I hear ya!
Posted by FrTomOFM

(10/15/2004)

Hi Sean, I agree with everything you said. My singular point is that this
isn't a case of good guy vs. bad guy. On the issue of pro-life, it is bad
guy vs. bad guy. Maybe I should've just said that and avoided the rest.
Bottom line: Neither one of these candidates is good on pro-life.

And...
posted by FrTomOFM

(10/15/2004)

And my other point about the tenor of the discussion. I know youth, I have
been the youth ministry coordinator of a church with more than 10,000
members for the last seven years. My point was within the matter of three or
four posts, I was called a dishonest, liberal priest. That's no way to treat
priests (and I don't mean that personally, as though you couldn't treat me
that way). I mean, that's no way to treat any priest.
A clear choice
posted by apocalips

(10/15/2004)

I certainly didn't mean to damage anyone's pride but it was stated here that
"there are only 650 partial-birth abortions performed annually." What is the
acceptable number of fully developed children that can be mutilated with a
surgeon's scissors prior to having their brains sucked out? It's not just
statistics. If God's mercy was such that He would spare Sodom for even 10
just people, then I would think our job is not to accept ANY abortions.

One candidate voted 6 times against the ban on partial birth abortion. The
other signed it into law. There is no equivalence between the two on life
issues. One says faith informs his decisions. The other says he believes
life begins at conception and then goes to fundraising rallies at NARAL
Pro-Choice America. One appoints pro-life judges. The other blocks even an
up or down vote on them. I just don't see how folks can say there's no
difference. Maybe on taxes, spending, and other issues there is a reason to
prefer one approach over another. But on life, there is a clear choice.

I dont think...
posted by outofthisworldgirl75
(10/15/2004)

I don't think you meant to, I don't even know if you did. But I think I am
in way over my head in this m post so I will just comment and not make any
posts in here on my own, I will just add. Maybe Fr. Tom made a mistake in
saying that?? I am not the one to say but, as I am sure you know we all make
mistakes. And it seems that that was a big one, but as long as we have the
statistics straight now I think we are all set right? God bless

Fr Tom
posted by tayfogo

(10/15/2004)

Hi Father. I hope you were not offended by someone calling your ideas
liberal. I think it is important that we as Catholics keep our eyes open, in
order to recognize and sift out liberal views coming from priests. I do not
agree with insulting a priest, but I did not see that here. I'm not speaking
to you personally...I have just been very aware lately of the disintegration
of "conservative" values within the Church...aka THE TRUTH. When I see
clergy at the root of this problem, due to liberal viewpoints about Church
teachings, I get very worried and actually very angry. It scares me so much
to think that some of our priests' whose hands actually bring Christ to us
in the Mass are going astray. Again, I am not directing this at you, but I
think it is awesome that these teens are aware of this problem and willing
to speak out against it if they see it/ hear it.

This is scary
posted by csbowl99

(10/15/2004)

Fr. Tom, I never tried to offend you or anyone on this site, but was calling
you on misleading facts and your view on politics, not the Churches. I am
deeply involved with the Church (not bragging, but giving you some
background info, I even served at Fr. Mike Mac's last parish, St. Ann's) and
I truly respect all priests because I know they are human and need as much
support as anyone out there.

However, when a priest or someone in the Catholic Church says stuff against
Church teaching and saying it's "bad guy vs. bad guy," how can you say that
when one is definitely more pro-life than the other? I am aware Bush does
support some stem cell research and I think that is wrong, but since Kerry
supports all stem cell research and supports abortion, I guess they are
equally bad? That's wrong.

I am calling you on your views and letting everyone on here know they are
your views and not the Church's. There is a reason the Church is handing out
voter guides and the first issue discussed is abortion. They are not handing
them out so people will stay home on election day. This election is
critical. 4 justices of the Supreme Court are going to be replaced with the
next President. Kerry is going to replace them with pro-choice Justices, and
Bush will appoint 4 pro-life Justices. His party would slam him as well as
many conservatives out there. And even after we are giving the Church's
position on politics, it seems you are "blind" to what we are saying since
you continue to just state your opinion.

If you are offended by what I have to say, I am sorry that you are not
getting my point. I agree with Tayfogo that it is scary that there are some
priests out there who will offer their own ideology. I would call anyone out
who misleads people with their viewpoints, lay people, priest, nun, bishop
and ask them to reconsider what they have said. And when you say "are only
650 partial-birth abortions performed annually" to me, one is way too many.
Each abortion is taking away the gift of life that God has bestowed upon
that person.

Moral Theology and This Election
posted by Michael Forrest
(10/16/2004)

Hi Everyone,

I've been asked to check out some of the posts and offer any help I can
manage. So I thought I'd post some of the comments that caught my attention
and respond.
God bless, Michael

A) Quote from Board: "the church does not teach that it
is OK to vote for a guy who compromises one of the 5 principal issues. Bush
has made exceptions with abortion and has tolerated the existing stem cell
research to continue. As a catholic, I am not allowed to cross the line."

Response: This is not true. Traditional Catholic moral
theology does in fact acknowledge the legitimacy of voting for the lesser of
two evils. However, one who does so is also needs to make clear the reasons
for such a vote, so as to avoid giving the appearance of purposely
supporting evil, causing scandal etc.

One of the more accepted and recognized books on moral
theology, which is now in its eighteenth edition, is Fr. Heribert Jone's
Moral Theology. On this general topic, Fr. Jone writes:

Chapter II, Civic Duties: 1) Section II, Subsection 3:
Co-operation in evil legislation is sinful. The only exception admitted is
the case in which such representatives might avoid a greater evil by their
co-operation (Cf 144, 147) in such cases; however, they must make clear
their position.

2) Section III, subsection 3: Election of good
representatives. Voting is a civic duty which would seem to bind at least
under venial sin whenever a good candidate has an unworthy opponent. It
might even be a mortal sin if one's refusal to vote would result in the
election of an unworthy candidate. One may vote for an unworthy candidate
only when this is necessary to prevent a still less worthy candidate from
obtaining office; but in such a case one should explain the reason for his
action if this is possible...

B) Quote from Board: "Peroutka is there, so a vote for
bush is saying that peroutka is not worthy. We cannot skip the one who is
totally good."

Response: Again, this is not necessarily true. A
vote for Bush does not necessarily equate with implying that Peroutka is
"not worthy". Refer again to the sections of Moral Theology above.

C) My note: A few people have been quoting from the
"Catholic Answers Voter's Guide". The fact is, aside from those places where
Catholics Answers actually quoted official Church teaching, the pamphlet has
no real authority. There are certain things stated in the pamphlet that are
Catholic Answers' opinion of how these teachings apply, or they may have
gone beyond the teachings, extrapolating to other conclusions.

But always be careful to distinguish between actual
Church teaching and conclusions some people draw from that teaching. This is
NOT to say that such conclusions are wrong and should be ignored. It only
means that we must be careful not to give everything the same confidence and
belief.

I do have some issues with the pamphlet, one of
which is that it fails to mention the duty to make clear when one is voting
for the lesser of two evils. It can be easy to fall into the "Kerry is Evil"
and "Bush is GREAT!" false dichotomy.

Personally, I believe Kerry is indeed evil. But Bush
is not truly "great" from a Catholic perspective. Much better? Yes.
Objectively "great"? No. We have to think not only about THIS election, but
also about ALL elections.....even future elections.

D) Quote from Board: "Sean, you're mistaken. I've
checked on it with lots of Church documents over the past 6 months as people
have asked me at school about it. Our only obligation is not to vote for
Kerry, the evil one. We can vote for Bush, the lesser of two evils, or
someone who has no choice of winning.

And, David, Catholic Answers is not infallible
Church teaching. Ratzinger has clarified that when we can vote for the
lesser of two evils for a proportionate reason. We can even vote for someone
who is pro-choice if there is a proportionate reason (like the only other
option is Hitler or something)."

Response: a) Part of this is true and part is not,
at least not entirely. It is true that one may vote for the lesser of two
evils even when a better, but non-viable candidate is available. It is true
that one may vote for the non-viable candidate.
b) It is true that Catholic Answers is not endued
with the charism of infallibility. However, this writer seems to imply that
Cardinal Ratzinger does teach with absolutely surety/infallibility. This is
false also.

Cardinal Ratzinger is head of the CDF, and has
AUTHORITY to speak/teach on these matters (which was in turn given by the
Pope, who in turn received it from God). But genuine authority is not the
same thing as infallibility. He can be wrong. For example, as a father, I
have genuine, God-given authority over my sons. If I assert my authority,
they must obey me, even if they think I am wrong, and in fact, even if I AM
objectively wrong.

The only exception involves cases of obedience to
objectively morally wrong commands (for instance, if I told one of my sons
to kill someone). The key is in determining whether we are being told to
follow something with obedience, or whether the teaching is just a
guide/opinion. Unfortunately, these days, it is not always clear which is
the case. Remember, Cardinal Ratzinger was writing to the American
Bishops......not to us.

And lastly, to be clear, I am NOT therefore saying
that Cardinal Ratziner IS wrong and that we should ignore his explanation on
this.

E) My note: Regarding the necessity of voting for the
"perfect" candidate, it might be worth reading up a bit on the Civil War.
Lincoln was not nearly the best candidate in terms of ending slavery, but he
was the most likely to be elected. And this very imperfect man, who
initially didn't really care all THAT much about freeing the slaves ended up
being the one to actually accomplish it.

There is a balance to be maintained in these kinds
of situations between idealism and realism. Finding it is not always easy.
Yet, there ARE limits. And voting for Kerry is clearly beyond them, in my
opinion, and cannot be logically justified in terms of either realism or
Catholic moral theology.

F) My note: It is worth mentioning that there are
OTHER absolute issues that the
Catholic Answers guide did not cover. We have become
numb to just how evil things have become in this country. Here are a few
(not just for the presidential campaign):
1) contraception, 2) divorce and
remarriage, 3) acceptance of homosexual acts as "private matters", 4)
prostitution (yes, you read correctly! It's legal in Nevada), 5) homosexual
adoption, 6) artificial insemination, 7) fornication, 8) co-habitation, 9)
surrogate motherhood, 10) pornography.

My best understanding is that Peroutka plans to do
nothing about these things. If so, even in regard to a single one of them,
one could not vote for him if holding to the "absolutely no cooperation with
evil" idea.

G) From board: "a: By not voting at all in this
election would be a vote for kerry
and in a sense a sin of omission.....b: The
trouble is, this would be applicable if Peroutka was not on the ballot. But
he is on the ballot so it is not that type of situation."

Response: Person "a" is correct, IF there is
a genuinely "worthy" candidate. The trouble can be in determining exactly
what constitutes "worthy". It may not be as clear as the second person, "b"
implies.

One may POSSIBLY conclude that even Peroutka
will sanction or enable certain evils (mentioned above....contraception,
divorce, etc) that are of the "absolutely and always seriously wrong" type.
Such a person could, in good conscience, still refuse to vote.....even for
Peroutka, in my opinion.

H) From Board: "His wife is pro-abortion (speaking of
Laura Bush)."

Response: it appears this is no longer true. Mrs.
Bush has on at least one occasion indicated a change of belief toward the
end of her husband's term. It seems she may be pro-life, likely with the
same exceptions George unfortunately allows for.

I) From Board: "Sean has his sources and discernment,
and I have mine. Its all
about how we see things. I just happen to see it from a
different angle;"

Response: Sometimes it is okay to simply agree to disagree.
But in this case, it is not really a matter of opinion. Unless this
individual can produce anything from Catholic moral theology to support his
contention, then he is speaking on his own authority alone. Conversely, I
provided a citation from a well-respected and trusted text on traditional
Catholic moral theology that directly contradicts his contention. If he can
produce something of equivalent weight, it would be useful to examine.

More Responses
posted by Michael Forrest
(10/16/2004)

1 2 3 4