Catholics, Encyclicals, Magesterium, Authority

[PhatPhred]

Thanks everyone for all the input. I've still got some more reading to do, but so far it looks like my voting philosophy is completely in line with the magisterium, which is what I was worried about when I first read Ash Wednesday's post.

http://www.usccb.org/prolife/gospel.htm

This was the most relevant document. Paragraph 34 states:

We encourage all citizens, particularly Catholics, to embrace their citizenship not merely as a duty and privilege, but as an opportunity meaningfully to participate in building the culture of life. Every voice matters in the public forum. Every vote counts. Every act of responsible citizenship is an exercise of significant individual power. We must exercise that power in ways that defend human life, especially those of God's children who are unborn, disabled or otherwise vulnerable. We get the public officials we deserve. Their virtue -- or lack thereof -- is a judgment not only on them, but on us. Because of this, we urge our fellow citizens to see beyond party politics, to analyze campaign rhetoric critically, and to choose their political leaders according to principle, not party affiliation or mere self-interest.

So pro-life is very, very important, not only in our votes but in all manner of civic participation, but choosing a candidate is a lot more involved than having a knee-jerk reaction to rhetoric on a single issue. This is quite different from the viewpoint that "a vote for a Democrat is a vote against the magisterium."

In the 2000 election, we could reasonably forsee Bush passing pro-life laws, but noone knew that he would start an unjust war.

Yes, but now in 2004 we know better. As for the pro-life laws, Bush is a spin-master of show over substance, so my question is how many unborn lives were actually saved by those laws.

Don' get me wrong; Bush's anti-abortion efforts are a small step in the right direction. It's just not enough to make up for everything else he's done.

THe teaching on abortion is dogma, the Vatican's opinon on war is not. One we can disgree with, one we cannot. One affects our salvation, the other does not.

Now you've headed down the slippery slope of dissent. My goal is to be 100% faithful to the magisterium, not 100% faithful to the Republican party. Do you really think that the life of an Iraqi citizen is less precious in God's eyes than the life of an unborn American baby?

I agree with you PhatPhred, even though I have always voted republican and I probably will. You need to weigh the good stuff with the bad, and figure out who will bring the greatest good to office.

Thanks for the support. Way back when I was very involved in the College Republicans, so I can relate. Both parties have their positive and negative points.

i bolded and underlined some things that i thought were important (i hope u don't mind).

Thanks for the work you put into this. It helps to point out the many pro-life positions that we need to take because of our Catholic faith. And Catholic politicians have absolutely no excuse for not supporting pro-life legislation.

[phatcatholic]

Catholic citizens to choose among the various political opinions that are compatible with faith and the natural moral law, and to select, according to their own criteria, what best corresponds to the needs of the common good.

The Church recognizes that while democracy is the best expression of the direct participation of citizens in political choices, it succeeds only to the extent that it is based on a correct understanding of the human person.[17] Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on this principle, for otherwise the witness of the Christian faith in the world, as well as the unity and interior coherence of the faithful, would be non-existent.

At the same time, legislative proposals are put forward which, heedless of the consequences for the existence and future of human beings with regard to the formation of culture and social behaviour, attack the very inviolability of human life. Catholics, in this difficult situation, have the right and the duty to recall society to a deeper understanding of human life and to the responsibility of everyone in this regard. John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a «grave and clear obligation to oppose» any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them.[19] As John Paul II has taught in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae regarding the situation in which it is not possible to overturn or completely repeal a law allowing abortion which is already in force or coming up for a vote, «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».[20]

In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia (not to be confused with the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate). Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death. In the same way, it is necessary to recall the duty to respect and protect the rights of the human embryo. Analogously, the family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such. The same is true for the freedom of parents regarding the education of their children; it is an inalienable right recognized also by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. In the same way, one must consider society’s protection of minors and freedom from modern forms of slavery (drug abuse and prostitution, for example). In addition, there is the right to religious freedom and the development of an economy that is at the service of the human person and of the common good, with respect for social justice, the principles of human solidarity and subsidiarity, according to which «the rights of all individuals, families, and organizations and their practical implementation must be acknowledged».[21] Finally, the question of peace must be mentioned. Certain pacifistic and ideological visions tend at times to secularize the value of peace, while, in other cases, there is the problem of summary ethical judgments which forget the complexity of the issues involved. Peace is always «the work of justice and the effect of charity».[22] It demands the absolute and radical rejection of violence and terrorism and requires a constant and vigilant commitment on the part of all political leaders.

no Catholic can appeal to the principle of pluralism or to the autonomy of lay involvement in political life to support policies affecting the common good which compromise or undermine fundamental ethical requirements.

The social doctrine of the Church is not an intrusion into the government of individual countries. It is a question of the lay Catholic’s duty to be morally coherent, found within one’s conscience, which is one and indivisible.

Living and acting in conformity with one’s own conscience on questions of politics is not slavish acceptance of positions alien to politics or some kind of confessionalism, but rather the way in which Christians offer their concrete contribution so that, through political life, society will become more just and more consistent with the dignity of the human person.

At the same time, the Church teaches that authentic freedom does not exist without the truth. «Truth and freedom either go together hand in hand or together they perish in misery».

9. The principles contained in the present Note are intended to shed light on one of the most important aspects of the unity of Christian life: coherence between faith and life, Gospel and culture

May Christians...be proud of the opportunity to carry out their earthly activity in such a way as to integrate human, domestic, professional, scientific and technical enterprises with religious values, under whose supreme direction all things are ordered to the glory of God».

phatphred,

the quote above is the lines that i hilighted from the lengthy article i provided in my previous post. by just considering these lines, i think we most succinctly see the point of the article:

the faithful catholic is the one who votes for the candidate who most completely defends the dignity of human life as outlined by the catholic church.

if that is understood, then you have to look at what each candidate believes about the issues that most directly affect human life. just as degrees of sinfulness are measured by how directly they affect other people, the extent to which a candidate defends the dignity of the human person depends on his stance on issues that most directly affect the human person.

i reccomend the following continuum, but others may wish to put some issues before others:

1. abortion

2. captial punishment

3. euthanasia

4. war

the remaining list would include issues that pertain to our pursuit for liberty and happiness

5. education

6. health care

7. taxes

8. the economy

........and things like that.

1-4 are desinated as such b/c these are the issues that most directly effect life, in the sense that these most directly take life away. abortion would be first b/c their are no extenuating circumstances in which abortion is ok. abortion is the taking of a life and is wrong in every instance (at least as i understand it).

2-4 fall in order by range of extenuating circumstances. captial punishment is even condoned by the church --if it is the only and best way to maintain public safety-- but w/ the improvement of the justice system this circumstance is virutally non-existent, so it is second.

only euthanasia by direct action is condemned by the church. euthanasia by inaction and/or indirect action is permissible. for more on this, see this article.

finally, w/ just war theory, wars can be fought in which not a single life is lost. even in wars that are contrary to the church's just war theory, the loss of life can be avoided. so, it is fourth.

now, if u look at this continuum--at least as i have outlined it--the most important issue is abortion. and b/c it is the duty of the catholic to chose the candidate who most completely defends the dignity of the human person, the candidate's stance on abortion needs to be considered first and foremost. that is why so many catholics chose their candidate solely based on this issue. it is THE issue of the day that most directly effects the dignity of human life.

for me to vote for someone who is pro-choice, that person must be a staunch supporter of life in almost every other regard. however, those who are pro-choice often hold a stance that degrades the dignity of human life in other issues as well. also, democrats are more likely to be liberal. it is my understanding that the more liberal you are the more relativistic you become about objective moral truths. the article i provided in my earlier post talks much about the danger of relativism in politics as well.

anyway, those are my thoughts, and they explain how i vote the way i do. however, i am neither a theologian nor a political science major....................although i do see my stance as in-line w/ church thought.

ur comments?

i hope this helps..........pax christi,

phatcatholic

[cmotherofpirl]

Now you've headed down the slippery slope of dissent. My goal is to be 100% faithful to the magisterium, not 100% faithful to the Republican party. Do you really think that the life of an Iraqi citizen is less precious in God's eyes than the life of an unborn American baby?

Wrong and here is why.

I was a democrat for 30 years, and in college worked for the party.

I tried for years to vote for prolife democrats, but they have become as scarce as hen's teeth.

I can no longer support a party that proclaims death to children as part of its platform. And becuase I am disabled, in voting republican I am usually voting against my personal good. But as the documents point out, the common good is more important.

I am 100% faithful to the magisterium.

You know as well as I, that the Iraqi citizen already has life, while the unborn baby has about a 50-50% chance.

You are probably safer in Iraq, than in the womb of an American female.

[cmotherofpirl]

phatcatholic my list would go something like this:

abortion

euthanasia

legal system

health care

education

capital punishment

[phatcatholic]

cmom,

any justification for the different list?

also, in a totally unrelated note, congratulations on passing 6,000 posts!

(wow, i got my work ahead of me!)

back on topic, i would like to know why u propose a diff. list then the one i suggested.

thanks,

phatcatholic

[PhatPhred]

anyway, those are my thoughts, and they explain how i vote the way i do. however, i am neither a theologian nor a political science major....................although i do see my stance as in-line w/ church thought.

ur comments?

i hope this helps..........pax christi,

phatcatholic

I also see your stance as in-line with the magisterium, but not the only way to be in-line with the magisterium.

I have a slightly different take on the issue. A lot of the document you quoted was concerned with the actual laws that govern society, and it gave guidelines on what was the best way for a government to "become more just and more consistent with the dignity of the human person." I believe in voting for the person who can take us the closest in that direction.

I view pro-life as the most important issue. Unlike you, I don't see any justification in ranking one life against another. I think that all aspects of pro-life are equally important: anti-abortion, anti-unjust-war, anti-unjust-captial-punishment, and anti-euthanasia. Thus, by my definition, there aren't very many pro-life politicians of either party out there.

I don't follow your point about the theoretical possibility of a war without casualties. It's also theoretically possible that in a country were abortion is legal that not a single mother will choose to abort her unborn child. In the real world, neither of these has ever happened, not is it ever likely to. But by your logic, they should both be on the same level. Only government-required abortion (as in China's one child per family policy) would rate the highest level of importance.

Next on my list are those issues relating to the poor and hungry. After that, are the issues that affect those that have enough to live comfortably.

[PhatPhred]

I am 100% faithful to the magisterium.

That's good to hear. I thought that you were dissenting from the magisterium's teaching that Bush's war against Iraq was completely unjust. Sorry for the mistake.

[PhatPhred]

You know as well as I, that the Iraqi citizen already has life, while the unborn baby has about a 50-50% chance.

You are probably safer in Iraq, than in the womb of an American female.

This is very likely true. However, my argument against Bush is that he hasn't made the womb of an American female any safer (still a 50-50% chance), at the same time that he decided to made things much unsafer in Iraq.

[Aloysius]

That's good to hear. I thought that you were dissenting from the magisterium's teaching that Bush's war against Iraq was completely unjust. Sorry for the mistake.

that's not the magisterium's teaching. that was the Pope's opinion. he didn't declare it from the Chair of St. Peter as a matter of Morals.

he did not have all the intelligence as readily available to him.

from the looks of it the scientists were lying on paper to Saddam telling him what he wanted to hear, that they had succeeded in their weopons of mass destruction programs. so on paper, it appeared they did. and the intelligence services therefore thought they did.

i don't think it was an unjust war, chew on that. the Pope as a theologian said he didn't think that the war met St. Augustine's criteria. as an amateur theologian myself, i think it did. many other smart theologians thought it also did. i think the reason the Pope didn't think so was that he didn't have all the intelligence that Bush had. the Pope never declaired as a matter of faith or morals in the office of St. Peter that the war in Iraq was an unjust war. if it did, i'd take that as true. i'd consider it odd, since the gift of infallibility is rarely applied by the spirit to current events, otherwise St. Peter never would have ran away from the crucifixion denying Jesus 3 times. it's usually applied more to doctrine, saying certain actions are moral or immoral or that certain things must be believed by all Christians.

[PhatPhred]

that's not the magisterium's teaching.  that was the Pope's opinion.

The Magisterium is the living teaching authority of the Church which is entrusted to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him. The teaching on the unjustness of the Iraqi war was most definitely a part of the magisterium.

he didn't declare it from the Chair of St. Peter as a matter of Morals.

This is the requirement for being an infallible teaching. Most of the teaching of the magisterium doesn't fall into this category (including, for example, the teaching on artificial birth control), but that doesn't make it optional.

he did not have all the intelligence as readily available to him.  [...]

i don't think it was an unjust war, chew on that.

Because the Pope's assessment wasn't based on all the secret intelligence that was available, good Catholics could disagree with that assessment. However, those who did disagree can't call themselves 100% faithful to the magisterium. Maybe 99.44%, which is good enough for Ivory soap.

As it turned out, however, the Pope was absolutely right: There were no weapons of mass destruction found after we conquered Iraq.

[Aloysius]

Quote me the Magisterium teaching that the war in Iraq was unjust, please. thank you.

[Aloysius]

oh, and also, since when isn't the Church's teaching on birth control infallible.

i got news for you:

IT IS!

[PhatPhred]

Quote me the Magisterium teaching that the war in Iraq was unjust, please.  thank you.

How about

here or here or here or here

or

here or here or here or here

or

any of the dozens of links from here.

[PhatPhred]

oh, and also, since when isn't the Church's teaching on birth control infallible.

Certainly before 1968, because the committee that Pope Paul VI put together before issuing Humanae Vitae recommended by a large majority that the teaching be changed. The pope decided to overrule the committee, but the fact that the bishops on the committee even considered changing the teaching meant that it was not infallible.

Even today the bishops in South Africa are endorsing the limited use of condoms.

i got news for you:

IT IS!

Okay, now how about you showing me the place where a Pope declares, affirms, and defines the teaching on birth control to be infallible from the Chair of St. Peter.

[Aloysius]

Humanae Vitae is just the tip of a universal teaching of the whole Church, therefore it falls under the third requirement for infallibility "magisterium ordinadum" the teaching of the ordinary magisterium. because up until 1960 a consensus of Popes and bishops throughout the world have taught against it this teaching is the ordinary teaching of the Magisterium, and is thus infallible.

Pax