Excommunicating Non-voters

[SJRod55]

Many people died in the past to give each of us the 'right to vote.' It is an obligation but a civil one, perhaps even a moral one. But not a sacred one. The Bishop has an obligation to educate his flock on their civic duty and their moral responsibility but to threaten their soul for failing to do so is perhaps beyond his mandate.

We should all vote in our respective countries and realize how many sacrifices were made so we can do so. But allow us to get direction from our spiritual leaders and not be threatened with excommunication for failing to do so.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Rod' post='1172304' date='Jan 21 2007, 02:56 PM']
Many people died in the past to give each of us the 'right to vote.' It is an obligation but a civil one, perhaps even a moral one. But not a sacred one. The Bishop has an obligation to educate his flock on their civic duty and their moral responsibility but to threaten their soul for failing to do so is perhaps beyond his mandate.

We should all vote in our respective countries and realize how many sacrifices were made so we can do so. But allow us to get direction from our spiritual leaders and not be threatened with excommunication for failing to do so.
[/quote]
Please see Cappie's post above. Denying Communion is not the same as Excommunication.
While you may or may not agree with the Nigerian bishops' decision, we must realize that in Nigeria, the stakes are very high. Christians have been slaughtered and enslaved in that country.

I wish the bishops in the this country would get tougher regarding political support of abortion.

[Resurrexi]

[quote]If democracy is evil, surely the Magisterium would teach that.[/quote]

I should correct myself. Catholics are allowed to believe in any form of government they want that does not conflict Catholic Teaching. A Catholic cannot support Communism or Socialism, governments that have public schools, governments that are not offocially Catholic, governments that separate Church and state, nor can Catholics support governments founded by revolutions since those things were [color="#FF0000"]condemned [/color]as errors in the [i]Syllabus of Errors of Bl. Pius IX[/i]

[quote name='The Syllabus of Errors of Bl. Pius IX']IV. SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, SECRET SOCIETIES, BIBLICAL SOCIETIES, CLERICO-LIBERAL SOCIETIES

Pests of this kind are frequently reprobated in the severest terms in the Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846, Allocution "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849, Encyclical "Noscitis et nobiscum," Dec. 8, 1849, Allocution "Singulari quadam," Dec. 9, 1854, Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863.

7. The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to children of every class of the people, and, generally, all public institutes intended for instruction in letters and philosophical sciences and for carrying on the education of youth, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power at the pleasure of the rulers, and according to the standard of the prevalent opinions of the age. -- Epistle to the Archbishop of Freiburg, "Cum non sine," July 14, 1864.

48. Catholics may approve of the system of educating youth unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the Church, and which regards the knowledge of merely natural things, and only, or at least primarily, the ends of earthly social life. -- Ibid.

77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.

55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

63. It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel against them. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1864; Allocution "Quibusque vestrum," Oct. 4, 1847; "Noscitis et Nobiscum," Dec. 8, 1849; Apostolic Letter "Cum Catholica."
[/quote]

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1172387' date='Jan 21 2007, 04:49 PM']
I should correct myself. Catholics are allowed to believe in any form of government they want that does not conflict Catholic Teaching. A Catholic cannot support Communism or Socialism, governments that have public schools, governments that are not offocially Catholic, governments that separate Church and state, nor can Catholics support governments founded by revolutions since those things were [color="#FF0000"]condemned [/color]as errors in the [i]Syllabus of Errors of Bl. Pius IX[/i]
[/quote]
Try quoting something for Vatican II on this subject.

Catholics can and do support the USA where we have public schools, governments that are not offocially Catholic, governments that separate Church and state, and governments founded by revolutions .

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1172423' date='Jan 21 2007, 03:38 PM']
Try quoting something for Vatican II on this subject.

Catholics can and do support the USA where we have public schools, governments that are not offocially Catholic, governments that separate Church and state, and governments founded by revolutions .
[/quote]

I'm sorry, but you are going against offocial Catholic Teaching. You are disobeying the Magisterium. And I'm not trying to say that in a personal-attackish way.

[dairygirl4u2c]

you all should break out the citations.

i like that stthom plays ultraconservative here. it's like putting the people who think they are conservative on a different spin. now they are the "liberals". should make them think when they talk to "liberals" again, whether they are truly right just because the are taking the status quo conservative position.
there's a stronger conservatism out there! what does this mean? maybe that you're taking the staus quo position and should probably consider a little from both the ultra con and liberal positions. be your own person. etc etc the status quo didn't happen to just be right.

Edited January 21, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[VeniteAdoremus]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1172475' date='Jan 22 2007, 01:02 AM']
you all should break out the citations.

i like that stthom plays ultraconservative here. it's like putting the people who think they are conservative on a different spin. now they are the "liberals". should make them think when they talk to "liberals" again, whether they are truly right just because the are taking the status quo conservative position.
there's a stronger conservatism out there! what does this mean? maybe that you're taking the staus quo position and should probably consider a little from both the ultra con and liberal positions. be your own person. etc etc the status quo didn't happen to just be right.
[/quote]

That's certainly food for thought... I consider myself to be to the left of the political spectrum (and since the whole European political spectrum is a bit to the left of the American one, I would be quite the extreme lefty there), but for a great part that has been because I grew up in communities where that is the status quo. The "thinking for myself" is quite new. Fortunately, for great part it agrees with what I already "thought" - although I switched parties after the leader of "my" party called "the [i]entire [/i]Catholic Church and the [i]extremist[/i] Islam the real axis of evil" (emphasis mine).

Anyway. The world would be a better place if people thought more before they spake (including me, yesh ).

[Aloysius]

it is quite fascinating how in these times a traditionalist mindset gets formed. in throwing themselves back to a pre-Vatican II mindset, they begin to blur the boundries of all of history and find themselves even more at odds with the world than a 1950's Catholic was; and not just because the world's gotten worse in the past fifty years as regards morality but also because they not only borrow ideas from fifty years ago, they borrow with equal zeal ideas from 500 years ago.

a Catholic before Vatican II was very much a participant in American Republic, and very patriotic to it as well. and it's not like they were doing that to the shigrin of the Magisterium or anything; Bishops back then wanted Catholics to vote as much as they do now. the Syllabus of Errors was still in force (as, I would would argue, it still is in force today as a matter of sound Catholic principals about the ideal situation of Church and State), but it was certainly not taken to mean that all Catholics in democratic countries must refuse to partake in all excercises of democracy as they awaited the day when the Americas would be conquered by great kings who would restore monarchial order.

but I do think it's a positive thing for the Church to get an influx of people who would borrow from her entire history to form their opinions about what should be done today, that's all cool. And I definitely support monarchies... but there is room in the world for republics as well. there are very sound Catholic and traditional european principals behind the idea of a republic with elements of democracy. the Syllabus stands in principal to reminds us that it is an error to think democracy is absolutely the best thing ever and the monarchies of the past were all just evil.

I would argue that not everyone has a moral obligation to vote (there are people who do not live in democracies, or who are not educated on the issues, or who have some legal impediment to voting). in fact, if someone is legitimately not informed on the issues, I would argue it sinful for them to vote blindly, a form of recklessly affecting the course of human events with indiference. proper citizens of democratic nations who know what is going on in their nation and have means of affecting what is going on in the world, however, do have a moral obligation to affect their world in some way. if the way they are able to affect things is by voting, then they certainly should use that.

anyway, the Syllabus of Errors is an interesting document. It is very easy to take a list of negations and turn them to negate all sorts of things. For instance: I could state: "It is an error to say that parents ought to be legally obligated to send their children to a state sponsored school". Now, I 100% believe that that is an error. But someone may come up to me and say "Anarchist comrade, we must take action to dismantle the evil public school system"... and I would certainly be shocked. I am no anarchist, and certainly do not wish ill towards a public school system as an option (I oppose it as legally obligatory). But from my condemnation, this anarchist fellow might see me as a champion of his cause as well.

So it is with the Syllabus. It does not oppose many things as options for the state, it opposes them as being considered the ideal form of the state. And it certainly doesn't come into agreement with the idea that citizens with the means and oppurtunity to be represented in a republic should opt out on the basis that it's not the most ideal form of government. Piux IX might look at you the way I look at the anarchist fellow who expects me to help him blow up schools.

all your quotes of the syllabus are very precisely false principals. but have you ever taken a true/false quiz with a very clever teacher? if you have, you can understand what I'm saying: a negation is a very precise thing. It condemns nothing else except the precise statment it proports to condemn: we should not support the principal that the best form of government has no official Catholic religion and requires children to be educated outside of the Church. but if it already exists as a system to be worked within, we can still apply such principals: that our kids should be able to be educated within the power of the family and the Church; that an ideal state would be Catholic and as such our state is not an ideal state. none of it means: disasosiate yourself from all things related to the american government or voting process.

[Resurrexi]

I'm actually thinking now that the Bishop was correct to do this. Even if a Catholic does not support democracy, it is his obligation to fufill his civic duties as the Catechism says:

[quote name='The Catechism of the Catholic Church']2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country:

Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.45

[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. . . . They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. . . . So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.46

The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way."47 [/quote]

His Excellency has authority over his diocese and therefore those in his diocese must obey him in all that is not sinful. As the Catechism says:

[quote name='The Catechism of the Council of Trent']THE HONOR DUE TO BISHOPS AND PRIESTS

Of Bishops and other pastors it is written: Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.24

What wondrous proofs of love for the Apostle must the Galatians have shown! For he bears this splendid testimony of their benevolence: I bear you witness that if it could be done, you would have plucked out your own eyes, and would have given them to me.25

The priest is also entitled to receive whatever is necessary for his support. Who, says the Apostle, serveth as a soldier at his own charges?26 Give honour to the priests, it is written in Ecclesiasticus, and purify thyself with thy arms; give them their portion, as it is commanded thee, of the first fruits and of purifications.27

The Apostle also teaches that they are entitled to obedience: Obey your prelates, and be subject to them; for they watch as being to render an account of your souls.28 Nay, more, Christ the Lord commands obedience even to wicked pastors: Upon the chair of Moses have sitten the scribes and Pharisees: all things, therefore, whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do; but according to their works do ye not, for they say and do not.29 *[/quote]

Moreover, I now no longer believe democracy to be evil in itself. I believe all democracy that supports the items condemned in the [i]Syllabus of Errors[/i] by Bl. Pius X to be evil, but I do not find Christian Democracy (see [i]Graves de communi[/i] by Pope Leo XIII) to be evil. Of course, Communism and Socialism will always be evil as they were condemned in the [i]Syllabus of Errors[/i]

Edited February 5, 2007 by StThomasMore

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1172423' date='Jan 21 2007, 05:38 PM']
Try quoting something for Vatican II on this subject.

Catholics can and do support the USA where we have public schools, governments that are not offocially Catholic, governments that separate Church and state, and governments founded by revolutions .
[/quote]

I'm all for you supporting Vatican II and whatnot if that's what you believe. But to ignore past teaching and require that something be quoted from Vatican II is so sad coming from people that claim to hold to all of Catholic Tradition. If you don't believe that your church is only 40 some years old or so (which I hold it is) then start acting like it. Or do you guys really only have 40 years of tradition to hold on to?

[quote name='Nathan' post='1171790' date='Jan 20 2007, 10:34 PM']
If democracy is evil, surely the Magisterium would teach that.
[/quote]

Not necessarily. Many things are evil, like the Wiggles for instance, or creamy peanut butter, or any number of things yet the Vatican hasn't spoken yet.

and to add something somewhat relevant to the topic, I don't believe Democracy is evil persay but like all other forms of government it fails in a non-Catholic nation and becomes sinful for a non-Catholic nation. Catholics can and should exercise their right to vote. Anyone who wishes to vote for something against Catholic morals should not be allowed to do so. As for the bishops right to do what he did I don't suppose it was all that bad if he was telling the Catholics to vote, as they are the ones to whom this right is truly given.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1167323' date='Jan 16 2007, 07:51 PM']
Would a catholic bishop be justified to do this in America?
[/quote]

Nigeria and the U.S. are two very different countries in very different circumstances. It sounds like the bishop is going to an extreme, and I wonder just how enforceable his policy is, but his point is that Catholics must be engaged in the political process even if it's rigged by greedy businessmen and politicians because God will use to the Church to reform countries if the Church is open to it.

Regardless, for most decisions, bishops don't need justification because we are supposed to obey them as Christ himself. Of course, if he were to completely go off the deep end, that's a different story. Otherwise, when the bishop says to vote, you vote, when he says to kneel, you kneel, and when he says to stand, you stand.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1185557' date='Feb 5 2007, 04:58 PM']
Nigeria and the U.S. are two very different countries in very different circumstances.
[/quote]

You referring to the part about greedy businessmen and politicians? Not sure I'd agree that they were very different at all in this regard.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1185555' date='Feb 5 2007, 02:53 PM']
I'm all for you supporting Vatican II and whatnot if that's what you believe. But to ignore past teaching and require that something be quoted from Vatican II is so sad coming from people that claim to hold to all of Catholic Tradition. If you don't believe that your church is only 40 some years old or so (which I hold it is) then start acting like it. Or do you guys really only have 40 years of tradition to hold on to?
Not necessarily. Many things are evil, like the Wiggles for instance, or creamy peanut butter, or any number of things yet the Vatican hasn't spoken yet.

and to add something somewhat relevant to the topic, I don't believe Democracy is evil persay but like all other forms of government it fails in a non-Catholic nation and becomes sinful for a non-Catholic nation. Catholics can and should exercise their right to vote. Anyone who wishes to vote for something against Catholic morals should not be allowed to do so. As for the bishops right to do what he did I don't suppose it was all that bad if he was telling the Catholics to vote, as they are the ones to whom this right is truly given.
[/quote]

I have to say you are one of the most liberal sedes I've ever come upon....

[Anomaly]

This thread had me on the floor, rolling with laughter.

OMG, the conflict between Vatican II and the Syllabus of Errors illustrates how the RC Church changes it's teachings on faith and morals depending on the current political clime and the political manipulations of the various Cleric Bureacrats within the RC Church.

What is a good Catholic supposed to do? What principles are 'standards' to validate whatever the regional Bishop desires to espouse. If it's a Bishop in a large populated area in the US, is he more 'valid' than a bishop in the backwaters of Africa?

But you Catholics call them the Princes of the Church and should be obeyed. The Catholics in one area will be excluded from Communion (or at least be guilty of a grave sin) if they don't vote, and other Catholics are encouraged to support a US politician that actively promotes and supports abortion because their Bishop equates abortion as morally important as minimum wage.

As if I could make this up. LOL

[Socrates]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1185795' date='Feb 5 2007, 09:18 PM']
This thread had me on the floor, rolling with laughter.

OMG, the conflict between Vatican II and the Syllabus of Errors illustrates how the RC Church changes it's teachings on faith and morals depending on the current political clime and the political manipulations of the various Cleric Bureacrats within the RC Church.

What is a good Catholic supposed to do? What principles are 'standards' to validate whatever the regional Bishop desires to espouse. If it's a Bishop in a large populated area in the US, is he more 'valid' than a bishop in the backwaters of Africa?

But you Catholics call them the Princes of the Church and should be obeyed. The Catholics in one area will be excluded from Communion (or at least be guilty of a grave sin) if they don't vote, and other Catholics are encouraged to support a US politician that actively promotes and supports abortion because their Bishop equates abortion as morally important as minimum wage.

As if I could make this up. LOL
[/quote]
Well, I'm glad this is all giving you such amusement.

Perhaps you can provide the particular citations from Vatican II and the Syllabus of Errors that are the cause of such mirth so that we might all share in your hilarity.

Edited February 6, 2007 by Socrates