Posted on 09/15/2020 8:27:25 AM PDT by Kaslin
Father Martin's statements — even those covered under the guise of 'objectivity' — appear to be more faithful to a political agenda than to Catholic teaching.
In several tweets pertaining to faithful voting for Catholics, the popular Jesuit priest and author Fr. James Martin, S.J., who offered prayers during the 2020 Democratic National Convention, presents a distorted view of Catholic moral teaching about voting while creating unnecessary confusion for the faithful.
Among the most misleading impressions Martin promulgates is posting an out-of-context quote from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in which the former head of the CDF (and current pope emeritus) articulated: “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.”
Martin posted this tweet right after a video of himself explaining that he is pro-life and claiming the expression “pro-life” cannot be reduced to only defending unborn children but also means supporting migrants and refugees, black Americans, LGBTQ teens, homeless people, and persons in prison.
The juxtaposition of these two tweets, the Ratzinger quote, and Martin’s “pro-life” video – one coming after the other on the same day – leads to a false impression regarding what Ratzinger meant in saying that there are “proportionate reasons” that may allow a Catholic to vote for a politician who supports abortion and euthanasia. Such “proportionate reasons,” Martin appears to be suggesting, would include matters like supporting migrants and refugees, the black community, LGBTQ teens, the homeless, and persons in prison.
This is a classic distortion of what is known as “the consistent-life ethic” and of what the Catholic Church teaches regarding “proportionate reasons.” There is an important distinction here that Martin is not making.
Herein lies the distinction: Catholic moral teaching acknowledges that not all issues have the same moral weight. There are some issues, particularly abortion and euthanasia, that always have a higher moral gravity because they are intrinsically evil acts that constitute the direct killing of innocent human life. Supporting such fundamentally evil acts is a mortal sin.
Other issues — such as fighting for the homeless, migrants and refugees, and prisoners on death row — while important matters, do not have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia because these other issues do not constitute the immediate killing of innocent human lives.
Suppose two candidates run for office. If Candidate A opposes legal abortion and euthanasia whereas Candidate B supports legal abortion and euthanasia while also supporting benevolent economic and social policies that help the homeless, benefit the environment, and help migrants and refugees, then is it fair to say that there are “proportionate reasons” to vote for Candidate B over Candidate A?
It seems that Martin is suggesting that the answer is yes. Yet, in fact, according to Catholic moral teaching, the answer is no. In the document, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” the U.S. bishops explain:
In making these decisions [about voting], it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose policies promoting intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions.
By not making the important distinction between intrinsically evil acts like abortion and euthanasia and other moral issues — which remain important but do not have the same moral gravity — Martin has misrepresented Catholic moral teaching on responsible voting.
The very document from which Martin quoted Ratzinger, “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” states:
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.
Ratzinger further explains, however, that if a Catholic politician votes and campaigns for legal abortion or euthanasia then heor she should not receive Holy Communion, which can be rightfully refused to them as a result of continuing to err in such a grave moral evil.
The expression “proportionate reasons,” therefore, is applicable when issues of the highest moral gravity, those that constitute intrinsic evils, are quantified against each other in trying to choose a candidate who represents the lesser of two evils. And not when quantifying less egregious (although still important) moral issues against those that constitute the direct killing of innocent human life.
A final point deserves greater clarification regarding one of Martin’s tweets about voting and mortal sin. In a tweet dated September 3, 2020, the same date that he released his other tweets on voting, Martin wrote:
I’m seeing more priests saying that voting for @JoeBiden is a mortal sin. It is not. It is not a sin to vote for either Mr. Biden or Mr. Trump. Nor is it a sin to be Democrat or Republican. Listen to what the @USCCB says in “Faithful Citizenship” about the role of conscience…
On the surface, this looks like a very objective, well-balanced tweet, not supporting either party or either candidate. If we look beyond the surface, however, and delve deeper into the nuances about voting that the document “Faithful Citizenship” makes, it becomes clear that Martin’s tweet is far from objective, once again either misrepresenting or misunderstanding the church’s teaching.
In “Faithful Citizenship,” the U.S. bishops explain:
A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, deliberately subjecting workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions, redefining marriage in ways that violate its essential meaning, or racist behavior, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases, a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil.
Therefore, if a Catholic were to vote for Joe Biden because of his stance on abortion and same-sex marriage — both of which Biden has supported and both of which Catholic moral teaching acknowledges to be intrinsic evils — that Catholic would be guilty of a mortal sin.
As a popular author and priest, Martin has an influential following. As a very educated man, he can quote numerous church documents in favor of his positions. Yet if we fail to consider what these documents say in their context, nuances, and moral distinctions, then the popular tweets and videos of an influential priest can confuse the faithful and lead them astray regarding what the church teaches about faithful citizenship and morally responsible voting.
Martin was the priest who came to the Democratic National Convention to offer an invocation prayer. His presence at the event can imply a political disposition toward a certain candidate. His tweets, similarly — even those covered under the guise of “objectivity” — appear to possess more of a political agenda than faithful Catholic teaching.
The excellent The World Over show with Raymond Arroyo last week had a discussion of that point. The idiot Dem supporter
said some nonsense and Arroyo cut in “That is insulting to our audience. You have no support for that.” Great stuff.
Guy was trying say 1840 support of slavery was using the Bible so today’s anti-abortion Catholics using the Bible are like them. Arroyo refused to let it go by.
What a waste of space the pro-Biden types are.
Imagine that people talked about all the mostly peaceful, good boys in the Brown Shirts too.
Throughout history, jesuits have proven themselves to be political opportunists first and priests/Catholics second. This moral prostitute is no exception.
Thoughtful piece... thanks for posting.
Bookmark.
The fact must be faced that Christianity did not challenge the institution of slavery until, basically, the 1800s. It even took ten years from the Establishment of Christianity in Constantinople to the abolition of the gladiator “games.” And it took the martyrdom of a monk to accomplish that transformation.Having said that, the critique of historical Christianity must include the question, “Compared to what?” And that challenge is devastating to the anti-christian presumption of moral authority - for the simple reason that it was only Christianity which had ever considered slavery to be wrong.
The delegitimization of slavery occurred under the leadership of Christians generally, of Protestant Christians especially, and of British Protestant Christians in particular. No other cultural tradition did anything much more than grudgingly follow the Christians - at a time when the scope of the British Empire was at its zenith. See, Part II of Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Thomas Sowell
Sorry I mentioned it.
Next time I’ll shut up.
Thank you for the reference - We need the reminders each day that there are liberal-communist-abortionist-revisionists INSIDE the catholic priesthood today. And ever more of them every day ever higher in the church such as the racist liberal Gregory (of Chicago, Atlanta, and now Washington DC).
What about someone who opposes abortion and works to minimize its frequency yet thinks the state should stay out of it?
Is not wanting the government to control these decisions really a mortal sin?
If you believe that the core functions of government are to protect life, liberty, and property, then no, government can’t stay out of it.
And promoting a system that removes government’s protection of life so that others may murder innocents for convenience, is a mortal sin.
So it's a mortal sin to not advocate for particular laws.
Is it a sin, perhaps not mortal, to not demand anti-adultery laws?
Once we start saying that government shouldn’t protect the right to life of the weakest and most defenseless against the claims of the strong and the powerful, “government” ceases to have any meaning or purpose.
Abortion through gay marriage through BLM appears to be a continuum of consistent, anti-life policy. The Democrats’ great skill is convincing half of their voters that they don’t really mean what their platform says...and since said voters are getting a government check, anyway - they had better just shut up.
Who are the strong and powerful threatening the unborn?
The pregnant women struggling to decide how to deal with unwanted pregnancies?
There are indeed powerful forces on both sides but they're operating in the realm of politics. The moral battle is being waged by the women.
The answer to that question is in the article:
“Catholic moral teaching acknowledges that not all issues have the same moral weight.”
You brought up abortion. Abortion is an intrinsic evil. Supporting abortion is a mortal sin.
We could go down the whole list of vices and have a discussion regarding whether or not a prohibition of each one should be codified into law.
Personally, I think adultery should be illegal, given the damage it does to families and by extension, society. This issue was important enough to God that He made its prohibition one of our 10 Commandments.
I think it is unwise to defy the Big Guy on any issue He has specifically weighed in on. The down side could be eternal damnation.
“Catholic moral teaching acknowledges that not all issues have the same moral weight.”
I addressed that by acknowledging it may not be a mortal sin, but to be consistent you must admit not fighting for anti-adultery laws is sinful.
Supporting abortion is a mortal sin.
No one is talking about supporting abortion. I'm talking about someone who actively rejects abortion and works to minimize its occurrence.
You say if that person doesn't also push the state to outlaw abortion they're committing a mortal sin.
I just want to know what other anti-sin laws we need to fight for in order not to be sinful.
I appreciate you think abortion is a special case but we're not talking about the morality of the act. We're talking about the morality of not engaging in a political fight.
And when we start threatening peoples souls, not for supporting an immoral act but for being insufficiently politically active to make government stop it, I think we're off the path.
I can’t threaten your soul, it is not within my power to do so. But we must admonish each other to stay on the hard and narrow path to salvation so that we can enjoy each other’s company in a happy place on the other side.
You must not be a Catholic.
I'm not, but it's hard to believe failure to demand legislation is a soul threatening sin in any religion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.