Saturday, 1st November 2008
To sin and not to sin for Obama
It is not an easy electoral campaign for practicing Catholics in the USA. Different American bishops have issued radically different statements on the moral responsibilities of Catholic voters. Some bishops have instructed Catholics to consider abortion as the most important moral issue in this year's campaign; others have said, just as clearly, that abortion must be seen as one among many issues.
Let us look at some contrasting statements.
To sin …
Mgr. Rene Gracida, the retired bishop of the Corpus Christi Texas diocese said that "A Catholic cannot be said to have voted in this election with a good conscience if they have voted for a pro-abortion candidate. Barack Obama is a pro-abortion candidate."
Of a similar opinion is Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton, Pennsylvania who in a pastoral letter read out in churches said that abortion cannot be considered as just one among many important political issues. The Bishop also strongly rebuked the organizers of a parish forum for handing out copies of the statement of the 2007 document of the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops - "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship". "No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese," he said. "The only relevant document… is my letter."
A strong position was taken by Denver's Archbishop Charles Chaput who charged that prominent Catholics who have endorsed Obama, "have done a disservice to the Church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress pro-lifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn."
He said, during the presentation, that he was stating his "personal views as an author and private citizen" and was not speaking for the church.
According to The Tablet of November 1, some 50 out of the nation's 197 active bishops have published articles or given interviews during the run-up up to the election urging abortion as the key issue on which voters should decide which way to vote.
… And not to sin
On the other hand Bishop Gerald Kicanas witheld permission for pro-life activists to hand out in the parishes of his diocese in Tucson, Arizona a booklet written by the Bishop Thomas Olmstead of Phoenix, Arizona who argued that abortion is the paramount issue in this campaign.
Bishop Gabino Zavala, a Los Angeles auxiliary, in an interview with E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post said that Catholics who emphasize the abortion issue are mistaken, because "we're not a one-issue church." He said that voters should weigh all issues that touch on the dignity of human life, including the ways in which economic policies impinge "on the most vulnerable among us, the elderly, poor children and single mothers."
Bishop Zavala's comments were echoed by Bishop Terry Steib of Memphis in Tennessee, who wrote in his diocesan newspaper: "We cannot be a one-issue people." He continued: "I have received letters from well-meaning people telling me for whom I should vote and how I should inform parishioners regarding the candidates for whom they should or should not cast their ballot ... It is not my duty, nor is it my role."
The Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns takes a wider look at the election in its voter guide, called "Loving Our Neighbors in a Shrinking World." "Peace. Security. Racial equity. Economic well-being. A healthy environment. Human dignity. These are the basic needs of every human being and of the earth," it says. "We encourage candidates to make explicit their commitment to the global common good."
Ratzinger’s Proportionate Reason
When a similar debate was raging a few years ago in the United the than Cardinal Ratzinger stated in a document titled General Principles, “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.” (paragraph 3). He continues to state “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.”
Cardinal Ratzinger ends the letter with the following statement: “When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour 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.” (paragraph 6)
On the basis of this statement it is argued that it could therefore be legitimate for a voter to support a pro-abortion candidate not for his or her pro-abortion views but because of other views and projects that the candidate may have and which, in the estimation of the voter, would bring forward the common good more than a pro-life candidate would do.
Faithful Citizenship
"Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship," the U.S. bishops' document referred to above has been used as the basis for greatly contrasting approaches expressed during the campaign. Some bishops note that Faithful Citizenship gives priority to life issues such as abortion and euthanasia; other bishops insist that the document does not call for a "single-issue" approach to voting. Both are right.
The bishops urge voters to avoid "two temptations in public life" that can distort church teaching.
"The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity," they say. "The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many.
"The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity," they add. "Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture, war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed."
The bishops’ document can be downloaded from http://www.faithfulcitizenship.org/church/statements
Conclusion
I take my conclusion from "In the Voting Booth: A Catholic's Guide," by Greg Erlandson of Our Sunday Visitor.
"In a world of prudential judgments, it is quite possible that well-formed and educated Catholics may differ on what is the best choice to make in the voting booth. … But we are called to draw upon the teachings of our faith in coming to our decisions, not party loyalty, self-interests or political slogans."
Being a Catholic each and every moment of your life in a pluralistic society is much more difficult than it is in a traditional Catholic society.
Till next time I wish you all good bye and good luck.
RSS
Comments
What I find immoral, is the fact that people still indulge and spread around the false notion that morality stems out of religion. If we had to abide by god's laws as laid down in the bible than we should be killing homeosexuals, people who commit adultery and those whose way of life is considered "sinful".
But don't just take my word for it. Go on and read the bible;
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
Peace!
And stay tuned for new steps in a new direction, starting next week.
Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.
END
The new way involves building a new social force with the power to make public servants miserable. Withdraw consent. Issue orders. Make the public servant submit.
The politicians are busy right now convincing themselves that the public wants top-down, centralized, Democratic social engineering. Who can disabuse them of this notion? After all, the votes have been cast. The people have spoken.
Only YOU can disabuse the politicians of their self-serving interpretations of inarticulate votes. The Republicans were repudiated. Therefore, the things the Republicans did must also be repudiated. This should be the mandate for the new Congress. Fortunately, we have a vehicle for doing just that . . .
and then it should say :
The ONLY solution is to enforce The Plan – http://jahtruth. net/plan. htm
not :
Ron Paul's "American Freedom Agenda Act" would repeal a good chunk of the bad things the Republicans did. Use our Educate the Powerful system to ask your elected representatives to pass this bill.
. CONTINUED
It gives the victims of the con game -- the American people -- an illusion of control. But we have no control -- no say so.
Voting in the partisan electoral contest merely gives sanction to the con-artists who constantly victimize us. That's the role of the voter, to sanction what the politicians do. That's it. It's like Emma Goldman said, "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."
Is this the way you want things to be?
The ways of the future do not lie in the ways of the past. The ways of the past involved hoping the new boss would be different than the old boss. But many decades have come and gone, and the new boss has always been the same as the old boss. We should abandon the old ways and adopt new ways.
The way to a better future lies in withdrawing our consent and issuing direct orders to our supposed public servants.
. CONTINUED
We think not.
What does the average person assume when he or she sees third party candidates listed in his newspaper with tiny vote percentages next to their names? We think he or she assumes that . . .
"Those are fringe candidates with fringe ideas that no one supports. Therefore, I need not consider what they have to say."
The system is rigged against third parties. This guarantees low vote totals for those parties. It also guarantees that the ideas those parties represent will always be viewed as marginal.
Third parties don't promote ideas, they marginalize them!
Oh yes, we know all about the exceptions, like the Socialists and the Progressives, both of whom had ideas adopted by the major parties. But please notice, those ideas made the politicians, and even tax-funded intellectuals in the school system, MORE POWERFUL. That's the real reason those ideas were adopted; it wasn't because the Socialists and the Progressives managed to score a few points on Election Day.
. CONTINUED
The Republicans were responsible for . . .
* Enacting the largest new entitlement in decades -- the prescription drug program
* Passing social engineering schemes like "No Child Left Behind"
* Starting an un-provoked war
* Gutting constitutional liberties
* Running-up vast deficits
Will the Democrats reverse any of these actions? Sadly, we think the answer is "No." What, then, was the point of the election?
Was it merely to punish the Republicans while leaving their sins uncorrected? Was the purpose to give the Democrats permission to pursue all of their own pet projects for social engineering, and to spend, spend, spend to their hearts content?
Undoubtedly this last item is the message Democratic politicians will claim they heard. After all, they received a mandate, and if the mandate was not to pursue their dreams then the word has no meaning.
Of course, some voters can say, "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian . . . or for the Constitution Party . . . or the Greens."
. CONTINUED
Quote of the Day: "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -- William Shakespeare
Subject: Not your usual post-election commentary
The media describes every election as historic, the most important in a generation, etc. When the voting is done they tell us a new era has dawned, that things will change, that nothing will ever be the same, blah, blah, blah.
One aspect of these claims is true, this time. It is both historic and meaningful that the United States has elected its first African-American (and at least second non-American born) president. We applaud and celebrate this. We think the significance of this event transcends mere symbolism. Otherwise, the election was what all other elections have been . . .
" . . . a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Can we support this harsh assessment? Consider . . .
The election thoroughly repudiated the Republican Party. They lost the White House- landslide, and got clobbered in Congressional races. If elections really produced change, that many Republican policies will be reversed. CONTINUED
Catholics, neither read the bible AND (most important) live by it (be-liveth) belief.
Therefore under the circumstances those who believe in the message of Christ (in deep contrast to those who falsely belief that the two go together) should then not vote for the two main parties, and either follow their own, or none at all.
God's laws are not compromises, they are laws, and they are either followed or broken. It is as simple as that. We have the Maltese church that practices usury (via APS bank), and breaking the Commandments daily.
When we sin, we appease Satan, into choosing the so-called lessor evil. Now I will expose more truths of the real nature of the US politics.
Continued
Bush Sr. asked Bill Clinton to become President after Desert Storm during the first Gulf War. The people were tired of Republicans and wanted a change! This is the nature of DEM(on)ocrasy works.
For proof that the main financial campaginer during the Democrat race between Hillary Clinton and Obama, the main Bush financer suddenly exchanged "allegiance" from Republican to Democrat, proving once and for all, that the agenda of certain people is THE SAME.
A current good link is here, after Obama's election victory:
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1163.htm
Enjoy the read!
There's a 252 page downloadable book on the Committee of 300 available at the link below if anyone is interested in reading it , or some of it ...
http://yahoomisfits.com/PDF/ Committee_ of_300_by_ Dr_John_Coleman. pdf
Your world of politics is now greatly explained, should you read it!
The most expensive charade in history, the US elections, gives us a seemingly democratic choice when there is none. Most of the policies are in fact similar, and only differ on taxation regimes and other ideologies.
See this clip to understand the major under pinnings of this world:
http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=4IfJzpS_ F-4
and these reports:
http://www.worldreports.org/edwardharle/the_new_underworld_order
and http://jahtruth.net/300.htm
Like in the film "The Matrix", Neo was told which pill of truth did he want to swallow. He chose the red one, and the one that a person would get to know how far the rabbit hole goes (the truth behind all things).
Learning the true truth is an option. It needs time and dedication to get to know it. Both US candidates are bad for America, and good for the world elite. Why would Obama support the bail-out, taxing the middleclass to give to the superrich? Understand?
Please be relevant and accurate.
One priest has expressed an opinion that it would be sinful to vote for a candidate who would legislate in favour of abortion and another priest has dissented.
Neiher advocated voting for war or dubious commercial activities.
If you don't vote as the Monsinjur or the Kapillan says, you will go to Hell!
Quite frankly Fr Joe, considering that the US political agenda influences the whole civilized world, people of all believes, and moral backgrounds, the view of these bishops is not only redundant but dangerous. It's not okay to support a candidate that is pro abortion, but it's okay to support a party that makes war a top priority on their agenda to support the arms companies and oil companies behind them.
Political parties are prone to promise heaven and earth in their electoral programme and it is most unlikely that any voter could ever agree with everything on that programme.
more here:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/life/religion/6088669.html
Discensus inter philosophos! No wonder the average humble voter is perplexed!