| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2005/4/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:37270 Activity:moderate |
4/19 Pope Benedict XVI (aka Cardinal Ratzinger) believes in excommunication
for all pro-choice Catholics
http://csua.org/u/brk (priestsforlife.org)
\_ Sounds good to me. As a liberal athiest, I think anything that
\_ Sounds good to me. I think anything that
makes members of religious cults question their beliefs is good
for society. This guy is going to further accelerate the already
massive hemoraging of American Catholics from their church.
\_ Sounds good to me. I think anything that makes members of
religious cults question their beliefs is good for society. This
guy is going to further accelerate the already massive hemoraging
of American Catholics from their church.
\_ so you want a church which wants people to have abortion,
and supports abortion, which is defined as a very grave evil?
\_ I like the way they nodded that voting for Kerry is ok:
"When a Catholic does not share a candidates 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"
\_ Why should a Catholic vote for Bush instead, since he is
pro-death penalty, pro-pre-emptive illegal war, and pro-wealth
gap/pro-unfettered capitalism, things the Catholic church is
also against?
\_ The above, translated: "It's bad to vote for pro-choice
candidates, but there may be good reasons that outweigh the
bad."
\_ [I posted the quote about Kerry] Hell if I know, I'm not
a Catholic. I agree with you that Bush seems pretty anti-
Catholic values. However, the link above says pro-choice
Catholic politicians cannot receive communion, so I think
it's interesting that they explicitly mentioned a way out
for people who still want to vote for Kerry.
\_ I guess it can be argued that the "sins" of abortion
and euthanasia >> war/death penalty/wealth gap, not
that a church is likely to have an issue with cognitive
dissonance.
\_ the key is defining "proportionate".
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=6159
\_ Is their name supposed to be an oxymoron?
\_ what name? why do you think it is an oxymoron? |
| 5/24 |
|
| csua.org/u/brk -> www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm Note: The following memorandum was sent by Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardina l McCarrick and was made public in the first week of July 2004. General Principles by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger 1 Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious dec ision, based on a reasoned judgement regarding ones worthiness to do so , according to the Churchs objective criteria, asking such questions as : "Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Have I incurred a penalty (eg excommunication, interdict) that f orbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting f or at least an hour?" The practice of indiscriminately presenting onesel f to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. The Enc yclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states tha t there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to ob ey it, or to take part in a propoganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it" (no. Christians have a "grave obligation of consc ience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to Gods law. Indeed, from the moral st andpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. This co operation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the free dom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or r equires it" (no. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war , he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities t o seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging w ar and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to aborti on and euthanasia. This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Co mmunion passing judgement on the persons subjective guilt, but rather i s reacting to the persons public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin. NB A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so un worthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidates permissive st and on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a cand idates stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for tha t candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperat ion, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons. |
| www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=6159 Bishop Rene Henry Gracida, DD Description: Bishop Rene Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas clarifys th e teaching of the Church on voting for pro-abortion politicians. email Highlight Keywords In This Document: Highlight On Voting for Pro-Abortion Candidates When a Catholic does not share a candidates stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it i s considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger It is never permissible for a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candida te because the candidate is pro-abortion. Such a vote would be formal co operation in the serious sin of the candidate who, upon being elected, w ould vote for legislation making possible the taking of innocent human l ife through procured abortion. When a Catholic does not share a candidates stand in favor of abortion a nd/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the pr esence of proportionate reasons strictly defined. Since abortion and euthanasia have been defined by the Church as the most serious sins prevalent in our society, what kind of reasons could possi bly be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion? None of the reasons commonl y suggested could even begin to be proportionate enough to justify a Cat holic voting for such a candidate. Reasons such as the candidates posit ion on war, or taxes, or the death penalty, or immigration, or a nationa l health plan, or social security, or aids, or homosexuality, or marriag e, or any similar burning societal issues of our time are simply lacking in proportionality. There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortio n, and that is the protection of innocent human life. Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candi dates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, ca ndidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, ie, in fav or of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candid ate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable. The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that woul d be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restri ctions on, abortion-on-demand. The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry). Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candi date (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and votes for legislation restricting ab ortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen t he lesser of two evils which is morally permissible under these circumst ances. But that would be a serious abdication of the Catholic voters civic and moral obligation to participate in the election. By not voting the Catholic voter could well be assisting in the election of candidate (A, Kerry) and while that would not carry the same guilt as formal participation in candidate (A, Kerrys) support of abortion-on-demand it would still be sinful, even i f only a sin of omission. Those Catholic voters who love moral absolutes would have no choice but t o vote for candidate (C, Peroutka), but those Catholics who recognize th at in the real world it is sometimes necessary to choose the lesser of t wo evils in order to prevent greater harm in this case harm to innocen t unborn children would vote for candidate (B, Bush). |