Guidelines For A True Catholic Voter by Fr. Stephen F. Torraco, PhD
If I think that a pro-abortion candidate will, on balance, do much more for the culture of life than a pro-life candidate, why may I not vote for the pro-abortion candidate?
If a political candidate supported abortion, or any other moral evil, such as assisted suicide and euthanasia, for that matter, it would not be morally permissible for you to vote for that person. This is because, in voting for such a person, you would become an accomplice in the moral evil at issue. For this reason, moral evils such as abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are examples of a “disqualifying issue.”
A disqualifying issue is one which is of such gravity and importance that it allows for no political maneuvering. It is an issue that strikes at the heart of the human person and is non-negotiable. A disqualifying issue is one of such enormity that by itself renders a candidate for office unacceptable regardless of his position on other matters. You must sacrifice your feelings on other issues because you know that you cannot participate in any way in an approval of a violent and evil violation of basic human rights.
A candidate for office who supports abortion rights or any other moral evil has disqualified himself as a person that you can vote for. You do not have to vote for a person because he is pro-life. But you may not vote for any candidate who supports abortion rights.
Key to understanding the point above about “disqualifying issues” is the distinction between policy and moral principle. On the one hand, there can be a legitimate variety of approaches to accomplishing a morally acceptable goal. For example, in a society’s effort to distribute the goods of health care to its citizens, there can be legitimate disagreement among citizens and political candidates alike as to whether this or that health care plan would most effectively accomplish society’s goal.
In the pursuit of the best possible policy or strategy, technical as distinct (although not separate) from moral reason is operative. Technical reason is the kind of reasoning involved in arriving at the most efficient or effective result. On the other hand, no policy or strategy that is opposed to the moral principles of the natural law is morally acceptable.
Thus, technical reason should always be subordinate to and normed by moral reason, the kind of reasoning that is the activity of conscience and that is based on the natural moral law.
posted by Moderator @ 12:23 PM
55 Comments
55 Comments:
I betcha Anon won't like this one bit.
Good advice from a good priest.
I hope the Obamamaniacs are reading this.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Geez- what a grouch!
Do you actually eat with that mouth?
If you hadn't been nearly spiraling out of control the last time you were here, maybe the moderator wouldn't have had to pull you off.
You were probably wanting to be militant and argue formal doctrine again, weren't you? The Church has its guidelines for good reason. I'm not perfect, but I do try to live a Catholic life...and that takes discipline in following Church doctrine as described in this article.
Articles like this are very helpful to me because they are written by named authors with credibility. You, on the other hand, are an uncredentialed anonymous source that should not be considered trustworthy under any circumstance.
Please, learn from what your apparent anger has done to you and make a change to be happy. Find joy!
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This is very helpful.
The best way to stop killing cute little babies is to simply stop killing them.
Voting for a pro-killing-babies candidate is like trying to justify support for Nazis by saying, "Well, what about all the GOOD things Hitler did?"
As for Obama, in Illinois he supported allowing doctors to kill cute little babies AFTER THEY WERE BORN.
To Luke,
Is that really documented that Obama said doctors could kill babies after they were born? I really need to know that? I know he said if his daughters became pregnant, he would not want them to be PUNISHIED by that. In other words he would NOT want them to not be able to have an abortion and thave their lives ruined. Anyway that is the way most people saw what he said. He is for abortion.
Now I have another problem, and that is what candidate out there is NOT for abortion or womens' rights to choose??? Even McCain was for pro choice and NOW has changed his stance, which how can anyone be sure his change was not to get the conservative rights? I believe he still believes in Womens'rights to choose. So do we stay home in November? Or do we all pray with our hearts that the hearts of these candidates will change???
God Help Us!!
The choices are tough. I am so happy OLTIV is putting this info out there for those who are still confused to understand.
There is absolutley no possible way for any True Catholic to vote for either Democratic candidate as long as they are standing on their current platforms. Both of their spouses are equally as wrong in their backing of their platforms.
On the other hand, although McCain has changed his stance, he is also married to a very strong woman who is against abortion and has put her money where her mouth is throughout her adult life.
I'm voting for McCain!
To Dr. Tallgrass,
Thank you for the info on McCains's wife. My husband and I are both considering him, or just staying home. I think you have helped us make our decision. I think Cindy McCain will have great influence over her husband, as most loving wives do!! :-)
McCain all the way, and let us pray that he takes a V.P. who believes in the Right to Life!!!
That is what will seal it!!
I am all for the Right to Life. But MOST never speak about another very important and moral issue the death penalty!!
No candidate has spoken of the death penalty because most voters througout are for it. Yet Our last Pope was so against it he begged our country to discontinue this horrific punishiment saying that only God has a right to take any life!!
Who out of all of these candidates is against the Death Penalty? And why do we not hear the priest on Sunday speak as eloquently about the right to life regarding the death penalty as we do the right to life regarding abortion? Are they not one and the same in God's eyes??
As a Catholic, if you are for the Death Penalty you also should not receive the Sacraments, but that is never mentioned.
If that doesn't bother any of the Catholics responding to this blog, than perhaps we should take another look at our hearts.
Now does anyone know who is against the death penalty and abortion? Because I sure don't and would like to know.
Leave God the right to give us life and the right to take life!
I think you don't hear so much about the death penalty vs. abortion is because the first one is carried out against those who have been found guilty of heinous crimes (usually murder and torture) and the second is carried out against completely innocent babies.
I am not for the death penalty (I am for voluntary labor for convicts...those who do not volunteer remain in their cells with no tv and only censored reading materials).
Mike Huckabee is and has been pro-life from the start...unlike flip-flopping McCain.
Quoting Anonymous - "Now does anyone know who is against the death penalty and abortion? Because I sure don't and would like to know."
The Pope is pro-life and anti-death penalty but unfortunately he isn't a candidate for President.
Out of a country of 350 million people we should have better candidates than the ones we are stuck with.
God bless all of you! Pray! Pray! Pray! to our Lady of Lourdes!
I believe what Jack said is true. However it is still against the Catholic Church to judge and sentence someone to death. Just look at all the wrongful death penalties carried out, even to the extent that Illinois had to put a moratorium on them since more than half of the men on death row a couple of years ago were found to be innocent after DNA testing.
This is a serious problem, and just because we feel at some level those people who have taken life, or have been misjudged to have taken life do not have a right to it; does not mean that we have a Right, morally or religiously to take life from them.
We are the only humane country in the world who still carries out the death penalty!! What does that tell you, and why do we not listen to what our last Pope was preaching about Right to Life for All People!
Ashamed we are so lax on this.
In respect to what Anonymous said regarding no one against the death penalty----the lack of response to that shows Anonymous to be correct, don't you think?
Jack and Anonymus and I so far are the only ones I know agains both abortion and the death penalty!
What say you???---As O'Reilly would say???
too many anonymous comments.
unfortunately, the blog format doesn't allow open comments without allowing "anonymous" comments.
please use a name so we can keep the community straight. nobody is going to come knocking on your door.
RE: Obama's pro-abortion record, long before he said he didn't want his daughters "punished" by an STD or a baby, he tried to rally support against the "Born Alive" act that banned infants from being killed after they were born. Not only was he against this bill in Congress, he fought against it when it was a state issue in Illinois. He argued that a woman's right to choose(abortion) would be jeopardized if an infant that was born alive was called a "person."
Sounds almost Clintonian, as in , "it depends on what the definition of is is", doesn't it? Even Barbara Boxer, and Planned Parenthood stated that the Born Alive Act would NOT jeopardize abortions or Roe v. Wade.
And yes I am against the death penalty, but the first issue has to be that of taking the innocent life
of a baby. Where the Democratic candidates stand on the death penalty doesn't matter election-wise, since they have already committed to the right to choose (murder) rather than the right to life. Not only are Senators Clinton and Obama for abortion, but both would make Roe v. Wade a "right" that could not be repealed.
Luke: I love your reference to "cute little babies." It conjures up such a sweet mental image which mirrors the sweet innocent lives that are being killed.
The fact that more babies have been murdered by abortion than any amount of soldiers killed in all the wars in the history of the U.S. (or prisoners from the death penalty) is truly a "sin that cries to heaven".
Yet Our last Pope was so against it he begged our country to discontinue this horrific punishiment saying that only God has a right to take any life!!
Actually what JPII said was that in current times when a serious criminal can be kept from harming the public due to the facilities of incarceration the death penalty cannot be justified as a means to protect the public. There are though a lot of places in the world where this is not possible and the public has to be protected. And these overcrowded institutions often allow the unprotected inmates who are vulnerable to other stronger criminals to be brutalized and even killed. So this question is not as black and white - ALWAYS intrinsically evil - as is abortion. So the reception of the Eucharist with regard to the death penalty discussion/disagreements is not so clear.
The other major consideration in voting this time around is the likely opportunity for the next President to appoint Supreme Court Justices. The next one could make all the difference in a swing for or against Roe. McCain has declared that he would appoint only strict constructionists in the model of Roberts/Scalia, etc. We know the type the other two would choose. Since there are certain abominable sins that call out to heaven for justice, this may be our last chance to hold back any hand of heaven's fury.
I wonder which part of "Thou shalt not kill" people have difficulty understanding. The cold blooded murder of an infant, without awareness, an infant, with awareness, an adult wrongfully convicted of a heinous crime and an adult correctly convected of a heinous crime, all bear the same measure of moral responsibility.
Some would like to ignore [or actually dispute] the global scope of the prohibition. I suppose, under the theme supported by some on this site, the people who choose to selectively apply the prohibition might be called "cafeteria Catholics". I think the phrase meaningless since it is an appropriate description of those who hurl it, at least as often as it may apply against those who are its targets.
On a related point, two people on this thread have claimed that Senator Obama has supported the killing of children born alive. I note they have provided no citation for that claim. Unless they can do so, they should be ashamed for spreading such an accusation.
Best wishes,
Anon
Excerpt printed from the St. Petersburgs Times politics site. There are many others to read regarding the topic. Whether Obama is fully pro-abortion or voting present for political positioning is up for debate. Do you really want to take the chance either way? Read below from http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/feb/06/obama-abortion-debate/.
The Obama abortion debate
By Bill Adair, Angie Drobnic Holan
Published on Wednesday, February 6th, 2008 at 07:10 p.m.
SUMMARY: Is Barack Obama a pure supporter of abortion rights? Hillary Clinton and her supporters criticize him for opposing a bill by voting "present" instead of "no." Obama's defenders say the votes were a strategy to wrest a wedge issue away from Republicans.
As the Democratic race has tightened, the Hillary Clinton campaign has portrayed Sen. Barack Obama as inconsistent on abortion rights.
"In the Illinois state Senate, on issue after issue, my opponent voted ‘present,’ instead of yes or no. Seven of those votes were on a women’s right to choose," Sen. Clinton said in a December 2007 speech in Iowa. In the days leading up to Super Tuesday on Feb. 5, 2008, several other groups repeated the charge against Obama via e-mails.
The facts here are not in dispute. Obama did vote present on seven bills that attempted to restrict abortion. His defenders argue that it was a tactic to disrupt legislation that would be used against Democrats in swing districts.
It's worth pausing here to explain what the "present" vote means. The Illinois Legislature allows members to vote "yes," "no" or "present." Bills need "yes" votes to pass, so a vote of "present" counts the same as a "no." Thus, Obama's "present" votes on bills seeking to restrict abortion counted the same as if he had voted "no." All of the bills passed in the Senate by sizable margins.
The seven votes were on proposals that abortion opponents have successfully passed in other places. Two bills outlawed the late-term procedure that opponents call partial-birth abortion. Two bills required parental notification for minors seeking abortions. Three bills were for so-called "born alive" legislation, which require doctors to administer medical care to aborted fetuses that survive the abortion process in hopes that the fetuses can survive.
No one questions that Obama opposed the seven pieces of legislation; indeed, he is mentioned in news reports from the time as being against several of the measures. Rather, Obama's critics say he ducked a "no" vote; supporters say it was a tactical move.
Those interpretations seem to have split the leaders of the Illinois abortion-rights movement.
Obama should have voted "no" on those bills, said Bonnie Grabenhofer, president of the Illinois chapter of the National Organization for Women, which has endorsed Clinton.
"We think the way you talk about a bill and the way you stand up is important," she said. "It was a strategy that allowed people to take political cover as opposed to talking about why the bill was a bad bill and clearly saying no."
But Pam Sutherland, president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, said Obama was helping advance a prochoice agenda by voting present.
"He always was going to vote 'no' on these bills. We needed to keep some of our moderate Democrats from voting yes, which is something you never want to happen," Sutherland said. By having a well-known supporter of abortion rights also vote present, it gave other Democrats cover, she said.
Regardless of the interpretation of the "present" votes, Obama has received extremely positive ratings from organizations that promote abortion rights. Even Grabenhofer's organization, the NOW Illinois political action committee, endorsed Obama twice after the "present" votes. The group did not endorse in the U.S. Senate race in 2004, she said, in part because of the present votes.
Steve Trombley of Planned Parenthood in Chicago has defended Obama's prochoice bona fides, even though Planned Parenthood has not endorsed in the race.
"Barack Obama has always been committed to a woman’s right to choose. He has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record both in the U.S. Senate and the Illinois Senate," Trombley wrote in a statement posted on the Obama campaign Web site.
"I don’t know why Illinois NOW has changed its opinion of Barack Obama since his record has remained the same and since his time as a state senator, he has only demonstrated a full and steady commitment to choice," Trombley added.
Both Clinton and Obama have their supporters among the abortion-rights movement.
Clinton arguably has the bigger endorsements. She has been endorsed by the National Organization for Women and EMILY's List, an organization dedicated to electing prochoice women.
Obama has some high-profile endorsements as well, such as Kate Michelman, former president, NARAL Prochoice America, who sided with Obama after John Edwards dropped out of the race. Obama also has the support of U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the first executive director of EMILY's List, who has publicly defended Obama as a strong supporter of abortion rights. We checked her statement here and found it to be True.
Two other large groups, NARAL Prochoice America and Planned Parenthood, are not endorsing. Planned Parenthood, however, has given both candidates 100 percent ratings for their records on abortion.
Anon-
The killing of live children is commonly known as abortion.
Larry
Anon:
Obama's stance and vote against the Born Alive Act is a matter of public record.
Here are some other references as well:
http://
illinoisreview.typepad.com/
illinoisreview/2008/01/
top-10-reasons.html
Speaking against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act on the IL Senate floor on March 30, 2001, Obama, the sole verbal opponent to the bill stated:
... I just want to suggest... that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.
Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - child, a nine-month-old - child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.
I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.
from: http://www.humanevents.com/
article.php?id=18647
In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.
But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”
(At the hearing Obama stated), "What we are doing here is to create one more burden on a woman and I can’t support that.”
Pam,
Thank you for the references.
Luke Bruner said:
"The best way to stop killing cute little babies is to simply stop killing them.
"Voting for a pro-killing-babies candidate is like trying to justify support for Nazis by saying, "Well, what about all the GOOD things Hitler did?"
"As for Obama, in Illinois he supported allowing doctors to kill cute little babies AFTER THEY WERE BORN."
Whatever else might be said about Obama's position, I think Bruner's charge is unwarranted and unfair hyperbole.
A legislator may be personally opposed to abortion, but the issue for him may be: 1)Does this fall within the scope of what ought be legislated? -- not all moral issues are the subjects of legislative prohibitions; or 2) Can I, in good conscience, vote for legislation that, in my informed view, would violate clearly established Supreme Court precedent?
Demonizing one's opponent may sometimes be effective, but that does not make it right.
It would be interesting to hear from Father Torraco as to what major issues of the day (besides abortion, suicide and euthanasia) would require a Catholic to vote against a candidate for office. Is there some reason he does not mention birth control or the death penalty or torture or bigotry or manifestly inadequate health care or a failure to provide help to people who are suffering due to poverty? His effort to draw a distinction between "disqualifying issues" and "policy issues" is very vague.
I also wonder whether it stops there. Should Catholics refuse to pay taxes if some of the funds would go for activities that are morally prohibited? Should we refuse to associate with, work for or do business with people who do not subscribe to our moral views or who advocate moral views contrary to ours?
What part, if any, of Father Torraco's moral voting obligations of citizenship is predicated upon clear Papal edict or upon clear scriptural statements of Christ?
Anon
Friends,
The Church teaches that the Death Penalty is a matter of prudential judgment. This means individuals and societies can freely decide if they wish to have the Death Penalty or not. The Church teaches that a person who supports the Death Penalty may freely receive Communion (presuming the normal criteria).
The Church teaches that Abortion and the Death Penalty are NOT equivocal. Abortion is far worse, is always wrong, and may NEVER be supported. Supporting the Death Penalty is a matter of individual choice. One is intrinsically evil, the other is a matter of prudential judgment.
A person can be a good Catholic and support the death penalty. A person can not be a good Catholic and support abortion.
One person wrote, "As a Catholic, if you are for the Death Penalty you also should not receive the Sacraments, but that is never mentioned."
That is not what the Church teaches. That is why it is never mentioned.
Another person wrote, "However it is still against the Catholic Church to judge and sentence someone to death."
That is not what the Church teaches.
The next post will contain citations for those interested.
-Luke
Some citations:
In 2004 Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a letter to the US Bishops entitled Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion:
"3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. 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 to 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 war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
The full text of the letter can be found via a quick google search.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church acknowledges the possible use of the death penalty (see CCC 2267) even though, following John Paul II, it says that such situations seem to be rare, if not practically non-existent. That, however, is a prudential observation.
Abortion is a non-negotiable, since it is an intrinsic evil. You can't be Catholic and be pro-killing-cute -little-babies.
Anon, please use a different handle. Perhaps a favorite mascot, or a favorite city that you don't live in. Being merely "Anon" is very difficult for us to follow the thread.
Dear Luke,
I will use a different handle. But I am not the only Anon. speaking here about this.
However, I feel taking a life in the death penalty, particularly after what happened in Illinois with all those men being found innocent from DNA is enough to end the death penalty, period. (Not an exact quote but paraphrased some:--- Better that 14 guilty men go free, than 1 innocent man be imprisoned or murdered.)---Anyway you look at it, death penalty people are not overcrowding the prison and what you seem to be saying is in an overcrowded prison perhaps more should be put on death row!!!???
Sorry, but that is the way it cuts no matter what we personally may want to think to make ourselves feel better about murdering people we can never know for sure are guilty and even taking a life that according to John Paul II said has a right up until their natural death to ask for forgiveness to God and be saved.
Now go and argue that if you like, but to all who believe in abortion as a right to life being violated, so is the death penalty.
Again, I have much to offer you in a personal one on one in defense against the death penalty not only for moral reasons but also for economical reasons.
Do your homework and we shall debate!!
I would be willing to debate this with much information on the cost of keeping the people safe with these people kept in prison for life, vs the cost of the death penalty person who is in prison for sometimes 20 years before being put to death.
It already is not considered to be a deterrent to crime. So to me it is not more than killing for the sake of revenge. In that way I doubt if the Catholic Church, including Pope Paul II would find this argument of prudential to be an argument with all facts know. The prisons are not overcrowded because of the lack of the death penalty. The prisons are overcrowded because of the lack of morals in this country.
If IL. as one of 50 states had enough common sense to put a moratorium on the death penalty, something must be worth investigating.
How do you all feel about even one innocent man or woman being wrongly put to death? That to any good moral person of conscience, Catholic or not, should be disturbing. This is not a war we are speaking of here to have to kill to survive. We have a place for these people, and too many have lost their lives in innocence and this is JUST AS IMPORTANT AS THE INNOCENT BABIES WHO ARE ABORTED!
Time for all Catholics, along with all people in this country to get on board against Both of these two important moral concerns in this country under God!!!
All God's Children,
Thank you for using a new handle :) Seriously, thank you.
Our personal views on the death penalty aren't the issue. I happen to be against it, others are for it. Others still are undecided.
The issue is this: What does Mother Church teach on the matter?
She teaches that abortion is an intrinsic evil that a Catholic may not support. She also teaches that individuals may freely have differing opinions regarding the death penalty.
Further, she teaches (and this is key) that not all issues are equal. Abortion is a more serious problem then the death penalty.
SO if we're faced with a choice between two politicians: one who upholds the Church's teaching on Abortion but isn't very eco-friendly, and another who wants to kill babies all the time... but is in agreement with the USCCB on wetlands protection, who do we choose?
We chose the pro-life candidate. It's not an option. Morality demands no less.
"Though shalt not kill" sounds to me like the definition of an intrinsic wrong" I do not see the word "except", and I do not see the use of some word of more narrow scope, such as "murder".
Did Christ every utter one word that legitimatized the killing of a human being under any circumstances?
Anon
Dear Luke,
In total agreement with a lot of what you say. However I think the prudent decision that you say the Church teaches is not in line with whether a candidate wants to save wetlands or not. We are talking life here, and that is all we talking about. Your example of that is apples and oranges, as I am sure you are intelligent enough to understand.
Prudent killing, that is spoken of in the bible, is an example of wars of which we are fighting in two now whether it is considered prudent or not by most of our country. It appears in these types of situations it is the only way to protect ourselves. We have prisons for the other criminals!
(Please show me where Mother Church specifically teaches we can have different views on the death penalty.) Seriously, I have never been taught that nor heard of it directly. Show it to me, and I will stop correcting you.
If the Church does teach that than JPII was not in line with it. He literally begged the United States several years ago to spare the life of a young woman who was guilty of murdering under the influence of drugs. She however, after imprisonment and being drug free had been nothing more than a wonderful influence to the prisoners for many years in the jail. The Pope pleaded to the very end for her to be kept in prison for life, and not to be executed for she was Truly, not as some say to get out of prison, but Truly doing God's work with the prisoners and heartfelt sorry for her horrific sin. He also mentioned during that time, that we need to not only give her that right, but also all humans that right. We are all God's Children, he said. We failed to even consider his request. I cannot now remember her name, but I do remember the day they executed her, I prayed in church all day for the forgiveness of this country's people for taking a life of a woman that had truly changed and moved her life to a ministry of God. I also prayed for those who still had not realized their errors to give them the natural time of their death to be able to do so. And I also prayed for the innocent on death row to be freed immediately. So much for John Paul II having any influence on that particular case and the rest to come.
This is one example of a guilty person that our Pope asked to spare her life and the lives of many others. So as far as the Church saying we have the right to make a choice on this is confusing to me.
We also cannot afford to continue making mistakes as we now know we have over the years, and are still doing regarding taking a person's life that is innocent. We can't even take a bit of that chance. And if the person is not innocent, we still need to be humane enough to give them the right to right themselves with God and be forgiven. No one can say,-- "OK you are going to die in an hour, so if you want to be saved ask God for forgiveness now". Forgiveness for our sins comes from within ourselves, and JPII asked that we give ALL people the moral, religious, Christian right to be able to do that at their time, not ours. People find God in their way and in their time. We must allow them to have that opportunity! That is not only humane, but God's way!!
So much said for the argument on the death penalty.
I am glad you are against it, but wish you, as I and many others, would consider fighting to the end of the death penalty as we continuing fighting to the end for abortion.
We are all God's Children!!
And when OLOA said, "Bring me my children, bring me All of my children" I don't think She singled anyone out, including murderers and convicts.
God bless you!
Anon,
I will not address your legitimate question if you can not use a handle or nickname of some sort.
The anonymous postings make dialog impossible. If you're uncomfortable using a real name or initials, consider a nickname, a place that you don't live (NYC-Catholic, perhaps), or even a favorite saint.
All God's Children,
"...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."
That was an official interpretive letter from the CDF, written personally by then Cardinal Ratzinger, to the US Bishops. The CDF has the authority to interpret Church teaching.
JP2 was in no way incorrect. He provided his informed moral opinion (his prudential judgment) on the matter of the death penalty in the United States. Not everything a Pope says is infallible, only some things.
Some have made the prudential judgment that our current wars are just. Others have made a different judgment. You have made the prudential judgment that the Death Penalty is not necessary in this country. Others have made a different judgment.
On these issues we can legitimately disagree. The Catechism reads, " 2266 The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.[67]
2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'"
Notice the part, "when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor."
It is up to the State (and in America, the citizenry as well) to determine the practicality and necessity of the Death Penalty. Just like the State (and in America, the citizenry as well) determine if is just to go to war. The Church gives the State guidance on such matters, but the Church can not make decisions for the State. That is why JP2 was so outspoken about the Death Penalty, because he was giving guidance on the matter.
Let's be clear... in at least some instances, in some places, in some times, the Death Penalty is acceptable. The classic example in moral theology is the 'Wild West', when no jails existed, and a killer is caught.
Concerning abortion, the Catechism reads, " 2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.
This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.
Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law..."
Notice the difference... one is SOMETIMES acceptable, the other is NEVER acceptable. The Death Penalty is a matter of prudential judgment, and is sometimes O.K. Abortion is intrinsically evil and never acceptable.
It is good for Catholics to have a "seamless garment of life", but this also means recognizing that some issues are more important than other issues. Abortion is more important than the death penalty, or wetlands preservation, or war.
Abortion is a non-negotiable. A Catholic may not support a pro-killing-babies candidate just because the candidate has the right position on the death penalty, health care, and saving the whales.
On the Death Penalty, good folks can disagree. This disagreement does not prohibit them from receiving Communion.
I hope you find this helpful. If you have any more questions on Church teaching, feel free to email me. LukeCBruner (at) gmail (dot) com just replace the proper words with their proper symbol.
Sorry for the length of some of these posts, but the "moral equivalency" lie needs a lot of hammering.
There is no moral issue equal to genocide, and so all moral issues are secondary to genocide. You can't be Catholic and be pro-Choice.
Luke,
I think the source of my postings has not been confusing since I am the only one who is called Anon both in signing letters and as the user name. Most of the people on this blog, including the moderator, are anonymous.
In view of your request, I will hereafter add my first name to my signature.
You might add the to the pending questions the following:
3. Are you saying that the use of the death penalty is not a moral issue, but is discretionary based upon the judgment or conscience of those who authorize, order and implement it?
4. If my judgment or conscience tells me that in a particular case the death penalty is unwarranted, is it appropriate or even required that I accuse those who enable it in that instance of being, themselves, murderers, or am I precluded from judging the situation?
5. If the pope has not spoken, ex cathedra on the subject and if the moral tradition of the church is unclear on the subject, from where does the authorization come for the proposition that there is discretion, in light of the absolute prohibition included in the Ten Commandments?
Best wishes,
On Anon
Luke,
Anon. does have a very good point on both of the last posts Anon. sent.
I am afraid that argument can't get much better.
When in doubt, go to the 10 commandments and let man stop making up God's law, as it has too many times.
JP II said Stop the Death Penalty. In so many words, he called it a sin against the laws of God. I don't know what the New Pope believes, but as far as John Paul II, a Pope of Jesus' teachings, I believe he is hanging his head as he looks down and sees not just abortion, and the wars, but people and the church finding ways to get around the death penalty. So very sad to justify murder, as most states have!! How is this a country under God, when we can imprison these hardened criminals for a lot less money than putting them on death row and killing them just for revenge.
As anyone who would admit to themselves, imprisonment keeps them away and the people safe, even from the other prisoners. They are kept in a solitary part of the prison, the hardened criminals. Many are in a solitary cell with movement of freedom under great supervision, to continue humane conditions for them and yet separate to hurt others.
It is not cost affective, or a crime deterrent to execute. Check the prisons and get the stats.
We have a way to protect ourselves from these hardened criminals, that will cost a lot less than a death row area. There is no real reason except revenge to murder them.
Sorry, have to side with Anon.
Vatican on the Death Penalty, Not Inherently Evil, but "difficult to justify today"
By John-Henry Westen
VATICAN CITY, February 7, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A declaration of the Holy See regarding the death penalty was released today. It was delivered at a world congress on the death penalty, held in Paris, France from February 1 to 3.
Rather than condemning the practice outright, the Vatican used nuanced language to indicate that while it found the practice "an affront to human dignity", it could in some circumstances be necessitated. The language is starkly different from that used to condemn abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage which can never be justified.
"The Catholic Church continues to maintain that the legitimate authorities of State have the duty to protect society from aggressors," says the document on the death penalty. "Some States traditionally include the death penalty among the means used to achieve this end," an option "that is difficult to justify today."
....more....
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/feb/07020705.html
AGC, Anon,
All I am saying is that abortion is a more important moral issue than the death penalty. The Church is clear on that teaching.
The two issues are not equivalent to each other. If Candidate A is pro-cute babies and pro-death penalty, and candidate B is anti-cute babies and anti-death penalty, we can't flip a coin.
Morally we can not support candidate B because that candidate supports an intrinsic evil.
We also remain free to disagree about if the death penalty should be carried out. There can be no disagreement about abortion.
The death penalty is not an intrinsic evil.
_____
Concerning the death penalty and the 10 commandments:
The commandment is most properly rendered, "Thou shalt not murder." It refers to the unjust taking of human life (or the taking of innocent life). The proper end of the state is justice. As such, the state can legitimately engage in just wars (under a set of conditions), and in the just punishment of criminals. At times this punishment can include death (CCC 2266)
If the punishment is motivated out of revenge, it is immoral. That is why such punishments are reserved for the state.
Individuals are free to have differing opinions about the use of the death penalty in America. You may disagree that we can have differing opinions, but that's the Church's clear teaching.
Concerning the numbered objections:
#3: You write, "Are you saying that the use of the death penalty is not a moral issue, but is discretionary based upon the judgment or conscience of those who authorize, order and implement it?"
You have contradicted yourself. Matters of judgment and conscience are themselves moral issues. The DP is a moral issue, just like the Church teaches. It is not, however, equivalent to abortion in weight.
#4 You write, "If my judgment or conscience tells me that in a particular case the death penalty is unwarranted, is it appropriate or even required that I accuse those who enable it in that instance of being, themselves, murderers, or am I precluded from judging the situation?"
If your conscience is well formed (by Scripture, the Church, and Truth) and it requires you to speak out against this action, that you are obliged to follow your conscience. As a citizen you bear some responsibility for the Common Good, and may indeed judge the situation.
#5 You write, "If the pope has not spoken, ex cathedra on the subject and if the moral tradition of the church is unclear on the subject, from where does the authorization come for the proposition that there is discretion, in light of the absolute prohibition included in the Ten Commandments?"
The moral tradition of the Church is clear on the subject. The state has the right to execute criminals, but IF the execution should take place is a matter of prudential judgment over which the faithful may legitimately disagree.
The 10 Commandments contain an absolute prohibition against the unjust taking of life-- the taking of innocent life. Executing a criminal is just but not, perhaps, necessary.
Anon,
Thank you for adopting some sort of handle. Thank you.
Luke,
From all I have read that has been said by recent Popes, there has not been any effort to justify or excuse the execution by Government in the present day.
You attempt to make an end-run around the unequivocal prohibition of the commandment by saying that, although we use the word "kill", a proper rendering should be "murder". Some other religions do use the word "murder", but I have not researched the issue of what THEY mean by "murder". The fact is that, despite the practice of some other religions, the RCC has adhered to the more general term "kill".
Your analysis, based upon a distinction between what you consider "intrinsically evil" and what you consider subject to "prudential judgment", is a convenient trip with a "get our of morality free" card.
With the exception of dictatorial governments, the United States stands practically alone throughout the world in its view that the death penalty is a civilized response to criminal conduct. Within one state it is deemed essential to have over 500 people on death row. In other states of equal or greater population, it is not found necessary to have anyone on death row. In that global and national context, how does one judge whether "prudential" has crossed the line into inherently immoral?
In criminal cases, the standard for conviction is supposed to be guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In a small number of criminal convictions there has now become a way to test earlier findings of guilt. IF DNA was left at the scene by the culprit and IF the DNA was collected and IF it was collected properly and IF it has not been destroyed, it is now possible to compare that DNA to that of the convicted defendant. In an increasing number of cases, the DNA establishes that the wrong man was convicted. It is fair to reason that similar wrongful convocations were obtained in cases that are not susceptible to DNA testing.
Does there come a point that the mounting numbers of wrongful convictions undermines the contention of prudential right to kill? Similarly, the grossly disproportionate numbers of minorities who are sentenced to die, from amongst the ranks of alleged killers, suggests that prudence is weighted against persons of color or persons born elsewhere or who are poor or ignorant.
Let us not forget that the Church, itself, has, from time to time, engaged in or authorized the most dreadful forms of execution in vindication of a claimed right to judge and punish allegations of moral breach. In retrospect it is rare that anyone would defend those judgments as being prudential, even though pronounced in the name of all that is holy.
Earlier in this thread, I asked if there are any intrinsically immoral acts, aside from abortion, euthanasia and suicide, that would trigger the prohibition against voting for a politician who refused to make that immoral conduct a crime. Neither you nor anyone else has touched on that subject. Are there any? If so, what are they?
Best wishes,
On Anon
Thank you Anon for making my case against capital punishment to Luke and to all reading this blog, much better than I am able to. Perhaps I am too emotionally involved in judgement and punishment that is so final involving those on death row. I am involved in a way with death penalty people and know there is always hope for those that have made horrendous errors in their ways. Even for those that appear not to have remorse, we still have no right to judge them to take a life deeming it is any less than the life they may have taken.
Also I made the case of IL. and the Moratorium on the death penalty in the same way you did. Most do not want to deal with the thousands of innocent people we have murdered in the name of Lady Justice!
I admire the couple from Carmel, Indiana, just outside Indianopolis. They were out of town and had a friend looking in on their young teenage children. They were all killed because of drugs being brought into the house. The case was moved from Hamilton County to St. Joseph County several years ago, almost 12 or 13 years ago. They asked for a change of venue, being that the area of Hamilton County was of the Elite and a small county and the judge agreed that a fair trial would not be possible for the defendants.
The boys involved in the killing were up for the death penalty here in our courts of St. Joseph County. After the boys were found guilty and were going through phase 2 for the death penalty trial, the father of the two young teenagers who were murdered stood in front of one of our St. Joseph County judges and pleaded for the lives of the boys who killed his son and daughter. He felt revenge would not bring his children back. He also felt that the pain he and his wife were going through with the loss of their children was not anything they wanted those boys parents to have to go through.
I don't know if they received the death penalty or not. But the issue being, I lived in that area during that time, and no one was more proud of these parents than the people of Hamilton County. How more Christian and humane could a father and mother be towards the killers of their only children. Kind of reminds you of how John Paul II went to prison to forgive the man who shot him.
I don't think anyone needs to say much more regarding the right thing to do about the sacredness of life. God is the maker the giver and the taker of all life. That is taught to us in the 10 Commandments, and any other teachings that make excuses for taking of life in lieu of ones safety is a sorrowful case to make.
Prudent killing is involved in safety of one's life or those of innocent people---never for punishment or revenge.
Thank you for making my case much stronger.
Anon,
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you clarify?
The Church has clearly taught on this matter-- the decision to use the death penalty (or not) is a matter of prudential judgment, and not on the same level as abortion.
Further, the commandment is not an unequivocal prohibition on taking life. In both Exodus and Deut. instructions are given for administering the death penalty. The word used in the text is not "kill" but "murder", referencing unjustly taking life (or taking innocent life). The biblical text itself reveal the commandment is not unequivocal.
The Church has clearly defined this matter in the Catechism, on the section dealing with this commandment. I have cited the appropriate paragraphs elsewhere in this thread. You may believe the death penalty to be totally morally wrong, but the Church has clearly morally defined the matter as one of prudential judgment.
Prudential judgment (in short) means individuals are free to have differing opinions, because circumstances must always be considered in each case.
Further, you write, "
Your analysis, based upon a distinction between what you consider "intrinsically evil" and what you consider subject to "prudential judgment", is a convenient trip with a "get our of morality free" card."
I have not provided my definitions, but the Church's definitions on the matter.
What it really comes down to is this: do you believe that the Church has the ability to authoritatively teach on moral matters?
Luke-
save yourself from the dark abyss that is the crusade these militants insist on pursuing.
they won't listen to the Church on this, or many other things, because they're "Cafeterians".
Luke,
You ask:
"What it really comes down to is this: do you believe that the Church has the ability to authoritatively teach on moral matters?"
I do not really think "it comes down" to that, but, since you ask - Of course I believe the Church can speak authoritatively on matters of faith and morals. That is a good part of what the Church ought be doing. There are two questions you have not asked. So, I will ask them, and you can tell us your view:
1. Is authority in faith and morals exclusive to the Church? If not, who else can speak authoritatively?
2. Many of the Church's pronouncements and prudential advisories, have taken two thousand years to issue. even though they relate to timeless matters faith and morals. Why is that?
3. When the Church has spoken on matters of explorable fact, it has been wrong with at least as much frequency as most of the rest of us. At the time it spoke, the Church did so within a claimed faith and morals context, and some severe penalties were imposed for on those who differed with the Church's teaching. Does the Church sometimes make mistakes as to what does and what does not fall within the category of "faith and morals"?
4. In all other areas of study and human expertise, "authoritatively" does not mean "infallibly". The institutional Church, over much of its existence, has accumulated a lot of scandalous baggage, including activities of the very highest ranked who acted in ways manifestly violative of fundamental faith and morals. The infallible pronouncement of infallibility is, of course, circular reasoning or, better put, circular assertion. It gets us nowhere arguing the validity of the infallibility assertion since it seeks to prove itself. The question all of this leads to is: Is it a sin not believe in infallibility?
Best wishes,
On Anon
If anybody is doing an "end run" around things here it is the anon group doing so around the teachings of the Church in these matters.
It's simple. Luke does not go beyond what the Church has stated here as recently as last year (from linked statement). Somehow the anon group thinks they have the authority to do so. Step in front of Peter and you step in front of Christ. Basically you are asking Luke to be disobedient. Get thee behind me, Satan!
If you feel that state legislatures should change their laws then work within your means to influence them. Prattling on about your personal disagreements go nowhere if you are just trying to force a point which wishes to influence the Faithful to be disobedience or mis-state what the Church has said on these points.
Your analysis, based upon a distinction between what you consider "intrinsically evil" and what you consider subject to "prudential judgment", is a convenient trip with a "get our of morality free" card.
You're not speaking to Luke there...you're speaking to the Church. And yes there is no other higher or designated authority to explicitly teach on Faith and morals that can be trusted through the Holy Spirit than Peter! And this authority also must respect the free will of those ordered in civil law to exercise prudential judgment where they live but with the caveat that such a responsibility has moral repercussions for such in authority.
IOW, don't be a reactionary in matters of gravity. Try, as you should, thinking with the Church.
Anon-
aren't you the same voice that was complaining in an earlier thread that priests should be married and that women should be priests?
if you don't agree with Church teaching, go to one of those "I'm O.K., You're O.K." Oprah churches.
you obviously don't like the rules of the Catholic church, so why do you work to tear it down instead of finding a church that agrees with you?
First of all, I am not a Catholic. I am a Jewish man from suburban Boston whose parents were killed in concentration camps in Poland. I was sent away to live in England in 1939 and never saw my mother, father, aunts or uncles again.
In my view, it is quite within society's right and responsibility to execute those who commit heinous acts against innocent others...whether it be abortionists or murderers.
I feel the only problem with the death penalty is the appeal process. It makes me ill to think I have to help support these evil people while they get so many privileges in their jails.
If we are not going to execute them, they should be forced to work the rest of their lives at hard labor with no contact with their families.
I do not agree with you and you will probably not agree with me on this. But do you have any authority to impose your views on anyone else...or do I?
I leave it to God to sort out. In the meantime, I feel no concern for those who hate and feel they have forfeited their lives by their evil conduct against the innocent.
Anon,
In your latest round of questioning you have made it clear that you neither believe what the Church believes, nor are you interested in knowing her beliefs. Rather, your interest seems to be attacking the faith and those who hold it.
Friend, you also make clear that you are uninterested in actual answers. Only accusations. If that is the case-- why do you post here?
If you legitimately seek answers to your questions, I would be glad to provide them to you trough an e-mail discussion.
LukeCBruner (at) gmail (dot) com just replace the proper words with their proper symbol.
If you're not willing to truly learn, then perhaps it would be best if you took intentionally inflammatory comments to a different website?
To Anon II and Luke,
I thought this is a discussion group. What does it profit anyone to figuratively sit around boasting how special we are to have the truth delivered to is in neat packages and to revel in the idea that we are not like the ignorant, the misguided and the wicked.
I think the questions I have raised are reasonable and it surprises me if you have not wondered about those questions yourself.
Luke, I am not seeking private theological therapy. If I were, there are many people to whom I could easily turn.
I am seeking to have a public dialog in a place that purports to be devoted to such dialog.
More often than not, when the Church has been in a period of crisis it has not been because people of good will ask questions, but because they don't.
On Anon
Anon Said:
"I am seeking to have a public dialog in a place that purports to be devoted to such dialog."
This comment is WAY off base.
Where did you get the idea that this website is devoted to discussion of militant views on Catholic doctrine? Perhaps you should read our masthead to review what it is we are devoted to.
Anon-
thankfully for this blog and for this community, I have the power of being able to edit comments of those like you who feel their opinion is paramount to that of the Church.
many in this community have tried to show you the errors in your interpretations of clear Church doctrine with no apparent success. please take your militant views elsewhere.
Anon,
The word dialog indicates moving towards one single, universal truth. In some cases, that truth has been clearly taught and defined by the infallible teaching magisterium of the Church, as instituted by Jesus Christ.
Asking questions until you get the answer you like isn't dialog. It's pride.
You wrote, "What does it profit anyone to figuratively sit around boasting how special we are to have the truth delivered to is in neat packages and to revel in the idea that we are not like the ignorant, the misguided and the wicked."
No one is claiming to be special, nor is anyone claiming to revel in the idea that we are not like the ignorant, the misguided and the wicked. However, Jesus Christ apparently thought it profited us a great deal to deliver the truth in neat little packages. That's why we have the Church and Sacred Scripture, so that truth may be freely accessible to all. Some people simply choose to reject the truth that has been revealed.
In such instances we recall the admonition, "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me" (LK 10:16).
You also wrote, "More often than not, when the Church has been in a period of crisis it has not been because people of good will ask questions, but because they don't."
I disagree, as would most major Church historians. In most major period of Church crisis, the problem has stemmed from a prideful refusal to accept the Church's teachings. There is nothing wrong with asking questions. However, questions have a purpose-- and that purpose is arriving at answers.
You may not like the answers arrived at, but that is a problem between you and truth (and Truth has a name: Jesus Christ).
___
The fact is, a reasonable question means there is a reasonable answer. The problem seems to be that you dislike the reasonable answers.
I have offered to correspond privately, via e-mail, with you because many of your questions appear to be issues of basic Catechesis. In any regard, if you are looking for real knowledge and understanding about the Church and her teachings, my offer remains open. I can also recommend some fine orthodox books if you would like. I assure that I will maintain the anonymity that you seem to greatly value.
It is not clear to me why some on this blog appear to be critical of anonymity. Most of those who post use names that are the equivalent of anonymity.
Moreover, the moderator appears to function anonymously. I notice that whenever I include that fact in a post, the moderator blocks my posting.
Best wishes,
On Anon
Anon,
We don't have a problem with the anonymity.
We have a problem with using the name "Anon" or "Anonymous" because then it is almost impossible to tell one poster from another.
That is why, numerous times, you have been asked to use some sort of handle, nickname, saint name, or other name that differentiates you.
There are times when 4 or 5 are all posting anonymously, and it makes conversation impossible.
Once again, Anon is misrepresenting the facts.
She has had comments removed due to her continual militant views and accusations against the moderators of this blog.
Her insistence on denying formal Church doctrine will not be tolerated on this forum.
Dear Moderator,
Thank you for your patience with this individual. I would have thrown Anon out of the boat and told her to swim back to the dock.
Thank you for defending the faith and doctrine of the Church.
Thank you to Luke for showing such charity as well.
Thank you Anon for being open about your opinions although true Catholics vehemently disagree with your views. I suggest spiritual direction from a conservative old priest to help you get a few things straightened out re: Catholic doctrine.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
that is good advice from jackie t for Anon.
sometimes you just cannot get through to people like that because they are too angry inside and they become filled with arrogant pride which does not allow them to agree with practically anything/anyone else, including Church authority.
they need prayers and therapeutic spiritual counseling from competent priests.
Post a Comment
<< Home