V
Vince1022
Guest
Glad we agree! But the experience of U.S. Catholics has not been so clear, given various Bishop’s statements (which don’t agree with one another).
Reference? Thanks.
- Status
V
Vince1022
Guest
Have you read the U.S. Bishops’ teaching that you refer to? It seems you haven’t by the questions you’ve asked.
E
elts1956
Guest
I said it is not a “religious” issue for the simple fact that there are many people who are not of a religious persuasion who know abortion is immoral. How do they know it if abortion is only a religious issue? Given platform? Don’t be obtuse. Archbishop, soon to be Cardinal Raymond Burke said in one of his talks that many Catholics would still follow their own (perverted, my insert, not his) unformed conscience and vote for a pro abort pol. , even if a Bishop, priest, who have you, were to tell them face to face that supporting any candidate who comes out and states support of a pro abort platform may not be voted for. You are picking at straws.
C
Canto
Guest
Yes.
In America today nothing compares to Abortion (and Euthanaisa). What other morally grave things do parties currently support?
The Catechism says that the greatest moral evil ever comitted was the murder of God’s Son (CCC 312). And yet more than a million Americans made in the image and likeness of God are literally butchered each year via abortion.
“'I don’t agree with his Bart killing policy; but I do agree with his Selma killing policy.” -Homer Simpson
E
elts1956
Guest
Correct me I am wrong, but the USCCB is not a governing body of the Church. Pope Benedict XVI has recently said individual Bishops serving in their own Arch/Dioceses are the ruling authority. While this gives us the lee way to follow the teachings of Bishops faithful to the teachings of Christ and Rome, this also gives leeway for the laity of other Arch/dioceses to follow the line of progressive Bishops. There is a split in the hierarchy here in the US and unfortunately there are more liberal/progressive Bishops on this continent than those who are true to Peter.
I don’t know which page or what part of the documents of Vatican II this is documented, but the progressive Bishops pushed for collegiality, or a more decentralized authority,at that time, which meant they felt they were a law unto themselves and could ignore “the old man in Rome”. This is very apparent given the lack of guidance on moral teachings to the laity by 3/4ths of the US Bishops here in the US, especially in supporting pro abortion candidates during elections.
V
Vince1022
Guest
Read what the US Bishops teach. They list a number of morally grave things that are of concern. Of course abortion and euthanasia are included.
Ok, then as you note, from the Catechism, abortion is not the greatest moral evil.
C
Canto
Guest
So I read throught it once more…
#22 In our nation, **abortion **and euthanasia have become **preeminent threats to human **dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others
- 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.
[The Document which some Bishops have said was abused was not submitted to the Vatican for recognitio]
34… At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.
[what Pro Life US politicans support other threats to life???]
- There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.
- **all issues do not carry the same moral weight **and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions.
- As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.
- Human life is sacred. The dignity of the human person is the foundation of a moral vision for society.** Direct attacks on innocent persons are never morally acceptable, at any stage or in any condition. In our society, human life is especially under direct attack from abortion. **Other direct threats to the sanctity of human life include euthanasia, human cloning, and the destruction of human embryosfor research.
64… “Abortion and euthanasia have become **preeminent threats to human life **and dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental good and the condition for all others” (no. 5). Abortion, the deliberate killing of a human being before birth, is never morally acceptable and must always be opposed.
[What other preeminent threats to life do US political parties support?]
I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live" (Dt 30:15, 19).
V
Vince1022
Guest
Yes. Thanks for sharing.
E
elts1956
Guest
Amazing, isn’t it? “Those who promote abortion (or see nothing wrong with it) are those who are living.” Paraphrased from President Ronald Reagan.
K
Koheleth
Guest
It does not say “threats to life”, but “other important moral issues involving human life and dignity”. I can think of several right off the top of my head: environmental catastrophe, oppression of the poor and working classes, racism, failure to fund transportation and infrastructure that leaves people jobless and unable to travel, waging unjust wars, union-breaking, unbridled free trade that brings us down to the level of third-world nations, the right to universal healthcare (according to the Pope, anyway), corporate greed, campaign finance reform – I’ll stop at 10, but I’m sure you can think of more. These are all “morally grave” concerns that have each been mentioned in at least one Encyclical. Important enough for the Pope – important enough for me.
No, it doesn’t. Nor could it. See above.
The Bishops, who are quite comfortable with the mandatory terms “must” and “shall”, here use the permissive, “may”. This is not a distinction without a difference.
You can’t overlook the “and dignity” part. I must and will always oppose abortion. I may vote for a pro-abortion candidate if “morally grave” reasons cause me to do so. I voted for Dan Onorato for Governer instead of Tom Corbett. Corbett wants to change Pennsylvania’s abortion laws (which are among the strictest in the nation), Onorato wants to leave them as they are. But Corbett is a Wall Street insider who was funded by the energy lobby, and as a result, he wants to cut taxes, reduce spending, and not tax the Marcellus Shale drillers, which would have provided a huge windfall to the Commonwealth (and it’s not like they can go anywhere else). Instead, Pennsylvania’s budget is hysterically out of control and massive infrastructure cuts and cuts to necessary public services that severely and deletoriously impact the lives of all Pennsylvanians are looming. Mass transit will be crippled, bridges and roads will go unrepared, he wants to sell off the PLCB, cutting off another big revenue stream for the Commonwealth, privatize the Turnpike…deep breath
In short, the poor will suffer, the middle class will become poor, traffic will gridlock, and the corporate barons who don’t have to worry about these things of hoi polloi will prosper.
So, Onorato lost, but at least I can sleep at night, having voted my informed conscience in accorance with Catholic teaching. And my Bishop, David Zubik, who, when he assumed office refused to move into the Bishop’s Mansion and instead, converted it into a hospital in favor of more austere accommodations, would agree. Nobody on an internet message board is going to convince me otherwise. I’m not going to Hell, I don’t need to go to confession (at least for voting, anyway).
These threads have been going on for years. The question is and has been long-settled. Can we talk about footbal now?
C
Canto
Guest
Koheleth, thanks for taking the time to respond. You list a lot of things as morally grave that US politicians simply don’t support. Which parties support racism, opressing the poor, etc.
What’s the point in having good transport if babies are being butchered. They’ll never be able to ride the trains and boats and planes.
Has a Pope ever spoke infallibly about transport. Nope, but one did about Abortion.
The US Bishops in Living the Gospel of Life #23 clearly state:
Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing, and health care. Therefore, Catholics should eagerly involve themselves as advocates for the weak and marginalized in all these areas… *But being ‘right’ in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding attacks on innocent human life *(emphasis in the orginal). Indeed, the failure to protect life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community.
The CDF stated: 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.
Pope John Paul II speech February 14, 2001 stated: The promotion of the culture of life should be the highest priority in our societies… If the right to life is not defended decisively as a condition for all other rights of the person, all other references to human rights remain deceitful and illusory.
Bishop Emeritus Rene Henry Gracida of Corpus Christi, Texas, issued a statement explaining “proportionate reasons”:
When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons strictly defined.
Since abortion and euthanasia have been defined by the Church as the most serious sins prevalent in our society, what kind of reasons could possibly be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion? None of the reasons commonly suggested could even begin to be proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for such a candidate. Reasons such as the candidate’s position on war, or taxes, or the death penalty, or immigration, or a national health plan, or social security, or aids, or homosexuality, or marriage, or any similar burning societal issues of our time are simply lacking in proportionality.
There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life. That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not.
Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: Candidate A, who is completely for abortion-on-demand, Candidate B, who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion, and Candidate C, a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable. The Catholic voter cannot vote for Candidate A because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation which would remove restrictions on abortion-on-demand. The Catholic can vote for Candidate C but that will probably only help ensure the election of Candidate A. Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for Candidate B, since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of Candidate A and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if Candidate B is elected and votes for legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils which is morally permissible under these circumstances.
Evangelium Vitae #73 states: Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection…In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it.
Pope Benedict XVI stated: Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. There may be legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not… with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
What’s the point in having good transport if babies are being butchered. They’ll never be able to ride the trains and boats and planes.
Has a Pope ever spoke infallibly about transport. Nope, but one did about Abortion.
The US Bishops in Living the Gospel of Life #23 clearly state:
Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing, and health care. Therefore, Catholics should eagerly involve themselves as advocates for the weak and marginalized in all these areas… *But being ‘right’ in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding attacks on innocent human life *(emphasis in the orginal). Indeed, the failure to protect life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community.
The CDF stated: 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.
Pope John Paul II speech February 14, 2001 stated: The promotion of the culture of life should be the highest priority in our societies… If the right to life is not defended decisively as a condition for all other rights of the person, all other references to human rights remain deceitful and illusory.
Bishop Emeritus Rene Henry Gracida of Corpus Christi, Texas, issued a statement explaining “proportionate reasons”:
When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons strictly defined.
Since abortion and euthanasia have been defined by the Church as the most serious sins prevalent in our society, what kind of reasons could possibly be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion? None of the reasons commonly suggested could even begin to be proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for such a candidate. Reasons such as the candidate’s position on war, or taxes, or the death penalty, or immigration, or a national health plan, or social security, or aids, or homosexuality, or marriage, or any similar burning societal issues of our time are simply lacking in proportionality.
There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life. That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not.
Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: Candidate A, who is completely for abortion-on-demand, Candidate B, who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion, and Candidate C, a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable. The Catholic voter cannot vote for Candidate A because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation which would remove restrictions on abortion-on-demand. The Catholic can vote for Candidate C but that will probably only help ensure the election of Candidate A. Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for Candidate B, since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of Candidate A and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if Candidate B is elected and votes for legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils which is morally permissible under these circumstances.
Evangelium Vitae #73 states: Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection…In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it.
Pope Benedict XVI stated: Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. There may be legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not… with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
V
Vince1022
Guest
Not amazing, to me. I find it entirely rational that those who promote/accept abortion are the living. What is the alternative?
Those not living don’t have the opportunity to express their thoughts on abortion et. al.
I think this is a point those “pro-abortion” should consider.
E
elts1956
Guest
In your belief system, what would constitute “other” grave proportionate moral issues? Abortion, euthanasia etc. are called, justly so. Intrinsic Evils. All of the others you mentioned are in the category of Prudential Judgement, ie. one can have any opinion one wishes as to how to solve, vote etc. on these issues. Not so the Intrinsic Evils which may never, never, never be condoned. They have no good as their end. That is why they are called Intrinsic Evils.
M
magdelaine1173
Guest
I agree with you Julian. I couldn’t have explained it any better myself. Question? Why don’t Republicans repeal the legality of abortion when they are elected? You would think that the officials at the top would want this. Why hasn’t it happened yet?
E
elts1956
Guest
Let’s keep their feet to the fire. I think before this past mid term election, politicians didn’t take the populace seriously. Let’s make sure they do now.I agree with you Julian. I couldn’t have explained it any better myself. Question? Why don’t Republicans repeal the legality of abortion when they are elected? You would think that the officials at the top would want this. Why hasn’t it happened yet?
M
magdelaine1173
Guest
Good point. Raising one’s voice via a vote can change things. Referendum on the ballot maybe? Or, vote someone in who is serious about reforming the Roev.Wade decision? To repeal the legality of abortion? Sounds good to me! Catholics had best become vocal on this one if they want true repeal on abortion. Hopefully the next President will do this.
God Bless
K
Koheleth
Guest
What would constitute “other” grave proportionate moral issues? Well, I came up with a list of 10 just as a thought experiment (see previous post), but it would depend on the (1) candidate; (2) political office at stake; and (3) political situation and issues facing the electorate at the time. What does the candidate’s history tell me about him? Where do his interests lie? The list would not be the same voting for the local dog catcher as it would be for the President, a legislator, or a judge. Each office has distinct considerations within its own balliwick.
For example, this year, the cutbacks proposed by the Allegheny County Port Authority in the event the Pennsylvania General Assembly does not come up with $72MM to cover its budget deficit will likely leave the City of Pittsburgh a ghost town. Fares will increase out of the range of the minimum-wage workers who will no longer be able to pay them. Routes will be cut leaving workers unable to get to their places of employment, and the elderly, homebound, and disabled will be stranded, as the Access vans are already stretched to capacity. Unemployment will skyrocket, the welfare rolls will swell, and traffic will slow to a crawl throughout the county. Crime will increase. People will suffer. Jobless and uninsured, they will get sick and die. Children will not be properly educated. Of particular interest to you, Planned Parenthood will grin as the panicked underclass crowd their doors to rid themselves of responsabilities they can no longer afford, as is the trend under these circumstances.
This will happen because the Federal government refused to approve a bid to make Route 80 a toll road, which the Port Authority desperately needed to balance its budget. And the General Assembly refused to come up with emergency funds to cover the loss, despite the desperate urgings of Gov. Rendell. We will also be the only state not to tax natural gas drilling. And the lame-duck Governer was powerless to do anything about it. You see, the corporate lobbyists funding Sen. Toomey and Gov. Corbett don’t actually have to live here, and they are beholden only to their shareholders, so if Western Pennsylvnaia degenerates into a backwater, it’s nothing to them. Those that can afford it will be buying more gasoline. That’s the bottom line. All else is peripheral.
So I voted for Sestak and Onorato and I voted for Democrats running for seats in the state legislature. And many lost. But when I run into my neighbor, a soon-to-be-unemployed single mother of 3 whose route to work will be cut March 30th, and whose fate I really don’t want to think about at the moment, I’ll be able to look her in the eyes. And I’ll be able to sleep at night. And I’ll recieve communion with a clear conscience.
Perhaps nobody on this message board is guilty of this, but there are those who cling to a “one-issue” solution to provide a post-hoc justification for their pre-existing political beliefs. It’s very convenient, and it spares them the pain and cognitive dissonance of actually having to think about the consequences of their political decisions. Indeed, there’s a peculiar
American pride in advancing an anarchist / capitalist / libertarian / every-man-for-himself Weltanschauung that becomes giddily gratifying when one believes one can cloak it with the mantle of religious respectability. “Hey, I would have liked to have voted for the guy who’d’ve made sure your dad could support your family, but the other guy said the ‘magic words’, what can I say? Dominus vobiscum and lots o’ luck to ya”
The political process isn’t that simple, is it?
J
JackQ
Guest
But party coalitions that in parliamentary systems take place within the legislature take place in the United States within the political parties themselves. So Koheleth’s point is valid for the United States as well, and is, in fact, fairly insightful.
J
JackQ
Guest
They can’t repeal the legality of abortion. It’s a constitutional right in the United States, and it would take a constitutional amendment to overturn it. That will require 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures.I agree with you Julian. I couldn’t have explained it any better myself. Question? Why don’t Republicans repeal the legality of abortion when they are elected? You would think that the officials at the top would want this. Why hasn’t it happened yet?
V
Vince1022
Guest
The Catholic Church teaches many intrinsic evils apart from abortion and euthanasia.
Yes, intrinsic evils may never be condoned.
The point is, when voting, politically, the choices are not always (if ever!) available between a candidate who supports all Catholic moral teaching vs. those who don’t.
When no one candidate supports all Catholic moral teaching, a prudential and informed judgement must be made. And this can include voting for a candidate who, ostensibly, disagrees with Catholic teaching on one or more “intrinsically evil” issues.
It comes down to a properly formed conscience.
- Status