Posted on 08/10/2004 8:29:06 AM PDT by madprof98
John Kerry's stance on abortion - he opposes it personally but would do nothing to roll back the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized it - has brought him under attack from some American bishops. That raises a question for many Catholics about what to do in November.
The answer is that Catholics can vote for Kerry. They don't have to, but it would not be a sin to do so, according to a distinguished theologian:
"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."
That was not written by some radical liberal Catholic theologian. It comes from the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (once the Holy Office of the Inquisition), Joseph Ratzinger.
It is as close to an official statement on the subject as one is likely to get. It says that Catholics are not obliged to vote on one issue, no matter how important the issue might be. They may vote for Kerry "for other reasons" so long as they are not supporting him merely for his pro-choice stance.
That ought to settle the matter. Catholics who have been confused by the insistence of a few bishops, some priests and some pro-life laity that they must vote against Kerry now know that they are free to make their choice balancing all issues - just as they always have been.
The theory of "indirect material cooperation" is traditional Catholic moral teaching. Apparently, the few bishops who threaten to exclude Catholics from Communion if they vote for Kerry don't know much traditional moral theology, which shows what the qualifications are for the bishopric these days.
U.S. bishops actually quoted the paragraph from Ratzinger in their recent statement on the subject.
Moreover, in response to the question "whether the denial of Holy Communion to some Catholics in political life is necessary because of their public support for abortion on demand," the bishops did not endorse the policy of the small group of their members who wanted such denial.
Catholic leaders have found themselves in a dilemma since Roe vs. Wade. They believe, as they must, that a constitutional right to abortion is bad law. But they know that most American women - including most Catholics - believe it is a right they should have, even if they do not intend to exercise it.
Therefore, bishops are cast in the role of those who would take away the rights of women by the exercise of political clout. This is not a good position to be in when you affirm, as they do, the need to "persuade" and to "dialogue." But how do those who disagree with the church dialogue with leaders who believe they are absolutely right and that others are absolutely wrong?
I can think of only one way that bishops might earn a hearing for their teaching. While insisting on their convictions, they should refrain from questioning the integrity and good faith of those who disagree.
Then they should become beacons of light on all issues concerning human life, the rights of women and the rights of the poor and the oppressed.
Originally published on August 10, 2004
cord and bone marrow stem research we support. They are also the most effective forms of stems cells.
Big media/myth and junk science to promote embrio stems...
who could afford the pennance?
Mr. Greeley should explain to his readers what the phrase "proportionate reasons" means in the context of the slaughter of 40+ million Americans since 1973.
The irony of this kind of attitude is that people like Greeley praise "Catholic leaders" today for acting in a manner that would have drawn outrage if the person in question was named Pope Pius XII, and the period in question was the 1930s and 1940s instead of 2004.
Are the Catholic bishops going to listen to Ratzinger now, even though many of them ignored him recently, when he established "the principle of refusing communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians "?
The Kerry Affair: What Ratzinger Wanted from the American Bishops What he wanted, but didn’t get.... the prefect of the Holy Office establishes the principle of refusing communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians
ROMA – Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was clear with Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, archbishop of Washington and the head of the “domestic policy” commission of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ conference. He was more than clear, he set it down in writing: no eucharistic communion for the politicians who systematically campaign for abortion.Read: no communion for the Democratic candidate for the White House, the Catholic John F. Kerry.
Ratzinger’s memorandum is presented in its entirety below. It was sent as a confidential letter, during the first half of June, to cardinal McCarrick and to the president of the bishops’ conference, Wilton Gregory. But the bishops of the United States made a different decision.
After months of discussion, and after days of wrangling at their conference’s general assembly, held in Denver from June 14-19, they published a note entitled “Catholics in Political Life,” which leaves to each individual bishop the decision of whether or not to give communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians.
Well this catholic isn't going to vote for Kerry, and you can take that to the bank.
Great point.
I bet, heavily, that Ratzinger is being taken horribly out of context. Yes, one can vote for a pro-abortion candidate for the office of "dog catcher" since such elected offices have no impact on human life/death issues. I am sure that THAT was the point of Ratzinger's statement.
HOWEVER!!!! Let's look at that nice neat word "PROPORTIONATE". The Church has done everything it can do lately to make Catholics understand that the death penalty, social justice, and the socio-economic safety net are not proportionate issues to abortion. Abortion and euthanasia stand atop the ladder because of the fact that they are GRAVE SINS that cannot be allowed for any purpose. The Church grants that States have the right to capital punishment (even though the Church is clear that it doesn't think that there is adequate reason in today's Western Culture). But, they do acknowledge the right. There is a right to defend yourself in war. But there is never an allowance for the murder of the unborn and elderly. Ratzinger is not saying it can be permitted!! We have to understand that abortion would never be an equal issue; therefore, a Catholic can NEVER vote for a pro-death, baby killing candidate.
Ratzinger's words on doctrine should be heeded.
But the American bishops have ignored his previous words which said that the politicians who systematically campaign for abortion should not get Eucharistic communion.
If Andrew Greeley is a "distinguished theologian," then John Kerry is a "Vietnam war hero."
Accrding to Greeley's logic a voter could, in good conscience, vote for Adolph Hitler based on his economic revival of the German economy despite Hitler's pesky little "final solution" program.
...just as long as one is "personally-opposed" to genocide.
Those proportionate reasons range in number somewhere between few and none.
This is a newspaper's butchering of a cardinal's philosophically precise explanation.
Let me rephrase. If RATzinger says it's ok to vote for pro abortion candidates, does that mean that the Pope would agree? If not, then why place RATzinger above the Pope?
Good one.
I was the Pope for a while. Then they found out I was a Baptist and fired me. They replaced me with some old dude.
1932 December:
Due to his father's outspoken criticism of the Nazis, Ratzinger's family is forced to relocate to Auschau am Inn, at the foot of the Alps.
1969
Scandalized by his encounter with radical ideology at Tübingen, Ratzinger moves back to Bavaria to take a teaching position at the University of Regensburg.
Those whom we vote for will act upon their political and personal convictions. Mr. Kerry supports abortion, likewise, because he opposes a constitutional marriage amendment that simply defines marriage as "the union between one man and one woman" by default he supports also supports homosexual marriage (He has never stated otherwise regarding abortion or homosexuality). It is important to note that the Democratic Party is solidly behind abortion and homosexuality. Therefore, anyone voting for him will be placing a man in office who has every intention on continuing the policy of killing the unborn and promoting homosexuality within American society, both of which are TOTALLY CONTRARY to the known will and word of God.
It is the height of spiritual evil, ignorance and dishonesty for so-called "spiritual leaders" of the Roman Catholic church to tell those under their care that it is "OK" to vote for Mr. Kerry when he stands in opposition to Christ and the Word of God.
God will hold those who vote for Mr. Kerry, and those who have convinced them that "God says it is OK," responsible for their votes and actions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.