Ten Principles For Political Involvement

[tojo]

From [url="http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/11/ten_principle_f.html"]http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/11/ten_principle_f.html[/url]

Ten Principles For Political Involvement

(Jimmy Akin)

The Catholic Leaders Conference--a (mostly) lay group of pro-life and related Catholic leaders (among them Karl Keating) met in Phoenix last week to discuss how to better promote Catholic values in the political sphere.

Among other things, they produced a 10-point document that does a really good job explaining some core principles of Catholic political involvement.

Here's what the document said:

We Catholic voters acknowledge the following ten obligations and guidelines. These principles should be a part of Catholic educational programs at every level utilizing all the means of social communications.

1. “In the Catholic tradition, responsible citizenship is a virtue; participation in the political process is a moral obligation. Every believer is called to faithful citizenship, to become an informed, active, and responsible participant in the political process.”[1] An informed vote by a Catholic is one that is guided by the authentic moral and social teaching of the Catholic faith.

2. Catholics should recognize that not all moral and social teachings have equal weight in determining how to cast their vote. Some teachings are directly binding and some are guided by individual prudential judgment.

3. The first obligation of government is the protection of innocent human life from conception[2] to natural death. The Church teaches that justice requires this protection. This truth can also be known through reason unaided by revelation. On the specific "life issues" in law and public policy – direct abortion[3], euthanasia, and the killing of unborn life for medical research, Catholic teaching is unequivocal; the defense of innocent human life is an imperative.

4. Catholic voters must first make decisions about their votes based on the moral issues that are non-negotiable. First among these are the life issues.[4]

5. On prudential matters that affect the common good, Catholics of goodwill can disagree. Though there are Catholic principles such as compassion, justice and charity that we should share, there is no single "Catholic" policy on issues like taxes, education, foreign policy and immigration reform.

6. A similar distinction was made by the then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, His Emminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, to the American Bishops when he stated: “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.”[5]

7. Catholic priests and bishops first and foremost are shepherds of souls. The role of these shepherds is to instruct and to remind voters, candidates and public officials of the moral obligations and social principles that should guide their political action.

8. All Catholics, especially the laity, have a right and duty to be heard in the public square. Catholic moral teachings should be publicly espoused in such a way that they can inform law and public policy and not be artificially limited to the private domain of individual belief.

9. In their political participation, Catholics must not compromise these principles even though, at times, prudential judgment will require accepting imperfect legislation as a means of incremental progress.[6]

10. The ultimate political goal for Catholics must be the achievement of public policies and laws that result in the legal protection of all innocent human life and that promote the dignity of each human person without exception and compromise.

[1] Faithful Citizenship, USCCB
[2] Conception, as the Church traditionally teaches, means the earliest moment of biological existence.
[3] Direct abortion is any procured abortion whether chemical or surgical.
[4] There are other non-negotiable matters that are not a part of the current political debate. For example no serious candidate is advocating decriminalization sexual assault.
[5] Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger Letter to Theodore Cardinal McCarrick for USCCB
[6] Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae

......................................................................................................................................

What do you think?

[Iacobus]

They are good points, however, I do have a few issues still. It casts life issues as the first and foremost issue in terms of politics, which is good.

The problem I have is what is a life issue? At the risk of sounding like a supporter of the seamless garment school, I ask if people are dying in a preventable manner, is addressing that not an issue? E.g. People die everywhere due to hungery and proverty all over the world. Some nations, like the US and the nations that form the EU, have excess food supplies every year and have more then an excessive amount of wealth, thereby being in a position to prevent these deaths.

Most of Catholic social justice leans towards taking care of issues like this. Because a implementing social justice would result in lives saved that would otherwise be lost, is social justice then a life issue? It is related to life, clearly, and to the honoring of the sacred nature thereof.

So, would then social justice be a "non-neg" item as well? Thus, could one lend support to any person who opposes social welfare? Such as the GOP congressmen who wish to cut Medicaid and the food stamp programs? This is directly harming the lives of those people you use this systems.

Or is the Catholic view of life much like that promoted by the Republican Party, at least at many points in time, in that life exists from the moment of conception until the moment of birth, after that you are no longer alive?

And what about Capital Punishment? "Rather that 10 guilt men go free then one man is unjustly imprisoned." We must confess that our legal system is woefully imprefect. Some 1,900 man years have been served by people in jail only to have them later freed because of DNA evidence. It is the case in IL where, under Gov Ryan (the bad old days as opposed to the at least as bad current days), a signifcant number of men were found on death row who had not committed the crime that they were supposed to die for. Is that, then, a form of state sanctioned murder? Esp in light of the fact that in a number of the cases the DA and police withheld data that would have proven the innocence of the man during the trial and while he waited out the appeals process?

Or extraordinary rendition? Or "questionable" tatics used during "interviews?" These damage the physical body, and can lead to death, of the persons that they are inflicted upon. Is that an attack on life? These persons may or may not be gulity of whatever we claim they are gulity of, but where does it say that a criminal is no longer a human? Tell me the CCC # or chapter and verse, please, because I seemed to have missed that.

[Socrates]

[quote name='tomasio127' date='Nov 2 2005, 03:01 PM']From [url="http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/11/ten_principle_f.html"]http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/11/ten_principle_f.html[/url]

Ten Principles For Political Involvement

(Jimmy Akin)

The Catholic Leaders Conference--a (mostly) lay group of pro-life and related Catholic leaders (among them Karl Keating) met in Phoenix last week to discuss how to better promote Catholic values in the political sphere.

Among other things, they produced a 10-point document that does a really good job explaining some core principles of Catholic political involvement.

Here's what the document said:

    We Catholic voters acknowledge the following ten obligations and guidelines. These principles should be a part of Catholic educational programs at every level utilizing all the means of social communications.

    1. “In the Catholic tradition, responsible citizenship is a virtue; participation in the political process is a moral obligation. Every believer is called to faithful citizenship, to become an informed, active, and responsible participant in the political process.”[1] An informed vote by a Catholic is one that is guided by the authentic moral and social teaching of the Catholic faith.

    2. Catholics should recognize that not all moral and social teachings have equal weight in determining how to cast their vote. Some teachings are directly binding and some are guided by individual prudential judgment.

    3. The first obligation of government is the protection of innocent human life from conception[2] to natural death.  The Church teaches that justice requires this protection. This truth can also be known through reason unaided by revelation. On the specific "life issues" in law and public policy – direct abortion[3], euthanasia, and the killing of unborn life for medical research, Catholic teaching is unequivocal; the defense of innocent human life is an imperative.

    4. Catholic voters must first make decisions about their votes based on the moral issues that are non-negotiable. First among these are the life issues.[4]

    5. On prudential matters that affect the common good, Catholics of goodwill can disagree.  Though there are Catholic principles such as compassion, justice and charity that we should share, there is no single "Catholic" policy on issues like taxes, education, foreign policy and immigration reform.

    6. A similar distinction was made by the then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, His Emminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, to the American Bishops when he stated:  “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.”[5]

    7. Catholic priests and bishops first and foremost are shepherds of souls. The role of these shepherds is to instruct and to remind voters, candidates and public officials of the moral obligations and social principles that should guide their political action.

    8. All Catholics, especially the laity, have a right and duty to be heard in the public square.  Catholic moral teachings should be publicly espoused in such a way that they can inform law and public policy and not be artificially limited to the private domain of individual belief.

    9. In their political participation, Catholics must not compromise these principles even though, at times, prudential judgment will require accepting imperfect legislation as a means of incremental progress.[6]

    10. The ultimate political goal for Catholics must be the achievement of public policies and laws that result in the legal protection of all innocent human life and that promote the dignity of each human person without exception and compromise.

    [1] Faithful Citizenship, USCCB
    [2] Conception, as the Church traditionally teaches, means the earliest moment of biological existence.
    [3] Direct abortion is any procured abortion whether chemical or surgical.
    [4] There are other non-negotiable matters that are not a part of the current political debate. For example no serious candidate is advocating decriminalization sexual assault.
    [5] Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger Letter to Theodore Cardinal McCarrick for USCCB
    [6] Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae

......................................................................................................................................

What do you think?
[right][snapback]777178[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Amen, amen, and amen!

It would be madness to say otherwise!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Nov 2 2005, 05:02 PM']They are good points, however, I do have a few issues still. It casts life issues as the first and foremost issue in terms of politics, which is good.

The problem I have is what is a life issue? At the risk of sounding like a supporter of the seamless garment school, I ask if people are dying in a preventable manner, is addressing that not an issue? E.g. People die everywhere due to hungery and proverty all over the world. Some nations, like the US and the nations that form the EU, have excess food supplies every year and have more then an excessive amount of wealth, thereby being in a position to prevent these deaths.

Most of Catholic social justice leans towards taking care of issues like this. Because a implementing social justice would result in lives saved that would otherwise be lost, is social justice then a life issue? It is related to life, clearly, and to the honoring of the sacred nature thereof.

So, would then social justice be a "non-neg" item as well? Thus, could one lend support to any person who opposes social welfare? Such as the GOP congressmen who wish to cut Medicaid and the food stamp programs? This is directly harming the lives of those people you use this systems.

Or is the Catholic view of life much like that promoted by the Republican Party, at least at many points in time, in that life exists from the moment of conception until the moment of birth, after that you are no longer alive?

And what about Capital Punishment? "Rather that 10 guilt men go free then one man is unjustly imprisoned." We must confess that our legal system is woefully imprefect. Some 1,900 man years have been served by people in jail only to have them later freed because of DNA evidence. It is the case in IL where, under Gov Ryan (the bad old days as opposed to the at least as bad current days), a signifcant number of men were found on death row who had not committed the crime that they were supposed to die for. Is that, then, a form of state sanctioned murder? Esp in light of the fact that in a number of the cases the DA and police withheld data that would have proven the innocence of the man during the trial and while he waited out the appeals process?

Or extraordinary rendition? Or "questionable" tatics used during "interviews?" These damage the physical body, and can lead to death, of the persons that they are inflicted upon. Is that an attack on life? These persons may or may not be gulity of whatever we claim they are gulity of, but where does it say that a criminal is no longer a human? Tell me the CCC # or chapter and verse, please, because I seemed to have missed that.
[right][snapback]777274[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Tired left-wing excuses for voting Dem.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 2 2005, 06:15 PM']Tired left-wing excuses for voting Dem.
[right][snapback]777354[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I disagree, but regardless. You are pulling what many view as a classical Republican reaction. Not that it is common but it is what the barking dogs use, therefore it is classical.

So I ask for this one thing that you are so keen on forgetting, it is a simple thing, defined as, according to the OED,

[quote]a. An answer or response in words or writing; also transf., a response made by a gesture, act, etc.[/quote]

Not sure what it is? It is a simple thing, called a [i]reply[/i]. You claim that those are "excuses for voting Dem," but what makes them invalid? Nothing, expect your narrow partisan view point on the world and your failure to be liberal, as defined by the OED as

[quote]  4. a. Free from narrow prejudice; open-minded, candid.[/quote]

[philothea]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Nov 2 2005, 05:02 PM']They are good points, however, I do have a few issues still. It casts life issues as the first and foremost issue in terms of politics, which is good.

The problem I have is what is a life issue? At the risk of sounding like a supporter of the seamless garment school, I ask if people are dying in a preventable manner, is addressing that not an issue? E.g. People die everywhere due to hungery and proverty all over the world. Some nations, like the US and the nations that form the EU, have excess food supplies every year and have more then an excessive amount of wealth, thereby being in a position to prevent these deaths.

Most of Catholic social justice leans towards taking care of issues like this. Because a implementing social justice would result in lives saved that would otherwise be lost, is social justice then a life issue? It is related to life, clearly, and to the honoring of the sacred nature thereof.

So, would then social justice be a "non-neg" item as well? Thus, could one lend support to any person who opposes social welfare? Such as the GOP congressmen who wish to cut Medicaid and the food stamp programs? This is directly harming the lives of those people you use this systems.

Or is the Catholic view of life much like that promoted by the Republican Party, at least at many points in time, in that life exists from the moment of conception until the moment of birth, after that you are no longer alive?

And what about Capital Punishment? "Rather that 10 guilt men go free then one man is unjustly imprisoned." We must confess that our legal system is woefully imprefect. Some 1,900 man years have been served by people in jail only to have them later freed because of DNA evidence. It is the case in IL where, under Gov Ryan (the bad old days as opposed to the at least as bad current days), a signifcant number of men were found on death row who had not committed the crime that they were supposed to die for. Is that, then, a form of state sanctioned murder? Esp in light of the fact that in a number of the cases the DA and police withheld data that would have proven the innocence of the man during the trial and while he waited out the appeals process?

Or extraordinary rendition? Or "questionable" tatics used during "interviews?" These damage the physical body, and can lead to death, of the persons that they are inflicted upon. Is that an attack on life? These persons may or may not be gulity of whatever we claim they are gulity of, but where does it say that a criminal is no longer a human? Tell me the CCC # or chapter and verse, please, because I seemed to have missed that.
[right][snapback]777274[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I have the same issues. I still believe that evils [i]directily perpetrated by the government[/i] are worse than things which, though wrong, are not forced upon anyone. No one is advocating state mandated abortions like... say, in China (We're great buddies with them nowadays, BTW). However, rampant executions of innocent people, torture, and unjust war... yeah, that's all fine?

I find it highly suspicious when Catholic pundits advocate positions which -- oh, what a coincidence! -- point right toward the Republican party. The Repubican Party is not Catholic, not Christian, and not based on any particularly admirable morals.

The USCCB's advice to voters doesn't sound like Akin's at all.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Nov 2 2005, 06:26 PM']I disagree, but regardless. You are pulling what many view as a classical Republican reaction. Not that it is common but it is what the barking dogs use, therefore it is classical.

So I ask for this one thing that you are so keen on forgetting, it is a simple thing, defined as, according to the OED,
Not sure what it is? It is a simple thing, called a [i]reply[/i]. You claim that those are "excuses for voting Dem," but what makes them invalid? Nothing, expect your narrow partisan view point on the world and your failure to be liberal, as defined by the OED as
[right][snapback]777365[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well, since you asked for it . . .

Who said anything about Republican? The Constitution Party remains an option. I could never in good conscience vote for most Dems, though. You were the one who introduced political parties into this discussion, by snidely noting how the Catholic view of life is like that of the Republican Party.

Again, your arguments look like just more of the same ol' "seamless garment" tripe continually dragged forward by liberal "Catholics" to justify voting for balatantly pro-abort pols.

[quote]Some nations, like the US and the nations that form the EU, have excess food supplies every year and have more then an excessive amount of wealth, thereby being in a position to prevent these deaths[/quote].
Yes, helping feed the poor is good, no argument with that. However, This issue is not quite so simple as you make it out to be. The U.S. remains the world's largest charitable giver. (And polls actually show that in terms of personal donations, Republicans give more on average than Democrats). However, there are political problems. Corrupt leaders in third world countries often take food supplies donated by richer countries. Getting food to every starving person presents logistical difficulties, and much can and must be done on the local level to keep a country's people fed. Exactly how much must be given by countries such as the U.S.? Who decides? How far must the government go to insure people in foreign countries are fed? Is global socialism the answer? This is a whole debate in itself, but this can in no way be presented as a moral equivilent to abortion or euthanasia. No one is willfully killing others here.

[quote]Thus, could one lend support to any person who opposes social welfare? Such as the GOP congressmen who wish to cut Medicaid and the food stamp programs? This is directly harming the lives of those people you use this systems. [/quote]
This is even more absurd. Growing welfare dependency is a problem in this country. Since LBJ's instigation of modern welfare programs in the '60s, a dependent underclass has grown dramatically, as a culture of dependency and irresponsiblity has been created among the poor. Curbing government welfare in the long run would be beneficial, and can not, as you characture it, be compared to abortion.

[quote]And what about Capital Punishment?[/quote] Capital punishment is not synomous with unjust execution, as you make it to be. We should fight corruption in the law. St. Thomas Aquinas, the great Doctor of the Church, was a strong supporter of capital punishment, stating that a murderer forfeits his own right to live. As far as I'm aware, the Angelic Doctor had no ties to the Republican Party.

While these issues can be debated at length (start seperate threads, please), the main point remains, that Catholics can and do legitimately disagree on these things. However, they may not disagree concerning abortion and euthanasia, which are always wrong under any circumstances.
[quote]6. A similar distinction was made by the then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, His Emminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, to the American Bishops when he stated: “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.”[/quote]
Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, as far as I am aware, has no ties to the GOP. (Or is this the latest Michael Moore conspiracy theory?)

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid it's you, not the folks in the Catholic Leaders Conference, who are putting politics ahead of Faith and Catholic teaching.

Edited November 3, 2005 by Socrates

[Iacobus]

[quote name='philothea' date='Nov 2 2005, 06:58 PM']The USCCB's advice to voters doesn't sound like Akin's at all.
[right][snapback]777376[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I know, I find that so funny. It is almost like they took out a GOP platform and the USCCB's advice and then copied and pasted until they had something that was directed so far right it went left.

And Socrates, I will reply to you after CCD tonight. I have a prep session for the middle school class at 6:45 and it is a 10-15 minute walk to the Parish.

[Iacobus]

[quote]Who said anything about Republican? The Constitution Party remains an option. I could never in good conscience vote for most Dems, though. You were the one who introduced political parties into this discussion, by snidely noting how the Catholic view of life is like that of the Republican Party.[/quote]

I said that the Catholic view of life is like that of the Republican Party? I think I said:

[quote]Or is the Catholic view of life much like that promoted by the Republican Party, at least at many points in time, in that life exists from the moment of conception until the moment of birth, after that you are no longer alive?[/quote]

I think sometime last year, TCW said something to the effect of "The Republican party doesn't care about you after you are born and the Democrats don't care about you until you are born."

To a large extent the Republican platfrom discounts protecting life at all stages in favor of "protecting" life (to what extent they really end up protecting life is questionable) in the form on the unborn. The Catholic view is that (according to the USCCB),

[quote]we have a duty to defend human life from conception until natural death and in every condition.[/quote]

They proceed further to say,

[quote]In protecting human life, "We must begin with a commitment never to intentionally kill, or collude in the killing, of any innocent human life, no matter how broken, unformed, disabled or desperate that life may seem."[/quote]

[quote]While military force as a last resort can sometimes be justified to defend against aggression and similar threats to the common good, we have raised serious moral concerns and questions about preemptive or preventive use of force.[/quote]

[quote]We further urge our nation to take immediate and serious steps to reduce its own disproportionate role in the scandalous global trade in arms, which contributes to violent conflicts around the world.[/quote]

[quote]Yet our nation's increasing reliance on the death penalty cannot be justified. We do not teach that killing is wrong by killing those who kill others. Pope John Paul II has said the penalty of death is "both cruel and unnecessary".[/quote]

That is all in their section on human life, and guess what, so is abortion.

If the USCCB deems these all to be life issues shouldn't they be considered what the section called "Life issues?" And if we are duty bound to "defend human life from conception until natural death," how can we focus in on a narrow aspect and alway the others to unrapant because we don't agree with them as they are contary to our poltical views? The Bishops, to whom we owe allegenice, have said that the US's "increasing reliance on the death penalty cannot be justified." Doesn't that mean that we probly shouldn't be supporting the DP? I have failled to notice a rash of memebers of the USCCB being excommuncated, but maybe I don't read the same news as some of you do.

Notice, all of those issues I copied and pasted don't get play in the "short" voter's guides. However, the USCCB deem them important enough to be counted in their Statement on Faithful Citizenship... could it be because Bush stands on grounds opposing to many of these issues? Most people when they read "life issues" don't think of that full list the Bishops provide, but rather the short and "sexy" list of abortion and asstisted sucidie. This is the life issue equal of a save the whales campagin, they get all the press because they are cute.

What I am doing with my statement was comparing the Republican "short sighted" view on life with a rich and true Catholic prospective.

[quote]Yes, helping feed the poor is good, no argument with that. However, This issue is not quite so simple as you make it out to be. The U.S. remains the world's largest charitable giver. (And polls actually show that in terms of personal donations, Republicans give more on average than Democrats). However, there are political problems. Corrupt leaders in third world countries often take food supplies donated by richer countries. Getting food to every starving person presents logistical difficulties, and much can and must be done on the local level to keep a country's people fed. Exactly how much must be given by countries such as the U.S.? Who decides? How far must the government go to insure people in foreign countries are fed? Is global socialism the answer? This is a whole debate in itself, but this can in no way be presented as a moral equivilent to abortion or euthanasia. No one is willfully killing others here.[/quote]

Feeding the poor is good. How to deal with those difficulties, I am not well versed enough in that matter to give a full and comepent reply, however, that doesn't remove the fact that people are dying from this problem. I love this quote from the Bishop's statement on Faithful Citizenship,

[quote]Food is necessary for life itself.[/quote]

Food is necessary for life itself. Wow. Let us look at that. We could change it to say "With food, there can be life." By a simple slide of the wrist it can now say, "Without food, there can be no life."

Without food, there can be no life; with food, there can be life. Does that make food a life issue then? I mean, if food MUST be present for there to be life, what does life without food make? It is pouring sand into a seive unless we address that issue as well. These issues are basic human rights issues and fall under the catagory under some competmentalized minds as social justice issues and are therefore regulated to secondary concern, however, the bishops, and the human body itself, states that without food, water, etc, there can be no life. Therefore, are these more important then life issues because if these are ignored there can be no life?

I would argue that they are not more important because food without life is as useless as life without food. We must address both issues at the same time, otherwise, we make no progress. Call that feel good liberalism, but take away food and you won't get far, even with high birthrates and no abortion.

Does it matter how much the US gives? Or how much a blue state or red state gives? Not in the slightest, what matters is if it is enough. I can give you 5 dollars and Joe Smith can give you 3, but if you need 10 dollars to live it doesn't make a difference if I gave more then Joe or not. The US is giving more in terms of gross money then most states (not so in terms of GDP), but clearly what the world is giving is not enough. Therefore we all are called upon to give more regardless of how much we are currently giving.

[quote]This is even more absurd. Growing welfare dependency is a problem in this country. Since LBJ's instigation of modern welfare programs in the '60s, a dependent underclass has grown dramatically, as a culture of dependency and irresponsiblity has been created among the poor. Curbing government welfare in the long run would be beneficial, and can not, as you characture it, be compared to abortion.[/quote]

Some argue that [i]Roe v. Wade[/i] has saved this program millions, if not more, dollars because the number of women who undergo sugerical abortions is greater as their economic and social well-being decreases. Furthermore, the Contract With America, or whatever it was called, that Newt Gargrich (sp?) introduced also likely drove an increase in the rate abortions because it sought to cut funding for children born after entering the welfare rolls. Even if it did not increase the abortion rates, it does amount to a form of eugenics, which I am pretty sure isn't looked favorably upon by the Roman Catholic Church.

In the stead of my long reply to this answer, I shall let the bishops speak for me,

[quote]Efforts to provide for the basic financial needs of poor families and children must enhance their lives and protect their dignity. [u]The measure of welfare reform should be reducing poverty and dependency, not cutting resources and programs.[/u] We seek approaches that both promote greater responsibility and offer concrete steps to help families leave poverty behind. Welfare reform has focused on providing work and training, mostly in low-wage jobs. Other forms of support are necessary, including tax credits, health care, child care, and safe, affordable housing. Because we believe that families need help with the costs of raising children, we support increasing child tax credits and making them fully refundable. These credits allow families of modest means with children to keep more of what they earn and help lift low-income families out of poverty.

[u]We welcome efforts to recognize and support the work of faith-based groups not as a substitute for, but as a partner with, government efforts.[/u] Faith-based and community organizations are often more present, more responsive, and more effective in the poorest communities and countries. We oppose efforts to undermine faith-based institutions and their identity, integrity, and freedom to serve those in need. We also vigorously resist efforts to abandon civil rights protections and the long-standing protections for religious groups to preserve their identity as they serve the poor and advance the common good.

We are also concerned about the income security of low- and average-wage workers and their families when they retire, become disabled, or die. In many cases, women are particularly disadvantaged. Any proposal to change Social Security must provide a decent and reliable income for these workers and their dependents.

Affordable and accessible health care is an essential safeguard of human life, a fundamental human right, and an urgent national priority. We need to reform the nation's health care system, and this reform must be rooted in values that respect human dignity, protect human life, and meet the needs of the poor and uninsured. With tens of millions of Americans lacking basic health insurance, we support measures to ensure that decent health care is available to all as a moral imperative. [u]We also support measures to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid as well as measures that extend health care coverage to children, pregnant women, workers, immigrants, and other vulnerable populations.[/u] We support policies that provide effective, compassionate care that reflects our moral values for those suffering from HIV/AIDS and those coping with addictions.[/quote]

All emphasis added.

[quote] Capital punishment is not synomous with unjust execution, as you make it to be. We should fight corruption in the law. St. Thomas Aquinas, the great Doctor of the Church, was a strong supporter of capital punishment, stating that a murderer forfeits his own right to live. As far as I'm aware, the Angelic Doctor had no ties to the Republican Party.[/quote]

As far as I know it wouldn't matter for Aquinas has ties to the GOP. However, the Bishops, and the recent popes, have all been saying that the DP is becoming increasing outdates. JPII said that Western Europe and North America has reached the point were we can ensure that we can hold prisioners without likelyhood of escape. The Bishops of the US went so far as to say that our use of the DP cannot, they said the word cannot, be justified. Furthermore, in reply to Aquinas, current teaching states that all life, not matter how ruined, broken, with disregard to the person, should be respected at all times.

Edited November 3, 2005 by Iacobus

[Iacobus]

Just because my code didn't work in that post doesn't mean I don't expect a reply.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Nov 3 2005, 12:38 PM']Just because my code didn't work in that post doesn't mean I don't expect a reply.
[right][snapback]777905[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
My, my, we are hasty folk! Keep in mind that other people have work and other things to do besides post on phatmass.

[quote]Or is the Catholic view of life much like that promoted by the Republican Party, at least at many points in time, in that life exists from the moment of conception until the moment of birth, after that you are no longer alive

I think sometime last year, TCW said something to the effect of "The Republican party doesn't care about you after you are born and the Democrats don't care about you until you are born." [/quote]
This is silly drivel and hardly merits a reply. We conservatives believe that all innocent human life from conception to natural death deserves protection under the law. The Church has always allowed for death penalty in the cases of grievous crime such as murder, but that is separate issue. More on that later.

As for the USCCB quotes, it should be pointed out that the USCCB is not the same as the universal magisterium of the Catholic Church, and its statements are not infallable. It is well known that the USCCB leans left politically and has ties to the Democratic Party. Lately the American Bishops as a group have hardly been a model of wise and moral leadership (though there are a few excellent bishops). It is fine and good that you quote them, but it does show a double standard on your part that you dismiss the statements of groups whose statements on morality you consider too conservative or "Republican," while having no problem with those who lean politically towards the liberal Democrats. More on this later.

[quote]Most people when they read "life issues" don't think of that full list the Bishops provide, but rather the short and "sexy" list of abortion and asstisted sucidie. This is the life issue equal of a save the whales campagin, they get all the press because they are cute.[/quote]
Battered Shrimp! Pure and simple!
Opposition to abortion and euthanasia are hardly considered "sexy" in today's cultural/political climate! Hardly the causes to make one glamorous in the secular "celebrity" culture!
These issues are listed on the "short list" because they are morally more important, as our Holy Father has said himself.

[quote]Feeding the poor is good. How to deal with those difficulties, I am not well versed enough in that matter to give a full and comepent reply, however, that doesn't remove the fact that people are dying from this problem. I love this quote from the Bishop's statement on Faithful Citizenship . . . [clipped for length, see original source]][/quote]
All very interesting, but I honestly fail to see how this is relevent to the issue of voting for pro-abort politicians, etc. No one is talking about willfully letting people starve to death here. Are you saying that as long as people are starving in the world, the U.S. "allowing" this is the equivlalent of sanctioning abortion? Do you think that if the Dems were in control no one would starve?
Most famines in the world have political causes. They are caused by corrupt leaders not allowing food supplies to get to certain groups of people, or by economic corruption in those countries. They are not caused just by the rich nations "not sharing" with the poor. Yes, something should be done about this - but what? For the U.S. to "solve" all worldwide hunger would require "world-policing" on an impossible scale.
But I digress, as this is all off-topic. The problem of world hunger can in no way justify supporting abortion or pro-abort pols.

[quote]Some argue that Roe v. Wade has saved this program millions, if not more, dollars because the number of women who undergo sugerical abortions is greater as their economic and social well-being decreases. Furthermore, the Contract With America, or whatever it was called, that Newt Gargrich (sp?) introduced also likely drove an increase in the rate abortions because it sought to cut funding for children born after entering the welfare rolls. Even if it did not increase the abortion rates, it does amount to a form of eugenics, which I am pretty sure isn't looked favorably upon by the Roman Catholic Church. [/quote]
This is a huuuge load of horse dung!
Reducing the welfare state does not force anyone to have abortions!
Abortion rates were MUCH LOWER before the instigation of welfare programs in the '60s. With the growth of the welfare state, the number of both abortions and illegitimate births has skyrocketed!
Since the beginning of the welfare state in America, we have created a permanent underclass and a culture of irresponsiblity and dependency, which has hardly been conducive to a "culture of life"!
And blaming abortion directly on poverty is itself a false premise. In our country's past, people, both black and white, endured FAR GREATER economic hardship than in recent decades, yet abortion rates were MUCH lower!
What we need is a return to morality, personal repsonsibility and a culture of life, not more tax dollars "thrown" at the problem.
Saying that cutting back welfare is "eugenics" is absurd and slanderous!
Using your support of the welfare state as an excuse to vote pro-abort is by far the worst argument I have seen here.

[quote]Furthermore, in reply to Aquinas, current teaching states that all life, not matter how ruined, broken, with disregard to the person, should be respected at all times.[/quote]
The Church's moral teaching does not change. The Church has always allowed for use of capital punishment. (And your original post from the Bishops said "all [b]innocent[/b] life"- this is an important distinction!) Equivocating the death penalty with abortion and euthanasia is wrong, and goes against what the Church has always taught.

To your objections I must repeat my quote from Cardinal Ratzinger:
[quote]A similar distinction was made by the then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, His Emminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, to the American Bishops when he stated: “[b]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[/b].”[/quote]
Our current Holy Father was speaking to the American Bishops, and speaking against exactly this kind of equivocation you make in this post, when he made this statement. He was reminding us that the issues of abortion and euthanasia have a greater importance, and that we are not to compromise on them. (And he was not saying this to be "cute" or "sexy" or out of loyalty to the GOP, but because he was speaking the truth of the Church on behalf of the Holy Father John Paul II.)
I suggest you humbly heed his words, and not put your personal political opinions and loyalties ahead of Catholic Truth!

Edited November 4, 2005 by Socrates

[StatingTheObvious]

[quote name='philothea' date='Nov 2 2005, 07:58 PM']I have the same issues.  I still believe that evils [i]directily perpetrated by the government[/i] are worse than things which, though wrong, are not forced upon anyone.  No one is advocating state mandated abortions like... say, in China (We're great buddies with them nowadays, BTW).  However, rampant executions of innocent people, torture, and unjust war... yeah, that's all fine?

I find it highly suspicious when Catholic pundits advocate positions which -- oh, what a coincidence! -- point right toward the Republican party.  The Repubican Party is not Catholic, not Christian, and not based on any particularly admirable morals. 

The USCCB's advice to voters doesn't sound like Akin's at all.
[right][snapback]777376[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Let's see now...
Saddam's policies that are responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of people in the last few years (as reported by the UN) is better than the thousands of death as a result of the US war? Is 1 death caused by the US, 1,000 times worse than 1 death caused by the Iraq government?

[Iacobus]

Socrates, I am working on a reply for you. I have been busy today with getting ready for a panel that I am leading on Monday about the nature of the early USSR with a classmate and then I worked with kids in inner city DM tonight, like I do every Friday because I want to know why I don't want to be a teacher. I haven't had the time to work on a reply. Maybe I can get one up tomorrow, I hope to, I have Protecting God's Children (a lovely sexual abuse awareness training session for all RE staff) until noon and then I work from 5-9. Depending on my homework, I might be able to get one up tomorrow afternoon.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Nov 2 2005, 06:02 PM']The problem I have is what is a life issue?
[right][snapback]777274[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

LOL - and who do you support with your vote?

[MC Just]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 3 2005, 08:33 PM']As for the USCCB quotes, it should be pointed out that the USCCB is not the same as the universal magisterium of the Catholic Church, and its statements are not infallable.  It is well known that the USCCB leans left politically and has ties to the Democratic Party.  Lately the American Bishops as a group have hardly been a model of wise and moral leadership (though there are a few excellent bishops).  It is fine and good that you quote them, but it does show a double standard on your part that you dismiss the statements of groups whose statements on morality you consider too conservative or "Republican,"

[right][snapback]778238[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

yea its a bit annoying watching those "bishops" so called overseers sit perfectly still while liberal catholics get away with murder.

Edited November 6, 2005 by MC Just