How Adherent Are We?

[AnomilE]

I am noticing something.

Through posts I have seen through the other topic I started "Bush is not pro-life, just less pro-choice", I am noticing that the statement put out by our US Bishops has done more harm than good.

In it they speak under the auspices that a faithful Catholic can vote for a lesser evil in an election in the absence of a truly pure candidate.

I disagree with our Bishops and it wouldn't be the first time.

To me, this disregards the Churche's teaching on moral criteria. In it, it is clear that an evil means may never justify a good ends. Period.

My hope is that someday, we are blessed with Bishops who will adhere to Rome in all aspects.

I find it interesting that currently, to my knowledge, there are only 6 Bishops in the US with the "Pallium"- the Holy Father's award for true adherence to the Pope and the Magesterium. Why?

I find it interesting that in the convergence of our US Bishops, it was decided 183 to 6 that it was up to each Bishop on whether or not deny communion to a political candidate who OBSTINATELY persists in grave mortal sin.

This is what confuses faithfuls and it saddens me...

AnomilE

[jrndveritatis]

The bishops seem to be repeating the teaching of the Magisterium found in John Paul II's encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae:

[quote]A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.[/quote]

Clearly, voting for Bush is "legitimate and proper" in these circumstances.

[AnomilE]

[quote name='jrndveritatis' date='Aug 5 2004, 03:12 PM'] The bishops seem to be repeating the teaching of the Magisterium found in John Paul II's encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae:



Clearly, voting for Bush is "legitimate and proper" in these circumstances. [/quote]
[quote]A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.[/quote]

Okay, but notice this line: "In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality."

Notice "absolute personal opposition to procured abortion." I don't see use of this destinction being used by our Bishops. Bush does not fit this criteria.

[AnomilE]

The Holy Father is speaking of an elected official who is COMPLETELY and UNWAIVERINGLY pro-life supporting legislation that moves in the right direction of ending abortion, and how that is acceptible, even when it does not completely end it.

Again, Bush does not fit this.

[jrndveritatis]

[quote]The Holy Father is speaking of an elected official who is COMPLETELY and UNWAIVERINGLY pro-life supporting legislation that moves in the right direction of ending abortion, and how that is acceptible, even when it does not completely end it.

Again, Bush does not fit this.
[/quote]

Your point is well taken. However, I believe that what is taught of politicans and their votes for legislation can be legitimately applied to voters choosing candidates. Clearly, you and I have "absolute personal opposition" to abortion, and in voting we are acting as legislators voting on legislation, except we are voting for candidates who endorse legislation.

So, we are COMPLETELY and UNWAVERINGLY pro-life, but we are supporting candidates that move in the right direction of ending abortion, noting how the Pope says this is acceptible, even though it does not completely end it.

[AnomilE]

[quote name='jrndveritatis' date='Aug 5 2004, 03:30 PM']
Your point is well taken. However, I believe that what is taught of politicans and their votes for legislation can be legitimately applied to voters choosing candidates. Clearly, you and I have "absolute personal opposition" to abortion, and in voting we are acting as legislators voting on legislation, except we are voting for candidates who endorse legislation.

So, we are COMPLETELY and UNWAVERINGLY pro-life, but we are supporting candidates that move in the right direction of ending abortion, noting how the Pope says this is acceptible, even though it does not completely end it. [/quote]
That would be fine if that's what the Holy Father said, but he did not and with good reason. We are not legislators- we are voters within a democracy. We must choose those who fit the Holy Father's description- those who publicly oppose all forms of abortion. We currently ahve a president who does not- so let's get one in.

[Aloysius]

do cardinals count as Rome?

[quote][b]The Question of Imperfect Legislation[/b] [i]By Cardinal John O'Connor[/i]
...
Lesser of Evils
It is true that many in the pro-life movement temporarily settle for "imperfect" law, that is, law which permits abortion under severely limited circumstances, such as in cases of rape or incest.  Such legislation is "supported" only as the lesser of evils and those who support it will continue to work toward legislation which prophibits the killing of any unborn, for any reason.
This does not imply that abortion in cases of rape or incest is less of an "intrinsic" evil than in other cases, or that pro-life people accept it as a  morally lesser evil.  One might call it a legally lesser evil.  It implies that at a particular point the political reality may be that it is impossible to bring about legislation that prohibits all abortion.  In such circumstances, moral theologians point out that it is better to achieve "imperfect" legislation that may save the lives of a great many unborn babies now, while continuing to work strenuously for "perfect" legislation that may save the life of every unborn baby at some future date.
Unfair to Accuse
In my judgment, it is unfair to accuse those who fight for imperfect legislation, as the best they can get at a given time, of "sacrificing the lives" of those unborn they know they cannot protect at the same time.  I personally know public officials who have spent their entire political lives fighting to protect all unborn children.  To date they have not been successful, but I thank God that they have succeeded in protecting huge numbers.  Moreover, they have helped keep alive in our country the belief that all abortion is evil.  They have helped keep the entire pro-life movement alive.  Many of them have consistently risked their poliitcal futures to do this, and have taken bitter abuse from the pro-abortion movement.  For anyone in the pro-life movement to accuse them of "trading off" babies conceived by rape or incest, as though they were callous to the sacredness of human life, or simply trying to protect themselves politically, would be unjust, uncharitable and terribly counterproductive to the cause of life.
Conditions Must be Present
The conflict over imperfect law has definitely been divisive to the pro-life movement.  It seems to me that our goal must always be to advance protection for the unborn child to the maximum degree possible.  It certainly seems to me, however, that in cases in which perfect legislation is clearly impossible, it is morally acceptable to support a pro-life bill, however reluctantly, that contains exceptions of the following conditions prevail:
[list]
[*]there is no other feasible bill restricting existing permissive abortion laws to a greater degree than the proposed bill;
[*] the proposed bill is more restrictive than existing law, that is, the bill does not weaken the current law's restraints on abortion; and
[*] the proposed bill does not negate the responsibility of future, more restrictive laws.
[/list]
In addition, it would have to be made clear that we do not believe that a bill which contains exceptions is ideal and that we would continue to urge future legislation which would more fully protect human life.
Prudential judgement
I recognize that some in the pro-life movement may consider it politically or strategically unwise to take the course outlined above, but that is a matter of prudential judgment.  It is not a matter of supporting intrinsic evil as such.[/quote]

[ironmonk]

Use your head man.

Aesop said it best...

"Little by little does the trick"


Think... after proper study... there are only two choices this election...

Bush or against Bush.

Bush = pro-life and closest to Catholic teaching.

against Bush = baby killing, destruction of the family via ssa marriages, dependancy on walfare, etc...


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Aloysius]

hey, there's this other guy who said something that i think might count as Rome as well: Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life)

[quote]When it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. (EV 73)
[/quote]

[CatholicAndFanatical]

[quote name='AnomilE' date='Aug 5 2004, 03:48 PM'] I am noticing something.

Through posts I have seen through the other topic I started "Bush is not pro-life, just less pro-choice", I am noticing that the statement put out by our US Bishops has done more harm than good.

In it they speak under the auspices that a faithful Catholic can vote for a lesser evil in an election in the absence of a truly pure candidate.

I disagree with our Bishops and it wouldn't be the first time.

To me, this disregards the Churche's teaching on moral criteria. In it, it is clear that an evil means may never justify a good ends. Period.

My hope is that someday, we are blessed with Bishops who will adhere to Rome in all aspects.

I find it interesting that currently, to my knowledge, there are only 6 Bishops in the US with the "Pallium"- the Holy Father's award for true adherence to the Pope and the Magesterium. Why?

I find it interesting that in the convergence of our US Bishops, it was decided 183 to 6 that it was up to each Bishop on whether or not deny communion to a political candidate who OBSTINATELY persists in grave mortal sin.

This is what confuses faithfuls and it saddens me...

AnomilE [/quote]
Dude,

I agree with you on a certain level.. Dont get upset at the Bishops for holding to what JPII says on abortion and chosing a President.

Rather, be upset at the fact that they let some Parish's have 'Gay Mass' and allow some parishs to attend and participate in "Gay Parades' in NYC and MASS. and MO.

Be angry at the fact that they let Rainbow Sash wearers recieve the Body of Christ, and let Congressmen receive as well even though Cardinal Ratzinger told them to keep it from them.

Ahh, be mad at alot of things bro, im not happy with the Bishops either I think they are scared to stand up for Christ..

Read my website bro, you will see a few Parishs I have investigated and contacted about abuse and corruption. Its crazy what they get away with.


But as far as voting..listen to what they recommend. Some of them may be weak, but they are still Apostles.

www.catholic-teachings.com if you want to check it out.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='AnomilE' date='Aug 5 2004, 05:33 PM'] That would be fine if that's what the Holy Father said, but he did not and with good reason. We are not legislators- we are voters within a democracy. We must choose those who fit the Holy Father's description- those who publicly oppose all forms of abortion. We currently ahve a president who does not- so let's get one in. [/quote]
There are only TWO candidates running that have a chance to win. So you can vote for a man who loves the sacrament of abortion [ Mark Shea's phrase] or you can vote for a man who is pro-life. To vote for a third party candidate is to waste your vote and indirectly help the culture of death.

In this choice of life or death, I choose President Bush and life.