John M. Smith to the article on 'Faithful Citizenship' appearing in The Times
In past posts on this OLTIV website, we have tried to share with our community what the Church teaches us as far as "voting Catholic". We will be running more educational pieces as the critical November elections draw closer. Please be informed as to what a Catholic conscience must consider when voting this year. Souls are at stake!
As is often the case with liberal media reporting, only the parts of the story that "feels good" to readers is told. Many times, factual elements, key to full understanding of the Church's teaching, are left out of the articles. The following is a rebuttal to an article which appeared last week in a trenton newspaper. Many thanks to Bishop John Smith for standing up to clarify the situation.
The article in the 7/30 issue of The Times regarding the Diocese of Trenton’s presentation on the statement, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”, failed to provide readers with an adequate understanding of this program and misrepresented the very spirit of the document.
“Vote your conscience,” as the Times’ headline says of the U.S. Bishops’ instruction, is a serious oversimplification that undermines the core message of their statement. In truth, the Bishops state that Catholics are called to form their consciences in order to exercise faithful citizenship. The very title of the document points to the centrality of this message. Numerous sections of the document are devoted to the “lifelong obligation to form their consciences in accord with human reason and the teachings of the Church” (Section 17). We are told that this requires serious engagement and commitment and that it does not begin or end at the polling booth. We are even told how to form our consciences, beginning with a “willingness and openness to seek the truth and what is right” through the study of sacred Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church and continuing with an examination of the background related to the choices before us. We are told that forming our conscience also requires “prayerful reflection to discern the will of God” (Section 18).
And yet, nowhere in the article is the need to form one’s conscience ever addressed. Instead, readers are led to believe that they should vote on the basis of what they “think” or “feel”. There is no reference to this active process Catholics are instructed to perform. The very essence of what it means to be a “faithful citizen” is omitted.
Faithful Citizenship is the compilation of general principles applied to the obligation that Catholics have to exercise political responsibility in the light of their faith, regardless of whether it is an election year, and irrespective of the candidates who are running and the issues on which they are basing their campaigns. The unfortunate decision by The Times to insert the names of candidates where none had been given led readers to believe that the document and the presentation by diocesan representatives focused on candidates. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Times’ handling of the very delicate and complex challenge of voting also failed to represent the full scope of the Bishops’ instructions. The statement goes into great detail to emphasize that not all issues carry the same moral weight, and that “opposing intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions” (Section 37). The document further cautions against the “moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed” (Section 28).
These instructions were not included in the article and the true meaning of the language used in the document was subverted in The Times’ trivializing of the issues and voting choices facing Catholics this year. This handling may have succeeded in getting readers’ attention, but it did little to advance a full and accurate understanding of such an important and complex story.
We encourage readers to clarify the confusion generated through The Times’ article by reviewing for themselves the full statement, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, which is available on the website, www.faithfulcitizenship.org, or through the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, www.usccb.org.
Most Rev. John M. Smith
Bishop of Trenton
posted by Moderator @ 9:15 AM
7 Comments
7 Comments:
After reading the previous story it is even more heartening to know that Bishop Smith is reaffirming the Church's stand on "Faithful Citizenship". I did read the article referenced, and it was very misleading. Not only did the journalist state that Catholics could cast their vote after considering many issues rather than keeping abortion (and life issues) foremost, it inferred that the Bishops' had issued a new, similar statement. I did not believe the article, but many people, especially those leaning to the left would have run with it.
The pro-life issue is so important this year, since Senator Obama has promised Planned Parenthood and NARAL that he would sign the FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act) as his first act as President, if elected.
This would wipe out all the bans on partial birth abortions, and would require taxpayers to subsidize abortions. It would also force Catholic institutions (hospitals, Catholic Charities, etc.) to provide abortions, abortion counseling etc. or face litigation, fines, and possible imprisonment. Dr. Alveda King (Martin Luther King's niece) has described abortion as "womb-lynching" , and described how women have been lied to and hurt by withholding information on how abortions also hurt the women who procure them (physically and mentally). Not only does she state it is a civil rights issue (denying the pursuit of life of unborn children), but emphasizes that her uncle would have been against abortion as well.
God help us if Obama is elected-we need Our Lady of America now more than ever. I pray that the Bishops' heed her requests ASAP.
"By Thy Holy and Immaculate Conception, O Mary, Deliver Us from Evil."
First read the article. This general response does not answer the quotes made by the diocesan spokespersons. Those are very misleading to the faithful...esp. take for consideration the quote that says it's very difficult to decide "especially this year"....when we have the most pro abortion candidate ever.
"It's a difficult time to decide how we're voting, especially this year," Smith said.
This does not do it...by placing the blame solely on the paper. Notice that nothing is said about any mis-quotes of diocesan spokespersons.
"This is the most prickly point," said the Rev. Ronald J. Cioffi, director of the Office of Social Concerns for the Diocese of Trenton. "You may vote for a person who is pro-choice if you feel you have a moral reason to support the candidate for his stand on other issues."
And, Cioffi said, a single issue, like abortion or war, should not be the sole reason to vote for or against a candidate.
Now, were they misquoted or not?
i heard the new statue is just breathtaking.
http://www.robertfida.com/ourladyofamerica.htm
In answer to LUR-
If a political candidate supported abortion (obama), 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 (OBAMA). 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.
Was Bishop Smith's statement sent or published in The Times?
Bishop Smith's comments were contained in a press release from the Diocese of Trenton. We have not looked to see if the local paper has printed it yet.
Gloria, you need to send all of that to the good bishop and staff. They are obviously in need of correct information. Again, unless the quotes used in the original article are not from them. And the bishop's reply to the article doesn't argue that they weren't.
Your "answer" was implied in my comment!
Post a Comment
<< Home