Sad is not strong enough a word. I'd go as high as Satanic Evil when in past year or so a least a million third trimester babies have been murdered vilely with a toxic lethal pill bought online for less than $20 US money.
But hey, what can you expect when for past 20 years at least, school children's minds in the tens of millions have been formed by "teachers" who believe a woman's "right to choose" trumps every other fact/reality/truth...the right to choose is ultimate even if the biggest choice of all is really made by a man or pimp with a weapon in his hands...
The 21st century to be sure is truly Satan's century.
May the world heed Pope Francis, our holy, and great, Culture of Life Pontiff, who has issued repeated calls to protect unborn babies from the abominable crime of abortion.
Just a few examples:
=================================================
-- Pope Francis, April 28, 2023 A.D:
(CNA) - Pope Francis spoke out strongly against abortion and gender ideology Friday, citing both as examples of “ideological colonization” during a speech in Budapest.
But remember, Paul. There are “proportionate” reasons to vote for the party that supports the five non-negotiable issues that Pope Benedict laid out for us in his letter to the USCCB (Worthiness for Reception of Holy Communion). 🙄
The letter that the se*ual predator (and most likely a democrat) Ted McCarrick - then president of the USCCB, *hid* from his brother bishops.
Yet no one ever gives us an example of a "proportionate" reason. They are liars and promoting evil with their votes. If the bishops had come down hard on the Dems in the 1970s when they still had influence, the Dem Party may have backed off. Not now.
TJM - As you have repeatedly stated, you do not believe proportionate reasons exist. Why would anyone waste his/her time trying to explain his/her vote to you when all you're going to do it jam your fingers in your ears and run around shouting, "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"
Kev - There is nothing hidden about the guidance from the bishops regarding voting. You may, like TJM, refuse to believe that such reasons can exist. I prefer to listen to the Church's guidance.
"The inviolability of the person, which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, 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." (Pope St. John Paull II, Christifideles Laici, 38 §2)
Father Kavanaugh is of course right to point out that we have been down this road so many times before that it seems pointless to respond to those who refuse to listen. But perhaps it may advance discussion to consider the document to which Catechist Kev refers. I believe this is the one (but please correct me if that is not the case):
The following language is found at the end of the document:
“[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.]”
Logically, then, there can be proportionate reasons for a Catholic who does not share the candidate's position on abortion and/or euthanasia to vote for a candidate who is in favor of one or both. The question then becomes what reasons qualify as proportionate reasons, and on this the USCCB has given some guidance, as discussed ad nauseam in previous threads.
What moral algebra equivocates the stance of a party that has identified abortion on demand as a core discriminator of their candidates with justifiable support?
The document I mention above, which Mark quotes, has this paragraph, too:
"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." (WRHC, 3, stars added)
The document is really short if one is interested in reading it.
rcg - I don't equivocate. I also don't see the single issue of abortion as the determining factor in my choice among candidates. Nor am I nor any other Catholic required to do so.
Mark - The Church, respecting the individual conscience, doesn't specify the "moral algebra" a Catholic voter must follow in order to reach his/her conscientious decision. To be honest, I don't think the Church has the authority to do so. If it did, we'd be handed official Catholic voting guides each time we arrived at the polling place.
Fr K, what aggregated issues carry the same moral weight as abortion, especially when coupled with the dehumanizing of women and minorities associated with it?
Paul - You may post comment here to "impress" people. I don't. So, you can go on worrying about who you impress, who I impress, or who Fr. ALLAN McDonald or Fr. MARTIN Fox impresses, but that's your concern, not mine.
I agree with your comments about Father McDonald’s humility and courage and Father Fox’s integrity, but I question your attitude toward Father Kavanaugh. You ask Father Kavanaugh “Why are you here?” Are you implying that he should not be here and/or that this Blog should become yet one more echo chamber in the world of social media, with no challenging or dissenting voices? In other words, are you implying that Father K should be “cancelled” here?
I have observed tendencies among some who post here to want to “cancel” certain voices, including Father K. and Mark Thomas, which is ironic given that those voices would doubtless be the first to complain about “canceling” when done by the Left.
When I read the comments for a story on the Fox News website or the New York Times website, I know exactly what to expect—more and similar noises from members of the same tribe. We seem to have allowed ourselves to be reduced to just “yelling at” one another across the tribal divides. Quite frankly, it is pathetic—and highly dangerous for the health of our body politic. It is certainly not a mature conversation among adults engaged in republican self-government. So, please, let’s not import this corruption into our religious conversation among Catholics on this Blog as well.
I have observed tendencies among some voices here to want to “cancel” certain other voices, including Father K. and Mark Thomas, which is ironic given that these voices would doubtless be the first to complain about “canceling” when done by the Left.
It is almost 5.30am and I write this with a hangover. The reasons for this rare very rare hangover in over 20 years is that my younger than me wife is in hospital with brain damage.
But, mate, I can have 2 black coffees a few cigarettes and think rationally and coldly.
You are a lawyer (and I have known lawyers since my uncle a lawyer was a government minister...and as a teenager played golf with them...and in my career after seminary doing X, y and z I've had dealings with defamation lawyers, criminal lawyers in 3 different western nations..)
I hate to be blunt and honest BUT if no one is paying you to contribute here; ie I assume there is no financial motivation...
Perhaps I could be rude enough to ask:
What on a personal and or emotional/spiritual level motivates your contributions here AND the specific nature of your contributions here? Hmmmm?
You ask an excellent question, prompting reflective introspection. But it is a question that could be asked of everyone posting on the Blog.
I am very sorry to hear about your wife’s hospitalization and brain damage. I hope she will make a speedy and full recovery, and I am sure that all of us here will keep both of you in our prayers.
rcg – The calculus involved in voting is complex. (I use calculus since I could manage algebra but was flummoxed when, in college, I had to take calculus. I made it through, without demolishing my GPA, by the skin of my teeth.)
When I am choosing among candidates for the Presidency of the United States I look for a person who has a strong vision for the country's future, who knows history and has the ability to put his/her own times in the perspective of history, who has devoted him/herself to service, who has the courage to make unpopular decisions, who has crisis management skills, who has character and integrity, who has an ability to work with Congress, especially a divided Congress these days, and who is a person who will make wise appointments.
That person will listen and allow others to be heard, will value conversations, will encourage healthy conflict, will create an environment of emotional safety, especially for staff and advisors, will have high levels of self-awareness, will empower others, will welcome feedback, and will exhibit loyalty to his/her staff.
The basis for these qualities/qualifications is the four cardinal virtues: Prudence, Temperance, Fortitude, and Justice. An emotionally defective candidate may be tremendously intelligent, but, like Richard Nixon, whose strategic intelligence was exceptional, have emotional perturbations that overshadow and even vitiate any accomplishments. The candidate may have supreme organizational skills. But, like Clinton and LBJ, he/she may be severely impacted by a lack of temperance. (LBJ’s mood swings have been called “vesuvian” and of “clinical proportions.”)
There’s no candidate who can score A+ in all qualifications. In some elections, the differences between/among candidates may be so inconsequential that a choice by coin toss seems reasonable. In other elections, there is a vast chasm separating them.
I have obviously never been a professional profiler but I have on occasion had to read people very well with my life at stake.
Regarding motivation of you and Fr K with your contributions here let me suggest the dominant motivation:
Ego.
Fr K sees himself as a sort of erudite southern intellectual more than a priest on this blog. Who, he believes, it is a part of his vocation to share his learning and effortlessly win intellectual debates here on everything from liturgy, literature to leisure activities (which he very rarely achieves) with his mostly almost always inferior to him religiously and politically conservative types...
With you Mark...it is far from all ego ..but ego is a factor - You like Fr K can nitpick and be pedantic etc but at least when you are pedantic, you remain relevant. Also, I'd suggest too that what motivates you in part is that you enjoy it and learn occasionally from this blog.. But ego is at times the key motivating factor.
Sophia Here: Yes, several of us on this blog have made multiple attempts to have Fr. K. and Mark (not Mark Thomas) re-examine their support for the Party of Death (Death Party) as Cardinal Burke has so accurately named the Democrat Party because of it's support for more and more abortions at any gestational age and for any reason, in addition to other intrinsic evils such as physician assisted suicide. I have even challenged the frequent reference to conscience, stripped of the qualifier "well-formed" which strips it of it's intended purpose and referenced the associated concepts of "vincible (their situation) and invincible ignorance. It is very difficult to accept that Fr. K. and Mark do not know enough Philosophy ( specifically Logic ), Moral Theology and the Catechism to know all that and the accurate meaning of "proportionate" in the context of abortion! 1/3 of Bishops (Bishop Mc Elroy was one of the ringleaders!) at the USCCB meeting in Nov. 2019 ahead of the 2020 elections revolted and voted against Abortion being the PRE-EMINENT issue. Approximately 50% of Catholics including Mark and Fr. K. voted for candidates who advocate for, and fiercely push policies which are intrinsically evil, when there are most definitely alternative candidates -even on a "lesser of two evils basis"! They were undoubtedly using the loophole provided by the image of "a seamless garment" popularized by the Modernist/Relativist Cardinal Joseph Bernardin when he used it to discuss the Church's "consistent Ethic of life". Everything on that list was presented as if they were morally equivalent to each other. However, this is philosophically (logically) and morally false. There can be no moral equivalency to the direct slaughtering of millions of the most vulnerable, the most innocent of humans- with the consent of their own moms no less! Unfortunately, Pope Francis too, endorsed it ('Seamless garment")in his "Gaudete Et Exsultate". Therefore Pope St. Pius X accurately characterized Modernism as "the synthesis of all heresies" and Pope Benedict XVl of blessed memory, boldly condemned "the dictatorship of Relativism". So yes, Mark and Fr. K. your sophistry, half truths, twisting of facts and distortion of what Pope Benedict XVl meant when he spoke of " proportionate" (the operative word here) reasons to justify your votes represent an exercise of your free will, but certainly not a well-formed conscience. In fact they represent conscience under the influence of vincible ignorance and therefore leading to erroneous judgment. It is no wonder that you dance around and squirm and refuse to answer the very simple question "What are YOUR PROPORTIONATE reasons for voting for extreme pro-abortion candidates?" We all agree that there are PROPORTIONATE reasons just as Pope Benedict XVl has so very clearly stated. But you know full well that your reasons do not meet the "Proportionate" test-they are just reasons- taken from that "seamless garment" list and which cannot come close to abortion, which stands qualitatively, quantitatively and PRE-EMINENTLY above everything else on that list. So I don't blame you for not revealing which ones of those you used! You have kept up this charade for so long, and so fiercely; you have been so obdurate; it must be so excruciatingly difficult to now admit that your position is not tenable and that you have in fact given scandal to some of the many readers of this blog - who of course are not limited to people who post here! Cont'd
Cont'd This excellent discussion of an example of an actual "PROPORTUNATE" reason was initially posted in January of this year. But since Fr. K. studiously avoided it in his response, I am reposting to give him another opportunity to ponder it! 'Blogger Sophia said... Sophia here: Fr. K. several of us on this blog, have asked you to share with us what your "proportionate" reason(s) is/are for voting for pro-abortion politicians especially over the last several cycles when they can definitely be characterized as pro-EXTREME abortion politicians. The operative word is "PROPORTIONATE". So of course we knew you did not have any. You merely have reasons (very unreasonable ones I may add!) This is precisely Why the Beloved Faithful, Guardian and Teacher of the perennial Teaching of Holy Mother Church and the Sacred Scriptures condemned "The Tyranny of Relativism" of which this is a prime example.
"Bishop Rene Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas clarifies the teaching of the Church on voting for pro-abortion politicians. 'Since abortion and euthanasia have been defined by the Church as the most serious sins prevalent in our society, what kind of reasons could possibly be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion? None of the reasons commonly suggested could even begin to be proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for such a candidate. Reasons such as the candidate’s position on war, or taxes, or the death penalty, or immigration, or a national health plan, or social security, or aids, or homosexuality, or marriage, or any similar burning societal issues of our time are simply lacking in proportionality.
There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life....' Cont'd
January 14, 2023 at 9:57 PM Delete Blogger Sophia said... Sophia here: 'Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.
The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.
The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry).
Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and votes for legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils which is morally permissible under these circumstances.
Of course, the Catholic voter could choose not to vote. But that would be a serious abdication of the Catholic voter’s civic and moral obligation to participate in the election. By not voting the Catholic voter could well be assisting in the election of candidate (A, Kerry) and while that would not carry the same guilt as formal participation in candidate (A, Kerry’s) support of abortion-on-demand it would still be sinful, even if only a sin of omission.
Those Catholic voters who love moral absolutes would have no choice but to vote for candidate (C, Peroutka), but those Catholics who recognize that in the real world it is sometimes necessary to choose the lesser of two evils in order to prevent greater harm – in this case harm to innocent unborn children would vote for candidate (B, Bush).'
Sophia, like TJM and others, you do not believe proportionate reasons exist. What is the purpose of explaining my rationale for voting when, like, TJM, you will, out of hand and without considering them, dismiss them ?
Asking for explanations when you cannot hear them is a "charade."
Sophia here: Paul, I just saw that your dear wife is hospital with a tragic diagnosis of brain injury. May Jesus Himself, the greatest Healer of all -of body and soul-direct her medical team. And May he comfort her, you and the entire family as you face this very difficult challenge. I shall say a Rosary tonight for these intentions.
I appreciate your passion about the issue of abortion. But you are way off base in depicting my thinking about proportionate reasons. I have explained my thinking in the same January exchange to which you refer as well as in other exchanges, and I will not now follow you in repeating all that here. But perhaps you should go back and look again to see just how far off base you are.
As for giving scandal, you should know me well enough by now to know that this possibility would indeed have troubled me in addressing the fraught issue of abortion on this Blog. And it is one important reason why I have always been very careful to emphasize that I would like to see a world in which abortion is an unthinkable option and why I try to remain faithful to the language of the USCCB document Faithful Citizenship when discussing the matter of voting. I hope, and believe, that it does not give scandal to urge readers of this Blog to be guided by that document, which they can read for themselves as they decide how to cast their vote conscientiously, or to suggest that my own interpretation of the USCCB guidelines does not require me to vote for, say, Donald Trump should he again become the Republican nominee for president, to put matters bluntly! For that is what your position boils down to in practice because you reject any possibility of conscientiously voting for the only candidate who has a chance of defeating him. I could not in good conscience vote for Trump, but I fully accept that you in good conscience could vote for him, and I would never attack you for doing so as you have attacked me here. Anything negative I have said about Trump on this Blog was not intended to disparage those who vote for him, just to defend my not voting for him but for his defeat.
I can’t help but believe that proportionate reasons is at the root of the sex abuse scandal in the Church and yes, the political scandal in the Church, not to mention every other scandal in the Church.
Why did some cardinals, bishops, clergy and laity support Adolph Hitler, because of proportionate reasons—he did do some good as did Mussolini.
Why did bishops reassign priests guilty of serious sexual abuse after so-called rehabilitation, because of the good they did in celebrating the sacraments and in other ways.
Why do people vote for the Democrat party candidate? Because of the good they do despite the fact they advocate for the murder of children even up to and after a full term life of a womb-baby and after a full term birth but botched abortion. They also support euthanasia and assisted suicide. But what the heck, they support the poor, migrants and programs to help those who were not aborted.
Why do people support President Trump and may well re-elect him, because of the good he did and they don’t believe that sexual sins, even the mortal ones, are relevant to a person’s ability to lead even lies are tolerated if a good is being accomplished.
Original sin has led to a grave corruption of people who are of good will in many areas but blind to the horrors that their candidates and political parties promote.
Fr. ALLAN McDonald - I am not "blind" when it comes to voting. That is a gross oversimplification of the issues involved, implying that people are ill-informed or wholly uninformed regarding the candidates they choose for office.
I don't agree with your proposition that people supported Hitler for "proportionate" reasons. I think in many cases that support was based on fear. They feared what would happen to them, to their families, their businesses, their communities if they did not toe the Nazi party line. They knew of the horrors being carried out, but did not have the courage to stand up to Nazism given what such a stand would cost them.
Bishops failed to act appropriately when abusive priests were known to them because they feared what might be the outcome. Their own weaknesses might be known, parishes would be devastated, lawsuits would be extremely costly. I don't think many (any?) of them thought, "Well, he's done good work in the past, so I won't remove him from ministry."
Fr K Orwell has been exposed. No sentient person is buying his lame excuses. There are no proportionate reasons to just casting a vote for pure evil - he is a State worshipper who votes for the Party of Moloch which world 24/7 to destroy the unborn and enslave the rest of us - sorry excuse for a priest
TJM - Your support for the sexual harassment and abuse of women is showing... You have been exposed, there is no reason to vote for that evil as you do. You support destroying women and enslaving the rest of us to your perversions.
But, like TJM he and you have proportionate reasons for voting as you do. Birds of a feather I would say. Thanks for CONFIRMING my point in my comment above!
DUH! And neither can you vote for a party that supports genocidal abortion laws. Again, thanking for supporting my original comment. Murder or sexual harassment, let me see….
I am perplexed. Why are others in this this conversation not directly addressing what would seem to be one of the most relevant documents, if not indeed the most relevant document, by which we should be guided in voting—-the USCCB document “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States"? What am I missing?
Faithful Citizen is a concoction of the USCCB and a committee that wrote it. It is a guideline which Catholics can take or leave. It’s a little bit below a papal opinion in terms of authority. It definitely isn’t infallible and is subject to change.
That’s fine and I have absolutely no problem with it. What I do have a problem with is how many here seek to impose their own view on everyone else.
Regarding the USCCB document, Father McDonald says that Catholics can take it or leave it. I choose to take it because, as I understand it, it seeks to interpret, and apply to voting in the United States, various authoritative sources including those you mention—-sources that I alone do not feel competent to interpret and apply correctly. The question then becomes whether I or anyone else is wrong or “causes scandal” by doing so and by suggesting that the USCCB document can guide others in conscientious voting.
So, let me ask directly,
Father McDonald: Am I wrong to rely on the USCCB document? Do I cause scandal by doing so, or by recommending the USCCB document to others? And if I so, why is the document distributed to the laity ahead of elections for their guidance?
Fr. ALLAN McDonald, Faithful Citizenship (FC) is not a "concoction." Nor is it something a Catholic can "take or leave."
FC presents the Church's doctrinal understanding of moral teaching as concerns the duty of American's to participate in the processes of our democracy. FC cites the Catechism of the Catholic Church 4 times and the Compendium of the Social doctrine of the Church twice. It references 3 encyclicals of Pope Francis, 3 encyclicals of Pope Benedict, 3 encyclicals of Saint Pope John Paul II, 1 encyclical of Saint Pope John XXIII, Gaudium et Spes, the Doc- trinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life. In Readings on Catholics in Political Life, and Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, 2003.
Catholics cannot "take or leave" the Church's doctrine when that doctrine is presented in a source other than that which is infallible. Such a claim is ludicrous.
Mark, it’s a guideline and as such you may follow it or you may critique it and seek other authoritative teachings, either from individual bishops or theologians or from various popes.
I do question proportionality when it comes to a part that completely endorses the genocide of children in the womb and even after a birth. Democrats have devolved in their concern for the poor, the unborn the poorest of the poor, to the point of a desire that abortions be legal, safe and rare, to the grusome partial birth abortion and murdering a child that lives a botched abortion.
To proportionality can accept that or then you are led into believing you can accept dictators or dictatorial political parties, like Communism, that do some good things but destroy their enemies, Stalin having had murdered more people than Hitler did.
Speaking of sexual immorality, and the peccadilloes of Clinton and Trump, even to the point of breaking the law, and let’s face it Clinton allowed young intern to have sex with him under his desk, meaning a subordinate, which could be a crime or should be, but this isn’t platform desire of the Democrats to legalize it and make it safe but rare.
Now this is just my pious opinion, but i have come to the conclusion that the Democrat Party as it concerns abortion and the sexual teachings of the Catholic Church in terms of gender and sexual morality, has become a hate group against Catholicism, similar to the KKK and the Masons and in a perfect world and Church, Catholics should be forbidden from supporting this party and we are forbidden to join or support other hate groups like the KKK, neo Nazis and fascists.
"Proportionality" is not a "concoction" of the USCCB's document Faithful Citizenship. It is a well-established principle that is taken from classic Catholic moral theology.
No one here is using proportionality to "endorse the genocide of children in the womb and even after a birth."
Mark, you are in no way wrong for follwoing "Faithful Citizenship" or recommending it to others.
Thank you for your reply. Focusing for the moment just on the issue of abortion, what difference, if any, does it make for voting in federal elections that since the Dobbs decision we now live in a post-Roe and post-Casey world, and if one judges that realistically the Democrats are highly unlikely to “pack” the Supreme Court to produce a reversal of Dobbs and that realistically neither party will likely be able to enact congressional legislation banning or permitting abortion (assuming, as is probably the case, Congress has constitutional authority to do so)?
Let's try this again. The five non-negotiables are at the top of the list, morally speaking, when forming one's conscience to vote.
*All* of those issues: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic/stem cell research, cloning and so-called same-gender "marriage" are on the Biden party platform. Every one. They are intrinsically evil.
After the non-negotiable issues, Catholics can agree to disagree on how to best take care of other issues: immigration, just war, the death penalty (suddenly now "inadmissible" - whatever that means), etc.
I've read through parts of "Faithful Citizenship" and, as Miss Sophia puts it, it is more of the "seamless garment" confusion.
Father McDonald said..."Now this is just my pious opinion, but i have come to the conclusion that the Democrat Party as it concerns abortion and the sexual teachings of the Catholic Church in terms of gender and sexual morality, has become a hate group against Catholicism, similar to the KKK and the Masons and in a perfect world and Church, Catholics should be forbidden from supporting this party and we are forbidden to join or support other hate groups like the KKK, neo Nazis and fascists."
Fathers McDonald, and Kavanaugh:
Suppose a bishop declared that within his diocese, support for the Democratic Party constituted a mortal sin. Would such a bishop have acted legitimately?
Romanian Catholic Diocese of Canton Office of the Bishop Most Reverend Bishop John Botean March 7, 2003
"Direct participation in this war is the moral equivalent of direct participation in an abortion.
"For the Catholics of the Eparchy of St. George, I hereby authoritatively state that such direct participation is intrinsically and gravely evil and therefore absolutely forbidden.
"Therefore I, by the grace of God and the favor of the Apostolic See Bishop of the Eparchy of St. George in Canton, must declare to you, my people, for the sake of your salvation as well as my own, that any direct participation and support of this war against the people of Iraq is objectively grave evil, a matter of mortal sin.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt this war is morally incompatible with the Person and Way of Jesus Christ. With moral certainty I say to you it does not meet even the minimal standards of the Catholic just war theory."
“I've read through parts of ‘Faithful Citizenship’ and, as Miss Sophia puts it, it is more of the ‘seamless garment’ confusion.”
Thank you for reading parts of “Faithful Citizenship.” I assume those parts include the sections and pages I referenced. I respect your judgment about the document, but I do not share it, so we will have to agree to disagree about it. Moreover, there are other “intrinsic evils” that you do not list. Could this be because they are supported, directly or indirectly, by the Republican Party, particularly in its current Trumpian form?
Yet you support the Kennedys, Bill Horndog Clintoon, and Groper Biden. Although evil, this conduct does constitute intrinsic evils - epic fail on your part. You are imperiling your immortal soul. Did you attend the “Pride” Event at the White House? Many of the Dems brainless shills were there. Still no example of a “proportionate reason” to justify a vote for the Party that fundraises on the glories of slaughtering the unborn and mutilation of children?
My impression is that much of the debate about abortion (and indeed much else besides) is conducted in abstractions and is out of touch with reality. So, it might be helpful to get concrete to reveal some of the complexities involved in the real world. I have just read the following article about the situation in Texas and would be interested in knowing how others react to it. In particular, and assuming the report of her case in the second half of the article is accurate, what would you say to Lauren Miller? How does Catholic teaching apply to this sort of factual scenario, relatively rare though it might be?
Fr Kavanaugh, thank you for your response and please accept my apologies for not replying sooner as I have been occupied with family issues that turned out well but needed my uninterrupted attention.
Using your system of algebra is a good idea because, in its most basic form, the algorithm gives a structure for evaluating the combined merits of a political party or candidate. In the form of A(B+C…) the coefficient ‘A’ has the leverage of multiplying or offsetting the sum in the parenthesis. So if there is a platform that contains a plank that affects each and every other plank then it should be promoted to the coefficient. It is probably safe, for example, to do this for the salient acts of Herod, Commodus, Pope Alexander, etc., whose ‘good’ acts, if they can be found, amounted to little more than the minimum expected of their duties amplified only by the power of their position rather than a motivation to do ‘good’. If we hold Herod in contempt for the slaughter of the innocents we simultaneously discount, through the algorithmic process, all of his ‘good’ acts in unifying Palestine under Roman rule. Would his actions be more acceptable if he had convinced the women of Palestine to destroy their own infants? Would this have established a moral remoteness to the satisfaction of St Thomas Aquinas? Would the distance be increased if the variables ‘B’, ‘C’…. represented improved economic or social standing? Is the value of a woman increased by her sexual usefulness coupled to her economic value as a worker or executive rather than as a mother? If a woman needed to supply the variables in the parentheses it is difficult for me to understand how she could be valued for supplying tolerance, friendship, collegiality, thrift, nurture, and compassion to everyone but her own child. The political parties that champion abortion as a choice for a woman to consider are delivering that concept embedded in a distorted view of a woman’s worth and value not only to enslave the individual woman as a concubine to the state but displace responsibility for that decision to the woman in the most cowardly way possible.
I have gone on to long, so will stop here. But I feel that I should address what I consider the false dilemma of three candidates and their electability. You may beat me about the head and shoulders now. 😉
rcg - Mercifully, human reasoning isn't bound to or bounded by algorithmic processes.
Taking the qualifications I suggested in toto, I concluded that Trump was almost completely unqualified to hold the office of the Presidency. In the last election, in my judgment, the comparison was not even close. Others came to a different conclusion, and although I disagree with them, I respect their choice. No beatings shall commence...
99% of the those spiritually dead yet are not physically dead have never had any real Large problem with voting for those VIP (very important @#$%s ...sorry: politicians) who have since 1973 and before had Very Little if not 1% Problem with the burial of those Holy innocents who 99% to 100% of the time should by any proportion Rule perhaps not be or not have Bean terminated...
Sorry, words not crunching numbers were always my better forte...
2023: those who can with numbers etc ie with proportioninality etc and with the little or big man (or person) Reasonable Standard go vote for Demonocrats in US of A in any future fair election can and may go to Hell...
rcg – I understand the point that you are making about the mental process of decision-making having similarities with solving algebraic equations. Algebraic equations involve comparing elements on the left-hand side of the equal sign with those on the right-hand side. If there is an imbalance, then a “greater than” or “less than” operator replaces the equal sign. Decision-making with voting involves weighing factors for and against a candidate similar to balancing an equation. If Candidate A holds a pro-abortion position, then application of proportionate reasoning allows voting for Candidate A only when there are at least equivalent morally grave reasons associated with Candidate B on the other side of the equation. You have articulated well the intrinsic evil of abortion and the burden placed on the voter who is inclined to vote for the pro-abortion candidate.
Lake Bathurst is not Bathurst, NSW, where they have car races...like the famous Bathurst 500.
Lake Bathurst P10 maybe may be on via from Goulburn to Braidwood....then down the mountain a bit to go fishing in Batemans not Bat man's Bay.
Surnames are funny things indeed.
Take the P10 (not P3) crowd there...
Kirkton - a Church.
Kirton - you can spend a life time slowly spelling it for some people.
Curtin - a former PM; don't get me started on the 2 types of Irish Curtins...
Kirwans - I have no idea...
Curtis family - country cousins - big landowners around Wagga, Junee and Adelong (we visited them as kids from Sydney ..
But a Father or Brother Curtis at an Abbey no longer a Seminary (the seed bed seminarians there sent to Argentina for some unknown reasons...)
Now The Name Curtis..just could be of Portuguese origins like Cortez..or something?
Anyway an Abbey and Pauline...no! A small Abbey and Parish just down the Road from Goulburn just may be maybe where I'm heading to day today or Wednesday at the latest.
Until I reach Nowra, Kangaroo Valley or a little boat with a fisherman named Peter Rocco off Ulladulla...for a well earned re tyre ment.
PS post scripts...Paul's scripts:
I always meant well...
Signing off with:
The Band's Last Waltz. The nocte they drove old Dixie down...
To "Another Country"
Probably Port Moresby..who knows?
MM a Military Medal to all here.
At a Syd Uni Registment bar with the cheapest drinks if not free: circa 4 plus decades of Roses ago..
Lake Bathurst is not Bathurst, NSW, where they have car races...like the famous Bathurst 500.
Lake Bathurst P10 maybe may be on via from Goulburn to Braidwood....then down the mountain a bit to go fishing in Batemans not Bat man's Bay.
Surnames are funny things indeed.
Take the P10 (not P3) crowd there...
Kirkton - a Church.
Kirton - you can spend a life time slowly spelling it for some people.
Curtin - a former PM; don't get me started on the 2 types of Irish Curtins...
Kirwans - I have no idea...
Curtis family - country cousins - big landowners around Wagga, Junee and Adelong (we visited them as kids from Sydney ..
But a Father or Brother Curtis at an Abbey no longer a Seminary (the seed bed seminarians there sent to Argentina for some unknown reasons...)
Now The Name Curtis..just could be of Portuguese origins like Cortez..or something?
Anyway an Abbey and Pauline...no! A small Abbey and Parish just down the Road from Goulburn just may be maybe where I'm heading to day today or Wednesday at the latest.
Until I reach Nowra, Kangaroo Valley or a little boat with a fisherman named Peter Rocco off Ulladulla...for a well earned re tyre ment.
PS post scripts...Paul's scripts:
I always meant well...
Signing off with:
The Band's Last Waltz. The nocte they drove old Dixie down...
To "Another Country"
Probably Port Moresby..who knows?
MM a Military Medal to all here.
At a Syd Uni Registment bar with the cheapest drinks if not free: circa 4 plus decades of Roses ago..
61 comments:
isn't it sad that in this world we have to explain the obvious
Sad is not strong enough a word.
I'd go as high as Satanic Evil when in past year or so a least a million third trimester babies have been murdered vilely with a toxic lethal pill bought online for less than $20 US money.
But hey, what can you expect when for past 20 years at least, school children's minds in the tens of millions have been formed by "teachers" who believe a woman's "right to choose" trumps every other fact/reality/truth...the right to choose is ultimate even if the biggest choice of all is really made by a man or pimp with a weapon in his hands...
The 21st century to be sure is truly Satan's century.
May the world heed Pope Francis, our holy, and great, Culture of Life Pontiff, who has issued repeated calls to protect unborn babies from the abominable crime of abortion.
Just a few examples:
=================================================
-- Pope Francis, April 28, 2023 A.D:
(CNA) - Pope Francis spoke out strongly against abortion and gender ideology Friday, citing both as examples of “ideological colonization” during a speech in Budapest.
=================================================
-- Sept. 15, 2021: ‘Abortion is murder’
==================================================
-- Sept. 25, 2020: Speech to the United Nations
==================================================
-- Oct. 10, 2018: Abortion is like ‘hiring a hitman’
===================================================
-- June 16, 2018: Abortion of disabled is like ‘what the Nazis did’
===================================================
Feb. 18, 2016: Abortion is ‘against the Hippocratic oath’
===================================================
-- June 18, 2015: Care for creation is ‘incompatible with the justification of abortion’
===================================================
-- Aug. 16, 2014: The pope prays at South Korea cemetery for abortion victims
====================================================
-- Sept. 20, 2013: Every unborn child unjustly aborted has the face of Jesus
===================================================
Pax.
Mark Thomas
But remember, Paul. There are “proportionate” reasons to vote for the party that supports the five non-negotiable issues that Pope Benedict laid out for us in his letter to the USCCB (Worthiness for Reception of Holy Communion). 🙄
The letter that the se*ual predator (and most likely a democrat) Ted McCarrick - then president of the USCCB, *hid* from his brother bishops.
Catechist Kev,
Yet no one ever gives us an example of a "proportionate" reason. They are liars and promoting evil with their votes. If the bishops had come down hard on the Dems in the 1970s when they still had influence, the Dem Party may have backed off. Not now.
TJM - As you have repeatedly stated, you do not believe proportionate reasons exist. Why would anyone waste his/her time trying to explain his/her vote to you when all you're going to do it jam your fingers in your ears and run around shouting, "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"
Kev - There is nothing hidden about the guidance from the bishops regarding voting. You may, like TJM, refuse to believe that such reasons can exist. I prefer to listen to the Church's guidance.
"I prefer to listen to the Church's guidance."
Me too.
"The inviolability of the person, which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, 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." (Pope St. John Paull II, Christifideles Laici, 38 §2)
Father Kavanaugh is of course right to point out that we have been down this road so many times before that it seems pointless to respond to those who refuse to listen. But perhaps it may advance discussion to consider the document to which Catechist Kev refers. I believe this is the one (but please correct me if that is not the case):
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/worthiness-to-receive-holy-communion-general-principles-2153
The following language is found at the end of the document:
“[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.]”
Logically, then, there can be proportionate reasons for a Catholic who does not share the candidate's position on abortion and/or euthanasia to vote for a candidate who is in favor of one or both. The question then becomes what reasons qualify as proportionate reasons, and on this the USCCB has given some guidance, as discussed ad nauseam in previous threads.
What moral algebra equivocates the stance of a party that has identified abortion on demand as a core discriminator of their candidates with justifiable support?
The document I mention above, which Mark quotes, has this paragraph, too:
"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." (WRHC, 3, stars added)
The document is really short if one is interested in reading it.
rcg - I don't equivocate. I also don't see the single issue of abortion as the determining factor in my choice among candidates. Nor am I nor any other Catholic required to do so.
Mark - The Church, respecting the individual conscience, doesn't specify the "moral algebra" a Catholic voter must follow in order to reach his/her conscientious decision. To be honest, I don't think the Church has the authority to do so. If it did, we'd be handed official Catholic voting guides each time we arrived at the polling place.
Fr K, what aggregated issues carry the same moral weight as abortion, especially when coupled with the dehumanizing of women and minorities associated with it?
Catechist Kev:
Have you read the USCCB document Faithful Citizenship, which is very relevant to the present discussion? See especially sections 17-39 on pp. 18-24:
https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/upload/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship.pdf
Dear Fr K,
LOL!
Or ROFLMAO...
Ie: Rolling on floor laughing my a$#@ off...
Fr Michael K,
Who here OR who here do you think is convinced by your....
Seek help...
Paul Kelly...Paul K...
Post Script...
Fr Allan grew and changed...much for the better. That takes both humility and courage.
Fr Fox oozes integrity...
Fr K, why are you here?
Just who do you think in these rooms, in this space, is impressed by you now?
You don't have to explain yourself to anyone Michael J. Kavanaugh, but you will have to explain yourself to Jesus.
Paul - You may post comment here to "impress" people. I don't. So, you can go on worrying about who you impress, who I impress, or who Fr. ALLAN McDonald or Fr. MARTIN Fox impresses, but that's your concern, not mine.
Paul:
I agree with your comments about Father McDonald’s humility and courage and Father Fox’s integrity, but I question your attitude toward Father Kavanaugh. You ask Father Kavanaugh “Why are you here?” Are you implying that he should not be here and/or that this Blog should become yet one more echo chamber in the world of social media, with no challenging or dissenting voices? In other words, are you implying that Father K should be “cancelled” here?
I have observed tendencies among some who post here to want to “cancel” certain voices, including Father K. and Mark Thomas, which is ironic given that those voices would doubtless be the first to complain about “canceling” when done by the Left.
When I read the comments for a story on the Fox News website or the New York Times website, I know exactly what to expect—more and similar noises from members of the same tribe. We seem to have allowed ourselves to be reduced to just “yelling at” one another across the tribal divides. Quite frankly, it is pathetic—and highly dangerous for the health of our body politic. It is certainly not a mature conversation among adults engaged in republican self-government. So, please, let’s not import this corruption into our religious conversation among Catholics on this Blog as well.
Clarifying correction of second paragraph:
I have observed tendencies among some voices here to want to “cancel” certain other voices, including Father K. and Mark Thomas, which is ironic given that these voices would doubtless be the first to complain about “canceling” when done by the Left.
Mark,
It is almost 5.30am and I write this with a hangover.
The reasons for this rare very rare hangover in over 20 years is that my younger than me wife is in hospital with brain damage.
But, mate, I can have 2 black coffees a few cigarettes and think rationally and coldly.
You are a lawyer (and I have known lawyers since my uncle a lawyer was a government minister...and as a teenager played golf with them...and in my career after seminary doing X, y and z I've had dealings with defamation lawyers, criminal lawyers in 3 different western nations..)
I hate to be blunt and honest BUT if no one is paying you to contribute here; ie I assume there is no financial motivation...
Perhaps I could be rude enough to ask:
What on a personal and or emotional/spiritual level motivates your contributions here AND the specific nature of your contributions here? Hmmmm?
Paul:
You ask an excellent question, prompting reflective introspection. But it is a question that could be asked of everyone posting on the Blog.
I am very sorry to hear about your wife’s hospitalization and brain damage. I hope she will make a speedy and full recovery, and I am sure that all of us here will keep both of you in our prayers.
Take care.
Mark J.
rcg – The calculus involved in voting is complex. (I use calculus since I could manage algebra but was flummoxed when, in college, I had to take calculus. I made it through, without demolishing my GPA, by the skin of my teeth.)
When I am choosing among candidates for the Presidency of the United States I look for a person who has a strong vision for the country's future, who knows history and has the ability to put his/her own times in the perspective of history, who has devoted him/herself to service, who has the courage to make unpopular decisions, who has crisis management skills, who has character and integrity, who has an ability to work with Congress, especially a divided Congress these days, and who is a person who will make wise appointments.
That person will listen and allow others to be heard, will value conversations, will encourage healthy conflict, will create an environment of emotional safety, especially for staff and advisors, will have high levels of self-awareness, will empower others, will welcome feedback, and will exhibit loyalty to his/her staff.
The basis for these qualities/qualifications is the four cardinal virtues: Prudence, Temperance, Fortitude, and Justice. An emotionally defective candidate may be tremendously intelligent, but, like Richard Nixon, whose strategic intelligence was exceptional, have emotional perturbations that overshadow and even vitiate any accomplishments. The candidate may have supreme organizational skills. But, like Clinton and LBJ, he/she may be severely impacted by a lack of temperance. (LBJ’s mood swings have been called “vesuvian” and of “clinical proportions.”)
There’s no candidate who can score A+ in all qualifications. In some elections, the differences between/among candidates may be so inconsequential that a choice by coin toss seems reasonable. In other elections, there is a vast chasm separating them.
The nastiness, hatred, as well as lies directed at Father Kavanaugh — God's holy priest — advance Satan's agenda.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark and Fr K,
I have no desire to cancel either of you.
I have obviously never been a professional profiler but I have on occasion had to read people very well with my life at stake.
Regarding motivation of you and Fr K with your contributions here let me suggest the dominant motivation:
Ego.
Fr K sees himself as a sort of erudite southern intellectual more than a priest on this blog. Who, he believes, it is a part of his vocation to share his learning and effortlessly win intellectual debates here on everything from liturgy, literature to leisure activities (which he very rarely achieves) with his mostly almost always inferior to him religiously and politically conservative types...
With you Mark...it is far from all ego ..but ego is a factor -
You like Fr K can nitpick and be pedantic etc but at least when you are pedantic, you remain relevant.
Also, I'd suggest too that what motivates you in part is that you enjoy it and learn occasionally from this blog..
But ego is at times the key motivating factor.
Sophia Here: Yes, several of us on this blog have made multiple attempts to have Fr. K. and Mark (not Mark Thomas) re-examine their support for the Party of Death (Death Party) as Cardinal Burke has so accurately named the Democrat Party because of it's support for more and more abortions at any gestational age and for any reason, in addition to other intrinsic evils such as physician assisted suicide. I have even challenged the frequent reference to conscience, stripped of the qualifier "well-formed" which strips it of it's intended purpose and referenced the associated concepts of "vincible (their situation) and invincible ignorance. It is very difficult to accept that Fr. K. and Mark do not know enough Philosophy ( specifically Logic ), Moral Theology and the Catechism to know all that and the accurate meaning of "proportionate" in the context of abortion! 1/3 of Bishops (Bishop Mc Elroy was one of the ringleaders!) at the USCCB meeting in Nov. 2019 ahead of the 2020 elections revolted and voted against Abortion being the PRE-EMINENT issue. Approximately 50% of Catholics including Mark and Fr. K. voted for candidates who advocate for, and fiercely push policies which are intrinsically evil, when there are most definitely alternative candidates -even on a "lesser of two evils basis"! They were undoubtedly using the loophole provided by the image of "a seamless garment" popularized by the Modernist/Relativist Cardinal Joseph Bernardin when he used it to discuss the Church's "consistent Ethic of life". Everything on that list was presented as if they were morally equivalent to each other. However, this is philosophically (logically) and morally false. There can be no moral equivalency to the direct slaughtering of millions of the most vulnerable, the most innocent of humans- with the consent of their own moms no less! Unfortunately, Pope Francis too, endorsed it ('Seamless garment")in his "Gaudete Et Exsultate". Therefore Pope St. Pius X accurately characterized Modernism as "the synthesis of all heresies" and Pope Benedict XVl of blessed memory, boldly condemned "the dictatorship of Relativism". So yes, Mark and Fr. K. your sophistry, half truths, twisting of facts and distortion of what Pope Benedict XVl meant when he spoke of " proportionate" (the operative word here) reasons to justify your votes represent an exercise of your free will, but certainly not a well-formed conscience. In fact they represent conscience under the influence of vincible ignorance and therefore leading to erroneous judgment. It is no wonder that you dance around and squirm and refuse to answer the very simple question "What are YOUR PROPORTIONATE reasons for voting for extreme pro-abortion candidates?" We all agree that there are PROPORTIONATE reasons just as Pope Benedict XVl has so very clearly stated. But you know full well that your reasons do not meet the "Proportionate" test-they are just reasons- taken from that "seamless garment" list and which cannot come close to abortion, which stands qualitatively, quantitatively and PRE-EMINENTLY above everything else on that list. So I don't blame you for not revealing which ones of those you used! You have kept up this charade for so long, and so fiercely; you have been so obdurate; it must be so excruciatingly difficult to now admit that your position is not tenable and that you have in fact given scandal to some of the many readers of this blog - who of course are not limited to people who post here!
Cont'd
Thank you, Miss Sophia. 😀
That was well done.
Cont'd
This excellent discussion of an example of an actual "PROPORTUNATE" reason was initially posted in January of this year. But since Fr. K. studiously avoided it in his response, I am reposting to give him another opportunity to ponder it!
'Blogger Sophia said...
Sophia here: Fr. K. several of us on this blog, have asked you to share with us what your "proportionate" reason(s) is/are for voting for pro-abortion politicians especially over the last several cycles when they can definitely be characterized as pro-EXTREME abortion politicians. The operative word is "PROPORTIONATE". So of course we knew you did not have any. You merely have reasons (very unreasonable ones I may add!) This is precisely Why the Beloved Faithful, Guardian and Teacher of the perennial Teaching of Holy Mother Church and the Sacred Scriptures condemned "The Tyranny of Relativism" of which this is a prime example.
"Bishop Rene Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas clarifies the teaching of the Church on voting for pro-abortion politicians.
'Since abortion and euthanasia have been defined by the Church as the most serious sins prevalent in our society, what kind of reasons could possibly be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion? None of the reasons commonly suggested could even begin to be proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for such a candidate. Reasons such as the candidate’s position on war, or taxes, or the death penalty, or immigration, or a national health plan, or social security, or aids, or homosexuality, or marriage, or any similar burning societal issues of our time are simply lacking in proportionality.
There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life....'
Cont'd
January 14, 2023 at 9:57 PM Delete
Blogger Sophia said...
Sophia here: 'Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.
The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.
The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry).
Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and votes for legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils which is morally permissible under these circumstances.
Of course, the Catholic voter could choose not to vote. But that would be a serious abdication of the Catholic voter’s civic and moral obligation to participate in the election. By not voting the Catholic voter could well be assisting in the election of candidate (A, Kerry) and while that would not carry the same guilt as formal participation in candidate (A, Kerry’s) support of abortion-on-demand it would still be sinful, even if only a sin of omission.
Those Catholic voters who love moral absolutes would have no choice but to vote for candidate (C, Peroutka), but those Catholics who recognize that in the real world it is sometimes necessary to choose the lesser of two evils in order to prevent greater harm – in this case harm to innocent unborn children would vote for candidate (B, Bush).'
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6159'
Sophia, like TJM and others, you do not believe proportionate reasons exist. What is the purpose of explaining my rationale for voting when, like, TJM, you will, out of hand and without considering them, dismiss them ?
Asking for explanations when you cannot hear them is a "charade."
Sophia here: Paul, I just saw that your dear wife is hospital with a tragic diagnosis of brain injury. May Jesus Himself, the greatest Healer of all -of body and soul-direct her medical team. And May he comfort her, you and the entire family as you face this very difficult challenge. I shall say a Rosary tonight for these intentions.
Paul:
Well, of course you are correct. Some element of ego is involved. But I have to wonder: Is there anyone who posts here of whom this is not true?
Sophia:
I appreciate your passion about the issue of abortion. But you are way off base in depicting my thinking about proportionate reasons. I have explained my thinking in the same January exchange to which you refer as well as in other exchanges, and I will not now follow you in repeating all that here. But perhaps you should go back and look again to see just how far off base you are.
As for giving scandal, you should know me well enough by now to know that this possibility would indeed have troubled me in addressing the fraught issue of abortion on this Blog. And it is one important reason why I have always been very careful to emphasize that I would like to see a world in which abortion is an unthinkable option and why I try to remain faithful to the language of the USCCB document Faithful Citizenship when discussing the matter of voting. I hope, and believe, that it does not give scandal to urge readers of this Blog to be guided by that document, which they can read for themselves as they decide how to cast their vote conscientiously, or to suggest that my own interpretation of the USCCB guidelines does not require me to vote for, say, Donald Trump should he again become the Republican nominee for president, to put matters bluntly! For that is what your position boils down to in practice because you reject any possibility of conscientiously voting for the only candidate who has a chance of defeating him. I could not in good conscience vote for Trump, but I fully accept that you in good conscience could vote for him, and I would never attack you for doing so as you have attacked me here. Anything negative I have said about Trump on this Blog was not intended to disparage those who vote for him, just to defend my not voting for him but for his defeat.
I can’t help but believe that proportionate reasons is at the root of the sex abuse scandal in the Church and yes, the political scandal in the Church, not to mention every other scandal in the Church.
Why did some cardinals, bishops, clergy and laity support Adolph Hitler, because of proportionate reasons—he did do some good as did Mussolini.
Why did bishops reassign priests guilty of serious sexual abuse after so-called rehabilitation, because of the good they did in celebrating the sacraments and in other ways.
Why do people vote for the Democrat party candidate? Because of the good they do despite the fact they advocate for the murder of children even up to and after a full term life of a womb-baby and after a full term birth but botched abortion. They also support euthanasia and assisted suicide. But what the heck, they support the poor, migrants and programs to help those who were not aborted.
Why do people support President Trump and may well re-elect him, because of the good he did and they don’t believe that sexual sins, even the mortal ones, are relevant to a person’s ability to lead even lies are tolerated if a good is being accomplished.
Original sin has led to a grave corruption of people who are of good will in many areas but blind to the horrors that their candidates and political parties promote.
Fr. ALLAN McDonald - I am not "blind" when it comes to voting. That is a gross oversimplification of the issues involved, implying that people are ill-informed or wholly uninformed regarding the candidates they choose for office.
I don't agree with your proposition that people supported Hitler for "proportionate" reasons. I think in many cases that support was based on fear. They feared what would happen to them, to their families, their businesses, their communities if they did not toe the Nazi party line. They knew of the horrors being carried out, but did not have the courage to stand up to Nazism given what such a stand would cost them.
Bishops failed to act appropriately when abusive priests were known to them because they feared what might be the outcome. Their own weaknesses might be known, parishes would be devastated, lawsuits would be extremely costly. I don't think many (any?) of them thought, "Well, he's done good work in the past, so I won't remove him from ministry."
Fr K Orwell has been exposed. No sentient person is buying his lame excuses. There are no proportionate reasons to just casting a vote for pure evil - he is a State worshipper who votes for the Party of Moloch which world 24/7 to destroy the unborn and enslave the rest of us - sorry excuse for a priest
Works not world
TJM - Your support for the sexual harassment and abuse of women is showing... You have been exposed, there is no reason to vote for that evil as you do. You support destroying women and enslaving the rest of us to your perversions.
But, like TJM he and you have proportionate reasons for voting as you do. Birds of a feather I would say. Thanks for CONFIRMING my point in my comment above!
fr. ALLAN McDonald - There can be NO proportionate reasons for voting to support sexual harassment and abuse of women. You know that...
DUH! And neither can you vote for a party that supports genocidal abortion laws. Again, thanking for supporting my original comment. Murder or sexual harassment, let me see….
I am perplexed. Why are others in this this conversation not directly addressing what would seem to be one of the most relevant documents, if not indeed the most relevant document, by which we should be guided in voting—-the USCCB document “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States"? What am I missing?
Faithful Citizen is a concoction of the USCCB and a committee that wrote it. It is a guideline which Catholics can take or leave. It’s a little bit below a papal opinion in terms of authority. It definitely isn’t infallible and is subject to change.
Thank you for that, FrMcDonald. I will stick with Pope St JP II & Pope Benedict XVI.
Catechist Kev:
That’s fine and I have absolutely no problem with it. What I do have a problem with is how many here seek to impose their own view on everyone else.
Regarding the USCCB document, Father McDonald says that Catholics can take it or leave it. I choose to take it because, as I understand it, it seeks to interpret, and apply to voting in the United States, various authoritative sources including those you mention—-sources that I alone do not feel competent to interpret and apply correctly. The question then becomes whether I or anyone else is wrong or “causes scandal” by doing so and by suggesting that the USCCB document can guide others in conscientious voting.
So, let me ask directly,
Father McDonald: Am I wrong to rely on the USCCB document? Do I cause scandal by doing so, or by recommending the USCCB document to others? And if I so, why is the document distributed to the laity ahead of elections for their guidance?
Fr. ALLAN McDonald, Faithful Citizenship (FC) is not a "concoction." Nor is it something a Catholic can "take or leave."
FC presents the Church's doctrinal understanding of moral teaching as concerns the duty of American's to participate in the processes of our democracy. FC cites the Catechism of the Catholic Church 4 times and the Compendium of the Social doctrine of the Church twice. It references 3 encyclicals of Pope Francis, 3 encyclicals of Pope Benedict, 3 encyclicals of Saint Pope John Paul II, 1 encyclical of Saint Pope John XXIII, Gaudium et Spes, the Doc- trinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life. In Readings on Catholics in Political Life, and Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, 2003.
Catholics cannot "take or leave" the Church's doctrine when that doctrine is presented in a source other than that which is infallible. Such a claim is ludicrous.
Mark, it’s a guideline and as such you may follow it or you may critique it and seek other authoritative teachings, either from individual bishops or theologians or from various popes.
I do question proportionality when it comes to a part that completely endorses the genocide of children in the womb and even after a birth. Democrats have devolved in their concern for the poor, the unborn the poorest of the poor, to the point of a desire that abortions be legal, safe and rare, to the grusome partial birth abortion and murdering a child that lives a botched abortion.
To proportionality can accept that or then you are led into believing you can accept dictators or dictatorial political parties, like Communism, that do some good things but destroy their enemies, Stalin having had murdered more people than Hitler did.
Speaking of sexual immorality, and the peccadilloes of Clinton and Trump, even to the point of breaking the law, and let’s face it Clinton allowed young intern to have sex with him under his desk, meaning a subordinate, which could be a crime or should be, but this isn’t platform desire of the Democrats to legalize it and make it safe but rare.
Now this is just my pious opinion, but i have come to the conclusion that the Democrat Party as it concerns abortion and the sexual teachings of the Catholic Church in terms of gender and sexual morality, has become a hate group against Catholicism, similar to the KKK and the Masons and in a perfect world and Church, Catholics should be forbidden from supporting this party and we are forbidden to join or support other hate groups like the KKK, neo Nazis and fascists.
The synod on the synod and the German Synodal Way disagrees with you as do I, but I do listen to you and am inclusive of your beliefs and your truth.
"Proportionality" is not a "concoction" of the USCCB's document Faithful Citizenship. It is a well-established principle that is taken from classic Catholic moral theology.
No one here is using proportionality to "endorse the genocide of children in the womb and even after a birth."
Mark, you are in no way wrong for follwoing "Faithful Citizenship" or recommending it to others.
Father McDonald:
Thank you for your reply. Focusing for the moment just on the issue of abortion, what difference, if any, does it make for voting in federal elections that since the Dobbs decision we now live in a post-Roe and post-Casey world, and if one judges that realistically the Democrats are highly unlikely to “pack” the Supreme Court to produce a reversal of Dobbs and that realistically neither party will likely be able to enact congressional legislation banning or permitting abortion (assuming, as is probably the case, Congress has constitutional authority to do so)?
Zzzzzzzzzz....
Let's try this again. The five non-negotiables are at the top of the list, morally speaking, when forming one's conscience to vote.
*All* of those issues: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic/stem cell research, cloning and so-called same-gender "marriage" are on the Biden party platform. Every one. They are intrinsically evil.
After the non-negotiable issues, Catholics can agree to disagree on how to best take care of other issues: immigration, just war, the death penalty (suddenly now "inadmissible" - whatever that means), etc.
I've read through parts of "Faithful Citizenship" and, as Miss Sophia puts it, it is more of the "seamless garment" confusion.
Father McDonald said..."Now this is just my pious opinion, but i have come to the conclusion that the Democrat Party as it concerns abortion and the sexual teachings of the Catholic Church in terms of gender and sexual morality, has become a hate group against Catholicism, similar to the KKK and the Masons and in a perfect world and Church, Catholics should be forbidden from supporting this party and we are forbidden to join or support other hate groups like the KKK, neo Nazis and fascists."
Fathers McDonald, and Kavanaugh:
Suppose a bishop declared that within his diocese, support for the Democratic Party constituted a mortal sin. Would such a bishop have acted legitimately?
Thank you.
=============================================================================
Father McDonald's above comment triggered the following memory:
In 2003 A.D., in regard to the then-pending invasion into Iraq:
https://www.centerforchristiannonviolence.org/sites/default/files/media/resources/actionAgainstViolence/Pastoral_Letter_Iraq_War.pdf
Romanian Catholic Diocese of Canton
Office of the Bishop
Most Reverend Bishop John Botean
March 7, 2003
"Direct participation in this war is the moral equivalent of direct participation in an abortion.
"For the Catholics of the Eparchy of St. George, I hereby authoritatively state that such direct participation is intrinsically and gravely evil and therefore absolutely forbidden.
"Therefore I, by the grace of God and the favor of the Apostolic See Bishop of the Eparchy of St. George in Canton, must declare to you, my people, for the sake of your salvation as well as my own, that any direct participation and support of this war against the people of Iraq is objectively grave evil, a matter of mortal sin.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt this war is morally incompatible with the Person and Way of Jesus Christ. With moral certainty I say to you it does not meet even the minimal standards of the Catholic just war theory."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Catechist Kev:
“I've read through parts of ‘Faithful Citizenship’ and, as Miss Sophia puts it, it is more of the ‘seamless garment’ confusion.”
Thank you for reading parts of “Faithful Citizenship.” I assume those parts include the sections and pages I referenced. I respect your judgment about the document, but I do not share it, so we will have to agree to disagree about it. Moreover, there are other “intrinsic evils” that you do not list. Could this be because they are supported, directly or indirectly, by the Republican Party, particularly in its current Trumpian form?
Father K Orwell,
Yet you support the Kennedys, Bill Horndog Clintoon, and Groper Biden. Although evil, this conduct does constitute intrinsic evils - epic fail on your part. You are imperiling your immortal soul. Did you attend the “Pride” Event at the White House? Many of the Dems brainless shills were there. Still no example of a “proportionate reason” to justify a vote for the Party that fundraises on the glories of slaughtering the unborn and mutilation of children?
My impression is that much of the debate about abortion (and indeed much else besides) is conducted in abstractions and is out of touch with reality. So, it might be helpful to get concrete to reveal some of the complexities involved in the real world. I have just read the following article about the situation in Texas and would be interested in knowing how others react to it. In particular, and assuming the report of her case in the second half of the article is accurate, what would you say to Lauren Miller? How does Catholic teaching apply to this sort of factual scenario, relatively rare though it might be?
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/06/23/texas-abortion-dobbs-roe-overturn/
Fr Kavanaugh, thank you for your response and please accept my apologies for not replying sooner as I have been occupied with family issues that turned out well but needed my uninterrupted attention.
Using your system of algebra is a good idea because, in its most basic form, the algorithm gives a structure for evaluating the combined merits of a political party or candidate. In the form of A(B+C…) the coefficient ‘A’ has the leverage of multiplying or offsetting the sum in the parenthesis. So if there is a platform that contains a plank that affects each and every other plank then it should be promoted to the coefficient. It is probably safe, for example, to do this for the salient acts of Herod, Commodus, Pope Alexander, etc., whose ‘good’ acts, if they can be found, amounted to little more than the minimum expected of their duties amplified only by the power of their position rather than a motivation to do ‘good’. If we hold Herod in contempt for the slaughter of the innocents we simultaneously discount, through the algorithmic process, all of his ‘good’ acts in unifying Palestine under Roman rule. Would his actions be more acceptable if he had convinced the women of Palestine to destroy their own infants? Would this have established a moral remoteness to the satisfaction of St Thomas Aquinas? Would the distance be increased if the variables ‘B’, ‘C’…. represented improved economic or social standing? Is the value of a woman increased by her sexual usefulness coupled to her economic value as a worker or executive rather than as a mother? If a woman needed to supply the variables in the parentheses it is difficult for me to understand how she could be valued for supplying tolerance, friendship, collegiality, thrift, nurture, and compassion to everyone but her own child. The political parties that champion abortion as a choice for a woman to consider are delivering that concept embedded in a distorted view of a woman’s worth and value not only to enslave the individual woman as a concubine to the state but displace responsibility for that decision to the woman in the most cowardly way possible.
I have gone on to long, so will stop here. But I feel that I should address what I consider the false dilemma of three candidates and their electability. You may beat me about the head and shoulders now. 😉
rcg - Mercifully, human reasoning isn't bound to or bounded by algorithmic processes.
Taking the qualifications I suggested in toto, I concluded that Trump was almost completely unqualified to hold the office of the Presidency. In the last election, in my judgment, the comparison was not even close. Others came to a different conclusion, and although I disagree with them, I respect their choice. No beatings shall commence...
It was said then written:
Let the dead go bury the dead.
2023:
99% of the those spiritually dead yet are not physically dead have never had any real Large problem with voting for those VIP (very important @#$%s ...sorry: politicians) who have since 1973 and before had Very Little if not 1% Problem with the burial of those Holy innocents who 99% to 100% of the time should by any proportion Rule perhaps not be or not have Bean terminated...
Sorry, words not crunching numbers were always my better forte...
2023: those who can with numbers etc ie with proportioninality etc and with the little or big man (or person) Reasonable Standard go vote for Demonocrats in US of A in any future fair election can and may go to Hell...
QED?
Zzzzzzz....
Hey! Was that U Fr K?
rcg – I understand the point that you are making about the mental process of decision-making having similarities with solving algebraic equations. Algebraic equations involve comparing elements on the left-hand side of the equal sign with those on the right-hand side. If there is an imbalance, then a “greater than” or “less than” operator replaces the equal sign. Decision-making with voting involves weighing factors for and against a candidate similar to balancing an equation. If Candidate A holds a pro-abortion position, then application of proportionate reasoning allows voting for Candidate A only when there are at least equivalent morally grave reasons associated with Candidate B on the other side of the equation. You have articulated well the intrinsic evil of abortion and the burden placed on the voter who is inclined to vote for the pro-abortion candidate.
Lake Bathurst is not Bathurst, NSW, where they have car races...like the famous Bathurst 500.
Lake Bathurst P10 maybe may be on via from Goulburn to Braidwood....then down the mountain a bit to go fishing in Batemans not Bat man's Bay.
Surnames are funny things indeed.
Take the P10 (not P3) crowd there...
Kirkton - a Church.
Kirton - you can spend a life time slowly spelling it for some people.
Curtin - a former PM; don't get me started on the 2 types of Irish Curtins...
Kirwans - I have no idea...
Curtis family - country cousins - big landowners around Wagga, Junee and Adelong (we visited them as kids from Sydney ..
But a Father or Brother Curtis at an Abbey no longer a Seminary (the seed bed seminarians there sent to Argentina for some unknown reasons...)
Now The Name Curtis..just could be of Portuguese origins like Cortez..or something?
Anyway an Abbey and Pauline...no! A small Abbey and Parish just down the Road from Goulburn just may be maybe where I'm heading to day today or Wednesday at the latest.
Until I reach Nowra, Kangaroo Valley or a little boat with a fisherman named Peter Rocco off Ulladulla...for a well earned re tyre ment.
PS post scripts...Paul's scripts:
I always meant well...
Signing off with:
The Band's
Last Waltz.
The nocte they drove old Dixie down...
To "Another Country"
Probably Port Moresby..who knows?
MM a Military Medal to all here.
At a Syd Uni Registment bar with the cheapest drinks if not free: circa 4 plus decades of Roses ago..
We may have some higher things for you, my lad.
Lake Bathurst is not Bathurst, NSW, where they have car races...like the famous Bathurst 500.
Lake Bathurst P10 maybe may be on via from Goulburn to Braidwood....then down the mountain a bit to go fishing in Batemans not Bat man's Bay.
Surnames are funny things indeed.
Take the P10 (not P3) crowd there...
Kirkton - a Church.
Kirton - you can spend a life time slowly spelling it for some people.
Curtin - a former PM; don't get me started on the 2 types of Irish Curtins...
Kirwans - I have no idea...
Curtis family - country cousins - big landowners around Wagga, Junee and Adelong (we visited them as kids from Sydney ..
But a Father or Brother Curtis at an Abbey no longer a Seminary (the seed bed seminarians there sent to Argentina for some unknown reasons...)
Now The Name Curtis..just could be of Portuguese origins like Cortez..or something?
Anyway an Abbey and Pauline...no! A small Abbey and Parish just down the Road from Goulburn just may be maybe where I'm heading to day today or Wednesday at the latest.
Until I reach Nowra, Kangaroo Valley or a little boat with a fisherman named Peter Rocco off Ulladulla...for a well earned re tyre ment.
PS post scripts...Paul's scripts:
I always meant well...
Signing off with:
The Band's
Last Waltz.
The nocte they drove old Dixie down...
To "Another Country"
Probably Port Moresby..who knows?
MM a Military Medal to all here.
At a Syd Uni Registment bar with the cheapest drinks if not free: circa 4 plus decades of Roses ago..
We may have some higher things for you, my lad.
Post a Comment