Posted on 04/19/2005 9:02:13 PM PDT by Diago
Cardinal Ratzinger made this point recently in connection with abortion and euthanasia on the one hand and capital punishment and war on the other. In his letter, “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” he set out general principles regarding reception of the Eucharist by those who support abortion rights and euthanasia. Ratzinger wrote, “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 way, 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.”
Your link does not match up to the thread
can you please supply a correct link?
Thanks
Wow, I'm finding myself more and more in agreement with Pope Benedict XVI -- they keep this up (and get rid of some of the wacko priests) and I might just start going back to church.
ping
Sorry, it was just an excerpt.
Here is the complete article:
Reality-Based Website of Ideas and Opinions
Some Political Issues Should Be
More Important Than Others for Catholics
By Mark Brumley
Are some issues in the upcoming election more important than others? Absolutely. I say that as a long-time advocate of what’s called a Consistent Life Ethic. My thinking has always been that the alternative to a Consistent Life Ethic is an Inconsistent Life Ethic, which doesn’t make sense. Prolife Catholics have really no choice but to be consistently prolife—that is, to defend human life against all attacks and to support whatever fosters respect for human life, including insofar as possible the conditions under which human life is actually lived.
Some prolife activists have been wary of, if not outright hostile to, the Consistent Life Ethic. This is because some people mistakenly claim that prolifers must view all issues touching on human life as equally important. Such a view is sometimes called the Seamless Garment approach to life issues, although not all proponents of the Seamless Garment approach think all life issues equally important.
How can someone consistently prolife hold some life issues to be more important than others? The answer is simple. Some threats to human life are more immediate, more far-reaching, and graver than other threats.
Consider the issues of abortion and the Iraq war. Let’s assume something for the sake of argument that is by no means self-evident—that the war in Iraq is unjust. Legalized abortion is without question unjust because it amounts to state-approved killing of millions of innocent, helpless babies. How do these two things compare with each other?
Often it’s difficult and at times inappropriate to compare this injustice with that injustice. But when it comes to comparing the evils of the Iraq war—assuming as we have that it’s unjust—there is no comparison. American forces in Iraq are not deliberately and directly killing millions of innocent, helpless human beings. You might argue that the number of civilian casualties in Iraq is too high to justify the war. You might make the case that abuses of civilians are far greater than the Bush administration admits. But it would be absurd to argue that 1, 300,000 people were being killed as a result of American policy in Iraq.
Not so with abortion. Last year, abortion destroyed 1,300,000 human lives. And not in the way, say, thousands of people died as a result of criminal assault—through illegal activity—but as the result of government-approved killing. Legalized abortion is not the consequence of an abuse of policy but the consequence of an abusive policy, one that allows certain human beings to kill other human beings, with the killers’ actions backed up by the police power of the state. Where government should uphold the right to life of unborn babies, it intentionally allows over a million of them to be killed each year through abortion.
There simply is, then, no legitimate comparison between the evil of abortion and the war in Iraq, even on the assumption that the war is unjust. What about another “life issue,” capital punishment?
Again, let’s assume for the sake of argument that capital punishment, as it is practiced in the U.S., is unjust. I add the qualification “as it is practiced in the U.S.” to help specify things because not all uses of capital punishment are wrong, as far as Catholicism goes. The Catholic Church recognizes the right of the state, under certain circumstances, to use the death penalty (CCC 2267). Whether those circumstances presently exist in the U.S. is an interesting question to debate. For the argument here, though, let’s assume that such justifying circumstances don’t exist.
Where does that leave us with respect to capital punishment and the issue of abortion? According to one anti-death penalty advocacy group, there were 65 executions in 2003. I would say, “Compare that to 1.3 million abortions in 2003,” but of course once again there’s no comparison. Over a million innocent human beings were killed in 2003 through abortion, while less than a hundred human beings, at least some of whom are arguably not innocent, were killed through capital punishment. That isn’t an argument to ignore capital punishment—assuming it’s unjustly applied in the U.S.—but it is an argument against lumping them together as if they were on more or less the same level.
Some people object to prolife advocates’ emphasis on life issues on the grounds that the conditions of one’s life are important, too, not simply the fact one is alive. Of course it isn’t enough that prolife people support the right to life. The principle that upholds the right to life—the dignity of the human person—tells us we should be concerned with the conditions under which life is lived.
Nevertheless, as a matter of sheer commonsense, protecting the right to life has a practical priority over the right to a certain condition or standard of life, even though the latter is also important. Why? Because unless you’re alive, we can’t talk meaningfully about the conditions of your life. Unless you have the right to life, it’s nonsense to talk about having other rights. Pope John Paul II put it this way:
The common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights—for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture—is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination (Christifideles Laici, no. 38).
Yes, issues such as health care, unemployment, homelessness, education, and poverty are significant ones. Someone genuinely committed to the dignity of the human person and for that reason genuinely committed to the right to life should, as we have said, also support efforts to ensure that people have access to health care, jobs, homes, education, and sufficient wealth to live a decent human life. That is the sense in which prolife people must have a Consistent Life Ethic.
But those without health care, job opportunities, homes, schooling and economic means include 1.3 million babies who were killed last year through abortion. When they were deprived of their lives, they were deprived of the opportunity for health care, of a chance to begin a life leading to work, of having a home, of eventually attending school, and of attaining any economic means whatsoever. The logical priority of the right to life is unavoidable.
Abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell experimentation, human cloning, and same-sex marriage have been called non-negotiable issues in certain Catholic circles. Why? Because they involve intrinsic evils that government can never legitimately authorize. They involve issues on which all Catholics are obliged, as Catholics, to agree. Most other concerns—even very important ones such as capital punishment or the Iraq war—are subjects about which Catholics can legitimately disagree. Not so with the five non-negotiable issues. On these issues there is such a thing as the Catholic position, whether or not certain Catholics choose to embrace that position.
Cardinal Ratzinger made this point recently in connection with abortion and euthanasia on the one hand and capital punishment and war on the other. In his letter, “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” he set out general principles regarding reception of the Eucharist by those who support abortion rights and euthanasia. Ratzinger wrote, “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 way, 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.”
Given the nature of embryonic stem cell research and human cloning, the same absolute prohibition that applies to abortion and euthanasia applies to these things. Likewise, Catholic teaching requires an absolute opposition to same-sex marriage.
Catholics have an obligation to form their consciences according to the teaching of the Church. That teaching allows a wide range of conscientious judgments on a number of important, political issues. Abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell experimentation, human cloning, and same-sex marriage are not among those issues. On these subjects there is but a single legitimate “Catholic position.” When it comes to legal support for these issues, one can be Catholic or “prochoice,” but not Catholic and “prochoice.”
Find a Latin Mass in your area. Far superior to the Rotarian - er, Pauline Mass.
Another reason to love this new Pope. I claim that no Catholic can, in good conscience, vote for any Democrat due to the party's unwavering stand on abortion. I constantly encounter Catholics who say "what about capital punishment." Or they think the Catholic Church demands Socialism. They just don't get the idea that "Not all moral issues have the same moral weight." And, of course, they completely misunderstand the Church's position on economic systems.
I'm beginning to wonder about something. Pope Benedict XVI was really Pope John Paul II's right hand for some years, and many would say was probably running the day to day affairs of the Vatican. Is it possible that he now is where he was placed to be, finally bringing voice and lucidity to those things Pope John Paul II wanted to articulate in the final years of his papacy but could not? Is this possibly the proper conclusion of the JPII era under the direction of one who knew him best?
Just some thoughts.
Hmmm...this concept has been widely overblown. If you read the Catechism, an environment that encourages hard work and fair wages is what is taught. That sounds far more like the free-market than anything else. And socialism has been denounced.
Maybe its time to cancel this campaign:
Catholic Bishops Launch Major Catholic Campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1369060/posts
The church is not "anti-free market." This is another lie promulgated by leftist Catholics. Don't fall victim to it. In fact the Church favors the free market and the right of individual ownership. What the Church requires is that individuals (not governments) use what they own to help others. The "anti-free market" claims of the left come from condemnation of the tendency of some in capitalistic societies to use their wealth only for themselves.
ping
This non-Catholic says that the church has done more than just denounce it; since JPII, it has fought it harder than any democrat American politician has.
Though I'm not a Catholic, and do not presume to speak with any authority about Catholic doctrine and theology, I know this much: Abortion has been condemned in church teaching since the start, and was even condemned in writing as far back as the first century AD (Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons). While there is no direct condemnation of abortion in scripture per se (abortion is not specifically mentioned in scripture), the intent of scripture is clear through the teachings of the apostles - the living tradition of the church - all the way back to the first century (2000 years).
Nothing comparable exists as regards the death penalty. In fact, St. Paul's remark that the state official responsible for enforcing laws 'does not carry the sword for nothing' (Rom. XIII: 4) implies that the state has a right to punish those who do evil with death (the sword). Only in recent years (the last 4-5 decades) has it become fashionable to state that the death penalty is inherently unjust. In my observation, those Catholics who are most vocal about the alleged injustice of the death penalty are usually not very upset about the issue of abortion - which results in the death of far more human beings - completely innocent ones - than the death penalty ever has in Christian-influenced societies.
The former RINO governor of Illinois is a splendid example. George Ryan, under investigation for manifold corrupt activities, commuted the death sentences of all Illinois death row inmatesduring his last days in office - supposedly out of his personal conscience as a Catholic. This is very odd in light of this alleged staunch Catholic's consistent support of "a woman's right to choose." Thus, the "man of conscience" (according to liberals) commuted the death sentences of scores of people who have been convicted of heinous crimes despite never lifting a finger to even curtail slaughter of innocents during his term in office.
I believe you're right. "Free trade" as practiced today is not free. Communism is evil. Capitalism practised without moral safeguards relative to human dignity is also evil. Corporations that profit from slave and child labor, such as in modern China, for example.
I've seen this wild mis-interpretation or misconception come up severak times today. I expect this idea is promoted from two sources.
1. Leftists who think that all private property is evil, and conflate Marxist doctrine with chuirch teachings in an attempt to equate socialism with faith.
2. Amoral businessmen who resent any sort of moral judgement upon their activities. For example, Loral, Inc's Bernard Schwartz sold sensitive missile technology to China - an act of treason. Loral made tons of money, no doubt. Is this a good thing? Is it even a morally legitimate thing? Absolutely not. Capitalism without morals isn't any better than socialism. In fact, amoral capitalism will invariably end up as an oligarchy - a completely rigged system that prevents anyone but the cronies of those in charge from doing anything that generates wealth.
Another example of an amoral business would be one that hires illegal aliens - paid in cash under the table, or with fake ID's, SSN's, etc. at very low wages - and thus foists its empoyee expenses (health care, etc.) upon the taxpayers. Such businesses unfairly complete in the marketplace with those who don't break the law. The state would be completely justified in punishing them for such activity (if only they would). When the only thing that matters is the bottom line (the end justifies the means), an entrepeneur becomes an amoral person and deserves condemnation.
There are excellent priests out there, they tend to be the young guys. Find a real Catholic parish and get yourself back to Mass. Ignore the wackos, they will soon go to their eternal reward. The Lord is calling His own.
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.