To: netmilsmom; thefrankbaum; Tax-chick; GregB; saradippity; Berlin_Freeper; Litany; SumProVita; ...
Mario Cuomo & Abortion
In 1984, Mario Cuomo pioneered the argument that one may be personally opposed to abortion while supporting abortion rights.
Ever since, this convenient locution has become a staple for countless Democratic politicians, particularly Catholic ones. It is Vice President Joe Bidens view and was Senator John Kerrys stance when he ran for president in 2004.
The "apple" does not fall far from the tree.
posted on 01/17/2013 1:46:11 PM PST
("Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." --Jeremiah 1:5)
Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles
by Joseph Ratzinger
1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgement regarding one¿s worthiness to do so, according to the Church¿s objective criteria, asking such questions as: "Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?" The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum," nos. 81, 83).
2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ¿take part in a propoganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it¿" (no. 73). Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God¿s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it" (no. 74).
3. 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 war, 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.
4. Apart from an individuals¿s judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).
5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person¿s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church¿s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.
6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it"
(cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" , nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person¿s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person¿s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.
[N.B. 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 favour 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.]
The definition of scandal is below, and, wordy, yes, but mandatory reading for someoine drawing taxpayer salary to do one’s homework. That Cuomo, either one, does not understand that “everyone does it” doesn’t mean D during final judgement, should not fool anyone interested in his won final judgement.
Many brilliant, too brilliant, wealthy and comfortable NYers are stupid enough to follow these dopey politicians into H-E-double tooothpicks.
Scandal def. from Catholic Encyclopedia (Thomas is Thomas Aquinas, a doctor of the Church, whose wisdom and holy lifestyle dwarfs either Cuomo’s to the point that most should ingore these two power hungry pursuaders in favor of living correctly and, heck, not killing innocent babies/people.
BTW, Andy Cuomo says, oh and rules on, “you don’t need ten bullets to kill a deer”. OK Andy, even my cousin Vinny Gambini’s girlfriend knows that. What you don’t know is the intent of the 2nd ammendment, as if the framers took the time to write the SECOND (not the 30’th or even the 11th Ammendment) so Americans could kill deer.
Anyway, here’s the definition of scandal, oh politicians who claim Catholicism without so much as reviewing their second grade Catechism (I do not exaggerate, here)
According to St. Thomas (II-II, Q. liii, a. 1) scandal is a word or action evil in itself, which occasions another’s spiritual ruin. It is a word or action, that is either an external actfor an internal act can have no influence on the conduct of anotheror the omission of an external act, because to omit what one should do is equivalent to doing what is forbidden; it must be evil in itself, or in appearance; this is the interpretation of the words of St. Thomas: minus rectum. It is not the physical cause of a neighbor’s sin, but only the moral cause, or occasion; further, this moral causality may be understood in a strict sense, as when one orders, requests, or advises another to commit the sin (this is strictly inductive scandal, which some call co-operation in a broad sense), or in a large sense, as when a person without being directly concerned in the sin nevertheless exercises a certain influence on the sin of his neighbor, e.g. by committing such a sin in his presence (this is inductive scandal in a broad sense).
posted on 01/17/2013 2:15:33 PM PST
...moving from Faux Catholic to full fledged Fake Catholic
posted on 01/17/2013 3:12:14 PM PST
Mario Cuomo didn’t pioneer that argument. By 1984, it was already being used by the Kennedys, who learned it from Jesuit priest, and Congressman, Robert Drinan.
posted on 01/17/2013 8:44:40 PM PST
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson