor fit for partisan politics’ sort of pales when compared to ‘I wonder if I will be impaled or mauled by wild animals because of my faith…’

 

[SoCalRC]

After reading the Church document, it seemed to me that they believe that the only solutions available are those that are government based.

If you read the Vatican statement you will that the Church’s position is that no government, even a Democracy, has legitimacy if it does not recognize, and exist to serve, the inalienable rights of the Human Person.

Government policy certainly is capable of driving poverty and infant mortality upwards (as we can see now), so government cannot be excluded from a solution.

Fitting political ideology is not the Church’s concern. I don’t mean that smugly, or insultingly, it just is.

*t is very difficult to reconcile to personal conscience.
*

For everyone (though at different points). However, we are Catholic, not Protestant. We actually profess that we believe in the Apostolic nature of our Church. In essense, we state that our Church was founded by Christ and has a gift of moral authority.
Sheeniac;3194303:

In addition, they were very adamant about their anti-war position.

That would be expected. Two Popes have stated that the war does not meet the criteria for Just War under the Catechism. Further, the Holy See made direct efforts to prevent it. From the Church’s point of view, the war is immoral. Even George Weigel has conceded as much.

You’ll hear some folks make a big deal about about the Pope not invoking infallibility, or directly ordering Catholics world wide not to participate. But this is a bit nonsensical. Papal infallibility has almost never been used, and Popes, since the mid 19th century at least, work on building unity and peace, not fractures and splinters in an already divided faith.

Yes, the Pope, per a Catholic Register article, had said that while he (and JP2) were against the war, now that things were ongoing, the US and allies had a responsibility to make sure things were in place before they left.

NOWHERE was this implied, let alone mentioned.

I think you are thinking of a George Weigel column. Look carefully, he is a little sneaky with his wording. Actually, the concerns were first raised by Bishops here in the US about our special obligation to the millions of refugees, disproportionately Christian that our invasion and occupasion was creating. The Bishops were also concerned about a shift in US policy that included aiding Sunni militia groups who, in turn, were engaging in ethnic cleansing and persecution of Christians.

From the US point of view, there was a strategic purpose. You get less violence if you basically ‘pick sides’ in an area and let them drive everyone else out. The Bishops felt we had a moral obligation towards the side we were sacrificing for the sake of progress.

But requests for things like safe haven areas in the North for Christians, dramatically increased acceptance of refugees here in the US, etc. were ignored. About 7 months later, I think June of last year, the Vatican took the issue up. The Pope made it a primary subject of a meeting with President Bush. Again, the US has not altered policy in the ways requested. And the Italian press conjectured that the lack of response is why Sec. State Rice was denied a requested audience with the Pope later in the year (the Vatican simply notes that the Pope was on vacation).

So, it would be accurate to say that the Church believes we have a moral obligation to the Iraqis who have been grievously injured in the invasion and occupation. But the Vatican has also indicated that permanent occupation is not moral or acceptable. Since the Project for the New American Century has been calling for a permanent occupation of Iraq for strategic self interest since at least 1997, and many of the individuals involved with that think tank have been directly involved with US Iraq policy (**** Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and George Weigel as just some of the individuals involved), the Church appears concerned that permanent occupation may, in fact, be unstated US policy.

If you read the USCCB statement in that context, ‘orderly’ and an emphasis on truely whole (an unoccupied soverign nation), there does not seem to be any contradiction with Rome.

Please understand, I am not saying that accepting or rejecting any of this makes someone better or worse. We just have to remember context. CAF can decide to pick and choose teachings, but Bishops cannot. As the the Catechism reminds us, they are “not Vicars of the Pope”. Their Magesterial ‘power’ rests solely on the Pope being the rightful successor to Peter, the Vicar of Christ.

 

[SoCalRC]

In fact, they never mention that it is a matter of conscience, as I believe that the Pope said (in his pre B16 days).

No, he simply said that it does not carry the same weight as an infallbile teaching. Remember, our beliefs on abortion, murder, and euthanasia are “infallible” by virtue of universal agreement among the Bishops (see EVANGALIUM VITAE). Our current teaching on the death penalty was formally introduced in the same document and expressed as a consequence of the same fundemental teaching.

It is not deemed infallible, but it is expressed in an Encyclical, second only to an “Apostolic Constitution” in terms of documents a Pope can use to convey importance. In addition, it is formally part of the Catechism. This makes it, by the Church’s own definition, an important teaching.

Catholics can, and do, disagree, but they should do so begrudgingly - as in a severe crisis on concience. Because in disagreeing they are, at least in part, rejecting both our reasoning on abortion and the apostolic nature of our Church, the foundation of its legitimacy as the one true Christian faith.

 

[VARC]

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’.

I’m convinced. Good Post.

 

[Ender]

Two Popes have stated that the war does not meet the criteria for Just War under the Catechism. Further, the Holy See made direct efforts to prevent it. From the Church’s point of view, the war is immoral.

Since neither pope has issued a statement that Catholics may not participate in the war then either they are unconcerned with Catholics killing in an immoral war … or they haven’t condemned the war as immoral. The fact that, in their opinion, the war did not meet the Just War criteria is not at all the same as saying that “the Church” has decreed the war to be immoral.

Ender

 

[vern_humphrey]

After reading the Church document, it seemed to me that they believe that the only solutions available are those that are government based.

This is getting close to what I call the Couch Potato Catholic approach. We sit on the sofa, drink beer and eat chips and cheer for the team (or government program) of our choice – but we** don’t** do anything to move the ball ourselves.

Do we get merit for an act of charity when someone else pays for it, by forced taxation?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

In other words, one can accept a voter-guide published by a lay-ministry if it’s endorsed by their bishop or recognized group of bishops. Got it.

That is the way I read it, but I state that as my interpretation, and I believe it is correct.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

My issue with the guide (I skimmed the 40+ pages last night) is that while it mentions certain things (abortion, etc) as intrinsically evil, and then they go right into their opposition to the death penalty without ever mentioning that it is NOT intrinsically evil.

In fact, they never mention that it is a matter of conscience, as I believe that the Pope said (in his pre B16 days).

I think I counted at least 8 issues that the USCCB must be opposed. While I agree there is no definitive statements by the Vatican regarding the DP being 'intrinsically evil" the clear import of recent documents and statements leaves little doubt I contend that the Church basically no longer feels it can be supported. Benedict for instance just a few days ago endorsed the UN call for a moratorium on the DP worldwide. JPII in Evangelium Vitae stated that for all intents and purposes there were few of any circumsances that would allow its use. The USCCB has called for his stop they claim for 25 years, and restated their positon again in 2005.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think I counted at least 8 issues that the USCCB must be opposed. While I agree there is no definitive statements by the Vatican regarding the DP being 'intrinsically evil" the clear import of recent documents and statements leaves little doubt I contend that the Church basically no longer feels it can be supported. Benedict for instance just a few days ago endorsed the UN call for a moratorium on the DP worldwide. JPII in Evangelium Vitae stated that for all intents and purposes there were few of any circumsances that would allow its use. The USCCB has called for his stop they claim for 25 years, and restated their positon again in 2005.

And if the UN will add abortion to that moratorium, we can all support it.

After all, if we cannot execute the guilty after they have been tried, how can we execute the innocent with no trial at all?

 

[SoCalRC]

This is getting close to what I call the Couch Potato Catholic approach. We sit on the sofa, drink beer and eat chips and cheer for the team (or government program) of our choice – but we** don’t** do anything to move the ball ourselves.

Wouldn’t that be closer to your theory that secular law could be an all inclussive solution to abortion? No Christain acts required besides voting…

The Church seemingly disagrees:

“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.” - Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, The Participation of Catholics in Public Life

But perhaps no one has explained to the Pope what it takes to be a ‘real’ Catholic…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Wouldn’t that be closer to your theory that secular law could be an all inclussive solution to abortion? No Christain acts required besides voting…

And where is that my theory?.

Please post some quotes where I say, “secular law could be an all inclussive solution to abortion? No Christain acts required besides voting.”

But perhaps no one has explained to the Pope what it takes to be a ‘real’ Catholic…

No doubt you will rectify that by explaining your own ideas to him.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Actually, I find them pretty consistant. The Vatican document lays out some basic concepts and explains how certain teachings should be applied. For example, it stresses the importance of a proper understanding of the Human Person (per the Second Vatican Council). And it gives 9 broad examples of principles we cannot compromise on. Remember, it is intended for Catholics around the world.

The USCCB document reiterates some of the foundational arguments in the Vatican statement, then it identifies 10 particular areas of importance to Catholic Voters. All 10 appear to fit under the broad themes laid out by Rome, but are much more locale specific. That is why we have the Church heirarchy we do, so we can get help applying Doctrine properly in a local context.

The only thing I found odd was a comment about weight and intrinsic evil. My suspician would be that there was not unanimity, so the door was left open for individual Bishops to stress priorities that they think most appropriate for their flock.

The problem is that the Vatican (of course) is right. Our faith is a coherent whole. Let’s take a single teaching. Let’s say a Catholic says, I don’t care about anything but being “pro-life”. Now let’s look at what the Papal instructions on this are to the laity:

If we use “the right to life” and a synomym for ‘abortion’, or even the narrower definition of ‘legalization of abortion’, this would be relatively easy to vote (though still harder than many would guess). In fact, I’ve heard the above argument echoed for just those things (‘if you aren’t alive, other rights don’t matter…’) But that definition of the “right to life” is not what the Pope is using. He means “right to life” as spelled out by the Second Vatican Council. We know this because it is spelled out in the next paragraph:

So, if you truly want to be “pro life” using the Church’s definition, you are already concerned with a wide range of issues besides Roe v. Wade.

It is a matter of foundation. If you accept not just the Church’s position that abortion is a “grave moral disorder” (EV), but the Church’s explanation as to WHY it is so, then the same explanation compells you to reject a good many other things. Arguing scope and scale is, in of itself, something of a rejection of the underlying principle.

But when you think of it, why should this be easy? Being a Christian has never been easy. ‘Oh, gosh, my faith makes me a poor fit for partisan politics’ sort of pales when compared to ‘I wonder if I will be impaled or mauled by wild animals because of my faith…’

Thanks for the additional insights. I too see the Gospel of Life as including a lot more than the usual abortion, euthanasia, cloning, embyronic research. JPII at least to me made it clear that a wide range of things that directly and indirectly impact on Life are also included. So the full range of social issues are included…JPII speaks to subhuman living conditions and sub-human working conditions as denying human dignity.

I guess what I am still confused about is whether there is actually a stated list of “intrinsically evil” acts or do they just give a couple of examples of some, while still claiming others are as well. I certainly took the USCCB to be saying that their 8 were all intrinsically evil. I’m confused about where genocide, suicide, torture, unjust war, slavery, dp, and others sit.

Sorry if I’m being dull, but I’m still struggling to get this clear.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Since neither pope has issued a statement that Catholics may not participate in the war then either they are unconcerned with Catholics killing in an immoral war … or they haven’t condemned the war as immoral. The fact that, in their opinion, the war did not meet the Just War criteria is not at all the same as saying that “the Church” has decreed the war to be immoral.

Ender

I think that was addressed as being practically necessary. What exactly do yuou think it means to say that a war does not meat the Just war standard? If not just it is ? partly moral? kinda moral? moral with qualifications?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

And if the UN will add abortion to that moratorium, we can all support it.

After all, if we cannot execute the guilty after they have been tried, how can we execute the innocent with no trial at all?

Here’s a thought…why don’t we work at the life issues from all directions instead of just one?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Here’s a thought…why don’t we work at the life issues from all directions instead of just one?

I think I’ve asked about 5 times now why those who are so adamant that the church doesn’t require Catholics to be against the death penalty want it that way. I mean surely they want to follow the church don’t they? I don’t recall that Benedict made his approval of the UN statement contingent on anything. He applauded their position. Why would someone want to be in favor of the death penalty I continue to ask…yet strangely no reply. Just more attempts to make 2 popes and a council somehow not say what they said.