Do you ever think this will happen? Coming out in Support of Pro Life

ryecroft · #1 Sep 23, '11, 10:31 pm

I love the Church, but I'm getting very frustrated with it - specifically with regards to American's and voting in the Presidential Election of 2008 and the one coming in 2012..

At one point the Church has had some Priests and a Bishop or two coming out saying something like the what Fr. Newman in South Carolina said in 2008-
"Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exits constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion..."

After this was put out, the administrator Msgr Laughlin (who was acting since there was no current Bishop) Bishop came out saying :

"Christ gives us freedom to explore our own conscience and to make our own decisions while adhering to the law of God and the teachings of the faith. Therefore, if a person has formed his or her conscience well, he or she should not be denied Communion, nor be told to go to confession before receiving Communion. The pulpit is reserved for the Word of God.... We should all come together to support the President-elect...."

Not exactly coming out in support of Fr. Newman!

We even had VP Biden's Bishop (when asked if he would stop him from taking Holy Communion) saying ‘I won’t politicize the Eucharist’ and added, ‘I don’t want to alienate people. I want to change their hearts and minds.’

So now we have another election coming up. Personally, I believe that if the Bishops hadn't been so wishy washy (and granted not all were - and let me also note that Raymond Arroyo after the last election said he believed after speaking with many US Bishops that about 1/2 voted for Obama)- that we wouldn't have had over 50% of Catholics who voted voting for the Pro Choice candidate- at least I have a hard time believing it would have been 54%. What's it going to take to get at least the majority of the Bishops's to come out and state that it's wrong to vote for the pro choice candidate when there is a pro life candidate?

So why won't the Church just come out and say it - I understand because of IRS reasons and keeping the non taxable worthiness of the Church going in the states they can't say "Obama" but what needs to happen to get the Bishops - all or almost all of them to come out and say "If you vote for the Pro Choice Candidate this Election, you are cooperating with Evil and you should NOT present yourself for Holy Communion until you have participated in the Sacrament of Penance..." or something like this.
Is the Holy See ever going to come out and at least recommend that the Bishop's disseminate information saying "if you vote for the Pro Choice Candidate, you are sinning..." And if not why?

God Bless
Rye

Monica4316 · #2 Sep 24, '11, 12:15 am

I think it all goes back to the teaching that a well formed conscience is only one which agrees with the Church. If a person disagrees in their conscience, that is not a well formed conscience. The conscience is not the 'final say'; the Church teaching is.

God bless

Elizabeth502 · #3 Sep 24, '11, 5:13 am

I'll offer a few reasons, rye:

(1) Tax-exempt status, as you mentioned. Specific endorsement, especially to the point of public moral coercion, comes dangerously close to representing a political viewpoint or candidate exclusively.

(2) The hierarchy's need to pick their battles. Setting down ultimatums for the faithful is probably not top of mind when Mass attendance, sacramental observance, parish financial viability, and priest availability are of greater concern currently.

(3) Catholic decision-making on a personal level is best addressed by better catechesis. This is a complex task as it is, and needs a complete restructuring, not to mention renewal. Consciences are poorly formed because of the weak, tepid character & scope of catechesis among both minors and adults, which has persisted over the last twenty years and has yet to be redressed.

(4) Pastoral discretion: Pastors and most bishops would prefer to use positive rather than negative inducements. Threats, or perceived threats, tend to have limited value; their effect is temporary and restricted to those who are already more inclined to listen to the hierarchy in the first place (and hence will not "need" the message).

Newbie2 · #4 Sep 24, '11, 5:57 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monica4316

I think it all goes back to the teaching that a well formed conscience is only one which agrees with the Church. If a person disagrees in their conscience, that is not a well formed conscience. The conscience is not the 'final say'; the Church teaching is.

God bless

Then why bother consulting one's conscience? I understand what you're trying to say, but I think it could be said "more correctly".

The Church teaching is not that we specifically need to consider only one issue when voting; and that's where even a properly formed conscience has the lattitude to consider other factors when evaluating a candidate.

However, I'm not quite sure how a properly formed conscience could come to the conclusion that Obama was the best candidate in the last election...

ryecroft · #5 Sep 24, '11, 6:24 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monica4316

I think it all goes back to the teaching that a well formed conscience is only one which agrees with the Church. If a person disagrees in their conscience, that is not a well formed conscience. The conscience is not the 'final say'; the Church teaching is.

God bless

Thank you for your response!
I understand what you're saying, (and I'm not trying to get into a debate), but do you have anything that the Church has put out saying what you mentioned:"The conscience is not the 'final say'; the Church teaching is"?

God Bless
Rye

What you said to me almost makes me wonder what the point of even saying something about using you conscience is if in the end Church teaching will trump anything your conscience comes up with, but I'm wondering if I ought to leave that question for another thread...

exnihilo · #6 Sep 24, '11, 7:22 am

As a Protestant with great and deep respect for the Catholic Church I'd have to say what appears to be a lack of maintaining church discipline in this area bothers me. I see the same thing in mainline protestant churches. Lack of discipline ensures things will only get worse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizabeth502

(1) Tax-exempt status, as you mentioned. Specific endorsement, especially to the point of public moral coercion, comes dangerously close to representing a political viewpoint or candidate exclusively.

This might be the case. But I think we have to hope the church would not withhold its moral authority for the sake of money. If so things are far worse than one could ever imagine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizabeth502

(2) The hierarchy's need to pick their battles. Setting down ultimatums for the faithful is probably not top of mind when Mass attendance, sacramental observance, parish financial viability, and priest availability are of greater concern currently.

Most mainline Protestant churches have the same problems. But I dont see the solution as becoming even more lax. Christianity is a discipline. Without discipline it is just a social club and not nearly as fun a one as the secular clubs (I actually think holiness is enjoyable, but obviously man has something in his nature that allows him to find imperfect enjoyment in fun the world offers). What good are people in the pews if they are not leading Christian lives? In fact their daily testimony is harmful. It would seem to me making it clear to them and the world that what they are doing is not in keeping with the church would be pretty important if what they are doing is so evil as supporting widespread murder. Being an unrepentant supporter of murder is a pretty serious sin. To not exercise discipline in this area leads people to question the seriousness of the matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizabeth502

(4) Pastoral discretion: Pastors and most bishops would prefer to use positive rather than negative inducements. Threats, or perceived threats, tend to have limited value; their effect is temporary and restricted to those who are already more inclined to listen to the hierarchy in the first place (and hence will not "need" the message).

US culture has completely rejected negative consequences for behavior. The results in both the Church and secular society are pretty clear. One of the jobs of leaders, whether they be parents, teachers or priest, is to set rules and boundaries. Part of how we show love is by setting boundaries. God loves us in setting boundaries. If the church cant set boundaries it is not truly loving us. If the Church cant have negative punishments how can it teach that God will allow man to choose Hell? The Church undermines its theology by eliminating all negative punishments.

Elizabeth502 · #7 Sep 24, '11, 10:27 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by exnihilo

US culture has completely rejected negative consequences for behavior. The results in both the Church and secular society are pretty clear. One of the jobs of leaders, whether they be parents, teachers or priest, is to set rules and boundaries. Part of how we show love is by setting boundaries. God loves us in setting boundaries. If the church cant set boundaries it is not truly loving us. If the Church cant have negative punishments how can it teach that God will allow man to choose Hell? The Church undermines its theology by eliminating all negative punishments.

I'll respond to your other points later, but for now: The pastoral functions of the ministerial priesthood are not focused on "consequences for behavior." Pastoral ministry looks first to the attraction of the flock to God's laws, through the example of its ministers, including the approach, style, of its ministers. It's more complicated than "setting boundaries," which is only a part of it and not the essential message being conveyed. The Church does not "eliminate all negative punishments." She has to consider the "how" of the message that is going to be delivered, proportional to the positive messages that are far more powerful and permanent. The approach is one of practicality, not of "theology," which is nevertheless also there.

**JimG** · #8 Sep 24, '11, 10:44 am

I think it would be a mistake for the Church or its bishops to name specific candidates either to favor or disfavor, regardless of tax benefits. Politics is not the Church's mission. Moral teaching is. It is enough to firmly teach that abortion and euthanasia are moral evils and one must not cooperate with them, particularly by voting for pro-abortion candidates.

The Church does not have the charism, if you will, of discerning among political candidates. Suppose the Church publicly endorsed a pro-life candidate, and it later came out that there were serious moral or practical problems with the candidate. Picking candidates is not something that the Church can or should do.

That doesn't mean that the Church can't say that voting pro-abortion is a moral evil. It certainly is. People are smart enough to know or to find out which candidates are pro-abortion on their own. Such positions are no secret.

But the Democratic party made things even more difficult for Catholic constitutents by taking a very firmly pro-abortion stance right in its party platform, and all but banning pro-life candidates from party leadership. It all but stated that Catholics who agree with the Church on abortion, can't be a good Democrats. And since that's a non-negotiable issue, it writes off, or ought to, the Catholic vote.