the Robot Pope hears about this!
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
bs article. Most catholic do not supportabortion.
And vote for republicans for it is they who oppose the killing of the unborn, the state supported destruction of the urban family, equal rights for all and genocide committed by lunatic dictators.
which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."
I think one would be hard-pressed to prove that welfare, the death penalty (permissible by Catholicism), or bigger government even come close to the moral abyss of killing the innocent.
Sure - a new york newspaper has the "IN" to Christian beliefs. And I am the Pope too!
Yes, dear people - Catholics ARE Christians! - just as Baptist, and a FEW others are also.
Christianity is losing to the - here's the slam words - satanists. That is all you can call them. If you beleive in Christianity, you MUST also believe in satan.
This Catholic supports neither abortion, stem cell research or Kerry.
I have ordered my Catholics Against Kerry bumper stickers.
There is no good reason to be voting for johnfkerry.......as a practicing Catholic, I cannot in good conscience vote for any dem candidaite, least of all kerry. If a candidaite cannot stand up for the unborn, he won't be standing up for me.
As left-wing Greeley is, he has a point. Ratzinger has some explaining to do. Archbishop Burke and Bishop Sheridan seem to be taking stances contrary to Ratzinger's.
Catholics can vote for Kerry
That’s what confession is for.
And what he neglects to mention is that the "indirect material cooperation" is only permissible if voting for the immoral candidate helps to prevent the election of someone with an even more immoral agenda.
None of Bush's policy stands promote evils worse than the murder of unborn children, so clearly this principle does not apply.
Andrew Greeley keeps shifting his place on the Top Ten anti-Catholics in America.
the Robot Pope hears about this!
No he doesn't.
Greely should explain to the Cardinal why he twisted the Cardinal's words.
I really don't have a problem with Ratzingers statement. Greeleys problem is that a large majority of Catholics vote democrat because they are pro abortion. In any case, only the voter and God know the truth.
spell check works, use it
spell check works, use it
spell check works, use it
Greeley Alert!
Their hatred of the unborn and willingness to kill for conveninece easily spills over into hatred of their own contemporaries - except the latter they are forced to acknowledge as human beings. We will find that Kerry and others like him are far more like Hitler than Bush ever was.
This is pretty much what the Democrats are trying to do. I remember some Democrat saying basically "We agree with the Church on many issues, possibly more than the Republicans do." If Ratzinger says it "can be permitted," what does that tell you?
Does RATzinger speak for himself, the church and or the Pope?
Seems to me thae if you vote for someone that is pro abortion then you are voting for an enabler. jmo
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.