Voting pro-choice always immoral?

[SoCalRC]

You don’t seem able to distinguish between the prudential opinions of popes and their teachings as popes. There is no official Church position on the Iraq war; either for or against.

Sorry, again, I am a Roman Catholic. The Pope is the undisptuted moral leader over the entire Church. This is by dogmatic constituion. If the Pope speaks, as the Pope, and then reinforces the statements via his selected envoys to individual nations and the UN, then it is the moral position of the Church.

The Church has noted that you can disagree with the Holy See and still not nec. be unworthy with regards to communion. However, to deny the existance of the Holy See’s position or it’s inherent position in regards to the heirarchy of the Church, is to deny the principle of Primacy and the Gift of Authority. That, per the first Vatican Council, renders one anathema, seperate not just from the Body of the Faithful, but from the Body of Christ.

There war in Iraq may have been a mistake but it was not then and is not now an immoral war.

Only if one lives in a state of denial. There is no theological argument to support violating our absolute prohibition on the torture of prisoners as a condition of just war. Even the most outspoken supporter of Just War theory in Iraq, Weigel, has openly conceded that no theological argument could trump the invalidating factor of torture.

We even have a documented torture/crucifixion - resulting in not even administrative disciplinary action. Murder, like abortion, is deemed to be an infalliable teaching - hence non negotiable in our public life and voting.

I know the normal response to this is rationalization or denial. The former, that somehow we have to be a little ‘bad’ but we have a divine right to save our skins, seem to have forgotten that we are called to do what is right, not what is safe or expedient. The latter seem to fall into two catagories, those who do not realize just how insulated they are and others who have an inkling, but choose denial because they prize their political affiliation highly indeed.

 

[fix]

Q: Eminence, a topical question that in a certain sense is inherent to the Catechism: Does the Anglo-American war against Iraq fit the canons of a “just war”?

Cardinal Ratzinger: The Pope expressed his thought with great clarity, not only as his individual thought but as the thought of a man who is knowledgeable in the highest functions of the Catholic Church. Of course, he did not impose this position as doctrine of the Church but as the appeal of a conscience enlightened by faith…

Zenit

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia…

Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion

It seems clear that Rome has not bound anyone’s conscience to assent that the current war is unjust or that participating in it is a grave sin.

 

[SoCalRC]

It seems clear that Rome has not bound anyone’s conscience to assent that the current war is unjust or that participating in it is a grave sin.

You are missing the point. It is not that you are absolutely bound to obey that is the fundemental problem. It is the rejection of moral primacy that is the problem. Look at the end of Ender’s post:

There war in Iraq may have been a mistake but it was not then and is not now an immoral war.

That is not respectful disagreement with the Holy See. It is an absolute statement without even a pretense of theological justification. So it is an inherent recognition of a higher moral authority than the Pope.

I acknowledge that there is room for disagreement on complex issues. That is why I bother to elaborate why I am not only following Rome because of my call to obey, but because I agree with the moral correctness. Torture is prohibited in just compains, torture murder is an infallible teaching and cannot be compromised.

A blanket assertion that I am wrong and that the high priests of neo conservatism are unarguably right is not terribly prudent for a Christian (see yesterday’s Gospel from Luke), but not clearly a grievous breach of Church doctrine. Asserting absolute moral authority above the Pope is another matter:

“If anyone should say that the Roman Pontiff has merely the function of inspection or direction but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in matters pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the entire world, or that he has only the principal share, but not the full plenitutde of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate over all Churches and over each individual Church, over all shepherds and all the faithful, and over each individual one of these: let him be anathema” - Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ, #3

You can respectfully disagree with the Pope. And, on some matters, even carry that disagreement to the point of disobedience (leaving it to the Church to decide if your stance reaches the threshold of a schimatic or heretic), but to assert that the Pope is just another opinion - and that you are instead the absolute keeper of moral certainty?

Sorry, no. Neo conservatism and republicanism? Sure, those ‘faiths’ even actively promote blanket assualts on the status of the human person (ex. demonizing alternate views). But the Nicene Creed is not reallly negotiable for practicing Catholics.

 

[fix]

You are missing the point. It is not that you are absolutely bound to obey that is the fundemental problem. It is the rejection of moral primacy that is the problem. Look at the end of Ender’s post:

That is not respectful disagreement with the Holy See. It is an absolute statement without even a pretense of theological justification. So it is an inherent recognition of a higher moral authority than the Pope.

I acknowledge that there is room for disagreement on complex issues. That is why I bother to elaborate why I am not only following Rome because of my call to obey, but because I agree with the moral correctness. Torture is prohibited in just compains, torture murder is an infallible teaching and cannot be compromised.

A blanket assertion that I am wrong and that the high priests of neo conservatism are unarguably right is not terribly prudent for a Christian (see yesterday’s Gospel from Luke), but not clearly a grievous breach of Church doctrine. Asserting absolute moral authority above the Pope is another matter:

You can respectfully disagree with the Pope. And, on some matters, even carry that disagreement to the point of disobedience (leaving it to the Church to decide if your stance reaches the threshold of a schimatic or heretic), but to assert that the Pope is just another opinion - and that you are instead the absolute keeper of moral certainty?

Sorry, no. Neo conservatism and republicanism? Sure, those ‘faiths’ even actively promote blanket assualts on the status of the human person (ex. demonizing alternate views). But the Nicene Creed is not reallly negotiable for practicing Catholics.

I really cannot follow your position. We have quotes stating one may make a prudential judgement on the matter of war and still be in full communion and obedient to the Church.

No one has said not to follow the Pope. I am certain if the Pope makes it clear one would be in sin to participate or support this war all here would cheerfully submit. The point as it stands right now is that the Pope has not said that or desires that it should be that way. He is leaving up to each of us to make that decision. If it changes then you have a point. If it does not then I would not attempt to claim the Church binds when She does not as that is not consistent with the truth.

 

[SoCalRC]

He is leaving up to each of us to make that decision. If it changes then you have a point. If it does not then I would not attempt to claim the Church binds when She does not as that is not consistent with the truth.

No, he is saying that the Church understands and can tolerate disagreement on a complex issue. Two Popes have now stated that they do not believe that an application of Just War is valid. Both have pointed to the CCC and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has issued a Doctrinal Note explaining the sorts of issues over which we can honestly disagree when it comes to the non negotiable moral principle of peace.

The Church is not letting you just ‘make up your own mind’ with regards to Iraq. The Church is giving some room in the application of Church teachings. Considering that there is virtually no dissent among the Bishops to the Papal position, this is pretty tolerant and permissive. But Rome often takes a longer view.

However, there is a difference between disagreement on the application of Church teachings, and their outright rejection. If you know that the Catechism criteria is not being met, but still support the war, you are not in the position of honest theological disagreement, but one of rejection of Catholic doctrine - including infallible teachings.

Similiarly, if one does not respectfully disagree in the context of Church teachings, but simply asserts absolute moral authority on the matter, one is rejecting the inherent authority of the Vicar of Christ, hence rejecting our belief of an apostolic Church.

 

[estesbob]

I really cannot follow your position. We have quotes stating one may make a prudential judgement on the matter of war and still be in full communion and obedient to the Church.

No one has said not to follow the Pope. I am certain if the Pope makes it clear one would be in sin to participate or support this war all here would cheerfully submit. The point as it stands right now is that the Pope has not said that or desires that it should be that way. He is leaving up to each of us to make that decision. If it changes then you have a point. If it does not then I would not attempt to claim the Church binds when She does not as that is not consistent with the truth.

If the pope wanted to declare the war Iraq unjust he could do so with the stroke of a pen. Instead he has made it very clear on numerous occasions that this was an issue that Catholics in good conscience can disagree on. This is not the same as aqbortion, however, as much is Left would like us to believe. There are no circumstances under which abortion is acceptable and there are no circumstances under which a catholic can directly or indirectly participate in it. No issue or combination of issues Trumps abortion. If all Catholics realized this and voted accordingly both political parties would be pro-life. IThe fact abortion is still legal in this country can be laid at the feet of Catholics who put politics ahead of faith.

 

[LittleFlower378]

While this is a good topic to talk about, I believe it would be better to put forth our effort and energy to talk and beg our politicians and others through whatever loving means possible along with God’s grace so that they may see the evil in abortion, euthenasia, oppresion of the poor, and war. ALL of these evils hurt life and are against life. Love is the cure - if we loved we wouldn’t hurt the innocent child in the womb, or euthenize the elderly, or leave the poor unclothed.

 

[SoCalRC]

If the pope wanted to declare the war Iraq unjust he could do so with the stroke of a pen. Instead he has made it very clear on numerous occasions that this was an issue that Catholics in good conscience can disagree on.

Actually, the Pope has declared the war in Iraq is unjust, both by voice and by pen. What he has not done is declare it an infallible teaching.

Since there is seemingly no real dissent among the Bishops, the teaching may, in fact, be infallible via the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (the same way that abortion is deemed infallible).

However, the Church is prudent. Look at the death penalty. We are not just talking about a papal encyclical, but something that is now part of the CCC. Still, Rome permits disagreement.

This is not the same as aqbortion, however, as much is Left would like us to believe. There are no circumstances under which abortion is acceptable and there are no circumstances under which a catholic can directly or indirectly participate in it. No issue or combination of issues Trumps abortion. If all Catholics realized this and voted accordingly both political parties would be pro-life. IThe fact abortion is still legal in this country can be laid at the feet of Catholics who put politics ahead of faith.

You are oversimplifying and missleading. Abortion is not alone. Euthanasia and murder are also both infallible teachings, on which no compromise is permitted. And the same person on whom everyone latches on to for permission to support Iraq created a document which lists quite a few moral principles on which a properly formed Christian conscience cannot compromise.

Who here has said otherwise?

The question is not ‘why do you not factor in so many other teachings that I consider morally important?’ Instead, the real question is, why do you compromise on abortion?

One party gives lip service to a pro life stance on abortion, but its actual deeds do not match its rhetoric. You scream that this is not so. You attack anyone who even suggests it is “hurting” even Catholicism.

But we’ve already seen in other threads, Democrats are disproportionately represented in states that do better than the national average on abortion. Similiarly, abortion rates dropped most significantly nationally under a Democratic administration. On the other hand, two new GOP appointees to the Supreme Court just reaffirmed the legal precedent of Roe and the ‘pro life party’, has three front runners for president who are all active pro abortionists.

By attacking individuals like myself, who suggest voting a comprehensive Catholic platform, could it not be argued that you are actively sustaining a system where neither major party is truly pro life beyond rhetoric? Think about it, by attacking dissent and putting loyalty to party above principle, did you not help create an environment where the GOP feels comfortable supporting pro-abortion candidates while retaining the self-described ‘pro life’ vote?

 

[SoCalRC]

While this is a good topic to talk about, I believe it would be better to put forth our effort and energy to talk and beg our politicians and others through whatever loving means possible along with God’s grace so that they may see the evil in abortion, euthenasia, oppresion of the poor, and war. ALL of these evils hurt life and are against life. Love is the cure - if we loved we wouldn’t hurt the innocent child in the womb, or euthenize the elderly, or leave the poor unclothed.

I would agree, with the exception that I would say “all politicians” not “our politicians”. The reality is our pursuit of political power may be hurting our higher cause.

Let’s face it, by all indicators the GOP could be looking at a very bad election cycle. Certainly, plenty of retirements would seem to indicate that a lot of GOP members of Congress are not hopeful. An amazingly unpopular president, multiple unpopular (and seemingly unending) wars, stagnant wages for most Americans, obvious inflation on staples, and a top of the ticket that looks likely to have little in the way of bono fide social conservative credentials…

But still, we largely snubbing the closest thing we have to allies among Democrats. For example, 10 Democrats responded to NRLC concerns and pressured the House leadershop to make changes to the s-chip bill. In return, the NRLC snubbed them and kept the lobbying with the now erroneous talking points. This burns bridges with the current party in power, and diminishes the influence of the closest things to allies we have in it. Why? The most reasonable explanation is that our priorities are screwed up and we care more about political outcomes than the issues we claim to value most.

 

[Holly3278]

I don’t see how voting pro-choice could be immoral. Why? Because there are other issues besides pro-choice/pro-life issues in voting. For example, Democrats want the war in Iraq to end as soon as possible, would like to end the death penalty, would like to help Americans get universal health care, and more. I think that those things really do outweigh the negative fact that they are pretty much pro-choice for any situation. Besides, there are pro-life Democrats as well as pro-choice Democrats. I personally will be voting Democrat in the next election as I believe that it is the more moral choice than voting for Republicans.

 

[estesbob]

I don’t see how voting pro-choice could be immoral. Why? Because there are other issues besides pro-choice/pro-life issues in voting. For example, Democrats want the war in Iraq to end as soon as possible, would like to end the death penalty, would like to help Americans get universal health care, and more. I think that those things really do outweigh the negative fact that they are pretty much pro-choice for any situation. Besides, there are pro-life Democrats as well as pro-choice Democrats. I personally will be voting Democrat in the next election as I believe that it is the more moral choice than voting for Republicans.

How ironic. You have a picture of a child in the womb as your signature and claim to be pro-life. Yet you will go and help put in office the very people that aid and abet the slaughter of these children. Your politics has perverted your support of the ministry you claim to embrace.

I don’t know if you’re Catholic or not but be aware that what you have espoused above is not compatible with Catholic teaching.

 

[THurifer2]

. It comes down to personal choice.

THis is not church teaching. We are culpable for a poorly formed conscience. And yes you can vote on one issue. The 40,000,000 million murdured human beings since Roe vs. Wade vaaaaastly outweighs the other injustices ADDED TOGETHER.

 

[estesbob]

THis is not church teaching. We are culpable for a poorly formed conscience. And yes you can vote on one issue. The 40,000,000 million murdured human beings since Roe vs. Wade vaaaaastly outweighs the other injustices ADDED TOGETHER.

Exactly. If our conscience rules there is no need for Church.

 

[LittleFlower378]

I believe it starts with us. St.Francis could not convert the world untill he converted himself. We should pray that when people see us they see Christ. If we are lovingly bold we can defend life and cousel others to the real truth that life does start at conception and the fact that all human life has value and should be given the freedom of life that they deserve. There is no doubt the number one issue in my heart is abortion because a nation cannot survive if it hurts its little ones. In John Paul’s great book “The Theology of the Body,” in the “Gospel of Life” section he states, "To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthenasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance:that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom:“Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin” (Jn8:34)
(p.508 in the “Theology of the Body.”)

Some may say that a “choice in hurting the unborn” is a freedom when it is exactly the opposite. It’s important that we come to the realization that there are truths which are “built in our bones” that all people should have in common if we are to have a loving, free society. One of these truths is the right and respect of life in all stages.

 

[Newbie2]

We are culpable for a poorly formed conscience. .

How so? Please explain.

 

[estesbob]

How so? Please explain.

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. **Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed. **

[1791](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1791.htm’) This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

[1792](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1792.htm’) Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

[1793](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1793.htm’) If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

[1794](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1794.htm’) **A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time “from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith.”**60
The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.61

 

[fix]

No, he is saying that the Church understands and can tolerate disagreement on a complex issue. Two Popes have now stated that they do not believe that an application of Just War is valid. Both have pointed to the CCC and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has issued a Doctrinal Note explaining the sorts of issues over which we can honestly disagree when it comes to the non negotiable moral principle of peace.

This is a contradiction. If one is free to disagree then the Church has not declared one must accept the war is unjust.

The Church is not letting you just ‘make up your own mind’ with regards to Iraq. The Church is giving some room in the application of Church teachings. Considering that there is virtually no dissent among the Bishops to the Papal position, this is pretty tolerant and permissive. But Rome often takes a longer view.

In other words you agree the Church has not bound anyone in this matter.

However, there is a difference between disagreement on the application of Church teachings, and their outright rejection. If you know that the Catechism criteria is not being met, but still support the war, you are not in the position of honest theological disagreement, but one of rejection of Catholic doctrine - including infallible teachings.

Have you met Catholics who claim the war is unjust but that is accepatble to them?

Similiarly, if one does not respectfully disagree in the context of Church teachings, but simply asserts absolute moral authority on the matter, one is rejecting the inherent authority of the Vicar of Christ, hence rejecting our belief of an apostolic Church.

You seem to elevate prudential judgement to a universal teaching. Again, where has the Pope bound anyone not to participate in this war?

 

[estesbob]

You seem to elevate prudential judgement to a universal teaching. Again, where has the Pope bound anyone not to participate in this war?

The Pope never did. As you can see in this thread and many other threads on CAF whenever someone tells you that the Iraq war is unjust you can almost guarantee that they’re going to tell you that there is a moral equivalence between a politician who supports the war and a politician who supports abortion. In their mind one cancels out the other in they are free to vote for pro-abortion candidate, that’s what this is all about.

The church’s teachings on abortion are crystal clear The Pope said also specifically said that Catholics in good conscience can disagree about the war. Why this discussion is still going is beyond me.

 

[SoCalRC]

I don’t see how voting pro-choice could be immoral. Why? Because there are other issues besides pro-choice/pro-life issues in voting. For example, Democrats want the war in Iraq to end as soon as possible, would like to end the death penalty, would like to help Americans get universal health care, and more. I think that those things really do outweigh the negative fact that they are pretty much pro-choice for any situation. Besides, there are pro-life Democrats as well as pro-choice Democrats. I personally will be voting Democrat in the next election as I believe that it is the more moral choice than voting for Republicans.

Holly, I believe that you are applying a principle of “limiting the harm”. This was introduced by John Paul II in his GOSPEL OF LIFE and elaborated on by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in several documents, including this doctrinal note:

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

I agree with you (and the Church) that our Faith must be voted as a cohesive whole. However, I do not believe that I could bring myself to vote for a pro choice candidate. The Holy See has specifically made statements to the effect that voting for permissive abortion laws constitutes sin. Confronted with two such choices (as will almost certainly be the case in the next presdiential election) I would vote for a minor party candidate or write in that better reflects what I consider a wholly pro-life view.

That said, I live in California, which will quite likely vote Democratic no matter what I do. If I lived in certain parts of the country, I might be more tempted to ‘make my vote count’, and limit grievous harm. I doubt it, but I can envision the possibility.

In addition to respectful disagreement, you have my sympathies. You sincerely hold a position that has sometimes been falsely attributed to me. So it is little surprise that you are getting some seemingly un-Christain remarks. It seems worth noting that we have come to see “Pharisee” as bad over time. When Jesus first told the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican to a Jewish audience word associations would have been different. Told today, the parable might well be “The Dutiful Catholic and the Rapist”. Seemingly the moral implications of this Sunday’s reading have escaped the attenion of many people here.

 

[SoCalRC]

THis is not church teaching. We are culpable for a poorly formed conscience. And yes you can vote on one issue. The 40,000,000 million murdured human beings since Roe vs. Wade vaaaaastly outweighs the other injustices ADDED TOGETHER.

The Magesterium specifically has warned against the perils of single issue voting. From the Doctrinal Note quoted above - specifically in the context of the concept of “limiting the harm”:

“In this context, 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.” (emphasis added)

In another thread you have argued that all Church teachings are infallible, are you now abandoning that position?