Ten Principles For Political Involvement

46 thoughts on “Ten Principles For Political Involvement”

1. Shouldn’t there also be a reminder that there is a distinction between voting for a candidate and voting on an issue? The issue may be non-negotiable, but voting for the candidate who takes the wrong position on that issue is different, and could be negotiable. Just to take one example, if the candidate would be unable to affect policy on the “non-negotiable” issue, but would accomplish some other good in office, then maybe it would be OK to vote for the candidate. It’s a question of balancing the good and bad effects of electing that candidate to that office. Isn’t there legitimate room for disagreement about what those effects are going to be?

2. “The U.S. bishops are scheduled to talk this month about a document dealing with the death penalty, and it’s helpful to have a reminder of the legitimate diversity of opinion that Catholics may have on this topic.”
   Yes, you can either be a total abolitionist, or you can believe that the death penalty is permissible in instances where it is absolutely necessary to protect society from that individual. (Never for revenge or even for justice.)
   In other words, if you go by the Catechism, yes there is a legitimate diversity of opinion, but its a lot narrower than how many conservative American Catholics interpret it, especially if they put their conservatism ahead of their Catholicism.

3. yes there is a legitimate diversity of opinion [regarding application of the death penalty], but its a lot narrower than how many conservative American Catholics interpret it
   Very true. And this is a life issue.

4. I agree, Ryan.
   I am a conservative Catholic that has always maintained the right of the state to use the death penalty, but I recognize that it should be used rarely, if at all.
   The deterrent argument (that “making an example” of someone will discourage other would-be criminals) does not hold water for me. It strikes me as, for one thing, awfully speculative, and I would be surprised to find that it actually works. Criminals are not known for being rational.
   It would not break my heart to have the death penalty abolished in the U.S.
   I also think that we might one day want to re-think the whole idea of prisons, but that is another subject.

5. Decker2003,
   I don’t agree with your thinking. If a candidate is FOR a issue then voting for that candidate is voting FOR that issue. Could you say in good conscious, “Well, I’m voting for Herr Hitler because of his economic policies, not for his stance on the Jews.”
   You get ALL or NONE of his positions. If ONE issue is evil then all of his good positions can not overcome that evil.
   I would never vote for a pro-abortion dog catcher. Any political office can be a stepping stone to greater and greater political power. I will not take the chance that that dog catcher may one day become President.

6. Point #9 is very confusing.
   In California, when the Governor’s election was taking place, two of the candidates were pro aborts. Davis and Arnold. Each had about 40% of the vote, while the pro life candidate had at best 15%
   The Catholics in media outlets were often endorsing Arnold saying his position on abortion , even though he is pro choice,
   will lower the numbers of abortions.
   The idea was to not vote for the third candidate ( pro life) since he was only polling 15% or so.
   Catholics took the bait and elected a pro abort.
   Is this right?
   Is it OK to vote for the lessor of two evils ?
   Never !
   Voters could have voted for the third candidate or refused to vote.
   The third candidate was a protestant, and for some Catholics, electing a heretic might go against their convictions, so it is fine to not vote.
   The point is, Catholic can never ever vote for some one who promote evil.
   Even if electing Arnold would reduce aborions to 10 per year while Davis winning might mean 2,000,00 per year, one could not vote for the lessor of two evils.
   And even if the Pope says it is Ok to vote for the lessor of two evils, his words cannot change the moral law.
   Evil is evil.
   and in fact, a Catholic is NEVER allowed to commit a sin, even if a good will result from it!
   Catholics are not bound , ever, to vote for a person they find a advesary to Jesus and His commandments.
   Most candidates today are adversaries of Jesus.

7. Yes, you can either be a total abolitionist, or you can believe that the death penalty is permissible in instances where it is absolutely necessary to protect society from that individual. (Never for revenge or even for justice.)
   In other words, if you go by the Catechism, yes there is a legitimate diversity of opinion, but its a lot narrower than how many conservative American Catholics interpret it, especially if they put their conservatism ahead of their Catholicism.
   This is not true. This is a misreading of the statement by Cardinal Ratzinger.

8. John F. Kennedy-
   Almost ALL candidates (even “Catholic” ones) would support artificial contraception.
   Are you saying that Catholics should then just not vote, (since artificial contraception IS a societal evil)? How are we then to have any influence at all on the political process?
   Let’s assume a liberal state where it is very unlikely that abortion laws will be changed any time soon: If the current (pro-abort) administration were known to be corrupt (let’s say they were in cahoots with the Mafia), would it be permissable to vote them out by voting for their (also pro-abort) political rivals, all other things being equal?

9. Actually, capital punishment always deters. John Gacy and Ted Bundy have not committed any more murders since they were executed.

10. If a candidate is FOR a issue then voting for that candidate is voting FOR that issue…. You get ALL or NONE of his positions. If ONE issue is evil then all of his good positions can not overcome that evil.
    So there weren’t any candidates in the last U.S. election that a Catholic could vote for in good conscience??? I think this is an extreme claim. See TimJ’s comment.

11. Jimmy wrote, “This is a misreading of the statement by Cardinal Ratzinger.”
    No, it’s a plain reading of the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If I am in error, please explain to me how I am in error.

12. In the last Presidential election there was only one major party candidate who public stated he was against abortion and wanted to end it. The other SAID he was personally against it but voted in favor of it every time (and he was the “Catholic” one)
    I would not choose between two evils. EVER. Stake me down and cut out my heart, I won’t do it. No Sophie’s choice for me.
    If you want to bring artificial contraception into the mix, that’s fine. I haven’t heard of an “official” position on the Republican side. I do know that the President keeps withholding UN funds to support it. Seems Iike the right thing to do based on Catholic teachings since the House and Senate have already passed the spending bills.
    By the way, were all friends here. Just call me John, or if you like Mr. President.

13. a Catholic can never vote for a candidate that promotes evil, of any kind.
    There is no moral law that says you have to vote. none at all. Those who skip voting do not sin.
    You can pray God will raise up a Catholic who is moral and follows the Church, but until then it is morally right to not vote.
    the entire discussion that we can rationalize
    the issue to saying we are not voting on the
    abortion record of candidate ABC, but rather we are voting for candidate ABC becasue he has a policy of feeding the homeless, is pure bunk.
    could you say: I am voting for Hitler,
    but NOT because he is placing Catholics and Jews into labor camps to support his war machine, but rather because he is helping to educate the poor German people.
    That would be a bizarre way to compartmentalize it.
    Voting for folks like Bush or Arnold is using the same rationalization.

14. In discussing whether it is permissible to vote for a candidate who supports certain evils, we have to keep in mind the distinction between the object of an act and the effect of an act. This is a key distinction in moral theology. Without it, you can’t explain why procuring an abortion is evil but waging a just war can be good. Both result in the killing of innocent people. But killing the innocent is not the object of a just war, it is an undesired, but foreseen effect of waging war. In a just war, the army doesn’t target innocent people deliberately, but inevitably the bomb that is aimed at the enemy soldiers ends up killing a few innocent bystanders as well. This effect can be tolerated, however, for a sufficient reason. So, if the threat posed by the enemy is very great, it may be moral to wage war, even though you can be sure that some innocent people are going to be killed.
    Now the object of voting for a candidate is simply to place that candidate in office. Once in office, that candidate will do certain things, but these are the effects of voting for the candidate, not the object. So, it’s incorrect to say that it’s always wrong to vote for a candidate who supports certain evils. That would be akin to saying that it is always wrong to wage war because some innocent people will die. The proper analysis is to examine what the effects of electing that candidate will be and then determine whether the good effects outweigh the bad ones. This is inherently a prudential judgment, so there is legitimate room for disagreement as to the ultimate conclusion.

15. Voting often (usually?) comes down to choosing between bad and worse. It is morally licit to vote for the bad candidate to prevent the worse candidate from being elected.

16. A just war is one thing. You can be for or against. I have no problem with people being stupid and not understanding history. If war was always wrong we would be speaking German (or the west coast could be speaking Japanese.)
    But if any candidate supports the killing of innocents, then it would be wrong to support him. There can be no wiggle room. Abortion is always wrong. Any politician who supports it is supporting the killing of the MOST innocent of human life. Abstain if given not choice.
    You are deluding yourselves but trying mix the two subjects.

17. “A Catholic can never vote for a candidate that promotes evil, of any kind”.
    That means never vote for anyone! No distinction between spitting on the sidewalk and starting an unjustified war, like you know who.

18. The question (or maybe problem) I have with the non-negotiable concept is this. What if a Catholic, after serious reflection, comes to the conclusion that a particular war is unjust. Wouldn’t this issue (the war) then become nonnegotiable for them? (I’m not saying this issue would have to have equal weight – because it is a privateley reached conclusion. But maybe that’s another question to consider).
    I guess what I am trying to say is there is such a thing as “particular non-negotiables” as well as “universal” ones. I think this is an important point to consider.

19. I live in New York. If Rudy Giuliani run for the Senate against Her Royal Highness next year, I will vote for him. I can be reasonably sure that he would vote to confirm President Bush’s judicial nominees.

20. Anybody know where I can find a membership list for this organization? I’ve looked but so far been able to find one. If somebody’s going to tell what I should believe, I’d like at least to know who they are, especially as I agree with Jimmy that I would have tweaked some things as well. Who to send my congratulations and/or comments to?

21. In the last Presidential election there was only one major party candidate who public stated he was against abortion and wanted to end it.
    Who? Because the way I remember it, Kerry wanted all abortion to be legal and Bush wanted only a few abortions to be legal. Neither wanted to end all abortion.
    But if any candidate supports the killing of innocents, then it would be wrong to support him. There can be no wiggle room. Abortion is always wrong. Any politician who supports it is supporting the killing of the MOST innocent of human life. Abstain if given not choice.
    Sooo…. there weren’t any candidates in the last U.S. election that a Catholic could vote for in good conscience??? I guess you voted for Peroutka or didn’t vote?
    What if a Catholic, after serious reflection, comes to the conclusion that a particular war is unjust. Wouldn’t this issue (the war) then become nonnegotiable for them?
    Yes. If you believe a war to be unjust, you cannot support it.

22. The issue is, a grave evil. If the candidate running for ofice is a Catholic who supports driving 56 in a 55 speed zone, that is Ok if you vote for him.
    As to a just war, Catholics can look to the Roman Pontiff for direction. That is why God gave us a leader. ust like Abraham in the early ‘catholic’ church.The roman Pontiff speaks for Jesus in the areas of faith and morals.
    Unjust or just wars fall under morals.
    When John Paul II made public that the Iraqi invasion was a unjust war, then ANY person who supports the war sins gravely.
    I suggest confession for anyone who even interiorly supported the war. And clearly for those who publicly did so.
    I know that many Catholics in the media say, Oh you can be a good Catholic and oppose the pope on this issue, but it is not a cafetria issue.
    The wholesale shedding of innocent blood in Iraq by American and others is a crime of the worst sorts, the same as what Hitler did.
    Just as the Vatican opposed Hitler, so too they opposed Bush and his concocked war plans, created out of thin air.
    Do I think bush is in the same league as Hitler.
    God will judge that, but both are guilty of killing innocent civilians for no valid reason, other than empire building. And both ignored the warnings of the Roman Pontiff.
    They have rebuked the representative of Jesus, a
    telling sign of their predestination.

23. Dear Neoconspy: Pope John Paul II did not state that our invasion of Iraq was an unjust war. As to your last statement: “They have rebuked the representative of Jesus, a telling sign of their predestination”: Will you please post a picture of your hands? I would like to see the marks of the nails.

24. The theory that you can’t vote for a candidate who takes a wrong position on a “non-negotiable issue” has no basis in Catholic teaching. It confuses voting for a unjust law with voting for a candidate who supports unjust laws. Sure, voting for the unjust law is always wrong. But voting for the candidate might be the right thing to do if, under the circumstances, it would result in more good than evil. The difference is that, when you vote for the unjust law, the very object of your act is evil. When you vote for the candidate, it’s only the effects that are evil. An evil effect doesn’t make an act evil unless, on balance, the total effects of the act are evil.
    Without this distinction, you can’t explain how a war could be just. When you decide to go to war, you can be absolutely certain that some innocent people are going to be killed as a consequence of your decision. But, it is never permitted to kill innocent people. So, if an evil effect makes the act itself evil, regardless of its other consequences, then it can never be moral to wage war.

25. Alot of the people who invoke the “seamless garment” idea are merely Catholic dissenters who are trying to justify voting any way they like.
    I am NOT in that camp, and have no sympathy for that position. I do recognize that, at times, a choice between bad and worse may have to be made, however distasteful that may be.
    I also recognize that there exists a hierarchy of values that must be brought to bear on such decisions, and it is NOT just a matter of voting your conscience, especially if you have a dry, stunted, withered conscience.
    Some things are evil everywhere, at all times and for any reason. Others are not.

26. Decker and others: as Catholics we follow the teachngs of the pope in matters of faith and morals. Those who resist the Roman Pontiff, are placing themsevels outside the Church.
    The Pope repeatedly said the IRAQI war is unjust.
    A catholic cannot vote for a politician who supports abortion, no matter what he holds on other issues.
    As to ignoring the Pope, we catholics need to recall that anyone who refuses to subject himself to the Roman Pontiff forfeits his salvation.
    As to George Bush, he made a trip to Rome, because he knew the Pope was publicly opposed to the war.
    Sort of like when John D. Rockefeller went to Rome with Fr. Ted Hesburgh, and told Pope Paul VI he would write the pope’s encyclical on birth control in 1966. The pope declined, obviously.
    The average Catholic american is confused on this war issue, becasue so many catholics in the media, like Shaun hannity and O’ Reilly are saying they support this war.
    But those Catholics,( in name only ), are being PAID to say that. Most Catholics writing in support of the war, are being funded by foundations or others, to SAY they support the war and YOU should too.
    Folks like Pat Buchanan, and a few others see through this smokescreen and tell the truth. For that,they are tarred and feathered.
    Such Catholics are suffering a dry martyrdom, as are Catholics who tell the truth. Today, the truth is not a welcomed commodity since we live in the era of the lie.
    sodomy is Ok, while celebacy is deviant.
    promiscuity is Ok, but chastity is mocked.

27. Neoconspy: You are incorrect. John Paul II (if that is the pope you are referring to) NEVER said the invasion of Iraq was unjust.
    He loudly exhorted people (Bush et al.) to gravely consider the conditions that must apply to whether the conditions for a just war were met and that they would bear the consequences if they were wrong, but he never stated that the war was unjust.

28. “The pope repeatedly said the IRAQI(sic) war is unjust.” Source that, please.

29. Even if the pope had said the Iraq war was unjust, that would still be simply his prudential judgment because a decision that a particular satisfies the just war criteria is inherently a matter of prudential judgment. The pope’s prudential judgment about a particular matter is never binding on the consciences of the faithful. Everyone is at liberty to form their own consciences in these matters because the Church has no special competence to determine whether a grave danger exists, whether there is a reasonable chance of success, whether the war would produce greater evils than it would solve, etc.
    It’s the same thing with voting for candidates. The Church has no special competence to determine whether electing candidate X or candidate Y would produce the greatest good (or the least evil). That is something we each have to figure out for ourselves, to the best of our ability. It’s an area where there is no single Catholic position and there is legitimate room for disagreement.

30. The Catchecism explicitly says that the judgment on whether a war is just rests with those in power in nations.

31. prior to the March 2003 invasion, the pope sent a letter to Bush that referred to the impending conflict as “immoral.” According to a March 18, 2003, Dallas Morning News article: “One of the strongest anti-war voices belongs to the pope. He sent an envoy to visit with Mr. Bush this month with a letter that called the war ‘immoral, illegal, unjust.'”
    Sorry, the fact is the Pope sent his envoy to Bush in the weeks before the invasion to tell Bush not to invade.
    the Pope obviously knew more than Bush since the Vatican has the best intelligence network in the world, bar none.
    The fact is war is either just or unjust. and if it was just, the Pope would not have intervened.
    The facts are Bush lied, to everyone. He told the Papal envoy it would be a quick war. The truth is, it will drag on for probably 5 more years. The next president will extract us from it, I think.
    clearly, the Iraqi war was illegal, unjust and immoral to the same degree Hitler brought death and destruction to others.
    Every attorney general in the WORLD, with the exception of the British AG, said it was a illegal war.
    I guess when the Pope warns the world a war is unjust, he might not really mean it and the catholics of the world can ignore him.
    the media pundits like Hanity, O’reilly etc totally spun the story to fit their mold and presto, out comes a byline that gives ALL Catholics a option to pick what side they want to be on, without any scandal involved.
    “And the Pope’s opposition to the wear with Iraq was indeed adamant. As this March, 2003 report from Capital Hill Blue indicates:
    “Pope John Paul II has a strong message for President George W. Bush: God is not on your side if you invade Iraq.
    But the President told the pope’s envoy the leader of the world’s Catholics is wrong.
    Pleading for peace, an emissary from Pope John Paul II questioned Bush Wednesday on whether he was doing all he could to avert what the envoy called an “unjust” war with Iraq.
    Bush said removing Saddam Hussein would make the world more peaceful.
    The president met with Cardinal Pio Laghi, a former Vatican ambassador to the United States and a Bush family friend, on Ash Wednesday, the start of the Christian Lenten season of penance and spiritual renewal leading up to Easter.
    Bush told the envoy in a 40-minute meeting that “if it comes to the use of force, he believes it will make the world better,” said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, who attended the private meeting. “Removing the threat to the region will lead to a better, more peaceful world in which innocent Iraqis will have a better life.”
    Laghi came bearing the pope’s message: A war would be a “defeat for humanity” and would be neither morally nor legally justified.
    The Pope also questioned the President’s statements invoking God’s name as justification for the invasion.
    “God is a neutral observer in the affairs of man,” the Pope said. “Man cannot march into war and assume God will be at his side.”
    One might have dismissed the report at the time, as it was put together by a non-resputable source. But the essential confirmation of it by Jim Nicholson puts it in a whole new perspective.
    It’s also confirmed by these post war comments from the Papal envoy mentioned above, Cardinal Laghi:
    “The Italian cardinal sent by Pope John Paul II last year to try to dissuade President Bush from invading Iraq said Monday the president promised that the U.S. operation would be “quick.”
    Cardinal Pio Laghi visited Bush at the White House on March 5, 2003, to relay the pope’s position that dialogue, not arms, should be used to resolve the crisis over Iraq, which the United States accused of harboring weapons of mass destruction.
    “When I went to Washington as the pope’s envoy just before the outbreak of the war in Iraq, he (Bush) told me: `Don’t worry, your eminence. We’ll be quick and do well in Iraq,’” Laghi told Italian Catholic TV station Telepace, which was broadcasting the pontiff’s annual address to diplomats.
    When the United States went to war in Iraq, Laghi called the attack on Baghdad “tragic and unacceptable.”
    “Unfortunately, the facts have demonstrated afterward that things took a different course — not rapid and not favorable,” the prelate told Telepace. “Bush was wrong.”
    Here is another account of the meeting, from CNN:
    A Vatican envoy who met with President Bush Wednesday said he “clearly and forcefully” conveyed a message from Pope John Paul II that a war against Iraq would be a “disaster.”
    “You might start, and you don’t know how to end it,” said Cardinal Pio Laghi said after his half-hour meeting at the White House. “It will be a war that will destroy human life. Those people that are suffering already in Iraq, they will be in a really bad situation.”

32. The Pope is the leader of the entire world and when he says a war is unjust, every catholic, under pain of mortal sin, must support his side.
    opposing the pope in a matter of faith or morals is no different than opposing Jesus.
    the Pope is given the authority from heaven to lead and guide the faithful catholics of the world.
    Displays of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in such matters is grave matter.
    but , considering 80-90% of Catholic woman use birth control when the church along with the pope prohibit it, proves most people could care less about their salvation anyway.

33. Jimmy, please explain why I am wrong.

34. RyanHerr, I don’t see that you can be an abolitionist, but everything else you said sounds correct to me. I’ll try to explain where I think you might have a small error in there, but someone correct me if I am also wrong.
    The decision whether to apply the death penalty is very individual. In some atypical situations, it may be the only way to protect the rest of society. So the Church leaves this open and cases are evaluated individually.
    It doesn’t sound ~quite~ like it’s the Church’s intention to say, “If you’re an abolitionist, that’s okay and we give you some leeway to feel that way.” Because we know that in some individual, rare situations, the death penalty is necessary for the good of society.
    Therefore, there can be no endorsement of total abolition, or even some leeway to be totally abolitionist in *all* cases. The common good and protection of society (many lives)–while having the regrettable aspect of having to end someone’s life–come first, and so the threat in each case must be carefully determined.
    =tangent= One thing to remember, is just because a true psychopathic criminal is locked up, doesn’t mean he’s locked up from *everyone*. There are other prisoners, security guards, and other personell who will certainly be in contact with him at some point. And some criminals can be known to have a talent for escaping. =end of tangent=
    It’s fine however, in *individual* criminal cases, to lobby for a particular outcome when capital punishment doesn’t seem warranted in an individual’s conscience. Or to lobby for the death penalty if another’s conscience tells them it’s much too risky to let Joe Killer live.
    I *think* that the leeway Ratzinger was getting at, was the leeway we Catholics have in individual cases in trying to determine whether a person must be put to death. That in some rare individual cases, there can sometimes be legitimate disagreement alongside very honest intentions by the disagreeing parties. Some people, after analyzing the situation and alternatives, might conclude that they’re simply not safe as long as Joe S. Killer is still alive, particularly if Joe has a talent for escaping or finding ways to attempt to murder security guards, prisoners, and personnel who must be in contact with him. Others may insist that the prison he’ll go to, is more than adequate and that the situation can be kept under control, and list reasons why they think so.
    So I think that might be the “leeway” Ratzinger is referring to. Leeway in deciding whether to apply the death penalty, in individual situations, without fearing that you’re morally culpable for deciding one way or the other, after of course analyzing all of the evidence possible and having the right intentions.

35. “The Pope is the leader of the entire world and when he says a war is unjust, every catholic, under pain of mortal sin, must support his side.
    opposing the pope in a matter of faith or morals is no different than opposing Jesus.”
    NeoCon-
    You are just so wrong, here.
    The Pope’s prudential judgements on world affairs are not binding and do not require absolute obedience.
    His opinion should be given great respect, but it is not an absolute.
    Besides, weren’t you complaining about some Pope’s stand on Natural Family Planning?
    Which is it? Do you follow every word of every Pope, or do you pick and choose to suit your own opinions?

36. The fact is Bush is responsible to God for each Iraqi war death.
    Neocons have been bashing the pope since the early stages of this war, saying good Catholics can ignore the pope on the CALL.
    Faithful Catholic obey their pope, in matters of faith and morals, and those who chose to ignore him, serve another.
    By the way, NFP is another confused item but the matter is also very clear for those of good will.
    NFP is allowed if the MOTIVE is SERIOUS and the reason is GRAVE.
    Paul VI left out the word grave from his Humane Vitae encyclical, but it has not been abbrogated.
    Only with a grave reason, may a Catholic practice NFP. This has been the anceint apostolic and traditional Catholic teaching.
    It is impossible for the teaching of the church to change in such matters, since the law comes from God and is not subject to ever being changed.
    The primary function of marriage is children.
    That is also to be the primary function of the marital act.

37. The Catchecism explicitly says that the judgment on whether a war is just rests with those in power in nations.
    It does not say those people will be correct, however.
    NeoCon- You are just so wrong, here.
    Despite his frequent dogmatic pronouncements, NeoCon exhibits too little knowledge of actual Church teaching to be taken seriously.
    Here’s a classic example:
    NFP is allowed if the MOTIVE is SERIOUS and the reason is GRAVE…. Only with a grave reason, may a Catholic practice NFP.
    This is just bunk, as we should all expect from NeoCon by now. A “grave reason” is not the standard required by Humanae Vitae, other papal teachings, nor the Catechism. NeoCon’s imagined distinction between “serious motives” and “grave reasons” is not valid, because Humanae Vitae itself uses the terms “serious reasons” and “just reasons.”
    “[R]esponsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons [seriis causis] and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.” Humanae Vitae no. 10
    “If therefore there are just reasons [iustae causae] for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.” Humanae Vitae no. 16
    NeoCon is very wrong if he thinks the only reasons people may use NFP are grave, i.e. life and death reasons or absolute poverty. The teaching of the Church does not require grave reasons for periodic abstinence.

38. Neocon has the dubious talent of being able to derail any discussion and turn it into a discussion of NFP. Pha is right of course, and I doubt Neocon will be able to convince anyone or be convinced that anyone but he is right, so may I suggest we let him go his merry way and not rise to the bait?
    PS Pha, thanks for the quote from Humanae vitae.

39. It is rideculaous to say all moral judgements are subordinate to the abortion issue. An unjust war (according to the current Pope) has killed over a hundred thousand people that God created. To say that we must vote for that candidate because he “may” appoint a judge that “may” disregard the fundamental legal doctrine of stare decises is absurd.
    As the the moral guidence of the Pope on issues of this type it may or may not be binding. For example centuries ago when a Pope declared that anyone may kill or steal from a citizen of Venice
    (because Venice would not give the Pope some cities he coveted) without commiting a sin, the Pope was wrong. In the end you must always follow your conscience.

40. I know the problem the rest of us have, that does not affect Neoconspy: We are limited by mere facts; He is privy to “Higher Truth”.

41. so may I suggest we let him go his merry way and not rise to the bait?
    A good recommendation, thank you!
    PS Pha, thanks for the quote from Humanae vitae.
    A pleasure to be of service. 🙂
    In the end you must always follow your conscience.
    Your conscience, of course, must be formed in accord with the teaching of the Catholic Church. If you find that your conscience does not conform to the Church’s teaching, you can be sure your conscience is incorrectly formed and in need of reformation.

42. Patrick-
    I think that you seem to have a common misunderstanding of what the principle of stare decises represents. The fundamental aspects are that precident is binding from a higher court, that a lower court cannot overturn the precident of a higher court, and that a court should avoid overturning its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so. It is not a matter of that once a case is settled at a high level that it sits in perpituity. There are large numbers of cases that were ruled in one way and overturned later.
    Is that violating stare decises? No, because the wrong ruling causing problems gave them a strong reason to do so. Stare decises allows for predictability in the court system, rejecting the concept would mean that judges should be free to rule how they wish regardless of precendent at higher courts and regardless of precedents at courts of their same level. Also, that rulings on the same law could vary widely even in the same town depending on the judge.
    Appointing a judge who’s judicial philosophy says that certain cases were wrongly decided (Roe, Casey, Griswold, Miller, Bakke…etc) is in no way a rejection of stare decises. It’s noting that these cases meet the strong condition which means that they should be overturned.
    Hope that helps.

43. Faulty translations of the Latin encylcicals are in part due to the faulty understanding people come to accept as truth.
    The Church has ALWAYS taught that a GRAVE reason must exist for a couple to practice NFP.
    Read the LATIN, not a English mis-translation.
    Pope Paul VI did not abbrogate that teaching in he least, The fact he ADDED SERIOUS MOTIVE to
    is fine.
    The faulty understanindg of NFP has done to annulments the same things.
    Most Catholic divocces are annuled. Most Catholics who claim they do not use birth control opt for NFP and call that blessed.
    Rome has shown that nearly 97% of USA annulments are bogus. Thus one could also assume 97% of persons practing NFP today, probably fall outside the scope of the grave reason corridor.

44. “The Catchecism explicitly says that the judgment on whether a war is just rests with those in power in nations.
    It does not say those people will be correct, however.”
    I would add to pha’s point that I don’t think the Catechism means here that the voters cannot differentiate wars as part of their decision (if that’s what your’re suggesting – I’m not totally sure, I apologize if I’m misinterpreting).
    The people in charge of the common good in a country may be very much split on the issue of whether a war is just. I think the Catechism here is referring more to Aquinas’ point in the early formations of Just War Doctrine that the right to decide to go to war belongs to a legitimate authority, which the people have a say in choosing. Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement that “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war” suggests that as Catholics we can also judge whether a war is just (and thus respond accordingly).
    I’m not arguing that the question of whether a war is just outweighs or equals out other considerations. I’m just saying that it can be a factor in a decision, and thus a “personal nonnegotiable” for someone (there are other issues where this could apply too).
    Basically, I do think there needs to be a distinction between universal and personal nonnegotiables. But I also feel that making this distinction recognizes more the complexity of the decision making process in question, which might help strenghthen the appeal.
    That all being said, I again liked the points Tim and pha made.

45. The plain fact is we are talking about the Iraqi war.
    The Roman Pontiff said it was illegal, unjust and immoral.
    To disagree and promote that line is a grave sin and scandal.
    This war has been a creation of the Trotskyites,
    who are empire builders and who ignore the rule of law as well as international law.

46. The Church has ALWAYS taught that a GRAVE reason must exist for a couple to practice NFP.
    Read the LATIN, not a English mis-translation.
    You’re the one who’s not reading the LATIN. Humanae Vitae itself uses the terms “serious reasons” and “just reasons.”
    “[R]esponsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons [seriis causis] and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.” Humanae Vitae no. 10
    “If therefore there are just reasons [iustae causae] for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.” Humanae Vitae no. 16
    That‘s the original Latin.

Comments are closed.