First, the Vatican told president Bush that there are no grounds for a just war in Iraq. Bush went ahead with it anyway and has lost some favor with the Vatican. Now, the Vatican is telling John Kerry that as a Catholic politician (and potential president of the US) that he MUST vote a certain way on certain issues involving abortion. Kerry went ahead with his way of thinking and has now lost some favor (if he ever had any) with the Vatican.
I know and believe that the Vatican is the teaching authority of all Catholic people, in faith and morals, regardless of citizenship or position. I also know and believe that preservation of the tradition is crucial in preventing the dangers of pluralism and relativism from poisoning our Catholic faith and teaching.
But since when does John Paul II make political decisions for other countries?!?!
I am a practicing Catholic and my beliefs are in line with Church teaching, but I can't help but feel that the Vatican is creating problems in its heavy handed attempt at forcing its flock into obediance rather than leading us with compassion and wisdom.
What are we to think when John Paul II, from halfway across the world, is telling our leaders what do do? I didn't vote for John Paul II, I voted for George Bush. And this year I just might vote for John Kerry. I'd appreciate it if JPII stayed out of our country's political decisions. I'd also appreciate it if JPII stayed out of my political decisions. JPII is so quick to correct liberation theology for getting mixed up with politics, and he is so quick to correct my pastor for talking politics on the pulpit. But then he goes ahead and sticks his nose in my countries political business??
50 years from now students will read about today's Roman Catholic Church in a book and think, "How imcompetent and archaic!"
-- W. K. (WKHouston19@netscape.net), July 26, 2004
Answers
Response to I'm concerned about the relationship between fatih and Politics
Bump to New Answers to invite comment.
-- (bump@bump.bump), July 26, 2004.
Response to I'm concerned about the relationship between fatih and Politics
W.K.,
Don't believe everything you read in the press. I will
link the official documents from the Church and you can make up your
own mind as to what the Church is and is not saying. I think, after
reading them, you will agree that the Bishops, and the Church are
simply telling Catholics what is and is not moral. That is
definately in the mandate of religion, I think you would agree.
After given that information, the Church asks you to make the
correct decision. It is just like the Church's teaching on sin.
You are told what is sinful and what is not. If you sin, it is your
immortal soul at risk. Same theory at work here.
Read the following OFFICIAL documents:
Interim Reflections
of the
Task Force on Catholic Bishops
and Catholic Politicians
June 15, 2004
The following reports were presented to the bishops of the United
States at their meeting in Englewood, Colorado, on June 15, 2004.
They are the Interim Reflections of the Task Force on Catholic
Bishops and Catholic Politicians. They represent the work, the
observations, and the interim guidance of the task force only. They
were requested by the bishops and helped to inform the bishops’
statement on Catholics in Political Life, issued on June 18, 2004.
We hope they will be useful in the months ahead.
This is not a final report. The task force will continue to
consult with the Holy See, other episcopal conferences, the bishops
of the United States, and others as it develops its final report.
Catholics in Political
Life
Opening Comments—Cardinal Theodore
McCarrick
Theological Reflections—Archbishop William
Levada
Summary of Consultation Process—Cardinal
William Keeler
Interim Reflections of the Task Force—
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 26, 2004.
Response to I'm concerned about the relationship between fatih and Politics
Hate it when that happens... let's try again:
Interim
Reflections
of the
Task Force on Catholic Bishops
and Catholic Politicians
June
15, 2004
The following
reports were
presented to the bishops of the United States at their meeting in
Englewood,
Colorado, on June 15, 2004. They are the Interim Reflections of the
Task Force
on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians. They represent the
work, the
observations, and the interim guidance of the task force only. They
were
requested by the bishops and helped to inform the bishops’ statement
on
Catholics in Political Life, issued on June 18, 2004. We hope they
will be
useful in the months ahead.
This is not a final report. The task force will continue to
consult with the
Holy See, other episcopal conferences, the
bishops of
the United States, and others as it develops its final report.
Cath
olics in
Political Life
Opening Comments—
Cardinal
Theodore McCarrick
Theological
Reflections—Archbishop William Levada
Summary of
Consultation
Process—Cardinal William Keeler
Interim
Reflections of
the Task Force—Cardinal Theodore McCarrick
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), July 26, 2004.
Response to I'm concerned about the relationship between fatih and Politics
"What are we to think when John Paul II, from halfway across
the world , is telling our leaders what do do? I didn't vote for
John Paul II, I voted for George Bush."
W.K., have a look at a globe of the Earth and you'll see the USA is
almost exactly on the OPPOSITE side of the world from Iraq. In
comparison, Rome is Iraq's near neighbour and the Holy Land is right
next door to Iraq! Not to mention the Catholics of the Mediterranean
have been dealing with hostile Muslims for 1300 years, without any
help from ham-fisted tunnel-visioned short-fused cowboys! WHO is it
who should keep their nose out of WHOSE business?!
-- Joker (joker@cybernet.com), July 27, 2004.
Joker
I don't care how close Italy is to Iraq. ITALY ISN'T IRAQ!
This war is between the U.S. and Iraq. All American politics should
be dealt with through AMERICAN POLITICS.
Politics plays itself out on different levels: within the people of a
nation, between the elected representatives and the people who
elected them, and between two nations (representatives and the
people).
Where does Italy or the Vatican fit in here? Nowhere.
By your line of reasoning, France must do what the U.S. says when
dealing with Canada, since we are neighbors. Also, we should do what
Palestine tells us to do because iit is neighbors with Israel!!
It is illogical.
I will listen to JPII when it comes to issues of morals and faith.
And I choose to vote against abortion because I believe it is murder
and the Church teaches that abortion is murder. But the moment the
Church teaches that I MUST vote against abortion, it crosses a line.
The Church is not my conscience. It should refrain from trying to
dictate anything I do with my political life. No wonder so many
people leave the Church.
-- W.K. (WKHouston19@netscape.net), July 27, 2004.
The Church never says you MUST do anything. The Church fully recognizes
the reality of free will. But it is the God-given duty of the Church to inform us
what we MUST do IF we wish to enter into eternal life. After that, it is
completely up to us and our free will to choose eternal life by following the
teaching of the Church, or reject eternal life by rejecting the teaching of the
Church. Christ said that His Church would teach the fullness of truth. How
would you expect to be saved by rejecting the truth? Christ also said "I am the
truth". Therefore to reject the Truth is to reject Christ.
Further, the Church MUST be the source of the information your conscience
uses in making moral decisions. Otherwise the moral decisions your
conscience provides you with are erroneous. The conscience works much
like a computer. It is capable of analysing facts and producing rational
answers; but it can only perform such analyses on the basis of the information
provided to it. Unless you have provided your conscience with a thorough
database of genuine objective truth, your conscience cannot be trusted to
provide morally sound answers. Garbage in, garbage out. And the teaching
of the Church is the sole source of objective moral truth provided for us by
God.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 27, 2004.
Dear W.K.
Up to a point you're correct. You are like
many others, however; when you accuse the bishops and
Pope of meddling in politics. This isn't what any of
them have done. As spiiritual guardians they have
tried to give good counsel to their faithful. That's
all. You should realise they see a war as something
involved with morality, and take their stances from
there.
I also think they go too far, declaring a
national security course of action as their bailiwick.
In Catholic doctrine, just (Justice) governments have the
authority to decide national policy. We are called to
pray for good leaders. We also have the duty of
praying for justice and for world peace.
In the case
of abortion it's not unfair for the bishops and
Pope to enforce our compliance under penalty of
sin. This is not meddling in national affairs. It's just
pronouncing God's commandment and telling the faithful
what's right and what's wrong. You said ''No wonder so
many leave the Church.'' You're practically admitting
the prevailing authority. If we disobey, the Church
can no longer give spiritual assurance to us. Our very
salvation is out of her hands.
Many think they'll
never need a church on the way to salvation. They're
absolutely mistaken. Not all will find mercy with God
having rebelled against his Church. Least of all when an
atrocity such as infanticide is seen as something
tolerable under any circumstance. The Catholic Church is
telling us EXACTLY where our responsibility lies. If we
can't give her that authority over our conscience, Christ
has declared, ''Let [them] be as the heathen and the
publican.''
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 27, 2004.
Sorry guys, the Church can and MUST teach us what we MUST do to be
saved - that's from Christ's own command, not some vatican power grab.
So with respect to politics and geopolitics... yes, a Catholic who
happens to be a citizen of a given country has to obey his pastors
when it comes to faith and morals - because he is first a Catholic
and only secondly a citizen. Your country isn't going to save your
soul or give you eternal life.
That being said we have to be careful to distinguish two things: the
difference between prudential matters and principled ones. A
Christian MUST obey his superiors when it comes to principles, but
may* disagree when it comes to prudential matters.
Principled decisions have to do with choosing Good instead of Evil.
So it's categorical, always in every situation. A Catholic can't
choose abortion because intentionally killing a totally defenseless
and harmless human being is intrinsically evil, always and in all
circumstances regardless of your intention or "conscience".
The principle is clear: intentionally killing an innocent person is
always evil so can NEVER be choosen morally.
From this principle every prudential life decision has to be made.
Prudence is the virtue which helps us apply our principles in
changing circumstances. For example: capital punishment or war.
It would be immoral to kill an innocent man just because he was
accused of a crime - or to kill a POW who was defenseless and had
surrendered. Being a policeman or soldiers isn't a license to kill.
Prudence tries to determine what course of action is BEST able to
apply a given PRINCIPLE.
Thus, to remain a "Catholic" Christian, you MUST refrain from being
involved in Abortion which includes voting for politicians who
support it. The Church teaches the PRINCIPLE, and leaves the
prudential decisions as how to best implement them up to us.
Prudential decisions have to do with "Good, Better, Best" choices -
things which are all basically moral and good, but which may involve
changing circumstances, grey areas as far as facts goes, and
differences of opinion on the best as opposed to merely better course
of action.
So for example, your bishop thinks the best way to help the poor is
to give them handouts, whereas you think the best way is to give them
a job. Either way, you agree to help the poor.
Or Pro-life work: some claim the best way to stop abortion is to
outlaw it, whereas others claim the best way is to change the culture
that makes it so easy for people to separate love from sex. Either
way the principle stands.
The Church agrees that in situations that are contingent, changing,
or grey, differences of opinion can exist on the best course of
action to take. Saints have disagreed on the best way to handle
situations. But their dispute wasn't between whether or not something
was good or evil but whether or not a given tactic would be BETTER or
BEST.
So one bishop decides to excommunicate a pro-abortion politician
whereas another decides to just meet with him for the 40th time,
privately... Both bishops agree that the politician is in need of
conversion but they disagree on the BEST means to achieve that end.
Both could very well be good and not sinning even though their
actions differ. All because this is a PRUDENTIAL decision, rather
than principled one.
Now most Bishops will say that one size fits all won't do justice to
the complexity of the situation with regard to communion, etc. And
they'll not like it when armchair theologians second guess them and
tell them how they should act... but in the end they're the ones who
have the responsibility to act when it comes to Holy Communion. Maybe
they will choose the best method, maybe the less best method.
But they all agree that IN PRINCIPLE a Catholic who supports abortion
is NOT in a morally upright position to even approach communion. They
just don't know which way is the best way to handle things.
With respect to war... bishops and Popes don't make the political
decision about waging it. So in a sense they are like lay men like me
opining about what's the best thing Bishops can do to pro-abort
politicians!
The Pope thought a 15th or 16th UN resolution against Iraq would have
been better than going to war after the 14th. But everyone agreed
that that status quo wasn't sufficient, that Saddam was a bad guy,
that Iraq had broken the law and its agreements... so the whole
dispute with Bush wasn't over PRINCIPLE, but it's application as a
matter of prudence.
Some politicians claimed in the 1980's to be "personally opposed" to
abortion (against them in principle) but handicapped by the
circumstances from doing anything to stop them in practice (prudence).
But by the 1990's that excuse has shown itself to be false: you can't
be against something on principle if in every single prudential
decision you make you increase it, strengthen it, and actively
promote it!
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), July 27, 2004.
If I decide to vote for John Kerry in November, it will be because of
his views on everything outside abortion. I disagree with the belief
that abortion trumps all other issues. To me, social justice and a
competent leader is why I might vote for Kerry. I am willing to pray
and hope that despite his approval of abortion, other leaders will
step in and have a hand in limiting abortion rights and maybe even
ban in.
Do not tell me that the present leaders of our Church have been
completely clear and compassionate in their teachings when I can fill
my kitchen with Catholic Bishops who will tell me that a vote for
Kerry prohibits me from going to communion.
JPII needs to make a statement on this and keep his bishops in check,
especially the American ones. I'm willing to put up with their
nonsense, but many American Catholics out there are simply not
willing to listen to a bishop who has no clue about politics. Sadly
many of them might leave the Church.
W.K.
-- W.K. (WKHouston19@netscape.net), July 27, 2004.
Social justice for those Americans who manage to be born alive is certainly
important. But it isn't going to help the 1/3 of Americans who are brutally
murdered before having that opportinity. Life is the first right guaranteed
under the Bill of Rights.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 27, 2004.
Life is the first right guaranteed under the Bill of
Rights.
Actually, it isn't, and that is the problem with the Constitution.
The right to Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness is in the
Declaration of Independence and not found in the Constitution.
A Neat Site on the Bill of Rights is here
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), July 27, 2004.
Right you are, Bill. Must have had a senior moment there :-)
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 27, 2004.
W.K.,
This is the direction that Cardinal Ratzinger speaking officially
for the Vatican gave to all voters (via the Bishops), from Rome on
the subject of communion:
Cardinal Ratzinger's note underlined the princ
iples involved for the Catholic voter as follows:
"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so
unworthy to present himself for holy Communion, if he were to
deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the
candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia."
"When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of
abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other
reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be
permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."
In other words, if a Catholic thinks a candidate's positions on
other issues outweigh the difference on abortion, a vote for that
candidate would not be considered sinful. Remember, when we talk
about abortion and euthanasia (both of which Kerry is in favor of)
we are talking about the murder of MILLIONS of the most innocent of
human beings.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), July 27, 2004.
The
entire letter is here.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 27, 2004.
“By your line of reasoning, France must do what the U.S. says when
dealing with Canada, since we are neighbours. Also, we should do
what Palestine tells us to do because iit is neighbors with
Israel!!”
No, W.K., by my line of reasoning, if we wanted to fight a war with
Israel we should listen to what the Palestinians have to say because
of their longstanding struggles against Israel. And before we
fought a war against Iraq we should have listened to the Pope and
the Catholics of the Mediterranean who have struggled against
aggressive Islam for 1300 years, instead of dismissing them as
being “halfway across the world”.
And the Holy See, or the "Vatican" as you call it, just happens for
historical reasons to be in Rome, but its moral message is for the
whole world. The Pope does not speak as head of state of the Vatican
state, but as the moral and spiritual leader of the world.
-- Joker (joker@cybernet.com), July 28, 2004.
Another way of looking at it is that the Vatican is a world state,
with its own agenda. And through force or moral suasion or whatever,
the agendas of world states sometimes collide. And there have been
many instances of one world state imposing its will or its arguments
and or agenda on another, again either with force or economics or
otherwise. Examples are so common that I will let you give them.
The nice thing is that the Vatican is small, and the force that they
must use is moral persuasion. Generally better than most of the
alternatives.
-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), July 28, 2004.
I've learned a lot guys, thanks. I agree with you Joker, Bill and
Paul. Thanks for telling me what Ratzinger said.
Did Bishop Raymond Burke get that letter?
-- W.K. (WKHouston19@netscape.net), July 28, 2004.
WK, I hate to be a nag, but using your argument that a voter could
legitimately vote for a notorious pro-abort politician because he's
OK on other issues is a very dangerous position to take. What about
slavery? Or (to follow common cliches) the Nazis? They had SOME good
policies, they weren't totally nuts... are you saying a Catholic
could support the CSA or Third Reich for "other reasons" while
turning a blind eye to their major moral failings?
Here's the point: prudence is about good, better, best, not a dispute
about good or evil. If a party or person is a murderer then he's
immoral for that, even if he also sings in the choir, gives money to
charity, and smiles at babies. Those other actions are praiseworthy,
but they don't "make up" for the fact that he has done something
intrinsically evil.
If the politician in question has done something which is IMPRUDENT
in your opinion, as opposed to objectively IMMORAL, then your moral
calculus would be OK. You cut him slack for his mistakes or
misjudgments on one issue while praising and supporting him for his
good done elsewhere.
But Slavery, racism, and abortion aren't prudential decisions taken
by people of good will. They are categorically evil decisions taken
by people who know better but don't care.
Bush could claim - with Clinton and the UN - that prior to invading
Iraq, he had REASONABLY certain evidence of Iraqi WMDs. If in
hindsight they didn't, then this doesn't make him a liar and doesn't
make the war unjust because he acted honestly (albeit mistakenly).
But with respect to the humanity of the unborn child...there isn't
ANY biological or philosophical or logical DOUBT at all! A Politician
can't claim ignorance or agnosticism about this and still be
considered a moral man.
So while some of us dislike Bush's policies and particular actions
such as the spending increases etc. we are able to nevertheless
support him since these political issues aren't categorically evil
(it may be economically unwise to spend too much money but it's
hardly intrinsically evil).
But how could someone justifiably claim that Kerry's other positions
(again mostly prudential) completely make up for his colossally
obvious, intrinsically evil support for abortion with absolutely no
exceptions?
How can a man consider himself a good follower (i.e. obedient
servant) of Jesus Christ and his Church - and thus be elligible to
receive communion - if he votes for absolute and unconditionally evil
things? We're not talking grey areas or squabbles between what is a
good or better foreign policy decision here (embargo or "strong
statements"? 15th resolution or armed inspections? Armed inspections
or UN invasion? UN invasion or coalition of the willing invasion?)
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), July 28, 2004.
Let me put it this way. I WILL vote to re-elect President Bush. I
will vote for him because his political beliefs mirror mine for the
most part.
Except for capital punishment.
I believe in the preservation of life at all stages. I know that the
Church accepts capital punishment when it is a last resort. Just
like a war is just as a last resort. But the form of capital
punishment that is alive and well, expecially in Texas, is not the
type of capital punishment the Church accepts. The Vatican has come
down hard on this. Yet, many Catholics are urged to vote for Bush.
Hmmmmmm....
The killing of a human being as punishhment for murder - when we can
easily lock them up for life - is not categorically evil? Are you
saying that it is ok to overlook Bush's heinous Capital Punishment
record but not Kerry's abortion record?
All I'm saying is this. I don't think its just when a traditional
Catholic like me, whose beliefs are in line with Church teaching, can
to vote for Bush and recieve communion, when in the same way a
traditional Catholic were to vote for Kerry, and then be told by
Bishop Burke that they must refrain from recieving communion.
Both traditional Catholics are for the preservation of life, but have
different political ideologies. So they overlook certain things.
This is faith getting mixed up with politics in the worst way: when a
bishop tries to force his own bias upon the flock.
Burke needs to get that letter from Ratzinger.
-- W.K. (WKHouston19@netscape.net), July 28, 2004.
The dispute between the Pope and the US Government over capital
punishment of a convicted criminal BY THE STATE is a prudential one,
not a principled one as it is with abortion wherein a PRIVATE person
executes an unborn child who has done nothing wrong.
The Church has always considered as legitimate the State's right to
execute CRIMINALS. There is a huge difference between an unjust
aggressor and an innocent - that's fundamental to any moral
discussion. The moment you deny that this distiction exists is the
moment morality becomes arbitrary emotion rather than the application
by reason through prudence of a known principle.
Right now then the argument is about what is best GIVEN PARTICULAR
CIRCUMSTANCES. The Pope opines that modern western penal systems are
such that life in prison without parole would be more in harmony with
human dignity. So the argument is one of prudence as the principle is
not revoked.
Ditto with respect to war. If it was a case of Bush arbitrarily
nuking Belize then it would be a case of intrinsic moral evil. But
the war in Iraq while regretable isn't and hasn't been claim by the
Pope to be a categorically evil thing. He didn't like it, He wished
it could have been avoided, but the dispute was over the prudence of
waging it, not the morality per se of the act.
The Church has always made the distinction between violence
sanctioned by the state and violence perpetuated by private persons.
In latin, the distinction is between duellum (duels) and bellum (war).
Christians (as private persons) are forbidden from violence
especially against innocent people. But we all have a natural right
to self defense and especially defense of those entrusted to our
protection.
While I may not intend to kill the unjust aggressor, I may use
violence to disarm or disable him. If he happens to die as a result
of this attempt of self-defense (as opposed to my direct willed
intention), then it would be a case of homicide not premeditated
murder.
So individuals can surrender, flee, or fight back - if they are the
ones threatened by an unjust deadly aggressor.
But parents - insofar as we are given the responsibility to protect
innocent children don't have the right to opt for surrender of our
children if to do so would lead to their deaths - we may die in their
place, but we can't morally let them die.
Our Lord talked about the shepherd laying down his life for the sheep
and it wasn't just a nice metaphor. If the wolf comes a shepherd
cannot morally just let a sheep get killed. To do so wouldn't be to
choose between various goods in a prudential decision, but to choose
an evil - and thus break the principle that innocents ought to be
protected.
In the case of a state the responsibility to protect others goes way
up - whereas a private Christian can opt between various
choices "good, better, best" sometimes the state can only pick
between two: good or evil.
For example: if a Muslim terrorists comes running at me for the
purpose of killing me for the crime of believing in the Trinity -
then I can choose to bear witness to my faith and die (martyrdom),
run away from him, or resist. What choice I make between these
options is left totally up to me by the Church. It's my prudential
decision to make. One may be better than another, but it doesn't make
choice B immoral. The Church doesn't command Catholics to die
martyr's deaths - you don't have to go looking for trouble!
But if the terrorist already caught me and gave me the either/or
option of renouncing my faith or dying, then, the choice is between
good or evil and thus isn't a question of prudence as of principle.
While the Church doesn't oblige members to seek martyrdom, it does
command us to be faithful and willing to die for the faith ("he who
denies me before men will be denied by me before my father").
So obviously circumstances change the moral choices we have.
Capital punishment then always involves a guilty, violent unjust
aggressor and a state authority which has arrested him and now must
decide what is the best thing to do to him.
Abortion always involves a completely innocent human being put to
death by private persons (a mother and/or doctor) without a trial,
and without any reason.
War is never something chosen by private persons - but is an action
taken by a state for the specific purpose of defending against evil
or taking precautions from it (such as the battle of LePanto
celebrated by the Church on Sept.15) or righting some wrong (such as
armed intervention to stop genocide).
The Church teaches officially that state execution of criminals and
war MAY be moral in given circumstances and conditions - thus aren't
categorically evil, whereas abortion has always been regarded as
categorically, instrinsically evil no matter what intent or
circumstances are involved.
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), July 28, 2004.
Dear W.K.--
You're assuming you really know Bush's
personal attitude about the death penalty. That's not
known for sure. He might well support it. But maybe
not.What we know for certain is, he swore to uphold
the laws of the state of Texas as governor. The
law is the will of the people of that state, not
something imposed by their governor. Laws can be
changed, but Bush had no cause to change
anything.
He had power to commute a deathe sentence.
He chose not to, at least in the publicized cases.
The worst you can accuse him of is lacking clemency.
But if he saw a particular execution as
something justly deserved, his own conscience was
his guide. Just as your conscience is your guide. Why
should it be a sin to follow your conscience?
I
myself approve of capital punishment IN THE LAW. Not
in obstinate practice; in the laws of our country; for
deterrence and to give criminals clear warning. The
catholic Church does not condemn all capital
punishment on principle. Your personally held scruples do
not make it murder either. You can be sure we all
believe in clemency as well as hard justice.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbel.net), July 28, 2004.
And so... good people may disagree about PRUDENTIAL decisions but if
the question is one of principle, then they can't both be good!
If the question at hand is whether the federal speed limit ought to
be 55mph or 70mph, both sides may have reasons and arguments, but the
fundamental question is one of prudence since the circumstances
permit either speeds...
So with respect to the War many people said that IF the UN had
authorized it, and IF Iraq had declared war on us...then OK. But this
is an argument over degree, not qualitative difference.
The Church has teached that nations have a right to self defense.
It also recognizes that military action may at times be moral. The
question in Iraq was whether all the other options were exhausted -
the USA thought they were, whereas the arm-chair generals around the
world thought more hoops could have been jumped through. Everything
hinged on facts.
The Church teaches that the ones who make the prudential decisions to
go to war are politicians - not prelates. Thus, a Catholic who is
American need not think that voting for Bush is a case of voting for
someone who is a murderer or who intentionally denied Church
teaching. He accepted the Catholic view of Just war theory and made
his decision based within its parameters. Kerry on the other hand
rejects Catholic morality in toto!
So the question isn't Bush = Kerry 'cause both have blood on their
hands. It's a question of who denies in PRINCIPLE that the Church has
anything to say and authority to say it.
If the Church taught that war and capital punishment were
intrinsically evil in all cases, but the President went ahead with
them anyway, he'd be morally equivalent to Kerry.
As it is, Bush is far more Catholic than the so-called Catholic
senators and congressment and judges who promote abortion on demand
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), July 28, 2004.
Andy Greeley (trained as a sociologist, NOT a theologian) recently
penned an opinion that voting for Kerry would be OK provided a
Catholic didn't vote for him for his promotion of abortion. Nice
try., That exonerates all those Catholics who joined the Nazis !
After all, they could say "I'm not in favor of all this racism stuff,
but the Party will improve the economy, reduce crime and give Germany
a sense of security once again." And they'd be right (until 1942).
It's hard to make the case that an otherwise well meaning Catholic
can NOT take into consideration a politicians' record in favor of
something which is intriniscally evil as though it was one more plank
among many.
Other than being a murderous dictator bent on world domination and
racist genocide, Hitler was a nice guy...for people like Greeley.
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), July 28, 2004.
Joe, I think you're being too rigid. Here are the reasons why people
may vote for Kerry and overlook the fact that he is pro-choice.
George Bush may be the better candidate (at least I believe), but he
doesn't fight against abortion by himself. There are so many other
factors. Nixon or Ford didn't legalize abortion (republicans!), it
was the Supreme court and the work of so many other legislators.
Reagan, Bush Sr and Bush Jr, were not able to effectively change
anything. Whose to say that Bush Jr will even care about it over the
next 4 years? He's to busy with terrorism and the economy. I am
almost positive that gay marriage, or at least civil unions will be
legalized (even though im against it). I don't have any faith that
Bush will do anything effectively when it comes to abortion. As far
as he is concerned, his ban on partial birth abortion is enough, he
won't work any harder on it.
Remember, Kerry is not pro-abortion, he is pro-choice. His politics
is separate from his faith (which I don't agree with). He is such a
flip flopper, whose to say he might not change his views?
Again, I'd rather that people vote for Bush, but I don't see a need
for an Apostle of the Church to teach that a vote for Kerry is
morally reprehensible.
-- W.K. (WKHouston19@netscape.net), July 28, 2004.
Some of you might be interested in this article. Here is a small
part (it is too long to post here) I suggest you read ALL of it from
the beginning to the end to really understand what this liberal is
saying. It is pretty well written:
As easy as it is to say that we can't abide the president because of
the gulf between what he espouses and what he actually does , what
haunts me is the possibility that we can't abide him because of us—
because of the gulf between his will and our willingness. What
haunts me is the possibility that we have become so accustomed to
ambiguity and inaction in the face of evil that we find his call for
decisive action an insult to our sense of nuance and proportion.
The people who dislike George W. Bush have convinced themselves that
opposition to his presidency is the most compelling moral issue of
the day. Well, it's not. The most compelling moral issue of the day
is exactly what he says it is, when he's not saying it's gay
marriage. The reason he will be difficult to unseat in November—no
matter what his approval ratings are in the summer—is that his
opponents operate out of the moral certainty that he is the bad guy
and needs to be replaced, while he operates out of the moral
certainty that terrorists are the bad guys and need to be defeated.
The first will always sound merely convenient when compared with the
second. Worse, the gulf between the two kinds of certainty lends
credence to the conservative notion that liberals have settled for
the conviction that Bush is distasteful as a substitute for
conviction—because it's easier than conviction.
From:
The Case for George W. Bush
i.e., what if he's right?
Esquire Magazine August 1, 2004
http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.do?refID=19&item_id=505604
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), July 28, 2004.
>Remember, Kerry is not pro-abortion, he is pro-choice.
This is simply word games, there is no choice given to the dead
baby.. .murder is murder.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 28, 2004.
Every American is pro-choice. The right to make choices - otherwise known as freedom - is a guaranteed right of every citizen. However, when you use that freedom of choice to support legalized abortion, you are pro-abortion. When you use your freedom of choice to protect life, you are pro-life. There is no such position as "pro-choice" on a specific issue. On a specific issue you are pro-one side of the issue or pro-the other side. Why is it that people who favor abortion are so hell-bent on dissociating themselves from the very name of that which they support?
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 28, 2004.
Aborting a living, innocent human being and saying
all the while it is only freedom to ''choose'', is a
feeble attempt to refuse responsibility for the killing.
But all who give approval, from the mother to the
physician, to the judges and lawmakers who licensed
abortion, are killers.
The Democrat candidate for
president considers abortion no worse than legal
executions by the state. If you can kill a convicted
murderer, you can kill the unborn; barring one & not
the other is just a contradiction.
He would have a
point if the death of a heinous murderer or
terrorist were equal to the abortion of a helpless,
innocent baby. He could point the finger of blame
at the state, and they who support capital punishment.
But when a mother allows the son or daughter of her
very blood, to be killed without mercy-- Her crime is
worse than if she killed her own mother or father.
Because they, for all their love and goodness are
already sinners. They are far from innocent or helpless.
Not only that, they will not even be SILENT victims; as
their grandchild is. The practice of abortion has
simply become diabolical.
The Old Testament tells us
living babies were sacrificed by pagans to the god
Molloch. We see in the scripture that an idol with
a furnace for a belly represented this god. Mothers
were required to feed the furnace with their baby;
incinerating the child, to please the demon god.
Almighty God was infuriated at that idolatry. He hated
it more than anything on earth, and so He told His
holy prophets. Nothing was more abominable to the God of
Israel.
It's coming back all over again. The furnace is still
blazing, but now they feed it unborn victims. Where is
God, as Molloch comes back to life in western
society? Will God settle this question,
of ''choice'' in the last day? --That ''right to
choose?''
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 29, 2004.
You guys can say all you want that capital punishment is justified,
but it doesn't make it true. Holy Mother Church teaches that only as
a last resort, when there is nothing else we can do, may a person be
put to death for the safety of society. You are all kidding
yourselves when you say that the form of capital punishment that
President Bush votes for is possibly morally permissable. You are no
better than the pro-Abortionists. I believe that this country has
the means to lock up convicted murderers for life. If you disagree
with that you are kidding yourself. A vote for either Kerry or Bush
is a vote that cooperates in evil.
I will still vote for Bush. But I vote for him despite his faults.
I know people that vote for Kerry in the same way, despite his
faults. You all act like your beliefs are in line with Church
teaching when you actually openly support Capital Punishment. And
then you go and criticize people who are for abortion. Yes, abortion
is disgusting and repulsive, but so is Capital punishment. There is
no justifying it. You guys are too liberal.
-- W.K. (WKHouston19@netscape.net), July 29, 2004.
W.,
Your enthusiasm for this subject is
commendable. Many others also share your disgust for
capital punishment. You can count on me if it's the
last minute before execution of a murderer, and we have
to make a last-ditch appeal for clemency. I believe
in clemency, and not in vengeance.
But I do not share
your evident mortification over legal means of execution.
If it means a man's death, that's regrettable. But
it has not changed the laws of nature; all men have
to meet their death someday. I think a humane
execution, for instance is much better than death from
starvation or virulent disease. God is merciful to
executed sinners as well as grandmothers undergoing
intensive care in a hospital. Death is part of life.
I think you exaggerate the morbid aspects of
capital punishment. It isn't always unjust or immoral.
My previous arguments in this vein included the
following:
The two thieves crucified together with Our
Saviour are contrasted in the scriptural account. One
curses and demeans Jesus dying next to him. This man
is a desperate criminal.
So is the Good Thief.
Yet, as he is dying, he reproves the bad
thief: ''Dost not even thou fear God, seeing that thou art
under the same sentence? And, we indeed, justly, for
we are receiving what our deeds DESERVED. But this man
has done nothing wrong.'' --He acknowledges the truth.
That his crimes have brought him to this cruel death.
Jesus Christ understood that clear logic, because
it was His grace that put those words on the Good
Thief's lips. Whereupon, the dying criminal is
promised by Our Lord, ''This day thou shalt be with me
in Paradise.''
The penalty of death is vindicated in
such a divine way; to those who wish reassurance of
God's Justice. While Jesus accepted the same penalty
for us; so we should never die. (Luke 2, :39-43.)
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 29, 2004.
sorry,
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 29, 2004.
thanks man. I've learned a lot.
-- WK (WKHouston19@netscape.net), July 29, 2004.
“the Vatican is a world state, with its own agenda. And through
force or moral suasion or whatever, the agendas of world states
sometimes collide. And there have been many instances of one world
state imposing its will or its arguments and or agenda on another,
again either with force or economics or otherwise. Examples are so
common that I will let you give them. The nice thing is that the
Vatican is small, and the force that they must use is moral
persuasion. Generally better than most of the alternatives.” --
Sean Cleary
Wrong on several counts. The Vatican is a State which is so small
that it is of no consequence to any other country except Italy. You
are confusing the Vatican with the Holy See (the Pope and those who
work for him) which is not a State, but a spiritual body, the
leadership of the Church which includes nearly a quarter of humanity
in every country of the world. Even non-Catholics recognise the Pope
as the leading spokesman for Christianity and moral and spiritual
matters. The Holy See has no interest in using force to make people
do its will, in fact it specifically rules that out. The Vatican is
only as large as it needs to be to allow the Holy See to be
independent of any country. The Vatican is a State under
international law but it is not a nation in the sense that the USA
or Italy or even Monaco are nations. Yes it is the legal successor
of the Papal States which were much larger (though still not very
large), which the Popes ruled as temporal rulers, separately from
their spiritual role (– contrary to official propaganda of the time
in Protestant-majority countries, which portrayed Catholic priests
as “sworn soldiers and servants of a foreign power” ). But if the
Vatican did not exist it would be necessary to invent it. The
Vatican is small BECAUSE the Holy See deals in spiritual and moral
matters, not the other way around.
-- Joker (joker@cybernet.com), August 03, 2004.
Of course the obvious reason that the Vatican exists (as the papal
states existed before from 800 AD to 1870AD) is that the Church has
to be separate from the state! If Italy owned the land that the Holy
See lived on, then the State would have constant temptation to tell
the Popes what to do, etc.
Conversely, if the Church was so held at the mercy of
temporary 'temporal' leaders, the constant temptation would be to
throw its lot into politics so as to carve out the needed
independence that a Church requires to handle its own affairs.
So the alternative to a State run church and a Church run state is to
have territorial sovereignty!
Of course few people remember what happened to the Papal States in
the 1850's and what happened to Rome in 1870 (ending the First
Vatican Council) or how the French went from being the worst enemies
of the Church (during the Terror and Napoleonic age) to being the
Papacy's defender during the 1840's....
And few people know that those concordats signed with Mussolini in
1929 weren't pacts between the Church and Facism but the final stage
of diplomacy between the Church and the Kingdom of Italy which had
been almost 60 years in the making (1870-1929) - all that time there
was no "legal" status of the Vatican as far as the Italian State was
concerned.
Oh, and it was that concordat that allowed the Vatican to hide the
Jews during WW2 because it forbade the Nazis from invading these
extraterritorial enclaves called "Vatican" and "St John Lateran" and
Castel Gondolfo" among others which were giving shelter to thousands
of Jews and other people including allied pilots, etec.
So as usual anything to do with the Catholic Church is FAR, FAR more
complicated and detailed than meets the eye.
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 03, 2004.
Moderation questions? read the FAQ