Faithful Citizenship and the Catholic Vote.
If Obama wins on November 4 with the help of Catholic voters, the biggest factor in his favor will be the bishops' own document and Web site, "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship."
I never thought it likely that Catholic voters could be persuaded to support a candidate with both the most extreme record on abortion and who favors gay marriage. Yet, barring a miracle, that paradox is only a week away: The New York Times is reporting Obama 22 points ahead among Catholic voters. [article]
I wouldn't put it on the USCCB doc at all. The USCCB could have published Faithful Citizenship with one line saying "Abortion is the preeminent issue of our time." and they would still have found wiggle room with a Clintonesque meaning of "is". Like Vatican II we have a "spirit of Faithful Citizenship." It does not matter what the totality of a document says, they will strip it out of context.
The main things about many dissenters is that they are basically liars. For example Fr. Reese, S.J. recently saying "Democrats are finally emphasizing that it should be rare" when they actually stripped "rare" from their platform and made a stronger statement supporting abortion "rights". Sure sometimes they are just mistaken and pass on something that somebody else said. Often though dissenters just lie to our face and expect us to accept what they say. So many dishonest things are said that it is hard to find a charitable explanation. No doubt some read a document and interpret them through their own lens and actually think it says what they say it says. That is always a danger for everyone. Mainly though they ignore strong statements and grasp at straws. Look at what they have done to scripture? So can we be surprised what they do this to a USCCB document.
As to Faithful Citizenship itself it certainly is not without flaws. It is way to wordy, long and, repetitive. Obviously written by a committee and not having a strong editor to clean it up. Though that is kind of the nature of USCCB documents in the first place. It does though have some of the clearer statements on abortion and that it is not just one issue of many and it much better than the documents released in 2000 and 2004.
Somebody who understands how horrific an evil abortion is, is not going to read Faithful Citizenship and say "Wow, I guess I can vote for Obama if I want to." People who are willing to overlook abortion, ESCR, euthanasia, cloning, and homosexual marriage are not likely to be swayed by a USCCB document anyway.
Besides how many average people in the pew have actually read Faithful Citizenship anyway. Or in fact any USCCB document. I have never seen a bishop's document passed out or on a table as you enter a church. Sure wonks such as myself read all the documents coming out of the Vatican and USCCB, but surely this is not common. Probably the average Catholic knowledge on these documents is often third hand if at all. So I think blaming the Faithful Citizenship is a bit of hyperbole.
Though I must admit I applauded when Bishop Morlino said "The USCCB doesn't speak for me." The problem with all bishop's conferences is that they are a created structure and really have no theological justification. Like pretty much all committees you end up taking weaker positions in the name of collegiality. For the USCCB the abuse scandal was about anything but Bishop's who helped enable abusers. Nobody was surprised when the USCCB said it was up to each bishop to decide whether to withhold Communion from pro-abortion politicians. The USCCB can easily become a scapegoat, but Bishop Morlino was right in multiple ways. It is the local ordinary who is the official teacher for his diocese. Sometimes it seems to me that we have bishops conferences so that individual bishops can avoid making tough decisions. Thank God that more and more bishops are taking seriously their role as shepherd and are speaking out. Though there have been some great statements coming from the USCCB recently. This is due though to individual bishops part of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities. This Secretariat has been there for a long time and never managed to make a statement against a pro-abortion candidate until now.
So certainly there are things we can complain about the USCCB on, but we also give it more credit for what it can do than it deserves.
Known as 
Wiggle, twist, and turn. Exactly what they disallow unborn babies from doing.
I disagree. The vagueness has been exploited, and an excerted version appears in every bulletin around the country. And the liberal priests and 'lay ministers' exploit the holes... That were INTENTIONALLY placed there with the very intent of allowing exploitation.
If Obama wins the USCCB bares staggering responsibility. And the blood of the 300,000 babies that will be killed by federal funding being restored for abortion by executive order will be on their hands. And the demolishing of the pro-life movement will be on their hands
The best friend a pro-death politician has is the usccb. Judas' betrayal only killed one man. The bishops have betrayed us with their equivication, and will kill millions per year. God help us all.
Besides how many average people in the pew have actually read Faithful Citizenship anyway.
I think Deal's point is that the document is vague enough to allow members of Catholic officialdom, e.g., chancery dissidents, to create an air of legitimacy to Obama's campaign that people in the pew would breathe in, so to speak.
Luke,
"The vagueness has been exploited"
I don't think the language on abortion and euthanasia is that vague at all. Though it has certainly been exploited. I could easily teach a class on Catholic voting using Faithful Citizenship only and it would be quite orthodox. Dissenters find "holes" even in scripture.
I agree with your above comment, Jeff.
Most Catholics don't read Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship. Most Catholics don't even read the one page summary of it thoughtfully printed by the USCCB for parish distribution. Period.
I can assign such documents in my classes and I *still* can't force them to read them. Sure, I give them a test and they may well fail. But I can't make them read.
So Obama leading among Catholics can't really be blamed on Faithful Citizenship (which I think is a solid document, sorry folks). It has a lot more to do with the teaching office of the Church needing different tactics than simply posting small theological treatises on their website. And maybe these past few months have awakened some of the leadership to the Sisyphus task of challenging the culture of death...especially within the nooks and crannies of our minds and consciences.
I'm confused here.
So, it's wrong when progressives oppose and demonstrate contempt for the bishops, but it is OK when self-described traditionalists also continually berate and attack them?
See, the problem is that such political Catholics have so often attacked the shepherds of the Church that they have ZERO influence beyond their own circle of political Catholics who fancy themselves to be part of the Catholic elite in DC and NY.
Bender,
It is wrong when people oppose the bishops when they are teaching the truth of what the Church teaches. Progressives get upset when the Church teaches what she believes. Faithful Catholics get upset when people teach what is contrary to the truth of the Church. Quite a difference.
The faithful have every right to complain if a bishop is not teaching the truth.
Canon 212
n accord with the knowledge, competence and preeminence which they possess, they have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard for the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration of the common good and dignity of persons.
Ah yes, good old Canon 212. Always good to have a legalistic tool to justify what you want to do in any event. Especially us Americans -- always being sure to demand our "rights." Because that is what the Church is all about correct, asserting our rights?
Of course, progressives can resort to it as well as anyone else. Of course, traditionalists can also play the progressives' "conscience" card when the "laity have a right" card does not persuade.
No. It is wrong when progressives do it. It is wrong when self-proclaimed traditionalists, who are little more than political Catholics (Deal Hudson) do it. Continually trashing the shepherds of the Church -- those who are the Successors of the Apostles, those whom Christ Himself has chosen, those whom are sealed with the Holy Spirit -- is wrong, no matter who does it. And we cannot simply fall on "we have a right to express our opinion" when all we are really doing is engaging in malicious dissent, but calling it a different name.
Do people really know people whose voting decisions are influenced by the USCCB?
I've often wondered if pro-Obama Catholics could be acting in good (yet woefully erroneous) faith. Could they actually believe the words they say? Is what looks like deliberate twisting really misunderstanding on their part?
The Knights for Obama site makes me think yes, as hard to believe as it may sound. If they really were devious people intent on twisting documents away from what they understood to be its intended meaning, then surely they would be twisting their Supreme Knight's words instead of openly defying him.
I'm beginning to think the bishops, unlike the Supreme Knight of Columbus, are a bit too nuanced for Joe average. If such is the case, the only fault of the USCCB is in giving us too much credit.
The comment about USCCB document didn't sit well with me. Those who want to will pervert the truth to justify their opinions and actions. Think of all the people who insist that wars were "caused" by the Bible. People fight all the time using Bible quotes to justify their actions, but the truth is the truth and can't be the cause of someone's sin. Evil doesn;t come from truth; rejection of truth leads to awful offenses.
I am convinced that liberals with good intentions are simply sick. Liberalism, New Age-ism, relativism, and secular humanism have so many side-effects (blindness and deafness being two of them) that they must be spiritual illnesses. Many prayers are in order. Spiritual blinders can fall away in an instant, by God's grace.
About a week ago I spoke to a dear devote strongly pro-life Catholic lady who is voting for Obama. Please understand it is hard for those who are life-long Democrats, fed a pack of lies and exagerations about Republicans (rich, selfish, etc). Pray for them. If Obama please God may it not be ) becomes president they will need our support. He will sign the "Freedon of Choice Act" and will apoint monsters to the courts. Honest Catholics will understand they did not do enough (me to). Thank God that our bishops have never been more clear. This purgation is bearing fruit in a purer Church.
The blood of the martyrs are the seeds of the Church.
"The faithful have every right to complain if a bishop is not teaching the truth." -- have you ever done this and received any sort of a response?
There is a difference between trashing our bishops and stating our grievances. I have seen many "progressives" flat out reject bishops, calling them ideologues, etc., and bad mouth them. I have seen faithful Catholics express dismay over the actions of our bishops. In my opinion, if one is truly a "faithful Catholic" they may disagree, but they will do so respectfully.
During the Iconoclastic heresy in the 500s-600s, most of the bishops of the East were Iconoclasts (being, in essence, stooges of the Emperor). It was the lay and religious faithful that remained true, and sought to convert the minds and hearts of the bishops.
Matthew, that is the fruit of documents like faithful citizenship. The words might as well be written in blood.
John Paul II, Christifideles Laici 38:
The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds 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.
I certainly don't agree with the sentiments of Bender that equate criticizing a USCCB document for a vagueness that permits its abuse (a legitimate concern), with dissenting from settled Church teaching provided by the Bishops.
The point of the former is that genuine Church teaching is being poorly communicated by committees that are not part of the Church's divine constitution.
The point of the latter is that I know the mind of Christ better than the shepherds He consecrated to teach me.
These are apples and oranges . . . or perhaps apples and sour grapes.
Jeff,
If I'm not mistaken, it was Bishop Martino of Scranton who said that "Faithful Citizenship" does not speak for him. It shouldn't...he wasn't present when it was crafted.
Cardinal Egan:www.catholicnewsagency.com comparing supporting abortion and Nazis.Exactly!
I look forward to the day when bishops do as (I think his name is) Martino from Scranton did and had his pastoral letter on abortion and the election read by every priest in every parish on a particular Sunday. This used to be the common practice when I was growing up and seems to have fallen into disuse in these post-Vatican II glory days. This would restore the bishop to his rightful place as chief teacher of the faith in his jurisdiction and render obsolete the dumb pronouncements from the USCCB which no one reads (as a deacon I've never read one of them).
One final observation...next Tuesday after I cast my vote for president of the United States, I will be able to look down at my hands and know that there is no blood of the innocent unborn on them. I expect to sleep well that night.
FWIW, the IBD Poll shows Catholics 44/44 with 12 undecided as of yesterday.
POEM: THE SHADOWS OF THIS THREE MONUMENTS WILL GROW ON THE SEA’S HORIZON, AS THE SUN SETS BEHIND THE COASTAL MOUNTAINS…
The light may diminish now, but will grow again tomorrow and will dawn historians record (as with the slaves’ treatment or Holocaust victims), on the inescapable responsibility of the USCCB in:
1) USA abortion lawmakers (dozens of them!) being allowed by the USCCB to use the name Catholic to murder. Oh yes, many bishops did talk the talk BUT NOT walk the walk of excommunicating them, so –IN FACT- misleading MILLIONS of Catholics.
2) The MEGA-SCANDAL of them sacrilegiously receiving the Eucharist in the Papal Mass at DC, and the USCCB refusing to take responsibility in this horrendous –and massive- desecration of the Holy Body of Christ.
3) The Obaminator’ campaign being permitted by the USCCB to… dress their WOLFS UNDER SHEEP SKINS with these loopholes in “"Faithful Citizenship":
A) Stating that Catholics are allowed to vote for a supporter of abortion rights so long as they do not intend to support that position.
B) That there are offsetting "morally grave reasons".
Enough to provide the Obaminator's “Catholic” supporters, the escape clauses needed to convince that they could vote for a pro-abortion candidate in "good conscience", and dismiss the pro-life concern as "single-issue" or "divisive" and "partisan."
IN SHORT
THERE IS NO WAY HISTORY WILL ERASE THE BLOOD IN THEIR HANDS: JUST MEASURE what situation we would have now, if the USCCB enforced Rome’s Law on those culprits YEARS AGO.
Don't presume Obama's going to win; the polls are tightening. I think that God will have mercy on us, especially with so many people praying.
About the document, I don't think too many people actually read the bishops' documents. The people in the pews certainly don't read them. Full disclosure here: I have not read it either. I read the Pope's documents, and go by what John Paul II said in Gospel of Life. Long ago I decided I would vote on one issue only, and that is the pro-life issue. Nothing else even comes close.
Although we still have Roe v. Wade, the pro-life movement has made great progress in putting restrictions on abortion. If Obama is elected, all that will be swept away with the "Freedom of Choice Act" he has promised to work on before anything else.
So, why does anybody believe what the New York Times says about anything?
Continually trashing the shepherds of the Church -- those who are the Successors of the Apostles, those whom Christ Himself has chosen, those whom are sealed with the Holy Spirit -- is wrong, no matter who does it.
Bender,
Continually trashing anybody isn't right, but keep in mind that the Apostles, whom Jesus chose, weren't exactly Joe-Altar-Boys when chosen, and they needed correction -- continual correction -- during Christ's life and after His resurrection.
Yesterday we celebrated the feast of Saints Simon and Jude. Simon was a Zealot who wanted to violently overthrow Roman rule. He lived -- incredibly enough -- with Matthew...a tax collector. Both needed conversion. Both got it.
And then there was Peter...well, you get what I mean, I hope.
Before Pope Benedict came to America to celebrate Mass in New York and Washington, it was revealed that as a young boy in Germany he had had a cousin with Down Syndrome. One day a Nazi doctor came and claimed his cousin for the Third Reich. Taken to be “cared for” at the “hospital” young Joseph Ratzinger never saw his cousin again: one of the host of “useless eaters” marked for extermination by that brutal regime.
My wife and I operate St. Joseph’s House, a daycare and respite care home for handicapped children. As it happened one of the children we care for, a wheelchair bound young lady, was chosen along with three other handicapped folks to carry the gifts up to the altar before the consecration at the Mass at Nationals Stadium in Washington D.C. on April 17, 2008. One of these was James, a 30ish man who works in the Officer’s Club at Andrews AFB. James has Down Syndrome. He was chosen to carry the large host which would become the Body of Christ lifted up before the assembled. As James with great ceremony advanced toward the Pope, his native enthusiasm overcame his reserve and he started to run. Simultaneously the Holy Father leapt from his chair and walked towards James with his arms outstretched. We have a picture of this moment which I cannot look at without tearing up. What did he see as he gazed so lovingly at James? I believe he saw his cousin. I believe he saw the face of Jesus. And I believe that his great prayer as he elevated that host on that impossibly beautiful day was “As long as you did to these the least of my brethren, you did it to Me.”
The next day April 18th, a boy was born to of all people, the Governor of Alaska. They named him Trig.
Mother Teresa was right! She said that what the Church needs is "more priests who are holy men, and not social workers"!
Amen
I think in general our bishops must be careful not to write documents which are too intellectual. That may sound strange, but in point of fact they are all intelligent men (yes, even the liberals; intelligence /= rectitude) of great education. I am aware of how such men are accustomed to address their peers and it's what you call "a high level of discourse".
That's not what the American Church needs. When a child deliberately and grossly trespasses against the moral law you don't drag out the Summa Theologiae and start dissecting quaestiones disputatae. Instead, you whip him. The latter gets the point across; the former is merely the structure of verity which undergirds the point.
Perhaps to an intellectual of great education and mannerly refinement the idea of publishing a document which, in all caps and boldface, does nothing more than insist "Never ever vote for a pro-abortion candidate over an anti-abortion candidate!" is too simplistic and lacking in subtlety. To which I respond that this is all the better. Most people are incapable of properly receiving complexity and subtlety. They misinterpret it as confusion and vagueness. They need it spelled out in simple, inflexible terms with a minimum of syllables. Hopefully with a threat of some kind attached to it. Otherwise, they'll just ignore it and thus it will have been of no use to them. If you don't meet people where they're at, you're not really meeting them. They need simple, practical guidance, not academic treatises.