Ratzinger: Catholics can vote Democrat!

On Ratzinger Quote

Comment added by cda on Thu 26 Aug 2004 - 07:03 h

I think the interpretation of Ratzinger's words may not be accurate.

Ratzinger is quoted as saying, "When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."

Then the quoted source gives the following interpretation: "In other words, if a Catholic thinks a candidate’s positions on other issues outweigh the difference on abortion, a vote for that candidate would not be considered sinful."

However, "outweighing positions on other issues" does not equal "proportionate reasons." At the very least, such an interpretation is questionable. We should not be so quick to claim Ratzinger as an authority. If I remember correctly, he basically rubber-stamped that whole communion-ban on pro-choice candidates thing in a memo to Cardinal McCarrik.

First, proportionate reasons may have nothing to do with other issues and may be only circumstantial. For example, it may be the case that both candidates are pro-choice, in which case one may vote for a pro-choice candidate on the basis that that candidate opposes partial birth abortion (whereas the other does not). Or it may be the case that there is a three-way (or more) race in which the only pro-life candidate is a third-party long-shot (maybe he is a former KKK member or something?). Voting for the long-shot may engender a victory for the "abortion-on-demand" candidate. As such, one may have "proportionate reason" to vote for the other "moderate" pro-choice candidate.

Second, to "outweigh" abortion and/or euthanasia, an issue would have to be on the same level qualitatively. Abortion and euthanasia are both considered "intrinsic" evils. Only other "intrinsic" evils are even going to be comparable to these. For example, it may happen that one candidate is against abortion but for euthanasia and another is against euthasia but for abortion. As such, one may have proportionate reason to vote for a candidate even though that candidate supports an intrinsic evil.

No simple sum of "extrinsic" things, however good, are ever going to be "proportionate" to an intrinsic evil for such people. And I think that, for Ratzinger, neither war nor the death penalty (most other things probably don't come close) are considered intrinsically evil. So "proportionate reasons" may mean simply "pro-life reasons."

reply to this comment

John 3:16 "For God so loved t

Comment added by Unregistered on Wed 11 Aug 2004 - 07:44 h

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." 1-John 1:1 "That which was from the beginning, ....Word of life" --Romans 3:8 "Let us do evil that good may result"?" NO.

reply to this comment

Bushilics?? Please, and you call us hate mongers

Comment added by Unregistered on Sun 1 Aug 2004 - 11:25 h

The so called "Bushilics" are not angry about the decision of the Bishops. We are happy that they actually took a stand. We are happy that if a Bishop wishes to make the decision to not give candidate Kerry communion they can do so, or they don't have to. One of the problems that Mr Kerry has in my opinion with the church is that he is publically defying the Catechism and making excuses that he represents all these consituants. He is not a policeman. He does not have an obligation to force people to follow the laws of the land, and frankly if he thinks that the law is a bad one, he does have the option of trying to change it. He hasn't done that. That is the reason that us so called "Bushilics" and you so nice and polite Kerry people are disagreeing. I believe that President Bush has made a sincere effort to reduce abortion, to get judges placed that were more pro life friendly, and that if he had the chance to have a supreme court justice that was prolife on the bench.. we would have him/her. That reminds me of the tax rebates, if he thought they were so awful which he has stated, why didn't he give his back to the middle working class?

reply to this comment

Abortion

Comment added by Unregistered on Tue 27 Jul 2004 - 23:19 h

My wife and I appreciate this website. We were actually looking for a way to share our disappointment with Joe SCABorough (r left out intentionally) when we came across this discussion.
We have been so hurt by the notion that Catholics "can't" vote for Kerry. Not because U.S. bishops say it is a sin-they are subject to human frailty and being political like all of us-but because we felt like we were the only Catholics who understood the harm in voting for Bush solely on the abortion issue. My wife is part of a group at church where all the women seem content with voting for Bush because he is anti-abortion even though his position is morally inconsistent-as Ron Reagan so eloquently emphasized.
This past weekend I was infuriated by a 2 sided letter from the U.S. Bishops that was enclosed in every bulletin. The letter intrinsicly said as Catholics we can't vote for Kerry because he was not anti-abortion and we would be participating in an evil if we did. I was proud of the fact that Catholics were sharing their political views, but I was shocked that all that was addressed was abortion. I was looking for the 3rd and 4th pages that would address the Catholic stance on capital punishment, preemptive war, affirmative action, tax cuts, stem-cell research, same sex marriages.
IT IS UNBELIEVABLE THAT APOSTOLIC LEADERS OF THE CHURCH ARE NOT DEEPLY TROUBLED BY TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY AND A WAR FUELED BY REVENGE AND WRATH. ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE U.S. BISHOPS ARE TELLING ME IS THAT THEY ARE TOO FAR RIGHT OF THE VATICAN AND DO NOT REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO SERVE IN AMERICA.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS, IF U.S. BISHOPS WANT TO DISCUSS ABORTION AND PERSONAL CHOICES ADDRESS DIVORCE, SHACKING UP, SAME SEX MARRIAGE, CHILD MOLESTATION, STEM CELL RESEARCH, IN VITRO FERTILIZATION.
IF U.S. BISHOPS WANT TO MAKE PRO-CHOICE A LEGAL AND MORALE CAUSE TO BE DEALT WITH, DON'T FORGET CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, WAR, WOMENS RIGHTS, AND HUMAN RIGHTS.
Thanks Cardinal Ratzinger for your vote of confidence so I won't be refused communion for the next 100 days while I vote for Kerry. We would rather have sacrificed 100 days than 4 more years of seven deadly sins with Bush.

reply to this comment

On the Pastoral Letter

Comment added by WilliamSB on Sun 1 Aug 2004 - 08:29 h

I am so glad you found this website supportive. There are others like it on the web, and public communication of Catholic support for John Kerry continues to grow.

I am curious what Pastoral Letter you are talking about from the USCCB. I suspect you are discussing the Pastoral Letter, Catholics in Political Life. If so, I do not have a problem with the substance of that Pastoral Letter.

The statement does not address whether or not a Catholic can vote for Kerry. In fact, the statement issues a strong warning that... "The polarizing tendencies of election-year politics can lead to circumstances in which Catholic teaching and sacramental practice can be misused for political ends."

This Pastoral Letter unquestionably affirms the dignity of the human person and the obligation of government towards the common good in upholding the right to life for everyone, including the pre-born. It also reminds the faithful of the sacredness of the Sacrament, and the need to receive the Sacrament worthily. I have no problem with either of those affirmations.

Essentially, this Pastoral Letter makes a strong statement about moral teaching and the sacredness of the Sacrament without issueing any public condemnation of persons. That is a prudent response to the controversy that has been brewing this year.

I think the right-wing Busholics actually have more to be angry about in this document than we do. Busholics were anticipating that the USCCB, in this document, would unequivocally and unanimously issue a public condemnation of Senator John Kerry and bar him from the Sacrament. Guess what... it aint goin' to happen. Such an action would be neither pastoral nor prudent. And it would involve the Bishops claiming for themselves the responsibility, that rightfully belongs to the lay-Faithful, of engaging in the realm of civil affairs.

As it stands now, Busholics are left spinning this document to make it proclaim the kind of condemnation they anticipated from it. That makes me wonder, though. If we cannot count on honesty and credibility from those who work at the grassroots, how could we ever expect it from our government?

reply to this comment